Medicare Program; Payment Policies Under the Physician Fee Schedule and Other Revisions to Part B for CY 2011, 73170-73860 [2010-27969]
Download as PDF
73170
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services
42 CFR Parts 405, 409, 410, 411, 413,
414, 415, and 424
[CMS–1503–FC]
RIN 0938–AP79
Medicare Program; Payment Policies
Under the Physician Fee Schedule and
Other Revisions to Part B for CY 2011
Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
ACTION: Final rule with comment period.
AGENCY:
This final rule with comment
period addresses changes to the
physician fee schedule and other
Medicare Part B payment policies to
ensure that our payment systems are
updated to reflect changes in medical
practice and the relative value of
services. It finalizes the calendar year
(CY) 2010 interim relative value units
(RVUs) and issues interim RVUs for new
and revised procedure codes for CY
2011. It also addresses, implements, or
discusses certain provisions of both the
Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the
Medicare Improvements for Patients and
Providers Act of 2008 (MIPPA). In
addition, this final rule with comment
period discusses payments under the
Ambulance Fee Schedule (AFS), the
Ambulatory Surgical Center (ASC)
payment system, and the Clinical
Laboratory Fee Schedule (CLFS),
payments to end-stage renal disease
(ESRD) facilities, and payments for Part
B drugs. Finally, this final rule with
comment period also includes a
discussion regarding the Chiropractic
Services Demonstration program, the
Competitive Bidding Program for
durable medical equipment, prosthetics,
orthotics, and supplies (CBP DMEPOS),
and provider and supplier enrollment
issues associated with air ambulances.
DATES: Effective date: These regulations
are effective on January 1, 2011.
Comment date: To be assured
consideration, comments must be
received at one of the addresses
provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on
January 3, 2011.
ADDRESSES: In commenting, please refer
to file code CMS–1503–FC. Because of
staff and resource limitations, we cannot
accept comments by facsimile (FAX)
transmission.
You may submit comments in one of
four ways (please choose only one of the
ways listed):
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
1. Electronically. You may submit
electronic comments on this regulation
to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for ‘‘submitting a
comment.’’
2. By regular mail. You may mail
written comments to the following
address ONLY: Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services, Department of
Health and Human Services, Attention:
CMS–1503–FC, P.O. Box 8013,
Baltimore, MD 21244–8013.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed
comments to be received before the
close of the comment period.
3. By express or overnight mail. You
may send written comments to the
following address ONLY: Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services,
Department of Health and Human
Services, Attention: CMS–1503–FC,
Mail Stop C4–26–05, 7500 Security
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244–1850.
4. By hand or courier. If you prefer,
you may deliver (by hand or courier)
your written comments before the close
of the comment period to either of the
following addresses: a. For delivery in
Washington, DC—Centers for Medicare
& Medicaid Services, Department of
Health and Human Services, Room 445–
G, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20201
(Because access to the interior of the
Hubert H. Humphrey Building is not
readily available to persons without
Federal government identification,
commenters are encouraged to leave
their comments in the CMS drop slots
located in the main lobby of the
building. A stamp-in clock is available
for persons wishing to retain a proof of
filing by stamping in and retaining an
extra copy of the comments being filed.)
b. For delivery in Baltimore, MD—
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services, Department of Health and
Human Services, 7500 Security
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244–1850.
If you intend to deliver your
comments to the Baltimore address,
please call telephone number (410) 786–
9994 in advance to schedule your
arrival with one of our staff members.
Comments mailed to the addresses
indicated as appropriate for hand or
courier delivery may be delayed and
received after the comment period.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sara Vitolo, (410) 786–5714, for issues
related to malpractice RVUs.
Erin Smith, (410) 786–0763, for issues
related to end-stage renal diseaserelated services for home dialysis.
Michael Moore, (410) 786–6830, for
issues related to geographic practice
cost indices.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Ken Marsalek, (410) 786–4502, for
issues related to the physician
practice information survey, the
multiple procedure payment
reduction, and payment for the
technical component of pathology
services.
Regina Walker-Wren, (410) 786–9160,
for issues related to outpatient mental
health add-on provision and
increased payment for certified nursemidwife services.
Elizabeth Truong, (410) 786–6005, or
Sara Vitolo, (410) 786–5714, for issues
related to potentially misvalued
services.
Elizabeth Truong, (410) 786–6005, for
issues related to the sustainable
growth rate or anesthesia or physician
fee schedule conversion factors.
Dorothy Shannon, (410) 786–3396, for
issues related to outpatient therapy
services.
Pamela West, (410) 786–2302, for issues
related to payment for diabetes selfmanagement training programs and
kidney disease education services.
Ryan Howe, (410) 786–3355, for issues
related to direct practice expense
inputs and telehealth services.
Sara Vitolo, (410) 786–5714, for issues
related to pulmonary rehabilitation
services, application of skin
substitutes, canalith repositioning,
intranasal/oral immunization, and the
refinement panel.
Roberta Epps, (410) 786–4503, for issues
related to portable x-ray and bone
density tests.
Chava Sheffield, (410) 786–2298, for
issues related to equipment utilization
rate assumption for advanced imaging
services.
Chava Sheffield, (410) 786–2298, or
Larry Chan, (410) 786–6864, for issues
related the physician fee schedule
practice expense methodology.
Stephanie Frilling, (410) 786–4507, or
Erin Smith, (410) 786–0763, for issues
related to the incentive payment
programs for primary care and general
surgery services, and payment for the
annual wellness visit and preventive
services.
Cheryl Gilbreath, (410) 786–5919, for
issues related to payment for covered
outpatient drugs and biologicals.
Roechel Kujawa, (410) 786–9111, for
issues related to ambulance services.
Glenn McGuirk, (410) 786–5723, for
clinical laboratory issues.
Randall Ricktor, (410) 786–4632, for
Federally Qualified Health Center
Issues.
Pauline Lapin, (410) 786–6883, for
issues related to the chiropractic
services demonstration BN issue.
Troy Barsky, (410) 786–8873, or Kristin
Bohl, (410) 786–8680, for issues
related to physician self-referral.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Troy Barsky, (410) 786–8873, or Fred
Grabau (410) 786–0206, for issues
related to timely filing rules.
Henry Richter, (410) 786–4562, or Lisa
Hubbard, (410) 786–5472, for issues
related to renal dialysis provisions
and payments for end-stage renal
disease facilities.
Diane Stern, (410) 786–1133, for issues
related to the physician quality
reporting initiative and incentives for
e-prescribing.
Sheila Roman, (410) 786–6004, or
Pamela Cheetham, 410–786–2259, for
issues related to the Physician
Resource Use Feedback Program and
value-based purchasing.
Joel Kaiser, (410) 786–4499, for issues
related to the DME provisions.
Sandra Bastinelli, (410) 786–3630, for
issues related to provider and
supplier enrollment issues.
Rebecca Cole, (410) 786–4497, for issues
related to physician payment not
identified above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comment
Subject Areas: We will consider
comments on the following subject areas
discussed in this final rule with
comment period that are received by the
date and time indicated in the DATES
section of this final rule with comment
period:
(1) The interim final work, practice
expense, and malpractice RVUs
(including the direct practice expense
(PE) inputs and the equipment
utilization rate assumption, and the
applicability of a multiple procedure
payment reduction (MPPR)), for new
and revised CY 2011 HCPCS codes.
These codes and their CY 2011 interim
final RVUs are listed in Addendum C to
this final rule with comment period.
(2) The physician self-referral
designated health services codes listed
in Tables 98 and 99.
Inspection of Public Comments: All
comments received before the close of
the comment period are available for
viewing by the public, including any
personally identifiable or confidential
business information that is included in
a comment. We post all comments
received before the close of the
comment period on the following Web
site as soon as possible after they have
been received: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the search
instructions on that Web site to view
public comments.
Comments received timely will also
be available for public inspection as
they are received, generally beginning
approximately 3 weeks after publication
of a document, at the headquarters of
the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services, 7500 Security Boulevard,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday
through Friday of each week from 8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an
appointment to view public comments,
phone 1–800–743–3951.
Table of Contents
To assist readers in referencing
sections contained in this preamble, we
are providing a table of contents. Some
of the issues discussed in this preamble
affect the payment policies, but do not
require changes to the regulations in the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
Information on the regulations impact
appears throughout the preamble and,
therefore, is not discussed exclusively
in section XI. of this final rule with
comment period.
I. Background
A. Development of the Relative Value
System
1. Work RVUs
2. Practice Expense Relative Value Units
(PE RVUs)
3. Resource-Based Malpractice (MP) RVUs
4. Refinements to the RVUs
5. Adjustments to RVUs Are Budget
Neutral
B. Components of the Fee Schedule
Payment Amounts
C. Most Recent Changes to Fee Schedule
D. Public Comments Received in Response
to the CY 2011 PFS Proposed Rule
II. Provisions of the Final Rule for the
Physician Fee Schedule
A. Resource-Based Practice Expense (PE)
Relative Value Units (RVUs)
1. Overview
2. Practice Expense Methodology
a. Direct Practice Expense
b. Indirect Practice Expense per Hour Data
c. Allocation of PE to Services
(i) Direct costs
(ii) Indirect costs
d. Facility and Nonfacility Costs
e. Services with Technical Components
(TCs) and Professional Components
(PCs)
f. Alternative Data Sources and Public
Comments on Final Rule for 2010
g. PE RVU Methodology
(1) Setup File
(2) Calculate the Direct Cost PE RVUs
(3) Create the Indirect Cost PE RVUs
(4) Calculate the Final PE RVUs
(5) Setup File Information
(6) Equipment Cost per Minute
3. PE Revisions for CY 2011
a. Equipment Utilization Rate
b. HCPCS Code-Specific PE Issues
(1) Biohazard Bags
(2) PE Inputs for Professional Component
(PC) Only and Technical Component
(TC) Only Codes Summing to Global
Only Codes
(3) Equipment Time Inputs for Certain
Diagnostic Tests
(4) Cobalt-57 Flood Source
(5) Venom Immunotherapy
(6) Equipment Redundancy
(7) Equipment Duplication
(8) Establishing Overall Direct PE Supply
Price Inputs Based on Unit Prices and
Quantities
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73171
c. AMA RUC Recommendations in CY
2010 for Changes to Direct PE Inputs
(1) Electrogastrography and Esophageal
Function Test
(2) 64-Slice CT Scanner and Software
(3) Breath Hydrogen Test
(4) Radiographic Fluoroscopic Room
(5) Cystometrogram
d. Referral of Existing CPT Codes for AMA
RUC Review
e. Updating Equipment and Supply Price
Inputs for Existing Codes
f. Other Issues
B. Malpractice Relative Value Units (RVUs)
1. Background
2. Malpractice RVUs for New and Revised
Services Effective Before the Next 5-Year
Review
3. Revised Malpractice RVUs for Selected
Disc Arthroplasty Services
C. Potentially Misvalued Services Under
the Physician Fee Schedule
1. Valuing Services Under the PFS
2. Identifying, Reviewing, and Validating
the RVUs of Potentially Misvalued
Services Under the PFS
a. Background
b. Progress in Identifying and Reviewing
Potentially Misvalued Codes
c. Validating RVUs of Potentially
Misvalued Codes
3. CY 2011 Identification and Review of
Potentially Misvalued Services
a. Codes on the Multispecialty Points of
Comparison List
b. Codes with Low Work RVUs Commonly
Billed in Multiple Units Per Single
Encounter
c. Codes with High Volume and Low Work
RVUs
d. Codes with Site-of-Service-Anomalies
e. Codes with ‘‘23-hour’’ Stays
4. Expanding the Multiple Procedure
Payment Reduction (MPPR) Policy to
Additional Nonsurgical Services
a. Background
b. CY 2011 Expansion of the Imaging
Technical Component MPPR Policy to
Additional Combinations of Imaging
Services
c. CY 2011 Expansion of the MPPR Policy
to Therapy Services
5. High Cost Supplies
a. Background
b. Future Updates to the Prices of HighCost Supplies
D. Geographic Practice Cost Indices
(GPCIs)
1. Background
2. GPCI Update
a. Physician Work GPCIs
b. Practice Expense GPCIs
(1) The Affordable Care Act Requirements
for PE GPCIs
(A) General Methodology for the CY 2011
GPCIs
(B) Phase-In of PE GPCIs
(C) Data Analysis
(D) Determining the PE GPCI Cost Share
Weights
(E) PE GPCI Floor for Frontier States
(2) Summary of CY 2011 PE GPCIs
c. Malpractice GPCIs
d. Public Comments and CMS Responses
on the Proposed 6th GPCI Update
e. Summary of Final CY 2011 GPCIs
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73172
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
3. Payment Localities
E. PFS Update for CY 2010: Rebasing and
Revising of the Medicare Economic
Index (MEI)
1. Background
2. Use of More Current Data
3. Rebasing and Revising Expense
Categories in the MEI
a. Developing the Weights for Use in the
MEI
b. Physician’s Own Time
c. Physician’s Practice Expenses
(1) Nonphysician Employee Compensation
(2) Office Expenses
(3) Professional Liability Insurance (PLI)
Expense
(4) Medical Equipment Expenses
(5) Medical Supplies Expenses
(6) Other Professional Expenses
4. Selection of Price Proxies for Use in the
MEI
a. Cost (Expense) Categories in the MEI
(1) Physician’s Own Time (Physician
Compensation)
(2) Nonphysician Employee Compensation
(3) Utilities
(4) Chemicals
(5) Paper
(6) Rubber and Plastics
(7) Telephone
(8) Postage
(9) All Other Services
(10) All Other Products
(11) Fixed Capital
(12) Moveable Capital
(13) Professional Liability Insurance (PLI)
(14) Medical Equipment
(15) Medical Materials and Supplies
(16) Other Professional Expenses
(b) Productivity Adjustment to the MEI
5. Results of Rebasing
6. Medicare Economic Index Technical
Advisory Panel
7. Summaries of Comments and the
Associated Responses
a. Timing of Rebasing and Revising the
MEI
b. PPIS Data
c. Office Expenses
d. Purpose of the MEI
e. Technical Panel
f. Other
8. Adjustments to the RVU Shares To
Match the Proposed Rebased MEI
Weights
F. Allowed Expenditures for Physicians’
Services and the Sustainable Growth
Rate
1. Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate
2. Physicians’ Services
3. Preliminary Estimate of the SGR for 2011
4. Revised Sustainable Growth Rate for
2010
5. Final Sustainable Growth Rate for 2009
6. Calculation of 2011, 2010, and 2009
Sustainable Growth Rates
a. Detail on the CY 2011 SGR
(1) Factor 1 Changes in Fees for Physicians’
Services (Before Applying Legislative
Adjustments) for CY 2011
(2) Factor 2 The Percentage Change in the
Average Number of Part B Enrollees
From CY 2010 to CY 2011
(3) Factor 3 Estimated Real Gross Domestic
Product Per Capita Growth in 2011
(4) Factor 4 Percentage Change in
Expenditures for Physicians’ Services
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
Resulting From Changes in Statute or
Regulations in CY 2011 Compared With
CY 2010
b. Detail on the CY 2010 SGR
(1) Factor 1 Changes in Fees for Physicians’
Services (Before Applying Legislative
Adjustments) for 2010
(2) Factor 2 The Percentage Change in the
Average Number of Part B Enrollees from
CY 2009 to CY 2010
(3) Factor 3 Estimated Real Gross Domestic
Product Per Capita Growth in CY 2010
(4) Factor 4 Percentage Change in
Expenditures for Physicians’ Services
Resulting From Changes in Statute or
Regulations in CY 2010 Compared With
CY 2009
c. Detail on the CY 2009 SGR
(1) Factor 1 Changes in Fees for Physicians’
Services (Before Applying Legislative
Adjustments) for 2009
(2) Factor 2 The Percentage Change in the
Average Number of Part B Enrollees from
CY 2008 to CY 2009
(3) Factor 3 Estimated Real Gross Domestic
Product Per Capita Growth in CY 2009
(4) Factor 4 Percentage Change in
Expenditures for Physicians’ Services
Resulting From Changes in Statute or
Regulations in CY 2009 Compared With
CY 2008
G. The Update Adjustment Factor (UAF)
1. Calculation under Current Law
H. Physician and Anesthesia Fee Schedule
Conversion Factors for CY 2011
1. Physician Fee Schedule Update and
Conversion Factor
a. CY 2011 PFS Update
b. CY 2011 PFS Conversion Factor
2. Anesthesia Conversion Factor
III. Code-Specific Issues for the PFS
A. Therapy Services
1. Outpatient Therapy Caps for CY 2011
2. Alternatives to Therapy Caps
a. Background
b. Current Activities
c. Potential Short-Term Approaches to
Therapy Caps
B. Diabetes Self-Management Training
(DSMT) Services (HCPCS Codes G0108
and G0109)
1. Background
2. Payment for DSMT Services
C. End-Stage Renal Disease Related
Services for Home Dialysis (CPT code
90963, 90964, 90965, and 90966)
1. End-Stage Renal Disease Home Dialysis
Monthly Capitation Payment Services
(CPT codes 90963, 90964, 90965, and
90966)
2. Daily and Monthly ESRD-Related
Services (CPT Codes 90951 through
90970)
D. Portable X-Ray Set-Up (HCPCS code
Q0092)
E. Pulmonary Rehabilitation Services
(HCPCS Code G0424)
F. Application of Tissue Cultured Skin
Substitutes to Lower Extremities (HCPCS
Codes G0440 and G0441)
G. Canalith Repositioning (CPT code
95992)
H. Intranasal/Oral Immunization Codes
(CPT codes 90467, 90468, 90473, and
90474)
I. Refinement Panel Process
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
J. Remote Cardiac Monitoring Services
(CPT codes 93012, 93229, 93268, and
93271)
IV. Medicare Telehealth Services for the
Physician Fee Schedule
A. Billing and Payment for Telehealth
Services
1. History
2. Current Telehealth Billing and Payment
Policies
B. Requests for Adding Services to the List
of Medicare Telehealth Services
C. Submitted Requests for Addition to the
List of Telehealth Services for CY 2011
1. Individual KDE Services
2. Individual DSMT Services
3. Group KDE, MNT, DSMT, and HBAI
Services
4. Initial, Subsequent, and Discharge Day
Management Hospital Care Services
5. Initial, Subsequent, Discharge Day
Management, and Other Nursing Facility
Care Services
6. Neuropsychological Testing Services
7. Speech-Language Pathology Services
8. Home Wound Care Services
9. Other Issues
D. Summary of CY 2011 Telehealth
Policies
E. Telehealth Originating Site Facility Fee
Payment Amount Update
V. Addressing Interim Final Relative Value
Units from CY 2010 and Establishing
Interim Relative Value Units for CY 2011
A. Background
B. Addressing Interim Final RVUs from CY
2010
1. CY 2010 Interim Final Work RVUs
Referred to the Refinement Panel
2. CY 2010 Interim Final RVUs for which
Public Comments Were Received
a. Insertion of Breast Prosthesis (CPT code
19340)
b. Computed Tomographic Colonography
(CPT code 74261)
c. Myocardial Perfusion Imaging (CPT
codes 78451, 78452, 78453, and 78454)
d. Nerve Conduction Test (CPT code
95905)
e. Kidney Disease Education Services
(HCPCS codes G0420 and G0421)
f. Excision of Soft Tissue and Bone Tumors
(CPT codes 21011 through 21016, 21552,
21554 through 21558, 21930 through
21933, 21395, 21936, 22900 through
22905, 23071, 23073, 23075 through
23078, 23200, 23210, 23220, 24071,
24073, 24075 through 24077, 24079,
24150 through 24153, 25071, 25073,
25075 through 25078, 25170, 26111,
26113, 26115 through 26118, 26250,
26255, 26260, 26262, 27043, 27045,
27047 through 27049, 27059, 27075
through 27078, 27327 through 27329,
27337, 27339, 27364, 27365, 27615,
27616, 27618, 27619, 27632, 27634,
27619, 27645 through 27647, 28039,
28041, 28043, 28045 through 28047,
28171, 28173, and 28175)
g. Cryoablation of Prostate (CPT code
55873)
h. Urodynamics Studies (CPT Codes 51728
and 51729)
i. Coronary Computed Tomographic
Angiography (CPT codes 75571, 75572,
75573, and 75574)
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
j. Adjacent Tissue Transfer or
Rearrangement (CPT codes 14301 and
14302)
k. Insertion of a Temporary Prostatic
Urethral Stent (CPT code 53855)
l. High Dose Rate Brachytherapy (CPT
codes 77785, 77786, and 77787)
m. Injection of Facet Joint (CPT codes
64490, 64491, 64492, 64493, 64494, and
64495)
n. Knee Arthroscopy (CPT code 29870)
3. Status of Interim Final Work RVUs for
Potentially Misvalued Site-of-Service
Anomaly Codes from CY 2009 and CY
2010
4. Other New, Revised, or Potentially
Misvalued Codes with CY 2010 Interim
Final RVUs Not Specifically Discussed
in the CY 2011 Final Rule with Comment
Period
C. Establishment of Interim Final RVUs for
CY 2011
1. Establishment of Interim Final Work
RVUs for CY 2011
a. Background
b. CY 2011 Interim Final Work RVUs for
New and Revised Codes
(i) CY 2011 New and Revised Codes that
Do Not Represent Major New
Comprehensive Services
(1) Excision and Debridement (CPT codes
11010, 11011, 11012, 11042, 11043,
11044, 11045, 11046, 11047, and 97598)
(2) Arthrodesis Including Discectomy (CPT
code 22551)
(3) Strapping Lower Extremity (CPT codes
29540 and 29550)
(4) Paraesophageal Hernia Procedures (CPT
codes 43333 and 43335)
(5) Vaginal Radiation Afterloading
Apparatus for Clinical Brachytherapy
(CPT codes 57155 and 57156)
(6) Vagus Nerve Stimulator (CPT codes
61885, 64568, 64569, and 64570)
(7) Ultrasound of Extremity (CPT codes
76881 and 76882)
(8) Evaluation of Fine Needle Aspirate
(CPT code 88172)
(9) Immunization Administration (CPT
code 90460 and 90461)
(10) Diabetic Retinopathy Imaging (CPT
code 92228)
(11) Speech-Language Pathology Services
(CPT codes 92508 and 92606)
(12) Sleep Testing (CPT codes 95806 and
95807)
(13) Subsequent Hospital Observation Care
(ii) Comprehensive Codes for a Bundle of
Existing Component Services
(iii) Work Budget Neutrality for Clinical
Categories of CPT Codes
c. CY 2011 Interim Final Work RVUs for
Potentially Misvalued Codes
(1) Excision and Debridement (CPT codes
11043 and 11044)
(2) Strapping Lower Extremity (CPT code
29540)
(3) Control Nasal Hemorrhage (CPT code
30901)
(4) Cystourethroscopy (CPT codes 52281
and 52332)
(5) Vaginal Radiation Afterloading
Apparatus for Clinical Brachytherapy
(CPT code 51755)
(6) Obstetrical Care Codes (CPT codes
59440, 59410, 59510, 59515, 59610,
59614, 59618, and 59622)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
(7) Vagus Nerve Stimulator (CPT code
61885)
(8) Transforaminal Epidural Injection (CPT
code 64483)
(9) CT Thorax (CPT code 71250)
(10) CT Spine (CPT code 72125)
(11) CT Upper and CT Lower Extremity
(CPT code 73200 and 73700)
(12) Radiation Treatment Management
(CPT code 77427)
2. Establishment of Interim Final Direct PE
Inputs for CY 2011
a. Background
b. CY 2011 Interim Final Direct PE Inputs
for New, Revised, and Potentially
Misvalued Codes
(1) General Equipment Time
(2) Equipment Time and Clinical Labor for
Conscious Sedation
(3) Equipment Time for Add-On Codes
(4) Changes in Standard Uses of Certain
Supplies
(5) New Supply and Equipment Items
(6) Endovascular Revascularization Stents
(7) Nasal/Sinus Endoscopy Supply and
Equipment Items
3. Establishment of Interim Final
Malpractice RVUs for CY 2011
VI. Provisions of the Affordable Care Act
A. Section 3002: Improvements to the
Physician Quality Reporting System
B. Section 3003: Improvements to the
Physician Feedback Program and Section
3007: Value-based payment modifier
under the physician fee schedule
1. Background
2. Effect of the ACA of 2010 on the
Program
3. Phase II Proposed Changes
4. Implementation of Sections 3003 and
3007 of ACA
5. Comments Sought on Specific Statistical
Issues Related to ACA Sections 3003 and
3007
a. Risk Adjustment
b. Attribution
c. Benchmarking and Peer Groups
d. Cost and Quality Measures and
Compositing Methods
C. Section 3102: Extension of the Work
Geographic Index Floor and Revisions to
the Practice Expense Geographic
Adjustment under the Medicare
Physician Fee Schedule, and Protections
for Frontier States as amended by
Section 10324
D. Section 3103: Extension of Exceptions
Process for Medicare Therapy Caps
E. Section 3104: Extension of Payment for
Technical Component of Certain
Physician Pathology Services
F. Section 3105 and 10311: Extension of
Ambulance Add-Ons
1. Amendment to Section 1834(l)(13) of the
Act
2. Amendment to Section 146(b)(1) of
MIPAA
3. Amendment to Section 1834(l)(12) of the
Act
G. Section 3107: Extension of Physician
Fee Schedule Mental Health Add-On
H. Section 3108: Permitting Physician
Assistants to Order Post-Hospital
Extended Care Services
I. Section 3111: Payment for Bone Density
Tests
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73173
J. Section 3114: Improved Access for
Certified Nurse-Midwife Services
K. Section 3122: Extension of Medicare
Reasonable Costs Payments for Certain
Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests
Furnished to Hospital Patients in Certain
Rural Areas
L. Section 3134: Misvalued Codes Under
the Physician Fee Schedule
M. Section 3135: Modification of
Equipment Utilization Factor for
Advanced Imaging Services
1. Adjustment in Practice Expense to
Reflect Higher Presumed Utilization
2. Adjustment in Technical Component
‘‘Discount’’ on Single-Session Imaging to
Consecutive Body Parts
N. Section 3136: Revision for Payment for
Power-Driven Wheelchairs
1. Payment Rules for Power Wheelchairs
2. Revision of Payment Amounts for Power
Wheelchairs
3. Elimination of Lump Sum Payment for
Standard Power Wheelchairs
O. Section 3139: Payment for Biosimilar
Biological Products
P. Section 3401: Revision of Certain Market
Basket Updates and Incorporation of
Productivity Improvements into Market
Basket Updates That Do Not Already
Incorporate Such Improvements
1. ESRD Market Basket Discussion
2. Productivity Adjustment regarding
Ambulatory Surgical Center, Ambulance,
Clinical Laboratory and DMEPOS Fee
Schedules
a. Ambulatory Surgery Centers (ASCs)
b. Ambulance Fee Schedule (AFS)
c. Clinical Lab Fee Schedule
d. DMEPOS Fee Schedule
Q. Section 4103: Medicare Coverage of
Annual Wellness Visit Providing a
Personalized Prevention Plan
1. Background and Statutory Authority
a. Medicare Coverage of Preventive
Physical Examinations and Routine
Checkups
b. Requirements for Coverage of an Annual
Wellness Visit
2. Regulatory Revisions—Summary of
Proposed Rule and Comments
a. Revisions to § 411.15, Particular Services
Excluded from Coverage
b. Revisions to Part 410, Subpart B—
Medical and Other Health Services
(1) Definitions
(2) Requirements of the First Annual
Wellness Visit Providing Personalized
Prevention Plan Services
(3) Requirements of Subsequent Annual
Wellness Visits Providing Personalized
Prevention Plan Services
3. Payment for the Annual Wellness Visit
Providing Personalized Prevention Plan
Services (PPPS)
R. Section 4104: Removal of Barriers to
Preventive Services in Medicare
1. Definition of ‘‘Preventive Services’’
2. Deductible and Coinsurance for
Preventive Services
3. Extension of Waiver of Deductible to
Services Furnished in Connection With
or in Relation to a Colorectal Cancer
Screening Test that Becomes Diagnostic
or Therapeutic
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73174
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
S. Section 5501: Expanding Access to
Primary Care Services and General
Surgery Services
1. Section 5501(a): Incentive Payment
Program for Primary Care Services
a. Background
b. Primary Care Incentive Payment
Program (PCIP)
(1) Primary Specialty Designation
(2) Primary Care Percentage Calculation
(3) Period of Claims Data for Primary Care
Percentage Calculation
(4) PCIP Payment
(5) Summary of Final PCIP Policies
2. Section 5501(b): Incentive Payment
Program for Major Surgical Procedures
Furnished in Health Professional
Shortage Areas
a. Background
b. HPSA Surgical Incentive Payment
Program (HSIP)
3. Sections 5501(a) and (b) of the
Affordable Care Act and Payment for
Critical Access Hospital Professional
Services Under the Optional Method
T. Section 6003: Disclosure Requirements
for In-Office Ancillary Services
Exception to the Prohibition on
Physician Self-Referral for Certain
Imaging Services
1. Background
2. Disclosure Requirement
a. Services the Trigger the Disclosure
Requirement
b. General Disclosure Requirements
c. List of Alternate Suppliers
d. Documentation of Disclosure
e. Effective Date
f. Other comments
U. Section 6404: Maximum Period for
Submission of Medicare Claims Reduced
to Not More than 12 Months
1. Background
2. Provisions of ACA
V. Section 6410 of the Affordable Care Act
and Section 154 of MIPPA: Adjustments
to the Metropolitan Statistical Areas
(MSA) for Medicare Durable Medical
Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and
Supplies Competitive Acquisition
Program
1. Background
2. Subdividing Large MSAs under Round
2
3. Exclusions of Certain Areas after Round
2 and Prior to 2015
4. Expansion of Round 2
W. Section 10501(i)(3): Collection of
HCPCS data for Development and
Implementation of a Prospective
Payment System for the Medicare
Federally Qualified Health Center
Program
VII. Other Provisions of the Final Rule
A. Part B Drug Payment: Average Sales
Price (ASP) Issues
1. ‘‘Carry Over’’ ASP
2. Partial Quarter ASP Data
3. Determining the Payment Amount for
Drugs and Biologicals Which Include
Intentional Overfill
4. WAMP/AMP
5. AMP Threshold and Price Substitutions
6. Out of Scope Comments
B. Ambulance Fee Schedule: Policy for
Reporting Units when Billing for
Ambulance Fractional Mileage
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
1. History of Medicare Ambulance Services
a. Statutory Coverage of Ambulance
Services
b. Medicare Regulations for Ambulance
Services
2. Mileage Reporting—Summary of the
Provisions of the CY 2011 Proposed Rule
a. Background and Current Process for
Reporting Ambulance Mileage
b. Concerns Regarding the Potential for
Inaccuracies in Reporting Units and
Associated Considerations
c. Billing of Fractional Units for Mileage
3. Analysis of and Responses to Public
Comments
a. Basis for Reconsideration of the
Ambulance Mileage Reporting
Requirements
b. Appropriateness of Fractional Mileage
Reporting Policy
(1) Financial Impact of Fractional Mileage
Policy
c. Administrative Impact
(2) Technical and Other Considerations
(A) Ability to Measure Fractional Miles
(B) Ambulance Provider versus Supplier
Billing
(C) Billing Software
(D) Enforcement and Compliance
(E) Air Ambulance
(F) Miscellaneous Comments
4. Applicability of the Fractional Billing
Policy to Other Services
5. Final Fractional Mileage Billing Policy
C. Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule:
Signature on Requisition
D. Discussion of Budget Neutrality for the
Chiropractic Services Demonstration
E. Provisions Related to Payment for Renal
Dialysis Services Furnished by EndStage Renal Disease (ESRD) Facilities
(1) Update to the Drug Add-on Adjustment
to the Composite Rate
(2) Estimating Per Patient Growth
(3) Update to the Drug Add-on Adjustment
(4) Update to the Geographic Adjustments
to the Composite Rate
(5) Updates to Core-Based Statistical Area
(CBSA) Definitions
(6) Updated Wage Index Values
(7) Wage index Values for Areas With No
Hospital Data
(8) Reduction to the ESRD Wage Index
Floor
(9) Budget Neutrality Adjustment
(10) ESRD Wage Index Tables
F. Issues Related to the Medicare
Improvements for Patients and Providers
Act of 2008 (MIPPA)
1. Section 131: Physician Payment,
Efficiency, and Quality Improvements—
Physician Quality Reporting System
a. Program Background and Statutory
Authority
b. Incentive Payments for the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System
c. 2011 Reporting Periods for Individual
Eligible Professionals
d. 2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System Reporting Mechanisms for
Individual Eligible Professionals
(1) Final Requirements for Individual
Eligible Professionals Who Choose the
Claims-based Reporting Mechanism
(2) Final Requirements for Individual
Eligible Professionals Who Choose the
Registry-based Reporting Mechanism
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(3) Final Requirements for Individual
Eligible Professionals Who Choose the
EHR based Reporting Mechanism
(4) Final Qualification Requirements for
Registries
(5) Final Qualification Requirements for
EHR Vendors and Their Products
e. Criteria for Satisfactory Reporting of
Individual Quality Measures for
Individual Eligible Professionals
f. Criteria for Satisfactory Reporting
Measures Groups for Individual Eligible
Professionals
g. Reporting Option for Satisfactory
Reporting on Quality Measures by Group
Practices
(1) Background and Authority
(2) Definition of ‘‘Group Practice’’
(3) Process for Physician Group Practices to
Participate as Group Practices and
Criteria for Satisfactory Reporting
A. Group Practice Reporting Option for
Physician Group Practices with 200 or
More NPIs GPRO I
B. Group Practice Reporting Option for
Group Practices of 2–199 NPIs—GPRO–
II
h. Statutory Requirements and Other
Considerations for 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System Measures
(1) Statutory Requirements for 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System
Measures
(2) Other Considerations for 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System
Measures
(3) Summary of Comments and Responses
i. The Final 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System Quality Measures for
Individual Eligible Professionals
(1) 2011 Individual Quality Measures
Selected From the 2010 Physician
Quality Reporting System Quality
Measures Set Available for Claims based
Reporting and Registry-based Reporting
(2) 2011 Individual Quality Measures
Selected From the 2010 Physician
Quality Reporting System Quality
Measures Set Available for Registrybased Reporting Only
(3) New Individual Quality Measures for
2011
(4) 2011 Measures Available for EHR-based
Reporting
(5) Measures Proposed for Inclusion in
2011 Measures Groups
j. 2011 Physician Quality Reporting System
Quality Measures for Group Practices
Selected to Participate in the Group
Practice Reporting Option (GPRO I)
k. Public Reporting of Physician Quality
Reporting System Data
l. Other Relevant ACA Provisions
(1) Section 3002 (b)—Incentive Payment
Adjustment for Quality Reporting
(2) Section 3002(c)—Maintenance of
Certification Programs and Section
10327 Improvements to the Physician
Quality Reporting System
(3) Section 3002(d)—Integration of
Physician Quality Reporting and EHR
Reporting
(4) Section 3002(e)—Feedback
(5) Section 3002(f)—Appeals
2. Section 132: Incentives for Electronic
Prescribing (eRx)– The Electronic
Prescribing Incentive Program
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
a. Program Background and Statutory
Authority
b. The 2011 eRx Incentive
(1) The 2011 Reporting Period for the eRx
Incentive Program
(2) Criteria for Determination of Successful
Electronic Prescriber for Eligible
Professionals
(A) Reporting the Electronic Prescribing
Measure
(B) The Reporting Denominator for the
Electronic Prescribing Measure
(C) Qualified Electronic Prescribing
System—Required Functionalities and
Part D eRx Standards
(D) The Reporting Numerator for the
Electronic Prescribing Measure
(E) Criteria for Successful Reporting of the
Electronic Prescribing Measure
(3) Determination of the 2011 Incentive
Payment Amount for Individual Eligible
Professionals Who Are Successful
Electronic Prescribers
(4) Reporting Option for Satisfactory
Reporting of the Electronic Prescribing
Measure by Group Practices
(A) Definition of ‘‘Group Practice’’
(B) Process for Group Practices to
Participate as Group Practices and
Criteria for Successful Reporting of the
Electronic Prescribing Measure by Group
Practices
c. The 2012 eRx Payment Adjustment
(1) The eRx Payment Adjustment Reporting
Period
(2) Criteria for Determining Applicability
of the 2012 eRx Payment Adjustment to
Individual Eligible Professionals
(3) Criteria for Determining Applicability
of the 2012 eRx Payment Adjustment to
Group Practices
(4) Significant Hardship Exemption
d. The 2013 eRx Payment Adjustment
e. Public Reporting of Names of Successful
Electronic Prescribers
G. DMEPOS Provisions
1. Medicare Durable Medical Equipment,
Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies
(DMEPOS) Competitive Bidding Program
(CBP)
a. Legislative and Regulatory History of
DMEPOS CBP
b. Implementation of a National Mail Order
DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Program
(CBP) for Diabetic Testing Supplies
(1) Future Competitions for Diabetic
Testing Supplies
(2) Definition of Mail Order Item
(3) Special Rule in Case of Competition for
Diabetic Testing Strips
(4) Anti-switching Rule in Case of
Competition for Diabetic Test Strips
c. Off-the-Shelf (OTS) Orthotics Exemption
d. Grandfathering Rules Resulting in
Additional Payments to Contract
Suppliers under the DMEPOS
Competitive Bidding Program (CBP)
e. Appeals Process
(1) Purpose and Definitions: (§ 414.402)
(2) Applicability
(3) Contract Termination
(4) Notice of Termination
(5) Corrective Action Plan
(6) Right to Request a Hearing by the CBIC
Hearing Officer (HO)
(7) Scheduling of the Hearing
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
(8) Burden of Proof
(9) Role of the Hearing Officer (HO)
(10) CMS’s Final Determination
(11) Effective Date of the Contract
Termination
(12) Effect of Contract Termination
2. Changes to Payment Rules for Oxygen
and Oxygen Equipment
a. Background
b. Furnishing Oxygen Equipment after the
36-Month Rental Period (CAP)
c. Furnishing Oxygen Equipment during
the 36-Month Rental Period (CAP)
H. Provider and Supplier Enrollment Issue:
Air Ambulance Provision
I. Technical Corrections
1. Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy
and Speech-language Pathology
2. Scope of Benefits
J. Physician Self-Referral Prohibition:
Annual Update to the List of CPT/
HCPCS Codes
1. General
2. Annual Update to the Code List
a. Background
b. Response to Comments
c. Revisions Effective for 2011
VIII. Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking and
Delay in Effective Date
IX. Collection of Information Requirements
A. ICRs Regarding Diagnostic X-ray Tests,
Diagnostic Laboratory Tests, and Other
Diagnostic Tests: Conditions (§ 410.32)
B. ICRs Regarding General Exceptions to
the Referral Prohibition Related to Both
Ownership/Investment and
Compensation (§ 411.355)
C. ICRs Regarding Appeals Process for
Termination of Competitive Bidding
Contract (§ 414.423)
D. ICRs Regarding Additional Provider and
Supplier Requirements for Enrolling and
Maintaining Active Enrollment status in
the Medicare Program (§ 424.516)
E. Additional Information Collection
Requirements
1. Part B Drug Payment
2. Physician Quality Reporting Initiative
(PQRI)
3. Electronic Prescribing (eRx) Incentive
Program
X. Response to Comments
XI. Regulatory Impact Analysis
A. RVU Impacts
1. Resource Based Work, PE, and
Malpractice RVUs
2. CY 2011 PFS Impact Discussion
a. Changes in RVUs
b. Combined Impact
B. Geographic Practice Cost Indices (GPCIs)
C. Rebasing and Revising of the MEI
D. The Affordable Care Act Provisions
1. Section 3002: Improvements to the
Physician Quality Reporting System
2. Sections 3003 and 3007: Improvements
to the Physician Feedback Program and
Value-Based Payment Under the
Physician Fee Schedule
2. Section 3103: Extension of Exceptions
Process for Medicare Therapy Caps
3. Section 3102: Extension of the Work
Geographic Index Floor and Revisions to
the Practice Expense Geographic
Adjustment under the Medicare
Physician Fee Schedule, and Protections
for Frontier States as amended by
Section 10324
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73175
4. Section 3103: Extension of Exceptions
Process for Medicare Therapy Caps
5. Section 3104: Extension of Payment for
Technical Component of Certain
Physician Pathology Services
6. Sections 3105 and 10311: Extension of
Ambulance Add-Ons
7. Section 3107: Extension of Physician Fee
Schedule Mental Health Add-On
8. Section 3108: Permitting Physician
Assistants to Order Post-Hospital
Extended Care Services
9. Section 3111: Payment for Bone Density
Tests
10. Section 3114: Improved Access for
Certified Nurse-Midwife Services
11. Section 3122: Extension of Medicare
Reasonable Costs Payments for Certain
Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests
Furnished to Hospital Patients in Certain
Rural Areas
12. Section 3134: Misvalued Codes Under
the PFS
13. Section 3135: Modification of
Equipment Utilization Factor For
Advanced Imaging Services
14. Section 3136: Revisions in Payments
for Power Wheelchairs
15. Section 3139: Payment for Biosimilar
Biological Products
16. Section 3401: Revisions of Certain
Market Basket Updates and
Incorporation of Productivity
Adjustments
17. Section 4103: Medicare Coverage of
Annual Wellness Visit Providing a
Personalized Prevention Plan
18. Section 4104: Removal of Barriers to
Preventive Services in Medicare
19. Section 5501: Expanding Access to
Primary Care Services and General
Surgery Services
20. Section 6003: Disclosure Requirements
for In-office Ancillary Services Exception
to the Prohibition of Physician Selfreferral for Certain Imaging Services
21. Section 6404: Maximum Period for
Submission of Medicare Claims Reduced
to Not More Than 12 Months
22. Section 6410 of Patient Accountability
and Affordable Care Act and Section 154
of MIPPA: Adjustments to the
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) for
Medicare Durable Medical Equipment,
Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies
Competitive Acquisition Program
23. Section 10501(i)(3): Collection of
HCPCS Data for the Development and
Implementation of a Prospective
Payment System for the Medicare FQHC
Program
E. Other Provisions of the Proposed
Regulation
1. Part B Drug Payment: ASP Issues
2. Ambulance Fee Schedule: Proposed
Policy for Reporting Units when Billing
for Ambulance Fractional Mileage
3. Chiropractic Services Demonstration
4. Renal Dialysis Services Furnished by
ESRD Facilities
5. Section 131(b) of the MIPPA: Physician
Payment, Efficiency, and Quality
Improvements—Physician Quality
Reporting System
6. Section 132 of the MIPPA: Incentives for
Electronic Prescribing (eRx)—The eRx
Incentive Program
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73176
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
7. Durable Medical Equipment-Related
Issues
a. Off-the-Shelf (OTS) Orthotics Exemption
b. Changes to Payment for Oxygen
Equipment
c. Diabetic Testing Supplies
d. Metropolitan Statistical Areas
8. Air Ambulance
F. Alternatives Considered
G. Impact on Beneficiaries
H. Accounting Statement
Regulations Text
Addendum A—Explanation and Use of
Addendum B
Addendum B—Relative Value Units and
Related Information Used In Determining
Medicare Payments for CY 2011
Addendum C—Codes With Interim RVUS
Addendum D—Final 2011 Geographic
Adjustment Factors (GAFS)
Addendum E—Final 2011****Geographic
Practice Cost Indicies (GPCIS) By State
and Medicare Locality
Addendum F—CY 2011 Diagnostic Imaging
Services Subject To The Multiple
Procedure Payment Reduction
Addendum G—CPT/HCPCS Imaging Codes
Defined By Section 5102(B) of the DRA
Addendum H—CY 2011 ‘‘Always Therapy’’
Services* Subject to the Multiple
Procedure Payment Reduction
Addendum I—[Reserved]
Addendum J—List of CPT1/HCPCS Codes
Used to Define Certain Designated
Health Service Categories 2 Under
Section 1877 of the Social Security Act
Effective January 1, 2011
Addendum K—CY 2011 ESRD Wage Index
For Urban Areas Based On CBSA Labor
Market Areas
Addendum L— CY 2011 Wage Index For
Rural Areas Based On CBSA Labor
Market Areas
Acronyms
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
In addition, because of the many
organizations and terms to which we
refer by acronym in this proposed rule,
we are listing these acronyms and their
corresponding terms in alphabetical
order below:
AA Anesthesiologist assistant
AACVPR American Association of
Cardiovascular and Pulmonary
Rehabilitation
AANA American Association of Nurse
Anesthetists
ABMS American Board of Medical
Specialties
ABN Advanced Beneficiary Notice
ACA ‘‘Affordable Care Act’’
ACC American College of Cardiology
ACGME Accreditation Council on Graduate
Medical Education
ACLS Advanced cardiac life support
ACP American College of Physicians
ACR American College of Radiology
ACS American Community Survey
AED Automated external defibrillator
AFROC Association of Freestanding
Radiation Oncology Centers
AFS Ambulance Fee Schedule
AHA American Heart Association
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
AHFS–DI American Hospital Formulary
Service-Drug Information
AHRQ [HHS] Agency for Healthcare
Research and Quality
AMA American Medical Association
AMA–DE American Medical Association
Drug Evaluations
AACE American Association of Clinical
Endocrinologists
AADE American Association of Diabetes
Educators
AMP Average manufacturer price
AO Accreditation organization
AOA American Osteopathic Association
APA American Psychological Association
APC Administrative Procedures Act
APTA American Physical Therapy
Association
ARRA American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (Pub. L. 111–5)
ASC Ambulatory surgical center
ASP Average sales price
ASRT American Society of Radiologic
Technologists
ASTRO American Society for Therapeutic
Radiology and Oncology
ATA American Telemedicine Association
AWP Average wholesale price
AWV Annual Wellness Visit
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)
BPM Benefit Policy Manual
BIPA Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP
Benefits Improvement Protection Act of
2000 (Pub. L. 106–554)
BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics
BN Budget neutrality
BPM Benefit Policy Manual
CABG Coronary artery bypass graft
CAD Coronary artery disease
CAH Critical access hospital
CAHEA Committee on Allied Health
Education and Accreditation
CAP Competitive acquisition program
CARE Continuity Assessment Record and
Evaluation
CBIC Competitive Bidding Implementation
Contractor
CBP Competitive Bidding Program
CBSA Core-Based Statistical Area
CDC Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention
CEM Cardiac Event Monitoring
CF Conversion factor
CFC Conditions for Coverage
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CKD Chronic kidney disease
CLFS Clinical laboratory fee schedule
CMA California Medical Association
CMD Contractor Medical Director
CMHC Community mental health center
CMP Civil money penalty
CMS Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services
CNS Clinical nurse specialist
CoP Condition of participation
COPD Chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease
CORF Comprehensive Outpatient
Rehabilitation Facility
COS Cost of service
CPEP Clinical Practice Expert Panel
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
CPI Consumer Price Index
CPI–U Consumer price index for urban
consumers
CPR Cardiopulmonary resuscitation
CPT [Physicians] Current Procedural
Terminology (4th Edition, 2002,
copyrighted by the American Medical
Association)
CR Cardiac rehabilitation
CRNA Certified registered nurse anesthetist
CRP Canalith repositioning
CRT Certified respiratory therapist
CSW Clinical social worker
CT Computed Tomography
CTA Computed Tomography Angography
CSC Computer Sciences Corporation
CWF Common Working File
CY Calendar year
DEA Drug Enforcement Agency
DOTPA Development of Outpatient
Therapy Alternatives
DHS Designated health services
DHHS Department of Health and Human
Services
DME Durable medical equipment
DMEPOS Durable medical equipment,
prosthetics, orthotics, and supplies
DOQ Doctors Office Quality
DOS Date of service
DRA Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (Pub. L.
109–171)
DSMT Diabetes self-management training
EGC Electrocardiogram
E/M Evaluation and management
EDI Electronic data interchange
EEG Electroencephalogram
EHR Electronic health record
EKG Electrocardiogram
EMG Electromyogram
EMTALA Emergency Medical Treatment
and Active Labor Act
EOG Electro-oculogram
EPO Erythopoeitin
eRx Electronic Prescribing
ESO Endoscopy Supplies
ESRD End-stage renal disease
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAX Facsimile
FDA Food and Drug Administration (HHS)
FFS Fee-for-service
FOTO Focus On Therapeutic Outcomes
FQHC Federally Qualified Health Center
FR Federal Register
GAF Geographic adjustment factor
GAO General Accounting Office
GEM Generating Medicare [Physician
Quality Performance Measurement Results]
GFR Glomerular filtration rate
GPRO Group Practice Reporting Option
GPO Group purchasing organization
GPCI Geographic practice cost index
GPS Geographic Positioning System
GSA General Services Administration
HAC Hospital-acquired conditions
HBAI Health and behavior assessment and
intervention
HCC Hierarchal Condition Category
HCPAC Health Care Professional Advisory
Committee
HCPCS Healthcare Common Procedure
Coding System
HCRIS Healthcare Cost Report Information
System
HEMS Helicopter Emergency Medical
Services
HDRT High dose radiation therapy
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
HH PPS Home Health Prospective Payment
System
HHA Home health agency
HHRG Home health resource group
HHS [Department of] Health and Human
Services
HIPAA Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–
191)
HIT Health information technology
HITECH Health Information Technology for
Economic and Clinical Health Act (Title IV
of Division B of the Recovery Act, together
with Title XIII of Division A of the
Recovery Act)
HITSP Healthcare Information Technology
Standards Panel
HIV Human immunodeficiency virus
HOPD Hospital outpatient department
HPSA Health Professional Shortage Area
HRA Health Risk Assessment
HRSA Health Resources Services
Administration (HHS)
HSIP HPSA Surgical Incentive Program
HUD Housing and Urban Development
IACS Individuals Access to CMS Systems
ICD International Classification of Diseases
ICF Intermediate care facilities
ICF International Classification of
Functioning, Disability and Health
ICR Intensive cardiac rehabilitation
ICR Information collection requirement
IDTF Independent diagnostic testing facility
IGI IHS Global Insight, Inc.
IFC Interim final rule with comment period
IMRT Intensity-Modulated Radiation
Therapy
IOM Internet Only Manual
IPCI indirect practice cost index
IPPE Initial preventive physical
examination
IPPS Inpatient prospective payment system
IRS Internal Revenue Service
ISO Insurance services office
IVD Ischemic Vascular Disease
IVIG Intravenous immune globulin
IWPUT Intra-service work per unit of time
TJC Joint Commission
JRCERT Joint Review Committee on
Education in Radiologic Technology
KDE Kidney disease education
LCD Local coverage determination
MA Medicare Advantage
MA–PD Medicare Advantage-Prescription
Drug Plans
MAC Medicare Administrative Contractor
MAV Measure Applicability Validation
MCMP Medicare Care Management
Performance
MCP Monthly Capitation Payment
MDRD Modification of Diet in Renal
Disease
MedCAC Medicare Evidence Development
and Coverage Advisory Committee
(formerly the Medicare Coverage Advisory
Committee (MCAC))
MedPAC Medicare Payment Advisory
Commission
MGMA Medical Group Management
Association
MEI Medicare Economic Index
MIEA–TRHCA Medicare Improvements and
Extension Act of 2006 (that is, Division B
of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of
2006 (TRHCA) (Pub. L. 109–432)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
MIPPA Medicare Improvements for Patients
and Providers Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110–
275)
MMA Medicare Prescription Drug,
Improvement, and Modernization Act of
2003 (Pub. L. 108–173)
MMSEA Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP
Extension Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110–173)
MNT Medical nutrition therapy
MOC Maintenance of certification
MP Malpractice
MPC Mulitspecialty Points of Comparison
MPPR Multiple procedure payment
reduction
MQSA Mammography Quality Standards
Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102–539)
MRA Magnetic Resonance Angiography
MRI Magnetic Resonance Imaging
MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area
MSP Medicare Secondary Payer
MUE Medically Unlikely Edit
NCCI National Correct Coding Initiative
NCD National Coverage Determination
NCQA National Committee for Quality
Assurance
NCQDIS National Coalition of Quality
Diagnostic Imaging Services
NDC National drug code
NF Nursing facility
NISTA National Institute of Standards and
Technology Act
NP Nurse practitioner
NPI National Provider Identifier
NPP Nonphysician practitioner
NQF National Quality Forum
NBRC National Board for Respiratory Care
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
NUBC National Uniform Billing Committee
OACT [CMS] Office of the Actuary
OBRA Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
OCR Optical Character Recognition
ODF Open door forum
OES Occupational Employment Statistics
OGPE Oxygen generating portable
equipment
OIG Office of Inspector General
OMB Office of Management and Budget
ONC [HHS] Office of the National
Coordinator for Health IT
OPPS Outpatient prospective payment
system
OSCAR Online Survey and Certification
and Reporting
PA Physician assistant
PACE Program of All-inclusive Care for the
Elderly
PAT Performance assessment tool
PC Professional component
PCI Percutaneous coronary intervention
PCIP Primary Care Incentive Payment
Program
PDP Prescription drug plan
PE Practice expense
PE/HR Practice expense per hour
PEAC Practice Expense Advisory
Committee
PECOS Provider Enrollment Chain and
Ownership System
PERC Practice Expense Review Committee
PFS Physician Fee Schedule
PGP [Medicare] Physician Group Practice
PHI Protected health information
PHP Partial hospitalization program
PIM [Medicare] Program Integrity Manual
PLI Professional liability insurance
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73177
POA Present on admission
POC Plan of care
PPI Producer price index
PPIS Physician Practice Information Survey
PPPS Personalized Prevention Plan
Services
PPS Prospective payment system
PPTA Plasma Protein Therapeutics
Association
PQRI Physician Quality Reporting Initiative
PR Pulmonary rehabilitation
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PSA Physician scarcity areas
PT Physical therapy
PTCA Percutaneous transluminal coronary
angioplasty
PTA Physical therapy assistant
PVBP Physician and Other Health
Professional Value-Based Purchasing
Workgroup
QDCs (Physician Quality Reporting System)
Quality Data Codes
RA Radiology assistant
RAC Medicare Recovery Audit Contractor
RBMA Radiology Business Management
Association
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RHC Rural health clinic
RHQDAPU Reporting Hospital Quality Data
Annual Payment Update Program
RIA Regulatory impact analysis
RN Registered nurse
RNAC Reasonable net acquisition cost
RPA Radiology practitioner assistant
RRT Registered respiratory therapist
RUC [AMAs Specialty Society] Relative
(Value) Update Committee
RVRBS Resource-Based Relative Value
Scale
RVU Relative value unit
SBA Small Business Administration
SCHIP State Children’s Health Insurance
Programs
SDW Special Disability Workload
SGR Sustainable growth rate
STATS Short Term Alternatives for
Therapy Services
SLP Speech-language pathology
SMS [AMAs] Socioeconomic Monitoring
System
SNF Skilled nursing facility
SOR System of record
SRS Stereotactic radiosurgery
SSA Social Security Administration
SSI Social Security Income
STARS Services Tracking and Reporting
System
STATS Short Term Alternative Therapy
Services
TC Technical Component
TIN Tax identification number
TRHCA Tax Relief and Health Care Act of
2006 (Pub. L. 109–432)
TTO Transtracheal oxygen
UAF Update Adjustment Factor
UPMC University of Pittsburgh Medical
Center
URAC Utilization Review Accreditation
Committee
USDE United States Department of
Education
USP–DI United States Pharmacopoeia-Drug
Information
VA Veterans Administration
VBP Value-based purchasing
WAC Wholesale Acquisition Cost
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73178
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
WAMP Widely available market price
WHO World Health Organization
CPT (Current Procedural Terminology)
Copyright Notice
Throughout this final rule with
comment period, we use CPT codes and
descriptions to refer to a variety of
services. We note that CPT codes and
descriptions are copyright 2010
American Medical Association. All
Rights Reserved. CPT is a registered
trademark of the American Medical
Association (AMA). Applicable FARS/
DFARS apply.
I. Background
Since January 1, 1992, Medicare has
paid for physicians’ services under
section 1848 of the Social Security Act
(the Act), ‘‘Payment for Physicians’
Services.’’ The Act requires that
payments under the physician fee
schedule (PFS) are based on national
uniform relative value units (RVUs)
based on the relative resources used in
furnishing a service. Section 1848(c) of
the Act requires that national RVUs be
established for physician work, practice
expense (PE), and malpractice expense.
Before the establishment of the
resource-based relative value system,
Medicare payment for physicians’
services was based on reasonable
charges. We note that throughout this
final rule with comment period, unless
otherwise noted, the term ‘‘practitioner’’
is used to describe both physicians and
eligible nonphysician practitioners
(such as physician assistants, nurse
practitioners, clinical nurse specialists,
certified nurse-midwives, psychologists,
or social workers) that are permitted to
furnish and bill Medicare under the PFS
for the services under discussion.
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
A. Development of the Relative Value
System
1. Work RVUs
The concepts and methodology
underlying the PFS were enacted as part
of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Act (OBRA) of 1989 (Pub. L. 101–239),
and OBRA 1990, (Pub. L. 101–508). The
final rule, published on November 25,
1991 (56 FR 59502), set forth the fee
schedule for payment for physicians’
services beginning January 1, 1992.
Initially, only the physician work RVUs
were resource-based, and the PE and
malpractice RVUs were based on
average allowable charges.
The physician work RVUs established
for the implementation of the fee
schedule in January 1992 were
developed with extensive input from
the physician community. A research
team at the Harvard School of Public
Health developed the original physician
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
work RVUs for most codes in a
cooperative agreement with the
Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS). In constructing the
code-specific vignettes for the original
physician work RVUs, Harvard worked
with panels of experts, both inside and
outside the Federal government, and
obtained input from numerous
physician specialty groups.
Section 1848(b)(2)(B) of the Act
specifies that the RVUs for anesthesia
services are based on RVUs from a
uniform relative value guide, with
appropriate adjustment of the
conversion factor (CF), in a manner to
assure that fee schedule amounts for
anesthesia services are consistent with
those for other services of comparable
value. We established a separate CF for
anesthesia services, and we continue to
utilize time units as a factor in
determining payment for these services.
As a result, there is a separate payment
methodology for anesthesia services.
We establish physician work RVUs for
new and revised codes based on our
review of recommendations received
from the American Medical
Association’s (AMA) Specialty Society
Relative Value Update Committee
(RUC).
2. Practice Expense Relative Value Units
(PE RVUs)
Section 121 of the Social Security Act
Amendments of 1994 (Pub. L. 103–432),
enacted on October 31, 1994, amended
section 1848(c)(2)(C)(ii) of the Act and
required us to develop resource-based
PE RVUs for each physicians’ service
beginning in 1998. We were to consider
general categories of expenses (such as
office rent and wages of personnel, but
excluding malpractice expenses)
comprising PEs.
Section 4505(a) of the Balanced
Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) (Pub. L. 105–
33), amended section 1848(c)(2)(C)(ii) of
the Act to delay implementation of the
resource-based PE RVU system until
January 1, 1999. In addition, section
4505(b) of the BBA provided for a 4-year
transition period from charge-based PE
RVUs to resource-based RVUs.
We established the resource-based PE
RVUs for each physicians’ service in a
final rule, published November 2, 1998
(63 FR 58814), effective for services
furnished in 1999. Based on the
requirement to transition to a resourcebased system for PE over a 4-year
period, resource-based PE RVUs did not
become fully effective until 2002.
This resource-based system was based
on two significant sources of actual PE
data: the Clinical Practice Expert Panel
(CPEP) data; and the AMA’s
Socioeconomic Monitoring System
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(SMS) data. The CPEP data were
collected from panels of physicians,
practice administrators, and
nonphysicians (for example, registered
nurses (RNs)) nominated by physician
specialty societies and other groups.
The CPEP panels identified the direct
inputs required for each physicians’
service in both the office setting and
out-of-office setting. We have since
refined and revised these inputs based
on recommendations from the RUC. The
AMA’s SMS data provided aggregate
specialty-specific information on hours
worked and PEs.
Separate PE RVUs are established for
procedures that can be performed in
both a nonfacility setting, such as a
physician’s office, and a facility setting,
such as a hospital outpatient
department (HOPD). The difference
between the facility and nonfacility
RVUs reflects the fact that a facility
typically receives separate payment
from Medicare for its costs of providing
the service, apart from payment under
the PFS. The nonfacility RVUs reflect all
of the direct and indirect PEs of
providing a particular service.
Section 212 of the Balanced Budget
Refinement Act of 1999 (BBRA) (Pub. L.
106–113) directed the Secretary of
Health and Human Services (the
Secretary) to establish a process under
which we accept and use, to the
maximum extent practicable and
consistent with sound data practices,
data collected or developed by entities
and organizations to supplement the
data we normally collect in determining
the PE component. On May 3, 2000, we
published the interim final rule (65 FR
25664) that set forth the criteria for the
submission of these supplemental PE
survey data. The criteria were modified
in response to comments received, and
published in the Federal Register (65
FR 65376) as part of a November 1, 2000
final rule. The PFS final rules published
in 2001 and 2003, respectively, (66 FR
55246 and 68 FR 63196) extended the
period during which we would accept
these supplemental data through March
1, 2005.
In the calendar year (CY) 2007 PFS
final rule with comment period (71 FR
69624), we revised the methodology for
calculating direct PE RVUs from the topdown to the bottom-up methodology
beginning in CY 2007 and provided for
a 4-year transition for the new PE RVUs
under this new methodology. This
transition ended in CY 2010 and direct
PE RVUs are calculated in CY 2011
using this methodology, unless
otherwise noted.
In the CY 2010 PFS final rule with
comment period, we updated the PE/
hour (HR) data that are used in the
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
calculation of PE RVUs for most
specialties (74 FR 61749). For this
update, we used the Physician Practice
Information Survey (PPIS) conducted by
the AMA. The PPIS is a multispecialty,
nationally representative, PE survey of
both physicians and nonphysician
practitioners (NPPs) using a survey
instrument and methods highly
consistent with those of the SMS and
the supplemental surveys used prior to
CY 2010. We note that in CY 2010, for
oncology, clinical laboratories, and
independent diagnostic testing facilities
(IDTFs), we continued to use the
supplemental survey data to determine
PE/HR values (74 FR 61752).
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
3. Resource-Based Malpractice (MP)
RVUs
Section 4505(f) of the BBA amended
section 1848(c) of the Act requiring us
to implement resource-based
malpractice (MP) RVUs for services
furnished on or after CY 2000. The
resource-based MP RVUs were
implemented in the PFS final rule
published November 2, 1999 (64 FR
59380). The MP RVUs were based on
malpractice insurance premium data
collected from commercial and
physician-owned insurers from all the
States, the District of Columbia, and
Puerto Rico.
4. Refinements to the RVUs
Section 1848(c)(2)(B)(i) of the Act
requires that we review all RVUs no less
often than every 5 years. The first FiveYear Review of the physician work
RVUs was published on November 22,
1996 (61 FR 59489) and was effective in
1997. The second Five-Year Review was
published in the CY 2002 PFS final rule
with comment period (66 FR 55246) and
was effective in 2002. The third FiveYear Review of physician work RVUs
was published in the CY 2007 PFS final
rule with comment period (71 FR
69624) and was effective on January 1,
2007. (Note: Additional codes relating to
the third Five-Year Review of physician
work RVUs were addressed in the CY
2008 PFS final rule with comment
period (72 FR 66360).) The fourth FiveYear Review of physician work RVUs
was initiated in the CY 2010 PFS final
rule with comment period where we
solicited candidate codes from the
public for this review (74 FR 61941).
Changes due to the fourth Five-Year
Review of physician work RVUs will be
effective January 1, 2012.
In 1999, the AMA RUC established
the Practice Expense Advisory
Committee (PEAC) for the purpose of
refining the direct PE inputs. Through
March 2004, the PEAC provided
recommendations to CMS for over 7,600
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
codes (all but a few hundred of the
codes currently listed in the AMAs
Current Procedural Terminology (CPT)
codes). As part of the CY 2007 PFS final
rule with comment period (71 FR
69624), we implemented a new bottomup methodology for determining
resource-based PE RVUs and
transitioned the new methodology over
a 4-year period. A comprehensive
review of PE was undertaken prior to
the 4-year transition period for the new
PE methodology from the top-down to
the bottom-up methodology, and this
transition was completed in CY 2010. In
CY 2010, we also incorporated the new
PPIS data to update the specialtyspecific PE/HR data used to develop PE
RVUs. Therefore, the next Five-Year
Review of PE RVUs will be addressed in
CY 2014.
In the CY 2005 PFS final rule with
comment period (69 FR 66236), we
implemented the first Five-Year Review
of the MP RVUs (69 FR 66263). Minor
modifications to the methodology were
addressed in the CY 2006 PFS final rule
with comment period (70 FR 70153).
The second Five-Year Review and
update of resource-based malpractice
RVUs was published in the CY 2010
PFS final rule with comment period (74
FR 61758) and was effective in CY 2010.
5. Adjustments to RVUs Are Budget
Neutral
Section 1848(c)(2)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act
provides that adjustments in RVUs for a
year may not cause total PFS payments
to differ by more than $20 million from
what they would have been if the
adjustments were not made. In
accordance with section
1848(c)(2)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act, if
revisions to the RVUs cause
expenditures to change by more than
$20 million, we make adjustments to
ensure that expenditures do not increase
or decrease by more than $20 million.
For CY 2010, we adopted a number of
new payment policies for which we
estimated the potential for a
redistributive effect under the PFS,
including the use of the new PPIS data
to develop the specialty-specific PE/HR
used for the PE RVUs (74 FR 61749
through 61752) and the elimination of
the reporting of all CPT consultation
codes in order to allow for correct and
consistent coding and appropriate
payment for evaluation and
management services under the PFS (74
FR 61767 through 61775). In the CY
2011 PFS proposed rule (75 FR 40047),
we acknowledged that clinical
experience with these new PFS policies
has been growing over the first 6 months
of CY 2010 and noted that as we seek
to improve future PFS payment
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73179
accuracy for services, we were
interested in public comments on the
perspectives of physicians and
nonphysician practitioners caring for
Medicare beneficiaries under the
current PFS coding and payment
methodologies for physicians’ services.
Comment: Many commenters
expressed various concerns regarding
new Medicare coding and payment
methodologies adopted for CY 2010 and
continuing in CY 2011. Some
commenters indicated that the effects of
using PPIS data to develop the
specialty-specific practice expense per
hour (PE/HR) significantly reduced the
payment for certain services and
procedures. Commenters were
concerned that the reductions in
practice costs reflected in the PPIS data
were inaccurate and that CMS reliance
on the PPIS data caused undue hardship
to certain specialties. Some commenters
requested that CMS utilize new PE
survey data for specific specialties.
A number of commenters were also
particularly concerned with the
decision by CMS to no longer recognize
the CPT consultation codes for Part B
payment of evaluation and management
(E/M) services beginning in CY 2010.
Many commenters recommended
resuming payment for consultation
codes under the PFS to recognize the
unique physician work and practice
expenses when consultation services are
furnished at the request of other
practitioners. Several commenters
argued that consultation services were
especially important to ensuring highquality, coordinated care for complex
patients and to prevent unnecessary,
expensive tests. Based on findings from
a survey of affected specialties, these
commenters expressed concern that
CMS policy decision to no longer
recognize the CPT consultation codes
for PFS payment purposes resulted in:
(1) A reduction in the number of new
Medicare patients seen by specialists;
(2) a reduction in overall specialist time
spent with individual Medicare
patients; (3) a reduction in the number
of consultations provided to hospital
inpatients; (4) diminished continuity
and coordination of care; and (5) the
elimination of physicians’ office staff
and postponement of physicians
purchasing new equipment because of
practice cost concerns. Finally, other
commenters requested that, in the
absence of recognition of the CPT
consultation codes for PFS payment,
CMS should revise the current
prolonged services and new patient
definitions in order to allow for higher
payments for services that, prior to CY
2010, would have been billed using the
CPT consultation codes. Specifically,
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73180
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
the commenters believe that CMS
should adopt the current CPT policy of
identifying patients seen by physicians
in a different subspecialty within a
group practice as ‘‘new’’ patients, rather
than continuing to use the same
physician specialty as the decision
point. In addition, some commenters
encouraged CMS to adopt the CPT
inpatient setting guidelines for
determining whether a service meets the
prolonged service criteria, which allow
physicians to include time spent on a
patients floor or unit performing tasked
related to the patients care, rather than
just face-to-face time as specified under
current CMS policy.
Response: We appreciate the concerns
of the commenters regarding current
PFS coding and payment
methodologies. We welcome the
perspective of physicians and
nonphysician practitioners caring for
Medicare beneficiaries. We understand
that in some cases, recent policy
changes under the PFS reduced
payments for certain professional
services, albeit with the goal of
providing payment for services that
appropriately reflects their relative
value in the context of PFS payment for
all other services. It is in the nature of
any budget neutral payment system for
changes, such as the use of PPIS data
and the elimination of PFS payment for
the CPT consultation codes, to have a
somewhat differential impact on various
groups of physicians and/or
nonphysician practitioners.
Furthermore, we note that all physicians
benefited from the budget neutral
increase in the payment levels for the
other evaluation and management (E/M)
CPT codes that resulted from the
consultation code policy change.
For CY 2010, we adopted the PPIS
data for developing the PE RVUs as the
most recent data on physicians office
practice expenses that used a consistent
survey instrument across all specialty
and healthcare professional groups. The
PPIS was a nationally representative
survey providing the most up-to-date
and comprehensive data available from
51 specialties, using a survey
instrument that was carefully designed,
tested, and implemented. As discussed
in the CY 2010 PFS final rule with
comment period (75 FR 61751), because
we recognized that some specialties
would likely experience significant
payment reductions with the use of the
PPIS data, we adopted a 4-year
transition from the previous PE RVUs to
the PE RVUs developed using the new
PPIS data in order to allow physicians
and others time to adjust to the payment
changes. We note that CY 2010 was the
first year of the transition, with payment
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
based upon 75 percent of the previous
PE RVUs and 25 percent of the PE RVUs
using the new PPIS data. This blend
will move to 50/50 in CY 2011, and we
intend to continue to closely monitor
Medicare PFS utilization data to detect
any emerging issues that may be of
concern during this transition period,
such as access problems for Medicare
beneficiaries. To date, we have
identified no specific problems that
would warrant our proposal of a change
with respect to the final CY 2010 policy
regarding development of the PE RVUs
based on the PPIS data. Going forward,
as discussed further in section II.A.2.f.
of this final rule with comment period,
we remain interested in the thoughts of
stakeholders regarding the MedPAC
comment that ‘‘CMS should consider
alternatives to collecting specialtyspecific cost data or options to decrease
the reliance on such data.’’ We
encourage interested parties to contact
us at any time if they have information
to share or discuss in this regard.
In response to extensive public
comment on the CY 2010 PFS proposal
to eliminate payment for the CPT
consultation codes, we explained our
rationale in detail in the CY 2010 PFS
final rule with comment period (75 FR
61767 through 61775). Prior to the CY
2010 PFS rulemaking cycle, we had
made numerous attempts to resolve
issues related to the reporting of the
CPT consultation codes, including
developing and implementing relevant
guidance and educating physicians
regarding documentation, transfer of
care, and consultation policy. Despite
these efforts, there was still substantial
disagreement and inconsistency within
the physician community regarding
these issues. In addition, we believe that
in most cases there is no substantial
difference in physician work between
E/M visits and services that would
otherwise be reported with CPT
consultation codes. Therefore, we
continue to believe that E/M services
that could previously have been
reported using the CPT consultation
codes may now be appropriately
reported and paid using other E/M
codes, specifically office and other
outpatient, initial hospital and nursing
facility care, and subsequent hospital
and nursing facility care E/M codes.
This policy allows for correct and
consistent coding for E/M services
furnished by physicians and
nonphysician practitioners, as well as
provides for appropriate payment for
the specific services that were
previously billed using the CPT
consultation codes.
While we continue to believe that
promoting effective coordination of care
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
must be an essential goal of our
payment systems, we are currently not
aware of any evidence that the CY 2010
policy change to no longer recognize the
CPT consultation codes is creating
problems regarding care coordination
and communication among physicians
that negatively impact the health of
Medicare beneficiaries. As we stated in
the CY 2010 PFS final rule with
comment period in response to similar
hypothetical concerns expressed by
some commenters (75 FR 61774), if we
become aware of such evidence in the
future, we would certainly consider
whether there is an appropriate policy
response to promote more effective
coordination of care. However, we
continue to believe it is premature to
consider what the appropriate responses
might be unless specific evidence of an
issue affecting the health of Medicare
beneficiaries comes to our attention. We
will continue to be attentive to any
concerns that develop about the effects
of the policy on the goal of promoting
effective coordination of care.
In the CY 2010 PFS final rule with
comment period (75 FR 61772), we
explained that, although we estimated
that there would be redistributional
effects among specialties, we did not
believe the estimated impacts of the
change in consultation code policy were
disproportionate to the goals we sought
to achieve in finalizing the proposal.
While we understand that commenters
are concerned with the effects of this
policy change and that these comments
were submitted after only a half year’s
experience with the revised policy, the
commenters on the CY 2011 proposed
rule did not fundamentally address the
underlying issues that led to our
decision to no longer recognize the
consultation codes for PFS payment
purposes.
We appreciate the suggestions of the
commenters regarding policy changes to
the definitions of new patients and
prolonged services. Regarding the
definition of ‘‘new’’ patient, we note that
we continue to consider requests on an
ongoing basis for new Medicare
physician specialty codes and may
establish new codes upon evaluating the
submissions based on the criteria listed
in the Medicare Claims Processing
Manual, Pub. 100–04, chapter 26,
section 10.8. In fact, we have approved
four new Medicare physician specialty
codes in the past 2 years. These
additions allow more patients of those
subspecialties to be considered new
based on the narrower range of services
provided by the subspecialty within a
broader specialty group practice. We
encourage interested stakeholders to
submit requests for new specialty codes
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
if they desire a specific code for a
different medical specialty or
subspecialty. We do not believe it is
necessary to change our current policy
to one that would routinely adopt the
CPT policy of identifying patients seen
by physicians in a different subspecialty
as ‘‘new’’ patients because our current
criteria for establishing new Medicare
physician specialty codes already
accounts for many of these scenarios.
Medicare physician specialty codes
describe the unique types of medicine
that physicians practice. Therefore, we
believe our current definition of ‘‘new’’
for reporting office visits to a group
practice appropriately relies upon the
Medicare definition of a different
specialty so that that the differential
physician resources required to care for
a patient who is truly new to the
physician’s unique type of medical
practice are appropriately recognized.
Finally, we note that our prolonged
service criterion that allows counting
only of face-to-face time for inpatients,
as it does for outpatients, is
longstanding. Given that the highest
level initial hospital care E/M visit by a
physician typically extends for 70
minutes, in order to report the
prolonged physician service CPT code
in the inpatient setting, a physician
would need to spend at least an
additional 30 minutes caring for the
patient. We are uncertain whether many
inpatient E/M services that would
otherwise be reported as CPT
consultation codes extend beyond 100
minutes, even if we were to consider
adopting a policy change to allow
counting of unit/floor time in addition
to face-to-face time. If we were to
consider such a policy change in the
counting of physician time, we are also
concerned that available documentation
in the medical record could make
evaluating the medical necessity of a
prolonged service especially
problematic. Therefore, we do not
believe it would be appropriate to
modify our interpretation of the
counting of time for purposes of
reporting the prolonged service
inpatient codes. In most cases, we
believe that the additional time that may
be required for an E/M visit to a hospital
inpatient that would otherwise be
reported by a CPT consultation code
may be appropriately paid through the
Medicare payment for the level of initial
or subsequent hospital care E/M code
that is reported that takes into
consideration the face-to-face time the
consulting physician spends with the
patient.
We appreciate the commenters’ varied
perspectives on caring for Medicare
beneficiaries under the recent PFS
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
coding and payment changes adopted
for CY 2010 and continuing in CY 2011.
While we did not make CY 2011
proposals to modify our established
policies regarding the use of the PPIS
data to calculate the PE RVUs or the
reporting of E/M visits that would
otherwise be reported under the CPT
consultation codes, and we are not
modifying them for CY 2011, we will
continue to monitor the impact of these
policies. We look forward to continuing
our dialogue with stakeholders
regarding these and future policy
changes under the PFS.
B. Components of the Fee Schedule
Payment Amounts
To calculate the payment for every
physician’s service, the components of
the fee schedule (physician work, PE,
and MP RVUs) are adjusted by a
geographic practice cost index (GPCI).
The GPCIs reflect the relative costs of
physician work, PE, and malpractice
expense in an area compared to the
national average costs for each
component.
RVUs are converted to dollar amounts
through the application of a CF, which
is calculated by CMS Office of the
Actuary (OACT).
The formula for calculating the
Medicare fee schedule payment amount
for a given service and fee schedule area
can be expressed as:
Payment = [(RVU work × GPCI work) +
(RVU PE × GPCI PE) + (RVU
malpractice × GPCI malpractice)] ×
CF.
C. Most Recent Changes to the Fee
Schedule
The CY 2010 PFS final rule with
comment period (74 FR 61738)
implemented changes to the PFS and
other Medicare Part B payment policies.
It also finalized some of the CY 2009
interim RVUs and implemented interim
RVUs for new and revised codes for CY
2010 to ensure that our payment
systems are updated to reflect changes
in medical practice and the relative
value of services. The CY 2010 PFS final
rule with comment period also
addressed other policies, as well as
certain provisions of the MIPPA.
As required by the statute at the time
of its issuance on October 30, 2009, the
CY 2010 PFS final rule with comment
period announced the following for CY
2010: The PFS update of ¥21.2 percent;
the initial estimate for the sustainable
growth rate of ¥8.8 percent; and the CF
of $28.4061.
On December 10, 2009, we published
a correction notice (74 FR 65449) to
correct several technical and
typographical errors that occurred in the
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73181
CY 2010 PFS final rule with comment
period. This correction notice
announced a revised CF for CY 2010 of
$28.3895.
On December 19, 2009, the
Department of Defense Appropriations
Act, 2010 (Pub. L. 111–118) was signed
into law. Section 1011 of Public Law
111–118 provided a 2-month zero
percent update to the CY 2010 PFS
effective only for dates of service from
January 1, 2010 through February 28,
2010.
On March 2, 2010, the Temporary
Extension Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–144)
was signed into law. Section 2 of Public
Law 111–144 extended through March
31, 2010 the zero percent update to the
PFS that was in effect for claims with
dates of service from January 1, 2010
through February 28, 2010.
In addition, on April 15, 2010, the
Continuing Extension Act of 2010 (Pub.
L. 111–157) was signed into law.
Section 4 of Public Law 111–157
extended through May 31, 2010 the zero
percent update to the PFS that was in
effect for claims with dates of services
from January 1, 2010 through March 31,
2010. The provision was retroactive to
April 1, 2010.
In the May 11, 2010 Federal Register
(75 FR 26350), we published a
subsequent correction notice to correct
several technical and typographical
errors that occurred in the CY 2010 PFS
final rule with comment period and the
December 10, 2009 correction notice.
The May 11, 2010 correction notice
announced a revised CF for CY 2010 of
$28.3868.
On June 25, 2010, the Preservation of
Access to Care for Medicare
Beneficiaries and Pension Relief Act of
2010 (Pub. L. 111–192) was signed into
law. This law required application of a
2.2 percent update to the PFS for claims
with dates of services from June 1, 2010
through November 30, 2010. As a result
of this change, the PFS conversion
factor was revised to $36.8729 for
services furnished during this time
period.
On March 23, 2010 the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act
(Pub. L. 111–148) was signed into law.
Shortly thereafter, on March 30, 2010,
the Health Care and Education
Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–
152) was signed into law. These two
laws are discussed in this final rule with
comment period and are collectively
referred to as the ‘‘Affordable Care Act’’
(ACA) throughout this final rule with
comment period.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73182
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
D. Public Comments Received in
Response to the CY 2011 PFS Proposed
Rule
We received approximately 8,500
timely pieces of correspondence
containing multiple comments on the
CY 2011 PFS proposed rule. We note
that we received some comments that
were outside the scope of the CY 2011
PFS proposed rule, including public
comments on new CY 2011 HCPCS
codes that were not presented in the CY
2011 PFS proposed rule and existing CY
2010 HCPCS codes with final values for
which we made no proposals for CY
2011. These comments are not
addressed in this CY 2011 PFS final rule
with comment period. New and revised
CY 2011 HCPCS codes and their CY
2011 interim PFS work, malpractice,
and PE RVUs are displayed in
Addendum C to this final rule with
comment period, and these values are
open to public comment on this final
rule with comment period. Summaries
of the public comments that are within
the scope of the proposals and our
responses to those comments are set for
the in the various sections of this final
rule with comment period under the
appropriate headings.
II. Provisions of the Final Rule for the
Physician Fee Schedule
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
A. Resource-Based Practice Expense
(PE) Relative Value Units (RVUs)
1. Overview
Practice expense (PE) is the portion of
the resources used in furnishing the
service that reflects the general
categories of physician and practitioner
expenses, such as office rent and
personnel wages but excluding
malpractice expenses, as specified in
section 1848(c)(1)(B) of the Act. Section
121 of the Social Security Amendments
of 1994 (Pub. L. 103–432), enacted on
October 31, 1994, required CMS to
develop a methodology for a resourcebased system for determining PE RVUs
for each physician’s service. We develop
PE RVUs by looking at the direct and
indirect physician practice resources
involved in furnishing each service.
Direct expense categories include
clinical labor, medical supplies, and
medical equipment. Indirect expenses
include administrative labor, office
expense, and all other expenses. The
sections that follow provide more
detailed information about the
methodology for translating the
resources involved in furnishing each
service into service-specific PE RVUs. In
addition, we note that section
1848(c)(2)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act provides
that adjustments in RVUs for a year may
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
not cause total PFS payments to differ
by more than $20 million from what
they would have been if the adjustments
were not made. Therefore, if revisions to
the RVUs cause expenditures to change
by more than $20 million, we make
adjustments to ensure that expenditures
do not increase or decrease by more
than $20 million. We refer readers to the
CY 2010 PFS final rule with comment
period (74 FR 61743 through 61748) for
a more detailed history of the PE
methodology.
2. Practice Expense Methodology
a. Direct Practice Expense
We use a bottom-up approach to
determine the direct PE by adding the
costs of the resources (that is, the
clinical staff, equipment, and supplies)
typically required to provide each
service. The costs of the resources are
calculated using the refined direct PE
inputs assigned to each CPT code in our
PE database, which are based on our
review of recommendations received
from the American Medical
Association’s (AMA’s) Relative Value
Update Committee (RUC). For a detailed
explanation of the bottom-up direct PE
methodology, including examples, we
refer readers to the Five-Year Review of
Work Relative Value Units Under the
PFS and Proposed Changes to the
Practice Expense Methodology proposed
notice (71 FR 37242) and the CY 2007
PFS final rule with comment period (71
FR 69629).
b. Indirect Practice Expense per Hour
Data
We use survey data on indirect
practice expenses incurred per hour
worked (PE/HR) in developing the
indirect portion of the PE RVUs. Prior
to CY 2010, we primarily used the
practice expense per hour (PE/HR) by
specialty that was obtained from the
AMA’s Socioeconomic Monitoring
Surveys (SMS). These surveys were
conducted from 1995 through 1999. For
several specialties that collected
additional PE/HR data through
supplemental surveys, we incorporated
these data in developing the PE/HR
values used annually.
While the SMS was not specifically
designed for the purpose of establishing
PE RVUs, we found these data to be the
best available at the time. The SMS was
a multispecialty survey effort conducted
using a consistent survey instrument
and method across specialties. The
survey sample was randomly drawn
from the AMA Physician Master file to
ensure national representativeness. The
AMA discontinued the SMS survey in
1999.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
As required by the Balanced Budget
Refinement Act of 1999 (BBRA) (Pub. L.
106–113), we also established a process
by which specialty groups could submit
supplemental PE data. In the May 3,
2000 Federal Register, we issued the
Medicare Program; Criteria for
Submitting Supplemental Practice
Expense Survey Data interim final rule
(65 FR 25664) in which we established
criteria for acceptance of supplemental
data. The criteria were modified in the
CY 2001 and CY 2003 PFS final rules
with comment period (65 FR 65380 and
67 FR 79971, respectively). In addition
to the SMS, we previously used
supplemental survey data for the
following specialties: Cardiology;
dermatology; gastroenterology;
radiology; cardiothoracic surgery;
vascular surgery; physical and
occupational therapy; independent
laboratories; allergy/immunology;
independent diagnostic testing facilities
(IDTFs); radiation oncology; medical
oncology; and urology.
Because the SMS data and the
supplemental survey data were from
different time periods, we historically
inflated them by the Medicare Economic
Index (MEI) to put them on as
comparable a time basis as we could
when calculating the PE RVUs. This
MEI proxy was necessary in the past
due to the lack of contemporaneous,
consistently collected, and
comprehensive multispecialty survey
data.
The AMA administered a new survey
in CY 2007 and CY 2008, the Physician
Practice Expense Information Survey
(PPIS), which was expanded (relative to
the SMS) to include nonphysician
practitioners (NPPs) paid under the PFS.
The PPIS was designed to update the
specialty-specific PE/HR data used to
develop PE RVUs. The AMA and the
CMS contractor, The Lewin Group
(Lewin), analyzed the PPIS data and
calculated the PE/HR for physician and
nonphysician specialties, respectively.
The AMA’s summary worksheets and
Lewin’s final report are available on the
CMS Web site at https://www.cms.gov/
PhysicianFeeSched/PFSFRN/
itemdetail.asp?filterType=none
&filterByDID=-99&sortByDID=4&sort
Order=descending&itemID=
CMS1223902&intNumPerPage=10. (See
downloads labeled AMA PPIS
Worksheets 1–3 and Physician Practice
Expense non MDDO Final Report)
The PPIS is a multispecialty,
nationally representative, PE survey of
both physicians and NPPs using a
consistent survey instrument and
methods highly consistent with those
used for the SMS and the supplemental
surveys. The PPIS gathered information
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
from 3,656 respondents across 51
physician specialty and healthcare
professional groups.
We believe the PPIS is the most
comprehensive source of PE survey
information available to date. Therefore,
we used the PPIS data to update the PE/
HR data for almost all of the Medicarerecognized specialties that participated
in the survey for the CY 2010 PFS.
When we changed over to the PPIS data
beginning in CY 2010, we did not
change the PE RVU methodology itself
or the manner in which the PE/HR data
are used in that methodology. We only
updated the PE/HR data based on the
new survey. Furthermore, as we
explained in the CY 2010 PFS final rule
with comment period (74 FR 61751),
because of the magnitude of payment
reductions for some specialties resulting
from the use of the PPIS data, we
finalized a 4-year transition (75/25 for
CY 2010, 50/50 for CY 2011, 25/75 for
CY 2012, and 0/100 for CY 2013) from
the previous PE RVUs to the PE RVUs
developed using the new PPIS data.
Section 303 of the Medicare
Prescription Drug, Improvement, and
Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) (Pub.
L. 108–173) added section
1848(c)(2)(H)(i) of the Act, which
requires us to use the medical oncology
supplemental survey data submitted in
2003 for oncology drug administration
services. Therefore, the PE/HR for
medical oncology, hematology, and
hematology/oncology reflects the
continued use of these supplemental
survey data.
We do not use the PPIS data for
reproductive endocrinology, sleep
medicine, and spine surgery since these
specialties are not separately recognized
by Medicare, and we do not know how
to blend these data with Medicarerecognized specialty data.
Supplemental survey data on
independent labs, from the College of
American Pathologists, were
implemented for payments in CY 2005.
Supplemental survey data from the
National Coalition of Quality Diagnostic
Imaging Services (NCQDIS),
representing IDTFs, were blended with
supplementary survey data from the
American College of Radiology (ACR)
and implemented for payments in CY
2007. Neither IDTFs nor independent
labs participated in the PPIS. Therefore,
we continue to use the PE/HR that was
developed from their supplemental
survey data.
Finally, consistent with our past
practice, the previous indirect PE/HR
values from the supplemental surveys
for medical oncology, independent
laboratories, and IDTFs were updated to
CY 2006 using the MEI to put them on
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
a comparable basis with the PPIS data.
In the CY 2010 PFS final rule with
comment period (74 FR 61753), we
miscalculated the indirect PE/HR for
IDTFs as part of this update process.
Therefore, for CY 2011, we are using a
revised indirect PE/HR of $479.81 for
IDTFs, consistent with our final policy
to update the indirect PE/HR values
from prior supplemental survey data
that we are continuing to use in order
to put these data on a comparable basis
with the PPIS data. This revision
changes the IDTF indirect percentage
from 51 percent to 50 percent for CY
2011.
Previously, we had established PE/HR
values for various specialties without
SMS or supplemental survey data by
crosswalking them to other similar
specialties to estimate a proxy PE/HR.
For specialties that were part of the PPIS
for which we previously used a
crosswalked PE/HR, we instead use the
PPIS-based PE/HR. We continue
previous crosswalks for specialties that
did not participate in the PPIS.
However, beginning in CY 2010 we
changed the PE/HR crosswalk for
portable x-ray suppliers from radiology
to IDTF, a more appropriate crosswalk
because these specialties are more
similar to each other with respect to
physician time.
In the CY 2010 PFS final rule with
comment period (74 FR 61752), we
agreed that, under the current PE
methodology, the PPIS data for
registered dieticians should not be used
in the calculation of PE RVUs since
these dieticians are paid 85 percent of
what a physician would be paid for
providing the service. To include their
survey data in the PE calculation would
influence the ratesetting by
incorporating what the services would
be paid if performed by registered
dieticians and not strictly what the
payment rates would be if provided by
physicians. We further stated that we
would utilize the ‘‘All Physicians’’
PE/HR, as derived from the PPIS, in the
calculation of resource-based PE RVUs
in lieu of the PE/HR associated with
registered dieticians. In the resourcebased PE methodology for CY 2010,
while we removed the specialty of
registered dieticians from the ratesetting
step we did not assign the ‘‘All
Physicians’’ PE/HR to services furnished
by registered dieticians. Instead, we
allowed the PE/HR for those services to
be generated by a weighted average of
all the physician specialties that also
furnished the services. This method was
consistent with our policy to not use the
registered dietician PPIS PE/HR in
calculating the PE RVUs for services
furnished by registered dieticians but
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73183
we did not actually crosswalk the
specialty of registered dietician to the
‘‘All Physicians’’ PE/HR data as we had
intended according to the final policy.
Nevertheless, we are affirming for CY
2011 that the final resource-based PE
RVUs have been calculated in
accordance with the final policy
adopted in the CY 2010 PFS final rule
with comment period (74 FR 61752) for
registered dietician services that
crosswalks the specialty to the ‘‘All
Physicians’’ PE/HR data.
As provided in the CY 2010 PFS final
rule with comment period (74 FR
61751), CY 2011 is the second year of
the 4-year transition to the PE RVUs
calculated using the PPIS data.
Therefore, in general, the CY 2011 PE
RVUs are a 50/50 blend of the previous
PE RVUs based on the SMS and
supplemental survey data and the new
PE RVUS developed using the PPIS data
as described above. Note that the
reductions in the PE RVUs for expensive
diagnostic imaging equipment
attributable to the change to an
equipment utilization rate assumption
of 75 percent (see 74 FR 61753 through
61755 and section II.A.3. of this final
rule with comment period) are not
subject to the transition.
CMS’ longstanding policy in a PFS
transition payment year is that if the
CPT Editorial Panel creates a new code
for that year, the new code would be
paid at its fully implemented PFS
amount and not at a transition rate for
that year. Consistent with this policy, all
new CY 2011 CPT codes will not be
paid based on transitional PE RVUs in
CY 2011. Instead, we will pay these
services based on the fully implemented
PE RVUs in CY 2011. Additionally,
existing CPT codes for which the global
period has changed in CY 2011 will not
be subject to the PPIS PE RVU
transition. We believe that changing the
global period of a code results in the
CPT code describing a different service
to which the previous PE RVUs would
no longer be relevant when the code is
reported for a service furnished in CY
2011. The five CY 2011 existing CPT
codes with global period changes from
CY 2010 to CY 2011 are: 11043
(Debridement, muscle, and/or fascia
(includes epidermis, dermis, and
subcutaneous tissue, if performed); first
20 sq cm or less); 11044 (Debridement,
bone (includes epidermis, dermis,
subcutaneous tissue, muscle and/or
fascia, if performed); first 20 sq cm or
less); 57155 (Insertion of uterine
tandems and/or vaginal ovoids for
clinical brachytherapy); 97597
(Debridement (e.g., high pressure
waterjet with/without suction, sharp
selective debridement with scissors,
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73184
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
scalpel and forceps), open wound, (e.g.,
fibrin, devitalized epidermis and/or
dermis, exudate, debris, biofilm),
including topical application(s), wound
assessment, use of a whirlpool, when
performed and instruction(s) for
ongoing care, per session, total
wound(s) surface area; first 20 square
centimeters or less); and 97598
(Debridement (e.g., high pressure
waterjet with/without suction, sharp
selective debridement with scissors,
scalpel and forceps), open wound, (e.g.,
fibrin, devitalized epidermis and/or
dermis, exudate, debris, biofilm),
including topical application(s), wound
assessment, use of a whirlpool, when
performed and instructions(s) for
ongoing care, per session, total
wound(s) surface area; each additional
20 square centimeters, or part thereof
(List separately in addition to code for
primary procedure)).
c. Allocation of PE to Services
To establish PE RVUs for specific
services, it is necessary to establish the
direct and indirect PE associated with
each service.
(i) Direct costs. The relative
relationship between the direct cost
portions of the PE RVUs for any two
services is determined by the relative
relationship between the sum of the
direct cost resources (that is, the clinical
staff, equipment, and supplies) typically
required to provide the services. The
costs of these resources are calculated
from the refined direct PE inputs in our
PE database. For example, if one service
has a direct cost sum of $400 from our
PE database and another service has a
direct cost sum of $200, the direct
portion of the PE RVUs of the first
service would be twice as much as the
direct portion of the PE RVUs for the
second service.
(ii) Indirect costs. Section II.A.2.b. of
this final rule with comment period
describes the current data sources for
specialty-specific indirect costs used in
our PE calculations. We allocate the
indirect costs to the code level on the
basis of the direct costs specifically
associated with a code and the greater
of either the clinical labor costs or the
physician work RVUs. We also
incorporate the survey data described
earlier in the PE/HR discussion. The
general approach to developing the
indirect portion of the PE RVUs is
described below.
• For a given service, we use the
direct portion of the PE RVUs calculated
as described above and the average
percentage that direct costs represent of
total costs (based on survey data) across
the specialties that perform the service
to determine an initial indirect
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
allocator. For example, if the direct
portion of the PE RVUs for a given
service were 2.00 and direct costs, on
average, represented 25 percent of total
costs for the specialties that performed
the service, the initial indirect allocator
would be 6.00 since 2.00 is 25 percent
of 8.00.
• We then add the greater of the work
RVUs or clinical labor portion of the
direct portion of the PE RVUs to this
initial indirect allocator. In our
example, if this service had work RVUs
of 4.00 and the clinical labor portion of
the direct PE RVUs was 1.50, we would
add 6.00 plus 4.00 (since the 4.00 work
RVUs are greater than the 1.50 clinical
labor portion) to get an indirect allocator
of 10.00. In the absence of any further
use of the survey data, the relative
relationship between the indirect cost
portions of the PE RVUs for any two
services would be determined by the
relative relationship between these
indirect cost allocators. For example, if
one service had an indirect cost
allocator of 10.00 and another service
had an indirect cost allocator of 5.00,
the indirect portion of the PE RVUs of
the first service would be twice as great
as the indirect portion of the PE RVUs
for the second service.
• We next incorporate the specialtyspecific indirect PE/HR data into the
calculation. As a relatively extreme
example for the sake of simplicity,
assume in our example above that,
based on the survey data, the average
indirect cost of the specialties
performing the first service with an
allocator of 10.00 was half of the average
indirect cost of the specialties
performing the second service with an
indirect allocator of 5.00. In this case,
the indirect portion of the PE RVUs of
the first service would be equal to that
of the second service.
d. Facility and Nonfacility Costs
For procedures that can be furnished
in a physician’s office, as well as in a
hospital or facility setting, we establish
two PE RVUs: Facility and nonfacility.
The methodology for calculating PE
RVUs is the same for both the facility
and nonfacility RVUs, but is applied
independently to yield two separate PE
RVUs. Because Medicare makes a
separate payment to the facility for its
costs of furnishing a service, the facility
PE RVUs are generally lower than the
nonfacility PE RVUs.
e. Services With Technical Components
(TCs) and Professional Components
(PCs)
Diagnostic services are generally
comprised of two components: A
professional component (PC) and a
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
technical component (TC), each of
which may be performed independently
or by different providers, or they may be
performed together as a ‘‘global’’ service.
When services have PC and TC
components that can be billed
separately, the payment for the global
component equals the sum of the
payment for the TC and PC. This is a
result of using a weighted average of the
ratio of indirect to direct costs across all
the specialties that furnish the global
components, TCs, and PCs; that is, we
apply the same weighted average
indirect percentage factor to allocate
indirect expenses to the global
components, PCs, and TCs for a service.
(The direct PE RVUs for the TC and PC
sum to the global under the bottom-up
methodology.)
f. Alternative Data Sources and Public
Comments on Final Rule for 2010
In the CY 2010 PFS final rule with
comment period (74 FR 61749 through
61750), we discussed the Medicare
Payment Advisory Commission’s
(MedPAC’s) comment that in the future,
‘‘CMS should consider alternatives to
collecting specialty-specific cost data or
options to decrease the reliance on such
data.’’ We agreed with MedPAC that it
would be appropriate to consider the
future of the PE RVUs moving forward.
We sought comments from other
stakeholders on the issues raised by
MedPAC for the future. In particular, we
requested public comments regarding
MedPAC’s suggestion that we consider
alternatives for collecting specialtyspecific cost data or options to decrease
the reliance on such data. We noted
MedPAC’s comment that, ‘‘CMS should
consider if Medicare or provider groups
should sponsor future data collection
efforts, if participation should be
voluntary (such as surveys) or
mandatory (such as cost reports), and
whether a nationally representative
sample of practitioners would be
sufficient for either a survey or cost
reports.’’ MedPAC also stated that one
option for decreasing the reliance on
specialty-specific cost data would be the
elimination of the use of indirect PE/HR
data in the last step of establishing the
indirect cost portion of the PE RVUs as
described previously.
Almost all of the commenters on the
CY 2010 PFS final rule with comment
period that addressed this issue
expressed a general willingness to work
with CMS on methodological
improvements or future data collection
efforts. Although no commenters
detailed a comprehensive overall
alternative methodology, several
commenters did provide suggestions
regarding future data collection efforts
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
and specific aspects of the current
methodology.
The commenters on the CY 2010 PFS
final rule with comment period that
addressed the issue of surveys
supported the use of surveys if they
yielded accurate PE information. The
few commenters that addressed the
issue of cost reports were opposed to
physician cost reports. The commenters
varied with respect to their opinions
regarding whether data collection efforts
should be led by organized medicine,
individual specialty societies, or CMS.
Several commenters that addressed the
issue of voluntary versus mandatory
data collection efforts supported
voluntary data collection efforts and
opposed mandatory data collection
efforts.
Some commenters recommended no
changes to the methodology or PE data
in the near future. Other commenters
indicated that the methodology and data
changes needed to be made for CY 2011.
Although most commenters did not
directly address the use of the indirect
PE/HR data, those that did
predominately opposed the elimination
of the use of these data.
Many commenters addressed specifics
of the PE methodology (as further
described in section II.A.2.c. of this final
rule with comment period). Some were
opposed to the scaling factor applied in
the development of the direct PE
portion of the PE RVUs so that in the
aggregate the direct portion of the PE
RVUs do not exceed the proportion
indicated by the survey data (See Step
4 in g.(ii) below). Several of these
commenters advocated the elimination
of this direct scaling factor, while others
indicated that the issue should be
examined more closely.
A few commenters recommended that
physician work not be used as an
allocator in the development of the
indirect portion of the PE RVUs as
described earlier in this section. A few
indicated that physician time, but not
physician work, should be used in the
allocation. Other commenters suggested
that indirect costs should be allocated
solely on the basis of direct costs.
We note that many of the issues raised
by commenters on the CY 2010 PFS
final rule with comment period are
similar to issues raised in the
development of the original resourcebased PE methodology and in
subsequent revisions to the
methodology, including the adoption of
the bottom-up methodology. While we
did not propose a broad methodological
change or broad data collection effort in
the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule, we
invited comments on our summary of
the issues raised by the commenters on
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
the CY 2010 PFS final rule with
comment period, as discussed in the CY
2011 PFS proposed rule (75 FR 40050).
The complete public comments on the
CY 2010 PFS final rule with comment
period are available for public review at
https://www.regulations.gov by entering
‘‘CMS–1413–FC’’ in the search box on
the main page.
Comment: A number of commenters
believe the PPIS data are flawed and,
therefore, should not be used to set the
PE RVUs for all or certain categories of
PFS services. Other commenters
supported the adoption of the PPIS data
and, whether ultimately favoring the
adoption of the PPIS data or not, many
commenters stated that the 4-year
transition adopted by CMS is important
to physicians and Medicare
beneficiaries to ensure access to care.
The commenters explained that the
transition gives physician specialty
societies the opportunity to collect new
and more detailed data where
appropriate for refinement and CMS the
opportunity to more carefully analyze
the new data and its appropriateness.
Although once again the commenters
did not provide specific
recommendations on alternatives to a
comprehensive survey of practice
expenses or options to decrease the PFS
reliance on specialty-specific cost data,
the commenters offered the following
suggestions regarding future practice
expense data collection.
• Select a reputable company with
experience in health care market
research.
• Base changes on a comprehensive
data source with adequate participation
rates.
• Have data independently reviewed
in order to ensure accuracy.
• Make data publicly available in
time to allow for review and comment
by stakeholders.
Several commenters emphasized the
administrative complexity and burden if
CMS were to require all physicians to
submit cost reports. One commenter
supported a limited study of practice
costs estimated by cost reports to
determine if the current PE RVUs were
appropriately paying physicians for the
physician’s office costs of services. The
commenter believes that cost reports
would be more accurate than the PPIS
methodology. Finally, several
commenters indicated a willingness to
engage CMS in more detailed discussion
about potential refinements to the
current PE/HR data.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ recommendations
regarding factors we should consider in
developing future practice expense data
collection efforts in order to improve the
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73185
accuracy of the information. While we
are continuing the transition that was
adopted in the CY 2010 PFS final rule
with comment period (74 FR 61751)
under the CY 2011 PFS to full
implementation of the PPIS data for the
CY 2013 PFS PE RVUs, we continue to
remain interested in the thoughts of
stakeholders regarding the MedPAC
comment that ‘‘CMS should consider
alternatives to collecting specialtyspecific cost data or options to decrease
the reliance on such data.’’ More
specifically, we encourage stakeholders
to contact us at any time if they
encounter additional information to
share, develop further ideas or analyses
that could inform our ongoing
consideration of physicians’ practice
expenses, or otherwise would like to
discuss this topic further as part of an
open dialogue with us. While to date, no
stakeholders have presented a
comprehensive overall alternative
methodology, we remain interested in
potential novel or refined approaches.
We also continue to welcome more
limited suggestions for improvements to
our current PE methodology or future
practice expense information collection
activities.
g. PE RVU Methodology
For a more detailed description of the
PE RVU methodology, we refer readers
to the CY 2010 PFS final rule with
comment period with comment period
(74 FR 61745 through 61746).
(1) Setup File
First, we create a setup file for the PE
methodology. The setup file contains
the direct cost inputs, the utilization for
each procedure code at the specialty
and facility/nonfacility place of service
level, and the specialty-specific PE/HR
data from the surveys.
(2) Calculate the Direct Cost PE RVUs
Sum the costs of each direct input.
Step 1: Sum the direct costs of the
inputs for each service. Apply a scaling
adjustment to the direct inputs.
Step 2: Calculate the current aggregate
pool of direct PE costs. This is the
product of the current aggregate PE
(aggregate direct and indirect) RVUs, the
CF, and the average direct PE percentage
from the survey data.
Step 3: Calculate the aggregate pool of
direct costs. This is the sum of the
product of the direct costs for each
service from Step 1 and the utilization
data for that service.
Step 4: Using the results of Step 2 and
Step 3 calculate a direct PE scaling
adjustment so that the aggregate direct
cost pool does not exceed the current
aggregate direct cost pool and apply it
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73186
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
to the direct costs from Step 1 for each
service.
Step 5: Convert the results of Step 4
to an RVU scale for each service. To do
this, divide the results of Step 4 by the
CF. Note that the actual value of the CF
used in this calculation does not
influence the final direct cost PE RVUs,
as long as the same CF is used in Step
2 and Step 5. Different CFs will result
in different direct PE scaling factors, but
this has no effect on the final direct cost
PE RVUs since changes in the CFs and
changes in the associated direct scaling
factors offset one another.
(3) Create the Indirect Cost PE RVUs
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Create indirect allocators.
Step 6: Based on the survey data,
calculate direct and indirect PE
percentages for each physician
specialty.
Step 7: Calculate direct and indirect
PE percentages at the service level by
taking a weighted average of the results
of Step 6 for the specialties that furnish
the service. Note that for services with
TCs and PCs, the direct and indirect
percentages for a given service do not
vary by the PC, TC, and global
components.
Step 8: Calculate the service level
allocators for the indirect PEs based on
the percentages calculated in Step 7.
The indirect PEs are allocated based on
the three components: The direct PE
RVUs, the clinical PE RVUs, and the
work RVUs.
For most services the indirect
allocator is: Indirect percentage * (direct
PE RVUs/direct percentage) + work
RVUs.
There are two situations where this
formula is modified:
• If the service is a global service (that
is, a service with global, professional,
and technical components), then the
indirect allocator is: Indirect percentage
(direct PE RVUs/direct percentage) +
clinical PE RVUs + work RVUs.
• If the clinical labor PE RVUs exceed
the work RVUs (and the service is not
a global service), then the indirect
allocator is: Indirect percentage (direct
PE RVUs/direct percentage) + clinical
PE RVUs.
Note: For global services, the indirect
allocator is based on both the work RVUs and
the clinical labor PE RVUs. We do this to
recognize that, for the PC service, indirect
PEs will be allocated using the work RVUs,
and for the TC service, indirect PEs will be
allocated using the direct PE RVUs and the
clinical labor PE RVUs. This also allows the
global component RVUs to equal the sum of
the PC and TC RVUs.)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
For presentation purposes in the
examples in Table 2, the formulas were
divided into two parts for each service.
• The first part does not vary by
service and is the indirect percentage
(direct PE RVUs/direct percentage).
• The second part is either the work
RVUs, clinical PE RVUs, or both
depending on whether the service is a
global service and whether the clinical
PE RVUs exceed the work RVUs (as
described earlier in this step).
Apply a scaling adjustment to the
indirect allocators.
Step 9: Calculate the current aggregate
pool of indirect PE RVUs by multiplying
the current aggregate pool of PE RVUs
by the average indirect PE percentage
from the survey data.
Step 10: Calculate an aggregate pool of
indirect PE RVUs for all PFS services by
adding the product of the indirect PE
allocators for a service from Step 8 and
the utilization data for that service.
Step 11: Using the results of Step 9
and Step 10, calculate an indirect PE
adjustment so that the aggregate indirect
allocation does not exceed the available
aggregate indirect PE RVUs and apply it
to indirect allocators calculated in Step
8.
Calculate the indirect practice cost
index.
Step 12: Using the results of Step 11,
calculate aggregate pools of specialtyspecific adjusted indirect PE allocators
for all PFS services for a specialty by
adding the product of the adjusted
indirect PE allocator for each service
and the utilization data for that service.
Step 13: Using the specialty-specific
indirect PE/HR data, calculate specialtyspecific aggregate pools of indirect PE
for all PFS services for that specialty by
adding the product of the indirect PE/
HR for the specialty, the physician time
for the service, and the specialty’s
utilization for the service across all
services performed by the specialty.
Step 14: Using the results of Step 12
and Step 13, calculate the specialtyspecific indirect PE scaling factors.
Step 15: Using the results of Step 14,
calculate an indirect practice cost index
at the specialty level by dividing each
specialty-specific indirect scaling factor
by the average indirect scaling factor for
the entire PFS.
Step 16: Calculate the indirect
practice cost index at the service level
to ensure the capture of all indirect
costs. Calculate a weighted average of
the practice cost index values for the
specialties that furnish the service.
(Note: For services with TCs and PCs,
we calculate the indirect practice cost
index across the global components,
PCs, and TCs. Under this method, the
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
indirect practice cost index for a given
service (for example, echocardiogram)
does not vary by the PC, TC, and global
component.)
Step 17: Apply the service level
indirect practice cost index calculated
in Step 16 to the service level adjusted
indirect allocators calculated in Step 11
to get the indirect PE RVUs.
(4) Calculate the Final PE RVUs
Step 18: Add the direct PE RVUs from
Step 6 to the indirect PE RVUs from
Step 17 and apply the final PE budget
neutrality (BN) adjustment, MEI
rebasing adjustment, and multiple
procedure payment reduction (MPPR)
adjustment.
The final PE BN adjustment is
calculated by comparing the results of
Step 18 (prior to the MEI rebasing and
MPPR adjustments) to the current pool
of PE RVUs. This final BN adjustment
is required primarily because certain
specialties are excluded from the PE
RVU calculation for ratesetting
purposes, but all specialties are
included for purposes of calculating the
final BN adjustment. (See ‘‘Specialties
excluded from ratesetting calculation’’
below in this section.)
As discussed in section II.E.5. of this
final rule with comment period, we are
rebasing and revising the Medicare
Economic Index (MEI) for CY 2011. As
discussed in section II.C.4. of this final
rule with comment period, section
1848(c)(2)(K) of the Act (as added by
section 3134 of the ACA) specifies that
the Secretary shall identify potentially
misvalued codes by examining multiple
codes that are frequently billed in
conjunction with furnishing a single
service. There is inherent duplication in
the PE associated with those services
which are frequently furnished together,
so reducing PFS payment for the second
and subsequent services to account for
the efficiencies in multiple service
sessions may be appropriate. Consistent
with this provision of the ACA, we are
adopting a limited expansion of the
current MPPR policy for imaging
services for CY 2011 and a new MPPR
policy for therapy services.
(5) Setup File Information
• Specialties excluded from
ratesetting calculation: For the purposes
of calculating the PE RVUs, we exclude
certain specialties, such as certain
nonphysician practitioners paid at a
percentage of the PFS and low-volume
specialties, from the calculation. These
specialties are included for the purposes
of calculating the BN adjustment. They
are displayed in Table 1.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
73187
TABLE 1—SPECIALTIES EXCLUDED FROM RATESETTING CALCULATION
Specialty code
42
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
Specialty description
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
60 ....................................................................................................................
61 ....................................................................................................................
73 ....................................................................................................................
74 ....................................................................................................................
87 ....................................................................................................................
88 ....................................................................................................................
89 ....................................................................................................................
95 ....................................................................................................................
96 ....................................................................................................................
A0 ....................................................................................................................
A1 ....................................................................................................................
A2 ....................................................................................................................
A3 ....................................................................................................................
A4 ....................................................................................................................
A5 ....................................................................................................................
A6 ....................................................................................................................
A7 ....................................................................................................................
1 ......................................................................................................................
2 ......................................................................................................................
3 ......................................................................................................................
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
• Crosswalk certain low volume
physician specialties: Crosswalk the
utilization of certain specialties with
relatively low PFS utilization to the
associated specialties.
• Physical therapy utilization:
Crosswalk the utilization associated
with all physical therapy services to the
specialty of physical therapy.
• Identify professional and technical
services not identified under the usual
TC and 26 modifiers: Flag the services
that are PC and TC services, but do not
use TC and 26 modifiers (for example,
electrocardiograms). This flag associates
the PC and TC with the associated
global code for use in creating the
indirect PE RVUs. For example, the
professional service, CPT code 93010
(Electrocardiogram, routine ECG with at
least 12 leads; interpretation and report
only), is associated with the global
service, CPT code 93000
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
Certified nurse midwife.
Ambulatory surgical center.
Nurse practitioner.
Medical supply company with certified orthotist.
Medical supply company with certified prosthetist.
Medical supply company with certified prosthetist-orthotist.
Medical supply company not included in 51, 52, or 53.
Individual certified orthotist.
Individual certified prosthestist.
Individual certified prosthetist-orthotist.
Individuals not included in 55, 56, or 57.
Ambulance service supplier, e.g., private ambulance companies,
funeral homes, etc.
Public health or welfare agencies.
Voluntary health or charitable agencies.
Mass immunization roster biller.
Radiation therapy centers.
All other suppliers (e.g., drug and department stores).
Unknown supplier/provider specialty.
Certified clinical nurse specialist.
Competitive Acquisition Program (CAP) Vendor.
Optician.
Hospital.
SNF.
Intermediate care nursing facility.
Nursing facility, other.
HHA.
Pharmacy.
Medical supply company with respiratory therapist.
Department store.
Supplier of oxygen and/or oxygen related equipment.
Pedorthic personnel.
Medical supply company with pedorthic personnel.
(Electrocardiogram, routine ECG with at
least 12 leads; with interpretation and
report).
• Payment modifiers: Payment
modifiers are accounted for in the
creation of the file. For example,
services billed with the assistant at
surgery modifier are paid 16 percent of
the PFS amount for that service;
therefore, the utilization file is modified
to only account for 16 percent of any
service that contains the assistant at
surgery modifier.
• Work RVUs: The setup file contains
the work RVUs from this final rule with
comment period.
rate) ∧ life of equipment)))) +
maintenance)
(6) Equipment Cost Per Minute
Where:
minutes per year = maximum minutes per
year if usage were continuous (that is,
usage = 1); generally 150,000 minutes.
usage = equipment utilization assumption;
0.75 for certain expensive diagnostic
imaging equipment (see 74 FR 61753
through 61755 and section II.A.3. of this
final rule with comment period) and 0.5
for others.
price = price of the particular piece of
equipment.
interest rate = 0.11.
life of equipment = useful life of the
particular piece of equipment.
maintenance = factor for maintenance; 0.05.
The equipment cost per minute is
calculated as:
(1/(minutes per year * usage)) * price *
((interest rate/(1¥(1/((1 + interest
Note: The use of any particular conversion
factor (CF) in Table 2 to illustrate the PE
calculation has no effect on the resulting
RVUs.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Labor cost (lab) .........................................
Supply cost (sup) ......................................
Equipment cost (eqp) ................................
Direct cost (dir) ..........................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
= Adj ind alloc *
IPCI.
PFS ......................
PFS ......................
=(Adj dir + Adj ind)
* budn * MEI adj
* MPPR adj.
See footnote**
=Ind alloc * ind adj
See Steps 12–16
...............................
See Step 8 ...........
...............................
...............................
PFS ......................
Surveys ................
Surveys ................
See Step 8 ...........
PFS ......................
=(Lab * Dir adj)/CF
=(Sup * Dir adj)/CF
=(Eqp * Dir adj)/CF
...............................
See footnote* .......
=Lab * Dir adj .......
=Sup * Dir adj .......
=Eqp * Dir adj .......
...............................
AMA ......................
AMA ......................
AMA ......................
...............................
Source
....................
....................
=((14) +
(26)) *
budn *
(27) * (28).
=(24) * (25)
See (18) .....
....................
See (20) .....
=(19) + (21)
....................
....................
....................
=(1) + (2) +
(3).
....................
=(1)*(5) .......
=(2)*(5) .......
=(3)*(5) .......
=(6) + (7) +
(8).
....................
=(6)/(10) .....
=(7)/(10) .....
=(8)/(10) .....
=(11) + (12)
+ (13).
....................
....................
....................
....................
Formula
Note:
PE RVUs in Table 2, row 29, may not match the values in Addendum B due to rounding.
* The direct adj = [current pe rvus * CF * avg dir pct]/[sum direct inputs] = [Step 2]/[Step 3].
** The indirect adj = [current pe rvus * avg ind pct]/[sum of ind allocators] = [Step 9]/[Step 10].
Step 18 .......
Step 18 .......
Step 18 .......
.........
.........
.........
.........
(27) MEI rebasing adjustment ........................
(28) MPPR adjustments .................................
(29) PE RVU ...................................................
8
8
8
8
Step 17 .......
Step
Step
Step
Step
(26) Adjusted indirect ......................................
Ind alloc (1st part) ...................................
Ind alloc formulas (2nd part) ...................
Ind alloc (2nd part) ..................................
Indirect allocator (1st + 2nd) ...................
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
Setup File ...
Steps 6,7 ....
Steps 6,7 ....
Step 8 .........
5
5
5
5
5
Steps 9–11
Steps 9–11
Steps 12–16
Work RVUs .............................................
Dir pct ......................................................
Ind pct .....................................................
Ind alloc formula (1st part) ......................
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
Step
Step
Step
Step
Step
...
...
...
...
...
.........
.........
.........
.........
2–4
2–4
2–4
2–4
2–4
1
1
1
1
Steps
Steps
Steps
Steps
Steps
Step
Step
Step
Step
Step
1.18
1.01
1.06
0.67
0.37
0.60
1.11
0.97
0.26
0.74
((14)/(16))*
(17)
0.65
(15)
0.97
1.62
36.87
0.18
0.04
0.00
0.22
0.50
6.68
1.50
0.10
8.27
13.32
2.98
0.19
16.50
99213
Office visit,
est Nonfacility
1.18
1.01
15.68
12.04
0.37
14.47
0.83
33.75
0.18
0.82
((14)/(16))*
(17)
5.29
(15)
33.75
39.04
36.87
1.05
0.10
0.01
1.16
0.50
38.87
3.68
0.33
42.87
77.52
7.34
0.65
85.51
33533
CABG, arterial, single
facility
1.18
1.01
0.63
0.29
0.37
0.33
0.90
0.22
0.29
0.71
((14)/(16))*
(17)
0.58
(15) + (11)
0.30
0.88
36.87
0.08
0.05
0.11
0.24
0.50
2.88
1.70
4.10
8.68
5.74
3.39
8.17
17.31
71020
Chest x-ray
Nonfacility
1.18
1.01
0.54
0.22
0.37
0.24
0.90
0.00
0.29
0.71
((14)/(16))*
(17)
0.58
(11)
0.08
0.66
36.87
0.08
0.05
0.11
0.24
0.50
2.88
1.70
4.10
8.68
5.74
3.39
8.17
17.31
71020–TC
Chest x-ray
Nonfacility
1.18
1.01
0.09
0.07
0.37
0.08
0.90
0.22
0.29
0.71
((14)/(16))*
(17)
0.00
(15)
0.22
0.22
36.87
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
71020–26
Chest x-ray
Nonfacility
TABLE 2—CALCULATION OF PE RVUS UNDER METHODOLOGY FOR SELECTED CODES
(23) Indirect adjustment (ind adj) ....................
(24) Adjusted indirect allocator .......................
(25) Ind. practice cost index (IPCI) .................
Conversion factor (CF) ............................
Adj labor cost converted .........................
Adj supply cost converted .......................
Adj equipment cost converted ................
Adj. direct cost converted .......................
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
Direct adjustment (dir adj) .........................
Adjusted labor ...........................................
Adjusted supplies ......................................
Adjusted equipment ..................................
Adjusted direct ..........................................
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
1.18
1.01
0.32
0.17
0.37
0.19
0.92
0.17
0.29
0.71
((14)/(16))*
(17)
0.25
(15) + (11)
0.25
0.50
36.87
0.08
0.02
0.00
0.10
0.50
3.07
0.60
0.06
3.73
6.12
1.19
0.12
7.43
93000
ECG, complete Nonfacility
1.18
1.01
0.25
0.11
0.37
0.12
0.92
0.00
0.29
0.71
((14)/(16))*
(17)
0.25
(11)
0.08
0.33
36.87
0.08
0.02
0.00
0.10
0.50
3.07
0.60
0.06
3.73
6.12
1.19
0.12
7.43
93005
ECG, tracing Nonfacility
1.18
1.01
0.07
0.06
0.37
0.06
0.92
0.17
0.29
0.71
((14)/(16))*
(17)
0.00
(15)
0.17
0.17
36.87
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
93010
ECG, report
Nonfacility
73188
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
3. PE Revisions for CY 2011
a. Equipment Utilization Rate
As part of the PE methodology
associated with the allocation of
equipment costs for calculating PE
RVUs, we currently use an equipment
utilization rate assumption of 50 percent
for most equipment, with the exception
of expensive diagnostic imaging
equipment (which is equipment priced
at over $1 million, for example,
computed tomography (CT) and
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
scanners), for which we adopted a 90
percent utilization rate assumption and
provided for a 4-year transition
beginning in CY 2010 (74 FR 61755).
Therefore, CY 2010 is the first
transitional payment year. Payment is
made in CY 2010 for the diagnostic
services listed in Table 3 (those that
include expensive diagnostic imaging
equipment in their PE inputs) of the CY
2011 PFS proposed rule (75 FR 40054)
based on 25 percent of the new PE RVUs
and 75 percent of the prior PE RVUs for
those services.
Section 1848(b)(4)(C) of the Act (as
added by section 3135(a) of the ACA)
requires that with respect to fee
schedules established for CY 2011 and
subsequent years, in the methodology
for determining PE RVUs for expensive
diagnostic imaging equipment under the
CY 2010 PFS final rule with comment
period, the Secretary shall use a
75 percent assumption instead of the
utilization rates otherwise established in
that rule. The provision also requires
that the reduced expenditures
attributable to this change in the
utilization rate for CY 2011 and
subsequent years shall not be taken into
account when applying the budget
neutrality limitation on annual
adjustments described in section
1848(c)(2)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act.
As a result, the 75 percent equipment
utilization rate assumption will be
applied to expensive diagnostic imaging
equipment in a non-budget neutral
manner for CY 2011, and the resulting
changes to PE RVUs will not be
transitioned over a period of years. We
will apply the 75 percent utilization rate
assumption in CY 2011 to all of the
services to which we currently apply
the transitional 90 percent equipment
utilization rate assumption in CY 2010.
These services are listed in a file on the
CMS Web site that is posted under
downloads for the CY 2010 PFS final
rule with comment period at https://
www.cms.gov/physicianfeesched/
downloads/CODES_SUBJECT_TO_
90PCT_USAGE_RATE.zip. These codes
are also displayed in Table 3 at the end
of this section.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
Comment: Several commenters argued
that the 75 percent utilization rate
assumption should not be applied
because of the imprecise data on which
the policy was based. The commenters
explained that based on an independent
survey, actual equipment utilization
rates are close to 50 percent. In addition,
the commenters postulated that rural
imaging centers would be adversely
affected by the change due to lower
equipment utilization rates than nonrural centers. The commenters
requested that CMS base equipment
utilization rate assumptions on actual
utilization data rather than assumptions.
Several other commenters supported
the implementation of the 75 percent
utilization rate assumption, and
MedPAC recommended that CMS
explore increasing the equipment
utilization rate assumption for
diagnostic imaging equipment that costs
less than $1 million. Finally, several
commenters clarified that certain
procedures were not subject to the
provision, including nuclear cardiology
services and therapeutic interventional
radiology.
Response: Section 1848(b)(4)(C) of the
Act (as added by section 3135(a) of the
ACA) requires that with respect to fee
schedules established for CY 2011 and
subsequent years, in the methodology
for determining PE RVUs for expensive
diagnostic imaging equipment under the
CY 2010 PFS final rule with comment
period, the Secretary shall use a
75 percent assumption instead of the
utilization rates otherwise established in
that rule. We acknowledge that further
data regarding actual equipment
utilization in the physician’s office
setting may be informative, but our use
of such data to set the equipment
utilization rate assumption for
expensive diagnostic imaging
equipment at a value other than
75 percent would require a statutory
change.
We did not propose to expand the
75 percent equipment utilization rate
assumption for CY 2011 to other
procedures beyond those that use CT
and MRI scanners as listed in Table 4 of
the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule (75 FR
40055) and Table 3 at the end of this
section. Any future changes in
equipment utilization rate assumptions,
including any expansion of the
75 percent equipment utilization rate
assumption to additional expensive
diagnostic imaging equipment, would
be made through the annual PFS notice
and comment rulemaking cycle.
Furthermore, any changes in equipment
utilization rate assumptions for less
costly diagnostic imaging equipment
(less than $1 million) or for therapeutic
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73189
imaging or other equipment would not
be subject to the statutory provision that
specifies a 75 percent assumption. We
note that we are constantly reassessing
our methodology for developing the PE
RVUs and would propose any changes
to the equipment utilization rate
assumptions for these types of
equipment through the annual PFS
rulemaking cycle if we determine such
changes could be appropriate.
After consideration of the public
comments we received, we are
finalizing our CY 2011 proposal without
modification. The 75 percent equipment
utilization rate assumption will be
applied to expensive diagnostic imaging
equipment in a non-budget neutral
manner for CY 2011, and the changes to
the PE RVUs will not be transitioned
over a period of years. We will apply the
75 percent utilization rate assumption
in CY 2011 to all of the services to
which we currently apply the
transitional 90 percent utilization rate
assumption in CY 2010. The CY 2011
codes are displayed in Table 3 at the
end of this section that lists all the
codes to which the 75 percent
equipment utilization rate assumption
applies for CY 2011. In addition, the
codes subject to this policy are posted
under the downloads for the CY 2011
PFS final rule with comment period on
the CMS Web site at https://
www.cms.gov/PhysicianFeeSched/
PFSFRN/list.asp#TopOfPage.
Additionally, for CY 2011, we
proposed to expand the list of services
to which the higher equipment
utilization rate assumption applies to
include all other diagnostic imaging
services that utilize similar expensive
CT and MRI scanners. The additional 24
CPT codes (listed in Table 4 of the CY
2011 PFS proposed rule (75 FR 40055))
to which we proposed to apply the 75
percent equipment utilization rate
assumption also have expensive
diagnostic imaging equipment (priced at
over $1 million) included in their PE
inputs. These services are
predominantly diagnostic computed
tomographic angiography (CTA) and
magnetic resonance angiography (MRA)
procedures that include similar
expensive CT and MRI scanners in their
direct PE inputs. We indicated in the CY
2010 PFS final rule with comment
period (74 FR 61754) that we were
persuaded by PPIS data on angiography
that the extrapolation of MRI and CT
data (and their higher equipment
utilization rate) may be inappropriate.
However, this reference was limited to
those procedures that include an
angiography room in the direct PE
inputs, such as CPT code 93510 (Left
heart catheterization, retrograde, from
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73190
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
the brachial artery, axillary artery or
femoral artery; percutaneous). In
contrast, CTA and MRA procedures
include a CT room or MRI room,
respectively, in the direct PE inputs,
and the PPIS data confirm that a higher
assumed utilization rate than 50 percent
would be appropriate. The PPIS
angiography room data that reflected a
56 percent equipment utilization rate
would not specifically apply to CTA
and MRA procedures. Thus, on further
review, we believe it is appropriate to
include CTA and MRA procedures in
the list of procedures for which we
assume a 75 percent equipment
utilization rate, and we proposed to do
so beginning in CY 2011.
Consistent with section
1848(c)(2)(B)(v)(III) of the Act (as
amended by section 3135 of the ACA),
the reduced expenditures attributable to
this change in the utilization rate
assumption applicable to CY 2011 shall
not be taken into account when
applying the budget neutrality
limitation on annual adjustments
described in section 1848(c)(2)(B)(ii)(II)
of the Act.
As provided in the CY 2010 PFS final
rule with comment period (74 FR
61751), CY 2011 is the second year of
the 4-year transition to the PE RVUs
calculated using the PPIS data. We note
that the reductions in the PE RVUs for
expensive diagnostic imaging
equipment attributable to the change to
an equipment utilization rate
assumption of 75 percent for CY 2011
are not subject to the transition.
Comment: Several commenters urged
CMS not to finalize the proposed
expansion of the list of procedures to
which the 75 percent equipment
utilization rate assumption would
apply, pending further evaluation of
equipment utilization data. While
noting the statutory requirement of
section 1848(b)(4)(C) of the Act (as
added by section 3135(a) of the ACA),
the commenters believe that CMS is not
required to add additional services to
the policy for CY 2011. Other
commenters, including MedPAC,
supported the proposed increase in the
equipment utilization rate assumption
from 50 percent to 75 percent for the 24
additional services that use diagnostic
imaging equipment priced at over $1
million.
Response: No commenters presented a
rationale for not including the proposed
24 additional services to the 75 percent
equipment utilization rate assumption,
when the proposed additions use the
same diagnostic CT or MRI imaging
equipment as the current codes to
which the policy applies. We note that
the 90 percent equipment utilization
rate assumption that we finalized in the
CY 2010 PFS final rule with comment
period (74 FR 61755) applies to CT and
MRI scanners when used as diagnostic
imaging equipment, one of these two
pieces of equipment is listed as a direct
PE input for the proposed MRA and
CTA services, and no commenters
recommended that we remove the CT or
MRI equipment inputs from the
additional codes. Therefore, we
continue to believe that it is appropriate
to apply the 75 percent equipment
utilization rate assumption beginning in
CY 2011 to MRA and CTA procedures,
as we proposed.
After consideration of the public
comments we received, we are
finalizing our CY 2011 proposal to
include CTA and MRA procedures in
the 75 percent equipment utilization
rate assumption policy because they
include expensive CT and MRI scanners
that cost more than $1 million as direct
PE inputs for these diagnostic imaging
procedures. We are modifying our
proposal, however, and will not include
CPT code 77079 (Computed
tomography, bone mineral density
study, 1 or more sites; appendicular
skeleton (peripheral) (e.g., radius, wrist,
heel)) because, upon further analysis for
this final rule with comment period, we
noted that the procedure does not
include a CT room in its direct PE
inputs.
For CY 2011, we are also adding to
the 75 percent equipment utilization
rate assumption policy three new CY
2011 CPT codes for diagnostic imaging
procedures that include a CT room in
their direct PE inputs, specifically CPT
codes 74176 (Computed tomography,
abdomen and pelvis; without contrast
material); 74177 (Computed
tomography, abdomen and pelvis; with
contrast material); and 74178
(Computed tomography, abdomen and
pelvis; without contrast material in one
or both body regions, followed by with
contrast material(s) and further sections
in one or both body regions). As new
codes for CY 2011, the work, PE, and
malpractice RVUs for these CPT codes
that are displayed in Addendum C to
this final rule with comment period are
interim final values that are open to
comment. Similarly, the assignment of
the 75 percent equipment utilization
rate assumption to these CPT codes,
which contributes to the development of
their PE RVUs, is being made on an
interim final basis. We refer readers to
section V.C. of this final rule with
comment period for further discussion
of the establishment of interim final
RVUs for CY 2011 new and revised
codes.
As a result of the CY 2011 changes,
the 75 percent equipment utilization
rate assumption will be applied to all
diagnostic imaging procedures with
nationally established rates under the
PFS in CY 2011 and which include a CT
or MRI scanner in their direct PE,
consistent with the statutory
requirement of section 1848(b)(4)(C) of
the Act (as added by section 3135(a) of
the ACA).
Consistent with section
1848(c)(2)(B)(v)(III) of the Act (as
amended by section 3135 of the ACA),
the reduced expenditures attributable to
the change in the utilization rate
assumption applicable to CY 2011 (from
the CY 2011 transitional rate for the 90
percent equipment utilization rate
assumption for expensive diagnostic
imaging equipment costing over $1
million (CT and MRI scanners) that
would have applied under the final
policy established in the CY 2010 PFS
final rule with comment period to the
75 percent rate required under section
1848(b)(4)(C) of the Act) shall not be
taken into account when applying the
budget neutrality limitation on annual
adjustments described in section
1848(c)(2)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act.
Table 3 below lists the codes to which
the 75 percent equipment utilization
rate assumption applies for CY 2011.
The codes subject to this policy are also
posted under the downloads for the CY
2011 PFS final rule with comment
period on the CMS Web site at https://
www.cms.gov/PhysicianFeeSched/
PFSFRN/list.asp#TopOfPage.
TABLE 3—FINAL CPT CODES SUBJECT TO 75 PERCENT EQUIPMENT UTILIZATION RATE ASSUMPTION IN CY 2011
CPT code
70336
70450
70460
70470
70480
Short descriptor
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
Mri, temporomandibular joint(s).
Ct head/brain w/o dye.
Ct head/brain w/dye.
Ct head/brain w/o & w/dye.
Ct orbit/ear/fossa w/o dye.
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
73191
TABLE 3—FINAL CPT CODES SUBJECT TO 75 PERCENT EQUIPMENT UTILIZATION RATE ASSUMPTION IN CY 2011—
Continued
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
CPT code
70481
70482
70486
70487
70488
70490
70491
70492
70496
70498
70540
70542
70543
70544
70545
70546
70547
70548
70549
70551
70552
70553
70554
71250
71260
71270
71275
71550
71551
71552
71555
72125
72126
72127
72128
72129
72130
72131
72132
72133
72141
72142
72146
72147
72148
72149
72156
72157
72158
72159
72191
72192
72193
72194
72195
72196
72197
72198
73200
73201
73202
73206
73218
73219
73220
73221
73222
73223
73225
73700
73701
Short descriptor
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
Ct orbit/ear/fossa w/dye.
Ct orbit/ear/fossa w/o & w/dye.
Ct maxillofacial w/o dye.
Ct maxillofacial w/dye.
Ct maxillofacial w/o & w/dye.
Ct soft tissue neck w/o dye.
Ct soft tissue neck w/dye.
Ct soft tissue neck w/o & w/dye.
Ct angiography, head.
Ct angiography, neck.
Mri orbit/face/neck w/o dye.
Mri orbit/face/neck w/dye.
Mri orbit/face/neck w/o & w/dye.
Mri angiography head w/o dye.
Mri angiography head w/dye.
Mri angiography head w/o & w/dye.
Mri angiography neck w/o dye.
Mri angiography neck w/dye.
Mri angiography neck w/o & w/dye.
Mri brain w/o dye.
Mri brain w/dye.
Mri brain w/o & w/dye.
Fmri brain by tech.
Ct thorax w/o dye.
Ct thorax w/dye.
Ct thorax w/o & w/dye.
Ct angiography, chest.
Mri chest w/o dye.
Mri chest w/dye.
Mri chest w/o & w/dye.
Mri angio chest w/or w/o dye.
CT neck spine w/o dye.
Ct neck spine w/dye.
Ct neck spine w/o & w/dye.
Ct chest spine w/o dye.
Ct chest spine w/dye.
Ct chest spine w/o & w/dye.
Ct lumbar spine w/o dye.
Ct lumbar spine w/dye.
Ct lumbar spine w/o & w/dye.
Mri neck spine w/o dye.
Mri neck spine w/dye.
Mri chest spine w/o dye.
Mri chest spine w/dye.
Mri lumbar spine w/o dye.
Mri lumbar spine w/dye.
Mri neck spine w/o & w/dye.
Mri chest spine w/o & w/dye.
Mri lumbar spine w/o & w/dye.
Mri angio spine w/o & w/dye.
Ct angiography, pelv w/o & w/dye.
Ct pelvis w/o dye.
Ct pelvis w/dye.
Ct pelvis w/o & w/dye.
Mri pelvis w/o dye.
Mri pelvis w/dye.
Mri pelvis w/o &w/dye.
Mri angio pelvis w/or w/o dye.
Ct upper extremity w/o dye.
Ct upper extremity w/dye.
Ct upper extremity w/o & w/dye.
Ct angio upper extr w/o & w/dye.
Mri upper extr w/o dye.
Mri upper extr w/dye.
Mri upper extremity w/o & w/dye.
Mri joint upper extr w/o dye.
Mri joint upper extr w/dye.
Mri joint upper extr w/o & w/dye.
Mri angio upr extr w/o & w/dye.
Ct lower extremity w/o dye.
Ct lower extremity w/dye.
29NOR2
73192
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 3—FINAL CPT CODES SUBJECT TO 75 PERCENT EQUIPMENT UTILIZATION RATE ASSUMPTION IN CY 2011—
Continued
CPT code
73702
73706
73718
73719
73720
73721
73722
73723
73725
74150
74160
74170
74175
74176
74177
74178
74181
74182
74183
74185
74261
74262
75557
75559
75561
75563
75565
75571
75572
75573
75574
75635
76380
77058
77059
77078
77084
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
b. HCPCS Code-Specific PE Issues
In this section, we discuss other
specific CY 2011 proposals and changes
related to direct PE inputs. The changes
that follow were proposed in the CY
2011 PFS proposed rule and included in
the proposed CY 2011 direct PE
database, which is available on the CMS
Web site under the downloads for the
CY 2011 PFS proposed rule at https://
www.cms.gov/PhysicianFeeSched/. The
final direct PE database for CY 2011 is
available under the downloads for the
CY 2011 PFS final rule with comment
period at the same location.
(1) Biohazard Bags
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Short descriptor
We identified 22 codes for which the
supply item ‘‘biohazard bag’’ (SM004) is
currently considered a direct PE input.
The item is already properly accounted
for in the indirect PE because it is not
attributable to an individual patient
service. Therefore, we proposed to
remove the biohazard bag from the CY
2011 direct PE database and noted that
the changes in direct PE inputs for the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
associated services were reflected in the
proposed CY 2011 direct PE database.
We did not receive any public
comments on our proposal to remove
biohazard bags as a supply input.
Therefore, we are finalizing our CY 2011
proposal to remove the supply item as
a direct PE input for the associated
services. This change is reflected in the
final CY 2011 direct PE database.
(2) PE Inputs for Professional
Component (PC) Only and Technical
Component (TC) Only Codes Summing
to Global Only Codes
In the case of certain diagnostic tests,
different but related CPT codes are used
to describe global, professional, and
technical components of a service.
These codes are unlike the majority of
other diagnostic test CPT codes where
modifiers may be used in billing a single
CPT code in order to differentiate
professional and technical components.
When different but related CPT codes
are used to report the components of
these services, the different CPT codes
are referred to as ‘‘global only,’’
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Ct lower extremity w/o & w/dye.
Ct angio lower extr w/o & w/dye.
Mri lower extremity w/o dye.
Mri lower extremity w/dye.
Mri lower extr w/& w/o dye.
Mri joint of lwr extre w/o dye.
Mri joint of lwr extr w/dye.
Mri joint of lwr extr w/o & w/dye.
Mri angio lower extr w or w/o dye.
Ct abdomen w/o dye.
Ct abdomen w/dye.
Ct abdomen w/o & w/dye.
Ct angio abdom w/o & w/dye.
Ct abd & pelvis w/o contrast.
Ct abdomen & pelvis w/contrast.
Ct abd & pelv 1+ section/regns.
Mri abdomen w/o dye.
Mri abdomen w/dye.
Mri abdomen w/o and w/dye.
Mri angio, abdom w/or w/o dye.
Ct colonography, w/o dye.
Ct colonography, w/dye.
Cardiac mri for morph.
Cardiac mri w/stress img.
Cardiac mri for morph w/dye.
Cardiac mri w/stress img & dye.
Card mri vel flw map add-on.
Ct hrt w/o dye w/ca test.
Ct hrt w/3d image.
Ct hrt w/3d image, congen.
Ct angio hrt w/3d image.
Ct angio abdominal arteries.
CAT scan follow up study.
Mri, one breast.
Mri, both breasts.
Ct bone density, axial.
Magnetic image, bone marrow.
‘‘professional component (PC) only,’’
and ‘‘technical component (TC) only’’
codes. Medicare payment systems are
programmed to ensure that the PE RVUs
for global only codes equal the sum of
the PE RVUs for the PC and TC only
codes. However, it came to our attention
that the direct PE inputs for certain
global only codes do not reflect the
appropriate summation of their related
TC only and PC only component code
PE inputs as they appear in the direct
PE database. While the PFS payment
calculations have been programmed to
apply the correct PE RVUs for the global
only code based on a summation of
component code PE RVUs, the direct PE
database has reflected incorrect inputs
that are overridden by the payment
system. Therefore, we proposed to
correct the direct PE inputs for the
global only codes so that the inputs
reflect the appropriate summing of the
PE inputs for the associated PC only and
TC only codes. The proposed CY 2011
direct PE database included PE
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
73193
corrections to the 14 CPT codes listed in
Table 4.
TABLE 4—GROUPS OF RELATED CPT CODES WITH PROPOSED CHANGES TO PE INPUTS SO THAT INPUTS FOR
PROFESSIONAL COMPONENT (PC) ONLY AND TECHNICAL COMPONENT (TC) ONLY CODES SUM TO GLOBAL ONLY CODES
CPT Code
Long descriptor
93224 ......................
Wearable electrocardiographic rhythm derived monitoring for 24 hours by continuous original waveform recording and
storage, with visual superimposition scanning; includes recording, scanning analysis with report, physician review and
interpretation.
Wearable electrocardiographic rhythm derived monitoring for 24 hours by continuous original waveform recording and
storage, with visual superimposition scanning; recording (includes connection, recording, disconnection).
Wearable electrocardiographic rhythm derived monitoring for 24 hours by continuous original waveform recording and
storage, with visual superimposition scanning; scanning analysis with report.
Wearable electrocardiographic rhythm derived monitoring for 24 hours by continuous original waveform recording and
storage without superimposition scanning utilizing a device capable of producing a full miniaturized printout; including
recording, microprocessor-based analysis with report, physician review and interpretation.
Wearable electrocardiographic rhythm derived monitoring for 24 hours by continuous original waveform recording and
storage without superimposition scanning utilizing a device capable of producing a full miniaturized printout; recording
(includes connection, recording, and disconnection).
Wearable electrocardiographic rhythm derived monitoring for 24 hours by continuous original waveform recording and
storage without superimposition scanning utilizing a device capable of producing a full miniaturized printout; microprocessor-based analysis with report.
Wearable patient activated electrocardiographic rhythm derived event recording with presymptom memory loop, 24-hour
attended monitoring, per 30 day period of time; includes transmission, physician review and interpretation.
Wearable patient activated electrocardiographic rhythm derived event recording with presymptom memory loop, 24-hour
attended monitoring, per 30 day period of time; recording (includes connection, recording, and disconnection).
Wearable patient activated electrocardiographic rhythm derived event recording with presymptom memory loop, 24-hour
attended monitoring, per 30 day period of time; monitoring, receipt of transmissions, and analysis.
Plethysmography, total body; with interpretation and report.
Plethysmography, total body; tracing only, without interpretation and report.
Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, utilizing a system such as magnetic tape and/or computer disk, for 24 hours or
longer; including recording, scanning analysis, interpretation and report.
Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, utilizing a system such as magnetic tape and/or computer disk, for 24 hours or
longer; recording only.
Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, utilizing a system such as magnetic tape and/or computer disk, for 24 hours or
longer; scanning analysis with report.
93225 ......................
93226 ......................
93230 ......................
93231 ......................
93232 ......................
93268 ......................
93270 ......................
93271 ......................
93720 ......................
93721 ......................
93784 ......................
93786 ......................
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
93788 ......................
Comment: A number of commenters
expressed support for CMS’ proposal to
ensure that the direct PE inputs for
certain global only codes reflect the
appropriate summation of their related
TC only and PC only component code
PE inputs as they appear in the direct
PE database. One commenter questioned
why the prior clinical labor time for the
global only codes in the PE database did
not match the direct PE inputs that must
have been used in CY 2010 to generate
the PE RVUs, given that the PE RVUs for
the global only codes were the sum of
the PE RVUs for the component codes.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ support for the proposal,
and we are finalizing our correction of
the direct PE inputs for the global only
codes so that the inputs reflect the
appropriate summing of the PE inputs
for the associated PC only and TC only
codes. In response to the commenter
who questioned why prior clinical labor
time for the global only codes in the PE
database did not match the direct PE
inputs that must have been used to
generate the PE RVUs for payment, we
note that Medicare payment systems are
programmed to ensure that the PE RVUs
for global only codes equal the sum of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
the PE RVUs for the PC and TC only
codes. Therefore, rather than relying
upon the direct PE inputs for the global
only codes to determine the PE RVUs,
which would have not resulted in
values that equaled the summation of
the component code PE RUVs, our PFS
system was programmed so that the PE
RVUs for the global only codes were set
as the sum of the PE RVUS for the
component codes. We expect the
corrections to the inputs as incorporated
in the direct PE database to alleviate any
confusion caused by the prior inclusion
of inputs associated with the global only
codes that were not actually used to
generate the PE RVUs.
After consideration of the public
comments we received, we are
finalizing our CY 2011 proposal to
correct the direct PE inputs for the
global only codes so that the inputs
reflect the appropriate summing of the
PE inputs for the associated PC only and
TC only codes. The final CY 2011 direct
PE database includes PE corrections to
the 14 CPT codes listed in Table 4.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(3) Equipment Time Inputs for Certain
Diagnostic Tests
In the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule (75
FR 40056), we stated that we had
recently identified equipment time PE
inputs that we believed were incorrect
for four CPT codes associated with
certain diagnostic tests (each is
displayed in Table 4):
• CPT code 93225 is the TC only code
that includes the connection, recording,
and disconnection of the holter monitor
(CMS Equipment Code EQ127) used in
24-hour continuous
electrocardiographic rhythm derived
monitoring. The CY 2010 equipment
time input for the holter monitor is 42
minutes, which parallels the intraservice clinical labor input time for the
CPT code. However, we believed that
the equipment time should reflect the
24 hours of continuous monitoring in
which the device is used exclusively by
the patient. Therefore, we proposed to
change the monitor equipment time for
CPT code 93225 to 1440 minutes, the
number of minutes in 24 hours.
• CPT code 93226 is the TC only code
that includes the scanning analysis with
report. We believed that the number of
minutes the monitor (CMS Equipment
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73194
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Code EQ127) is used in this service
should parallel the intra-service clinical
labor input time of 52 minutes during
which the monitor is in use, instead of
the CY 2010 equipment time of 1440
minutes, because this code does not
represent 24 hours of device use.
Therefore, we proposed to change the
monitor equipment time for CPT code
93226 to 52 minutes.
• CPT 93224 is the global only code
that includes the connection, recording,
and disconnection of the monitor (CMS
Equipment Code EQ127) and the
scanning analysis with report, as well as
the physician review and interpretation.
We proposed direct PE inputs for CPT
code 93224 to include 1492 total
minutes of monitor time (which
represents the total monitor time we
proposed for CPT codes 93225 and
93226).
• CPT code 93788 is the TC only code
that describes the scanning analysis
with report for ambulatory blood
pressure monitoring. We believed that
the equipment time input for the blood
pressure monitor should parallel the 10
minutes of clinical labor input for the
CPT code since that is the time during
which the monitor is in use. In CY 2010,
the equipment time input for the
monitor is 1440 minutes, which is
appropriate only for CPT code 93786,
the code that describes the 24 hours of
ambulatory blood pressure monitoring
recording. Therefore, we proposed to
correct the equipment time input for the
ambulatory blood pressure monitor in
CPT code 93788 to 10 minutes.
• CPT code 93784 is the global only
code that includes the recording, the
scanning analysis with report, and the
physician interpretation and report for
ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.
We proposed to establish the direct PE
inputs for CPT code 93784 to include
1450 total minutes of time for the
ambulatory blood pressure monitor
(which represents the proposed total
amount of monitor time included in
CPT codes 93786 and 93788).
The proposed CY 2011 direct PE
database reflected these changes.
Comment: Several commenters
pointed out that the prior assignment of
the 1440 minutes of holter monitor
equipment time to CPT code 93226
stemmed from discussions between
CMS and provider groups that resulted
in PE policies initially implemented in
CY 2007 (72 FR 18910). The
commenters recommended that CMS
retain the 1440 minutes of holter
monitor equipment for CPT code 93326,
consistent with current policy, rather
than reassign the 1440 minutes of holter
monitor equipment time as proposed to
CPT code 93226.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
Response: We agree with the
commenters that it would be most
appropriate to maintain our established
policy for the equipment times
associated with CPT codes 93225 and
93226, based upon further description
of the direct practice expenses
experienced by the current providers
that typically furnish these services to
Medicare beneficiaries. Therefore, we
are not adopting the equipment time
changes that we proposed for CPT codes
93225 and 93226. However, we are
revising the direct PE inputs for CPT
code 93224, a global only code, to
include the total equipment time for the
holter monitor that is incorporated in
component codes CPT codes 93225 and
93226, as discussed in section
II.A.3.b.(2). of this final rule with
comment period. The PE inputs for CPT
code 93224 did not previously correctly
reflect the summation of the direct PE
inputs for the component codes.
Comment: One commenter supported
the proposed changes to the direct PE
inputs for CPT codes 93784 through
93788. However, the commenter was
confused about why 1440 minutes of
equipment time were assigned to CPT
code 93786, which the commenter
stated is used only for the technical
component of scanning the data rather
than recording the data.
Response: As we stated in our
proposal, we believe that the direct PE
inputs for CPT code 93786 are currently
correct because the code describes the
recording of the data. We believe that
the commenter may have inadvertently
referred to CPT code 93786 instead of
CPT code 93788, which is the technical
component code that describes the
scanning rather than the recording of
the data. We proposed to remove the
1440 minutes associated with the
scanning analysis from the inputs for
CPT code 93788, not CPT code 93786.
After consideration of the public
comments we received, we are
finalizing our CY 2011 proposals to
change the ambulatory blood pressure
monitor equipment times included as
direct PE inputs for CPT codes 938784
and 93788, while maintaining the
current equipment time direct PE input
for CPT code 93786. However, we are
not finalizing our proposals to change
the holter monitor equipment times
included as direct PE inputs for CPT
codes 93225 and 93226, but instead will
maintain the inputs for CPT codes
93225 and 93226 as they were for CY
2010. We are also revising the direct PE
inputs for CPT code 93224 to include
the total equipment time for the holter
monitor that is incorporated in CPT
codes 93225 and 93226. The equipment
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
times in the final CY 2011 direct PE
database reflect these decisions.
(4) Cobalt-57 Flood Source
Stakeholders requested that CMS
reevaluate the useful life of the Cobalt57 flood source (CMS Equipment Code
ER001), given their estimate of
approximately 271 days for the source’s
half-life. The CY 2010 useful life input
in the CY 2010 direct PE database for
the Cobalt-57 flood source is 5 years.
Using publicly available catalogs, we
found that the Cobalt-57 flood source is
marketed with a useful life of 2 years.
Therefore, we proposed to change the
useful life input from the current 5 years
to 2 years. The Cobalt-57 flood source
was included with the revised useful
life input for 96 HCPCS codes in the
proposed CY 2011 direct PE database.
Comment: One commenter supported
the proposal to change the useful life
input from 5 years to 2 years for the
Cobalt-57 flood source.
Response: We appreciate the
commenter’s support for our proposal.
After consideration of the public
comment we received, we are finalizing
our CY 2011 proposal to change the
useful life input in the direct PE
database for the Cobalt-57 flood source
from 5 years to 2 years. This change is
included in the final CY 2011 direct PE
database.
(5) Venom Immunotherapy
One stakeholder provided updated
price information for the venoms used
for the five venom immunology CPT
codes, specifically 95145 (Professional
services for the supervision of
preparation and provision of antigens
for allergen immunotherapy (specify
number of doses); single stinging insect
venom); 95146 (Professional services for
the supervision of preparation and
provision of antigens for allergen
immunotherapy (specify number of
doses); 2 single stinging insect venoms);
95147 (Professional services for the
supervision of preparation and
provision of antigens for allergen
immunotherapy (specify number of
doses); 3 single stinging insect venoms);
95148 (Professional services for the
supervision of preparation and
provision of antigens for allergen
immunotherapy (specify number of
doses); 4 single stinging insect venoms);
95149 (Professional services for the
supervision of preparation and
provision of antigens for allergen
immunotherapy (specify number of
doses); 5 single stinging insect venoms).
In the CY 2004 PFS final rule with
comment period (68 FR 63206), we
adopted a pricing methodology that
utilizes the average price of a 1 milliliter
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
dose of venom and adds that price per
dose as direct PE inputs for CPT codes
95145 and 95146. When a patient
requires three stinging insect venoms, as
for CPT code 95147, the price input for
a 3-vespid mix is used. This 3-vespid
mix price is also used to value CPT
codes 95148 (four venoms) and 96149
(five venoms), with the single venom
price added once to CPT code 97148
and twice to CPT code 97149.
As requested by the stakeholder, we
updated the price inputs for the 1milliliter dose of venom to $16.67 and
for the 3-vespid mix to $30.22 in the
proposed CY 2011 direct PE database.
Comment: One commenter supported
the proposal to update the price inputs
for the venoms used for venom
immunotherapy.
Response: We appreciate the
information provided by stakeholders
regarding the price inputs for venom
immunotherapy supplies, consistent
with our interest in utilizing accurate
market prices as the direct PE inputs for
these items.
After consideration of the public
comment we received, we are finalizing
our CY 2011 proposals to update the
price inputs for the 1-milliliter dose of
venom to $16.67 and for the 3-vespid
mix to $30.22 in the CY 2011 direct PE
database. These changes are included in
the final CY 2011 direct PE database.
(6) Equipment Redundancy
Stakeholders recently brought to our
attention that the ECG, 3-channel (with
SpO2, NIBP, temp, resp) (CMS
Equipment Code EQ011) incorporates
all of the functionality of the pulse
oximeter with printer (CMS Equipment
Code EQ211). Therefore, in HCPCS
codes where CMS Equipment Code
EQ011 is present, CMS Equipment Code
EQ211 is redundant. On this basis, we
proposed to remove the pulse oximeter
73195
with printer (CMS Equipment Code
EQ211) as an input for the 118 codes
that also contain the ECG, 3-channel
(with SpO2, NIBP, temp, resp) (CMS
Equipment Code EQ011). We made
these adjustments in the proposed CY
2011 direct PE database.
We received no public comments
regarding this proposal to address the
pulse oximeter equipment redundancy.
Therefore we are finalizing our CY 2011
proposal without modification. We have
made these adjustments in the final CY
2011 direct PE database.
(7) Equipment Duplication
We recently identified a number of
CPT codes with duplicate equipment
inputs in the PE database. We proposed
to remove the duplicate equipment
items and modified the proposed CY
2011 direct PE database accordingly as
detailed in Table 5.
TABLE 5—CPT CODES WITH PROPOSED REMOVAL OF DUPLICATE EQUIPMENT ITEMS IN THE DIRECT PE DATABASE
CMS
equipment
code for
duplicate
equipment
CPT Code
P-mastectomy w/1n removal ...................................
EF014
ED005
19361 ..............................
Breast reconstr w/lat flap ........................................
44157 ..............................
Colectomy w/ileoanal anast ....................................
44158 ..............................
Colectomy w/neo-rectum pouch .............................
56440 ..............................
Surgery for vulva lesion ..........................................
57296 ..............................
Revise vag graft, open abd .....................................
58263 ..............................
59610 ..............................
67228 ..............................
Vag hyst w/t/o & vag repair ....................................
Vbac delivery ...........................................................
Treatment of retinal lesion ......................................
76813 ..............................
77371 ..............................
Ob us nuchal meas, 1 gest .....................................
Srs, multisource ......................................................
93540 ..............................
Injection, cardiac cath .............................................
93542 ..............................
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
19302 ..............................
Injection for heart x-rays .........................................
EF031
EQ168
EF031
EQ168
EF031
EQ168
EF031
EQ170
EF031
EQ170
EF031
EF031
EL005
EQ230
ED024
EQ211
ED018
EL011
EQ011
EQ032
EQ088
EQ211
ED018
EL011
EQ011
EQ032
EQ088
EQ211
Comment: One commenter pointed
out that the equipment duplication
issue for CPT codes 93540 and 93542 is
irrelevant because these codes would no
longer be reported for Medicare in CY
2011. The commenter stated that the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
codes are being replaced by a new set
of diagnostic cardiac catheterization
CPT codes.
Response: We agree with the
commenter’s assessment that our
proposal for these codes is not relevant
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Description of equipment
light, surgical.
camera, digital system, 12 megapixel (medical
grade).
table, power.
light, exam.
table, power.
light, exam.
table, power.
light, exam.
table, power.
light, fiberoptic headlight w-source.
table, power.
light, fiberoptic headlight w-source.
table, power.
table, power.
lane, exam (oph).
slit lamp (Haag-Streit), dedicated to laser use.
film processor, dry, laser.
pulse oximeter w-printer.
computer workstation, cardiac cath monitoring.
room, angiography.
ECG, 3-channel (with SpO2, NIBP, temp, resp).
IV infusion pump.
contrast media warmer.
pulse oximeter w-printer.
computer workstation, cardiac cath monitoring.
room, angiography.
ECG, 3-channel (with SpO2, NIBP, temp, resp).
IV infusion pump.
contrast media warmer.
pulse oximeter w-printer.
for CY 2011 because these codes are
being deleted.
Comment: One commenter reviewed
the duplicate inputs and offered a
correction regarding CPT code 19302
(Mastectomy, partial (eg, lumpectomy,
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73196
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
tylectomy, quadrantectomy,
segmentectomy); with axillary
lymphadenectomy). The commenter
pointed out that one of the line-items
erroneously duplicated (light, surgical,
EF014) for that code should have
originally been applied to CPT code
19304 (Mastectomy, subcutaneous).
Response: We appreciate the
commenter bringing this error to our
attention and we agree with the
commenter’s assessment.
After consideration of the public
comments we received, we are
finalizing our CY 2011 proposal to
remove the duplicate equipment items
from the CY 2011 direct PE database as
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
detailed in Table 5, with modification to
transfer the duplicate surgical light
input from CPT code 19302 to CPT code
19304. These changes are reflected in
the final CY 2011 direct PE database.
(8) Establishing Overall Direct PE
Supply Price Inputs Based on Unit
Prices and Quantities
In the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule (75
FR 40057), we stated that we had
identified minor errors in total price
inputs for a number of supply items due
to mathematical mistakes in multiplying
the item unit price and the quantity
used in particular CPT codes for the
associated services. We proposed to
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
modify the direct PE database to
appropriately include the overall supply
price input for a supply item as the
product of the unit price and the
quantity of the supply item used in the
CPT code. Most of the overall supply
price input changes were small, and we
adjusted the proposed CY 2011 direct
PE database accordingly. The CPT and
Level II HCPCS codes and associated
supplies for nonfacility and facility
settings that were subject to these
corrections are displayed in Tables 6
and 7, respectively.
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73197
ER29NO10.233
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
ER29NO10.234
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73198
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73199
ER29NO10.235
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
ER29NO10.236
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73200
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73201
ER29NO10.237
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
ER29NO10.238
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73202
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Comment: Several commenters agreed
that the overall supply price inputs
should be equal to the product of the
supply price and the quantity associated
with each code. Some commenters
pointed out that for many of the supply
items displayed in Tables 6 and 7, the
overall supply prices remained incorrect
in the proposed CY 2011 direct PE
database. The commenters speculated
that an underlying programming error
may have led to incorrect calculations.
Response: In constructing the
proposed CY 2011 direct PE database
posted on the CMS web site, we
inadvertently retained a display column
of data that reflected our previous
calculation error, despite our correct
calculation of the values for PFS
ratesetting purposes. We have corrected
the underlying process error that led to
the incorrect display. We have modified
the direct PE database for the CY 2011
PFS final rule with comment period to
appropriately display the overall supply
price input for a supply item as the
product of the unit price and the
quantity of the supply item used in the
CPT code.
After consideration of the public
comments we received, we are
finalizing our CY 2011 proposal to
modify the direct PE database to include
the overall supply price input for a
supply item as the product of the unit
price and the quantity of the supply
item used in the CPT code. We have
modified the display column within the
publicly available database to reflect the
proper calculation. These changes are
reflected in the final CY 2011 direct PE
database.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
c. AMA RUC Recommendations in CY
2010 for Changes to Direct PE Inputs
In a March 2010 letter, the AMA RUC
made specific PE recommendations that
we considered in the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule (75 FR 40062 through
40063). The proposed changes that
follow were included in the proposed
CY 2011 direct PE database, which is
available on the CMS Web site under
the downloads for the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule at https://www.cms.gov/
PhysicianFeeSched/. The final direct PE
database for CY 2011 is available under
the downloads for the CY 2011 PFS
final rule with comment period at the
same location.
(1) Electrogastrography and Esophageal
Function Test
We proposed to accept the AMA RUC
recommendations for the CY 2011 PE
inputs for the following CPT codes:
91132 (Electrogastrography, diagnostic,
transcutaneous); 91133
(Electrogastrography, diagnostic,
transcutaneous; with provocative
testing); 91038 (Esophageal function
test, gastroesophageal reflux test with
nasal catheter intraluminal impedance
electrode(s) placement, recording,
analysis and interpretation; prolonged
(greater than 1 hour, up to 24 hours)).
For CPT code 91038, we assumed a
useful life of 5 years for the equipment
item ‘‘ZEPHR impedance/pH reflux
monitoring system with data recorder,
software, monitor, workstation and
cart,’’ based on its entry in the AHA’s
publication, ‘‘Estimated Useful Lives of
Depreciable Hospital Assets,’’ which we
use as a standard reference. The
proposed CY 2011 direct PE database
was changed accordingly.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(2) 64-Slice CT Scanner and Software
The AMA RUC submitted an updated
recommendation regarding the correct
pricing of the 64-slice CT scanner and
its accompanying software. Based on the
documentation accompanying the
recommendation, we accepted this
recommendation and proposed to
update the price input for the 64-slice
scanner and software. This affected the
following four CPT codes that use either
the scanner, the software, or both: 75571
(computed tomography, heart, without
contrast material, with quantitative
evaluation of coronary calcium); 75572
(Computed tomography, heart, with
contrast material, for evaluation of
cardiac structure and morphology
(including 3D image postprocessing,
assessment of cardiac function, and
evaluation of venous structures, if
performed)); 75573 (Computed
tomography, heart, with contrast
material, for evaluation of cardiac
structure and morphology in the setting
of congenital heart disease (including
3D image postprocessing, assessment of
LV cardiac function, RV structure and
function and evaluation of venous
structures, if performed)); and 75574
(Computed tomographic angiography,
heart, coronary arteries and bypass
grafts (when present), with contrast
material, including 3D image post
processing (including evaluation of
cardiac structure and morphology,
assessment of cardiac function, and
evaluation of venous structure, if
performed)). The proposed CY 2011
direct PE database was modified
accordingly.
(3) Breath Hydrogen Test
The AMA RUC provided
recommendations regarding the PE
inputs for CPT code 91065 (breath
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
ER29NO10.239
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
BILLING CODE 4120–01–C
73203
73204
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
hydrogen test (e.g., for detection of
lactase deficiency, fructose intolerance,
bacterial overgrowth, or oro-cecal
gastrointestinal transit). We accepted
the recommendations with two
modifications. We folded the two pieces
of equipment listed as ‘‘quinGas TableTop Support Stand, 3 Tank’’ and
‘‘Drying Tube, Patient Sample’’ into the
‘‘BreathTrackerDigital SC Instrument’’
and summed their inputs into one
equipment line-item, since these
equipment items are used together
specifically for the service in question.
We increased the useful life input of the
‘‘BreathTrackerDigital SC Instrument’’
from 7 to 8 years based on our use of
the American Hospital Association
(AHA)’s publication entitled, ‘‘Estimated
Useful Lives of Depreciable Hospital
Assets’’ as a standard reference.
Additionally, because the AMA RUC
did not include equipment times in
their recommendations for this CPT
code, we used 53 minutes as the total
time for all equipment items based on
the total intra-service period for the
clinical labor, consistent with our
general policy for establishing
equipment times. These modifications
were reflected in the proposed CY 2011
direct PE database.
(4) Radiographic Fluoroscopic Room
A recent AMA RUC review of services
that include the radiographic
fluoroscopic room (CMS Equipment
Code EL014) as a direct PE input
revealed that the use of the item is no
longer typical for certain services in
which it is specified within the current
direct cost inputs. The AMA RUC
recommended to CMS that the
radiographic fluoroscopic room be
deleted from CPT codes 64420
(Injection, anesthetic agent; intercostal
nerve, single); 64421 (Injection,
anesthetic agent; intercostal nerves,
multiple, regional block); and 64620
(Destruction by neurolytic agent,
intercostal nerve). We accepted these
recommendations and, therefore, these
changes were included in the proposed
CY 2011 direct PE database.
Comment: Several commenters
generally expressed support for our
acceptance of these AMA RUCrecommended direct PE inputs with the
stated refinements. The AMA RUC
expressed appreciation for CMS’
acceptance of the committee’s
recommendations.
Response: We appreciate the
assistance of stakeholders in our efforts
to utilize the most accurate direct PE
inputs for PFS services. We also
appreciate the judicious work of the
AMA RUC in providing these
recommendations in time for us to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
respond to them and include our
proposals in the CY 2011 proposed rule.
Comment: One commenter expressed
concern about these recommendations
on the basis of the flawed professional
composition of the AMA RUC. The
commenter stated that without fair
representation by all specialties,
including nonphysician practitioners
who may bill Part B directly under the
PFS, CMS’ reliance on the AMA RUC as
representing the professional views and
knowledge of all healthcare specialties
for purposes of establishing the direct
PE inputs for services paid under the
PFS is deeply flawed.
Response: As we have stated
previously (69 FR 66243), because the
AMA RUC is an independent
committee, we are not in a position to
set the requirements for AMA RUC
membership. Concerned stakeholders
should communicate directly with the
AMA RUC regarding its professional
composition. We note that we alone are
responsible for all decisions about the
direct PE inputs for purposes of PFS
payment so, while the AMA RUC
provides us with recommendations for
new and revised CPT codes in the
context of what we believe is its broad
expertise, we ultimately remain
responsible for determining the direct
PE inputs for all new or revised
services.
After consideration of the public
comments we received, we are
finalizing our CY 2011 proposals to
accept the AMA RUC recommendations,
with certain changes described above,
regarding the direct PE inputs for
electrogastrography and esophageal
function tests, the 64-slice CT scanner
and software, the breath hydrogen test,
and certain procedures that no longer
require a radiographic fluoroscopic
room. These decisions are reflected in
the final CY 2011 direct PE database.
(5) Cystometrogram
The AMA RUC recently identified a
rank order anomaly regarding CPT code
51726 (Complex cystometrogram (i.e.,
calibrated electronic equipment)).
Currently, this procedure has higher PE
RVUs, despite being less resourceintensive than the three CPT codes for
which it serves as the base: 51727
(Complex cystometrogram (i.e.,
calibrated electronic equipment); with
urethral pressure profile studies (i.e.,
urethral closure pressure profile), any
technique); 51728 (Complex
cystometrogram (i.e., calibrated
electronic equipment); with voiding
pressure studies (that is, bladder
voiding pressure), any technique); and
51729 (Complex cystometrogram (i.e.,
calibrated electronic equipment); with
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
voiding pressure studies (that is,
bladder voiding pressure) and urethral
pressure profile studies (that is, urethral
closure pressure profile), any
technique).
Since the AMA RUC’s general view is
that CPT codes with a 0-day global
period do not have pre-service time
associated with the code, the AMA RUC
recommended removing the nonfacility
pre-service clinical labor time from the
PE inputs for 51726. Additionally, the
AMA RUC recommended that the
nonfacility clinical intra-service staff
time for CPT code 51276 be reduced
from the 118 minutes of intra-service
clinical labor time currently assigned to
the code to 85 minutes of intra-service
clinical labor time. These changes
would resolve the rank order anomaly
and bring the PE inputs for CPT code
51726 into alignment with the other
three codes. Finally, and for the reasons
stated above, the AMA RUC
recommended that CMS remove the 23
minutes of pre-service nonfacility
clinical labor time from CPT code 51725
(Simple cystometrogram (CMG) (for
example, spinal manometer)). We
agreed with the AMA RUC
recommendations, proposed to accept
these recommendations for CY 2011
and, therefore, changed the direct PE
inputs for CPT codes 51725 and 51726
in the nonfacility setting in the
proposed CY 2011 direct PE database.
Comment: Some commenters argued
that the rank order anomaly resulted
from clinical labor inputs that were too
low in the more complex codes, rather
than too high in the base codes. These
commenters stated that the AMA RUC
and CMS had addressed the wrong
‘‘end’’ of the rank order anomaly in
making the changes to the clinical labor
minutes assigned to CPT codes 51725
and 51726. Several commenters on the
CY 2010 PFS final rule with comment
period, where new CY 2011 CPT code
51727, 51728, and 51729 were assigned
interim direct PE inputs, also argued
that CPT codes 51727, 51728, and 51729
should have additional clinical labor
inputs, including a greater number of
minutes during the intra-service period
and minutes during the pre-service
period.
Response: We have reviewed the
direct PE inputs for all five CPT codes
in this series and continue to agree with
the AMA RUC’s recommendations
regarding changes for CY 2011.
Specifically, we believe the pre-service
nonfacility clinical labor time for the 0day global period CPT codes 51725 and
51726 should be removed and the intraservice clinical labor time for CPT code
51726 should also be reduced,
consistent with the usual treatment of
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
other 0-day global codes. We believe the
AMA RUC provided recommendations
to us regarding the direct PE inputs for
these four cystometrogram services that
accurately reflect the costs of the
resources (that is, the clinical labor,
equipment, and supplies) typically
required to furnish these services to
Medicare beneficiaries.
Comment: Several commenters
requested that CMS change the supply
inputs included in the direct PE
database for the complex
cystometrogram services. For example,
the commenters requested that single
dual sensor catheters replace the single
sensor catheters currently included as
direct PE inputs for these codes. The
commenters stated that both the
catheters and their price inputs are
outdated. In other cases, the
commenters explained that certain
supplies in the database were not those
typically used by certain physician
specialties in performing the services.
Response: We rely on our review of
recommendations received from the
AMA RUC in order to make changes to
the clinical labor, supply, and
equipment inputs for CPT codes within
the direct PE database. We have no
reason to believe that the supplies used
in the complex cystometrogram
procedures described by CPT codes
51727, 51728, and 51729 are outdated
because these were new codes for CY
2010 and the AMA RUC recently
addressed their direct PE inputs when
initially recommending values for the
services. We believe the AMA RUC’s
extensive expertise and broad
perspective generally allows it to
accurately identify the direct PE inputs
for new and revised CPT codes. We
encourage stakeholders who believe that
enhancements in technology or changes
in medical practice have resulted in
changes in the supplies or equipment
typically used in furnishing a particular
service to address these concerns with
the AMA RUC.
As we discuss further in section
II.A.3.e. of this final rule with comment
period with respect to our proposal
regarding updating supply and
equipment price inputs, we welcome
public requests for updates to supply
price and equipment price and useful
life inputs associated with existing
codes through the process we are
adopting beginning in CY 2011.
After consideration of the public
comments we received, we are
finalizing our CY 2011 proposal to
accept the recommendations of the
AMA RUC regarding the revised direct
PE inputs for CPT codes 51725 and
52726. The final direct PE inputs are
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
included in the final CY 2011 direct PE
database.
d. Referral of Existing CPT Codes for
AMA RUC Review
As part of our review of high cost
supplies, we conducted a clinical
review of the procedures associated
with high cost supplies to confirm that
those supplies currently are used in the
typical case described by the CPT codes.
While we confirmed that most high cost
supplies could be used in the
procedures for which they are currently
direct PE inputs, we noted that one of
the high cost supplies, fiducial screws
(CMS Supply Code SD073) with a
current price of $558, is included as a
direct PE input for two CPT codes,
specifically 77301 (Intensity modulated
radiotherapy plan, including dosevolume histograms for target and critical
structure partial tolerance
specifications) and 77011 (Computed
tomography guidance for stereotactic
localization). The documentation used
in the current pricing of the supply item
describes a kit that includes
instructions, skull screws, a drill bit,
and a collar for the TALON® System
manufactured by Best nomos. Best
nomos’ literature describes the insertion
of the screws into the patient’s skull to
ensure accurate set-up. When CPT codes
77301 and 77011 were established in CY
2002 and CY 2003, respectively, we
accepted the AMA RUC
recommendations to include fiducial
screws in the PE for these services.
Upon further review, while we
understand why this supply may still be
considered a typical PE input for CPT
code 77011, we do not now believe that
fiducial screws, as described in the Best
nomos literature, would typically be
used in CPT code 77301, where the
most common clinical scenario would
be treatment of prostate cancer.
Therefore, in order to ensure that CPT
codes 77301 and 77011 are
appropriately valued for CY 2011
through the inclusion or exclusion of
fiducial screws in their PE, in the CY
2011 PFS proposed rule (75 FR 40063),
we asked the AMA RUC to review these
CPT codes with respect to the inclusion
of fiducial screws in their PE. We
requested that the AMA RUC make
recommendations to us regarding
whether this supply should be included
in the PE or removed from the PE for
CPT codes 77301 and 77011 in a
timeframe that would allow us to adopt
interim values for these codes for CY
2011, should the AMA RUC recommend
a change. Were the AMA RUC to
continue to recommend the inclusion of
fiducial screws in the PE for CPT code
77301 and/or 77011 for CY 2011, we
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73205
requested that the AMA RUC provide us
with a detailed rationale for the
inclusion of this specialized supply in
the PE for the typical case reported
under the relevant CPT code. We also
requested that the AMA RUC furnish
updated pricing information for the
screws if they were to continue to
recommend the screws as a PE input for
one or both of these CPT codes in CY
2011.
Comment: The AMA RUC
recommended that CMS remove the
fiducial screws as a direct PE input from
both CPT codes 77011 and 77301.
Several commenters also agreed that the
fiducial screws would not typically be
used with CPT code 77301.
Additionally, multiple commenters
pointed out that the fiducial screws may
now be reported using HCPCS supply
code A4648 (Tissue marker,
implantable, any type, each) when the
markers are implanted.
Response: We appreciate the
responsiveness of the AMA RUC to our
request and the interest of the other
commenters in this issue.
After consideration of the public
comments we received and the AMA
RUC recommendation following
publication of the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule, for CY 2011, we are
accepting the AMA RUC’s
recommendation and removing fiducial
screws from the direct PE database as
inputs for CPT codes 77011 and 77301.
Because the direct PE inputs for these
codes are being revised on an interim
final basis for CY 2011, the changes are
subject to public comment on this final
rule with comment period.
e. Updating Equipment and Supply
Price Inputs for Existing Codes
Historically, we have periodically
received requests to change the PE price
inputs for supplies and equipment in
the PE database. In the past, we have
considered these requests on an ad hoc
basis and updated the price inputs as
part of quarterly or annual updates if we
believed them to be appropriate. In the
CY 2011 PFS proposed rule (75 FR
49963), we proposed to establish a
regular and more transparent process for
considering public requests for changes
to PE database price inputs for supplies
and equipment used in existing codes.
We proposed to act on public requests
to update equipment and supply price
inputs annually through rulemaking by
following a regular and consistent
process as discussed in the following
paragraphs. We proposed to use the
annual PFS proposed rule released in
the summer and the final rule with
comment period released on or about
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73206
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
November 1 each year as the vehicle for
making these changes.
We would accept requests for
updating the price inputs for supplies
and equipment on an ongoing basis;
requests must be received no later than
December 31 of each calendar year to be
considered for inclusion in the next
proposed rule. In that next proposed
rule, we would present our review of
submitted requests to update price
inputs for specific equipment or
supplies and our proposals for the
subsequent calendar year. We would
then finalize changes in the final rule
with comment period for the upcoming
calendar year. Our review of the issues
and consideration of public comments
may result in the following outcomes
that would be presented in the final rule
with comment period:
• Updating the equipment or supply
price inputs, as requested.
• Updating the equipment or supply
price inputs, with modifications.
• Rejecting the new price inputs.
• Declining to act on the request
pending a recommendation from the
AMA RUC.
To facilitate our review and
preparation of issues for the proposed
rule, at a minimum, we would expect
that requesters would provide the
following information:
• Name and contact information for
the requestor.
• The name of the item exactly as it
appears in the direct PE database under
downloads for the most recent PFS final
rule with comment period, available on
the CMS Web site at https://
www.cms.gov/PhysicianFeeSched/
PFSFRN/list.asp#TopOfPage.
In order to best evaluate the requests
in the context of our goal of utilizing
accurate market prices for these items as
direct PE inputs, we also would expect
requestors to provide multiple invoices
from different suppliers/manufacturers.
In some cases, multiple sources may not
be available, whereupon a detailed
explanation should be provided to
support the request. When furnishing
invoices, requestors should take into
consideration the following parameters:
++ May be either print or electronic
but should be on supplier and/or
manufacturer stationery (for example,
letterhead, billing statement, etc.)
++ Should be for the typical,
common, and customary version of the
supply or equipment that is used to
furnish the services.
++ Price should be net of typical
rebates and/or any discounts available,
including information regarding the
magnitude and rationale for such
rebates or discounts.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
++ If multiple items are presented on
the same invoice, relevant item(s)
should be clearly identified.
We solicited public comments on this
process, including the information that
requestors should furnish to facilitate
our full analysis in preparation for the
next calendar year’s rulemaking cycle.
Comment: Several commenters
supported establishing a regular and
more transparent process for
considering public requests for changes
to the direct PE price inputs for supplies
and equipment used in existing codes.
However, other commenters were
concerned that the process might
prevent CMS from making timely
corrections to the database that are
brought to the attention of the agency by
specialty societies or other stakeholders.
These commenters suggested creating an
expedited process whereby mistakes
could be corrected.
Response: We appreciate the broad
support for the proposal. We believe
that this process, though regular, would
not limit our ability to correct technical
errors that are discovered by the agency
or brought to our attention by
stakeholders. On these occasions, we
would continue to correct errors and
issue correction notices to final rules
when appropriate. The regular process
for updating supply and equipment
prices is intended to reflect significant
changes in the market prices of supplies
and equipment that are used in the
direct PE database. It would not
substitute for the timely correction of
technical errors.
Comment: Some commenters were
concerned that the proposed process
would necessitate a 12- to 24-month
delay between CMS’ acknowledgement
of a price update and the resulting
change in PE RVU calculations. The
commenters pointed out that the current
ad hoc process has historically resulted
in a fairly timely response from the
agency in most circumstances and were
concerned that the formalization of the
process might result in unnecessary
delays. One commenter suggested
creating a process for quarterly updates
to the supply and equipment price
inputs.
Response: We understand that some
commenters are concerned about the
timelines for price updates. However,
we believe that the value of the
transparency of the proposed process
outweighs its potential for slowing the
previous ad hoc process. Additionally,
it is important to acknowledge that in
most previous cases, price input
updates would not have been
immediately effective since such
updates have always required CMS’
review, concurrence, and processing
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
through the rate setting methodology
prior to any change in Medicare
payment rates. Additionally, many
stakeholders already provide public
comments to CMS regarding specific
issues addressed in our annual rate
setting for the PFS through the notice
and comment rulemaking process.
Therefore, we believe that the annual
process offers both an economic use of
stakeholders’ resources, as well as the
best opportunity for broad public input
into proposed price changes. These are
qualities any accelerated alternative,
such as quarterly updates, would lack.
We believe that an annual update
process most effectively promotes both
timeliness and transparency, while also
allowing for public comment and input
regarding our proposals before the
adoption of pricing changes that could
have a significant effect on payment for
services under the PFS.
Comment: Some commenters asserted
that it may be more difficult to obtain
invoices for some supplies that are not
frequently used and there should be
acceptable alternative sources of
information, including price lists or
other information from the
manufacturer. One commenter
suggested that in the case of items that
are not used in high volumes in
physicians’ office, volume or other
discounts are unlikely for physicians’
practices.
Response: Even though the direct PE
inputs should reflect the resource costs
required for typical cases, we
understand that there may be
circumstances in which updated
invoices or invoices that reflect volume
or other discounts may be difficult to
obtain. As stated in our proposal, we
will consider a detailed written
explanation in support of requests
submitted without the documentation
usually required.
Comment: One commenter urged that
the updating of supply and equipment
prices be only for ‘‘like’’ items and not
for ‘‘newer technology’’ items. The
commenter requested that CMS refer the
initial review of new supply and
equipment inputs to the AMA RUC
Practice Expense Subcommittee for
review and recommendation back to
CMS. Other commenters made specific
requests for additions, deletions, or
substitutions of supply and equipment
items associated with particular codes.
Response: We appreciate the
opportunity to clarify that this regular
and consistent process would only
apply to the price inputs for supply and
equipment items. As part of our review
of equipment price inputs, we will also
consider updates to the useful life of
equipment insofar as that information is
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
supported by similar documentation.
However, we will continue to encourage
stakeholders who believe that there
should be additions, deletions, or
substitutions of direct PE inputs
associated with particular codes to
address these concerns through the
AMA RUC, including when a
stakeholder believes that enhanced
technology has replaced older
technology in the typical case of a
particular service. We believe the AMA
RUC recommendations are an efficient
and effective mechanism to inform our
review of changes to the clinical labor,
supply, and equipment inputs within
the direct PE database.
Comment: One commenter was
concerned about the potential for CMS
to reject the requested price input
outright and suggested that CMS be
required to explain its rejection of the
request for an updated price input.
Response: We appreciate the concerns
of the commenter and consider this
perspective as providing additional
support for instituting such a regular
and transparent process. As we stated in
the CY 2011 proposed rule (75 FR
40063), we would present our review of
submitted requests to update price
inputs for specific equipment or
supplies and our proposals for the
subsequent calendar year in the annual
proposed rule. This process would
provide CMS an annual opportunity to
explain our review and decisions
regarding public requests for changes in
direct PE price inputs.
After consideration of the public
comments we received, we are
finalizing our CY 2011 proposal to act
on public requests to update equipment
and supply price inputs annually
through rulemaking by following a
regular and consistent process as
discussed in the preceding paragraphs.
We will use the annual PFS proposed
rule released in the summer and the
final rule with comment period released
on or about November 1 each year as the
vehicle for making these changes. In
order to make the most effective use of
the rulemaking process and be
responsive to the concerns of
stakeholders that we consider the most
recent evidence available, we ask that
requests for updates to supply price
inputs or equipment price or useful life
inputs be submitted as comments to the
PFS final rule with comment period
each year, subject to the deadline for
public comments applicable to that rule.
Alternatively, stakeholders may submit
requests to CMS on an ongoing basis
throughout a given calendar year to
CMS PE_Price_Input_
Update@cms.hhs.gov. Requests received
by the end of a calendar year will be
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
considered in rulemaking during the
following year. For example, requests
received by December 31, 2010 will be
considered in conjunction with the CY
2012 PFS rulemaking cycle. We refer
readers to the description earlier in this
section of the minimum information we
are requesting that stakeholders provide
in order to facilitate our review and
preparation of issues for the proposed
rule.
In the CY 2012 PFS proposed rule,
scheduled to be released in the summer
of CY 2011, we will present a review of
any timely requests we receive to
update supply price inputs or
equipment price or useful life inputs.
After reviewing the issues and
responding to the public comments, we
will finalize our decision as one of the
outcomes listed below for each request
in the final rule with comment period
for CY 2012.
• Updating the equipment or supply
price inputs, as requested.
• Updating the equipment or supply
price inputs, with modifications.
• Rejecting the new price inputs.
• Declining to act on the request
pending a recommendation from the
AMA RUC.
f. Other Issues
We received other public comments
on matters related to direct PE inputs
that were not the subject of proposals in
the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule. We
thank the commenters for sharing their
views and suggestions. Because we did
not make any proposals regarding these
matters, we do not generally summarize
or respond to such comments in this
final rule with comment period.
However, we are summarizing and
responding to several of the public
comments in order to reiterate or clarify
certain information.
Comment: Several commenters stated
that the clinical labor minutes for CPT
code 37210 (Uterine fibroid
embolization (UFE, embolization of the
uterine arteries to treat uterine fibroids,
leiomyomata), percutaneous approach
inclusive of vascular access, vessel
selection, embolization, and all
radiological supervision and
interpretation, intraprocedural
roadmapping, and imaging guidance
necessary to complete the procedure)
are inconsistent with recommendations
forwarded to CMS by the AMA RUC for
CY 2007 and accepted by CMS in the
CY 2007 PFS final rule with comment
period (71 FR 69643). The commenters
indicated that 10 minutes of clinical
labor time were erroneously not
attributed to this CPT code in the
proposed CY 2011 direct PE database.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73207
Response: We agree with the
commenters’ assessment and appreciate
being informed of the error. The 10
minutes of clinical labor time missing
from the direct PE inputs for CPT code
37210 have been incorporated and this
change is reflected in the final CY 2011
direct PE database.
Comment: Several commenters
expressed concerns regarding the
current direct PE inputs for various
services. One commenter submitted
extensive information regarding a
perceived disparity between the
equipment inputs for echocardiography
services and those for other ultrasound
services. Another commenter requested
that CMS ask the AMA RUC to establish
nonfacility RVUs for the placement or
insertion of high dose rate
brachytherapy catheters/applicators
because it is common practice,
especially in gynecology, for physicians
to perform such procedures in their
offices or in freestanding clinics. One
commenter stated that the proposed PE
RVUs do not provide sufficient payment
to cover the cost of prothrombin time
(PT)/international normalized ratio
(INR) home monitoring services and
recommended that CMS alter the direct
PE inputs for those services. Another
commenter requested that CMS alter
direct PE inputs for holter monitoring
based on changes to the language in CPT
code descriptors from the current ‘‘24
hours’’ to ‘‘up to 48 hours,’’ even when
the AMA RUC did not recommend such
changes.
Response: We did not propose CY
2011 changes to the direct PE inputs for
any of those services referenced by the
commenters and, therefore, their direct
PE inputs have already been finalized in
a prior year’s PFS rulemaking. As we
have previously stated in this section,
we encourage stakeholders who believe
a change is required in the direct PE
inputs associated with a particular
service in the typical case that is
furnished in the facility or nonfacility
setting to address these concerns with
the AMA RUC with respect to codes that
have been reviewed by the AMA RUC.
The direct PE inputs for existing
services paid under the PFS have all
been adopted through rulemaking that
has allowed for public notice and
comment, so their current direct PE
inputs are final unless we would make
a proposal to change them in a future
year. In most cases, we like to receive
and review recommendations from the
AMA RUC for new and revised codes or
other codes for which another review
has been conducted in order to assist us
in determining whether we should make
changes to the clinical labor, supply,
and equipment inputs within the direct
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73208
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
PE database and, if so, what revisions
should be made.
Additionally, throughout the year we
meet with parties who want to share
their views on topics of interest to them.
These discussions may provide us with
information regarding changes in
medical practice and afford
opportunities for the public to bring to
our attention issues they believe we
should consider for future rulemaking.
Thus, we encourage stakeholders to
contact us at any time if there are topics
related to the direct PE inputs for
physicians’ services that they would
like to discuss.
B. Malpractice Relative Value Units
(RVUs)
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
1. Background
Section 1848(c) of the Act requires
that each service paid under the PFS be
comprised of three components: Work,
PE, and malpractice. From 1992 to 1999,
malpractice RVUs were charge-based,
using weighted specialty-specific
malpractice expense percentages and
1991 average allowed charges.
Malpractice RVUs for new codes after
1991 were extrapolated from similar
existing codes or as a percentage of the
corresponding work RVU. Section
4505(f) of the BBA required us to
implement resource-based malpractice
RVUs for services furnished beginning
in 2000. Therefore, initial
implementation of resource-based
malpractice RVUs occurred in 2000.
The statute also requires that we
review, and if necessary adjust, RVUs
no less often than every 5 years. The
first review and update of resourcebased malpractice RVUs was addressed
in the CY 2005 PFS final rule with
comment period (69 FR 66263). Minor
modifications to the methodology were
addressed in the CY 2006 PFS final rule
with comment period (70 FR 70153). In
the CY 2010 PFS final rule with
comment period, we implemented the
second review and update of
malpractice RVUs. For a discussion of
the second review and update of
malpractice RVUs see the CY 2010 PFS
proposed rule (74 FR 33537) and final
rule with comment period (74 FR
61758).
2. Malpractice RVUs for New and
Revised Services Effective Before the
Next 5-Year Review
Currently, malpractice RVUs for new
and revised codes effective before the
next 5-Year Review (for example,
effective CY 2011 through CY 2014) are
determined by a direct crosswalk to a
similar ‘‘source’’ code or a modified
crosswalk to account for differences in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
work RVUs between the new/revised
code and the source code. For the
modified crosswalk approach, we adjust
the malpractice RVUs for the new/
revised code to reflect the difference in
work RVUs between the source code
and the AMA RUC’s recommended
work value (or the work value we are
applying as an interim final value under
the PFS) for the new code. For example,
if the interim final work RVUs for the
new/revised code are 10 percent higher
than the work RVUs for the source code,
the malpractice RVUs for the new/
revised code would be increased by 10
percent over the source code RVUs. This
approach presumes the same risk factor
for the new/revised code and source
code but uses the work RVUs for the
new/revised code to adjust for risk-ofservice. The assigned malpractice RVUs
for new/revised codes effective between
updates remain in place until the next
5-Year Review.
For CY 2011, we explained that we
will continue our current approach for
determining malpractice RVUs for new/
revised codes that become effective
before the next 5-Year Review and
update. Under this approach we
crosswalk the new/revised code to the
RVUs of a similar source code and
adjust for differences in work (or, if
greater, the clinical labor portion of the
fully implemented PE RVUs) between
the source code and the new/revised
code. Additionally, we stated that we
would publish a list of new/revised
codes and the analytic crosswalk(s) used
for determining their malpractice RVUs
in the CY 2011 final rule with comment
period, which we have not previously
done. We also explained that the CY
2011 malpractice RVUs for new/revised
codes would be implemented as interim
final values in the CY 2011 PFS final
rule with comment period, where they
would be subject to public comment,
and finalized in the CY 2012 PFS final
rule with comment period.
Comment: Several commenters
supported the continuation of our
current approach to determining
malpractice RVUs for new/revised codes
that become effective before the next 5Year Review and update. The
commenters stated that publication of
the new/revised codes and the analytic
crosswalk(s) used for determining their
malpractice RVUs in the final rule is a
move toward greater transparency. A
few commenters requested that CMS
provide the rationale used for selecting
crosswalks for new/revised codes and
subject the rationale to public comment.
Response: For purposes of
determining malpractice RVUs for the
CY 2011 new/revised codes, we
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
accepted all source code
recommendations submitted by the
AMA RUC. We understand that the
AMA RUC-recommended source codes
for new/revised codes were based on the
expected similar specialty mix of
practitioners furnishing the source code
and the new/revised code. In other
words, the medical specialties
furnishing a source code were expected
to be similar to the specialty mix
furnishing the new/revised code. In
adopting all of the AMA RUC’s source
code recommendations for CY 2011, we
agree with its assessment of these
similarities in each new/revised code
case. If we were to disagree with the
AMA RUC’s malpractice source code
recommendations in a future year for
any new/revised codes, we would
provide the rationale for both our
difference of opinion and the alternative
source code we select for purposes of
establishing the interim final
malpractice RVUs.
After consideration of the public
comments we received, we are
continuing our current approach of
assigning the interim final malpractice
RVUs for new/revised codes based on
the methodology described earlier in
this section. We adjusted the
malpractice RVUs of the CY 2011 new/
revised codes for differences in work
RVUs (or, if greater, the clinical labor
portion of the fully implemented PE
RVUs) between the source code and the
new/revised code to reflect the specific
risk-of-service for the new/revised code.
The source code crosswalks for the CY
2011 new/revised codes are being
adopted on an interim final basis and
are subject to public comment on this
CY 2011 final rule with comment
period, as are the CY 2011 malpractice
RVUs of the new/revised codes that are
listed in Addendum C to this final rule
with comment period. The malpractice
RVUs for the CY 2011 new/revised
codes will be finalized in the CY 2012
PFS final rule with comment period,
where we will also respond to the
public comments received on the values
that are included in this CY 2011 final
rule with comment period.
Table 8 lists the CY 2011 new/revised
codes and their respective source codes
for determining the interim final CY
2011 malpractice RVUs. We are also
posting this crosswalk on the CMS Web
site under the downloads for the CY
2011 PFS final rule with comment
period at: https://www.cms.gov/
PhysicianFeeSched/PFSFRN/
list.asp#TopOfPage.
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73209
ER29NO10.240
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
ER29NO10.241
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73210
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73211
ER29NO10.242
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
ER29NO10.243
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73212
BILLING CODE 4120–01–C
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
3. Revised Malpractice RVUs for
Selected Disc Arthroplasty Services
As discussed in the CY 2010 PFS
proposed rule (74 FR 33539), we assign
malpractice RVUs to each service based
upon a weighted average of the risk
factors of all specialties that furnish the
service. For the CY 2010 review of
malpractice RVUs, we used CY 2008
Medicare payment data on allowed
services to establish the frequency of a
service by specialty. CPT code 22856
(Total disc arthroplasty (artificial disc),
anterior approach, including discectomy
with end plate preparation (includes
osteophytectomy for nerve root or spinal
cord decompression and
microdissection), single interspace,
cervical) had zero allowed services for
CY 2008. Therefore, our contractor
initially set the level of services to 1,
and assigned a risk factor according to
the average risk factor for all services
that do not explicitly have a separate
technical or professional component.
We proposed to adopt our contractor’s
initial malpractice RVUs for CPT code
22856 in the CY 2010 proposed rule.
Application of the average physician
risk factor would have resulted in a
significant decrease in malpractice
RVUs for CPT code 22856 in CY 2010.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
Several commenters on the CY 2010
PFS proposed rule expressed concern
regarding the proposed malpractice
RVUs for CPT code 22856, which
represented a proposed reduction of
more than 77 percent. The commenters
stated that this service is predominantly
furnished by neurosurgeons and
orthopedic surgeons. Given the high risk
factors associated with these specialty
types and the changes in malpractice
RVUs for comparable services, the
commenters stated that a reduction in
the malpractice RVUs of this magnitude
for CPT code 22856 could not be
correct.
After consideration of the public
comments, for CY 2010, we set the risk
factor for CPT code 22856 as the
weighted average risk factor of six
comparable procedures mentioned by
the commenters: CPT code 22554
(Arthrodesis, anterior interbody
technique, including minimal
discectomy to prepare interspace (other
than for decompression); cervical below
C2); CPT code 22558 (Arthrodesis,
anterior interbody technique, including
minimal discectomy to prepare
interspace (other than for
decompression); lumbar); CPT code
22857 (Total disc arthroplasty (artificial
disc), anterior approach, including
discectomy to prepare interspace (other
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73213
than for decompression), single
interspace, lumbar); CPT code 22845
(Anterior instrumentation; 2 to 3
vertebral segments (list separately in
addition to code for primary
procedure)); CPT code 63075
(Discectomy, anterior, with
decompression of spinal cord and/or
nerve root(s), including
osteophytectomy; cervical, single
interspace); and CPT code 20931
(Allograft for spine surgery only;
structural (list separately in addition to
code for primary procedure)). The
weighted average risk factor for these
services is 8.4.
Since publication of the CY 2010 PFS
final rule with comment period,
stakeholders have mentioned that we
made significant changes to the
malpractice RVUs for CPT code 22856
in CY 2010. The commenters also
brought to our attention that other
services are clinically similar to CPT
code 22856 and have similar work RVUs
and, therefore, some stakeholders
believe these services should all have
similar malpractice RVUs. Services
mentioned by the stakeholders that are
clinically similar to CPT code 22856
include CPT code 22857; CPT code
22861 (Revision including replacement
of total disc arthroplasty (artificial disc),
anterior approach, single interspace;
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
ER29NO10.244
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
73214
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
cervical); CPT code 22862 (Revision
including replacement of total disc
arthroplasty (artificial disc) anterior
approach, lumbar); CPT code 22864
(Removal of total disc arthroplasty
(artificial disc), anterior approach,
single interspace; cervical); and CPT
code 22865 (Removal of total disc
arthroplasty (artificial disc), anterior
approach, single interspace; lumbar).
After further review of this issue, for
CY 2011 we proposed to apply the same
risk factor used for CPT code 22856 to
certain other services within this family
of services (CPT codes 22857 through
22865) for which there were no allowed
services in CY 2008. CPT codes 22861
and 22864 had zero allowed services in
CY 2008 and our contractor initially set
their malpractice RVUs in the same way
as it did for CPT code 22856. Therefore,
for CY 2011 we proposed to assign the
weighted average risk factor used for
CPT code 22856 (that is, the weighted
average of the risk factors for CPT codes
20931, 22554, 22558, 22845, 22857, and
63075) to CPT codes 22861 and 22864.
However, CPT codes 22857, 22862, and
22865 are low volume services (allowed
services under 100). Our policy for low
volume services is to apply the risk
factor of the dominant specialty as
indicated by our claims data. Thus, for
CY 2011 we proposed to continue to
apply our policy for low volume
services to CPT codes 22857, 22862, and
22865.
Comment: A few commenters
expressed support for the proposed
changes in malpractice RVUs for disc
arthroplasty services that are similar to
CPT code 22856. One commenter urged
CMS to finalize the proposal in the CY
2011 PFS final rule.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ support for our proposal.
After consideration of the public
comments we received, we are
finalizing our CY 2011 proposal to
apply the same risk factor used for CPT
code 22856 to CPT codes 22861 and
22864 for purposes of setting the
malpractice RVUs for these codes prior
to the next 5-Year Review of malpractice
RVUs.
C. Potentially Misvalued Services Under
the Physician Fee Schedule
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
1. Valuing Services Under the PFS
As discussed in section I. of this final
rule with comment period, in order to
value services under the PFS, section
1848(c) of the Act requires the Secretary
to determine relative values for
physicians’ services based on three
components: The work, practice
expense (PE), and malpractice
components. Section 1848(c)(1)(A) of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
the Act defines the work component to
include ‘‘the portion of the resources
used in furnishing the service that
reflects physician time and intensity in
furnishing the service.’’ Additionally,
the statute provides that the work
component shall include activities that
occur before and after direct patient
contact. Furthermore, the statute
specifies that with respect to surgical
procedures, the valuation of the work
component for the code would reflect a
‘‘global’’ concept in which pre-operative
and post-operative physicians’ services
related to the procedure would also be
included.
In addition, section 1848(c)(2)(C)(i) of
the Act specifies that ‘‘the Secretary
shall determine a number of work
relative value units (RVUs) for the
service based on the relative resources
incorporating physician time and
intensity required in furnishing the
service.’’ As discussed in detail in
sections I.A.2. and I.A.3. of this final
rule with comment period, the statute
also defines the PE and malpractice
components and provides specific
guidance in the calculation of the RVUs
for each of these components. Section
1848(c)(1)(B) of the Act defines the PE
component as ‘‘the portion of the
resources used in furnishing the service
that reflects the general categories of
expenses (such as office rent and wages
of personnel, but excluding malpractice
expenses) comprising practice
expenses.’’
Section 1848(c)(2)(C)(ii) of the Act
specifies that the ‘‘Secretary shall
determine a number of practice expense
relative value units for the services for
years beginning with 1999 based on the
relative practice expense resources
involved in furnishing the service.’’
Furthermore, section 1848(c)(2)(B) of
the Act directs the Secretary to conduct
a periodic review, not less often than
every 5 years, of the RVUs established
under the PFS. Finally, on March 23,
2010, the ACA was enacted, further
requiring the Secretary to periodically
review and identify potentially
misvalued codes and make appropriate
adjustments to the relative values of
those services identified as being
potentially misvalued. Section 3134(a)
of the ACA added a new section
1848(c)(2)(K) of the Act which requires
the Secretary to periodically identify
potentially misvalued services using
certain criteria, and to review and make
appropriate adjustments to the relative
values for those services. Section
3134(a) of the ACA also added a new
section 1848(c)(2)(L) of the Act which
requires the Secretary to develop a
validation process to validate the RVUs
of potentially misvalued codes under
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the PFS and make appropriate
adjustments.
As discussed in section I.A.1. of this
final rule with comment period, we
establish physician work RVUs for new
and revised codes based on our review
of recommendations received from the
AMA RUC. The AMA RUC also
provides recommendations to CMS on
the values for codes that have been
identified as potentially misvalued. To
respond to concerns expressed by
MedPAC, the Congress, and other
stakeholders regarding accurate
valuation of services under the PFS, the
AMA RUC created the Five-Year Review
Identification Workgroup in 2006. In
addition to providing recommendations
to CMS for work RVUs, the AMA RUC’s
Practice Expense Subcommittee reviews
direct PE (clinical labor, medical
supplies, and medical equipment) for
individual services and examines the
many broad methodological issues
relating to the development of PE RVUs.
In accordance with section 1848(c) of
the Act, we determine appropriate
adjustments to the RVUs, taking into
account the recommendations provided
by the AMA RUC and MedPAC, and
publish the explanation for the basis of
these adjustments in the PFS proposed
and final rules. We note that section
1848(c)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act authorizes
the use of extrapolation and other
techniques to determine the RVUs for
physicians’ services for which specific
data are not available, in addition to
taking into account the results of
consultations with organizations
representing physicians.
2. Identifying, Reviewing, and
Validating the RVUs of Potentially
Misvalued Services Under the PFS
a. Background
In its March 2006 Report to Congress,
MedPAC noted that ‘‘misvalued services
can distort the price signals for
physicians’ services as well as for other
health care services that physicians
order, such as hospital services.’’ In that
same report MedPAC postulated that
physicians’ services under the PFS can
become misvalued over time for a
number of reasons: ‘‘For example, when
a new service is added to the physician
fee schedule, it may be assigned a
relatively high value because of the
time, technical skill, and psychological
stress that are required to perform it.
Over time, skill, and stress involved
may decline as physicians become more
familiar with the service and more
efficient at providing it. The amount of
physician work needed to furnish an
existing service may decrease when new
technologies are incorporated. Services
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
can also become overvalued when
practice expenses decline. This can
happen when the costs of equipment
and supplies fall, or when equipment is
used more frequently, reducing its cost
per use. Likewise, services can become
undervalued when physician work
increases or practice expenses rise.’’ In
the ensuing years since MedPAC’s 2006
report, additional groups of potentially
misvalued services have been identified
by Congress, CMS, MedPAC, the AMA
RUC, and other stakeholders.
In recent years CMS and the AMA
RUC have taken increasingly significant
steps to address potentially misvalued
codes. As MedPAC noted in its March
2009 Report to Congress, in the
intervening years since MedPAC made
the initial recommendations, ‘‘CMS and
the AMA RUC have taken several steps
to improve the review process.’’ Most
recently, section 1848(c)(2)(K)(ii) of the
Act (as added by section 3134 of the
ACA) directed the Secretary to
specifically examine potentially
misvalued services in seven categories
as follows:
(1) Codes and families of codes for
which there has been the fastest growth.
(2) Codes or families of codes that
have experienced substantial changes in
practice expenses.
(3) Codes that are recently established
for new technologies or services.
(4) Multiple codes that are frequently
billed in conjunction with furnishing a
single service.
(5) Codes with low relative values,
particularly those that are often billed
multiple times for a single treatment.
(6) Codes which have not been subject
to review since the implementation of
the RBRVS (the so-called ‘‘Harvardvalued codes’’).
(7) Other codes determined to be
appropriate by the Secretary.
Section 1848(c)(2)(K)(iii) of the Act
(as added by section 3134 of the ACA)
also specifies that the Secretary may use
existing processes to receive
recommendations on the review and
appropriate adjustment of potentially
misvalued services. In addition, the
Secretary may conduct surveys, other
data collection activities, studies, or
other analyses as the Secretary
determines to be appropriate to facilitate
the review and appropriate adjustment
of potentially misvalued services. This
section authorizes the use of analytic
contractors to identify and analyze
potentially misvalued codes, conduct
surveys or collect data, and make
recommendations on the review and
appropriate adjustment of potentially
misvalued services. Finally, section
1848(c)(2)(K)(iii)(V) of the Act (as added
by section 3134 of the ACA) specifies
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
that the Secretary may make appropriate
coding revisions (including using
existing processes for consideration of
coding changes) which may include
consolidation of individual services into
bundled codes for payment under the
physician fee schedule.
b. Progress in Identifying and Reviewing
Potentially Misvalued Codes
Over the last several years, CMS, in
conjunction with the AMA RUC, has
identified and reviewed numerous
potentially misvalued codes in all seven
of the categories specified in section
1848(c)(2)(K)(ii) (as added by section
3134 of the ACA), and we plan to
continue our work examining
potentially misvalued codes in these
areas over the upcoming years,
consistent with the new legislative
mandate on this issue. In the current
process, the AMA RUC reviews
potentially misvalued codes that are
identified either by CMS or through its
own processes and recommends revised
work RVUs and/or direct PE inputs for
those codes to CMS. CMS then assesses
the recommended revised work RVUs
and/or direct PE inputs and, in
accordance with section 1848(c) of the
Act, we determine if the
recommendations constitute appropriate
adjustments to the RVUs under the PFS.
Since CY 2009, CMS and the AMA RUC
have identified over 700 potentially
misvalued codes.
For example, in regard to the first
category (codes and families of codes for
which there has been the fastest
growth), for CY 2009 CMS identified
over 100 potentially misvalued codes
for which an analysis of the utilization
data showed an annual growth in
allowed services of 10 percent (or more)
for 3 consecutive years (73 FR 38586).
Each of these codes had allowed charges
of $1 million or more in CY 2007. We
published this list in the CY 2009 PFS
proposed rule (73 FR 38586 through
38589) and requested that the AMA
RUC immediately begin a review of the
codes on this list. Meanwhile, in
parallel with CMS’ efforts, the AMA
RUC also initiated processes to identify
and review potentially misvalued codes
on an ongoing basis using certain
screens, including screens for ‘‘CMS
fastest growing procedures’’ and ‘‘high
volume growth.’’ Both of these AMA
RUC screens are applicable to the first
category of potentially misvalued codes
specified in the ACA. We plan to
continue to analyze Medicare claims
data over future years to identify
additional services that exhibit rapid
growth and high Medicare expenditures
for referral to the AMA RUC for review
as potentially misvalued codes.
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73215
Pertaining to the second category
specified in section 1848(c)(2)(K)(ii) of
the Act (as added by section 3134 of the
ACA) (codes or families of codes that
have experienced substantial changes in
practice expenses), in CY 2009 we
requested that the AMA RUC continue
its review of direct PE inputs, focusing
particularly on high-volume codes
where the PE payments are increasing
significantly under the transition to the
new PE methodology (73 FR 38589).
The AMA RUC has responded by
sending CMS recommendations for
revised direct PE inputs for codes
identified for PE review on an ongoing
basis.
Additionally in CY 2009, we began an
initiative to review and update the
prices for high-cost supplies in order to
ensure the accuracy and completeness
of the direct PE inputs. We discuss our
most recent efforts in refining the
process to update the prices of high-cost
supplies in section II.C.5. of this final
rule with comment period.
For the third category of potentially
misvalued codes identified in section
1848(c)(2)(K)(ii) (as added by section
3134 of the ACA) (codes that are
recently established for new
technologies or services), the AMA RUC
routinely identifies such codes through
a screen based on 3 years of Medicare
claims data, and sends CMS
recommendations for revised work
RVUs and/or direct PE inputs for these
codes on an ongoing basis. The AMA
RUC may determine that a code for a
new service requires reevaluation or
does not require reevaluation, or it may
conclude, on a case-by-case basis, that
more than 3 years of claims data are
necessary before the code can be
reviewed. In that case, it would
determine the appropriate future
timeframe for review.
We also note that in its June 2008
Report to Congress entitled ‘‘Reforming
the Health Care System’’ and in the
context of a discussion about primary
care, MedPAC acknowledges, ‘‘* * *
Efficiency can improve more easily for
other types of services, such as
procedures, with advances in
technology, technique, and other
factors. Ideally, when such efficiency
gains are achieved, the fee schedule’s
relative value units (RVUs) for the
affected services should decline
accordingly, while budget neutrality
would raise the RVUs for the fee
schedule’s primary care services.’’ (page
27). Section II.C.5. of this final rule with
comment period includes a discussion
regarding periodic updates to the costs
of high-cost supplies. This discussion is
highly relevant to new technology
services, where growth in volume of a
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73216
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
service as it diffuses into clinical
practice may lead to a decrease in the
cost of expensive supplies. We also
expect that other efficiencies in
physician work and PE may be achieved
after an initial period of relative
inefficiency that reflects the ‘‘learning
curve.’’ We plan to pay particular
attention to the work values and direct
PE inputs for these new services and the
AMA RUC’s periodic review process to
ensure that any efficiencies are captured
under the PFS over time, recognizing
that the appropriate timing for revaluing
these services needs to be considered on
a case-by-case basis depending on the
growth rate in service volume.
We have also addressed the fourth
category (multiple codes that are
frequently billed in conjunction with
furnishing a single service) in
rulemaking prior to the enactment of the
ACA. As discussed in the CY 2009 PFS
proposed rule (73 FR 38586), we have
a longstanding policy of reducing
payment for multiple surgical
procedures performed on the same
patient, by the same physician, on the
same day. Over the ensuing years, the
multiple procedure payment reduction
(MPPR) policy has been extended to a
number of nuclear diagnostic and
diagnostic imaging procedures. We
continue our work to recognize
efficiencies in this area with a new CY
2011 policy to expand the MPPR policy
to additional combinations of imaging
services and to therapy services for CY
2011 as described in section II.C.4. of
this final rule with comment period.
We note the AMA RUC has also
established a screen to identify services
performed by the same physician on the
same date of service 95 percent of the
time or more. Over the past 2 years, the
CPT Editorial Panel has established new
bundled codes to describe a
comprehensive service for certain
combinations of these existing services
that are commonly furnished together,
and the AMA RUC has recommended
work values and direct PE inputs to
CMS for these comprehensive service
codes that recognize the associated
efficiencies. We look forward to working
with the AMA RUC in this joint effort
to examine codes commonly reported
together and more appropriately value
common combinations services.
We address the fifth category of
potentially misvalued codes (codes with
low relative values, particularly those
that are often billed multiple times for
a single treatment) in section II.C.3.b. of
this final rule with comment period.
That is, we have provided a list of
services with low work RVUs that are
commonly reported with multiple units
in a single encounter and requested that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
the AMA RUC review these codes that
we have identified as potentially
misvalued.
The sixth category (codes which have
not been subject to review since the
implementation of the RBRVS (the socalled ‘‘Harvard-valued codes’’)) also
continues to be addressed by CMS and
the AMA RUC on an ongoing basis. As
we noted in the CY 2009 PFS proposed
rule (73 FR 38589), there were at that
time approximately 2,900 codes,
representing $5 billion in annual
spending, that were originally valued
using Harvard data and had not
subsequently been evaluated by the
AMA RUC. Consequently, in CY 2009,
we requested that the AMA RUC engage
in an ongoing effort to review the
remaining Harvard-valued codes,
focusing first on the high-volume, lowintensity codes (73 FR 38589). In
response to our request, the AMA RUC
initially conducted an analysis of
Harvard-valued services with utilization
above 10,000 services per year, which
resulted in a list of 296 distinct services
(73 FR 69883). The AMA RUC, in its
public comment on the CY 2009
proposed rule, stated that it believes it
would be effective to limit any review
to these 296 services and also noted that
of the 296 services identified, 23 had
already been identified by another
screen and were in the process of being
reviewed (73 FR 69883). To date, the
AMA RUC has reviewed and submitted
to CMS recommendations for revised
work RVUs and/or direct PE inputs for
a number of Harvard-valued codes,
prioritizing those codes with utilization
of over 1 million services. The AMA
RUC and CMS intend to continue our
ongoing assessment of Harvard-valued
codes, next targeting codes with
utilization of over 100,000 services.
Finally, the seventh category of
potentially misvalued codes in section
1848(c)(2)(K)(ii) (as added by section
3134 of the ACA) is all other codes
determined to be appropriate by the
Secretary. In this category, CMS has
previously proposed policies and
requested that the AMA RUC review
codes for which there have been shifts
in the site-of-service (site-of-service
anomalies), as well as codes that qualify
as ‘‘23-hour stay’’ outpatient services.
The policies for valuation of both the
site-of-service anomaly codes and the
‘‘23-hour stay’’ codes are developed
further in sections II.C.3.d. and e.,
respectively, of this final rule with
comment period. For CY 2011, we have
also identified codes with low work
RVUs but that are high volume based on
claims data as another category of
potentially misvalued codes and
referred these codes to the AMA RUC
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
for review, as discussed in section
II.C.3.b. of this final rule with comment
period. In addition, for CY 2011 we
have newly targeted key codes that the
AMA RUC uses as reference services for
valuing other services, termed
‘‘multispecialty points of comparison’’
services, and referred these to the AMA
RUC for review as potentially misvalued
codes as described in section II.C.3.a. of
this final rule with comment period.
Finally, we note the AMA RUC has also
established screens to identify
potentially misvalued codes in
additional categories, including codes
with a high intra-service work per unit
of time (IWPUT) and codes representing
services that had been surveyed by one
specialty, but are now performed by a
different specialty. We will continue to
review AMA RUC recommendations for
revised work RVUs and/or direct PE
inputs for codes that fall into these
categories.
As a result of the combined efforts of
CMS and the AMA RUC to address
potentially misvalued codes, for CY
2009 the AMA RUC recommended
revised work values and/or PE inputs
for 204 misvalued services (73 FR
69883). For CY 2010, an additional 113
codes were identified as misvalued and
the AMA RUC provided new
recommendations for revised work
RVUs and/or PE inputs to CMS as
discussed in the CY 2010 PFS final rule
with comment period (74 FR 61778).
Upon review of the AMA RUCrecommended work RVUs, CMS
accepted the majority of the values as
appropriate adjustments to the RVUs
under the PFS, in accordance with
section 1848(c) of the Act. However, for
a number of codes, mainly the site-ofservice anomaly codes, we indicated
that although we would accept the AMA
RUC valuations for these codes on an
interim basis through CY 2010, we had
ongoing concerns about the
methodology used by the AMA RUC to
review these services (73 FR 69883 and
74 FR 61776 through 61778,
respectively). In the CY 2010 PFS final
rule with comment period, we requested
that the AMA RUC reexamine the siteof-service anomaly codes and use the
building block methodology to revalue
the services (74 FR 61777). In that same
rule, we also stated that we would
continue to examine these codes and
consider whether it would be
appropriate to propose additional
changes in future rulemaking. We
discuss our CY 2011 proposals with
respect to these codes in section II.C.3.d.
of this final rule with comment period.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
c. Validating RVUs of Potentially
Misvalued Codes
In addition to identifying and
reviewing potentially misvalued codes,
section 1848(c)(2)(L) (as added by
section 3134 of the ACA) specifies that
the Secretary shall establish a formal
process to validate relative value units
under the PFS. The validation process
may include validation of work
elements (such as time, mental effort
and professional judgment, technical
skill and physical effort, and stress due
to risk) involved with furnishing a
service and may include validation of
the pre-, post-, and intra-service
components of work. The Secretary is
directed to validate a sampling of the
work RVUs of codes identified through
any of the seven categories of
potentially misvalued codes specified
by section 1848(c)(2)(K)(ii) of the Act (as
added by section 3134 of the ACA).
Furthermore, the Secretary may conduct
the validation using methods similar to
those used to review potentially
misvalued codes, including conducting
surveys, other data collection activities,
studies, or other analyses as the
Secretary determines to be appropriate
to facilitate the validation of RVUs of
services. Currently, while CMS does
assess the AMA RUC-recommended
work RVUs to determine if the
recommendations constitute appropriate
adjustments to the RVUs under the PFS,
we intend to establish a more extensive
validation process of RVUs in the future
in accordance with the requirements of
section 1848(c)(2)(L) of the Act (as
added by section 3134 of the ACA).
Therefore, in the CY 2011 PFS proposed
rule (75 FR 40068), we solicited public
comments on possible approaches and
methodologies that we should consider
for a validation process. We were
interested in public comments regarding
approaches, including the use of time
and motion studies, to validate
estimates of physician time and
intensity that are factored into the work
RVUs for services with rapid growth in
Medicare expenditures, one of the
categories that the statute specifically
directs CMS to examine. We indicated
that we plan to discuss the validation
process in a future PFS rule once we
have considered the matter further in
conjunction with any public comments
and other input from stakeholders that
we receive.
Comment: Some commenters were
skeptical that there could be viable
alternative methods to the existing AMA
RUC code review process for validating
physician time and intensity that would
preserve the appropriate relativity of
specific physician’s services under the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
current payment system. These
commenters generally urged CMS to
rely solely on the AMA RUC to provide
valuations for services under the PFS. A
number of commenters expressed the
belief that since CMS has reviewed the
AMA RUC recommendations for codes
and generally accepted these valuations
in the past, these actions constitute a
‘‘CMS validation process.’’ The
commenters asserted that this current
‘‘CMS validation process’’ more than
meets the requirement of section
1848(c)(2)(L) of the Act (as added by
section 3134 of the ACA).
In addition, a number of commenters
opposed the approach of using time and
motion studies to validate estimates of
physician time and intensity, stating
that properly conducted time and
motion studies are extraordinarily
expensive and, given the thousands of
codes paid under the PFS, it would be
unlikely that all codes could be studied.
The commenters generally opposed
applying different methodologies to
valuing different services under the PFS
and supported using a consistent
methodology for all codes. Some
commenters observed that it would be
extremely difficult for CMS to establish
a process by which to validate a sample
of work RVUs under the PFS because of
the relative nature of the system.
Specifically, one commenter noted that
the ‘‘advantages of a relative system are
considerable—they allow scaling based
on available funds and make it far easier
for a payer such as Medicare to set rates
for multiple services with a single
adjustment to the conversion factor.
However, one disadvantage of a relative
system is that it cannot be externally
validated unless all components are
included in the validation. Services
cannot be examined for absolute
accuracy, only for relative precision. If
we identify some component of the
calculation used to generate the RVU
that is incorrect, it is impossible to
know whether this is a systemic error or
an issue with an individual code. If it
is a systemic error, then it does not
invalidate the relative value system,
which merely must operate on an even
playing field.’’ That is, many
commenters believe that as long as
appropriate relativity is maintained in
the work RVUs for services valued
under the PFS, the specific methodology
for valuing services is less important.
Accordingly, many commenters
expressed support for the AMA RUC’s
use of ‘‘magnitude estimation’’ to
develop the recommended value for a
service and urged CMS to accept the
AMA RUC’s recommendations as the
most informed and best estimation of
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73217
the true value of physician work for a
service.
In contrast, some commenters
declared that ‘‘the flaws inherent in the
RUC system are the lack of
accountability and transparency.’’ These
commenters believe that the AMA
RUC’s composition as a professional
panel puts cognitive services at a
disadvantage and suggested that ‘‘the
composition of the RUC needs to be
modified to more accurately reflect the
desired workforce composition. At
present primary care specialties are
under-represented which we [the
commenters] believe contributes to the
overvaluation of procedural codes and
undervaluation of cognitive codes.’’
Similarly, other commenters noted that
while certified registered nurse
anesthetists (CRNAs) furnished
approximately 32 million anesthesia
services in the United States annually
and can bill Medicare directly for their
services, ‘‘the AMA RUC excludes
CRNAs from directly participating in its
deliberations because CRNAs are not
physicians.’’ These commenters noted
that ‘‘without fair representation by all
specialties that bill Part B directly, CMS’
reliance on the AMA–RUC as
representing the professional views and
knowledge of all healthcare specialties
is deeply flawed.’’ The commenters also
advised that ‘‘while the RUC relies on
persuasion and brokering deals, RVUs
need to be validated empirically.’’ In
general, these commenters believe that
since section 1848(c)(2)(L) of the Act (as
added by section 3134 of the ACA)
expressly specifies that CMS has the
authority to conduct surveys and
studies and collect data, CMS should
develop a process that uses empirical
evidence as the basis for validation of
work RVUs.
Response: We agree with the
commenters that the work before us to
develop a formal validation process as
specified by section 1848(c)(2)(L) of the
Act (as added by section 3134 of the
ACA) will be a challenging but
worthwhile effort to ensure accurate
valuation of physician work under the
PFS. While we have reviewed AMA
RUC recommendations for codes and
frequently accepted these valuations in
the past, we disagree with the
commenters’ assertion that these actions
constitute a formal CMS validation
process as envisioned by section
1848(c)(2)(L) of the Act (as added by
section 3134 of the ACA). Section
1848(c)(2)(L) of the Act (as added by
section 3134 of the ACA) clearly
specifies a new requirement that ‘‘the
Secretary shall establish a process to
validate relative value units under the
fee schedule.’’ While we solicited
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73218
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
comments on the possibility of using
time and motion studies to support a
future validation process, we
understand that these studies would
require significant resources and we
remain open to suggestions for other
approaches to developing a validation
process.
In response to the commenters who
raised the issue of the AMA RUC’s most
commonly used approach for valuing
codes, referred to as ‘‘magnitude
estimation,’’ we note that the AMA RUC
does not rely on a single consistent
methodology to value codes. Based on
our historical and current review of the
AMA RUC recommendation summaries
which accompany the work RVU
recommendations for each code newly
valued or revalued by the AMA RUC
each year, we have noticed that the
AMA RUC appears to use a variety of
methodologies in its valuation process.
For some codes, the AMA RUC uses
magnitude estimation in conjunction
with survey data from surveys
conducted by the specialty societies to
support the values. For other codes, the
AMA RUC uses magnitude estimation to
override the results of the survey data,
recommending to CMS a value that is
not based on survey data, but rather,
justified in terms of its appropriate
relativity within the system to other
similar services. The AMA RUC may
also elect to use a crosswalk approach
in valuing a code by applying a work
value from a currently valued code to
the code under review based on the
clinical similarity of the procedures or
explicit considerations of pre-, intra-,
and post-service time. In some
instances, we note that the AMA RUC
has asserted that it uses the building
block methodology to value the code, a
methodology we have historically
supported (74 FR 61777). Since the
AMA RUC uses a variety of
methodologies for valuing codes, not
just magnitude estimation supported by
survey data, or our recommended
methodology of valuation based on
building blocks, we foresee that
validation of the work RVUs will be
complex, perhaps requiring an initial
study of the all the possible valuation
methodologies currently being
employed by the AMA RUC so that we
can better understand how relativity
between services under the PFS has
developed and been maintained over
the years.
As we have stated previously (69 FR
66243), because the AMA RUC is an
independent committee, we are not in a
position to set the requirements for
AMA RUC membership regarding
primary care specialties or other types
of practitioners. Concerned stakeholders
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
should communicate directly with the
AMA RUC regarding its professional
composition. We note that we alone are
responsible for all decisions about
establishing the RVUs for purposes of
PFS payment so, while the AMA RUC
provides us with recommendations
regarding the work and direct PE inputs
for new and revised CPT codes in the
context of its broad expertise, we
determine the interim final RVUs for all
new or revised services. Additionally,
the interim RVUs are subject to public
comment and we respond to those
comments in a final rule when we adopt
the final RVUs for the new and revised
CPT codes. We believe that the formal
validation process will further
complement the ongoing work of the
AMA RUC to provide recommendations
to us regarding the valuation of PFS
services.
Comment: While a number of
commenters strongly opposed CMS’
plans to develop a formal validation
process, many other commenters
expressed support for the development
and establishment of a system-wide
validation process of the work RVUs
under the PFS. The commenters
commended CMS for seeking new
approaches to validation, as well as
being open to suggestions from the
public on this process. A number of
commenters submitted technical advice
and offered their time and expertise as
resources for CMS to draw upon in any
examination of possible approaches to
developing a formal validation process.
Furthermore, MedPAC advised that a
formal validation process should
include validating the fee schedule’s
estimates of physician time. MedPAC
noted that ‘‘Contract research for CMS
and the Assistant Secretary for Planning
and Evaluation has shown that some of
the time estimates are likely too high. In
addition, the Government
Accountability Office has found that the
fee schedule does not adequately
account for efficiencies occurring when
a physician furnishes multiple services
for the same patient on the same day.’’
Finally, MedPAC suggested that CMS
should consider alternative approaches,
‘‘such as collecting data on a recurring
basis from a cohort of practices and
other facilities where physicians and
nonphysician clinical practitioners
work.’’
Some commenters noted that
‘‘involving RUC experts, those who are
most intimately acquainted with and
possess the deepest level of expertise
and experience makes the most sense’’
and stated that these individuals ‘‘are
also those best equipped to provide
insights and guidance to help shape an
independent validation system.’’ A
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
number of commenters asked CMS to
confirm that stakeholders would be
given the opportunity to comment on
any specific proposals for a validation
process that CMS plans to implement.
Response: We thank the many
commenters who generously offered to
help and provided technical
suggestions, including the use of
statistical modeling and possible
sources of data that we should consider
in developing a validation process. We
will review MedPAC’s suggestions to
examine physician time in the formal
validation process. We will also
consider the commenters’
recommendation that we include the
AMA RUC and other professional
groups who also have a stake in
ensuring appropriate payment for
practitioners’ services. As we stated
previously, we intend to establish a
more extensive validation process of
RVUs in the future in accordance with
the requirements of section 1848(c)(2)(L)
of the Act (as added by section 3134 of
the ACA). We note that MedPAC, in
providing comments to the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule, ‘‘strongly supports efforts
to improve the accuracy of the fee
schedule’s RVUs.’’ We plan to discuss
the validation process in more detail in
a future PFS rule once we have
considered the matter further in
conjunction with the public comments
that we have received in response to our
solicitation in the CY 2011 proposed
rule as well as other input from
stakeholders. Moreover, we note that
any proposals we would make on the
formal validation process would be
subject to public comment, and we
would consider those comments before
finalizing any policies.
3. CY 2011 Identification and Review of
Potentially Misvalued Services
In this section, we discuss codes that
may be potentially misvalued according
to five different criteria:
• Codes on the multi-specialty points
of comparison list;
• Codes with low work RVUs
commonly billed in multiple units per
single encounter;
• Codes with high volume and low
work RVUs;
• Codes with site-of-service
anomalies; and
• Codes that qualify as ‘‘23-hour stay’’
outpatient services.
a. Codes on the Multispecialty Points of
Comparison List
The AMA RUC uses a scale referred
to as the multispecialty points of
comparison (MPC) to evaluate the
reasonableness of a specialty society’s
recommended RVU value for a service.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
The MPC list contains reference codes
of established comparison services that
are used in the valuation of new codes.
The current MPC list consists of 316
codes which the AMA RUC may use to
compare and contrast the relativity of
codes under review to existing relative
values. Since the AMA RUC may use
the values on the MPC list as a basis for
relativity when determining the values
for new, revised, and newly reviewed
codes (including potentially misvalued
codes), it is essential that the services on
the MPC list be appropriately valued
since any codes misvalued on the MPC
list could contribute to the misvaluing
of other codes under review. While we
believe that the entire MPC list should
be assessed to ensure that services are
paid appropriately under the PFS, we
prioritized the review of the MPC list,
ranking the codes by allowed service
units and charges based on CY 2009
claims data. We proposed to refer the
codes in Table 9 to the AMA RUC for
review in CY 2011.
TABLE 9—CODES ON THE MPC LIST
REFERRED FOR AMA RUC REVIEW
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
CPT code
66984
97110
43239
20610
78815
45385
45380
11721
17000
92980
74160
71020
11100
66821
52000
92083
73721
93010
77334
92250
95810
77003
11056
76700
77290
77300
43235
71275
95900
31231
95165
94060
31575
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
Short descriptor
Cataract surg w/iol, 1 stage.
Therapeutic exercises.
Upper GI endoscopy, biopsy.
Drain/inject, joint/bursa.
Pet image w/ct, skull-thigh.
Lesion removal colonoscopy.
Colonoscopy and biopsy.
Debride nail, 6 or more.
Destruct premalg lesion.
Insert intracoronary stent.
Ct abdomen w/dye.
Chest x-ray.
Biopsy, skin lesion.
After cataract laser surgery.
Cystoscopy.
Visual field examination(s).
Mri jnt of lwr extre w/o dye.
Electrocardiogram report.
Radiation treatment aid(s).
Eye exam with photos.
Polysomnography, 4 or more.
Fluoroguide for spine inject.
Trim skin lesions, 2 to 4.
Us exam, abdom, complete.
Set radiation therapy field.
Radiation therapy dose plan.
Uppr gi endoscopy, diagnosis.
Ct angiography, chest.
Motor nerve conduction test.
Nasal endoscopy, dx.
Antigen therapy services.
Evaluation of wheezing.
Diagnostic laryngoscopy.
Comment: While some commenters
agreed with CMS that the entire MPC
list should be assessed to ensure that
services are paid appropriately under
the PFS, and supported the proposal
that the AMA RUC review the services
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
listed in Table 9, a number of other
commenters expressed surprise that
CMS seemed to be suggesting that any
code on the MPC list could be classified
as potentially misvalued. Many
commenters noted that the MPC list of
codes is considered the ‘‘gold standard’’
within the PFS and it is used to help
judge the appropriate relativity of
procedures across specialties. A number
of commenters assured CMS that the
codes on the MPC list have been
thoroughly vetted and, therefore, these
commenters took issue with CMS for
implying that the codes could somehow
be considered potentially misvalued.
Specifically, one commenter noted,
‘‘[t]he assumption of the specialties, the
RUC and CMS has been that these
services are appropriately valued and
well established.’’ Another commenter
expressed the concern as follows:
‘‘[c]hallenging the rank order of the MPC
list essentially negates 20 years of RUC
work. Obtaining new data to validate
the old data inevitably leads to the
problem of what should be done if the
data yield different results. Is there any
reason to believe that a newer survey is
a more accurate survey, or that the data
analysis and subsequent opinion of the
current or future RUCs will be more
valid than that of previous RUCs?
Admittedly data collection methods
have become more refined in the past 20
years, but that neither means nor
implies that relativity amongst
physician services has changed.’’ Some
commenters reminded CMS that the
AMA RUC is already planning to review
some codes on the MPC list in the
coming year, while other commenters
noted that some of the codes on the
MPC list have been reviewed by the
AMA RUC within the past 6 years.
Some commenters did not believe that
some of the well-established services on
the MPC list would need another review
and that the resources required to rereview such services could be better
used elsewhere. Furthermore, some
commenters believe that if a code has
been surveyed as part of the potentially
misvalued services initiative during the
last 5 years and it is identified again
using a different screen, that it need not
be resurveyed again.
Finally, several commenters noted
that while reviewing all the codes on
the MPC list would ‘‘be a substantial
undertaking for the RUC, properly
valuing these services will help restore
equity in the physician payment
system.’’ The commenters further
suggested that CMS should specify to
the AMA RUC what it considers good
survey methodology, including the use
of peer review and time studies.
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73219
Response: We note that the vast
majority of commenters, whether they
supported or opposed our proposal,
acknowledged the significant and
central role that the MPC list plays in
the valuation of services under the PFS.
Because it is currently the ‘‘gold
standard’’ to which other codes, across
specialties, are compared, we agree with
the commenters who suggested that
codes on this list should be vetted,
though we disagree that we should
assume this has been done or occurs
automatically and systematically. We
also acknowledge that the AMA RUC
recently has reviewed some of the codes
and is planning to review more codes on
the MPC list. Our proposal suggested
prioritizing the review of the codes by
ranking them according to utilization
which, in our view, would potentially
provide the most immediate benefit to
the system.
If a code on the MPC list has not been
reviewed recently—certainly more
recently than 6 years ago—we believe
that the code is vulnerable to being
potentially misvalued and that the
misvaluation of an MPC code could
disproportionately affect the correct
valuation of other related services under
the PFS. Given the rapid changes in
medical practice, we have no reason to
believe that the relativity of the MPC
codes would not have changed over the
past 20 years and we would expect that
more recent survey data would more
accurately reflect the physician work in
current medical practice. If the codes
are resurveyed and newer more accurate
data are available, we would support
using the most recent available data to
value physician work under the PFS,
which is consistent with our general
policy to use the most current data
whenever possible and practicable to
update the PFS.
Given the evolving review process of
the AMA RUC over the past several
years, CMS’ strong interest in ensuring
current and appropriate physician work
values for PFS services, and the
increased emphasis on revaluing
established services that are potentially
misvalued, we are requesting that the
AMA RUC provide a current and
comprehensive recommendation on the
appropriate physician work value,
including describing and affirming the
methodology for the recommended
work value, for all of the codes listed in
Table 9. To the extent the AMA RUC
chooses to limit its work in reexamining
MPC codes that have recently been
evaluated, consistent with our usual
practice, we will consider the context
when we evaluate the AMA RUC’s
recommendation for the value of the
code.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73220
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Although valuation is ultimately our
responsibility, the AMA RUC and CMS
remain partners in ensuring the
appropriate valuation of physician work
for services under the PFS and we
believe our proposal serves to enhance
this process. Accordingly, after
consideration of the public comments
we received, we are finalizing our CY
2011 proposal and we look forward to
receiving the AMA RUC’s
recommendations for the codes listed in
Table 9.
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
b. Codes With Low Work RVUs
Commonly Billed in Multiple Units Per
Single Encounter
Consistent with section
1848(c)(2)(K)(ii) of the Act (as added by
section 3134 of the ACA) which
identifies categories of potentially
misvalued codes for our review, we
believe services with low work RVUs
that are commonly billed with multiple
units in a single encounter are an
additional appropriate category for
identifying potentially misvalued codes.
An example of a high multiple/low
work RVU service is CPT code 95004
(Percutaneous tests (scratch, puncture,
prick) with allergenic extracts,
immediate type reaction, including test
interpretation and report by a physician,
specify number of tests). For purposes of
compiling a list of the high multiple/
low work RVU services, we defined a
high multiple service as one that is
commonly performed in multiples of 5
or more per day. Then, we selected from
high multiple services with work RVUs
of less than or equal to 0.5 RVUs. We
note that in selecting 5 per day as the
minimum threshold for the number of
common services performed in a
multiple service encounter, we intended
to establish a meaningful threshold
which, in conjunction with the
threshold for work RVUs of 0.5 RVUs or
less, would produce a reasonable
number of services for the RUC to
review that have substantial total work
RVUs for the comprehensive service
furnished during a single treatment.
That is, as a general example, with a
work RVU threshold of 0.5 RVUs and a
multiple threshold of 5 per day, the total
work RVUs for a typical treatment
would equate to 2.5 RVUs, which is
approximately comparable to a high
level office visit, an interpretation of a
complex imaging procedure, or a minor
surgical procedure.
In the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule (75
FR 40069), we requested that the AMA
RUC review the codes in Table 10.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
TABLE 10—CODES WITH LOW WORK
RVUS THAT ARE COMMONLY BILLED
IN MULTIPLE UNITS REFERRED FOR
AMA RUC REVIEW
CPT code
95904
17003
95004
11101
95024
76000
95144
95010
88300
95027
95015
95148
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
Short descriptor
Sense nerve conduction test.
Destruct premalg les, 2–14.
Percut allergy skin tests.
Biopsy, skin add-on.
Id allergy test, drug/bug.
Fluoroscope examination.
Antigen therapy services.
Percut allergy titrate test.
Surgical path, gross.
Id allergy titrate—airborne.
Id allergy titrate—drug/bug.
Antigen therapy services.
c. Codes With High Volume and Low
Work RVUs
We believe that codes that have low
work RVUs but are high volume based
on claims data are another category of
potentially misvalued codes. Although
these codes have low work RVUs (less
than or equal to 0.25 RVUs), the high
utilization of these codes represents
significant expenditures under the PFS
such that their appropriate valuation is
especially important. Table 11 contains
a list of such codes and we requested
that the AMA RUC review these codes
in the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule (75
FR 40069).
TABLE 11: CODES WITH LOW WORK
RVUS THAT ARE HIGH VOLUME REFERRED FOR AMA RUC REVIEW
CPT code
71010
73510
97035
88313
73630
72100
73030
73562
73560
94010
77052
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
88304
73564
72170
74000
73610
11719
73620
92567
73110
73130
93701
72040
92543
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
Short descriptor
Chest x-ray.
X-ray exam of hip.
Ultrasound therapy.
Special stains group 2.
X-ray exam of foot.
X-ray exam of lower spine.
X-ray exam of shoulder.
X-ray exam of knee, 3.
X-ray exam of knee, 1 or 2.
Breathing capacity test.
Comp screen mammogram
add-on.
Tissue exam by pathologist.
X-ray exam, knee, 4 or more.
X-ray exam of pelvis.
X-ray exam of abdomen.
X-ray exam of ankle.
Trim nail(s).
X-ray exam of foot.
Tympanometry.
X-ray exam of wrist.
X-ray exam of hand.
Bioimpedance, cv analysis.
X-ray exam of neck spine.
Caloric vestibular test.
Comment: A number of commenters
agreed with CMS’ proposal for the AMA
RUC to review codes with low work
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
RVUs that are commonly billed with
multiple units, and codes with high
volume and low work RVUs. Other
commenters did not support these
proposals based on a belief that just
because a code has low work RVUs, the
conclusion should not necessarily be
drawn that the code is potentially
misvalued.
Response: While we do not believe
that low work RVUs automatically
indicate that the code is misvalued, we
believe that some codes in this category
may be vulnerable to being potentially
misvalued because they have not been
subject to review recently, there are
particular challenges associated with
establishing appropriate low work RVUs
for services, and these services would
not likely be subject to AMA RUC
revaluation without CMS’
recommendation. Accordingly, after
consideration of the public comments
we received, we are finalizing our CY
2011 proposal and we look forward to
receiving the AMA RUC’s
recommendation for the codes listed in
Tables 10 and 11.
d. Codes With Site-of-ServiceAnomalies
In previous years, we requested that
the AMA RUC review codes that,
according to the Medicare claims
database, have experienced a change in
the typical site of service since the
original valuation of the code. For
example, we have found services that
originally were furnished in the
inpatient setting but for which current
claims data show the typical case has
shifted to being furnished outside the
inpatient setting. Since the procedures
were typically performed in the
inpatient setting when the codes were
originally valued, the work RVUs for
these codes would have been valued to
include the inpatient physician work
furnished, as well as to reflect the
intensive care and follow-up normally
associated with an inpatient procedure.
If the typical case for the procedure has
shifted from the inpatient setting to an
outpatient or physician’s office setting,
it is reasonable to expect that there have
been changes in medical practice, and
that such changes would represent a
decrease in physician time or intensity
or both. The AMA RUC reviewed and
recommended to CMS revised work
RVUs for 29 codes for CY 2009 and 11
codes for CY 2010 that were identified
as having site-of-service anomalies.
In the CY 2010 PFS proposed and
final rules with comment period (74 FR
33556 and 74 FR 61777, respectively),
we encouraged the AMA RUC to utilize
the building block methodology when
revaluing services with site-of-service
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
anomalies. Specifically, where the AMA
RUC has determined in its review that
changes in the inclusion of inpatient
hospital days, office visits, and hospital
discharge day management services
(that is, the ‘‘building blocks’’ of the
code) are warranted in the revaluation
of the code, we asked the AMA RUC to
adjust the site-of-service anomaly code
for the work RVUs associated with those
changes.
Additionally, we suggested that in
cases where the AMA RUC has adjusted
the pre-service, intra-service and postservice times of the code under review,
the AMA RUC should also make
associated work RVU adjustments to
account for those changes. However, we
remained concerned that in the AMA
RUC’s recommendations of the work
RVUs for the CYs 2009 and 2010 siteof-service anomaly codes, the AMA
RUC may have determined that
eliminating or reallocating pre-service
and post-service times, hospital days,
office visits, and hospital discharge day
management services was appropriate to
reflect the typical case that is now
occurring in a different setting, but the
work RVUs associated with those
changes may not have been
systematically extracted or reallocated
from the total work RVU value for the
service.
In the CYs 2009 and 2010 PFS final
rules with comment period (73 FR
69883 and 74 FR 61776 through 61778,
respectively), we indicated that
although we would accept the AMA
RUC valuations for these site-of-service
anomaly codes on an interim basis
through CY 2010, we had ongoing
concerns about the methodology used
by the AMA RUC to review these
services. We requested that the AMA
RUC reexamine the site-of-service
anomaly codes and use the building
block methodology to revalue the
services (74 FR 61777). We also stated
that we would continue to examine
these codes and consider whether it
would be appropriate to propose
additional changes in future
rulemaking.
Accordingly, in preparation for CY
2011 rulemaking, we conducted a
comprehensive analysis of the codes
that the AMA RUC reviewed for CYs
2009 and 2010 due to site-of-service
anomaly concerns. We systematically
applied the reverse building block
methodology to the 29 codes from CY
2009 and 11 codes from CY 2010 as
follows:
• First, we obtained the original work
RVU value assigned to the code (this is
the ‘‘starting value’’) and made a list of
the building block services with RVUs
that were originally associated with the
code (that is, before the AMA RUC
reviewed the code for site-of-service
anomalies).
• Next, we examined the AMA RUCrecommended changes to the building
blocks of the code.
• We then deducted the RVUs
associated with the AMA RUC’s
recommended eliminations from the
code’s starting RVU value.
Generally, the AMA RUC eliminated
inpatient hospital visit building blocks
from the value of the code since the siteof-service for the code has shifted from
the inpatient setting to another setting.
We noted in some cases, the AMA RUC
left an inpatient hospital visit in the
valuation of the code. We believe this is
inconsistent with the change in the siteof-service to non-inpatient settings.
Accordingly, we adhered to the
methodology and deducted the RVUs
associated with all inpatient hospital
visits from the starting value. In cases
where the AMA RUC recommended
adding or substituting outpatient visits,
we also added or substituted the RVUs
associated with those changes to the
starting value. If the AMA RUC
recommended changes to the pre-,
intra-, or post-service times, we
calculated the incremental change in
RVUs associated with that time and
either added or deducted that RVU
amount from the starting value. We
noted that the RVU values associated
with the incremental time change were
calculated using the intensity associated
with the particular pre-, intra-, or post-
73221
period. For the intensity of the intraservice period, we utilized the original
IWPUT associated with the code. The
AMA RUC generally recommended
allowing only half of a hospital
discharge day management service for
the site-of-service anomaly codes. That
is, CPT code 99238 (Hospital discharge
day management; 30 minutes or less)
has a work RVU value of 1.28; therefore,
half the value associated with CPT code
99238 is 0.64. Accordingly, if a code
had one CPT code 99238 listed as part
of the original valuation, we deducted
0.64 RVUs from the starting value.
We standardized the methodology so
that each of the site-of-service anomaly
codes had half of a hospital discharge
day management service value
accounted in the valuation. Finally, we
noted that while we eliminated the
RVUs associated with all inpatient
hospital visits built into the code’s
starting value, because the typical case
no longer occurs in the inpatient setting,
we allowed for the possibility that in
some cases, some part of the work
which had been furnished in the
inpatient setting may continue to be
furnished even in the outpatient setting.
Therefore, to be conservative in our
deductions of work RVUs associated
with the inpatient hospital codes from
the starting values, we allowed the
intra-time of any inpatient hospital
visits included in the original valuation
to migrate to the post-service period of
the code. Accordingly, while we
deducted the full RVUs of an inpatient
hospital visit from the starting value, we
added the intra-service time of the
inpatient hospital visit to the postservice time of the code and accounted
for the incremental change in RVUs.
The following description provides an
example of our methodology.
CPT code 21025 (Excision of bone
(e.g., for osteomyelitis or bone abscess);
mandible) has a starting value of 11.07
RVUs. Table 12 shows the building
blocks that are included in the original
valuation of the code.
TABLE 12
Median
intra-service time
Immediate
post-service time
99231
99232
99238
99211
99212
99213
75 min .....
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Pre-service time
120 min ..
43 min ....
1 visit ...........
(0.76 RVUs)
1 visit ...........
(1.39 RVUs)
1 visit ...........
(1.28 RVUs)
2 visits .........
(0.36 RVUs)
2 visits .........
(0.96 RVUs)
2 visits .........
(1.94 RVUs)
The AMA RUC removed two inpatient
hospital visits and reduced the
outpatient visits from 6 to 4 visits. Table
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
13 shows the building blocks that were
recommended for CY 2009 by the AMA
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Original
IWPUT
0.0145
RUC after its review of the code for siteof-service anomalies.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73222
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 13
Pre-service time
Median
intra-service time
Immediate
post-service time
85 min .....
90 min ....
30 min ....
99231
99238
99211
99231 (Level 1 subsequent hospital care,
per day). Also, the median intra-service
value of 0.44 RVUs (Table 14) was
determined using the starting IWPUT
value of 0.0145. Additionally, our
methodology accounted for a half of a
hospital discharge day management
99212
99213
2 visits .........
Next we calculated the RVUs
associated with the changes to the
building blocks recommended by the
AMA RUC. We note that the immediate
post-service value of 0.38 RVUs (Table
14) includes 30 minutes of intra-service
time from inpatient hospital CPT code
99232
Original
IWPUT
2 visits .........
0.0530
service (CPT code 99238) for the site-ofservice anomaly code. Table 14 shows
the RVU changes to the building blocks
that were calculated based on the
methodology discussed above.
TABLE 14
Pre-service
time
Median intraservice time
Immediate
post-service
time
99231
99232
99238
99211
99212
0.22 RVUs ......
¥0.44 RVUs ..
0.38 RVUs .....
¥0.76 RVUs
¥1.39 RVUs
¥0.64 RVUs
¥0.36 RVUs
.....................
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
In the final step, the RVUs associated
with the changes to the building blocks
recommended by the AMA RUC (Table
14) were deducted from or added to the
starting value of 11.07 RVUs, which
resulted in the CY 2011 reverse building
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
block value of 8.08 RVUs (11.07 + 0.22–
0.44 + 0.38 – 0.76 – 1.39 – 0.64 – 0.36
= 8.08).
The methodology discussed above
was applied to each of the site-of-service
anomaly codes from CYs 2009 and 2010
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
99213
and the results are summarized in
Tables 15 and 16.
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73223
ER29NO10.245
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
BILLING CODE 4120–01–C
For most codes in Tables 15 and 16,
the CY 2011 reverse building block
methodology produced a value that was
somewhat lower than the AMA RUCrecommended value. While our results
suggested that the majority of the codes
with site-of-service anomalies continue
to be overvalued under the AMA RUC’s
most recent recommendations, we also
found that the methodology may
produce a result that is considerably
reduced or, in several cases, a negative
value. We understand that in previous
years, stakeholders have expressed
confusion as to why the application of
a building block methodology would
produce negative values. We believe in
some cases, the starting value, that is,
the original work RVU, may have been
misvalued using building block inputs
that were not consistent with the
service, although the overall work value
of the code may have been consistent
with the values for other similar
services. Moreover, a number of these
services are the Harvard-valued codes,
for which the RVUs were established
many years ago based on historical
inputs that may no longer be
appropriate for the code. An attempt to
extract the RVUs associated with these
inappropriate inputs through the reverse
building block methodology could
produce aberrant results. Furthermore,
in some cases, we noticed that the
original IWPUT of the code was
negative even before the code was
reviewed by the AMA RUC for a site-ofservice anomaly. A negative value for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
the IWPUT is counterintuitive to the
IWPUT concept, indicating that the
code was originally misvalued at the
building block level. At a minimum, we
believe that in cases where the reverse
building block methodology produced
aberrant results, and where clinical
review indicated a need for further
analysis, the codes should be referred
back to the AMA RUC for review and
new valuation should be performed
based on the building block
methodology.
We noted the application of the
reverse building block methodology is
an objective way to account for changes
in the resources resulting from the
change in the site-of-service in which
the typical service is furnished.
However, because relative values under
the PFS are ‘‘relative,’’ that is, where
work relative value units for a code are
established relative to work relative
value units for other codes, the
recommended methodology of valuing
services based on input building blocks
is best applied within the context of the
AMA RUC discussion. For example, we
recognize that the AMA RUC looks at
families of codes and may assign RVUs
based on a particular code ranking
within the family. This method of
valuing services preserves relativity
within the relative value scale for that
code family. However, we have stated
that we believe the relative value scale
requires each service to be valued based
on the resources used in furnishing the
service as specified in section
1848(c)(1)(A) of the Act, which defines
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the physician work component to
include ‘‘the portion of the resources
used in furnishing the service that
reflects physician time and intensity in
furnishing the service.’’ Furthermore,
section 1848(c)(2)(C)(i) of the Act
specifies that ‘‘the Secretary shall
determine a number of work relative
value units (RVUs) for the service based
on the relative resources incorporating
physician time and intensity required in
furnishing the service.’’ Read together,
these two sections of the statute support
our intention to rely on the building
block methodology to determine
appropriate work RVUs for codes.
We noted that we continue to rely on
the extensive expertise provided by the
AMA RUC to recommend appropriate
input building blocks for codes.
Additionally, the AMA RUC’s unique
infrastructure and broad perspective
permits the valuation of a code within
the context of relativity to the entire
relative value system. Therefore, we
believe that the recommended
methodology of valuing services based
on input building blocks is best applied
within the context of the AMA RUC
discussion.
Accordingly, in the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule (75 FR 40072), we
requested that the AMA RUC review the
CPT codes displayed in Tables 15 and
16. In addition, where the application of
the CY 2011 reverse building block
methodology produced an aberrant
result that is clearly not a reflection of
physician work for the service, we
requested that the AMA RUC review the
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
ER29NO10.246
73224
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
input building blocks and recommend
an appropriate RVU value that is both
consistent with the building blocks of
the code and appropriate relative to the
values for other codes in the family. For
other codes where the application of the
CY 2011 reverse building block
methodology produced a result that is
consistent with the physician work for
the service, we encouraged the AMA
RUC to confirm the values and
recommend these work values for CY
2011. In this way, we hoped to receive
new AMA RUC recommendations for all
of the codes in Tables 15 and 16 for CY
2011. Furthermore, we indicated that if
the recommendations that we received
from the AMA RUC were not consistent
with the building block methodology
and not appropriate relative to the
values of other services, and the
application of the CY 2011 reverse
building block methodology produced a
result that CMS medical advisors
believe is consistent with the work for
the service, we proposed to adopt the
CY 2011 reverse building block
methodology values that are listed in
Tables 15 and 16 for CY 2011. In cases
where the reverse building block
methodology produced a negative work
value, we suggested that the AMA RUC
review and revise the building blocks of
the code so that a new valuation could
be determined based on the building
block methodology. For such codes, if
the revised recommendations that we
hoped to receive from the AMA RUC
were still not consistent with the
building block methodology upon
revision, because we could not pay for
these services based on negative work
RVUs, we proposed to modify the AMA
RUC-recommended values for these
codes as CMS determined to be
clinically appropriate and adopt the
CMS-modified RVUs on a interim final
basis for CY 2011.
In their future work, we urged the
AMA RUC to use the building block
methodology when valuing services or
provide CMS with extensive rationale
for cases where the AMA RUC believes
the building block methodology is
inappropriate for a specific code. Since
section 1848(c)(2)(L) of the Act (as
added by section 3134 of the ACA)
specifies that the Secretary shall
establish a process to validate work
RVUs of potentially misvalued codes
under the PFS, as we have discussed
earlier in this section, we believe codes
that are valued using the building block
methodology would be more likely to
meet the standards of a systematic RVU
validation process that could be
developed in accordance with the
requirements of the statute.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
Comment: While several commenters
supported CMS’ recommendation to use
the reverse building block methodology
to value physician work for codes
identified as having site-of-service
anomalies, the majority of commenters
strongly opposed the reverse building
block methodology, expressing concern
that the methodology produced very
low or negative work RVUs for a
number of the codes listed in Tables 14
and 15. Several letter writing campaigns
by groups of providers and beneficiaries
affected by some of the codes listed in
Tables 14 and 15 produced scores of
comments expressing confusion and
alarm that CMS appeared to be on the
verge of finalizing negative work RVUs.
Some commenters noted that the values
calculated by the application of the
reverse building block methodology
would result in rank order anomalies
across the PFS.
Many commenters reiterated CMS’
observation that some of the codes were
originally Harvard-valued, for which the
RVUs were established many years ago
based on historical inputs that may no
longer be appropriate for the code, and
an attempt to extract the RVUs
associated with these inappropriate
inputs through the reverse building
block methodology would produce
aberrant (that is, very low or negative)
results. Some commenters disagreed
with CMS’ statement that if the typical
case for the procedure has shifted from
the inpatient setting to an outpatient or
physician’s office setting, it would be
reasonable to expect that there have
been changes in medical practice, and
that such changes would represent a
decrease in physician time, or intensity,
or both. These commenters believe that
that this assumption is fundamentally
wrong and that the reverse actually may
be true. One commenter noted, ‘‘When
a procedure migrates from the inpatient
to the outpatient setting, the physician
work and practice expense actually
increase. The result is more office visits,
more utilization of office staff, more
consumption of office supplies, and no
decrease in legal liability to the
physician (and in some instances
increased legal liability as functions
formerly performed by hospital staff are
now done by physician office staff).’’
A number of commenters asserted
that any mathematical or computational
methodology used to value physician
work is simply absurd. Many
commenters stated their preference for
the AMA RUC’s established valuation
process which the commenters believe
is based on specialty society survey
data. Other commenters asserted that
the AMA RUC’s use of magnitude
estimation is the only methodology that
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73225
makes sense in assigning physician
work values to individual services
because the PFS is a relative system and
maintaining appropriate relativity
between the services is paramount in
valuing physician work.
Response: We acknowledge that
commenters overwhelmingly objected to
the proposed reverse building block
methodology because, in some cases, it
produced very low or negative
physician work values. While we
explained in the proposed rule (75 FR
40071 through 40072) the possible
reasons why negative values could be
generated in the application of the
reverse building block methodology, the
commenters generally disregarded this
explanation and summarily dismissed
the methodology as invalid based on the
reasoning that negative work values are
absurd. Responding to the commenters
who were concerned that CMS was
preparing to implement negative work
RVUs imminently, we assure the
commenters that at no time was this a
possibility, as we made clear in the CY
2011 PFS proposed rule (75 FR 40072)
where we acknowledge that we could
not pay for services based on negative
work RUVs. As we stated in the
proposed rule, in cases where the
reverse building block methodology
produced a negative work value, we
suggested that the AMA RUC review
and revise the building blocks of the
code so that a new valuation could be
determined based on the building block
methodology. We further proposed that
if we did not believe the AMA RUC
recommended values were consistent
with the building block methodology,
we would modify the recommended
values as we determined to be clinically
appropriate and adopt the modified
RVUs on an interim final basis for CY
2011.
The AMA RUC has not provided
revised work recommendations to us for
these codes for CY 2011. Therefore, in
light of the strong public opposition to
the reverse building block methodology
and since we remain convinced that the
values for the codes with site-of-service
anomalies listed in Tables 14 and 15
continue to be misvalued based on our
clinical review of the building blocks for
those services as recommended
previously by the AMA RUC, we believe
that the most appropriate action is to
continue to await the further AMA RUC
review of these codes that we requested
in the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule (75
FR 40072). However, after consideration
of the public comments we received, we
are modifying our CY 2011 proposal and
we will not apply the reverse building
block methodology to value any of these
codes for CY 2011 as we proposed. We
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73226
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
are requesting that the AMA RUC
reconsider its previously recommended
values that have been applied on an
interim basis in CYs 2009 and 2010, as
applicable, and revise the work RVUs to
better reflect the intensity of the services
and the revised physician times and
post-procedure visits included in the
valuation of these codes. As we stated
in the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule (75
FR 40072), we suggest that the AMA
RUC review and revise the building
blocks of the codes so that a new
valuation can be determined based on
the building block methodology. Until
we receive the revised values from the
AMA RUC for CY 2012 and can make
a determination regarding them, we will
continue to accept the existing AMA
RUC-recommended work RVUs listed in
Tables 14 and 15 on an interim basis for
CY 2011. We would follow our usual
method of reviewing the AMA RUC
recommendations in the context of the
associated valuation methodologies it
used for CY 2012 and would either
accept the recommendations for these
codes or provide alternative work values
that would be adopted on an interim
final basis for CY 2012 and open to
public comment on the CY 2012 PFS
final rule with comment period.
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
e. Codes With ‘‘23-hour’’ Stays
In the CY 2010 PFS proposed rule (74
FR 33557), we requested that the AMA
RUC review services that are typically
performed in the outpatient setting and
require a hospital stay of less than 24
hours. We stated in the proposed rule
that we believed these to be primarily
outpatient services and expressed
concern that the value of evaluation and
management (E/M) visits for inpatients
was inappropriately included in the
valuation of codes that qualify as ‘‘23hour stay’’ outpatient services.
We received a number of comments in
response to the discussion in the CY
2010 proposed rule. The AMA RUC
stated that it already values stays of less
than 23 hours appropriately by reducing
the hospital discharge day management
service (that is, CPT code 99238), from
1 day to a half day. The AMA RUC also
explained that when the AMA RUC
refers to 23-hour stay services in
discussions at AMA RUC meetings, it is
referring primarily to services that are
reported in the Medicare claims
database as typically outpatient
services, but where the patient is kept
overnight and, on occasion, even longer
in the hospital. Because the AMA RUC
believes the patient stays overnight in
the hospital, it believes the inclusion of
inpatient E/M visits to be appropriate in
the valuation of this category of codes.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
We believe that the 23-hour stay issue
encompasses several scenarios. The
typical patient is commonly in the
hospital for less than 24 hours, which
often means the patient may indeed stay
overnight in the hospital. On occasion,
the patient may stay longer than a single
night in the hospital; however, in both
cases, the patient is considered for
Medicare purposes to be a hospital
outpatient, not an inpatient, and our
claims data support that the typical 23hour stay service is billed as an
outpatient service. Accordingly, we
believe that the valuation of the codes
that fall into the 23-hour stay category
should not reflect work that is typically
associated with an inpatient service. For
example, inpatient E/M visit codes such
as CPT codes 99231 (Level 1 subsequent
hospital care, per day); 99232 (Level 2
subsequent hospital care, per day); and
99233 (Level 3 subsequent hospital care,
per day), should not be included at the
full value in the valuation of 23-hour
stay services.
Currently, the valuation of 23-hour
stay services is conducted in a
nonuniform manner by the AMA RUC.
The AMA RUC has indicated that it
currently includes a half hospital
discharge day management service and
no hospital inpatient visits for
outpatient services with expected
hospital stays of 23 hours or less. In
contrast, for those outpatient services
where the AMA RUC believes that the
recovery period could be longer than 23
hours, the AMA RUC stated in its
comment on the CY 2010 PFS proposed
rule that it currently includes a full
hospital discharge day management
service and one or more inpatient E/M
visits in the code’s value. However, we
note the typical 23-hour stay service is
billed as an outpatient service and so
long as the typical case continues to be
billed as an outpatient service, we
believe the code should not incorporate
physician work values for services that
are typically associated with an
inpatient service. In the CY 2010 PFS
proposed rule and final rule with
comment period (74 FR 33556 and 74
FR 61777, respectively), we stated that
we believed the use of inpatient E/M
visit codes for services rendered in the
post-service period for outpatient 23hour stay procedures would result in
overpayment for pre- and post-service
work that would not be furnished.
Accordingly, we proposed in the CY
2010 proposed rule (74 FR 33556
through 33557) not to allow any
additional inpatient E/M service to be
billed for care furnished during the
post-procedure period when care is
furnished for an outpatient service
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
requiring less than a 24-hour hospital
stay.
However, we find it is plausible that
while the patient receiving the 23-hour
stay service remains a hospital
outpatient, the patient would typically
be cared for by the physician furnishing
the procedure during that postprocedure period. While we do not
believe that post-procedure hospital
‘‘visits’’ would be at the inpatient level
since the typical case is an outpatient
who would be ready to be discharged
from the hospital in 23 hours or less, we
agree that the intra-service time of the
inpatient hospital visit may be included
in the valuation for the 23-hour stay
code.
Accordingly, for CY 2011 we
modified our proposed CY 2010
approach and suggested that in the
future, when the AMA RUC reviews
new and potentially misvalued codes
that are identified as 23-hour stay
services, the AMA RUC would apply the
following methodology:
• Begin with the starting RVU value
of the 23-hour stay code under review
and decrease the hospital discharge day
management service from one day to a
half day.
• Deduct the RVUs of inpatient
hospital visits from the starting RVU
value.
• Reallocate the time associated with
the intra-service portion of the inpatient
hospital visits to the immediate postservice time of the 23-hour stay code
under review.
Example: A 23-hour stay code is
currently valued at 15 RVUs and has 1
hospital discharge day management
service and 1 level 3 subsequent
hospital care visit incorporated in this
value.
• Applying step (1): 15¥0.64* =
14.36
• Applying step (2): 14.36¥2** =
12.36
• Applying step (3): 12.36 + (30
minutes x 0.0224)*** = 13.032 RVUs
* Value associated with 1⁄2 hospital discharge
day management service.
** Value associated with an inpatient
hospital visit, CPT code 99233.
*** Value associated with the reallocated
intra-service time multiplied by the postservice intensity of the 23-hour stay code.
Finally, we note that since work
relative value units are established by
the Secretary in the context of relativity
to other codes in the system, the
recommended methodology for the
evaluation of 23-hour stay codes is best
applied within the context of relativity.
We appreciate that the AMA RUC has
the ability to assess the 23-hour stay
code after application of the
recommended methodology to ensure
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
appropriate relativity of this code and
other codes within the system. We
strongly encourage the AMA RUC to
apply the recommended methodology to
ensure the consistent and appropriate
valuation of the physician work for
these services.
Comment: A number of commenters
asserted that if a service is performed in
the hospital and the patient stays
overnight, the work of the physician is
typically the same regardless of whether
the hospital designates the patient
receiving the services as an inpatient or
outpatient. Other commenters
supported CMS’ position in that it is
appropriate for physicians’ services
related to the post-procedure care of the
patient to be recognized and the intraservice time of the inpatient hospital
visit should be included in the
valuation for the 23-hour stay code.
Some commenters noted that recent
issues associated with hospital
observation care may also be impacting
CPT observation care codes, and these
commenters ‘‘request that any changes
in the 23+ hour stay policy be deferred
until after the RUC conducts its
consideration of hospital observation
services in February 2011.’’
Response: While some commenters
advocated for a deferral on the issue of
valuing 23-hour stay services, we note
that a number of commenters supported
CMS’ proposed approach. As we stated
in the CY 2010 PFS proposed rule (74
FR 33557) and affirmed in the CY 2011
PFS proposed rule (75 FR 40072), we
believe these services, for a typical
patient, would be considered for
Medicare purposes to be hospital
outpatient services, not inpatient
services, and our claims data support
that the typical 23-hour stay service is
billed as an outpatient service.
Furthermore, since the typical patient
commonly remains in the hospital for
less than 24 hours, even if the stay
extends overnight, and discharge from
the hospital is therefore imminent, we
believe the acuity of the typical patient
is less than that of a typical inpatient
who is admitted to the hospital,
resulting in less intensity for the
physician work to care for the hospital
outpatient immediately following a 23hour stay procedure. Accordingly, we
believe that the valuation of the codes
that fall into the 23-hour stay category
should not reflect physician work that is
typically associated with an inpatient
service. Furthermore, we do not believe
that it would be more beneficial to
suspend valuing 23-hour services in the
manner we discussed in the proposed
rule until after the AMA RUC’s review
of hospital observation care services.
Even if the AMA RUC were to provide
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
future recommendations to us for
valuing surgical procedures in which
hospital observation care services were
substituted for hospital inpatient care
visits, we believe that we should treat
the valuation of the physician time in
the same manner as discussed
previously, that is, by valuing the intraservice time of the hospital observation
care service in the immediate postservice time of the 23-hour stay code
being valued.
Accordingly, in light of the support
from the commenters, we are finalizing
our proposed approach to valuing 23hour stay services by allowing the intraservice portion of the subsequent
hospital care visits (or observation care
visits in the future if the AMA RUC
were to recommend them instead as
building blocks for outpatient surgical
services) furnished to outpatients in the
hospital post-procedure to be allocated
to the immediate post-service time of
the procedure to account for the
physician work in these cases. We
encourage the AMA RUC to apply this
methodology itself in the
recommendations it provides to us for
valuing 23-hour stay codes, in order to
ensure the consistent and appropriate
valuation of the physician work for
these services.
4. Expanding the Multiple Procedure
Payment Reduction (MPPR) Policy to
Additional Nonsurgical Services
a. Background
Medicare has a longstanding policy to
reduce payment by 50 percent for the
second and subsequent surgical
procedures furnished to the same
patient by the same physician on the
same day, largely based on the presence
of efficiencies in the practice expense
(PE) and pre- and post-surgical
physician work. Effective January 1,
1995, the MPPR policy, with the same
percentage reduction, was extended to
nuclear medicine diagnostic procedures
(CPT codes 78306, 78320, 78802, 78803,
78806, and 78807). In the CY 1995 PFS
final rule with comment period (59 FR
63410), we indicated that we would
consider applying the policy to other
diagnostic tests in the future.
Consistent with recommendations of
MedPAC in its March 2005 Report to
Congress on Medicare Payment Policy,
under the CY 2006 PFS, the MPPR
policy was extended to the technical
component (TC) of certain diagnostic
imaging procedures performed on
contiguous areas of the body in a single
session (70 FR 70261). The reduction
recognizes that, for the second and
subsequent imaging procedures, there
are some efficiencies in clinical labor,
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73227
supplies, and equipment time. In
particular, certain clinical labor
activities and supplies are not
duplicated for subsequent procedures
and, because equipment time and
indirect costs are allocated based on
clinical labor time; those would also be
reduced accordingly.
The imaging MPPR policy currently
applies to computed tomography (CT)
and computed tomographic angiography
(CTA), magnetic resonance imaging
(MRI) and magnetic resonance
angiography (MRA), and ultrasound
services within 11 families of codes
based on imaging modality and body
region. When we adopted the policy in
CY 2007, we stated that we believed
efficiencies were most likely to occur
when contiguous body areas are the
focus of the imaging because the patient
and equipment have already been
prepared for the second and subsequent
procedures, potentially yielding
resource savings in areas such as
clerical time, technical preparation, and
supplies (70 FR 45850). Therefore, the
MPPR policy currently applies only to
procedures involving contiguous body
areas within a family of codes, not
across families, and to those procedures
that are furnished in a single session.
Additionally, while the MPPR policy
applies to TC-only services and to the
TC of global services, it does not apply
to professional component (PC) services.
Under the current imaging MPPR
policy, full payment is made for the TC
of the highest-paid procedure, and
payment is reduced by 25 percent of the
TC for each additional procedure when
an MPPR scenario applies. We had
originally planned to phase in the MPPR
policy over a 2-year period, with a 25
percent reduction in CY 2006 and a 50
percent reduction in CY 2007 (70 FR
70263). However, the Deficit Reduction
Act of 2005 (DRA) (Pub. L. 109–171)
capped the PFS payment amount for
most imaging procedures at the amount
paid under the hospital outpatient
prospective payment system (OPPS). In
view of the DRA, we determined that it
would be prudent to retain the MPPR at
25 percent while we continued to
examine the appropriate payment levels
(71 FR 69659). The DRA also exempted
reduced expenditures attributable to the
MPPR policy from the PFS budget
neutrality provision. Most recently,
effective July 1, 2010, section 3135(b) of
the ACA increased the MPPR on the TC
of imaging services under the policy
established in the CY 2006 PFS final
rule with comment period from 25 to 50
percent and exempted the reduced
expenditures attributable to this further
change from the PFS budget neutrality
provision.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73228
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
In the July 2009 GAO report entitled,
‘‘Medicare Physician Payments: Fees
Could Better Reflect Efficiencies
Achieved when Services are Provided
Together,’’ the GAO recommended that
we take further steps to ensure that fees
for services paid under the PFS reflect
efficiencies that occur when services are
furnished by the same physician on the
same beneficiary on the same day. The
GAO recommended the following: (1)
Expanding the existing MPPR policy to
the PC to reflect efficiencies in
physician work for certain imaging
services; and (2) expanding the MPPR to
reflect PE efficiencies that occur when
certain nonsurgical, nonimaging
services are furnished together. The
GAO also encouraged us to focus on
service pairs that have the most impact
on Medicare spending.
In the March 2010 report, MedPAC
noted its concerns about mispricing of
services under the PFS. MedPAC
indicated that it would explore whether
expanding the unit of payment through
packaging or bundling would improve
payment accuracy and encourage more
efficient use of services.
In the CYs 2009 and 2010 PFS
proposed rules (73 FR 38586 and 74 FR
33554, respectively), we stated that we
planned to analyze nonsurgical services
commonly furnished together (for
example, 60 to 75 percent of the time)
to assess whether an expansion of the
MPPR policy could be warranted.
MedPAC encouraged us to consider
duplicative physician work, as well as
PE, in any expansion of the MPPR
policy.
b. CY 2011 Expansion of the Imaging
Technical Component MPPR Policy to
Additional Combinations of Imaging
Services
Over the past 2 years, the AMA RUC
has examined several services billed 90
percent or more of the time together as
part of the potentially misvalued service
initiative and, in several cases, created
one code to describe the complete
service, with a value that reflects the
expected efficiencies. Notwithstanding
the bundling work of the RUC, there
may be additional imaging and other
diagnostic services that are furnished
together less than 90 percent of the time
where we could still expect efficiencies
in the TC, and in some cases in the PC,
resulting in potential overpayment for
these services under current policy
when furnished together.
Section 1848(c)(2)(K) of the Act (as
added by section 3134 of the ACA)
specifies that the Secretary shall
identify potentially misvalued codes by
examining multiple codes that are
frequently billed in conjunction with
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
furnishing a single service, and review
and make appropriate adjustments to
their relative values. As a first step in
applying this provision, we proposed a
limited expansion of the current
imaging MPPR policy for CY 2011. We
will continue to review other possible
expansions of the MPPR policy to the
TC and/or PC of imaging procedures or
other diagnostic tests for the future. Any
further changes will be addressed in
future rulemaking.
In a related policy for hospital
outpatient payment of imaging services,
in the CY 2009 OPPS/ASC final rule
with comment period (73 FR 68559
through 68569), the OPPS adopted a
policy to pay for two or more CT and
CTA, MRI and MRA, or ultrasound
procedures furnished in the same
session through a single composite
ambulatory payment classification
(APC) group. These composite APC
payments were based on the 11 families
of codes subject to the MPPR under the
PFS that were collapsed into 3 imaging
families for the OPPS according to their
modality—1 for ultrasound, 1 for CT
and CTA, and 1 for MRI and MRA
services.
At that time, we stated our belief that
the contiguous body area concept that
was incorporated in the PFS imaging
families was not necessary for potential
efficiencies to be achieved in an imaging
session. We provided examples to
illustrate that we would not expect
second and subsequent imaging services
of the same modality involving
noncontiguous body areas to require
duplicate facility resources (comparable
to the TC under the PFS) for clinical
labor activities such as greeting the
patient, providing education and
obtaining consent, retrieving prior
exams, setting up an intravenous
infusion, and preparing and cleaning
the room, any more than second and
subsequent imaging procedures of the
same modality involving contiguous
body areas. While we noted that
multiple imaging claims under the
OPPS are generally within the same
imaging modality and involve
contiguous body areas the vast majority
of the time, we estimated that the
collapsed 3 families, as opposed to the
11 PFS families, would add 12 percent
additional claims to those eligible for a
single composite APC payment under
the OPPS based on the provision of 2 or
more imaging services in a single
session, allowing us to capture
additional claims with efficiencies.
Taking into consideration the OPPS
policy that was adopted in the CY 2009
OPPS/ASC final rule with comment
period, for CY 2011 under the PFS, we
proposed to apply the MPPR regardless
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
of family, that is, the policy would
apply to multiple imaging services
furnished within the same family of
codes or across families. This proposal
would simplify the current imaging
MPPR policy in a way that is consistent
with the standard PFS MPPR policy for
surgical procedures that does not group
procedures by body region. Therefore,
the MPPR would apply to CT and CTA,
MRI and MRA, and ultrasound
procedures services furnished to the
same patient in the same session,
regardless of the imaging modality, and
not limited to contiguous body areas.
Because of the different pieces of
equipment used for CT/CTA, MRI/MRA,
and ultrasound procedures, it would be
unlikely that a single practitioner would
furnish more than one imaging
procedure involving 2 different
modalities to one patient in a single
session where the proposed MPPR
policy would apply. On the other hand,
while most multiple procedures
furnished with a single modality in one
session would involve procedures
currently assigned to one of the 11
imaging families, it would not be
uncommon for more than one imaging
procedure of the same modality to be
furnished across families and, like the
scenario for hospital outpatient imaging
services, we would expect efficiencies
to occur in these cases. Therefore, we
believe that an expansion of the current
imaging MPPR policy to account for
efficiencies in such situations would
allow us to pay more appropriately for
these multiple imaging procedure
sessions, consistent with our ongoing
efforts to address misvalued services.
The expansion of the imaging MPPR
policy to include all of the current codes
in a single family to which the standard
50 percent reduction for second and
subsequent procedures would apply
would reduce payment for 20 percent
more services than the current MPPR
policy under the PFS. Thus, in CY 2011,
we would capture additional
efficiencies and pay more appropriately
in these cases. We note that section
1848(c)(2)B)(v)(VI) (as added by section
3135(b) of the ACA)) specifies that
reduced expenditures attributable to the
increase in the imaging MPPR from 25
to 50 percent in CY 2011 are excluded
from the PFS budget neutrality
adjustment. However, the reduced
payment for code combinations that
would newly be subject to the imaging
MPPR policy under this proposal would
be made in a budget neutral manner
under the PFS, as these new
combinations are not included under
section 1848(b)(4)(D) (as added by
section 3135(b) of the ACA), which
addresses ‘‘single-session imaging to
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
consecutive body parts’’ under the
established imaging MPPR policy.
We also proposed to add the CY 2010
codes displayed in Table 17 of the CY
2011 PFS proposed rule (75 FR 40075)
to the list of imaging services subject to
the MPPR policy in CY 2011. These four
codes (CPT codes 75771 through 75774)
were newly created for CY 2010 and are
similar to codes currently in imaging
family 2, titled CT and CTA (Chest/
Thorax/Abdomen/Pelvis).
We further note that new CY 2010
CPT codes 74261 (Computed
tomography (CT) colonography,
diagnostic, including image
postprocessing; without contrast
material) and 74262 (Computed
tomography (CT) colonography,
diagnostic, including image
postprocessing; with contrast material(s)
including non-contrast images, if
performed) were added to the CY 2010
MPPR policy through the July 2010 PFS
quarterly update, with a retroactive
effective date of January 1, 2010. These
codes replaced CPT code 0067T
(Computed tomographic (CT)
colonography (that is, virtual
colonoscopy); diagnostic) in CY 2010,
which was on the list of procedures
subject to the imaging MPPR policy
prior to CY 2010.
As discussed earlier in this section,
reduced expenditures attributable to the
increase in the MPPR for multiple
imaging procedures to consecutive body
parts (that is, those previously
designated in the same family of codes)
are exempt from the budget neutrality
provision of the PFS. However, the
reduced expenditures attributable to the
MPPR for combinations of multiple
imaging procedures that we proposed
for CY 2011 (the MPPR for multiple
imaging procedures not involving
consecutive body parts) would be
subject to budget neutrality adjustment
under the PFS. We note that this
formulation for whether reduced
expenditures are exempt from budget
neutrality applies both to procedures
currently subject to the imaging MPPR
and to new codes that would be subject
to the policy in CY 2011 and in future
years. To the extent that imaging
procedures described by the new codes
are furnished in combination with other
procedures that are subject to the
imaging MPPR on consecutive body
areas, the reduced expenditures
attributable to the MPPR for these
combinations would be exempt from the
PFS budget neutrality adjustment.
Comment: With one exception, the
commenters uniformly opposed the
proposal to consolidate the imaging
families for application of the imaging
MPPR and urged CMS not to finalize the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
proposal. The exception was MedPAC,
which supported the policy as
reasonable and consistent with the
hospital OPPS policy on multiple
imaging and the PFS MPPR policy for
multiple surgical procedures, neither of
which are limited to procedures
involving contiguous body areas.
Many commenters pointed out that
the AMA RUC has worked to resolve
any duplication in the direct PE inputs
for services commonly furnished
together over the past few years. The
commenters stated that new bundled
services were implemented in CY 2010
and speculated that additional ones
would be implemented in the future
and, therefore, concluded that a general
MPPR to adjust PFS payment when
imaging services are commonly
furnished together is not necessary. The
commenters argued that any duplication
in the PE should be resolved at the code
pair level. The AMA RUC urged CMS to
continue to work within the established
processes and offered for its Practice
Expense Subcommittee to review
specific code pairs about which CMS
was concerned regarding potential PE
duplication and recommend a course of
action that would be fair and consistent.
Response: The imaging MPPR is not
intended to supersede the AMA RUC
process that values services described
by CPT codes. We encourage the AMA
RUC to continue examining code pairs
for PE duplication based upon the
typical case and appropriately valuing
new comprehensive codes for bundled
services that are established by the CPT
Editorial Panel. However, we believe
that it is necessary to address the PE
duplication immediately for imaging
code pairs that have not been recently
reviewed or bundled into single
comprehensive codes. We note that as
more code combinations are bundled
into a single complete service reported
by one CPT code, they would no longer
be subject to the MPPR. For example,
there are new CY 2011 codes to describe
abdominal and pelvic CT scans
furnished together, specifically CPT
codes 74176 (Computed tomography,
abdomen and pelvis; without contrast
material); 74177 (Computed
tomography, abdomen and pelvis; with
contrast material); and 74178
(Computed tomography, abdomen and
pelvis; without contrast material in one
or both body regions, followed by with
contrast material(s) and further sections
in one or both body regions). We are
accepting the AMA RUC
recommendations for the direct PE
inputs for these codes for CY 2011 and,
therefore, their TCs are valued
accordingly. Whereas prior to CY 2011,
the 50 percent imaging MPPR would
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73229
have applied to the TC of the second
service when an abdominal and pelvic
CT were furnished in the same imaging
session, this will no longer be the case
in CY 2011. Instead, the TC payment for
the comprehensive code will reflect the
valuing of the specific services
furnished in combination with one
another. Thus, we believe our current
and proposed MPPR formulations are
consistent with the AMA RUC’s work to
review code pairs for potential PE
duplication and to appropriately value
comprehensive codes for a bundle of
component services.
Comment: Numerous commenters
opposed applying the MPPR to
noncontiguous body area imaging
services using the same modality and to
combinations of imaging services
involving different modalities. Many
commenters indicated that there is no
major duplication in clinical labor
activities when two studies of
noncontiguous body areas using a single
imaging modality are furnished in the
same session and even less duplication
when imaging services are furnished in
a separate session on the same day using
different modalities. The commenters
argued that the duplication in clinical
labor activities that occurs in the preand post-operative periods for multiple
surgical procedures does not apply to
imaging services.
More specifically, several commenters
observed that the minimal duplicate
costs of a few minutes of technician
time do not justify a 50 percent payment
reduction in the TC for the second
service. Some commenters also believe
that the imaging MPPR creates an
incentive for physicians to order
separate procedures on different days,
thereby discouraging efficiencies. In
addition, the commenters contended
that the imaging MPPR is detrimental to
patient care, access, and convenience.
One commenter asserted that it is not
appropriate to compare the OPPS
composite ambulatory payment
classification (APC) groups to officebased imaging as a justification for
expanding the imaging MPPR under the
PFS. The commenter cited an analysis
of OPPS payment demonstrating that
CMS pays hospitals for the second
imaging study at nearly 100 percent of
the amount paid for a single study,
concluding that not until the third study
would the payment be reduced from the
sum of what would otherwise be paid
under the OPPS if the studies were
performed alone.
Another commenter agreed that the
current PFS imaging families could be
further collapsed to eliminate the
contiguous body area concept but
opposed applying the MPPR across
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73230
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
modalities. The commenter suggested
establishing three families to parallel
the modality-based APC groups used
under the OPPS, that is, CT/CTA, MRI/
MRA, and ultrasound. Another
commenter noted that highly
specialized clinics often treat complex
conditions and perform multiple
imaging services on noncontiguous
body areas primarily for good patient
care. As an example of a situation when
complex imaging services are used to
diagnose and treat significant medical
conditions, the commenter indicated
that a CT of the chest may be furnished,
resulting in a diagnosis of lung cancer.
In addition, the same commenter noted
that appropriate treatment of the
patient’s neurological signs and
symptoms also requires a CT of the
head, because primary lung tumors
account for 50 percent of all metastatic
brain tumors. The commenter explained
that these medically necessary
combinations of imaging services are
often performed in a single imaging
session. Results of the initial imaging
service, contended the commenter,
could change the course of treatment for
the patient and it would be prudent not
to delay or complicate a patient’s
treatment plan. The commenter also
pointed out that it is a convenience to
the patient to have same day access for
all imaging services.
Another commenter acknowledged
that while some efficiencies are gained
in certain situations and settings when
multiple imaging services are furnished
together, the expanded MPPR policy
would not appropriately pay for the
additional studies required for the
majority of patients with significant
medical conditions. The commenter
explained that highly organized clinics
treating these complex patients often
structure patient encounters so that
there are intervening consultations with
multiple providers and additional tests
in between imaging services.
Response: While most multiple
procedures furnished with a single
modality in 1 session would involve
procedures currently assigned to 1 of
the 11 imaging families, it would not be
uncommon for more than 1 imaging
procedure of the same modality to be
furnished across families, and we would
expect efficiencies to occur in these
cases. As noted by MedPAC, the
proposed PFS MPPR expansion to
eliminate the concept of contiguous
body areas as the basis for a payment
reduction due to efficiencies is
consistent with the established hospital
OPPS policy on multiple imaging and
the PFS MPPR policy for multiple
surgical procedures, neither of which is
limited to procedures involving
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
contiguous body areas. While we
acknowledge that the OPPS composite
imaging APCs utilize a different
payment methodology than an MPPR to
reflect the level of efficiencies when
multiple imaging services are furnished
together, consideration of the specific
body areas imaged is not an aspect of
the OPPS policy. The OPPS
methodology continues to distinguish
among services using different imaging
modalities in part because of the
statutory requirement that APCs be
clinically homogenous. This same
limitation would not apply to an MPPR.
Despite the differences in their payment
methodologies, both the OPPS and the
PFS strive to recognize the efficiencies
in the TCs when multiple imaging
services are furnished together. We
continue to believe that there are
significant efficiencies in the TCs when
multiple imaging procedures of the
same modality are furnished on
noncontiguous body areas in the same
imaging a session, and believe that an
expanded imaging MPPR under the PFS
is an important policy refinement to pay
more appropriately for the
comprehensive imaging service under
such circumstances.
Because most of the combinations of
imaging services furnished in one
session that are not now subject to the
imaging MPPR occur within one
modality, we believe it would be
unnecessarily complex to continue
separate families (even if fewer than 11)
for different imaging modalities to
address the limited circumstances when
imaging services furnished with more
than one modality are performed in a
single imaging session. Even in these
unusual cases, we would expect certain
efficiencies in the TCs, such as the
establishment of venous access only one
time. Finally, the more general proposed
policy would provide a streamlined
basis for our further consideration of
other possible expansions of an MPPR
policy to the TC and/or PC of imaging
procedures or other diagnostic tests in
the future.
Consistent with our current
expectations for provider ordering
practices under the established imaging
MPPR policy for single modality,
contiguous body area imaging studies,
under an expanded MPPR we would not
expect providers to order multiple
imaging procedures of different
modalities or for noncontiguous body
areas on different days or order different
imaging sessions on the same day
simply to garner increased payment
unless it were medically reasonable and
necessary that the studies be furnished
on different days or in different sessions
on the same day. However, where it is
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
medically necessary to have intervening
consultations among multiple providers
or other diagnostic tests furnished to a
patient between imaging services on the
same day to which the MPPR would
otherwise apply, such cases would
constitute separate imaging sessions and
the MPPR would not apply.
Comment: Many commenters
addressed CMS’ assertion that because
of the different pieces of equipment
used for CT/CTA, MRI/MRA, and
ultrasound procedures it would be
unlikely that a single practitioner would
furnish more than one imaging
procedure involving two different
modalities to one patient in a single
session where the proposed MPPR
policy would apply. While most
commenters agreed with this statement,
the commenters questioned why CMS
would implement the proposal if this
were the case. When procedures are
furnished across modalities, the
commenters believe them to be separate
and distinct procedures with little or no
overlap and argue that efficiencies
cannot be achieved. The commenters
asserted that CMS offered no data to
support its expectation that efficiencies
would occur when different imaging
modalities are furnished at the same
time. Many commenters requested a
more rigorous analysis, validated
evidence to support the proposed
expansion, and an opportunity for
stakeholders to comment on the
analysis.
A number of the commenters agreed
that specialized staff with different
expertise and certification is often
needed to furnish services within the
different imaging modalities. When
multiple imaging is necessary, the
commenters explained that two
appointments are created, and the
patient is checked in twice, prepared
and instructed twice, educated on each
study independently, transported from
one room to another, and furnished
separate supplies such as contrast and
IV tubing, following which the two
rooms are cleaned.
Response: We agree with the majority
of commenters that in most cases a
practitioner would not furnish more
than one imaging procedure involving
two different modalities to one patient
in a single session. While there may be
some instances where the MPPR applies
to two different modalities used in a
single session, the MPPR would not
apply in most cases because this clinical
scenario is uncommon. In response to
the commenters who questioned why
we proposed to apply an MPPR across
modalities, we believe that if, in the
unusual case, more than one imaging
service of different modalities were
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
furnished to a patient in a single
session, there would be some
efficiencies in the TC, such as greeting
the patient only one time and setting up
one intravenous line. We acknowledge
that the application of a general MPPR
policy to numerous imaging service
combinations may result in an
overestimate of the efficiencies in some
cases and an underestimate in others,
but this can be true for any service paid
under the PFS, and we believe it is
important to establish a general policy
to pay appropriately for the TCs of
combinations of imaging services upon
which we may consider building in the
future. We do not believe that it is
administratively efficient or necessary
for appropriate payment to maintain
modality-specific imaging families given
the uncommon occurrences of pairs of
imaging services involving different
modalities furnished by one practitioner
on the same day to a single patient that
we observe in our claims data.
Comment: Several commenters
generally opposed the inclusion of
nondiagnostic radiation oncology
imaging procedures in any future
expansion of the MPPR policy, given the
clinical differences between radiation
oncology and diagnostic imaging. In
addition, one commenter noted that
cardiologists commonly provide
echocardiography services and
peripheral vascular ultrasound tests.
While both types of services use
ultrasound technology that resembles
the technology used in the ultrasound
procedures currently subject to the
imaging MPPR, the commenter reported
that these services are furnished using a
different machine and different staff
who have different expertise so the
imaging MPPR policy.
Response: We did not propose to
expand the existing contiguous body
area MPPR policy, which currently
includes only nonobstetrical chest,
abdominal, and pelvic ultrasound
services, to include peripheral vascular
ultrasound services or echocardiography
services in CY 2011. While we
explained in the CY 2011 PFS proposed
rule (75 FR 40074) that we would
continue to review other possible
expansions of the MPPR policy to the
TC and/or PC of imaging procedures or
other diagnostic tests for the future, we
have not proposed to do so at this time.
Further changes to include services
such as nondiagnostic radiation
oncology imaging services or
echocardiography or peripheral vascular
ultrasound services would be addressed
in future rulemaking.
Comment: A few commenters
reported that it is often difficult for
imaging providers to understand when
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
an encounter begins and ends and,
therefore, urged CMS to better define a
single session. They explained that it is
not always easy to identify when the use
of the -59 modifier (Distinct procedural
services), denoting a separate session
under the current imaging MPPR policy,
is appropriate. This ambiguity leaves
the responsibility for determining
whether imaging services are furnished
in a separate session to the judgment of
the imaging technologist, leading to
inconsistent determinations and,
therefore, variable payment for the same
services furnished in similar clinical
scenarios. One commenter specifically
requested further parameters of a
separate encounter be defined to
include the same exam room, a specific
timeframe, or a specific action. Another
commenter noted that distinguishing
separate sessions is a particular
challenge for ultrasound imaging.
Response: In the CY 2006 PFS final
rule with comment period (70 FR
70262), we indicated that a single
imaging session is one encounter where
a patient could receive one or more
radiological studies. If a patient has a
separate encounter on the same day for
a medically necessary reason and
receives a second imaging service, this
would represent a separate session.
Physicians would report the -59
modifier to indicate multiple sessions
and the MPPR would not apply. This
same policy would continue in CY 2011
under the consolidation of the imaging
families to expand the imaging MPPR
under the PFS. We believe that
providers’ 5 years of previous
experience with this policy should
allow them to continue to appropriately
distinguish separate imaging sessions by
reporting the -59 modifier, even under
the expanded MPPR policy. We may
provide further subregulatory guidance
to providers on this issue in the future
in view of our CY 2011 expanded
imaging MPPR policy if specific issues
arise that we believe warrant further
clarification regarding the
characteristics of separate imaging
sessions.
After consideration of the public
comments we received, we are
finalizing our proposal, without
modification, to apply the 50 percent
imaging MPPR to all of the ultrasound,
CT, CTA, MRI, and MRA services to
which the current contiguous body area
and modality-specific policy applies,
regardless of the specific combinations
of imaging services furnished to the
patient in a single session. We believe
this proposal is consistent with our
overall strategy to pay more
appropriately for services that are
commonly furnished together,
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73231
consistent with section 1848(c)(2)(K) of
the Act (as added by section 3134 of the
ACA) that instructs the Secretary to
identify multiple codes that are
frequently billed in conjunction with
furnishing a single service, and review
and make appropriate adjustments to
their relative values.
As stated earlier in this section,
expenditures attributable to the increase
in the MPPR for multiple imaging
procedures to consecutive body parts
(that is, those previously designated in
the same family of codes) are exempt
from the budget neutrality provision of
the PFS. However, the reduced
expenditures attributable to the MPPR
for new combinations of multiple
imaging procedures that we are
finalizing for CY 2011 (the MPPR for
multiple imaging procedures not
involving consecutive body parts)
would be subject to budget neutrality
adjustment under the PFS. We note that
this formulation for whether reduced
expenditures are exempt from budget
neutrality applies both to procedures
currently subject to the imaging MPPR
and to new codes that are subject to the
policy in CY 2011 and in future years.
To the extent that imaging procedures
described by the new codes are
furnished in combination with other
procedures that are subject to the
imaging MPPR on consecutive body
areas, the reduced expenditures
attributable to the MPPR for these
combinations would be exempt from the
PFS budget neutrality adjustment.
The complete list of codes subject to
the CY 2011 MPPR policy for diagnostic
imaging services is included in
Addendum F to this final rule with
comment period and the CY 2011 code
additions to the MPPR policy are listed
in Table 17. The codes being added to
the policy are those we proposed, as
well as new CY 2011 codes or newly
covered codes that are clinically similar
to the imaging codes subject to the
MPPR in CY 2010. The new codes
include CPT codes 74176 (Computed
tomography, abdomen and pelvis;
without contrast material); 74177
(Computed tomography, abdomen and
pelvis; with contrast material(s)); and
74178 (Computed tomography,
abdomen and pelvis; without contrast
material in one or both body regions,
followed by contrast material(s) and
further sections in one or both body
regions). The newly covered codes are
CPT codes 72159 (Magnetic resonance
angiography, spinal canal and contents,
with or without contrast material) and
73225 (Magnetic resonance
angiography, upper extremity, with or
without contrast material). These codes
are being added on an interim final
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73232
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
basis and are open to public comment
on this final rule with comment period.
The complete list of CPT codes newly
added to the diagnostic imaging MPPR
for CY 2011 is displayed in Table 17
below.
TABLE 17—CPT CODE ADDITIONS TO THE DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING MPPR POLICY FOR CY 2011
CPT code
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
72159
73225
74176
74177
74178
75571
75572
75573
75574
Short descriptor
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
Mr angio spine w/o & w/dye ..........................................................................................................
Mr angio upr extr w/o & w/dye ......................................................................................................
Ct abd & pelvis w/o contrast .........................................................................................................
Ct abdomen & pelvis w/contrast ...................................................................................................
Ct abd & pelv 1+ section/regns ....................................................................................................
Ct hrt w/o dye w/ca test ................................................................................................................
Ct hrt w/3d image ..........................................................................................................................
Ct hrt w/3d image, congen ............................................................................................................
Ct angio hrt w/3d image ................................................................................................................
c. CY 2011 Expansion of the MPPR
Policy to Therapy Services
In the July 2009 GAO report entitled,
‘‘Medicare Physician Payments: Fees
Could Better Reflect Efficiencies
Achieved when Services are Provided
Together,’’ the GAO found efficiencies
when multiple physical therapy services
were furnished in one session and
concluded that an MPPR policy could
be appropriate for these services. In the
report, the GAO noted that officials from
the AMA RUC explained that time spent
on pre-service and post-service therapy
activities is spread across the number of
services in a typical session in order to
avoid duplication of the PE for the
services. Nevertheless, the GAO found
that there was duplication of certain
activities in the intra-service period, and
provided the example of time spent
testing range of motion or muscle
flexibility that was duplicated in
commonly observed code pairs.
In the typical clinical scenario for
therapy services, we believe that
therapy services are misvalued for PFS
payment when multiple services are
furnished to a patient in a single session
because duplicate clinical labor and
supplies are included in the PE of the
services furnished. We believe this
duplication should be accounted for
under the PFS, as we currently account
for efficiencies in multiple surgical and
multiple diagnostic imaging procedures
furnished in a single session. Over the
past 2 years, the AMA RUC has
examined several services billed 90
percent or more of the time together as
part of its potentially misvalued service
initiative and, in several cases, created
one code to describe the complete
service, with a value that reflects the
expected efficiencies. Notwithstanding
the AMA RUC’s analyses, in most cases
it has not created one code to describe
a complete therapy service, in part
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Subject to
comment in
CY 2011
PFS final
rule
Jkt 223001
because many of the core therapy CPT
codes are timed codes based on
increments of treatment time.
Therefore, in the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule (75 FR 40075), we
proposed a further step to implement
section 1848(c)(2)(K) of the Act (as
added by section 3134 of the ACA) that
specifies that the Secretary shall
identify potentially misvalued codes by
examining multiple codes that are
frequently billed in conjunction with
furnishing a single service. For CY 2011
we proposed an MPPR policy for the
HCPCS codes listed in Table 18,
specifically the separately payable
‘‘always therapy’’ services that are only
paid by Medicare when furnished under
a therapy plan of care. These services
are designated ‘‘always therapy’’ services
regardless of who furnishes them and
always require therapy modifiers to be
reported, specifically -GP (Services
rendered under outpatient physical
therapy plan of care); -GO (Services
rendered under outpatient occupational
therapy plan of care); or -GN (Services
rendered under outpatient speechlanguage pathology plan of care). The
therapy codes are available in a file on
the CMS Web site at: https://
www.cms.gov/TherapyServices/. We
excluded both contractor-priced and
bundled codes from Table 18 because,
under our proposal, an MPPR would not
be applicable for ‘‘always therapy’’
services furnished in combination with
these codes. In the case of bundled
codes that are not separately paid, there
are no explicit efficiencies in the direct
PE to be reflected in payment for the
second and subsequent therapy services
furnished to the patient on the same
day. In the case of contractor-priced
codes, there is no nationally established
pricing that could be uniformly adjusted
to reflect the expected efficiencies when
multiple therapy services are furnished.
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
No.
No.
No.
TABLE 18—SEPARATELY PAYABLE
‘‘ALWAYS THERAPY’’ SERVICES PROPOSED AS SUBJECT TO THE CY
2011 MPPR POLICY *
CPT/
HCPCS
code
92506
92507
92508
92526
92597
92607
92608
92609
96125
97001
97002
97003
97004
97010
97012
97016
97018
97022
97024
97026
97028
97032
97033
97034
97035
97036
97110
97112
97113
97116
97124
97140
97150
97530
97533
97535
97537
97542
97750
97755
97760
97761
97762
G0281
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
29NOR2
Short descriptor
Speech/hearing evaluation.
Speech/hearing therapy.
Speech/hearing therapy.
Oral function therapy.
Oral speech device eval.
Ex for speech device rx, 1hr.
Ex for speech device rx addl.
Use of speech device service.
Cognitive test by hc pro.
Pt evaluation.
Pt re-evaluation.
Ot evaluation.
Ot re-evaluation.
Hot or cold packs therapy.
Mechanical traction therapy.
Vasopneumatic device therapy.
Paraffin bath therapy.
Whirlpool therapy.
Diathermy eg, microwave.
Infrared therapy.
Ultraviolet therapy.
Electrical stimulation.
Electric current therapy.
Contrast bath therapy.
Ultrasound therapy.
Hydrotherapy.
Therapeutic exercises.
Neuromuscular reeducation.
Aquatic therapy/exercises.
Gait training therapy.
Massage therapy.
Manual therapy.
Group therapeutic procedures.
Therapeutic activities.
Sensory integration.
Self care mngment training.
Community/work reintegration.
Wheelchair mngment training.
Physical performance test.
Assistive technology assess.
Orthotic mgmt and training.
Prosthetic training.
C/o for orthotic/prosth use.
Elec stim unattend for press.
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 18—SEPARATELY PAYABLE
‘‘ALWAYS THERAPY’’ SERVICES PROPOSED AS SUBJECT TO THE CY
2011 MPPR POLICY *—Continued
CPT/
HCPCS
code
G0283 ........
G0329 ........
Short descriptor
Elec stim other than wound.
Electromagnetic tx for ulcers.
*Excludes contractor-priced and bundled
codes.
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
We did not propose an MPPR policy
for ‘‘sometimes therapy’’ services,
specifically those services that may be
furnished under a therapy plan of care
or otherwise by physicians or NPPs as
medical services. We believe that the
care patterns are different for the latter
group of services that may sometimes be
furnished as therapy services, and we
noted that they are less commonly
furnished with multiple services in a
single session than the ‘‘always therapy’’
services. In the discussion that follows,
our reference to therapy services means
those HCPCS codes designated annually
as ‘‘always therapy’’ services by CMS.
Based on CY 2009 PFS claims data,
we identified over 500 therapy service
code pairs billed for the same patient in
a single session. We then reviewed a
sample of the most common therapy
code pairs, specifically those high
volume code pairs with more than
250,000 combined services per year, to
examine the potential for duplication in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
the PE. These code pairs represented
more than half of the occurrences of
therapy services billed together. While
we acknowledged that the PE inputs per
service for some therapy services were
included in the direct PE database based
on one-half of the total PE inputs
required for two services furnished in a
single session, which would account for
some duplication, this was not the case
for all combinations of therapy services.
Of the high volume therapy services
examined, approximately one-fourth of
the code pairs were not valued based on
two services. In addition, we noted that
the CY 2009 PFS claims data for
services paid under the PFS (excluding
services furnished in facility settings
that were paid at PFS rates) show that
when multiple therapy services are
billed on a claim for the same date of
service, the median number is four
services per day. Therefore, even for
those clinical labor times that may
reflect the allocation of total time across
two units of therapy services, we believe
that some elements of the current PE
inputs are duplicated based on current
patterns of therapy service delivery
where most multiple service claims
involve delivery of more than two
services in a session.
In the CY 2011 proposed rule (75 FR
40076), we stated that duplicate labor
activities currently included in the PE
for the service period for these high
volume pairs of therapy services are as
follows: clean room/equipment;
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73233
education/instruction/counseling/
coordinating home care; greet patient/
provide gowning; obtain measurements,
for example, ROM/strength/edema; and
post-treatment patient assistance. The
most common duplicate supply item
included in the PE was the
multispecialty visit pack. Examples of
duplicated and unduplicated labor
activities and supplies for two sample
therapy code pairs and our estimates of
potential clinically appropriate time and
quantity reductions for multiple service
sessions (which were also included in
our proposed rule) are displayed in
Table 19. We note that CY 2009 PFS
claims data for these sample code pairs
include over 3.4 million pairs of CPT
codes 97112 (Therapeutic procedure, 1
or more areas, each 15 minutes;
neuromuscular reeducation of
movement, balance, coordination,
kinesthetic sense, posture, and/or
proprioception for sitting and/or
standing activities) and 97110
(Therapeutic procedure, 1 or more areas,
each 15 minutes; therapeutic exercises
to develop strength and endurance,
range of motion and flexibility)
furnished by the same practitioner on
the same day and over 500,000 pairs of
CPT codes 97001 (Physical therapy
evaluation) and 97140 (Manual therapy
techniques (eg, mobilization/
manipulation, manual lymphatic
drainage, manual traction), 1 or more
regions, each 15 minutes).
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
ER29NO10.247
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73234
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
BILLING CODE 4120–01–C
In the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule (75
FR 40078), we did not remove minutes
for clinical labor tasks that were not
duplicated. For example, for CPT code
pair 97001 and 97140 the following
tasks were not duplicated: post
treatment patient assistance; prep and
position patient; and prepare room,
equipment, and supplies. In addition,
we did not remove any supply items
that would be required for only one of
the separate services because these
would not be duplicated in the PE
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
applicable to the combination of
services. We estimated no reduction for
equipment time, even though
efficiencies would be expected for
equipment that is used in both services
when they are furnished together.
Finally, a corresponding reduction to
the indirect expenses would be
appropriate since indirect costs are
allocated partially based on direct costs.
For five high volume therapy code pairs
that each occur over 2 million times in
PFS claims for multiple therapy services
and account for almost half of such
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73235
claims, we estimated that the resulting
reduction in the PE for the lower paying
code would range from 28 to 56 percent.
As we summarized in the CY 2011
PFS proposed rule (75 FR 40078), given
the duplicative clinical labor activities
and supplies as shown in the code
combination examples, we believe it
would be appropriate to extend the
MPPR policy that is currently applied to
surgical services and the TC of imaging
services, to the PE component of certain
therapy services. Specifically, we
proposed to apply a 50 percent payment
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
ER29NO10.248
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
73236
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
reduction to the PE component of the
second and subsequent therapy services
for multiple ‘‘always therapy’’ services
furnished to a single patient in a single
day. Because we believed it would be
difficult to determine the precise
beginning and end of therapy sessions
and we did not believe that beneficiaries
would typically have more than one
therapy session furnished in a single
day, we proposed to apply the 50
percent MPPR policy to the PE
component of subsequent therapy
services furnished to the same patient
on the same day, rather than limiting
the proposed policy to services
furnished in the same session.
We noted that many therapy services
are time-based CPT codes, so multiple
units of a single code may be billed for
a single session that lasts for a longer
period of time than one unit of the code.
The proposed MPPR policy would
apply to multiple units of the same
therapy service, as well as to multiple
different services, when furnished to the
same patient on the same day.
Therefore, we proposed that full
payment would be made for the service
or unit with the highest PE and payment
would be made at 50 percent of the PE
component for the second and
subsequent procedures or units of the
same service.
We proposed that the work and
malpractice components of the therapy
service payment would not be reduced.
For therapy services furnished by an
individual or group practice or ‘‘incident
to’’ a physician’s service, the MPPR
would apply to all ‘‘always therapy’’
services furnished to a patient on the
same day, regardless of whether the
services are furnished in one therapy
discipline or multiple disciplines, for
example, physical therapy, occupational
therapy, or speech-language pathology.
The MPPR policy would apply to both
those services paid under the PFS that
are furnished in the office setting and
those services paid at the PFS rates that
are furnished by outpatient hospitals,
home health agencies, comprehensive
outpatient rehabilitation facilities
(CORFs), and other entities that are paid
by Medicare for outpatient therapy
services. Table 20 provides a sample
calculation of the current and proposed
CY 2011 payment for multiple therapy
services furnished in on the same day.
For those services paid under the PFS,
the PFS budget neutrality provision
would apply so that the estimated
reduced expenditures for therapy
services would be redistributed to
increase payment for other PFS services.
TABLE 20—SAMPLE PAYMENT CALCULATION FOR MULTIPLE THERAPY SERVICES FURNISHED TO A SINGLE PATIENT ON
THE SAME DAY
Procedure 1
Unit 1
Procedure 1
Unit 2
Procedure 2
Current
total
payment
Proposed
CY 2011
total
payment
Proposed payment calculation
$7.00
$10.00
$1.00
$7.00
$10.00
$1.00
$11.00
$8.00
$1.00
$25.00
$28.00
$3.00
$25.00
$19.00
$3.00
no reduction
$10 + (0.5 × $10) + (0.5 × $8)
no reduction
Total ................................
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Work ...............................
PE ...................................
Malpractice .....................
$18.00
$18.00
$20.00
$56.00
$47.00
$18 + $7 + (0.5 × $10) + $1 +
$11
+ (0.5 × $8) + $1
In the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule (75
FR 40078), we stated that we believe the
proposed therapy MPPR policy would
provide more appropriate payment for
therapy services that are commonly
furnished together by taking into
account the duplicative clinical labor
activities and supplies in the PE that are
not furnished more than once in the
single therapy session. This approach is
consistent with the statutory
requirement for the Secretary to
identify, review and adjust the relative
values of potentially misvalued services
under the PFS as specified by section
1848(c)(2)(K) of the Act (as added by
section 3134 of the ACA). We also
believe this proposed policy is
responsive to continued concerns about
significant growth in therapy spending
and to MedPAC and GAO
recommendations regarding the
expansion of MPPR policies under the
PFS to account for additional
efficiencies. We observed that paying
more appropriately for therapy services
based on PE relative values that are
adjusted for the clinical scenario under
which the services are furnished would
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
result in reduced therapy expenditures,
and beneficiaries would be able to
receive more medically necessary
outpatient therapy services before
reaching the therapy cap. For a further
discussion of potential alternatives to
the therapy caps, we refer readers to
section III.A.2. of this final rule with
comment period.
Comment: Many commenters opposed
application of the proposed MPPR
policy to therapy services. The
commenters characterized the proposal
as drastic, arbitrary, and unfair,
resulting in across-the-board cuts based
on flawed assumptions that would lead
to therapy underpayments that would
jeopardize access to necessary care and
harm patients. The commenters
requested that CMS withdraw the
proposal, study the issue further, and
share the analyses with the public.
In contrast, MedPAC supported the
general direction of the proposed policy,
but suggested that CMS better justify
how a 50 percent reduction would
capture the duplicate inputs related to
multiple therapy services performed in
a single session. MedPAC also
recommended that CMS request that the
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
AMA RUC review the values of all
outpatient therapy codes to ensure that
the practice expenses are not
duplicated, regardless of whether or not
the current values of those codes
assume that two services are furnished
during a single visit.
Numerous commenters requested a
detailed justification for the proposed
policy’s 50 percent reduction, including
an explanation of the methodology used
to calculate the new payments that
would result. These commenters asked
CMS to work with stakeholders to
finalize a policy that would not
adversely impact access to care,
particularly in rural and other
underserved areas. The commenters
further urged consideration of other
payment methods and alternatives to
the therapy caps that would preserve
and improve access to therapy services.
The commenters stated that between 80
to 90 percent of physical therapy
services furnished in private practices
would potentially be subject to the
MPPR, concluding that the policy
would result in payment decreases of
19.2 percent and 17.8 percent for
physical therapy services in facilities
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
and offices, respectively, notably more
than the CMS’ impact estimate of 11
percent for the proposed rule.
The commenters provided analyses to
show that the duplication of supplies is
very limited and argued that a more
thorough analysis of duplication based
on expert clinical review would result
in considerably lower estimates of
duplication. For example, the AMA
RUC explained that for a typical single
session combination of 2 units of CPT
code 97110 (Therapeutic procedure, 1 or
more areas, each 15 minutes;
therapeutic exercises to develop
strength and endurance, range of motion
and flexibility) and one unit of 97140
(Manual therapy techniques (e.g.,
mobilization/manipulation, manual
lymphatic drainage, manual traction), 1
or more regions, each 15 minutes), a $12
PE payment reduction from the MPPR
would be applied to adjust for $3.60 in
potentially duplicated costs.
Before implementing an MPPR, the
commenters urged CMS to take time to
ensure that individual services were
valued correctly based upon the
resources needed to deliver them. The
commenters advised CMS to conduct a
more thorough analysis, taking into
consideration the fact that the direct PE
inputs for therapy services were already
reduced to avoid duplication. The
commenters alleged that CMS provided
incorrect examples of duplication in the
proposed rule examples by
overestimating the duplication
compared to the standard time allocated
by the AMA RUC for certain activities.
The commenters explained that PE for
therapy services was valued by the
AMA RUC based upon three units of
service, not two units of service as
stated by CMS in the proposed rule.
Three units of service are typical, and
the commenters contended that no
duplication of PE exists when the
typical three units of service are
delivered using typical time allotments
for clinical labor activities. The
commenters submitted multiple
examples of combinations of therapy
services, using the most frequently
billed therapy codes and providing
valuations for each of the components of
PE, such as pre-service and post-service
physical therapy assistant activities. The
commenters pointed out that in the case
of single unit therapy claims, or claims
with one therapeutic procedure and one
modality, there would currently be
underpayment based on how therapy
services are valued. The commenters
further argued that it would not be fair
to apply the MPPR to all subsequent
services when some of the code
combinations are already undervalued.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
Many commenters observed that the
AMA RUC has worked in good faith to
resolve any duplication in the PE inputs
over the past few years and pointed out
that CMS has historically accepted over
90 percent of the AMA RUC’s
recommendations. In April 2010, some
commenters reported that the AMA
RUC reviewed high volume therapy
code pairs that included the most
frequently billed therapy CPT code
97110, and the commenters conveyed
the AMA RUC’s conclusion that there is
no duplication in the work or PE inputs
for the most frequently reported therapy
codes.
The commenters pointed out that
single comprehensive codes for certain
bundles of component services were
implemented in CY 2010, and that
additional ones would be created in the
future. Therefore, the commenters
disagreed with CMS’ reasoning for
proposing a general MPPR that is not
code pair-specific in the context of these
ongoing efforts of the CPT Editorial
Panel and the AMA RUC to revise the
coding and values for services that are
commonly furnished together. Instead,
the commenters urged CMS to continue
to work within the established processes
and resolve duplication, where it exists,
at the code pair level rather than with
payment.
Response: We appreciate the detailed
information provided by the
commenters regarding the historical
AMA RUC process to value the therapy
codes and the additional examples of
the practice expenses as they apply to
the many combinations of therapy
services that may be reported. We
understand that the AMA RUC valued
many of the therapy services based on
certain assumptions about the typical
combinations of services furnished in a
therapy session. However, as the
commenters pointed out, there are
numerous combinations of therapy
services observed in the PFS claims data
that we posted on the CMS Web site
under supporting files for the CY 2011
PFS proposed rule that are commonly
furnished in the physician’s office
setting. In the context of this large
number of commonly observed
combinations, we do not believe that
our usual PFS methodology of valuing
the typical service adequately accounts
for the duplication in PE that occurs in
the many possible therapy service
combinations. Although they are
frequent, they do not represent the
typical case used by the AMA RUC in
valuing the individual component
services and, thus, do not fully account
for duplications in PE. We proposed the
therapy MPPR in order to pay more
appropriately for therapy services in
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73237
general by adjusting for the duplicate
payment for the PE that may occur
when combinations of therapy services
are furnished together.
We agree with the commenters that,
when considering all claims for therapy
services paid under the PFS, the median
number of services is three. Thus, that
number may have been appropriate for
the AMA RUC to use in valuing therapy
services. However, the median number
of four services that we presented in the
CY 2011 PFS proposed rule was based
upon all claims for multiple therapy
services, and did not include claims for
a single therapy service. It was the
multiple service claims that we
examined for purposes of the MPPR
analysis, and it is these claims to which
the MPPR would apply. Therefore, we
continue to believe that the median
number of four is the appropriate
reference point when evaluating an
MPPR. We note further that when the
AMA RUC valued certain therapy
services based on the assumption that a
combination of three types of therapy
services would be furnished to the
patient, then in the case of multiple
service claims where the median
number of services is four, some PE
duplication would clearly occur for the
typical multiple service case with more
than three services.
Although we continue to believe that
50 percent would generally be an
appropriate level for an MPPR for the PE
component of payment for therapy
services, consistent with the current
PFS MPPR policies for imaging and
surgical services and our PE overlap
analysis of certain therapy code
combinations for the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule, we acknowledge there
are particular challenges associated with
establishing an MPPR for therapy
services to account for the duplication
in PE. For example, the current coding
structure for therapy services relies
upon timed units in many cases, and as
a result, the number of commonly
observed combinations is very large.
The PE overlaps vary depending upon
the specific combinations of services
furnished to the patient, which may
include evaluation services, therapeutic
procedures, and therapeutic modalities.
The common occurrence of such a great
variety of multiple therapy code
combinations contrasts with the
relatively lesser number of
combinations and/or frequency of
combinations of surgical procedures or
diagnostic imaging procedures to which
the established PFS MPPR policies
apply.
As the commenters pointed out, the
direct PE inputs for certain therapy
services were systematically established
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73238
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
based upon a standard AMA RUC
methodology of three therapy services
furnished in a session that included two
therapeutic procedures and one
therapeutic modality and that assigned
certain PE inputs solely to the two
therapeutic procedures. However, the
scenarios utilized by the AMA RUC in
this process are an incomplete
representation of the usual
combinations of services reported when
therapy services are furnished in a
practitioner’s office. For example, the
most common combination of CPT
codes for therapy services in CY 2009
PFS claims data consisted of an average
of 3.5 services which were comprised of
some combination of one or more units
of a single therapeutic procedure CPT
code and one or more units of a single
modality CPT code, rather than 3 total
units of the services. The second most
common combination was a therapeutic
procedure CPT code alone, with an
average of 2.8 units, while the AMA
RUC relied upon 2 therapeutic
procedures in a session for its
assignment of certain PE inputs. Other
commonly observed combinations of
codes included 3.4 to 4.6 therapy
services, with different numbers of
therapeutic procedures and therapeutic
modalities furnished to the patient than
were assumed by the AMA RUC under
the scenarios that were the basis for
establishing the PE inputs for certain
therapy CPT codes. Therefore, despite
the AMA RUC’s consideration of
multiple services for valuation, the
therapy code combinations as actually
reported by practitioners would
typically have some additional
duplication in their PE. Thus, while the
current PFS values for therapy services
may reflect some efficiencies in the PE
for certain code combinations based on
the AMA RUC approach to valuation (to
the extent we accepted the AMA RUC
recommendations), the actual
efficiencies are not fully recognized in
the PE inputs for the most commonly
reported therapy code combinations,
nor are they necessarily recognized in
the many other common code
combinations that were not considered
by the AMA RUC as the typical case.
Based on our review of the scenarios
submitted by the commenters, we
continue to believe that there is
significant overlap in the PE when many
combinations of therapy services are
furnished together and that this overlap
has not been adequately accounted for
in the direct PE inputs that the AMA
RUC has recommended to us for the
component services. We believe the
overlaps remain substantial and they
can be potentially higher than 50
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
percent for some combinations while
lower for others. Our analysis of five
high volume therapy code pairs as noted
in the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule (75
FR 40078) suggested a reduction in the
PE for the lower paying code of 28 to 56
percent to account for PE duplication.
In response to the commenters who
projected that the impact on physician’s
office payment for physical therapy
services would be greater than the 11
percent reduction we modeled for the
proposed rule (75 FR 40232), we note
that an additional element of our
analysis was the continued transition to
setting the PE RVUs based on the PPIS
data. The PPIS transition is expected to
significantly increase payment for the
PE component of therapy services in CY
2011. While we acknowledge that the
estimated change in PE RVUs due to the
proposed therapy MPPR alone would
result in a payment decrease for the
specialty of physical and occupational
therapy of somewhat more than 11
percent, it is the combined
consideration of all factors affecting the
CY 2011 PE RVUs that resulted in the
11 percent decrease for physical and
occupational therapists in the proposed
rule specialty impact table (75 FR
40232). We note further that the
estimated impact of all the PE RVU
changes for physical and occupational
therapy based upon our proposals for
CY 2011 if there were no remaining
transition to the new PE RVUs using the
PPIS data would be ¥7 percent.
Any MPPR policy, such as the MPPR
that currently applies to surgical
services and imaging procedures, is a
relatively blunt payment policy tool that
improves the overall accuracy of
payment when combinations of services
are furnished together but is not, by its
nature, a specific policy that precisely
values each code combination. A
general MPPR is not unlike the wellestablished PFS pricing methodology
that relies on the typical case, where we
readily acknowledge that the clinician’s
resources used to furnish a specific
service to a specific patient on a specific
day may be more or less than those used
in the typical case. Similarly, while we
believe that an MPPR would generally
improve the accuracy of PFS payment
when multiple therapy services are
furnished to a single patient in a single
session, we understand that for a
specific combination of services for a
given patient, the resources required
may be more or less than those
recognized for payment under the MPPR
policy. In view of the requirements of
section 1848(c)(2)(K) of the Act (as
added by section 3134 of the ACA)
which specify that the Secretary shall
identify potentially misvalued codes by
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
examining multiple codes that are
frequently billed in conjunction with
furnishing a single service and make
RVU adjustments, we continue to
believe it would be appropriate to
expand the current PFS MPPR policies
to address those scenarios where we
conclude that combinations of services
commonly furnished together are
systematically overvalued.
We believe the more specific
valuation of common code
combinations is best conducted with
input from the AMA RUC as it evaluates
single new comprehensive codes for a
bundle of component services when
those new codes are established by the
CPT Editorial Panel. In such cases
where a single code is used to report a
comprehensive service, an MPPR would
no longer apply, which would be
appropriate because the potential for PE
duplication would have been explicitly
considered in determining the PE inputs
for the comprehensive service. As we
stated earlier in this section concerning
the MPPR for imaging services, the
MPPR is not intended to supersede the
AMA RUC process. We encourage the
AMA RUC to reexamine the values and
direct PE inputs for therapy services,
including code pairs, for duplication in
the PE, and to recommend therapy
services to the CPT Editorial Panel for
consideration of bundling into
comprehensive codes. However, we
believe it is appropriate to use an MPPR
to address the PE duplication that is
currently present within the PFS RVUs
for the therapy codes when more than
one service is furnished to a patient.
After consideration of the public
comments we received, we are adopting,
with modifications, our proposal to
establish a MPPR policy for ‘‘always
therapy’’ services for CY 2011. However,
given the complexities involved in
establishing an MPPR for the very large
number of therapy codes and
combinations, rather than the proposed
50 percent payment reduction to the PE
component of the second and
subsequent ‘‘always therapy’’ services
billed by the same practitioner or
facility on the same date of service for
the same patient, we are adopting a 25
percent MPPR for ‘‘always therapy’’
services furnished in CY 2011. We
continue to believe that a 50 percent
MPPR for therapy services may be
appropriate in light of our analysis of
five high volume therapy code pairs that
each occur over 2 million times in PFS
claims for multiple therapy services and
account for almost half of such claims,
and for which we estimated that the
resulting reduction in the PE for the
lower paying code would range from 28
to 56 percent. However, we believe a 25
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
percent MPPR represents an appropriate
and conservative first step toward
eliminating payment for duplicative PE
when multiple ‘‘always therapy’’
services are furnished to the same
patient by the same therapy provider on
the same date of service. We note that
a 25 percent MPPR represents half the
proposed reduction, and is slightly less
than the lower range of the reduction
suggested by our analysis of high
volume code pairs. During CY 2011 and
future years, we will continue to refine
our analyses and consider whether
further modifications to the policy
would be appropriate, including the
possible adoption of a 50 percent MPPR
or a different payment percentage
reduction. Any further changes to the
MPPR for therapy services will be
addressed in future rulemaking,
including the possible adoption of any
alternative percentage payment
reduction to the 25 percent MPPR that
will be in place for CY 2011. We will
also closely follow the work of the CPT
Editorial Panel and the AMA RUC with
respect to the coding and valuation for
therapy services over the next few years
as we assess the potential merits of
further changes to the MPPR policy. We
note that the typical reductions in total
PFS payment for high utilization
therapy code combinations due to the
MPPR alone would fall within the range
of 7 to 9 percent under our final policy,
but this decrease will be mitigated by
the continued transition to use of the
PPIS data. As displayed in Table 101 of
this final rule with comment period, we
estimate that the CY 2011 impact on the
PE RVUs of the new therapy MPPR and
continued PPIS transition is a reduction
in PFS payment to physical and
occupational therapists of
approximately ¥3 percent.
The final list of CY 2011 CPT codes
for ‘‘always therapy’’ services that are
subject to the therapy MPPR is
displayed in Table 21 at the end of this
section.
Comment: Some commenters pointed
out that CMS’ analysis was based only
on data from physicians and private
practice therapists, which the
commenters opposed as
unrepresentative of the typical therapy
session because the data represent only
35 percent of outpatient therapy
services paid under Medicare. The
commenters objected that no data from
skilled nursing facilities (SNFs),
rehabilitation agencies, CORFs, and
hospital outpatient departments were
considered in the analysis. The
commenters reported that application of
the MPPR policy on a per-day basis
would be inconsistent with the delivery
of therapy services in provider settings
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
where multiple sessions of the same or
different disciplines of therapy on the
same day are commonly furnished to
‘‘captive’’ patients and would unfairly
reduce payment for the resources used
to provide these services. The
commenters believe there is no
duplication in the PE in such
circumstances. Some commenters
suggested that reductions should not be
applied when there is a break in
services into more than one session in
the same day.
Response: With respect to payment
under the PFS, according to section
1848(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the term
‘‘practice expense component’’ means
the portion of the resources used in
furnishing the service that reflects the
general categories of expenses (such as
office rent and wages of personnel, but
excluding malpractice expenses)
comprising practice expenses. Under
section 1848(c)(2)(C)(ii) of the Act, we
are required to determine PE RVUs
based on the relative practice expense
resources involved in furnishing
services. We develop these resourcebased PE RVUs by looking at the direct
and indirect physician practice
resources involved in furnishing each
service. To establish the direct PE
inputs for services paid under the PFS,
we consider the typical clinical scenario
in which those services are delivered
and paid by Medicare. In the case of
therapy services that are paid under the
PFS, the scenarios we consider are
office-based (not institutional) because
these therapy services are the only ones
that are actually paid under the PFS
(section 1848 of the Act) and subject to
all of the provisions of the PFS,
including budget neutrality under
section 1848(c)(2)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act.
Section 1834(k)(3) of the Act then
requires that we pay for all outpatient
therapy services at the applicable PFS
amount. Therefore, our analyses and
policy development regarding the
therapy MPPR were based solely on
claims for office-based therapy services
and, given the applicable statutory
payment provisions; we do not believe
it would have been appropriate for us to
consider institutional patterns of care in
setting PFS rates for therapy services.
We are required to establish the
values for services paid under the PFS
(office-based services) so that therapy
services are valued appropriately in the
context of all other services paid under
the PFS, and that means ensuring that
therapy services are appropriately
valued for the office setting. In the case
of other services paid under the PFS
that may be furnished in both facility
and nonfacility settings, we generally
establish separate but related facility
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73239
and nonfacility values to differentially
value the services when furnished in
each of the two types of settings.
However, therapy services are only paid
under the PFS when furnished in the
office setting, so we establish the PFS
values for therapy services based on
patterns of care in the office setting.
This approach ensures equitable and
relative treatment of all services paid
under the PFS with respect to the
statutory provisions that apply to the
PFS, including year-to-year budget
neutrality. In contrast to other services
paid under the PFS, the statute then
specifies that we pay for therapy
services furnished in facility settings at
the applicable PFS amount (which, as
discussed above, is established based
upon our resource-based methodology
for services furnished in nonfacility
settings). Although the statutory
payment scheme for therapy services
differs from most other services, we note
that this treatment ensures that
Medicare payment is the same across all
settings for outpatient Part B therapy
services.
We acknowledge the commenters’
point that multiple therapy sessions
furnished to one patient by one provider
(one National Provider Identifier (NPI))
in a single day are more common in
facility settings than in the office
setting. However, we continue to believe
that in these situations there would be
some overlaps in the PE, including
patient education and obtaining
measurements, that would be
appropriately accounted for through the
therapy MPPR. Furthermore, given the
nature of therapy services and the
associated coding, we believe it would
be very challenging to determine the
medical necessity of multiple therapy
sessions on one date of service or the
precise beginning and ending of therapy
sessions if we were to exclude from the
MPPR those therapy services furnished
by the same provider to a single patient
on the same day but in different
sessions, although we acknowledge that
this modification would be consistent
with our established policy for the
imaging MPPR.
After consideration of the public
comments we received, we are
finalizing our CY 2011 proposal to
apply the therapy MPPR when multiple
therapy services are billed on the same
date of service for the same patient by
the same practitioner or facility under
the same NPI, regardless of whether
those therapy services are furnished in
separate sessions.
Comment: Many commenters objected
to applying the MPPR across therapy
disciplines because the commenters
argued that physical therapy,
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73240
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
occupational therapy, and speechlanguage pathology (SLP) are separate
and distinct interventions furnished
independently by individually licensed
professionals, each of which is certified
to provide unique and specialized
services that do not cross discipline or
service lines. Several commenters
explained that each discipline involves
entirely different skills, equipment,
supplies, and treatment goals, and
separate disciplines are often located in
different treatment settings. Individual
plans of care, explained the
commenters, are separately maintained
for each therapy discipline and contain
specific goals and treatments. Some
commenters compared the proposal to
claiming that services furnished to a
single patient on the same day by a
cardiologist and internal medicine
specialist contain duplicative PE inputs.
The same commenters described
administrative contact with the patient
in this scenario as distinct and separate,
observing that greeting and gowning the
patient, cleaning, and assistant activities
are furnished independently by the
second or subsequent discipline, and
cannot be shared.
The large majority of commenters
argued that the proposal did not make
logical distinctions between therapy
treatments or specialties or even
properly distinguish between the skills
of rehabilitation practitioners. While
physical therapists and occupational
therapists report the same CPT codes,
the commenters noted that the codes do
not represent the same service and the
plan and approach to treatments differ
depending on the discipline.
Response: We recognize that the
therapy disciplines are separately
qualified professionals who address
specific impairments using separate and
unique skills. However, in the office
setting which is the basis for our valuing
therapy services for payment under the
PFS as discussed previously, although
we believe it would be uncommon for
services to be furnished to a single
patient by different therapy disciplines
and billed by a single provider (one NPI)
on the same date of service, we continue
to believe that there would be some
overlap in the PE in this circumstance.
The PE overlaps that we would
anticipate include greeting the patient,
obtaining vital signs, and post-visit
phone calls. We do not agree with the
commenters that we should accept such
multiple discipline cases from the
therapy MPPR that would otherwise
apply.
After consideration of the public
comments we received, we are
finalizing our CY 2011 proposal to
apply the therapy MPPR to all therapy
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
services across the disciplines billed on
the same date of service for the same
patient by the same practitioner or
facility under the same NPI.
Comment: Several commenters
pointed out that, unlike other therapy
services, many SLP services contain
therapist work in their PE because SLPs
have no assistants. These commenters
requested that the therapy MPPR not be
implemented, or at least be delayed,
until the AMA RUC completes its plan
to recommend moving SLP work from
PE to work. In addition to bundled
codes, the commenters also requested
that add-on codes, such as CPT code
92608 (Evaluation for prescription for
speech-generating augmentative and
alternative communication device, faceto-face with the patient; each additional
30 minutes (List separately in addition
to code for primary procedure)), be
exempted from the therapy MPPR, since
the PE inputs for add-on codes
explicitly take into consideration the PE
inputs for a base code that is always
reported. The commenters reported that
the major SLP codes include a wide
variety of service types and are
essentially bundled already, meaning
that SLP practitioners rarely bill two
different services on the same day for
the same patient. The commenters
expressed concern because SLP services
are furnished and valued differently
than physical and occupational therapy,
yet the proposed rule contained no SLP
examples to justify including SLP codes
in the MPPR or to estimate the impact
on SLP services.
Response: We note that most of the
SLP codes will have been valued with
therapist work in the work component
of the SLP service RVUs by CY 2011,
although we do not see the continued
valuation of therapist work in the PE as
an impediment to application of the
MPPR to SLP services. Since many
single SLP codes represent multiple
component services that are reported
using a single comprehensive code, the
impact of the therapy MPPR on PFS
payment for SLP services would be
minimal. For those services that may
occasionally be billed with more than
one SLP code for a session, we see no
basis for treating SLP services
differently than other therapy services
because we believe there would also be
PE duplication in these cases.
However, we agree with the
commenters that add-on codes should
not be subject to the MPPR for therapy
services because their PE inputs already
consider that the add-on code is always
furnished along with a primary service.
Therefore, after consideration of the
public comments we received, we are
removing add-on therapy CPT code
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
92608 from the list of ‘‘always therapy’’
services that we proposed for
application of the therapy MPPR policy.
In addition, we are removing CPT code
97010 (Application of a modality to 1 or
more areas; hot or cold pack) which is
a bundled code that was inadvertently
included on the proposed list. These
changes are reflected in the final list of
codes subject to the therapy MPPR
policy that is displayed in Table 21 at
the end of this section. This policy
parallels our treatment of the MPPR for
surgical services, where surgical add-on
codes are not subject to the surgical
MPPR.
Comment: Some commenters
characterized the proposed therapy
MPPR as contrary to the objectives of
the ACA, which the commenters believe
was designed to shift care to the most
effective and efficient delivery setting to
ensure beneficiary access to costeffective, high quality and coordinated
care. Because therapy services do not
involve expensive drugs or testing, yet
they assist patients in avoiding or
reducing other medical costs, many
commenters believe that physical
therapy is the most efficient and costeffective treatment to return patients to
independent function. The commenters
contended that growing Medicare
expenditures for the treatment of
common musculoskeletal problems
could easily be controlled by earlier
access of patients to physical therapy
services.
The commenters were concerned that
lower therapy payments would
exacerbate the shortage of therapists,
lead to restricted access to therapy
services, especially in rural areas, and
result in patients who are more prone to
injuries and functioning at a lower level.
Undertreated functional impairments,
argued the commenters, would lead to
increased spending for medication and
medical costs associated with decreased
mobility, pain and falls, increased
emergency room services, longer
inpatient stays, quicker returns to the
hospital setting, and earlier placement
in nursing homes.
In addition, some commenters were
concerned that the MPPR would
provide an incentive to schedule
patients in a manner that would be
inefficient, inappropriate, and
inconvenient for patients. The
commenters noted that research proves
therapy is more effective for many
elderly patients with several visits on
the same day, separated by rest. The
commenters indicated that patients in
rural communities prefer multiple
therapy service visits to minimize
lengthy commutes.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Response: Through the CY 2011
proposed rule and its associated public
comment period, we have invited public
involvement in the process of policy
development regarding an MPPR for
therapy services. We believe the therapy
MPPR policy is fully consistent with
section 1848(c)(2)(K) of the Act (as
added by section 3134 of the ACA)
which specifies that the Secretary shall
identify potentially misvalued codes by
examining multiple codes that are
frequently billed in conjunction with
furnishing a single service, and review
and make appropriate adjustments to
their relative values. Therefore, we do
not agree with the commenters that the
MPPR policy undermines the goals of
the ACA but, instead, we believe the
policy fulfills one of our statutory
obligations by valuing more
appropriately combinations of therapy
services furnished to patients and paid
under the PFS. We have no reason to
believe that appropriately valuing
services for payment under the PFS by
reducing payment for duplication in the
resource-based PE payment for the
component services would contribute to
therapist workforce shortages or limit
patients’ access to medically reasonable
and necessary therapy services.
With respect to the ordering and
scheduling of therapy services for
Medicare beneficiaries, we require that
Medicare-covered services be
appropriate to patient needs and that a
physician certifies each patient’s plan of
care. We would not expect the adoption
of an MPPR for therapy services to
result in therapy services being
furnished on separate days by one
provider so that the provider may garner
increased therapy payment unless this
pattern of care is the most clinically
appropriate for the patient. We agree
with the commenters that this
unprofessional behavioral response on
the part of practitioners would be
inefficient and inappropriate and could
result in patient compliance problems
with the plan of care. We will continue
to monitor access to care and patterns of
delivery for therapy services, with
particular attention focused on
identifying any changes in the delivery
of same day therapy services that may
be inappropriate.
Comment: Several commenters noted
that CMS has contracted with Computer
Sciences Corporation (CSC) and RTI
International to develop outpatient
therapy payment alternatives and urged
CMS to place a high priority on the
development of an alternative payment
approach for therapy services rather
than applying the proposed MPPR.
Many commenters supported bundled
per-session codes that would vary based
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
on the severity of the patient and the
complexity of evaluation and treatment
services, and some commenters believe
this payment approach would be more
equitable than the proposed MPPR. The
commenters argued for a scientific
approach to the development of
alternatives to the current payment
system, which the commenters believe
contrasts with the analysis presented by
CMS to support the MPPR. However,
most commenters encouraged further
study and development before
implementation of any alternatives.
Many commenters pledged to work with
CMS in the future to further develop a
bundled service approach based on
episodes of care.
Response: We appreciate the effort
and useful information contributed by
stakeholders to the discussion and
development of alternatives to the
therapy caps and we refer readers to
section III.A.2. of this final rule with
comment period for a further discussion
of the public comments and our
responses on this issue. We look
forward to the continued cooperation of
stakeholders as we continue our work in
this area over the coming years.
However, we do not believe short-term
alternative payment options for therapy
services are sufficiently developed to
warrant immediate implementation, and
the commenters on the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule generally shared that
view. In contrast, we believe that we can
implement an appropriate MPPR for
therapy services beginning in CY 2011
that would immediately provide more
appropriate payment for the PE
component of therapy services when
multiple therapy services are furnished
to one patient on one date of service by
one provider. Paying more appropriately
for therapy services in CY 2011 will
allow patients to receive more medically
necessary therapy services before
reaching the therapy cap. To the extent
that the therapy MPPR encourages the
future bundling of therapy codes into a
single comprehensive service that
would be specifically valued, we
support the exploration of that concept
to capture the specific efficiencies
associated with certain combinations of
therapy services.
Comment: Several commenters
asserted that the therapy MPPR proposal
violated the Administrative Procedure
Act (APA), alleging the proposal was
arbitrary and capricious. In addition,
some commenters argued that CMS did
not provide sufficient information
regarding the data and analysis used to
develop the policy to allow the
informed public input from qualified
providers of therapy services.
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73241
Response: Consistent with the
requirements of the APA, a full
description of our analysis and the
rationale we used as the basis for the
proposed therapy MPPR policy was
presented in the proposed rule, the
public comments on our proposal have
been reviewed, and our responses are
provided in this final rule with
comment period. Although many
commenters requested that we share
more data to support the proposed
policy, several commenters
demonstrated that they have their own
access to Medicare data by submitting
reports to us along with their comments
in order to support their views or to
refute the examples we presented in the
proposed rule. We note further that we
posted therapy utilization data on the
CMS web site after publication of the
proposed rule to provide additional
information regarding the specific
combinations and utilization of therapy
services on PFS claims. The information
was posted under downloads for the CY
2011 PFS proposed rule at: https://
www.cms.gov/PhysicianFeeSched/
PFSFRN/list.asp#TopOfPage. Therefore,
we believe the final MPPR for therapy
services is being adopted in compliance
with the notice and comment
rulemaking process under the APA.
In summary, after consideration of the
public comments we received, we are
adopting our CY 2011 proposal to apply
an MPPR to the PE component of
Medicare payment for the second and
subsequent outpatient ‘‘always therapy’’
services, with a modification to apply a
25 percent reduction for CY 2011 rather
than the 50 percent reduction we had
proposed. Specifically, beginning in CY
2011 we are adopting an MPPR for
‘‘always therapy’’ services under which
a 25 percent reduction will be applied
to the PE component of payment for the
second and subsequent ‘‘always
therapy’’ service(s) (those displayed in
Table 21) that are furnished to a single
patient by a single provider on one date
of service in all settings where
outpatient therapy services are paid
under Part B. This policy applies to
office-based therapy services paid under
the PFS as well as to institutional
therapy services paid under Part B at the
PFS rates. We note that the MPPR
would apply only when multiple
therapy services are billed on the same
date of service for one patient by the
same practitioner or facility under the
same NPI. This policy does not apply to
add-on, bundled, or contractor-priced
‘‘always therapy’’ codes. It does,
however, apply to all ‘‘always therapy’’
services furnished on a single date of
service by the same provider to a single
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73242
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
patient, including ‘‘always therapy’’
services furnished in different sessions
or in different therapy disciplines.
For those therapy services paid under
the PFS, we are required to make a
budget neutrality adjustment under
section 1848(c)(2)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act.
As a result, the estimated reduced
expenditures for therapy services due to
the 25 percent MPPR will be
redistributed to increased CY 2011
payments for other PFS services. We
refer readers to XI.A.2. of this final rule
with comment period for further
discussion of the impact of this policy.
The final list of CY 2011 ‘‘always
therapy’’ CPT codes subject to the MPPR
policy for therapy services is displayed
in Table 21.
5. High Cost Supplies
a. Background
MedPAC and the AMA RUC have
long recommended that CMS establish a
frequent price update process for highcost supplies that are direct PE inputs
in the PE database for services paid
under the PFS because of their
speculation that prices for these items
may decrease over time as competition
increases and new technologies
disseminate into medical practice.
MedPAC in particular has perennially
noted that it is important for CMS to
update the prices of high-priced
supplies on a regular basis as inaccurate
prices can distort PE RVUs over time,
contributing to the misvaluation of
established services under the PFS.
Most of the current prices for highTABLE 21—‘‘ALWAYS THERAPY’’ SERV- cost supplies included in the direct PE
ICES SUBJECT TO THE CY 2011 database are from 2004 or earlier. There
are currently 62 unique supplies with
MPPR POLICY*
prices of $150 or more in the proposed
CY 2011 PE database, which is available
CPT code
Short descriptor
on the CMS Web site under the
92506 ....... Speech/hearing evaluation.
supporting data files for the CY 2011
92507 ....... Speech/hearing therapy.
PFS proposed rule at https://
92508 ....... Speech/hearing therapy.
www.cms.gov/PhysicianFeeSched/.
92526 ....... Oral function therapy.
Finally, we note that we do not actually
92597 ....... Oral speech device eval.
pay the supply prices included in the
92607 ....... Ex for speech device rx, 1 hr.
PE database but, instead, use them to
92609 ....... Use of speech device service.
develop the PE RVUs according to our
96125 ....... Cognitive test by hc pro.
standard PE methodology as described
97001 ....... Pt evaluation.
97002 ....... Pt re-evaluation.
in section II.A.2. of this final rule with
97003 ....... Ot evaluation.
comment period. Payment for a
97004 ....... Ot re-evaluation.
procedure that uses a supply is based
97012 ....... Mechanical traction therapy.
upon the PE RVUs that result from the
97016 ....... Vasopneumatic device therapy.
PE methodology, and supplies are
97018 ....... Paraffin bath therapy.
among the direct PE inputs for
97022 ....... Whirlpool therapy.
procedures. Therefore, it is the relativity
97024 ....... Diathermy eg, microwave.
of high-cost supply prices to prices for
97026 ....... Infrared therapy.
other PE items (equipment, low-cost
97028 ....... Ultraviolet therapy.
supplies, and clinical labor) that is
97032 ....... Electrical stimulation.
97033 ....... Electric current therapy.
important.
97034 ....... Contrast bath therapy.
Accordingly, in the CY 2009 PFS
97035 ....... Ultrasound therapy.
proposed rule (73 FR 38582), we
97036 ....... Hydrotherapy.
proposed a process to update the prices
97110 ....... Therapeutic exercises.
for high-cost supplies priced at $150 or
97112 ....... Neuromuscular reeducation.
more that are included in the PE inputs
97113 ....... Aquatic therapy/exercises.
for procedures paid under the PFS PE
97116 ....... Gait training therapy.
methodology. The CY 2009 proposed
97124 ....... Massage therapy.
rule described a publicly transparent
97140 ....... Manual therapy.
97150 ....... Group therapeutic procedures.
process in which CMS would publish a
97530 ....... Therapeutic activities.
list of the high-cost supplies in the PFS
97533 ....... Sensory integration.
proposed rule (65 supplies were
97535 ....... Self care mngment training.
included in the CY 2009 PFS proposed
97537 ....... Community/work reintegration.
rule), and specialty societies or other
97542 ....... Wheelchair mngment training.
relevant organizations would provide
97750 ....... Physical performance test.
acceptable documentation supporting
97755 ....... Assistive technology assess.
the pricing for the supplies during the
97760 ....... Orthotic mgmt and training.
60-day public comment period.
97761 ....... Prosthetic training.
97762 ....... C/o for orthotic/prosth use.
Furthermore, in that same proposed rule
G0281 ...... Elec stim unattend for press.
(73 FR 38582), we provided guidance on
G0283 ...... Elec stim other than wound.
what constitutes valid, reliable
G0329 ...... Electromagntic tx for ulcers.
documentation that reflects the typical
*Excludes contractor-priced, bundled, and price of the high-cost item in the
add-on ‘‘always therapy’’ codes.
marketplace. We outlined examples of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
acceptable documentation, such as a
detailed description (including system
components), sources, and current
pricing information, confirmed by
copies of catalog pages, invoices, and
quotes from manufacturers, vendors, or
distributors. We indicated that
documentation that does not include
specific pricing information such as
phone numbers and addresses of
manufacturers, vendors, or distributors
or Web site links without pricing
information would not be acceptable.
We also noted that if acceptable
documentation was not received within
the proposed rule’s 60-day public
comment period, we would use prices
from the Internet, retail vendors, and
supply catalogs to determine the
appropriate cost, and that we would use
the lowest price identified by these
sources (73 FR 38582). Finally, we
solicited public comments on
alternatives that could be used to update
pricing information in the absence of
acceptable documentation provided by
specialty societies or other interested
organizations.
In the CY 2009 PFS final rule with
comment period (73 FR 69882), we
indicated that we received many
comments on the proposed process and,
while some commenters expressed
support, others believed the proposed
process was flawed and burdensome.
Moreover, although we received some
data in response to our request for
information on the 65 high-cost supplies
with prices of $150 or more, much of
what we received was not complete or
did not represent typical market prices.
In particular, we expressed concern that
the submitted data often represented
manufacturer list prices for the premier
models of many supplies, while we
believed there were less expensive
alternatives. Therefore, we were unable
to determine the most appropriate,
typical supply prices for our PFS
payment methodology that prices the
typical service described by a HCPCS
code. Rather than finalizing the
proposed process for updating high-cost
supplies and revising the prices for the
65 supplies based on inadequate pricing
information, we stated in the CY 2009
PFS final rule with comment period (73
FR 69882) that we would research the
possibility of using an independent
contractor to assist us in obtaining
accurate pricing information.
Furthermore, we informed the public
that we planned to study the limitations
of available pricing data and determine
how to revise our proposed process to
elicit better data.
In the CY 2010 PFS proposed rule and
final rule with comment period (74 FR
33554 and 61776, respectively), we
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
stated that we were continuing to
examine ways to obtain accurate pricing
information for high-cost supplies. We
noted again in the CY 2010 PFS
proposed rule that we would depend
upon the cooperation of the medical
community to obtain typical prices in
the marketplace, and we provided
stakeholders with another opportunity
to submit public comments on the
process. In the CY 2010 PFS final rule
with comment period, we
acknowledged commenters’ general
support for an initiative to ensure
accurate pricing of high-cost supplies.
In general, the commenters strongly
preferred a transparent and public
process, and we stated that we would
consider this perspective as we explore
the best way to ensure that accurate
supply pricing information is used in
the PFS payment methodology.
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
b. Future Updates to the Prices of HighCost Supplies
In working towards refining a process
to update the prices of high-cost
supplies and consistent with our
intention expressed in the CY 2009 PFS
final rule with comment period (73 FR
69882), we contracted with an
independent contractor during CY 2009
to help us study the availability of
accurate pricing information. We
requested that the independent
contractor, L&M Policy Research,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
research pricing information for the 65
high-cost supplies listed in the CY 2009
proposed rule (73 FR 38583 through
38585) and determine what, if any,
pricing information reflecting typical
market prices could be obtained for
these high-cost supplies.
We first requested that the contractor
explore publicly available sources to
obtain typical market prices for these
supplies. The contractor utilized supply
vendor catalogs and web sites and
directly contacted vendors,
manufacturers, group purchasing
organizations (GPOs), and any other
suppliers that the contractor identified
in their research in order to identify
prices for each of the supplies. Where
more than one version of a supply item
appeared to match a description of a
high-cost supply and/or more than one
possible vendor or manufacturer was
identified, the contractor attempted to
obtain prices from the multiple sources.
Upon review of the high-cost supply
list, the contractor refined the list to 62
unique high-cost items with prices of
$150 or more for the study. The original
list only consisted of 64 items but
included one item inadvertently listed
twice (CMS Supply Code SD207 (suture
device for vessel closure (Perclose A–
T))) and one item (CMS Supply Code
SH079 (collagen implant)) that was
deleted from the PE database after CY
2007 because it was no longer used as
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73243
an input for any codes. While the
contractor was able to obtain prices for
37 of the 62 unique supplies, the
contractor was unable to obtain pricing
information for the remaining 25
supplies. Documentation of these prices,
a requirement we discussed in the CY
2009 PFS proposed rule (73 FR 38582),
was only obtained for 25 of the 36
supplies with new pricing information.
For the remainder, while the contractor
was given price quotes over the phone,
the sales agents or customer service
representatives declined to provide any
form of written documentation, in some
cases because company policies
restricted providing pricing
documentation to prospective customers
without an account. Moreover,
information on typical discounts was
obtained for only seven products, and
only one discount was documented. In
the case of these products, companies
disclosed the maximum available
discounts, ranging from 18 percent to 45
percent. Relative to prices currently
included in the PE database, the
contractor found higher prices for the
majority of the medical supplies that
were researched, specifically 23
supplies with higher prices, 8 with
lower prices, and 3 with the same price.
The high-cost supplies studied by the
contractor and their current database
prices are displayed in Table 22.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
ER29NO10.249
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73244
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73245
ER29NO10.250
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
ER29NO10.251
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73246
Next, we directed the contractor to
access the United States General
Services Administration (GSA) medical
supply schedule to augment the results
obtained through review of vendor
materials and direct contact with
vendors, manufacturers, and GPOs. We
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
note that the GSA establishes long-term
government-wide contracts with
commercial firms for many products,
negotiating contracts and determining
prices to be fair and reasonable prior to
placing them on schedule. Included on
the schedule are thousands of medical
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73247
supplies at prices that, in most cases,
are established through competition.
The GSA schedule is an open
solicitation and a business of any size,
if it is stable and financially sound, can
request to be included on the schedule.
GSA’s vendors usually are nationwide
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
ER29NO10.252
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73248
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
vendors with substantial nongovernment sales, and products on the
schedule must be manufactured in the
U.S. or in a nation with a trade
agreement with the United States.
Submissions for the schedule are
received 365 days per year, vendor
contracts can be of varying lengths, and
vendors can add or delete products from
the schedule. Depending on the
aggregate cost estimate associated with
the vendor’s supply items, the time to
achieve inclusion on the schedule can
vary from as short as several months to
as long as 2 years. The GSA has
delegated authority to the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) to procure
medical supplies under the VA Federal
Supply Schedules Program.
Using the GSA general search engine
under the category ‘‘Laboratory,
Scientific, & Medical’’ available at
https://www.gsaadvantage.gov/advgsa/
advantage/main/start_page.do, the
contractor obtained nine prices for items
similar to the high-cost supplies in the
PE database and that are displayed in
Table 20 from the publicly available
information on the Internet, including
pricing for one product for which its
prior work did not yield an updated
price. We believe that additional items
that are similar to the high-cost supplies
in the PE database and that may be used
with the same procedures may be on the
GSA schedule but we are still working
through the crosswalk between our
supplies and the way the supplies are
presented on the GSA schedule. In the
proposed rule (75 FR 40081), we stated
that examples of high-cost supplies in
the PE database that the contractor
located on the GSA schedule include:
(1) Kit, capsule, ESO, endoscopy wapplication supplies (ESO), priced at
$450 in the PE database and $444 on the
GSA schedule; and (2) tube,
jejunostomy, priced at $195 the PE
database and $60 to $83 on the GSA
schedule, depending on the
characteristics of the tube. We note that
the price of the ‘‘jejunostomy’’ tube that
we included in the proposed rule was
incorrect. The actual price of that
supply item in the PE database is
$97.50, a lower value that is still
substantially higher than the price range
on the GSA schedule.
Since the GSA medical supply
schedule is a source for pricing
information that is public and
transparent and reflects the best
government contract price for a product,
we believe it is a desirable resource for
us to use in a refined process for
updating the prices of high-cost
supplies. For historical context, CMS
has previously proposed to use VA
prices that result from the competitive
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
marketplace as comparison points to
limit the Medicare prices for oxygen and
certain items of durable medical
equipment and prosthetic devices (62
FR 38100 through 38107, and 64 FR
44227 through 44231) in 1997 and 1999,
respectively. These prior proposals were
based on our determination that the
Medicare payment amounts for these
items as durable medical equipment or
prosthetics (not as physicians’ services)
were not inherently reasonable. We
noted, however, that our current interest
in the GSA schedule for pricing highcost supplies for payment of physicians’
services is not based on considerations
of inherent reasonableness, and we do
not actually pay the prices in the PE
database for supplies under the PFS.
We further noted that public
commenters on pricing high-cost
supplies have consistently requested
that we ensure that the pricing
information used to update the prices is
provided publicly. The commenters
have observed that this transparency
would enable stakeholders to evaluate
and provide feedback to the agency on
pricing accuracy (74 FR 61776). We also
acknowledged that our past attempts
over several years to identify typical
market prices for the high-cost supplies
have been inhibited by the limited
availability of public data that meet the
documentation requirements we have
previously established. Individual
vendors do not always publish their
product prices or provide typical
discounts. Moreover, discounts may
vary depending on suppliers and the
volume of supplies purchased. In the
CY 2011 PFS proposed rule (75 FR
40082), we explained that our
understanding of the GSA medical
supply schedule is that the publicly
listed fair and reasonable prices on the
schedule generally do not include
volume and or certain other discounts
that may be subsequently negotiated by
the buyer. Consequently, we would
consider the prices available on the GSA
schedule to represent the ‘‘individual
item ceiling’’ price for a single item
purchase, which we believe would be
appropriate to estimate the high-cost
supply prices for physicians’ office
purchases. We solicited public
comments regarding the high-cost
supplies in the direct PE database for
the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule,
available on the CMS Web site as noted
earlier in this section, and the
corresponding supplies or alternative
items that could be used for the same
function that are currently on the GSA
supply schedule. We encouraged
commenters to provide a detailed
analysis of the current relationships
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
between the items in the PE database
and those on the GSA schedule.
In the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule (75
FR 40082), we described a refined
process for regularly updating prices for
high-cost supplies under the PFS and
solicit comments on how we could
improve on this process. The process
could occur every 2 years beginning as
soon as CY 2013, although we noted
that we would propose the refined
process through rulemaking before
revising the prices for any high-cost
supply item based on the GSA schedule.
We could also consider establishing a
different price update period depending
on whether a high-cost supply was a
new supply in the PE database or had
been in use for some time, in which case
we might expect that the price would
have stabilized and, therefore, could be
updated less frequently. In general, we
would expect that the periodicity of
updating prices for high-cost supplies
that we eventually adopted would
balance the associated administrative
burden with the rate of price changes,
to ensure that the associated procedures
remain appropriately valued, rather
than increasingly misvalued, over time.
We envisioned that we would base
high-cost supply price inputs on the
publicly available price listed on the
GSA medical supply schedule. Since
the medical community would have
several years to examine the GSA
medical supply schedule before the
refined process would be adopted, and
we had found no apparent limitations
on vendors placing products on the GSA
schedule, beyond the schedule’s interest
in competitive, best value
procurements, stakeholders would have
the opportunity to ensure that any highcost direct PE input for a PFS service
that may currently be missing from the
GSA medical supply schedule would be
included before CMS needs to access
the publicly available price for the item.
If a supply price were not publicly
available on the GSA medical supply
schedule by the time CMS needs to
access the price, we would propose to
reduce the current price input for the
supply by a percentage that would be
based on the relationship between GSA
prices at that time and the existing PE
database prices for similar supplies
(currently an average 23 percent
reduction). We believe that this refined
process would be desirable because it is
consistent with commenters’ repeated
requests for the updating methodology
to be transparent and predictable.
Moreover, the VA (with responsibility
delegated by the GSA) determines
whether prices are fair and reasonable
by comparing the prices and discounts
that a company offers the government
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
with the prices and discounts that the
company offers to commercial
customers. Therefore, using the GSA
medical supply schedule as a source for
publicly available prices would also
better account for product-specific
market dynamics than the alternative of
an across-the-board percentage
reduction for supplies not on the GSA
schedule based on general price trends
for the high-cost supplies on the
schedule. That is, if the market price of
a particular supply were not to drop
according to broad trends for other highcost supplies, suppliers would have the
opportunity to provide their price to the
public on the GSA schedule in order to
preclude any reduction in Medicare
payment for procedures associated with
that supply.
Finally, we reiterated our interest in
receiving detailed public comments on
the refined process discussed above,
including all aspects of the price update
methodology that we have presented.
Moreover, we believe a similar approach
could potentially be appropriate to
update the prices for other supplies in
the PE database that would not fall
under our definition of high-cost
supplies, and we welcomed further
public comments on that possible
extension. We also invited further
suggestions for alternative approaches to
updating high-cost supply prices,
specifically those that would result in a
predictable, public, and transparent
methodology that would ensure that the
prices in the PE database reflect typical
market prices. These principles are
particularly important in order to ensure
that the services that utilize the highcost supplies when provided in the
physician’s office are appropriately
valued under the PFS and continue to
be appropriately valued over time.
Comment: Many commenters agreed
with the need for a frequent, transparent
price update process for high-cost
supplies based on publicly available
sources of pricing information. MedPAC
supported CMS’ description of the
process update the prices of high-cost
supplies presented in the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule: ‘‘As an initial step, it is
reasonable to use the GSA schedule as
a source for the prices of high-cost
supply items and to reduce the prices of
items not on the GSA schedule by the
average difference between the GSA
prices and the prices in CMS’ PE
database for similar supplies.’’
Response: We appreciate the general
affirmation by many stakeholders of the
significance of accurate pricing of highcost supplies relative to other PE items
(equipment, low-cost supplies, and
clinical labor). We also value MedPAC’s
support for the update process that we
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
described for the prices of high-cost
supplies.
Comment: Many commenters asserted
that because the medical supply prices
on the GSA schedule reflect the best
price for government entities, these
prices are not representative of typical
prices available to practitioners caring
for Medicare beneficiaries. The
commenters suggested that physicians
in private practices do not have the
requisite purchasing power to negotiate
such large discounts on their own and
that the sales environments for the
government and private markets are
vastly different. Therefore, the
commenters argued, because the GSA
schedule is a streamlined buying
process that the government uses to buy
products and services through registered
vendors at pre-negotiated prices, the
schedule does not provide an accurate
reflection of prices faced by any
physician practice. Some commenters
also observed that the prices on this
schedule have historically been used
only by manufacturers and suppliers in
the context of providing these high-cost
supplies to the VA alone, and do not
reflect prices to other non-governmental
entities.
Response: We appreciate the
differences in the purchasing power of
the federal government and individual
practitioners. However, we have reason
to believe that prices on the GSA
schedule do not reflect the full volume
discounts available to large purchasers
like the Federal government. In fact,
while the GSA has delegated the
authority to the VA to procure medical
supplies under the VA Federal Supply
Schedules Program, we understand that
the prices that appear on the schedule
do not reflect the prices the VA itself
would usually pay for a medical supply.
Instead, the VA determines the schedule
prices to be fair and reasonable prior to
placing them on the schedule, and uses
that schedule price as a starting point
for its own negotiations with supply
vendors for specific purchases.
While several commenters explained
how vendors provide the VA itself with
discounts that are greater than those
offered to other buyers, and a few
additional commenters made
uncorroborated claims that prices on the
GSA supply schedule reflect discounts
unavailable to other providers, we
received no evidence that the prices
contained on the schedule are atypical
of medical supply prices in the private
marketplace. We agree that the prices on
the GSA schedule may reflect some
discounting, but we do not believe that
the prices reflect the full discounting
available to the VA itself for many
purchases. Instead, we believe that the
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73249
discounting on the GSA schedule
reflects what the VA has deemed
reasonable for other government buyers
in the context of prices and discounts
that a vendor offers to commercial
customers.
We also believe that typical
practitioners receive discounts from
vendors’ listed prices for supply items
for a variety of reasons, although we
acknowledge that the basis for the
discounts reflected on the GSA schedule
may differ from the basis for the
discounts that are available to typical
practitioners. Therefore, we do not
necessarily agree with the premise
underlying many commenters’ concerns
that the usefulness of the GSA schedule
as a source for PFS high-cost supply
prices is necessarily undermined solely
because large government buyers benefit
from some exclusive discounts.
We believe that in a relative payment
system, maintaining the relativity of
discounting among the prices for supply
items may be more significant than any
concern associated with the reasons
different buyers receive particular
discounts. At the moment, we have no
reason to believe that the prices on the
GSA schedule are atypical of the nongovernment market, despite broad
assertions by the commenters that the
government may receive discounts for
different reasons than those available to
private purchasers. As we consider this
high-cost supply update process for the
future, we would be interested in
receiving further public comments that
substantiate the claims that medical
supply prices on the GSA schedule are
not representative of actual prices paid
by typical practitioners caring for
Medicare patients.
Comment: Some commenters
expressed concern that pricing high-cost
supplies based on the GSA supply
schedule could result in loss of
appropriate relativity in PE RVUs
because pricing for other supplies
would be determined using other
methodologies.
Response: As stated earlier in this
section, we do not actually pay the
supply prices included in the PE
database but instead use them to
develop the PE RVUs according to our
standard PE methodology as described
in section II.A.2. of this final rule with
comment period. However, we believe
that inaccuracies in the prices for highcost supplies that are specific to a very
few PFS services may
disproportionately distort physician
payment by leading to inaccurate PE
RVUs for services using those high-cost
supplies. We believe that neglecting to
incorporate any discounts or typical
reductions in the market price for a
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73250
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
high-cost supply that is sold to a
practitioner for use in a specific service
would result in a greater likelihood that
the service would be misvalued under a
relative payment system than would
similar imprecision in the prices for
lower-cost supplies that are commonly
used in many services and where price
changes are typically less extreme.
Finally, we note that we also remain
interested in the possibility of using the
GSA supply schedule for all PFS supply
and equipment price inputs, as we
stated in the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule
(75 FR 40082).
Comment: One commenter suggested
that using the GSA schedule for supply
price inputs might allow a single
supplier furnishing a small volume of a
product at a divergent price to distort
the PE RVU calculations. On the other
hand, MedPAC stated that the current
CMS’ process of ‘‘using price
information voluntarily submitted by
specialty societies, individual
practitioners, suppliers, and product
developers might not result in objective
and accurate prices because each group
has a financial stake in the process.’’
Another commenter recommended
that if CMS were to use the GSA
schedule prices as high-cost inputs,
then CMS should guarantee that
physicians may purchase supplies at the
GSA schedule prices. The commenter
claimed that failure to do so would
result in inherently unfair, lower PE
RVUs for certain procedures, which
could ultimately create an access to care
problem for Medicare beneficiaries.
Response: We believe that our current
system of accepting voluntarily
submitted invoices for supply and
equipment price direct PE inputs may
be problematic for high-cost supplies
because the prices for such supplies
may be particularly susceptible to
distortions that significantly influence
the PE RVUs that we use for payment of
the associated services. We also believe
that any attempt to account for these
distortions and more appropriately
value the services must be transparent
to the stakeholders. Because the prices
on the GSA supply schedule are
developed based on the interaction
between parties that have competing
financial interests (the VA and supply
vendors), we believe that these prices
are more likely to be representative of
competitive market prices than are
prices that are voluntarily submitted by
individuals with financial stakes in the
PFS payment process. We agree that
distortions—whether price
overstatements or understatements—in
the values of the direct PE inputs,
resulting in misvalued services, have
the potential to create financial
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
incentives for practitioners that are
detrimental to ensuring access to
medically necessary and reasonable care
for Medicare beneficiaries. Based in part
on prior analysis by MedPAC, we
believe that the greater risk of misvalued
PE RVUs results from overvaluing highcost supplies since we believe that
prices for these items may generally
decrease over time as competition
increases.
As we discussed in our response to a
previous comment, we do not actually
use the prices in the PE database for
supplies but instead those prices are the
basis for the PE RVUs for the associated
services developed under the budget
neutral PFS. Therefore, we do not agree
with the commenter that we should
guarantee that physicians may purchase
supplies at the GSA schedule prices.
Where our goal is for the high-cost
supply prices we use for PFS ratesetting
to reflect typical market prices for these
items, especially in a relative sense, for
many reasons different supplies may not
be available to individual practitioners
purchasing them at the prices in the PE
database. The PFS is not a payment
system that reimburses health care
practitioners based on their individual
costs, and the price available to an
individual practitioner for a supply item
may be high or lower than the price in
the PE database that is used for setting
the PFS PE RVUs for the associated
procedure.
Comment: One commenter claimed
that no U.S. manufacturer sells
cryoablation probes through the GSA
supply schedule and, therefore, asserted
that the pricing process for high-cost
supplies described in the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule would be inappropriate
for that particular supply. Other
commenters reported difficulty locating
particular medical supplies on the GSA
supply schedule.
Response: While we recognize that
not all high-cost supplies are currently
on the GSA supply schedule, as we
stated in the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule
(75 FR 40082), we believe that since we
have provided the medical community
several years to examine the GSA
medical supply schedule before its use
could be adopted under the PFS,
stakeholders would have the
opportunity to ensure that any high-cost
direct PE input for a PFS service that
may currently be missing from the GSA
medical supply schedule would be
included before CMS needs to access
the publicly available price for the item.
Furthermore, we have found that the
use of multiple clinically related search
terms under the GSA schedule search
engine improves our ability to locate
supply items that are related to those
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
that we currently include in the direct
PE database for the PFS. We believe that
the mistaken assumption that certain
supplies are unavailable on the GSA
supply schedule, resulting from some
commenters’ inconclusive searches,
may have influenced many commenters’
responses to the process we discussed
in the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule.
Prior to adopting use of the GSA
supply schedule to update the prices for
high-cost supplies under the PFS, we
believe it would be appropriate to work
with interested stakeholders to consider
developing a crosswalk between supply
items included the direct PE database
and the GSA supply schedule.
Comment: One commenter contended
that implementation of a process to
update high-cost supply prices based on
the GSA schedule would disadvantage
all medical device companies that have
chosen to provide devices directly to the
armed services or facilities for the
treatment of veterans. A few
commenters speculated that many
supply vendors would resist placing
their products on the GSA schedule for
a variety of reasons, including avoiding
any unnecessary regulatory burden or
the scrutiny of GSA audits.
Response: We have no reason to
believe that vendors who sell directly to
the VA at discounts must incorporate
negotiated discounted prices on the
GSA schedule, so we do not believe that
utilizing publicly available prices as
direct PE inputs would have a
disproportionately unfair impact on
suppliers who sell directly to the VA. At
the same time, we also understand that
not every medical supply vendor would
choose to place their products on the
GSA schedule. That is why we stated in
the proposed rule (75 FR 40082) that if
a supply price were not publicly
available on the GSA medical supply
schedule by the time CMS needs to
access the price, we would consider
proposing to reduce the current price
input in the PE database for the supply
by a percentage that would be based on
the relationship between GSA prices at
that time and the existing PE database
prices for similar supplies. Vendors
would need to balance their concerns
about placing their products on the GSA
supply schedule with the alternative
pricing policy that would apply.
Comment: Several commenters
objected to a reduction of supply price
inputs based on the relationship
between GSA prices at the time the
prices are being updated and the
existing PE database prices for similar
supplies. Many of the commenters
stated that the 23 percent reduction
presented as an example in the CY 2011
PFS proposed rule (75 FR 40082) was
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
based on a very small sample of items
and appeared arbitrary. One commenter
contended that the percentage reduction
would need to be validated for
application to current pricing and
argued that it would be inappropriate
for use on an item-specific basis.
Additional commenters, including the
AMA RUC, pointed out the discrepancy
between the price of the ‘‘jejunostomy
tube’’ supply item listed in the chart of
high-cost supplies and in the direct PE
database. These commenters were
concerned that this discrepancy may
have led CMS to incorrectly calculate
the average difference between GSA
prices and current prices in the direct
PE database. One commenter reasoned
that it would be unfair for CMS to
change the price inputs for innovative
medical devices by relying on
‘‘speculation that prices for these items
may decrease over time as competition
increases and new technologies
disseminate into medical practice.’’
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ concerns regarding the
example of the 23 percent reduction
mentioned in the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule. We provided that sample
percentage as an example based on a
current analysis of a small sample of
supplies. We appreciate commenters
correctly pointing out that we displayed
an outdated price input for the supply
item ‘‘jejunostomy tube’’ in the CY 2011
PFS proposed rule (75 FR 40080
through 40081). As we explained in the
proposed rule, we are still working
through the crosswalk between our
supplies and the way the supplies are
presented on the GSA schedule. We
included the 23 percent figure as a
rough guide based on a comparison of
current GSA schedule and PE database
prices for a small sample of high-cost
supply items.
Prior to implementing any price
update based on GSA supply schedule
prices, we would conduct a thorough
analysis of the validity of the GSA
pricing data in question. We believe that
using such data for price comparisons,
validated, and expanded to include all
applicable supply items, may be more
likely to approximate typical prices for
these supplies than any available
alternative—especially failing to update
the high-cost supply price inputs with
the necessary frequency. In cases where
the prices for certain high-cost supplies
do not follow the broad trends for other
high-cost supplies, suppliers would
have the opportunity to provide their
price to the public on the GSA schedule
in order to preclude any reduction in
Medicare payment for procedures
associated with that supply.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
Comment: Some commenters asserted
that CMS should conduct independent
market research similar in kind to the
research CMS claims that the VA
conducts in placing supply items and
their associated prices on the GSA
schedule. Another commenter
recommended that CMS use a particular
market research contractor to price these
supplies.
Response: As we stated in the CY
2011 PFS proposed rule (75 FR 40079),
we contracted with an independent
contractor during CY 2009 to help us
study the availability of accurate pricing
information for high-cost supplies. We
believe such research needs to be
conducted with transparency, including
using publicly available sources and
contacting supply vendors directly. The
contractor reported tremendous
difficulty in identifying typical market
prices using these methods. We have no
reason to believe that a different
contractor using similar methods would
have greater success in acquiring market
pricing information without utilizing a
methodology that would be burdensome
to practitioners or supply vendors or
other stakeholders. Because the supply
vendors in contact with the VA
generally have a financial incentive to
cooperate with their market research
directly, we believe that the VA’s
methodology in this case would yield
more accurate information than
information derived from market
researchers who do not have such
cooperation, like the contractor working
previously on behalf of CMS.
Comment: Several commenters,
including the AMA RUC, recommended
that CMS consider creating HCPCS
codes to be reported by rendering
physicians for high-cost supplies when
used for the care of a patient during
procedure. The supplies could then be
removed from the direct PE database
and appropriate pricing for these supply
HCPCS codes could be determined by
CMS on an annual basis. One
commenter requested that CMS explore
whether such a methodology would be
budget neutral under the PFS, since the
commenter did not support an approach
that would reduce PFS payments for
cognitive services.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ suggestions, but we believe
creating separately reportable HCPCS
codes for high-cost supplies and paying
separately for these items would merely
shift the pricing challenge rather than
resolve it, and could compound the
problem of misvaluing services by
explicitly paying for high-cost supplies
at the expense of other low-cost
supplies, equipment, and clinical labor
included in the PE component of PFS
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73251
payment. We do not understand how
this suggestion would help CMS price
the supply items accurately, nor how it
would lead to more appropriate
payment for high-cost supplies under
the relativity of the budget neutral PFS.
This approach would be required to be
budget neutral under the PFS and, to the
extent that our current PE methodology
pays less than the direct PE database
cost for a supply item, payment for
individual high-cost supplies at prices
we establish could redistribute dollars
from other PFS services to payment for
these supply items if we were to pay
more for them separately. Finally,
unbundling payment for high-cost
supplies from the associated procedures
would be contrary to the current public
policy interest in increasing the size of
the payment bundles used for Medicare
payment to encourage efficiencies in the
delivery of services.
Comment: Several commenters
expressed a readiness to provide any
additional information that may help
CMS in pricing high-cost supplies, in
lieu of using the GSA schedule prices
for that purpose.
Response: We appreciate commenters’
offers of assistance regarding the pricing
of direct PE inputs. However, based on
the public comments from stakeholders
that we received on the process we
proposed in the CY 2009 PFS proposed
rule and the experience of the CMS’
contractor who attempted to acquire
market pricing for supply items directly
from supply vendors, we believe that
use of the GSA schedule would have
greater potential to provide us
systematically and transparently with
typical market prices for high-cost
supply items that could be updated with
an appropriate periodicity.
Comment: Some commenters
expressed concern that CMS had not
presented any information about how
prices for Medicare PE purposes would
actually be developed from the GSA
supply schedule and had not specified
how the Agency would do so nor
whether (or when) CMS intended to
make the approach available for public
comment.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ concerns regarding the
practical implementation of a high-cost
supply price update process based on
prices on the GSA supply schedule. In
the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule (75 FR
40082), our discussion was intended to
encourage broad stakeholder comment,
including consideration of potential
alternatives to the process presented.
Prior to implementing a high-cost
supply update methodology, such as the
use of prices on the GSA schedule that
was the focus of our proposed rule
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73252
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
discussion, we would expect to use
annual rulemaking in order to propose
a more detailed process that would be
subject to modification based upon our
consideration of the public comments.
In summary, we appreciate the many
public comments we received on our
discussion of a process that would use
GSA schedule prices to update the
prices for high-cost supplies utilized for
developing PE RVUs under the PFS. In
the context of our explicit responsibility
to review and adjust the PFS values for
potentially misvalued services under
section 1848(c)(2)(K) of the Act (as
added by section 3134 of the ACA), we
believe it is especially important to soon
establish a periodic and transparent
process to update the cost of high-cost
supplies to reflect typical market prices
so that these supply items are
appropriately considered in our
ratesetting methodology. While public
commenters expressed some concerns
regarding our discussion of use of the
GSA supply schedule prices in such a
process, at this point we remain
optimistic that this approach has
significant potential to be used under
the PFS and, based on our several year
history of work in this area, we do not
see other viable alternatives at this
point. We will continue to study the
issue of how to update the prices for
high-cost supplies over the upcoming
months, and we encourage stakeholders
to also further consider the process we
discussed in CY 2011 rulemaking and
provide their additional thoughts and
perspectives to us on an ongoing basis.
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
D. Geographic Practice Cost Indices
(GPCIs)
1. Background
Section 1848(e)(1)(A) of the Act
requires us to develop separate
Geographic Practice Cost Indices
(GPCIs) to measure resource cost
differences among localities compared
to the national average for each of the
three fee schedule components (that is,
work, PE, and malpractice). While
requiring that the PE and malpractice
GPCIs reflect the full relative cost
differences, section 1848(e)(1)(A)(iii) of
the Act requires that the physician work
GPCIs reflect only one-quarter of the
relative cost differences compared to the
national average. In addition, section
1848(e)(1)(G) of the Act sets a
permanent 1.5 work GPCI floor in
Alaska for services furnished beginning
January 1, 2009. Section 1848(e)(1)(C) of
the Act requires us to review and, if
necessary, adjust the GPCIs not less
often than every 3 years. This section
also specifies that if more than 1 year
has elapsed since the last GPCI revision,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
we must phase in the adjustment over
2 years, applying only one-half of any
adjustment in each year. As discussed
in the CY 2009 PFS final rule with
comment period (73 FR 69740), the CY
2009 adjustment to the GPCIs reflected
the fully implemented fifth
comprehensive GPCI update. CY 2010
would have typically included no
adjustments to the GPCIs. However,
section 3102(a) of the ACA amended
section 1848(e)(1)(E) of the Act to
extend the 1.0 work GPCI floor for
services furnished through December
31, 2010. Additionally, section 3102(b)
of the ACA added a new subparagraph
(H) to section 1848(e)(1) of the Act,
which specifies that for CY 2010 and CY
2011, the employee compensation and
rent portions of the PE GPCI must reflect
only one-half of the relative cost
differences for each locality compared
to the national average. The new
subparagraph also includes a ‘‘hold
harmless’’ provision for CY 2010 and CY
2011 for any PFS locality that would
otherwise receive a reduction to its PE
GPCI resulting from the limited
recognition of cost differences.
Additionally, section 1848(e)(1)(I) of the
Act (as added by section 10324(c) of the
ACA) established a 1.0 PE GPCI floor for
services furnished in frontier States
effective January 1, 2011. In May 2010,
we provided our Medicare contractors
with an updated CY 2010 payment file
that included the 1.0 work GPCI floor
and the PE GPCIs calculated according
to the methodology required by section
1848(e)(1)(H) of the Act (as added by
section 3102(b) of the ACA) for CY
2010, to be used for payment of services
furnished on or after January 1, 2010.
For the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule,
we completed the sixth review of the
GPCIs and proposed new GPCIs. We
noted that section 1848(e)(1)(E) of the
Act (as amended by section 3102(a) of
the ACA) extends the 1.0 work GPCI
floor only through December 31, 2010.
Under current statute, the 1.0 work
GPCI floor will expire on January 1,
2011. Therefore, the CY 2011 physician
work GPCIs, and summarized
geographic adjustment factors (GAFs),
do not reflect the 1.0 work floor.
However, section 1848(e)(1)(G) of the
Act (as amended by section 134(b) of the
MIPPA) set a permanent 1.5 work GPCI
floor in Alaska for services furnished
beginning January 1, 2009 and, as noted
above, section 1848(e)(1)(I) of the Act
(as added by section 10324(c) of the
ACA) provides for a permanent 1.0 PE
GPCI floor for frontier States effective
January 1, 2011. Therefore, as required
by the statute, the 1.5 work GPCI floor
for Alaska and the 1.0 PE GPCI floor for
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
frontier States will be in effect for CY
2011. In addition to the limited
recognition of certain cost differences
for the PE GPCIs, section 1848(e)(1)(H)
of the Act (as added by section 3102 (b)
of the ACA) also requires us to complete
an analysis of the data sources used and
cost share weights assigned to the PE
GPCIs. Implementation of the ACA
provisions related to the CY 2011 PE
GPCIs is discussed in more detail in the
GPCI update section below.
2. GPCI Update
As discussed in the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule (75 FR 40083), the
updated GPCI values were developed by
Acumen, LLC (Acumen) under contract
to CMS. As mentioned above, there are
three GPCI components (physician
work, PE, and malpractice), and all
GPCIs are developed through
comparison to a national average for
each component. Additionally, each of
the three GPCIs relies on its own data
source(s) and methodology for
calculating its value as described below.
a. Physician Work GPCIs
The physician work GPCIs are
designed to capture the relative cost of
physician labor by Medicare PFS
locality. Previously, the physician work
GPCIs were developed using the median
hourly earnings from the 2000 Census of
workers in seven professional specialty
occupation categories which we used as
a proxy for physicians’ wages and
calculated to reflect one-quarter of the
relative cost differences for each locality
compared to the national average.
Physicians’ wages are not included in
the occupation categories because
Medicare payments are a key
determinant of physicians’ earnings.
Including physicians’ wages in the
physician work GPCIs would, in effect,
have made the indices dependent upon
Medicare payments.
The physician work GPCIs were
updated in CYs 2001, 2003, 2005, and
2008 using professional earnings data
from the 2000 Census. However, wage
and earnings data are no longer
available from the Census long form and
the 2000 data are outdated. Therefore,
for the proposed sixth GPCI update, we
used the 2006 through 2008 Bureau of
Labor Statistics (BLS) Occupational
Employment Statistics (OES) data as a
replacement for the 2000 Census data.
The use of BLS OES data as a
replacement for the 2000 Census data is
discussed in more detail in the update
of the PE GPCIs section. As noted above,
the 1.0 work GPCI floor is set to expire
under current statute on December 31,
2010. Therefore, the CY 2011 proposed
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
b. Practice Expense GPCIs
of employee compensation and rent cost
differences or the PE GPCI calculated
without the limited recognition of cost
differences.
(1) The Affordable Care Act
Requirements for PE GPCIs
(B) Phase-In of PE GPCIs
physician work GPCIs reflected the
removal of this floor.
(A) General Methodology for the CY
2011 GPCIs
The ACA added a new subparagraph
(H) to section 1848(e)(1) of the Act
which revised the methodology for
calculating the PE GPCIs for CY 2010
and CY 2011 so that the employee
compensation and rent portions of the
PE GPCIs reflect only one-half of the
relative cost differences for each locality
compared to the national average.
Additionally, under section
1848(e)(1)(H)(iii) of the Act (as added by
section 3102(b) of the ACA), each PFS
locality is held harmless so that the PE
GPCI will not be reduced as a result of
the change in methodology for PE
GPCIs. In accordance with section
1848(e)(1)(H)(ii) of the Act (as added by
section 3102(b) of the ACA), the
employee compensation and rent
components of the proposed CY 2011
PE GPCIs were calculated to reflect onehalf of the cost differences for each PFS
locality relative to the national average
cost. Additionally, as required by the
statute, physicians’ services furnished
in each PFS locality would be adjusted
by the higher of the locality’s PE GPCI
calculated with the limited recognition
Section 1848(e)(1)(C) of the Act
requires us to phase in GPCI
adjustments over 2 years if there was
more than 1 year between GPCI
adjustments. In accordance with the
statute, we proposed to phase in the
updated PE GPCIs using one-half of the
CY 2010 values and one-half of the fully
implemented values (as described in
this section). To apply the phase-in and
hold harmless provisions of the Act, we
calculated transitional PE GPCIs based
on two scenarios. Under the first
scenario, we calculated transitional CY
2011 PE GPCIs using the full recognition
of employee compensation and rent cost
differences for each locality as
compared to the national average. As
discussed below, the first scenario
reflects the ‘‘hold harmless’’ transitional
PE GPCI value that would apply to any
PFS locality receiving a reduction to its
PE GPCI resulting from the application
of the limited recognition of PE cost
differences. The CY 2011 transitional PE
GPCI values with full recognition of cost
differences were calculated using onehalf of the CY 2010 PE GPCI values with
full recognition of cost differences and
one-half of the updated PE GPCIs with
full recognition of cost differences. The
73253
first scenario represents the transitional
PE GPCI values prior to the limited
recognition of cost differences (the preACA CY 2011 transitional values). In
other words, this scenario does not
include the effects of sections
1848(e)(1)(H)(i) and (ii) of the Act (as
added by section 3102(b) of the ACA).
For the second scenario, we
calculated transitional CY 2011 PE
GPCIs with the limited recognition of
cost differences for the employee
compensation and rent components (as
required by sections 1848(e)(1)(H)(i) and
(ii) of the Act (as added by section
3102(b) of the ACA)). The CY 2011
transitional PE GPCI values with the
limited recognition of cost differences
were calculated using one-half of the CY
2010 PE GPCIs with the limited cost
differences and one-half of the updated
PE GPCIs with the limited cost
differences. The hold harmless
provision under section
1848(e)(1)(H)(iii) of the Act (as added by
section 3102(b) of the ACA) was applied
by selecting the greater of the CY 2011
transitional PE GPCI value calculated
with the limited recognition of cost
differences or the CY 2011 transitional
PE GCPI value calculated with full
recognition of cost differences (the preACA CY 2011 transitional values). The
phase-in of the CY 2011 PE GPCIs and
application of the hold harmless
provision are illustrated in Table 23
below.
TABLE 23—PHASE-IN OF THE CY 2011 PE GPCIS
CY 2010
Updated GPCIs
CY 2011 (transitional year)
Hold harmless
Greater of File 1 Transitional
Value or File 2 Transitional
Value.
File 1:
PE GPCI Without
3102(b) of ACA.
Without ACA
Without ACA (Updated Data).
(1⁄2 of 2010) + (1⁄2 Updated GPCI) ...............
File 2:
PE GPCI With
3102(b) of ACA.
With ACA .....
With ACA (Updated
Data).
(1⁄2 of 2010 w/ACA) + (1⁄2 Updated GPCI w/
ACA).
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
(C) Data Analysis
Section 1848(e)(1)(H)(iv) of the Act (as
added by section 3102(b) of the ACA)
also requires the Secretary to ‘‘analyze
current methods of establishing practice
expense adjustments under
subparagraph (A)(i) and evaluate data
that fairly and reliably establishes
distinctions in the cost of operating a
medical practice in different fee
schedule areas.’’ Section
1848(e)(1)(H)(iv) of the Act (as added by
section 3102(b) of the ACA) requires
that such analysis shall include an
evaluation of the following:
• The feasibility of using actual data
or reliable survey data developed by
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
medical organizations on the costs of
operating a medical practice, including
office rents and non-physician staff
wages, in different fee schedule areas.
• The office expense portion of the
practice expense geographic adjustment,
including the extent to which types of
office expenses are determined in local
markets instead of national markets.
• The weights assigned to each area
of the categories within the practice
expense geographic adjustment.
This section also requires the
Secretary to make appropriate
adjustments to the PE GPCIs no later
than by January 1, 2012. To begin to
implement this statutory requirement
based on our initial analysis, we
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
proposed to implement changes in PE
data sources and cost share weights
discussed herein effective beginning in
CY 2011.
In accordance with section
1848(e)(1)(H)(iv) of the Act (as added by
section 3102(b) of the ACA), we initially
analyzed the current methods and data
sources used in the establishment of the
PE GPCIs. With respect to the method
used, we began with a review of the
GAO’s March 2005 Report entitled,
‘‘MEDICARE PHYSICIAN FEES:
Geographic Adjustment Indices Are
Valid in Design, but Data and Methods
Need Refinement’’ (GAO–05–119).
While we have raised concerns in the
past about some of the GAO’s GPCI
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73254
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
recommendations, we noted that with
respect to the PE GPCIs, the GAO did
not indicate any significant issues with
the methods underlying the PE GPCIs.
Rather, the report focused on some of
the data sources used in the method. For
example, the GAO stated that the wage
data used for the PE GPCIs are not
current. Similarly, upon our
reexamination of public comments we
had received on the PE GPCIs for
previous updates, we noted that the
commenters predominately focused on
either the data sources used in the
method or raised issues such as
incentivizing the provision of care in
different geographic areas. However, the
latter issue (incentivizing the provision
of care) is outside the scope of the
statutory requirement that the PE GPCIs
reflect the relative costs of the mix of
goods and services comprising practice
expenses in the different fee schedule
areas relative to the national average.
One key component of the PE GPCI
method that our analysis identified
involved the office expense portion of
the PE GPCIs and the cost share weight
assigned to this component. Most
significantly, we proposed that the
weight for the office rent component be
revised from 12.209 percent to 8.410
percent to reflect our more detailed
breakout of the types of office expenses
that are determined in local markets
instead of national markets. For
example, for previous GPCI updates, we
used the office expenses cost category as
the cost share weight for office rent and,
therefore, all individual components
previously included in the office
expenses category were adjusted for
local area cost differences by the GPCIs.
As discussed in section II.E. of this final
rule with comment period, we proposed
to disaggregate the broader office
expenses component into 9 new cost
categories as part of the proposed CY
2011 MEI rebasing. The disaggregation
of the office expenses category indicates
that the fixed capital cost category, for
which the consumer price index (CPI)
for owner’s equivalent rent is the price
proxy, is the office expense category
applicable to the office rent component
of the PE GPCI. Therefore, the fixed cost
capital cost category is the only
component of office expenses that we
proposed to adjust for local area cost
differences beginning in CY 2011. We
proposed to assign other newly defined
components of the office expenses
category (for example, utilities,
chemicals, paper, rubber and plastics,
telephone, postage, and moveable
capital) to the medical equipment,
supplies, and other miscellaneous
expenses cost component of the PE
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
GPCIs. As discussed later in this
section, the medical equipment,
supplies, and other miscellaneous
expenses component of the PE GPCIs is
assumed to have a national market and,
therefore, this component is not
adjusted for local area cost differences.
The proposed expense categories for
the PE GPCIs, along with their
respective cost share weights, are
primarily derived from the 2006
American Medical Association (AMA)
Physician Practice Information Survey
(PPIS) for self-employed physicians and
selected self-employed non-medical
doctor specialties. The PPIS is the most
comprehensive, multispecialty,
contemporaneous, and consistently
collected PE data source available. It
was developed by medical organizations
and captures the costs of operating a
medical practice, including office rents
and nonphysician staff wages.
Moreover, we also examined the
feasibility of using the American
Community Survey (ACS) and the
Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS)
Occupational Employment Statistics
(OES) data for the employee
compensation component of the PE
GPCI. For previous updates, the
employee compensation component was
based on the 2000 Decennial Census
long form data. Since the Census data
are significantly outdated and the 2010
Census no longer includes occupational
wage data, we believe the ACS or BLS
OES data might be viable alternatives.
While the ACS 3-year public use
microsample (PUMS) is currently
available, it reflects only about 3 percent
of households and the data exhibit
significant variation due to the small
sample. In particular, the ACS PUMS
has fewer than 10 observations of
pharmacists in the Manhattan;
Beaumont, Texas; and Southern Maine
localities. Therefore, we believe it
would be premature to use the ACS data
for determining GPCI values. The 2006,
2007, and 2008 panels from the BLS
OES represent a larger sample than the
ACS PUMS and more recent data than
the 2000 Census. As such, we proposed
to use the BLS OES data for updating
the GPCIs. We look forward to exploring
the use of the full ACS data when they
become available. Additionally, we
explored other sources of rent data
(including commercial rental data and
survey data) for use in calculating the
PE GPCIs. We could not identify a
reliable alternative rental data source
available on a national basis with
coverage of nonmetropolitan areas.
We do not believe there is a national
data source better than the Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) data for
determining the relative cost differences
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
in office rents. Therefore, based on our
review of the available data sources, we
proposed to use the 2010 apartment
rental data produced by HUD at the 50th
percentile as a proxy for the relative cost
difference in physician office rents.
In the proposed rule (75 FR 40085),
we indicated that we believe our
analysis of the current methods of
establishing PE GPCIs and our
evaluation of data that fairly and
reliably establish distinctions in the cost
of operating a medical practice in the
different fee schedule areas meet the
statutory requirements of section
1848(e)(1)(H)(iv) of the Act (as added by
section 3102(b) of the ACA). A more
detailed discussion of our analysis of
current methods of establishing PE
GPCIs and evaluation of data sources is
included in Acumen’s draft report.
Acumen’s draft report and associated
analysis of the sixth GPCI update,
including the PE GPCIs, was posted on
the CMS Web site after display of the
CY 2011 PFS proposed rule. The draft
report may be accessed from the PFS
Web site at: https://www.cms.gov/
PhysicianFeeSched/ under the
‘‘Downloads’’ section of the CY 2011
PFS proposed rule Web page. Acumen’s
final report and associated analysis of
the sixth GPCI update will be posted on
the CMS Web site after publication of
the CY 2011 PFS final rule with
comment.
(D) Determining the PE GPCI Cost Share
Weights
To determine the cost share weights
for the CY 2011 GPCIs, we proposed to
use the proposed 2006-based Medicare
Economic Index (MEI) as discussed in
section II.E. of this final rule with
comment period. The proposed MEI was
rebased and revised to reflect the
weighted-average annual price change
for various inputs needed to provide
physicians’ services. As discussed in
detail in that section, the proposed
expense categories in the MEI, along
with their respective weights, were
primarily derived from data collected in
the 2006 AMA PPIS for self-employed
physicians and selected self-employed
non-medical doctor specialties.
For the cost share weight for the PE
GPCIs, we used the 2006-based MEI
weight for the PE category of 51.734
percent minus the professional liability
insurance category weight of 4.295
percent. Therefore, we proposed a cost
share weight for the PE GPCIs of 47.439
percent. For the employee
compensation portion of the PE GPCIs,
we used the nonphysician employee
compensation category weight of 19.153
percent. The fixed capital category
weight of 8.410, for which the CPI for
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
owner’s equivalent rent is the price
proxy, was used for the office rent
component. To determine the medical
equipment, supplies, and other
miscellaneous expenses component, we
removed professional liability (4.295
percent), nonphysician employee
compensation (19.153 percent), and
fixed capital (8.410 percent) from the PE
category weight (51.734 percent).
Therefore, we proposed a cost share
weight for the medical equipment,
supplies, and other miscellaneous
expenses component of 19.876 percent.
Furthermore, the physician
compensation cost category and its
weight of 48.266 percent reflected the
proposed work GPCI cost share weight
and the professional liability insurance
weight of 4.295 percent was used for the
malpractice GPCI cost share weight. In
the proposed rule (75 FR 40085), we
73255
stated that we believe our analysis and
evaluation of the weights assigned to
each of the categories within the PE
GPCIs meets the statutory requirements
of section 1848(e)(1)(H)(iv) of the Act (as
added by section 3102(b) of the ACA).
The proposed cost share weights for
the CY 2011 GPCIs are displayed in
Table 24 below.
TABLE 24—COST SHARE WEIGHTS FOR CY 2011 GPCI UPDATE
Current cost
share
weight
(%)
Expense category
Physician Work ................................................................................................................................................................
Practice Expense .............................................................................................................................................................
—Employee Compensation ......................................................................................................................................
—Office Rent ............................................................................................................................................................
—Equipment, Supplies, Other ..................................................................................................................................
Malpractice Insurance ......................................................................................................................................................
Total .................................................................................................................................................................................
(E) PE GPCI Floor for Frontier States
Section 10324(c) of the ACA added a
new subparagraph (I) under section
1848(e)(1) of the Act to establish a 1.0
PE GPCI floor for physicians’ services
furnished in frontier States. In
accordance with section 1848(e)(1)(I) of
the Act (as added by section 10324(c) of
the ACA), beginning in CY 2011, we
applied a 1.0 PE GPCI floor for
physicians’ services furnished in States
determined to be frontier States. The
statute requires us to define any State as
a frontier State if at least 50 percent of
the State’s counties are determined to be
frontier counties, which the statute
defines as counties that have a
population density less than 6 persons
per square mile. However, section
1848(e)(1)(I) of the Act (as added by
section 10324(c) of the ACA) also
specifies that this provision shall not
apply to States receiving a non-labor
related share adjustment under section
1886(d)(5)(H) of the Act (which
excludes Alaska and Hawaii from
qualifying as a frontier State).
Consistent with the proposed FY 2011
hospital inpatient prospective payment
system (IPPS) 1.0 wage index floor for
frontier States (as required by section
10324(a) of the ACA) (75 FR 30920
through 30921), we proposed to identify
frontier counties by analyzing
population data and county definitions
based upon the most recent annual
population estimates published by the
U.S. Census Bureau. We divided each
county’s population total by each
county’s reported land area (according
to the decennial census) in square miles
to establish population density. We also
proposed to update this analysis from
time to time, such as upon publication
of a subsequent decennial census, and if
necessary, add or remove qualifying
States from the list of frontier States
based on the updated analysis.
52.466
43.669
18.654
12.209
12.806
3.865
100
Proposed
cost share
weight
(%)
48.266
47.439
19.153
8.410
19.876
4.295
100
For a State that qualifies as a frontier
State, in accordance with section
1848(e)(1)(I) of the Act (as added by
section 10324(c) of the ACA), we
proposed that physicians’ services
furnished within that State would
receive the higher of the applicable PE
GPCI value calculated according to the
standard CY 2011 methodology or a
minimum value of 1.00. Furthermore, in
accordance with section 1848(e)(1)(I) of
the Act (as added by section 10324(c) of
the ACA), the frontier State PE GPCI
floor is not subject to budget neutrality
and would only be extended to
physicians’ services furnished within a
frontier State.
For determining the proposed CY
2011 PFS PE GPCI values, the frontier
States are the following: Montana;
Wyoming; North Dakota; Nevada; and
South Dakota (as reflected in Table 25).
TABLE 25—FRONTIER STATES UNDER SECTION 1848(E)(1)(I) OF THE ACT
[as Added by Section 10324(c) of the ACA]
Total
counties
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
State
Montana ...................................................................................................................................................
Wyoming ..................................................................................................................................................
North Dakota ............................................................................................................................................
Nevada .....................................................................................................................................................
South Dakota ...........................................................................................................................................
(2) Summary of the CY 2011 PE GPCIs
The PE GPCIs include three
components: employee compensation,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
office rent, and medical equipment,
supplies and miscellaneous expenses as
discussed below:
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
56
23
53
17
66
Frontier
counties
45
17
36
11
34
Percent
frontier
counties
80
74
68
65
52
• Employee Compensation: We used
the 2006 through 2008 BLS OES data to
determine the proposed employee
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73256
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
compensation component of the PE
GPCIs. The proposed employee
compensation component accounted for
40.4 percent of the total PE GPCIs.
• Office Rents: Consistent with the
previous GPCI update, we used the most
recent residential apartment rental data
produced by HUD (2010) at the 50th
percentile as a proxy for the relative cost
differences in physician office rents.
The proposed office rent component
accounted for 17.7 percent of the PE
GPCIs.
• Medical Equipment, Supplies, and
other Miscellaneous Expenses: We
assumed that items such as medical
equipment and supplies have a national
market and that input prices do not vary
among geographic areas. As discussed
in previous GPCI updates in the CY
2005 and CY 2008 PFS proposed rules,
specifically the fourth GPCI update (69
FR 47503) and fifth GPCI update (72 FR
38138), respectively, some price
differences may exist, but we believe
these differences are more likely to be
based on volume discounts rather than
on geographic market differences. For
example, large physicians’ practices
may utilize more medical equipment
and supplies and therefore may or may
not receive volume discounts on some
of these items. To the extent that such
discounting may exist, it is a function of
purchasing volume and not geographic
location. The proposed medical
equipment, supplies, and miscellaneous
expenses component was factored into
the PE GPCIs with a component index
of 1.000. The proposed medical
equipment, supplies, and other
miscellaneous expense component
accounted for 41.9 percent of the PE
GPCIs.
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
c. Malpractice GPCIs
The malpractice GPCIs are calculated
based on insurer rate filings of premium
data for $1 million to $3 million mature
claims-made policies (policies for
claims made rather than services
furnished during the policy term). The
CY 2011 malpractice GPCI update
reflects 2006 and 2007 premium data.
d. Public Comments and CMS
Responses on the Proposed 6th GPCI
Update
We received many public comments
regarding the CY 2011 proposed GPCIs.
Summaries of the comments and our
responses follow.
Comment: Many commenters
requested that CMS delay
implementation of the changes in
underlying PE GPCI data and cost share
weights until complete findings and
recommendations from the Institute of
Medicine’s study of geographic
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
adjustment factors for physician
payment, the Secretary’s Medicare
Geographic Payment Summit, and the
MEI technical advisory panel have been
developed and considered. A few
commenters acknowledged that the BLS
OES data is the best data source for
updating the GPCIs for CY 2011 but
expressed concern that it provides data
for MSAs and rest of state areas and not
counties. The commenters believe that
collecting data at the MSA level distorts
the accuracy of the input costs and
requested that CMS delay the update
until the full ACS data can be evaluated
and compared with the BLS OES data.
A few commenters requested that CMS
delay the GPCI update for CY 2011 as
was done in the CY 2004 PFS final rule
with comment period for the 4th GPCI
update.
Additionally, several commenters
stated that a more comprehensive
analysis and evaluation of the PE GPCI
is required by the ACA, further noting
that section 1848(e)(1)(H)(v) of the Act
(as added by section 3102(b) of the
ACA) allows CMS until January 1, 2012
to implement the findings from the
analysis of PE data. To that end, several
commenters requested a more
comprehensive analysis of the
occupational groups used to determine
the employee wage component of the PE
GPCI to reflect the ‘‘true costs’’ incurred
by physician groups in the delivery of
health care to Medicare beneficiaries.
The commenters cited pharmaceutical,
accounting, legal, computer science, and
management professionals as examples
of the types of nonphysician labor costs
that should be included in the
determination of the employee
compensation index. Several
commenters also stated that HUD rental
data does not reflect the ‘‘actual costs’’
of physician office rent and therefore
should be replaced by another data
source.
Response: Section 1848(e)(1)(C) of the
Act requires us to review and update the
GPCIs at least every 3 years. When
updating the GPCIs we believe we
should use the best data that are
currently available. As mentioned by
the commenters, the BLS OES data are
more timely data than the 2000 census
data (which has been used for previous
GPCI updates). We believe that the BLS
OES data, which are currently available,
are an appropriate and relevant data
source for updating the work GPCIs and
employee compensation component of
the PE GPCIs. Also because of the
timeliness of the data, we believe that
using the BLS OES data would result in
a more accurate reflection of the
geographic practice cost differences
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
among PFS localities than not updating
the GPCIs for CY 2011.
While we believe it is appropriate to
finalize updated GPCIs for CY 2011
using the most current data, we also
acknowledge that there is much ongoing
analysis that may inform future GPCI
changes. Therefore, as discussed below,
we are not using the revised cost share
weights for the CY 2011 GPCIs that
would apply under the revised and
rebased MEI for CY 2011. We will
address the GPCI cost share weights
once again in the CY 2012 PFS proposed
rule, and we may make additional
proposals that would further modify the
GPCI data and/or methods for CY 2012.
Additionally, we will review the
complete findings and
recommendations from the Institute of
Medicine’s study of geographic
adjustment factors for physician
payment, the Secretary’s Medicare
Geographic Payment Summit, and the
MEI technical advisory panel, and we
will continue to study the issues as
required by section 1848(e)(1)(H)(iv) of
the Act (as added by section 3102(b) of
the ACA). We will once again consider
the GPCIs for CY 2012 in the context of
our annual PFS rulemaking beginning in
CY 2011 based on the information
available at that time. The CY 2011
GPCIs arising from the 6th GPCI update
reflect our initial review and response to
the currently available GPCI data,
methods, and cost share weights. Once
the full ACS data are available, we will
reassess the occupational groups used to
determine the employee compensation
component of the PE GPCI and continue
to explore the use of commercial rent
data as part of our ongoing analysis of
the GPCIs. We anticipate that further
information, including our review of the
full ACS data, may lead to proposed
additional refinements to the GPCIs for
future years. We have addressed the CY
2011 GPCI cost share weights in
response to other public comments
received on the CY 2011 PFS proposed
rule that are summarized later in this
section.
With regard to the commenters who
expressed concern that the BLS OES
data are not collected at the county
level, we note that the 2000 Decennial
Census data are only available at the
county level for approximately 10
percent of counties. For previous
updates, the GAFs for more than 90
percent of counties were developed
based on MSAs or larger geographic
areas (for example, data for all rural
areas in a State were combined and used
to proxy values for each rural county in
a State). Therefore, using BLS OES data
and disaggregating data to the county
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
level is not a significant departure from
previous GPCI updates.
Moreover, we acknowledge that in the
CY 2004 PFS proposed and final rules
(68 FR 49042 and 68 FR 63213
respectively), we updated only the
malpractice GPCI because the special
tabulation of census data used for the
physician work GPCI and employee
compensation portion of the PE GPCI
was not yet available. We explained that
no acceptable data sources could be
found to update the work GPCIs and the
employee compensation portion of the
practice expense GPCIs. Therefore, we
made no changes to the work GPCIs and
PE GPCIs for CY 2004. However, in view
of the statutory requirement to update
the GPCIs at least every 3 years, we do
not believe it would be appropriate to
finalize an update only for malpractice
GPCIs for CY 2011, while delaying the
update of the work GPCI and PE GPCI,
when we currently have appropriate
updated data available to us for this
purpose. As discussed previously, we
will review the GPCIs as part of the CY
2012 PFS rulemaking cycle (beginning
in CY 2011) based on the information
available at that time, and we may
propose changes to the GPCIs prior to
the next 3-year GPCI update.
Comment: Several commenters stated
that the use of HUD rental data is not
an appropriate proxy for determining
the office rent index and suggested that
CMS use data on actual physician office
rents instead. Additionally, one
commenter questioned CMS’ analysis of
the Medical Group Management
Association’s (MGMA’s) survey data on
rent. The commenter raised questions as
to why CMS rejected the use of MGMA
rental data due to insufficiency in
sample size and representation, despite
admitting that the physician response
rate on the MGMA survey was typical
for surveys of business.
Response: As we have previously
explained in the CY 2005 and CY 2008
final rules with comment period (69 FR
66262 and 72 FR 66245 respectively),
we recognize that apartment rents may
not be a perfect proxy for measuring the
relative cost differences in physician
office rents. However, we believe the
HUD rental data are the most
comprehensive and valid indicator that
is available of the real estate rental
market in all areas of the country. We
continue to believe that HUD rental data
remain the best data source for
determining the relative cost differences
in physicians’ office rent among all
areas of the country. The data are
regularly updated and available
nationally, and retain consistency areato-area and year-to-year. We would
welcome any alternative rental data
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
source that is available nationally with
sufficient representation among PFS
localities.
With regard to our review of MGMA
survey data, we have concerns with
both the sample size and
representativeness of the MGMA data.
For example, the responses represent
only about 2,250 physician practices
nationwide and have disproportionate
sample sizes by State, suggesting very
uneven response rates geographically. In
addition, we also have concerns that the
MGMA data have the potential for
response bias. The MGMA’s substantial
reliance on its membership base
suggests a nonrandom selection into the
respondent group. Some evidence for
such issues in the MGMA data arises
from the very different sample sizes by
State. For example, in the MGMA data,
10 States have fewer than 10
observations each, and California, New
York, and New Jersey have fewer than
10 observations per locality. Therefore,
we continue to believe the MGMA
survey data would not be a sufficient
rental data source for all PFS localities.
Comment: One commenter expressed
concern that the BLS OES wage data
may result in the undervaluation of
physician earnings because the data
exclude incomes of self-employed
professionals.
Response: The GPCIs are not an
absolute measure of physician earnings;
rather, they are a measure of the relative
cost differences for each of the three
PFS components. We have no evidence
to suggest that self-employment income
would have different geographic
variation than non-self-employed
income. Absent such evidence, we
would expect that including wage data
from self-employed professionals would
result in a geographic distribution of
professional wages similar to the BLS
OES data source.
Comment: Many commenters stated
that implementing PE GPCI changes in
CY 2011 would reduce payment to
urban areas and, therefore, would
violate the ‘‘hold harmless’’ provision as
required by the ACA.
Response: Section 1848(e)(1)(H) of the
Act (as added by section 3102 (b) of the
ACA) requires that we apply a limited
recognition of cost differences for the
rent component and employee
compensation component of the PE
GPCI as compared to the national
average. This section also includes a
‘‘hold harmless’’ provision for CY 2010
and CY 2011 for any PFS locality that
would receive a reduction to its PE GPCI
resulting from the limited recognition of
PE cost differences. For CY 2010 and CY
2011, we applied the limited
recognition of PE cost differences and
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73257
‘‘hold harmless provision’’ in accordance
with the statutory requirement, which is
specific only to the limited recognition
of rent and employee wage cost
differences. In other words, the ‘‘hold
harmless’’ (non-budget neutral)
provision under section
1848(e)(1)(H)(iii) of the Act (as added by
section 3102 (b) of the ACA) does not
apply to the effects of updated data
incorporated into the GPCIs as a result
of our normal GPCI update process. As
discussed earlier in this section, the
proposed GPCI update reflected our
preliminary review based on the best
information currently available. We
anticipate that further information may
lead to proposed additional refinements
to the GPCIs in future years.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that CMS track the ‘‘hold
harmless’’ transitional GPCIs to
determine whether certain regions of the
country are underpaid as a result of the
application of the limited recognition of
PE cost differences.
Response: The ‘‘hold harmless’’
provision under section
1848(e)(1)(H)(iii) of the Act (as added by
section 3102(b) of ACA) was applied by
selecting the greater of the CY 2011
transitional PE GPCI value calculated
with the limited recognition of cost
differences or the CY 2011 transitional
PE GCPI value calculated with full
recognition of cost differences.
Therefore, no locality is ‘‘underpaid’’ by
the application of the limited
recognition of PE cost differences.
Comment: One commenter requested
that CMS consider applying a 1.0 GPCI
floor to non-frontier States that serve
significant rural populations. The
commenter was not specific as to which
GPCI (work, PE, or malpractice) the
floor should be applied.
Response: As discussed previously in
this section, section 1848(e)(1)(I) of the
Act (as added by section 10324(c) of the
ACA) established a permanent 1.0 PE
GPCI floor only for frontier States, and
section 3102(a) of the ACA amended
section 1848(e)(1)(E) of the Act to
extend the 1.0 work GPCI floor for
services furnished only through
December 31, 2010. We do not
otherwise have the authority to establish
GPCI floors that do not consider the
differences in physicians’ resource costs
among localities.
Comment: A few commenters
requested that CMS release underlying
data sources, including county level
GPCI values and budget neutrality
estimates, which would allow interested
parties to replicate GPCI calculations.
Response: We strive to be as
transparent as possible in all of our
proposals. To that end, we have made
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73258
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
numerous files available on the CMS
Web site under the downloads for the
CY 2011 PFS proposed rule to assist in
the public’s review of the CY 2011
proposal. These files include: The
preliminary contractor’s report on data
for the 6th GPCI update; the CY 2010
through CY 2012 GPCIs, both as
proposed (including the ACA
provisions) and without the ACA
provisions to permit isolation of the
impacts of the updated data; and web
links to the publicly available source
data and copies of data files that are not
otherwise publicly available, for
example county and locality-specific
RVUs from Medicare claims data and
malpractice insurance premium data. In
combination, this information allows
the public to apply our methodology to
replicate our calculations for the
proposed GPCIs.
Comment: Many commenters
expressed concern about the proposed
cost share weights for the rent
component and medical equipment,
supplies, and other miscellaneous
component of the PE GPCI. The
commenters stated that the proposed
cost share weights would unjustifiably
shift Medicare payment away from
urban localities to rural localities.
Several commenters suggested that
portions of the ‘‘all other services’’
component of the office expenses cost
category, (which includes maintenance
services, storage, security and janitorial
services, office equipment, information
technology systems, and medical record
systems) and the stand-alone ‘‘other
professional services’’ cost category
(which includes accounting services,
legal services, office management
services, continuing education,
professional association memberships,
journals, and professional care
expenses) are wage-related and,
therefore, should be adjusted for locality
cost differences. Additionally, a few
commenters stated that the cost share
weight attributed to the rent component
of the PE GPCI should vary by region
because one national cost share weight
for rent penalizes areas where office rent
is a higher portion of practice expenses.
Response: Although we typically
update the GPCI cost share weights
concurrently with the most recent MEI
revision and rebasing, the commenters
raised many points regarding the
reallocation of labor-related costs from
the medical equipment and supplies
and miscellaneous component to the
employee compensation component of
the PE GPCI. After consideration of the
public comments we received on this
issue, we will continue to use the
current GPCI cost share weights for CY
2011. We have asked the Institute of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
Medicine to evaluate the accuracy of the
geographic adjustment factors used for
Medicare physician payment. The
Institute of Medicine will prepare two
reports for Congress and the Secretary of
the Department of Health and Human
Services. The first report, expected in
spring 2011, will include an evaluation
of the accuracy of geographic
adjustment factors, and the
methodology and data used to calculate
them. The second report, expected in
spring 2012, will evaluate the effects of
the adjustment factors on the
distribution of the health care
workforce, quality of care, population
health, and the ability to provide
efficient, high-value care. For more
information on the Institute of
Medicine’s study on Medicare
geographic adjustment factors, we refer
readers to the Institute of Medicine Web
site: https://iom.edu/Activities/
HealthServices/
GeographicAdjustments.aspx.
We will explore further the options
that were raised to us by the
commenters and the recommendations
in the forthcoming Institute of Medicine
report(s). We will also continue our
analysis of the cost share weights
attributed to the PE GPCI as required by
section 1848(e)(1)(H)(iv) of the Act (as
added by section 3102(b) of the ACA),
including the possibility of assigning
cost share weights to the rent
component of the PE GPCI that vary
among fee schedule areas. We will
address the GPCI cost share weights
again in the CY 2012 PFS proposed rule.
Comment: MedPAC suggested an
alternative method for calculating the
PE GPCI. This alternative PE GPCI
method would account for variations in
the cost share of equipment and
supplies across services.
Response: We appreciate MedPAC’s
suggestion of an alternative method that
would vary the portion of PE that is
geographically adjusted for locality
differences based on the characteristics
of individual services, rather than
applying a uniform percentage across all
PFS services. We recommend that
MedPAC continue to analyze this or
other alternative geographic adjustment
methods, including their administrative
feasibility.
Comment: A few commenters stated
that the ‘‘range of disparity’’ between the
highest and lowest paid PFS localities is
too large and contradicts data studies
showing little to no distinction in
physician practice expenses throughout
the nation. For example, the
commenters stated that the AMA’s
analysis of its own PPIS data concluded
that ‘‘expenses did not differ
significantly by either metro location or
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Census region.’’ One commenter
requested an explanation of the
discrepancy between the AMA’s
findings of no measurable practice
expense distinctions and CMS’ findings
that continue to show substantial
distinctions in physician practice
expenses among the Medicare payment
localities. Another commenter stated
that a 2007 survey conducted by the
journal, Medical Economics, indicated
that the average practice expenses are
highest in the Midwestern States (which
is contrary to the proposed CY 2011
GPCIs).
Response: We have reviewed the
studies referenced by the commenters
and compared their findings with the
GPCI values calculated for the CY 2011
PFS proposed rule. As mentioned by the
commenters, both the AMA and Medical
Economics studies aggregated perphysician expenses at the Census region
level. The AMA PPIS analysis showed
the Northeast as having the lowest perphysician expenses, followed by the
Midwest then the West, with the South
identified as having the highest
expenses. Although there is about a 20
percent difference in total expenses
between the Northeast and South, the
study noted that the difference was not
significant after controlling for practice
setting and physician specialty. The
Medical Economics survey findings
showed about a 30 percent difference in
costs, with the East showing the lowest
expenses and the Midwest with the
highest. Both studies demonstrated that
rural areas have the highest perphysician expenses and highly
populated areas the lowest.
To compare the variation of PE GPCI
values calculated for the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule to the AMA and Medical
Economics studies, we used PE RVUs to
create weighted averages of the PE
GPCIs by Census region. Additionally,
because the AMA and Medical
Economics data reported total perphysician practice expenses, whereas
the GPCI is a cost index, we produced
indices for each source to create
comparable measures of variation. We
then normalized each index to the
lowest cost area from each data source.
Consequently, the index values show
the percent difference in costs relative
to the lowest cost area. For example, the
AMA study shows the Northeast as
having the lowest per-physician
expenses, thus establishing an index
value of 1.00 for that area. For the AMA
study, the Midwest index value is 1.07
which signifies that costs in the
Midwest are 7 percent above the
Northeast AMA values. The PE GPCI
data indicate that the Midwest has the
lowest costs; and the South, with an
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
index value of 1.01, has costs that are
1 percent above the Midwest GPCI
values. When aggregated to the Census
region, the PE GPCIs showed less
variation in costs than the comparison
data sources (AMA PPIS and Medical
Economics). Using the PE GPCI data to
calculate Census region indices
produced only a 16 percent difference
in costs between the most costly and
least costly areas, equating to roughly
half the variation found in the Medical
73259
Economics survey and about 75 percent
of the variation found in the PPIS study.
Table 26 compares the results on the
disparity in costs by Census region.
TABLE 26—CENSUS REGION COST INDICES BY DATA SOURCE
PE GPCI components
AMA
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Midwest ............................................................................
South ................................................................................
West .................................................................................
Northeast ..........................................................................
Additionally, the conceptual
approaches to the GPCIs and the data
sources noted by the commenters are
sufficiently different to make
comparisons extremely difficult. The
different rank ordering in the costs by
regions, as shown in Table E4, may also
reflect the different strategies used to
measure costs. Specifically, the AMA
and Medical Economics studies ordered
areas based on total physicians’
expenses, whereas the GPCIs are
intended to provide a local cost index
that is then applied to each PFS
component; work, practice expense, and
malpractice expense. Based on our
review of the AMA PPIS and Medical
Economics studies, a key factor in
explaining differences with the
proposed GPCI values is differences in
practice patterns across the different
areas. Specifically, rural practitioners
tend to see more patients, incurring
higher expenses. However, as noted in
the Medical Economics study, higher
patient loads result in higher payment.
To place this in the context of Medicare
PFS payment, seeing more patients
produces more billed services, allowed
charges, and payments. Therefore, the
greater number of patients seen by rural
physicians is accounted for in total
RVUs to the physician, rather than
through the GPCI values.
Moreover, the very low cost ranking
of the Northeast in both the AMA PPIS
and Medical Economics datasets
suggests a possible influence of
economies of scale. The GPCIs are
designed to capture differences in the
prices of inputs facing physicians in
each region. The input prices are used
to create GPCI values as a measure of
the relative cost differences in operating
a medical practice in one locality versus
another. It is likely that the AMA and
Medical Economics studies are
capturing differences in the production
of services, distinct from the input
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
1.07
1.21
1.11
1.00
Medical
economics
PE GPCI
data
1.29
1.20
1.06
1.00
prices. In particular, the geographic
differences may reflect differences in
economies of scale in more and less
urbanized areas. More rural
practitioners are less likely to work in
large practices, leading to higher perphysician costs, all else being equal. For
example, a two-physician practice may
need the same number of front office
staff as a one-physician practice. When
this expense is measured on a perphysician basis, the single physician
pays twice as much for front office
support. This type of variation can
occur within localities and may reflect
the practitioner’s choice to work in a
small or large physician practice.
Nevertheless, there is no mechanism
within the existing GPCI approach to
account for the influence of economies
of scale, despite its potentially
significant impact on the effective perunit costs of providing care.
Comment: Several commenters
recommended that CMS use data from
a reliable survey of physicians’
practices, such as the AMA PPIS or the
MGMA survey, to develop the office
rent index and employee compensation
index.
Response: Because of the limited
sample sizes of the AMA PPIS (n =
2,137) and MGMA studies (n = 2,246),
we do not believe that it would be
possible to calculate reliable indices for
all Medicare PFS localities based upon
these data. As mentioned previously, in
the MGMA data, 10 States have fewer
than 10 observations each, and
California, New York, and New Jersey
have fewer than 10 observations per
locality.
In light of the comments received
suggesting the use of survey data to
determine GPCI values and the typical
response rates for existing physician
surveys, we are continuing to consider
the possibility of establishing a
physician cost report and requiring a
sufficiently large sample of physicians
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1.00
1.01
1.14
1.16
Rent
1.00
1.12
1.47
1.55
Wages
1.04
1.00
1.17
1.18
Office
supplies
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
in each locality to report data on actual
costs incurred. However, we believe that
a physician cost report could take years
to develop and implement, and could be
prohibitively expensive. We also have
some concerns about the administrative
burden this approach would place on
physician’s office staff. Therefore, we
are requesting specific public comments
regarding the potential benefits to be
gained from establishing a physician
cost report and whether this approach is
appropriate to achieve potentially
greater precision in measuring the
relative cost differences in physicians’
practices among PFS localities. We are
also requesting public comments on the
potential administrative burden of
requiring physicians to routinely
complete and submit a cost report and
whether this requirement should be
mandatory for all physician practices.
Additionally, we have asked the
Institute of Medicine to look at the use
of survey data in the context of their
geographic adjustment analysis. It is
also our understanding that MedPAC is
considering the issue of data sources
used to determine geographic payment
adjustments under the PFS.
Comment: One commenter stated that
all geographic adjustment factors should
be eliminated from the Medicare PFS
‘‘except for those designed to achieve a
specific public policy goal, for example,
to encourage physicians to practice in
underserved areas.’’ The commenter
requested that CMS utilize the most
broadly applicable methodology
allowed by law to reduce geographic
payment disparity.
Response: We are required by section
1848(b)(1)(C) and (e)(1)(A) of the Act to
develop and apply separate GPCIs to
adjust for resource cost differences
among localities compared to the
national average for each of the three
PFS components: work, practice
expense, and malpractice expense. The
purpose of the GPCIs is not to reduce
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73260
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
geographic payment disparity; rather,
the GPCIs distribute PFS payments
among areas in order to adjust for area
cost differences. In general the data
show that urban areas usually are higher
cost, while rural areas are lower cost.
However, there are several provisions
currently in place that have the effect of
reducing geographic payment
disparities. For example, the statute
requires that only one-quarter of area
cost differences in physician work be
recognized, and we assign a 1.0 index to
the medical equipment, supplies, and
miscellaneous component of the PE
GPCI because we believe there is a
national market for these items. In
addition, 34 States and 2 territories are
‘‘Statewide’’ payment localities wherein
all physicians, whether urban or rural,
are paid the same. Moreover, many
geographic areas are designated as
Health Professional Shortage Areas
(HPSAs). Physicians in these areas may
be eligible for a 10 percent HPSA bonus
payment in addition to the amount paid
under the Medicare PFS for services
they furnish. Beginning in CY 2011,
general surgeons furnishing major
surgical procedures in these areas may
be eligible for the HPSA surgical
incentive payment program (HSIP) that
also pays 10 percent in addition to the
amount paid under the PFS as discussed
in section VI.S.2. of this final rule with
comment period. For complete
information on the HPSA bonus
payment program and a list of eligible
areas for both programs by zip code, we
refer readers to the CMS Web site at:
https://www.cms.hhs.gov/
hpsapsaphysicianbonuses/
01_overview.asp. All of these factors
mentioned above have the effect of
reducing geographic payment
disparities under the Medicare PFS.
Comment: One commenter
encouraged CMS to follow the GAO’s
recommendations, as outlined in the
GAO’s March 2005 Report (GAO–05–
119), for improving underlying GPCI
data and methods by taking the
following actions:
• Transition from Census Bureau’s
Decennial Census data to the annual
ACS for earning and wage data.
• Include physician assistant wage
data to improve the measurement of the
PE GPCI.
• Consider the feasibility of using a
commercial rent index or a residential
rent index directly based on ACS data
for determining the rent component of
the PE GPCI.
• Collect malpractice premium data
from all States, accounting for at least
half of the malpractice business in a
State.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
• Standardize collection of
malpractice premium data, for example
by using data from Physician Insurer’s
Association of America.
Response: As previously discussed,
the full ACS data were not available in
time for the 6th GPCI update. We intend
to explore the use of ACS data for
determining the work GPCI and the
employee compensation component of
the PE GPCI, as well as evaluate its
possible use as an office rent index once
the data are fully available. We also
intend to continue exploring the
potential use of commercial rent data as
part of our ongoing review and
refinement of the GPCIs.
Additionally, we have considered the
use of physician assistant wages in
calculating the employee compensation
index. However, since physician
assistants can furnish medical services
and bill the Medicare program directly,
their wages are influenced by Medicare
PFS payment. Therefore, we have some
concern that a circular effect could
occur if we included physician
assistants among the occupational
groups comprising the employee
compensation component, similar to our
concern with including physicians’
salaries in the determination of the work
GPCI.
With regard to the collection of
malpractice premium data, the CY 2011
malpractice GPCI update reflects 2006
and 2007 premium data which were
also used for the CY 2010 update to the
malpractice RVUs. As compared to
previous malpractice RVU updates, we
substantially increased the number of
States from which we were able to
collect rate filings. We were able to
collect malpractice premium data from
every State except for Mississippi and
Puerto Rico. Premium data were
selected from at least two companies in
each State, with more selected if
necessary to reach 50 percent of the
market share in that State. To ensure
consistency across States we collected
premium data from State Departments
of Insurance. For States where we were
not able to collect rate fillings, we used
premium information from the Medical
Liability Monitor Survey data from 2005
through 2008.
e. Summary of Final CY 2011 GPCIs
After consideration of the public
comments received on the GPCIs, we are
finalizing the 6th GPCI update using the
most current data, with modifications;
we are not finalizing the proposal to
change the GPCI cost share weights for
CY 2011. Instead, we are continuing to
use the current GPCI cost share weights
for determining the PE GPCI values and
locality GAFs in CY 2011, and we will
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
address the cost share weights again in
the CY 2012 PFS proposed rule. As a
result, the cost share weight for the
physician work GPCI (as a percentage of
the total) will be 52.5 percent (current
and for CY 2011) rather than 48.3
percent (as proposed), and the cost
share weight for the PE GPCI will be
43.7 percent (current and for CY 2011)
rather than 47.4 percent (as proposed)
with only a slight difference in the
employee compensation component
(18.7 percent rather than 19.2 percent as
proposed). However, the cost share
weight for the office rent component of
the PE GPCI will be 12.2 percent
(current and for CY 2011) rather than
8.4 percent (as proposed), and the
medical equipment, supplies, and other
miscellaneous expenses component will
be 12.8 percent (current and for CY
2011) rather than 19.9 percent (as
proposed). Moreover, the cost share
weight for the malpractice GPCI will be
3.9 percent (current and for CY 2011)
rather than 4.3 percent (as proposed).
Additionally, we will review the
complete findings and
recommendations from the Institute of
Medicine’s study of geographic
adjustment factors for physician
payment, the Secretary’s Medicare
Geographic Payment Summit, and the
MEI technical advisory panel, and
continue to study the issues as required
by section 1848(e)(1)(H)(iv) of the Act
(as added by section 3102(b) of the
ACA). We will once again consider the
GPCIs for CY 2012 in the context of our
annual PFS rulemaking beginning in CY
2011 based on the information available
at that time.
We are using the 2006 through 2008
panels from the BLS OES data for
updating the work GPCIs and the
employee compensation component of
the PE GPCIs. We are also using the
2010 apartment rental data produced by
HUD at the 50th percentile as a proxy
for the relative cost difference in
physicians’ office rents and 2006 and
2007 malpractice premium data for
determining the malpractice GPCIs.
As required by section
1848(e)(1)(H)(ii) and (iii) of the Act (as
added by section 3102(b) of the ACA),
the CY 2011 GPCIs reflect only one-half
of the relative cost differences for the
employee compensation and rent
portions of the PE GPCI, and the ‘‘hold
harmless’’ provision ensures that no
locality receives a payment reduction
resulting from the limited recognition of
PE cost differences. For CY 2011, the
‘‘hold harmless’’ provision was applied
by selecting the greater of the CY 2011
transitional PE GPCI value calculated
with the limited recognition of cost
differences or the CY 2011 transitional
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
PE GPCI value calculated with full
recognition of cost differences.
In accordance with section
1848(e)(1)(I) of the Act (as added by
section 10324(c) of the ACA), and
consistent with the final FY 2011
hospital IPPS (75 FR 5160 through
5161), we applied a 1.0 PE GPCI floor
for services furnished in frontier States.
The frontier States are the following:
Montana; Wyoming; North Dakota;
Nevada; and South Dakota. As we
indicated above in this section, section
1848(e)(1)(E) of the Act (as amended by
section 3102(a) of the ACA) extended
the 1.0 work GPCI floor only through
December 31, 2010. Therefore, the CY
2011 physician work GPCIs and
summarized GAFs do not reflect the 1.0
work floor. However, the permanent 1.5
work GPCI floor for Alaska (as
established by section 134(b) of the
MIPPA) will remain in effect for CY
2011.
We are finalizing the CY 2011 GPCIs
shown in Addendum E. The GPCIs have
been budget neutralized to ensure that
nationwide, total RVUs are not
impacted by changes in locality GPCIs.
The 1.0 PE GPCI floor for frontier States
and the PE GPCI ‘‘hold harmless’’
provision were applied to the budget
neutralized GPCIs.
Typically when we complete a review
and update of the GPCIs, the values
shown represent the first year of the 2year GPCI update transition. Although
the CY 2011 GPCIs have been set on that
basis, we note that we will be assessing
the results of the various studies
regarding the GPCIs and cost share
weights (once they are completed), and
exploring the use of the full ACS data.
Based on these assessments, we may
make additional proposals that would
further modify the GPCIs for CY 2012,
which would result in changes to the
CY 2012 GPCIs shown in Addendum E
to this final rule with comment period.
Therefore, the final CY 2011 GPCIs may
not reflect a true mid-point ‘‘phase-in’’ to
the updated GPCIs, although, as noted
above, they have been set for CY 2011
on that basis. The CY 2011 updated
GAFs and GPCIs may be found in
Addenda D and E of this final rule with
comment period.
3. Payment Localities
The current PFS locality structure was
developed and implemented in 1997.
There are currently 89 localities; 34
localities are Statewide areas. There are
52 localities in the other 18 States, with
10 States having 2 localities, 2 States
having 3 localities, 1 State having 4
localities, and 3 States having 5 or more
localities. The District of Columbia,
Maryland, and Virginia suburbs, Puerto
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
Rico, and the Virgin Islands are
additional localities that make up the
remainder of the total of 89 localities.
The development of the current locality
structure is described in detail in the CY
1997 PFS proposed rule (61 FR 34615)
and the subsequent final rule with
comment period (61 FR 59494).
As we have previously noted in the
CYs 2008 and 2009 proposed rules (72
FR 38139 and 73 FR 38513), any
changes to the locality configuration
must be made in a budget neutral
manner within a State and can lead to
significant redistributions in payments.
For many years, we have not considered
making changes to localities without the
support of a State medical association in
order to demonstrate consensus for the
change among the professionals whose
payments would be affected (with some
increasing and some decreasing).
However, we have recognized that, over
time, changes in demographics or local
economic conditions may lead us to
conduct a more comprehensive
examination of existing payment
localities.
For the past several years, we have
been involved in discussions with
physician groups and their
representatives about recent shifts in
relative demographics and economic
conditions, most notably within the
current California payment locality
structure. We explained in the CY 2008
PFS final rule with comment period that
we intended to conduct a thorough
analysis of potential approaches to
reconfiguring localities and would
address this issue again in future
rulemaking. For more information, we
refer readers to the CY 2008 PFS
proposed rule (72 FR 38139) and
subsequent final rule with comment
period (72 FR 66245).
As a follow-up to the CY 2008 PFS
final rule with comment period, we
contracted with Acumen to conduct a
preliminary study of several options for
revising the payment localities on a
nationwide basis. The contractor’s
interim report was posted on the CMS
Web site on August 21, 2008, and we
requested comments from the public.
The report entitled, ‘‘Review of
Alternative GPCI Payment Locality
Structures,’’ remains accessible from the
CMS PFS Web page under the heading
‘‘Interim Study of Alternative Payment
Localities under the PFS.’’ The report
may also be accessed directly from the
following link: https://www.cms.hhs.gov/
PhysicianFeeSched/
10_Interim_Study.asp#TopOfPage.
We accepted public comments on the
interim report through November 3,
2008. The alternative locality
configurations discussed in the report
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73261
are described briefly below in this
section.
Option 1: CMS Core-Based Statistical
Area (CBSA) Payment Locality
Configuration
This option uses the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB’s)
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)
designations for the payment locality
configuration. MSAs would be
considered as urban CBSAs.
Micropolitan Areas (as defined by OMB)
and rural areas would be considered as
non-urban (rest of State) CBSAs. This
approach would be consistent with the
IPPS pre-reclassification CBSA
assignments and with the geographic
payment adjustments used in other
Medicare payment systems. This option
would increase the number of PFS
localities from 89 to 439.
Option 2: Separate High-Cost Counties
from Existing Localities (Separate
Counties)
Under this approach, higher cost
counties are removed from their existing
locality structure and they would each
be placed into their own locality. This
option would increase the number of
PFS localities from 89 to 214, using a 5
percent GAF differential to separate
high-cost counties.
Option 3: Separate MSAs from
Statewide Localities (Separate MSAs)
This option begins with statewide
localities and creates separate localities
for higher cost MSAs (rather than
removing higher cost counties from
their existing locality as described in
Option 2). This option would increase
the number of PFS localities from 89 to
130, using a 5 percent GAF differential
to separate high-cost MSAs.
Option 4: Group Counties Within a State
Into Locality Tiers Based on Costs
(Statewide Tiers)
This option creates tiers of counties
(within each State) that may or may not
be contiguous but share similar practice
costs. This option would increase the
number of PFS localities from 89 to 140,
using a 5 percent GAF differential to
group similar counties into statewide
tiers.
As discussed in Acumen’s interim
report, all four studied alternative
locality configurations would increase
the number of localities and separate
higher cost areas from rural ‘‘rest of
state’’ areas. As a result, payments to
urban areas would increase, while rural
areas would see a decrease in payment
because they would no longer be
grouped with higher cost ‘‘urbanized’’
areas. A number of public commenters
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73262
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
on the draft report expressed support for
Option 3 (separate MSAs from
Statewide localities) because the
commenters believed this alternative
would improve payment accuracy over
the current locality configuration and
could mitigate possible payment
reductions to rural areas as compared to
Option 1 (CMS CBSAs). Therefore,
Acumen is conducting a more in-depth
analysis of the dollar impacts that
would result from the application of
Option 3. For a detailed discussion of
the public comments on the contractor’s
interim locality study report, we refer
readers to the CY 2010 PFS proposed
rule (74 FR 33534) and subsequent final
rule with comment period (74 FR
61757).
We note that the discussion of PFS
payment localities and our preliminary
study of alternative payment locality
configurations in the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule was intended for
informational purposes only. We did
not make any proposals regarding the
PFS locality configurations for CY 2011
and, therefore, public comments on the
PFS locality configurations are not
within scope of the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule. We thank the
commenters for sharing their views and
suggestions; however, we are not
summarizing or responding to ‘out of
scope’ comments in this final rule with
comment period.
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
E. PFS Update for CY 2010: Rebasing
and Revising of the Medicare Economic
Index (MEI)
1. Background
The Medicare Economic Index (MEI)
was originally required by section
1842(b)(3) of the Act, which states that
prevailing charge levels beginning after
June 30, 1973 may not exceed the level
from the previous year except to the
extent that the Secretary finds, on the
basis of appropriate economic index
data, that such higher level is justified
by year-to-year economic changes. We
continued to use the MEI as part of the
statutory update formula (specified
under section 1848 of the Act) when the
physician fee schedule was
implemented in 1992 (56 FR 59511).
Beginning July 1, 1975, and
continuing through today, the MEI has
served these purposes by reflecting the
weighted-average annual price change
for various inputs needed to furnish
physicians’ services. As such, the index
is necessarily a fixed-weight input price
index, with an adjustment for the
change in economy-wide, private
nonfarm business multifactor
productivity. The MEI is comprised of
two broad categories: (1) Physician’s
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
own time; and (2) physician’s practice
expense (PE).
The MEI was first published on June
16, 1975 (40 FR 25446), and became
effective for services furnished
beginning July 1, 1975. The original MEI
had a base period of 1971. The structure
of the original MEI remained essentially
unchanged from its original until the CY
1993 final rule (57 FR 55896) in which
we finalized a comprehensive rebasing
and revision process with a 1989 base
year. The new index was based in part
on the recommendations of a
Congressionally-mandated meeting of
experts held in March 1987. The MEI
was again rebased in the CY 1999 final
rule (63 FR 58845), which moved the
cost structure of the index from a 1989
base to a 1996 base. The methodology
for the productivity adjustment was
revised in the CY 2003 final rule (67 FR
80019) to reflect the percentage change
in the 10-year moving average of
economy-wide private nonfarm business
multifactor productivity (previously the
index was adjusted by a measure of
labor productivity). The current form of
the MEI was detailed in the CY 2004
PFS final rule (68 FR 63239) which
updated the cost structure of the index
from a base year of 1996 to 2000.
We proposed to rebase and revise the
MEI and incorporate it into the CY 2011
PFS update. The terms ‘‘rebasing’’ and
‘‘revising’’, while often used
interchangeably, actually denote
different activities. Rebasing refers to
moving the base year for the structure of
costs of an input price index, while
revising relates to other types of changes
such as changing data sources, cost
categories, or price proxies used in the
price index. As is always the case with
a rebasing and revising exercise, we
have used the most recently available,
relevant, and appropriate information to
develop the proposed MEI cost category
weights and price proxies. In the
following sections of this final rule with
comment period, we detail our
proposals and respond to comments
regarding the updated cost weights for
the MEI expense categories, our
rationale for selecting the price proxies
in the MEI, and the results of the
rebasing and revising of the MEI.
2. Use of More Current Data
The MEI was last rebased and revised
in 2003 in the CY 2004 PFS final rule
with comment period (68 FR 63239).
The current base year for the MEI is
2000, which means that the cost weights
in the index reflect physicians’ expenses
in 2000. However, we believe it is
desirable to periodically rebase and
revise the index so that the expense
shares and their associated price proxies
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
reflect more current conditions. For the
CY 2011 PFS update, we are finalizing
the proposal to rebase and revise the
MEI to reflect appropriate physicians’
expenses in 2006.
Compared to the 2000-based MEI, we
proposed to make several changes to the
MEI cost structure. First, we proposed to
exclude the Pharmaceutical cost
category as pharmaceuticals are neither
paid for under the PFS nor are they
included in the definition of
‘‘physicians’ services’’ for purposes of
calculating the physician update via the
SGR system (for more details see the CY
2010 PFS final rule with comment
period (74 FR 61961 through 61962)).
We also proposed to exclude the
expenses associated with separately
billable supplies since these items are
not paid for under the PFS. Our primary
data source, the 2006 Physician Practice
Information Survey (PPIS), collected
data on these costs enabling us to
accurately remove them from the index.
In addition, we proposed to include
nine new cost categories that
disaggregate the costs under the broader
Office Expenses cost category. The
2000-based MEI did not break these
expenses into individual cost categories.
As a result of comments received, which
are described more fully below in this
section, we are modifying this proposal
to instead include ten detailed cost
categories. As indicated in the CY 2011
PFS proposed rule, we proposed to
continue to adjust the MEI for economywide multifactor productivity based on
changes in the 10-year moving average
of private nonfarm business multifactor
productivity. After considering the
comments received, we are finalizing
our proposal to continue to adjust the
MEI for economy-wide multifactor
productivity based on changes in the 10year moving average of private nonfarm
business multifactor productivity.
3. Rebasing and Revising Expense
Categories in the MEI
The MEI is used in conjunction with
the SGR system to update the PFS and
represents the price component of that
update. The proposed expense
categories in the index, along with their
respective weights, are primarily
derived from data collected in the 2006
AMA PPIS for self-employed physicians
and selected self-employed non-medical
doctor specialties. As noted, in addition
to data on medical doctors, we included
data from several non-medical doctor
specialties in the MEI cost weight
calculations (including optometrists,
oral surgeons, podiatrists, and
chiropractors) consistent with the
definition of the term ‘‘physician’’ in
section 1861(r) of the Act. In summary,
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
the term ‘‘physician’’ when used in
connection with the performance of
functions or actions an individual is
legally authorized to perform means the
following: (1) A doctor of medicine or
osteopathy; (2) a doctor of dental
surgery or of dental medicine; (3) a
doctor of podiatric medicine; (4) a
doctor of optometry; or (5) a
chiropractor. For a complete definition,
please see section 1861(r) of the Act. We
weighted the expense data from the
above-referenced specialties with the
self-employed physician expense data
using physician counts by specialty, the
same methodology used in the AMA
PPIS.
The AMA PPIS data were used to
determine the expenditure weights in
the MEI for all of the major cost
categories including total expenses,
physicians’ earnings, physicians’
benefits, employed physician payroll,
nonphysician compensation, office
expenses, professional liability
insurance (PLI), medical equipment,
medical supplies, and other professional
expenses. We are finalizing our proposal
to further disaggregate both nonphysician compensation and office
expenses into subcategories reflecting
more detailed expenses. We used
several data sources for further
disaggregation of expenses including:
data from the 2002 Bureau of Economic
Analysis (BEA) Benchmark InputOutput table (I/O), the 2006 Bureau of
the Census Current Population Survey
(CPS), the 2006 Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) Occupational
Employment Survey (OES), the 2006
Employment Cost for Employee
Compensation Survey (ECEC), and the
2006 Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
Statistics of Income (SOI) data. The
development of each of the cost
73263
categories using these sources is
described in detail below.
a. Developing the Weights for Use in the
MEI
Developing a rebased and revised MEI
requires selecting a base year and
determining the appropriate expense
categories. We proposed to rebase the
MEI to CY 2006. We choose CY 2006 as
the base year as: 1) this is the most
recent year for which comprehensive
physician expense data are available;
and (2) we believe these data represent
an accurate proxy for the physician
expense distribution in CY 2011.
Table 27 lists the set of mutually
exclusive and exhaustive cost categories
that make up the final rebased and
revised MEI, including the addition of
the All Other Products category we are
adopting in response to public
comments.
TABLE 27—FINAL 2006 MEI COST CATEGORIES, WEIGHTS, AND PRICE PROXIES COMPARED TO THE 2000 MEI COST
CATEGORIES AND WEIGHTS
Final 2006cost weights
Cost category
(1,2)
2000 Cost
weights
100.00
48.266
43.880
100.000
52.466
42.730
Benefits (3),(4) ...........................................................................................
4.386
9.735
Physician’s Practice Expense ........................................................................
Nonphysician Employee Compensation .................................................
Nonphysician Employee Wages and Salaries .......................................
Prof/Tech Wages .............................................................................
51.734
19.153
13.752
6.006
47.534
18.654
13.809
5.887
Managerial Wages ..........................................................................
1.446
3.333
Clerical Wages ................................................................................
4.466
3.892
Services Wages ..............................................................................
1.834
0.696
Nonphysician Employee Benefits (4) .......................................................
Office Expenses .....................................................................................
Utilities .............................................................................................
Chemicals ........................................................................................
5.401
20.035
1.266
0.723
4.845
12.209
........................
........................
Paper ...............................................................................................
Rubber & Plastics ............................................................................
Telephone ........................................................................................
Postage ...........................................................................................
All Other Services ...........................................................................
0.657
0.598
1.501
0.898
3.582
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
All Other Products ...........................................................................
0.500
........................
Fixed Capital ...................................................................................
Moveable Capital .............................................................................
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Total ...............................................................................................................
Physician’s Compensation (Own Time) (3) ....................................................
Wages and Salaries ...............................................................................
8.957
1.353
........................
........................
PLI ..........................................................................................................
4.295
3.865
Medical Equipment .................................................................................
1.978
2.055
Pharmaceuticals and Medical Materials and Supplies ...........................
Pharmaceuticals ..............................................................................
Medical Materials and Supplies ......................................................
1.760
........................
1.760
4.320
2.309
2.011
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
2006 Price proxies
AHE Total Nonfarm Private for
Production & Nonsupervisory
Employees.(5)
ECI-Benefits Total Nonfarm Private.(6)
ECI-Wages/Salaries: Private Professional &Technical.
ECI-Wages/Salaries:
Private
Managerial.
ECI-Wages/Salaries:
Private
Clerical.
ECI-Wages/Salaries:
Private
Service.
ECI-Ben: Private Blend.
CPI Fuel & Utilities.(7)
PPI for Other Basic Organic
Chemical Manufacturing.(8)
PPI for Converted Paper.
PPI for Rubber and Plastics.
CPI for Telephone Services.
CPI for Postage.
ECI Compensation Services Occupations.
CPI–U All Items Less Food and
Energy.
CPI for Owner’s Equivalent Rent.
PPI for Machinery and Equipment.
CMS-Prof. Liab. Phys. Premiums.
PPI-Medical
Instruments
&
Equip.
PPI Surg. Appliances and Supplies/CPI(U) Med Supplies.
29NOR2
73264
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 27—FINAL 2006 MEI COST CATEGORIES, WEIGHTS, AND PRICE PROXIES COMPARED TO THE 2000 MEI COST
CATEGORIES AND WEIGHTS—Continued
Final 2006cost weights
Cost category
2000 Cost
weights
(1,2)
2006 Price proxies
CPI–U All Items Less Food and
Energy.
Other Professional Expenses .................................................................
4.513
........................
Other Expenses ......................................................................................
........................
6.433
(1) Due to rounding, weights may not sum to 100.000 percent.
(2) Sources: 2006 Physician Practice Information Survey (PPIS), Center for Health Policy Research, American Medical Association; 2006 Employment Cost for Employee Compensation, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics; 2006 Occupational Employment Statistics
(OES), BLS; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis 2002 Benchmark Input Output Tables, and U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 2006 Current Population Survey.
(3) Includes employed physician payroll.
(4) Includes paid leave.
(5) Average Hourly Earnings (AHE)
(6) Employment Cost Index (ECI)
(7) Consumer Price Index (CPI)
(8) Producer Price Index (PPI)
The development of each of the cost
categories in the final 2006 MEI is
described, in detail, as follows.
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
b. Physician’s Own Time
The component of the MEI that
reflects the physician’s own time is
represented by the net income portion
of business receipts. The proposed 2006
cost weight associated with the
physician’s own time (otherwise
referred to as the Physician
Compensation cost weight) is based on
2006 AMA PPIS data for mean
physician net income (physician
compensation) for self-employed
physicians and for the selected selfemployed specialties referenced
previously in this rule.
We proposed to continue to add
employed physician compensation to
self-employed physician compensation
in order to calculate an aggregate
Physician Compensation cost weight. By
including the compensation of
employed physicians in the Physician
Compensation expense category, these
expenses will be adjusted by the
appropriate price proxies for a
physician’s own time. The proposed
2006 Physician Compensation cost
weight is 48.266 percent as compared to
a 52.466 percent share in the 2000-based
MEI. We split the Physician
Compensation component into two
subcategories: Wages & Salaries; and
Benefits. For self-employed physician’s
compensation, the ratios for Wages &
Salaries and Benefits were calculated
using data from the PPIS. Self-employed
physician wages & salaries accounted
for 92.2 percent of physician
compensation while physician benefits
accounted for the remaining 7.8 percent.
For employed physician payroll, the
distribution for wages & salaries and
benefits for 2006 was 85.8 percent and
14.2 percent, respectively. This ratio
was determined by calculating a
weighted average of available SOI data
for partnerships, corporations, and Scorporations specific to physicians and
outpatient care centers. Based on these
methods, the proposed 2006 Physician
Wages & Salaries cost weight was 43.880
percent and the proposed 2006
Physician Benefits cost weight was
4.386 percent.
c. Physician’s Practice Expenses
To determine the remaining
individual Practice Expenses cost
weights, we used mean expense data
from the 2006 PPIS survey expressed as
a percentage of total expenses. The
detailed explanations for the derivation
of the individual weights under Practice
Expenses are listed below.
(1) Nonphysician Employee
Compensation
The cost weight for Nonphysician
Employee Compensation was developed
using the 2006 AMA PPIS mean
expenses for these costs. We further
divided this cost share into Wages &
Salaries and Benefits using 2006 BLS
Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation (ECEC) data for the
Health Care and Social Assistance
(private industry) category. Although
this survey does not contain data only
for offices of physicians, data are
available to help determine the shares
associated with wages & salaries and
benefits for private industry health care
and social assistance services (which
include offices of physicians, hospitals,
nursing homes, and offices of dentists).
We believe these data provide a
reasonable estimate of the split between
wages and benefits for employees in
physicians’ offices. Data for 2006 in the
ECEC for Health Care and Social
Assistance indicate that wages and
benefits are 71.8 percent and 28.2
percent of compensation, respectively.
The 2000-based MEI included a wage
and benefit split of 74.0 percent and
26.0 percent of compensation.
We proposed to use 2006 Current
Population Survey (CPS) data and 2006
BLS Occupational Employment
Statistics (OES) data to develop cost
weights for wages for nonphysician
occupational groups. These are the same
data sources that were used in the 2000based MEI. We determined total annual
earnings for offices of physicians using
employment data from the CPS and
mean annual earnings from the OES. To
arrive at a distribution for these separate
categories, we determined annual
earnings for each of the four categories
(which are Professional & Technical
workers, Managers, Clerical workers,
and Service workers), using the
Standard Occupational Classification
(SOC) system. We then determined the
overall share of the total for each. The
resulting proposed distribution, as well
as the distribution from the 2000-based
MEI, are presented in Table 28.
TABLE 28—PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF NONPHYSICIAN PAYROLL EXPENSE BY OCCUPATIONAL GROUP: 2006 AND 2000
2006
Expenditure shares
BLS Occupational Group
2000
Expenditure shares
100.000
100.000
Total .........................................................................................................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
73265
TABLE 28—PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF NONPHYSICIAN PAYROLL EXPENSE BY OCCUPATIONAL GROUP: 2006 AND 2000—
Continued
2006
Expenditure shares
BLS Occupational Group
2000
Expenditure shares
43.671
10.517
32.477
13.336
42.635
24.138
28.187
5.040
Professional & Technical Workers ...................................................................................................
Managers ..........................................................................................................................................
Clerical Workers ...............................................................................................................................
Service Workers ...............................................................................................................................
Values may not sum to 100 due to rounding.
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
The decrease in the Managers
expenditure share is directly related to
a decrease in the total number of
employees in Management occupations
in physicians’ offices, in particular,
‘‘Medical and health service managers.’’
The decrease in expenditure share may
also be due, in part, to the methods used
in this rebasing. That is, for the 2006based MEI, we are using data limited to
‘‘Offices of physicians.’’ In the 2000based version of the index, the only data
that were available to inform these
estimates were inclusive of physician
offices and clinics (‘‘Offices of
physicians and clinics’’). An
examination of 2006 CPS and OES data
comparing ‘‘Outpatient care centers’’ to
‘‘Offices of physicians’’ indicates that
there is a higher share of management
occupations in the ‘‘Outpatient care
centers’’ than in ‘‘Offices of physicians’’.
The increase in the Service Workers
expenditures share is attributable to a
substantive increase in the number of
employees in service occupations,
particularly, ‘‘Medical assistants and
other health care support occupations’’.
(2) Office Expenses
The aggregate Office Expenses cost
weight was derived using the 2006
AMA PPIS and was calculated as the
mean office expenses expressed as a
percentage of mean total expenses. This
calculation resulted in a 20.035 percent
share of total costs in 2006 compared to
a 12.209 percent share in the 2000-based
index. The Office Expenses cost weight
used in the 2000-based MEI was based
on the AMA 1997 Socioeconomic
Monitoring System (SMS) survey, which
defined office expenses as rent,
mortgage interest, depreciation on
medical buildings, utilities, and
telephones. The AMA expanded the
office expense question in the 2006 PPIS
survey to include additional expenses,
described in more detail below in this
section.
As a result, and in order to provide for
a higher level of precision in assigning
appropriate price proxies to underlying
costs, we proposed to further
disaggregate the Office Expenses cost
category into 9 detailed cost categories
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
using the BEA 2002–Benchmark I/O
data for Offices of Physicians, Dentists,
and Other Health Practitioners (North
American Industrial Classification
System (NAICS) 621A00). In response to
comments, and as described more fully
below, we are finalizing those nine
categories, as well as adding a tenth
detailed cost category.
The proposed Office Expenses cost
categories and associated cost weights
were developed by matching the BEA
I/O data as closely as possible to the
2006 AMA PPIS survey, which defined
office expenses as ‘‘office (non-medical)
equipment and office (nonmedical)
supplies, as well as rent, mortgage,
interest, maintenance, refrigeration,
storage, security, janitorial, depreciation
on medical buildings used in your
practice, utilities, or other office
computer systems (including
information management systems/
electronic medical record systems) and
telephone.’’ In most instances, the
proposed underlying detailed cost
categories and associated cost weights
were chosen to be consistent with the
NAICS 3-digit classification. BEA I/O
expense data is published on a NAICSbasis. Some of the proposed underlying
detailed cost categories such as All
Other Services include various 3-digit
NAICS codes for service related
industries. Similar methods are used in
the other legislatively-required market
baskets developed by CMS. After we
categorized the BEA I/O data, we
calculated the relative share for each
category as a percentage of the total
office expenses categories within the
I/O data. We then aged the 2002 weights
forward to 2006 to derive the 2006
detailed Office Expense cost weights as
a percent of total Office Expenses. The
methodology we used to age the data
forward was to apply the annual price
changes from each respective price
proxy to the appropriate cost categories.
We repeated this practice for each year
of the interval from 2002 to 2006. We
then applied the resulting 2006
distributions to the aggregate 2006 AMA
Office Expenses weight of 20.035
percent to yield the detailed 2006 Office
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Expenses’ weights as a percent of total
expenses.
In response to public comments that
are detailed in the subsequent sections
of this rule, we conducted an additional
review of the BEA I/O data used to
disaggregate the Office Expense cost
category, comparing the I/O’s detailed
categories with the questions on the
AMA PPIS survey. This review led to
small revisions to the underlying Office
Expense cost weights and resulted in
the inclusion of one additional cost
weight in that category: All Other
Products. These products, which were
previously assumed to be captured in
the Other Professional Expenses
category (as measured by the AMA PPIS
survey), include a variety of
miscellaneous products, such as
miscellaneous wood and building
products, that we believe respondents
included in Office Expenses as
maintenance expense. Table 27 provides
the revised MEI weights.
We believe the introduction of these
new, more detailed categories for the
2006-based index allow for an increased
level of precision while maintaining
appropriate levels of aggregation in the
index. The individual price proxies are
described in more detail in section
II.E.4.of this final rule.
The following is a description of the
types of expenses included in each of
the detailed Office Expense cost
categories.
• Utilities: The Utilities cost weight
includes expenses classified in the fuel,
oil and gas, water and sewage, and
electricity industries. These types of
industries are classified in NAICS and
include NAICS 2211 (Electric power
generation, transmission, and
distribution), 2212 (Natural gas
distribution), and 2213 (Water, sewage,
and other systems). The cost weight for
utilities is 1.266 percent.
• Chemicals: The Chemicals cost
weight includes expenses classified in
the NAICS 325 (Chemical
manufacturing), excluding
pharmaceuticals and biologicals. This
would include, but is not limited to,
expenses such as soap and cleaning
compounds, as well as photocopier
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73266
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
toners and laser printer toners. The cost
weight for chemicals is 0.723 percent.
• Paper: The Paper cost weight
includes expenses classified in NAICS
322 (paper manufacturing) and NAICS
323 (printing and related support
activities). This would include expenses
associated with items such as paper,
paperboard, sanitary paper products,
and printing. The cost weight for paper
is 0.657 percent.
• Rubber and Plastics: The Rubber
and Plastics cost weight includes
expenses classified in NAICS 326
(Plastics and Rubber Products
Manufacturing). This would include,
but is not limited to expenses associated
with plastic bags, plastic trash cans, and
plastic plumbing fixtures. The cost
weight for Rubber and Plastics is 0.598
percent.
• Telephone: The Telephone cost
weight includes expenses classified in
NAICS 517 (Telecommunications) and
NAICS 518 (Internet service providers),
and NAICS 515 (Cable and other
subscription programming). Telephone
service, which is one component of the
Telecommunications expenses,
accounts for the majority of the
expenditures in this cost category. The
cost weight for Telephone services is
1.501 percent.
• Postage: The Postage cost weight
includes expenses classified in NAICS
491 (Postal services) and NAICS 492
(Courier services). The cost weight for
Postage is 0.898 percent.
• All Other Services: The All Other
Services cost weight includes other
service expenses including, but not
limited to, nonresidential maintenance
and repair, machinery repair, janitorial,
and security services. This cost weight
does not include expenses associated
with professional services such as
accounting, billing, legal, and marketing
which are included in the Other
Professional Expenses cost weight
derived using the AMA PPIS survey.
The cost weight for All Other Services
is 3.582 percent.
• All Other Products: The All Other
Products cost weight, which we are
adding based upon our further review in
response to public comments, includes
other miscellaneous expenses, including
but not limited to, a variety of
miscellaneous building products (such
as wood and concrete). The cost weight
for All Other Products is 0.500 percent.
• Fixed Capital: The Fixed Capital
cost weight includes expenses for
building leases, mortgage interest, and
depreciation on medical buildings. The
cost weight for Fixed Capital is 8.957
percent.
• Moveable Capital: The Moveable
Capital cost weight includes expenses
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
and depreciation costs for non-medical
equipment including but not limited to,
computer equipment and software and
the rental and leasing of industrial
machinery equipment. The cost weight
for Moveable Capital is 1.353 percent.
(3) Professional Liability Insurance (PLI)
Expense
The proposed weight for PLI expense
was derived from the 2006 AMA survey
and was calculated as the mean PLI
expense expressed as a percentage of
mean total expenses. This calculation
resulted in a 4.295-percent share of total
costs in 2006 compared to a 3.865percent share in the 2000-based index.
The increase in the weight for PLI
reflects the current prices of premiums,
as well as an update to the level of
coverage purchased by physicians in
2006 compared to 2000.
(4) Medical Equipment Expenses
The proposed weight for Medical
Equipment was calculated using the
2006 AMA PPIS mean expense data
expressed as a percentage of mean total
expenses. This calculation resulted in a
1.978-percent share of total costs in
2006 compared to a 2.055-percent share
in the 2000-based index. By definition,
this category includes the expenses
related to depreciation, maintenance
contracts, and the leases or rental of
medical equipment used in diagnosis or
treatment of patients. The category
would also include the tax-deductible
portion of the purchase price or
replacement value of medical
equipment, if not leased.
(5) Medical Supplies Expenses
The proposed weight for Medical
Supplies was calculated using the 2006
AMA PPIS mean expense data
expressed as a percentage of mean total
expenses. This calculation resulted in a
1.760-percent share of total costs in
2006 compared to a 2.011-percent share
in the 2000-based index. By definition,
this category includes the expenses
related to medical supplies such as
sterile gloves, needles, bandages,
specimen containers, and catheters.
Additionally, we proposed to exclude
the expenses related to separately
billable supplies as these expenses are
not paid for under the PFS. The Medical
Supply cost category does not include
expenses related to drugs.
(6) Other Professional Expenses
The proposed weight for Other
Professional expenses was calculated
using the 2006 AMA PPIS mean
expense data expressed as a percentage
of mean total expenses. This calculation
resulted in a 4.513-percent share of total
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
costs in 2006. By definition, this
category includes the expenses related
to tax-deductible expenses for any other
professional expenses not reported in
another category from the PPIS. These
expenses would include fees related to
legal, marketing, accounting, billing,
office management services,
professional association memberships,
maintenance of certification or
licensure, journals and continuing
education, professional car upkeep and
depreciation, and any other general
expenses or other professional expenses
not reported elsewhere on the PPIS.
In summary, we are finalizing the
proposed 2006-based MEI cost
categories and respective cost weights
for all categories except for the
underlying detailed Office Expense cost
categories and cost weights. In response
to public comments, we reexamined the
BEA I/O data and compared it again
with the specific types of costs sought
by the AMA PPIS survey question on
Office Expenses. Although we are
finalizing the proposed Office Expense
cost weight of 20.035 percent, our reevaluation resulted in slight changes to
the underlying detail of the Office
Expense cost categories and cost
weights. Specifically, we are finalizing
the nine proposed detailed cost
categories and adding one additional
detailed cost category, All Other
Products. The final detailed cost
categories and cost weights for the
underlying Office Expense cost
categories are shown in Table 27.
Table 29 shows a comparison of the
proposed MEI Office Expense cost
categories and weights to the final MEI
Office Expense cost categories and
weights. In addition to adding the
subcategory All Other Products, the
final Office Expenses’ category weights
were updated in response to public
comments to reflect the removal of
automobile-related expenses, which
were in effect being double-counted,
from the Movable Capital category.
Further examination of the AMA’s PPIS
questions showed that automobile costs,
such as those associated with leasing
and depreciation, were captured in the
question related to other professional
expenses and are, thus accounted for in
Other Professional Expenses (with a
final cost weight of 4.513 percent).
Notably, that cost weight is not
impacted as, again, those costs were
captured there in the survey.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 29—COMPARISON OF PROPOSED OFFICE EXPENSE COST CATEGORIES AND COST WEIGHTS TO
THE FINAL OFFICE EXPENSE COST
CATEGORIES AND COST WEIGHTS
Cost categories
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Office Expenses .......
Utilities ...............
Chemicals ..........
Paper .................
Rubber & Plastics ..................
Telephone ..........
Postage .............
All Other Services .................
All Other Products ................
Fixed Capital .....
Moveable Capital
2006
Final
weight
(%)
2006
Proposed
weight
(%)
20.035
1.266
0.723
0.657
20.035
1.139
0.679
0.616
0.598
1.501
0.898
0.563
1.415
0.661
3.582
4.718
0.500
8.957
1.353
................
8.410
1.834
4. Selection of Price Proxies for Use in
the MEI
After the 2006 cost weights for the
rebased and revised MEI were
developed, we reviewed all of the price
proxies to evaluate their
appropriateness. As was the case in the
development of the 2000-based MEI (68
FR 63239), most of the proxy measures
we considered are based on BLS data
and are grouped into one of the
following five categories:
• Producer Price Indices (PPIs): PPIs
measure price changes for goods sold in
markets other than retail markets. These
fixed-weight indexes are a measure of
price change at the intermediate or final
stage of production. They are the
preferred proxies for physician
purchases as these prices appropriately
reflect the product’s first commercial
transaction.
• Consumer Price Indices (CPIs): CPIs
measure changes in the prices of final
goods and services bought by
consumers. Like the PPIs, they are fixedweight indexes. Since they may not
represent the price changes faced by
producers, CPIs are used if there are no
appropriate PPIs or if the particular
expenditure category is likely to contain
purchases made at the final point of
sale.
• Average Hourly Earnings (AHEs):
AHEs are available for production and
nonsupervisory workers for specific
industries, as well as for the nonfarm
business economy. They are calculated
by dividing gross payrolls for wages &
salaries by total hours. The series
reflects shifts in employment mix and,
thus, is representative of actual changes
in hourly earnings for industries or for
the nonfarm business economy.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
• ECIs for Wages & Salaries: These
ECIs measure the rate of change in
employee wage rates per hour worked.
These fixed-weight indexes are not
affected by employment shifts among
industries or occupations and thus,
measure only the pure rate of change in
wages.
• ECIs for Employee Benefits: These
ECIs measure the rate of change in
employer costs of employee benefits,
such as the employer’s share of Social
Security taxes, pension and other
retirement plans, insurance benefits
(life, health, disability, and accident),
and paid leave. Like ECIs for wages &
salaries, the ECIs for employee benefits
are not affected by employment shifts
among industries or occupations.
When choosing wage and price
proxies for each expense category, we
evaluate the strengths and weaknesses
of each proxy variable using the
following four criteria:
• Relevance: The price proxy should
appropriately represent price changes
for specific goods or services within the
expense category. Relevance may
encompass judgments about relative
efficiency of the market generating the
price and wage increases.
• Reliability: If the potential proxy
demonstrates a high sampling
variability, or inexplicable erratic
patterns over time, its viability as an
appropriate price proxy is greatly
diminished. Notably, low sampling
variability can conflict with relevance—
since the more specifically a price
variable is defined (in terms of service,
commodity, or geographic area), the
higher the possibility of high sampling
variability. A well-established time
series is also preferred.
• Timeliness of actual published
data: For greater granularity and the
need to be as timely as possible, we
prefer monthly and quarterly data to
annual data.
• Public availability: For
transparency, we prefer to use data
sources that are publicly available.
The BLS price proxy categories
previously described meet the criteria of
relevance, reliability, timeliness, and
public availability. Below we discuss
the price and wage proxies for the
rebased and revised MEI (as shown in
Table E4), along with a summary of the
public comments we received on our
proposals and our responses to those
comments.
73267
production and non-supervisory
employees for the private nonfarm
economy as the proxy for the Physician
Wages & Salaries component (BLS series
code: CEU0500000008).
The AHE for the private nonfarm
economy reflects general earnings
including the impacts of supply,
demand, and economy-wide
productivity for the average worker in
the economy. As such, use of this proxy
is consistent with the original intent of
the Congress for the change in the MEI
to follow reflect changes in expenses of
practice and general earnings levels.1
The current 2000-based MEI uses the
ECI for Total Benefits (BLS series code:
CIU2030000000000I) for total private
industry as the price proxy for
Physician Benefits. We proposed to
continue using the same proxy for the
2006-based MEI and received no public
comment on this particular aspect of the
index. This means that both the wage
and benefit proxies for physician
earnings are derived from the private
nonfarm business sector and are
computed on a per-hour basis.
(2) Nonphysician Employee
Compensation
For the 2006-based MEI, we proposed
to use the same ECI private series for
each occupational group as in the 2000based MEI. In particular, we proposed to
use the ECI for Professional and
Technical Workers, the ECI for
Managerial Services, the ECI for
Administrative Support Services, and
the ECI for Service Occupations.
As described in the CY 2008 PFS
proposed rule (72 FR 38190), as a result
of the discontinuation of the White
Collar Benefit ECI for private workers,
we proposed to continue to use a
composite ECI benefit index. We are
continuing to use the composite ECI for
non-physician employees in the
proposed rebased and revised MEI;
however, we proposed to rebase the
weights within that blend in order to
reflect the more recent 2006 data. Table
30 lists the four ECI series and
corresponding weights used to construct
the 2006 composite benefit index.
a. Cost (Expense) Categories in the MEI
(1) Physician’s Own Time (Physician
Compensation)
For the revised and rebased MEI, we
proposed to continue to use the AHE for
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1 U.S. Senate, Committee on Finance, Social
Security Amendments of 1972. ‘‘Report of the
Committee on Finance United States Senate to
Accompany H.R. 1,’’ September 26, 1972, p. 191.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73268
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 30—CMS COMPOSITE PRICE (8) Postage
INDEX FOR NONPHYSICIAN EMFor the 2006-based MEI, we proposed
PLOYEE BENEFITS
to use the CPI for Postage (BLS series
2006
weight
(%)
ECI series
Benefits, Private, Professional & Related ..............................................
Benefits,
Private,
Management,
Business, Financial .......................
Benefits, Private, Office & Administrative Support ...............................
Benefits, Private, Service Occupations ...............................................
44
11
32
13
(3) Utilities
For the 2006-based MEI, we proposed
to use the CPI for Fuel and Utilities
(BLS series code #CUUR0000SAH2) to
measure the price growth of this cost
category. This cost category was not
broken out separately in the 2000-based
MEI.
(4) Chemicals
For the 2006-based MEI, we proposed
to use the PPI for Other Basic Organic
Chemical Manufacturing (BLS series
code #PCU32519–32519) to measure the
price changes of this cost category. We
are using this industry-based PPI
because BEA’s 2002 benchmark I/O data
show that the majority of the office of
physicians’ chemical expenses are
attributable to Other Basic Organic
Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS
32519). This cost category was not
broken out separately in the 2000-based
MEI.
(5) Paper
For the 2006-based MEI, we proposed
to use the PPI for Converted Paper and
Paperboard (BLS series code
#WPU0915) to measure the price growth
of this cost category. This cost category
was not broken out separately in the
2000-based MEI.
(6) Rubber and Plastics
For the 2006-based MEI, we proposed
to use the PPI for Rubber and Plastic
Products (BLS series code #WPU07) to
measure the price growth of this cost
category. This cost category was not
broken out separately in the 2000-based
MEI.
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
(7) Telephone
For the 2006-based MEI, we proposed
to use the CPI for Telephone Services
(BLS series code #CUUR0000SEED) to
measure the price growth of this cost
category. This cost category was not
broken out separately in the 2000-based
MEI.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
code #CUUR0000SEEC01) to measure
the price growth of this cost category.
This cost category was not broken out
separately in the 2000-based MEI.
(9) All Other Services
For the 2006-based MEI, we proposed
to use the ECI for Compensation for
Service Occupations (private industry)
(BLS series code #CIU2010000300000I)
to measure the price growth of this cost
category. This cost category was not
broken out separately in the 2000-based
MEI.
(10) All Other Products
As noted previously, we are adding
this category in this final rule with
comment period in response to public
comments. This category includes a
variety of miscellaneous expenses such
as miscellaneous building products;
thus, we will use the CPI–U for All
Items Less Food and Energy as a proxy
for price changes. This cost category
was not broken out separately in the
2000-based MEI.
(11) Fixed Capital
For the 2006-based MEI, we proposed
to use the CPI for Owner’s Equivalent
Rent (BLS series code
#CUUS0000SEHC) to measure the price
growth of this cost category. This price
index represents about 50 percent of the
CPI for Housing, which was used in the
2000-based MEI to proxy total Office
Expenses.
(12) Moveable Capital
For the 2006-based MEI, we proposed
to use the PPI for Machinery and
Equipment (series code #WPU11) to
measure the price growth of this cost
category. This cost category was not
broken out separately in the 2000-based
MEI.
(13) Professional Liability Insurance
(PLI)
Each year, we solicit PLI premium
data for physicians from a sample of
commercial carriers. This information is
not collected through a survey form, but
instead is requested directly from, and
provided by (on a voluntary basis),
several national commercial carriers. As
we require for our other price proxies,
the professional liability price proxy is
intended to reflect the pure price change
associated with this particular cost
category. Thus, it does not include
changes in the mix or level of liability
coverage. To accomplish this result, we
obtain premium information from a
sample of commercial carriers for a
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
fixed level of coverage, currently $1
million per occurrence and a $3 million
annual limit. This information is
collected for every State by physician
specialty and risk class. Finally, the
State-level, physician-specialty data are
aggregated by effective premium date to
compute a national total, using counts
of physicians by State and specialty as
provided in the AMA publication,
Physician Characteristics and
Distribution in the U.S.
The resulting data provide a quarterly
time series, indexed to a base year
consistent with the MEI, and reflect the
national trend in the average
professional liability premium for a
given level of coverage, generally $1
million/$3 million of claims-made
mature policies. From this series,
quarterly and annual percent changes in
PLI are estimated for inclusion in the
MEI.
The most comprehensive data on
professional liability costs are held by
the State insurance commissioners, but
these data are available only with a
substantial time lag and hence, the data
currently incorporated into the MEI are
much timelier. We believe that, given
the limited data available on
professional liability premiums, the
information and methodology described
above produces an adequate proxy of
the PLI price trends facing physicians.
(14) Medical Equipment
The Medical Equipment cost category
includes depreciation, leases, and rent
on medical equipment. We proposed to
use the PPI for Medical Instruments and
Equipment (BLS series code:
WPU156201) as the price proxy for this
category, consistent with the price
proxy used in the 2000-based MEI and
other CMS input price indexes.
(15) Medical Materials and Supplies
As was used in the 2000-based MEI,
we proposed to use a blended index
comprised of a 50/50 blend of the PPI
Surgical Appliances (BLS series code:
WPU156301) and the CPI–U for Medical
Equipment and Supplies (BLS series
code: CUUR0000SEMG). We believe
physicians purchase the types of
supplies contained within these proxies,
including such items as bandages,
dressings, catheters, intravenous (I.V.)
equipment, syringes, and other general
disposable medical supplies, via
wholesale purchase, as well as at the
retail level. Consequently, we proposed
to combine the two aforementioned
indexes to reflect those modes of
purchase.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
(16) Other Professional Expenses
This category includes the residual
subcategory of other professional
expenses such as accounting services,
legal services, office management
services, continuing education,
professional association memberships,
journals, professional car expenses, and
other general expenses and other
professional expenses not captured
elsewhere. Given this heterogeneous
mix of goods and services, we are
finalizing our proposal to use the CPI–
U for All Items Less Food and Energy.
In summary, we are finalizing the
proposed 2006-based MEI price proxies
with one modification. Since an
additional cost category, All Other
Products, was added to the office
expense disaggregation, we are also
finalizing the decision to use the CPI for
All Items Less Food and Energy as the
price proxy for that category.
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
(b) Productivity Adjustment to the MEI
The MEI has been adjusted for
changes in productivity since its
inception. In the CY 2003 PFS final rule
(67 FR 80019), we implemented a
change in the way the MEI was adjusted
to account for those changes in
productivity. The MEI used for the 2003
physician payment update incorporated
changes in the 10-year moving average
of private nonfarm business multifactor
productivity that were applied to the
entire index. Previously, the index
incorporated changes in productivity by
adjusting the labor portions of the index
by changes in the 10-year moving
average of economy-wide private
nonfarm business labor productivity.
We proposed to continue to use the
current method for adjusting the full
MEI for multifactor productivity in the
rebased and revised MEI, and are
finalizing that proposal.
As described in the CY 2003 PFS final
rule, we believe this adjustment is
appropriate because it explicitly reflects
the productivity gains associated with
all inputs (both labor and non-labor).
We believe that using the 10-year
moving average percent change in
private nonfarm business multifactor
productivity is appropriate for deriving
a stable measure that helps alleviate the
influence that a peak (or a trough) of a
business cycle may have on the
measure. The adjustment will be based
on the latest available historical e
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
private nonfarm business multifactor
productivity data as measured and
published by BLS.
TABLE 32—ANNUAL PERCENT
CHANGES IN THE 2000-BASED AND
REVISED 2006-BASED MEI
5. Results of Rebasing
Table 31 illustrates the results of
updating the MEI cost weights for
Physician Compensation, Practice
Expenses (excluding PLI), and PLI from
a 2000-based cost distribution to a 2006based cost distribution, including all the
proposed and finalized revisions as
specified in this final rule.
73269
Update year (A)
Final
2006-based
MEI
Current
2000-based
MEI
CY 2004 ............
2.3
2.6
CY 2005 ............
1.8
2.6
CY 2006 ............
1.8
2.4
CY 2007 ............
1.6
1.9
CY 2008 ............
1.9
1.8
CY 2009 ............
1.6
1.6
CY 2010 ............
1.5
1.2
0.4
0.3
TABLE 31—PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF CY 2011(B) ........
SELECTED PHYSICIAN EXPENSES Average Change
for CYs 2004USED TO CALIBRATE RVUS: CYS
2011 ..............
1.6
1.8
2006 AND 2000
(A) Update year based on historical data
CY 2006
CY 2000 through the second quarter of the prior calendar year. For example, the 2010 update is
weight
weight
based on historical data through the second
(%)
(%)
quarter 2009.
(B) Based on historical data through the 2nd
Physician Compensaquarter 2010.
tion (Own Time) ....
48.266
52.466
Practice Expenses
As shown in Table 33, the percent
(less PLI) ...............
47.439
43.669 change of the rebased and revised MEI
PLI ............................
4.295
3.865 for the CY 2011 PFS final rule is an
The rebased and revised MEI has
several differences as compared to the
2000-based MEI; these changes have
been discussed in detail in prior
sections of this rule. Table E8 shows the
average calendar year percent change for
CY 2004 to CY 2011 for both the 2000and 2006-based MEIs. The 2006-based
MEI annual percent changes differ from
the 2000-based MEI annual percent
changes by 0.0 to 0.8 percentage point.
For CYs 2007 through 2011, the annual
percent change in the rebased and
revised MEI was within 0.3 percentage
point of the percent change in the 2000based MEI. In the earlier years, there
were larger differences between the
annual percent change in the rebased
and revised MEI and the 2000-based
MEI. The majority of these differences
can be attributed to the lower benefit
cost weight, as measured by the 2006
AMA data, and the exclusion of the
Pharmaceuticals cost category. The
remaining differences are attributable to
the higher cost weight for PLI, as
measured by the 2006 AMA data.
PO 00000
increase of 0.4 percent, one tenth of a
percentage point higher than the 2000based MEI for the same period. The
proposed rule included an estimated
increase of 0.3 percent for 2011 based
on projected data from IHS Global
Insight, Inc. The 0.4 percent increase
was calculated based on historical data
through the second quarter of 2010,
including revised data from the BLS on
the 10-year moving average of BLS
private nonfarm business multifactor
productivity published on October 6,
2010 (https://www.bls.gov/news.release/
pdf/prod3.pdf). The 0.1 percentage
point difference in the MEI update
factor from the 0.3-percent estimate
indicated in the proposed rule to our
current figure of 0.4 percent is primarily
related to the incorporation of more
recent historical data for private
nonfarm business multifactor
productivity.
TABLE 33—ANNUAL PERCENT CHANGE
IN THE 2000-BASED AND REVISED
2006-BASED MEI FOR CY 2011
2006–based
MEI
CY 2011 ............
Frm 00101
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
2000–based
MEI
0.4
0.3
73270
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 34—ANNUAL PERCENT CHANGE IN THE REVISED AND REBASED MEI CY 2011, ALL CATEGORIES 1
2006
weight 2
(%)
Cost categories
MEI Total, productivity adjusted ......................................................................................................................................
Productivity: 10-year moving average of MFP ................................................................................................................
MEI Total, without productivity adjustment ......................................................................................................................
Physician Compensation (Own Time) 3 ...................................................................................................................
Wages and Salaries ..........................................................................................................................................
Benefits ..............................................................................................................................................................
Physician’s Practice Expenses .................................................................................................................................
Nonphysician Employee Compensation ...........................................................................................................
Nonphysician Employee Wages ................................................................................................................
Prof/Tech Wages ................................................................................................................................
Managerial Wages ..............................................................................................................................
Clerical Wages ....................................................................................................................................
Services Wages ..................................................................................................................................
Nonphysician Employee Benefits ..............................................................................................................
Other Practice Expenses ..................................................................................................................................
Office Expenses .........................................................................................................................................
Utilities .................................................................................................................................................
Chemicals ...........................................................................................................................................
Paper ...................................................................................................................................................
Rubber & Plastics ...............................................................................................................................
Telephone ...........................................................................................................................................
Postage ...............................................................................................................................................
All Other Services ...............................................................................................................................
All Other Products ...............................................................................................................................
Fixed Capital .......................................................................................................................................
Moveable Capital ................................................................................................................................
PLI 4 ...................................................................................................................................................................
Medical Equipment ............................................................................................................................................
Medical Materials and Supplies ........................................................................................................................
Other Professional Expenses ............................................................................................................................
100.000
N/A
100.000
48.266
43.880
4.386
51.734
19.153
13.752
6.006
1.446
4.466
1.834
5.401
26.308
20.035
1.266
0.723
0.657
0.598
1.501
0.898
3.582
0.500
8.957
1.353
4.295
1.978
1.760
4.513
CY 2011
percent
change
0.4
1.2
1.6
2.4
2.5
1.7
0.7
1.5
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.7
1.7
1.6
0.1
0.6
-3.1
-2.5
-0.3
-0.3
0.8
4.7
1.8
1.4
0.6
0.1
-2.9
0.5
0.4
1.4
1 The estimates are based upon the latest available Bureau of Labor Statistics data on the 10-year moving average of BLS private nonfarm
business multifactor productivity published on October 6, 2010 (https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/prod3.pdf).
2 The weights shown for the MEI components are the 2006 base-year weights, which may not sum to subtotals or totals because of rounding.
The MEI is a fixed-weight, Laspeyres input price index whose category weights indicate the distribution of expenditures among the inputs to physicians’ services for CY 2006. To determine the MEI level for a given year, the price proxy level for each component is multiplied by its 2006
weight. The sum of these products (weights multiplied by the price index levels) yields the composite MEI level for a given year. The annual percent change in the MEI levels is an estimate of price change over time for a fixed market basket of inputs to physicians’ services.
3 The measures of Productivity, Average Hourly Earnings, Employment Cost Indexes, as well as the various Producer and Consumer Price Indexes can be found on the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Web site at https://stats.bls.gov.
4 Derived from a CMS survey of several major commercial insurers.
N⁄A Productivity is factored into the MEI as a subtraction from the total index growth rate; therefore, no explicit weight exists for productivity in
the MEI.
6. Medicare Economic Index Technical
Advisory Panel
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
In the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule, we
notified the public of our intent to
convene a Medicare Economic Index
Technical Advisory Panel (MEI TAP) to
study all aspects of the MEI including
its cost categories, their associated cost
weights and price proxies, and the
adjustment of the index by an economywide measure of multi-factor
productivity. We will be convening the
MEI TAP. More details regarding this
issue can be found in the next section
of this rule.
7. Summary of Comments and the
Associated Responses
a. Timing of Rebasing and Revising the
MEI
Comment: Many commenters support
the rebasing and revising of the MEI
using CY 2006 as a base year and the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
incorporation of practice cost changes
reflected in the 2006 AMA PPIS. Many
of these commenters also indicated their
support for the upcoming MEI technical
advisory panel, but stressed that CMS
should not delay moving forward with
rebasing and revising the MEI for CY
2011. Several people wrote that they
believe that the rebasing, along with the
addition of new product categories, will
result in a more accurate distribution of
expenses among physician
compensation, practice expense, and
professional liability. The commenters
believe that the proposal to rebase to
2006 will make the MEI more
representative of current conditions in
the health care marketplace and, in
particular, more reflective of the higher
burden of practice expenses in relation
to physician compensation in modern
physician practices. The commenters
agree that the use of more current data
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
and the expansion of the categories used
in determining the MEI update are a
technical improvement over the 2000based MEI and urge CMS to proceed
accordingly.
Response: We agree with the
commenters that the 2006-based MEI
reflects a more current estimate of the
cost distribution associated with
furnishing physicians’ services.
Therefore we are finalizing our
proposals (with minor modifications
described above) to rebase and revise
the MEI, and are proceeding with
implementation of the 2006-based MEI
for CY 2011.
Comment: Many commenters
indicated CMS should postpone
implementation of the rebased and
revised MEI until the MEI technical
advisory panel can conduct a
comprehensive review of all aspects of
the index. These commenters believe
that it is premature to finalize proposals
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
that will significantly change the MEI
prior to receiving recommendations
from the technical advisory panel and
therefore strongly support convening
the technical advisory panel first and
rebasing and revising the MEI
afterwards.
Response: We agree with the
commenters that the MEI technical
advisory panel should move forward
(discussed in more detail below).
However, we do not find any
compelling technical reason to postpone
finalizing the proposed changes to the
index. We believe rebasing and revising
the index for CY 2011 to reapportion the
work, practice expense, and malpractice
weights will allow the MEI to
appropriately reflect more recent data.
For these reasons we disagree with the
commenters that support delaying the
rebasing of the MEI until the technical
panel has had a chance to convene and
make further recommendations. Should
we concur with recommendations from
the technical advisory panel that would
result in technical improvements to the
MEI, we would propose any changes in
a future rulemaking exercise.
Comment: One commenter questioned
the need for changes in the MEI in 2011,
particularly since there is no statutory
timeframe for these changes and the
most recent changes in practice
expenses from the PPIS survey are in
the first year of a 4-year phase-in.
Response: The current MEI reflects
the physician practice cost structure for
2000. Based on both our own analysis
and supporting public comments, it is
evident that this cost structure has
changed from 2000 to 2006.
Accordingly, we believe it is technically
appropriate to update to a more recent
base year for use in CY 2011.
Comment: A commenter suggested
that when rebasing is done in the future,
CMS should propose phasing in the
changes, perhaps over 2 years, in order
to mitigate negative consequences.
Response: We do not believe it would
be appropriate to phase in changes to
the MEI associated with rebasing and
revising the index. These periodic
efforts are done to ensure that the MEI
is reflecting the latest available
information and echoes current cost
distributions associated with furnishing
physicians’ services. Our approach is
consistent across all of the Medicare
market baskets in this regard and is
likewise consistent with how technical
improvements are incorporated into
other published price indexes, such as
the CPI or PPI.
Comment: Some commenters asked
CMS to delay rebasing the MEI until the
summit on geographic practice costs
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
and the IOM studies have been
completed.
Response: We believe that it is
technically appropriate to update the
MEI to reflect the more current cost
structure as determined by using the
2006 AMA PPIS data. We note that the
MEI is constructed independent of the
GPCIs. While the GPCI weights have
historically been linked to the MEI cost
weights, we do not believe it would be
appropriate to postpone rebasing the
MEI in anticipation of the summit’s or
the IOM’s findings.
b. PPIS Data
Comment: Many commenters stated
they, like CMS, are unaware of another
more robust or more current source of
available data on physician practice
costs than the PPIS. Other commenters
noted that CMS and the AMA have
supported using PPIS data to update the
practice expense per hour (PE/HR)
calculations beginning in CY 2010. The
commenters believe that if the data were
sufficient to adjust PE/HR, then they are
sufficient to update the MEI. Other
commenters indicate they support
periodic updates to the index,
recognizing the difficulties associated
with updating the MEI’s cost categories
and weights on an annual basis.
Response: We agree with the
commenters that the PPIS is the most
up-to-date and comprehensive data
source available on physician practice
costs. We also believe that the estimates
derived from the PPIS are current, valid,
and appropriate for use in rebasing and
revising the MEI. Likewise, we concur
that a variety of data-related issues
would make updating the MEI on an
annual basis difficult and believe that
periodic revisions such as the one we
are adopting in this final rule with
comment period are more appropriate.
Comment: A few commenters
expressed general concerns over using
data from the PPIS. One commenter
specifically notes that the MEI changes
are allegedly being proposed to reflect
changes in medical practice based on
research using PE data. The commenter
has reviewed some of the research,
including the research process and
questioned the research data itself.
Their concerns over the raw data source
include issues related to sample design,
sample geographic distribution, and
sample size sufficiency. They
questioned the choice of the data
collection firm used by AMA.
Response: We conducted an extensive
review of the PPIS data and continue to
believe it appropriately reflects the cost
distributions of physicians. We note that
we rely upon the physician community
to complete the AMA surveys as
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73271
accurately as possible since unlike other
provider types (such as hospitals and
skilled nursing facilities) physicians are
not required to submit annual Medicare
cost report data.
Comment: Some commenters
indicated that CMS did not make clear
why the rebased MEI would be based on
PPIS data from 2006. Several expressed
concerns that the use of 4-year old data
is questionable as data this old would
not reflect physician expenses in 2011
(and that more up-to-date data on
physician costs is surely available).
Response: As stated in the CY 2011
PFS proposed rule (75 FR 40088), we
chose to rebase the MEI to 2006 in order
to incorporate the 2006 AMA PPIS data.
We believe the 2006 AMA PPIS data is
the most up-to-date, complete,
statistically valid data source available.
We welcome any recommendations for
more up-to-date data sources available
on physician expenses. We would also
note that the 2006 data from the PPIS
are used to provide the cost structure
that is used in the MEI. The increase in
the CY 2011 MEI ultimately reflects the
input price inflation, adjusted for
productivity, that physicians face based
on a 2006 distribution of costs. It does
not, nor is it intended to, reflect
physician input cost levels for 2011.
Comment: Some commenters noted
that in the interest of transparency, CMS
should publish on its Web site all data
from the PPIS that were used in rebasing
the MEI.
Response: We understand the
commenter’s request for transparency.
Unfortunately, we are unable to publish
the detailed micro level data from the
AMA PPIS survey as it is proprietary
information. We would suggest the
commenter contact the AMA with their
request.
c. Office Expenses
Comment: Several commenters
appreciated the intent of the new
subcategories found in Office Expenses
to include more medical office-specific
data and believe it will improve the
index.
Response: We agree with the
commenters and believe that having
greater detail under the Office Expense
cost category in the MEI provides a
technical improvement.
Comment: Several commenters
questioned the CMS proposal to create
detailed categories under the broader
Office Expense cost category. Some of
the commenters had specific concerns
about the particular subcategories.
Examples included the following:
• The Chemicals and Rubber &
Plastics categories (all derived from the
BEA) might not be relevant (or
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73272
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
meaningful) to today’s physicians’
practice.
• Computers, computer expenses,
billing, and scheduling technology and
electronic medical records are high-cost,
non-optional office expenses for
medical practices that are not
adequately captured and would
represent more appropriate categories.
• CMS references data on the Office
Expenses’ components derived from the
BEA, but the agency provided no
rationale to justify the changes in Office
Expenses, nor did it provide a detailed
accounting methodology or solicit
advice on new inputs to the index.
Response: We proposed to
disaggregate the Office Expense cost
category into more detailed cost
categories as a result of a change to the
question in the 2006 AMA PPIS survey
that captured these types of costs. In
addition, in rulemaking for the CY 2008
Physician Fee Schedule, we received a
comment from the industry about our
use of the CPI for Housing to proxy
Office Expenses (72 FR 66376). At that
time, we notified the public of our
intent to explore the feasibility of
breaking the Office Expenses category
into more descriptive cost categories
during the next rebasing.
In order to appropriately represent the
information collected by the PPIS and to
increase the level of precision of our
price proxies, we proposed to
disaggregate the Office Expense cost
category and its associated weight into
more detailed components and to proxy
those costs with the most technically
appropriate price proxies. Moreover, we
believe it would be technically
inappropriate to proxy the Office
Expense cost category, which now
includes a much broader range of
expenses, by one price proxy, namely
the CPI for Housing. For these reasons,
we developed our proposals and
solicited public comments.
We disagree with the commenters’
assertion that the Chemicals and Rubber
& Plastics categories are not relevant to
today’s physician practice (and note that
33329A
33331A
333414
333415
33399A
33411A
334210
334220
334290
334300
334418
334613
335120
337110
337215
532400
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
the commenters did not provide
additional information or data to
support the claim that the proposed
categories are not relevant). The
information we relied on came directly
from the BEAs’ Benchmark I/O files for
Offices of Physicians, Dentists, and
Other Health Practitioners. The
Chemicals cost category includes
expenses for items such as soaps and
cleaning compounds, as well as
photocopier toners and laser printer
toners. The Rubber and Plastics category
includes expenses for items such as
plastic plumbing fixtures, plastic bags,
and plastic trash cans. Although we will
continue to explore further additional
disaggregation of expenses, we believe
that the aforementioned costs are
associated with, and relevant to,
furnishing physicians’ services.
As indicated previously, and in
response to the comment, we conducted
an additional review of the BEA I/O
data used to disaggregate the Office
Expense cost category, comparing the
detailed underlying expenses with the
questions on the AMA PPIS survey.
This review led us to make small
revisions to the underlying Office
Expense cost weights, including the
addition of another cost weight for the
new subcategory, All Other Products.
These products were initially assumed
to be captured in Other Professional
Expenses as measured by the AMA PPIS
survey, but were determined to have
been reported as Office Expenses. All
Other Products would include a variety
of miscellaneous products such as
miscellaneous wood and apparel
products. Table E4 provides the revised
MEI weights. Also, as part of this
additional analysis on the Office
Expense categories, we determined that
automobile-related expenses were
captured in the PPIS question associated
with Other Professional Expenses (and
that its associated weight reflected
respondents including those costs when
answering that question). As a result, we
removed automobile-related NAICS-
based industry spending from the BEA
I/O data that was being used to
distribute expenses across the various
Office Expense subcategories. As this
spending was included in the Movable
Capital subcategory for the proposed
rule, the weight associated with that
subcategory will be 1.353 rather than
the 1.834 we proposed.
We disagree with the commenters’
statements that the MEI does not
adequately capture high-level or highcost technology expenses (and briefly
note that Movable Capital includes only
non-medical movable equipment). The
Office Expense cost weight (20.035
percent) was calculated using the 2006
PPIS data, which specifically requested
health information technology
equipment and other nonmedical office
equipment to be included in the Office
Expense category as follows:
Provide [your] share (dollar amount) of the
specialty or department level’s share (dollar
amount) of the practice’s total (dollar
amount) for] 2006 office expenses, including
office (non-medical) equipment and office
(non-medical) supplies, as well as rent,
mortgage interest, maintenance, refrigeration,
storage, security, janitorial, depreciation on
medical buildings used in your practice,
utilities, or other office computer systems
(including information management systems/
electronic medical record systems) and
telephone.
Given that the expenses related to
information management systems and
electronic medical record systems were
included as ‘‘office expenses’’ in the
2006 PPIS, the 20.035 percent weight
would include these costs.
Unfortunately, given the data
limitations, it remains difficult to
determine a percentage associated
specifically with computer equipment,
computer-related depreciation, and
computer-related leasing. For this
rebasing, the costs we classified as
Moveable Capital are comprised of the
expenses paid by Office of Physicians
industry to the following industries
based on NAICS classification:
Other industrial machinery manufacturing.
Vending, commercial, industrial, and office machinery manufacturing.
Heating equipment, except warm air furnaces.
Air conditioning, refrigeration, and warm air heating equipment manufacturing.
Other general purpose machinery manufacturing.
Computer terminals and other computer peripheral equipment manufacturing.
Telephone apparatus manufacturing.
Broadcast and wireless communications equipment.
Other communications equipment manufacturing.
Audio and video equipment manufacturing.
Printed circuit assembly (electronic assembly) manufacturing.
Magnetic and optical recording media manufacturing.
Lighting fixture manufacturing.
Wood kitchen cabinet and countertop manufacturing.
Showcase, partition, shelving, and locker manufacturing.
Commercial and industrial machinery and equipment rental and leasing.
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
We believe technology-related
expense are captured in the MEI and
that the PPI for Machinery and
Equipment is an appropriate price proxy
to estimate price changes. However, we
will actively monitor the data moving
forward to ensure these types of
expenses are adequately reflected in the
MEI.
Finally, we would note that the
descriptions of the methodologies used
to construct the subcategories under
Office Expenses were both detailed and
consistent with those provided in the
recent proposed rules relating to the
rebasing of other CMS market baskets.
However, in response to the comment
we hope the additional information
provided here is helpful.
Comment: One commenter found it
most problematic that the CMS proposal
related to Office Expenses would reduce
the weight of rent within physician
practice expenses. Currently, rent
comprises 12.2 percent of the practice
expense GPCI. Under the proposed rule,
rent would be reduced to 8.4 percent.
The commenter also noted that their
attempt to validate the proposal, using
BEA 2002 Benchmark I/O use files for
NAICS 621A00 as described in the
proposed rule were not successful.
Response: We proposed to
disaggregate the Office Expense cost
weight in the 2006-based MEI in order
to recognize and take advantage of the
expansion of the AMA PPIS survey
question to include additional expenses
not included in the 2000-based survey.
Consistent with the methodology used
for other CMS market baskets, we relied
upon the BEA I/O data to disaggregate
the Office Expense cost category, which
we described in the proposed rule. This
methodology required a series of
calculations including classifying costs
as office expenses consistent with AMA
PPIS survey. As noted elsewhere, and
based on public comment, we have
refined our methodology, as well as
added additional detail in this final rule
which we believe will be helpful in
validating our estimates. The new
methodology has resulted in a cost
weight of 8.957 percent for Fixed
Capital. Comments related to weights
specifically associated with the PE
GPCIs are found in section II.D. of this
final rule with comment period.
Comment: A commenter stated that it
appeared that utility costs have been
included twice in the MEI calculation.
The HUD data used by CMS as a source
for the rent data includes utilities.
However, utilities have been included a
second time as a new component of the
‘‘Office Expense’’ category of ‘‘Other
Practice Expenses’’ and it does not
appear that the ‘‘Fixed Capital’’ (rent)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
component has been scaled down as a
result. This error should be corrected, a
new proposed rule published, and a
new comment period opened.
Response: We disagree with the
commenter’s assertions that utilities
expenses in the MEI are double counted.
The Utilities cost weight in the MEI was
derived using the BEA I/O data for
NAICS 621A (Offices of Physicians,
Offices of Dentist, and Offices of Other
Practitioners). The BEA I/O data provide
information regarding physicians’
purchases from other industries.
Expenses classified in the Utilities cost
weight, such as NAICS 22110 (Electric
power generation, transmission, and
distribution), were not included in the
Fixed Capital cost weight; therefore, we
did not include utility costs twice in the
MEI calculation. The HUD data
referenced by the commenter is used in
conjunction with the GPCI rent update
and is independent of the development
of the cost weight for Utilities in the
MEI.
d. Purpose of the MEI
Comment: Several commenters
requested that CMS address the problem
that the ‘‘market basket’’ of inputs,
whose prices are measured in the MEI,
is outdated and, despite periodic
rebasing, has not been comprehensively
revised since it was originally
developed in 1973. They indicated that
the MEI does not reflect the inputs
involved in 21st century medical
practice and claim that the costs
associated with complying with an array
of government-imposed regulatory
requirements, including increasing
staffing levels, costs related to Medicare
prescription drug plans and formulary
compliance, compliance with rules
governing referrals and interactions
with other providers, and others, are not
accounted for in the index. They also
indicate that the MEI has not been
adjusted for modern practice costs such
as computers, copiers, and new medical
technology.
Response: We disagree with the
commenters’ statement that the MEI
only measures changes in specific types
of practice costs that existed in 1973.
Since 1973, the MEI has been rebased
four times. For each of those updates,
the MEI methodology and data sources
were thoroughly reviewed and
evaluated to ensure that the index
accurately reflected the cost
distributions encountered by
physicians. The revisions have included
changes to the structure of the index,
the price proxies used, the data sources
used to develop the weights, the
productivity adjustment, and, as
proposed in the CY 2011 PFS proposed
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73273
rule, disaggregating categories within
the Office Expenses category into more
detail.
We also note that the MEI is a price
index, not a cost index. Changes in
physician costs are a function of
changes in prices and changes in
quantities. Examples of changes in
quantities include purchasing more
moveable equipment (such as health
information technology), hiring
additional office staff, or changing the
mix of staff. The MEI was established in
accordance with section 1842(b)(3) of
the Act, which states the growth of
prevailing charge levels is to be limited
to growth in an ‘‘appropriate economic
index’’. The relevant Senate Finance
Committee report 2 provides slightly
more detail on such an index, stating
that:
[I]t is necessary to move in the direction of
an approach to reasonable charge
reimbursement that ties recognition of fee
increases to appropriate economic indexes so
that the program will not merely recognize
whatever increases in charges are established
in a locality but would limit recognition of
charge increases to rates that economic data
indicate would be fair to all concerned and
follow rather than lead any inflationary
trends.
Thus, in accordance with
Congressional intent that the index
reflect and follow inflationary trends,
and since its inception in 1973, the MEI
has been constructed as a fixed-weight
price index that measures the
inflationary trends of goods and services
associated with furnishing physicians’
services. The data sources that are used
to construct the weights have been
updated regularly to include the modern
inputs required by physicians in
running their respective practices. The
MEI then appropriately apportions the
various costs into their respective
categories and calculates the associated
weights. It is this distribution of costs,
and not the level of costs, that the MEI
appropriately incorporates. Based on
this distribution, the MEI measures the
weighted input price inflation, adjusted
by productivity, faced by physicians.
The MEI is then incorporated into the
SGR formula to derive the final PFS
update. Having an accurate and
contemporary distribution of input costs
is critical to producing an accurate
measure of price inflation and is the
major reason we are moving forward to
rebase and revise the MEI for CY 2011.
Finally, to date, we have not received
any proposals from the public on how
the MEI should be revised and still meet
2 U.S. Senate, Committee on Finance, Social
Security Amendments of 1972. ’’Report of the
Committee on Finance United States Senate to
Accompany H.R. 1,’’ September 26, 1972, p. 190.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73274
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
its statutory requirements. We will
continue to evaluate the validity and
relevance of the index to ensure that it
meets statutory requirements while
adequately reflecting the evolution of
the expense distribution associated with
furnishing physicians’ services.
Comment: A commenter asserted that
the time gap between the two surveys,
the PPIS and the SMS, may not be
directly comparable, but a comparison
of the two indicates that medical
practice costs increased 79 percent from
2000 to 2006. However, the MEI only
increased 18 percent from 2000 to 2006.
The commenter notes that every other
available measure of physician expense
growth shows faster growth than the
MEI.
Response: The MEI is strictly a fixedweight price index expressly designed
to measure the change in price of a fixed
basket of goods. Changes in physician
costs are a function of changes in prices
and changes in quantities. As other
commenters have noted to CMS, and
CMS agrees, cost increases are only
reflected in the MEI’s weights to the
extent the relative cost of an input
changes over time. Comparing the MEI
(reflecting price changes) to other cost
metrics (that reflect both price changes,
as well as changes in volume and mix)
is inappropriate given the MEI’s
definition and purpose.
Comment: A commenter noted that
the proposed revisions to the MEI do
not do anything to improve the
adequacy of the MEI. The commenter
also noted that in the proposed rule,
CMS estimated the 2011 MEI at just 0.3
percent, and the addition of the new
components that CMS has proposed
based on BEA data does nothing to
increase it.
Response: The rebased and revised
MEI is intended to more accurately
reflect the cost structure of furnishing
physicians’ services, as well as measure
the input price inflation encountered by
physicians. Accordingly, we disagree
with the commenter and believe that the
2006-based MEI offers numerous
technical improvements. These
improvements include updating the
base year to reflect more current cost
distributions, updating price proxies,
and adding more detailed cost
categories.
Comment: A commenter stated that
the MEI is used to annually update
medical practice costs in the SGR
calculation. Virtually all physician
groups signed on to a January 2009
letter arguing that the MEI’s price inputs
as currently structured do not accurately
reflect current medical practice costs.
No action has been taken to remedy the
situation.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
Response: We disagree with the
commenter’s claim the MEI annually
updates the medical practice cost in the
SGR. The purpose of the MEI in the SGR
is to measure price increases related to
the furnishing of physician services. It
is not intended to measure cost
increases, but rather to reflect the cost
structure associated with furnishing
physicians’ services, and then
subsequently measure the weighted
price increases associated with that cost
structure. We would also like to note
that the MEI is currently part of the
statutorily prescribed formula for
physician payment updates and that
revisions to the MEI are adopted
through the notice and comment
rulemaking process.
e. Technical Panel
Comment: Many commenters
expressed their support for the
convening of a Medicare Economic
Index Technical Advisory Panel (MEI
TAP).
Response: We agree that the MEI TAP
should be convened and will be moving
forward accordingly. This process
includes announcing the panel’s
creation through an official CMS
communication such as a Federal
Register announcement. This
announcement will provide details on
the expected number of panel members,
provide an opportunity for the public to
nominate members, and inform the
public of the objectives and scope of the
panel’s activities.
We will be asking this group of
independent experts to evaluate only
technical aspects of the MEI, including
the index’s inputs, input weights, pricemeasurement proxies, and the
productivity adjustment.
Any formal recommendations made
by the MEI TAP will be carefully
considered by CMS. Suggested
modifications that we believe would
result in technical improvements to the
MEI would appear in subsequent PFS
proposed rules and be subject to public
comment and the overall rulemaking
process.
Comment: Several commenters
provided many suggestions on technical
issues that they believe should be
considered by the technical advisory
panel. The commenters generally
requested that the panel perform a
thorough review of all aspects and
elements of the MEI.
Response: We appreciate the
constructive comments on potential
topics for the MEI technical advisory
panel, which will be asked to fully
evaluate the index. As noted above, the
panel will be evaluating all technical
aspects of the MEI including the cost
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
categories, their associated weights and
price proxies, and the productivity
adjustment.
Comment: A commenter stated that
any recommendations that are made by
the panel should be published with an
opportunity for comment before they are
finalized.
Response: Any substantive
recommendations from the technical
advisory panel that CMS believes will
result in technical improvements to the
MEI will be subject to the rulemaking
process, including giving the
opportunity to the public to review and
comment.
Comment: Some commenters request
that CMS reach out to the medical
community to ensure that the panel’s
work is accurate and complete. Others
indicated that pending the
recommendations of the technical
advisory panel, CMS should: (1) Include
physicians and other stakeholders in the
MEI revision process, so that the impact
of any recommended changes can be
studied prior to implementation; and
(2) clearly state their rationale for
proposed changes.
Response: As mentioned previously,
we will be reaching out to the public for
suggestions as to the composition of an
independent expert panel that will
assist us in ensuring that the MEI is
constructed accurately and completely,
and fulfills its purpose to appropriately
reflect the inflationary pressures faced
by physicians in furnishing services.
CMS will also present to the public any
future proposed revisions to the MEI
through notice and comment
rulemaking, during which we will
clearly state the rationale for any
proposed changes and consider public
comment before finalizing changes to
the index.
Comment: One commenter believes
that one of the possible options for
resolving the SGR problem involves
replacing the SGR update formula with
the MEI. The commenter noted that
input from the MEI technical panel
should better position the MEI as a
viable alternative to the SGR update
formula.
Response: We welcome any technical
comments the public has on the
composition of the MEI, including the
inputs, input weights, pricemeasurement proxies, and productivity
adjustment. Any recommendations from
the MEI TAP will be evaluated and
considered for possible future
rulemaking. However, we note that
replacement of, or adjustments to, the
SGR is outside the scope of the MEI
TAP.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
f. Other
Comment: Several commenters agreed
with CMS’ proposal to remove
pharmaceuticals and separately billable
medical supplies, since these are not
paid under the PFS. Even though this
change lessens the weight given to the
practice expense component of the
index, it made sense to the commenters
given the separate line-item payments
for these goods. Further, incident-to
drugs are now paid based on average
sales price (ASP) and, since last-year’s
changes, are no longer a factor in the
SGR formula and the determination of
the PFS conversion factor.
Response: We agree with the
commenters on the appropriateness of
removing drugs and separately billable
supplies from the MEI since they are not
paid under the PFS and are no longer
included as costs in the SGR formula.
Comment: A commenter disagreed
with the continued use of the AHE wage
data for the total nonfarm business
economy as a price proxy for physician
income rather than using BLS data
specific to all professional and technical
workers.
Response: We disagree with the
commenter’s suggestion. We believe that
the use of the average hourly earnings
data for the total nonfarm business
economy, which captures skill mix
shifts in the labor force, is the most
appropriate index for use as the price
proxy for physician income in the MEI.
The AHE for the nonfarm business
economy reflects general earnings
including the impacts of supply,
demand, and economy-wide
productivity for the average worker in
the economy. Its use is consistent with
the Congress’s original intent that the
index be based on changes in expenses
of practice and general earnings levels.3
It is also consistent with our use of the
BLS private nonfarm business
multifactor productivity measure to
adjust the index as economy-wide wage
increases reflect economy-wide
productivity increases. Therefore, we
are finalizing our proposal to continue
to use average hourly earnings for the
total private nonfarm economy as a
price proxy for physician income in the
2006-based MEI.
Comment: A commenter stated that
although CMS has expanded the
designation of the data underlying some
of the GPCI and MEI constructs over the
designations of previous years, the
descriptions used are sometimes either
inconsistent or contradictory. For
3 U.S. Senate, Committee on Finance, Social
Security Amendments of 1972, ‘‘Report of the
Committee on Finance United States Senate to
Accompany H.R. 1,’’ September 26, 1972, p. 191.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
example, CMS noted that ‘‘for the
proposed sixth GPCI update, we used
the 2006 through 2008 Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) Occupational
Employment Statistics (OES) data as a
replacement for the 2000 Census data.’’
(75 FR 40083). In contrast, CMS used
‘‘2006 Occupational Employment
Statistics (OES), BLS’’ for the proposed
2006 MEI expense weights. (75 FR
40089, note (2)). The commenter
believes it is impossible to discern from
the proposed rule whether inconsistent
data sets were used or whether there is
simply a misprint.
Response: Because the MEI and GPCIs
serve different purposes and are not
interdependent, we may use data from
different years and, in some instances,
different sources. Both the MEI and the
GPCI use the OES. However, because
the MEI is based to 2006 it is
appropriate to use the 2006 BLS
Occupational Employment Statistics
data to disaggregate the nonphysician
wages cost weight into more detailed
occupational cost weights.
For the proposed sixth GPCI update,
CMS proposed to use OES data for 2006
through 2008. The rationale for
choosing this data for the proposed
GPCI update was provided in the CY
2011 PFS proposed rule (75 FR 40084).
8. Adjustments to the RVU Shares To
Match the Proposed Rebased MEI
Weights
As described in the previous section,
CMS proposed to rebase the MEI for CY
2011 based on the most current data and
establish new weights for physician
work, PE, and malpractice under the
MEI. As stated in the previous section,
the MEI was rebased to a CY 1996 base
year beginning with the CY 1999 MEI
(63 FR 58845), and to a CY 2000 base
year beginning with the CY 2004 MEI
(68 FR 63239). For both the CY 1999
and CY 2004 rebasing, we made
adjustments to ensure that estimates of
aggregate PFS payments for work, PE,
and malpractice were in proportion to
the weights for these categories in the
rebased MEI (63 FR 58829 and 69 FR
1095).
Consistent with past practice when
the MEI has been rebased, we proposed
to make adjustments to ensure that
estimates of aggregate CY 2011 PFS
payments for work, PE, and malpractice
are in proportion to the weights for
these categories in the rebased CY 2011
MEI.
As explained in the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule (75 FR 40095), to match
the proportions for work, PE, and
malpractice in the rebased CY 2011 MEI
would necessitate increasing the
proportion of aggregate CY 2011 PFS
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73275
payments for PE and malpractice and
decreasing the proportion for work. This
could be accomplished by applying
adjustments directly to the work, PE,
and malpractice RVUs. However, as
stated in the proposed rule (75 FR
40095), we are cognizant of the public
comments made during prior
rulemaking on issues related to scaling
the work RVUs. Many commenters have
indicated a preference for the work
RVUs to remain stable over time and for
any necessary adjustments that would
otherwise be made broadly to the work
RVUs to be accomplished in an
alternative manner. For example, in past
5-Year Reviews of the work RVUs, many
commenters cited stability in the work
RVUs, among other reasons, in their
requests that any required budget
neutrality adjustments not be made
directly to the work RVUs. Given these
prior comments, for CY 2011, we
proposed to make the necessary MEI
rebasing adjustments without adjusting
the work RVUs. Instead, we proposed to
increase the PE RVUs and the
malpractice RVUs. Furthermore, as
noted in the proposed rule (75 FR
40096), section 1848(c)(2)(B)(ii)(II) of
the Act requires that changes to RVUs
cannot cause the amount of
expenditures for a year to differ by more
than $20 million from what
expenditures would have been in the
absence of the changes. Therefore, as
required by section 1848(c)(2)(B)(ii) of
the Act, we proposed to make an
adjustment to the CY 2011 conversion
factor to ensure that the adjustments to
the PE RVUs and the malpractice RVUs
would not cause an increase in CY 2011
PFS expenditures.
Comment: A number of commenters
expressed support for the use of the
most current and accurate data as inputs
to ‘‘formulas used by the Agency,
whether the formula for the SGR, for
practice expense inputs, malpractice
expense inputs, or in this case to
calculating the Medicare Economic
Index.’’ These commenters supported
the proposal to rebase and revise the
MEI using the AMA PPIS data and the
corresponding adjustments to the work,
PE, and MP RVUs. Some commenters
noted particularly that since the AMA
PPIS has been deemed appropriate for
the purpose of the PE RVU update
process begun in CY 2010, using this
same data source to inform the MEI
costs and weights in CY 2011 is also
appropriate because it will ensure that
all of the major cost-based components
of the fee schedule methodology will
now be tied to cost data collected in the
same year (2006). Furthermore, a
number of commenters supported the
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73276
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
proposed policy to adjust the RVU
shares on the basis that the changes
appear to have a modest positive impact
on many of the services that were
negatively affected by the
implementation of the AMA PPIS data
in CY 2010. These services were
typically ones that are more heavily
weighted to PE than work. In contrast,
numerous commenters expressed
dissatisfaction with the proposed policy
on the premise that it ‘‘penalizes health
care work that is not technologyintensive,’’ that is, services that are
typically more heavily weighted to
physician work than PE, ‘‘when in fact
it is the technology-intensive health
expenses that are actually driving up
costs.’’ A few of these commenters
suggested that CMS insulate certain
services that are work-intensive from
the effects of the MEI rebasing.
Response: We believe that using the
most current and accurate data
whenever practicable to update the PFS
is a key principle for the payment
system. We agree with the commenters
that using the AMA PPIS data to rebase
and revise the MEI in CY 2011 promotes
consistency within the PFS. In using the
AMA PPIS information to rebase and
revise the MEI, the result is that the
most current data drive the work RVU
share down compared to the PE RVU
and malpractice RVU shares. Since the
PFS is both resource-based, relative, and
budget neutral, if the data show that
physicians’ resources (that is, costs)
have shifted proportionately more to PE
and malpractice, the proportion for
work must come down. We have tried
to accommodate the preferences of
previous commenters to preserve the
stability of work RVUs by proposing to
make the necessary MEI rebasing
adjustments without adjusting the work
RVUs. However, given the PFS budget
neutrality requirement, we cannot
implement some commenters’
suggestion to insulate certain services
that are work-intensive from the effects
of the MEI rebasing without violating
the inherent relativity of the system.
That is, in order to insulate certain
services from the effects of the MEI
rebasing while adjusting the RVU shares
to match the proportions for work, PE,
and malpractice in the rebased MEI in
a budget neutral manner as discussed
previously, the individual work RVUs
for those certain services would need to
be increased. However, if we were to
increase the work RVUs for those
certain services, the services would no
longer be appropriately valued relative
to the other services under the PFS.
Comment: Of the many commenters
who supported CMS’ proposal to adjust
the RVU shares to match the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
proportions for work, PE, and
malpractice in the rebased CY 2011
MEI, the vast majority also favored
adjusting the RVU shares upward for PE
and malpractice while making a
corresponding adjustment to the
conversion factor for budget neutrality
without modifying the RVUs for work.
These commenters stated that stability
in the work RVUs was desirable.
However, some commenters also
expressed concern that CMS proposed
an additional downward adjustment to
the conversion factor when, under
current law, the effect of the SGR update
formula in December of 2010 and CY
2011 would reduce PFS payments
significantly. These commenters
generally opposed the MEI rebasing and
the adjustment to the RVUs to match the
MEI weights; however, if CMS were to
proceed with the policy, the
commenters suggested that, at the very
least the adjustments be phased in over
2 or 4 years. A few commenters
suggested replacing the SGR update
formula entirely with the MEI.
Response: We are sympathetic to the
commenters’ concern that an additional
downward adjustment to the conversion
factor on top of the negative effect of the
statutory SGR-based update is
inopportune. However, as we explained
in the proposed rule (75 FR 40095) and
discussed previously in this section,
rather than applying adjustments
directly to the work, PE, and
malpractice RVUs in order to match the
rebased MEI weights for those
categories, we believe that it is
appropriate for the work RVUs to
remain stable over time. The only way
we can make the adjustments without
affecting the work RVUs is to also make
an adjustment to the conversion factor.
We note that we did not receive a public
comment suggesting that we make the
downward adjustment to the work
RVUs instead of the conversion factor in
order to meet the requirements of
section 1848(c)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act for
budget neutrality. In response to the
commenters that suggested replacing the
SGR update with the MEI, we assume
the commenters are making a general
suggestion for a change in the current
law, which is outside the purview of
CMS.
Comment: Many commenters
addressed CMS’ proposal to convene a
technical advisory panel to review all
aspects of the MEI. In light of this
proposal, the majority of commenters
urged CMS to delay implementation of
the MEI rebasing and any other MEI
changes, including the proposed
adjustment to the RVU shares, until the
advice of the technical advisory panel is
reviewed by CMS and recommendations
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
for change, if any, are considered.
Additionally, while the commenters
generally supported convening an MEI
technical advisory panel, some
commenters, including MedPAC,
advised that CMS should go ahead and
implement the rebased and revised MEI
and the proposed adjustment to the
RVU shares in CY 2011. These
commenters noted that if the
recommendations of the advisory panel
indicated that the MEI should be
adjusted, CMS could propose future
changes accordingly.
Response: We acknowledge the
overwhelming support from
commenters for the MEI technical
advisory panel and refer readers to
section II.E.6 of this final rule with
comment period for a more detailed
discussion of our plans to convene the
panel. We note that a more detailed
summary of the public comments and
our responses is included in that
section.
After consideration of the public
comments we received, we are
finalizing our CY 2011 proposal to make
MEI rebasing adjustments to the PFS
work and PE RVUs and to adjust the
conversion factor to maintain budget
neutrality. In light of the substantial
support in general for us to make
adjustments to match the proportions of
the work, PE, and malpractice RVU
shares to the categories in the revised
and rebased CY 2011 MEI and our
decision, as described in section II.E.5
of this final rule, to proceed with
rebasing the MEI for CY 2011, we are
finalizing our proposal to adjust the
RVU shares for CY 2011 to align the
RVU shares with the rebased MEI
weights. Specifically, we will not be
making an adjustment directly to the
work RVUs. Instead, we are increasing
the PE RVUs by an adjustment factor of
1.181 and the malpractice RVUs by an
adjustment factor of 1.358. The RVUs in
Addendum B to this final rule with
comment period reflect the application
of these adjustment factors. We note that
an application of the 1.358 adjustment
factor to the malpractice RVUs for
services with malpractice RVUs of 0.01
will, due to rounding, result in
malpractice RVUs of 0.01.
Furthermore, section
1848(c)(2)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act requires
that changes to RVUs cannot cause the
amount of expenditures for a year to
differ by more than $20 million from
what expenditures would have been in
the absence of the changes. Therefore, as
required by section 1848(c)(2)(B)(ii) of
the Act, we are making an adjustment of
0.9181 to the CY 2011 conversion factor
to ensure that the 1.181 adjustment to
the PE RVUs and the 1.358 adjustment
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
to the malpractice RVUs do not cause an
increase in CY 2011 PFS expenditures.
F. Allowed Expenditures for Physicians’
Services and the Sustainable Growth
Rate
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
1. Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate
(SGR)
The SGR is an annual growth rate that
applies to physicians’ services paid by
Medicare. The use of the SGR is
intended to control growth in aggregate
Medicare expenditures for physicians’
services. Payments for services are not
withheld if the percentage increase in
actual expenditures exceeds the SGR.
Rather, the PFS update, as specified in
section 1848(d)(4) of the Act, is adjusted
based on a comparison of allowed
expenditures (determined using the
SGR) and actual expenditures. If actual
expenditures exceed allowed
expenditures, the update is reduced. If
actual expenditures are less than
allowed expenditures, the update is
increased.
Section 1848(f)(2) of the Act specifies
that the SGR for a year (beginning with
CY 2001) is equal to the product of the
following four factors:
(1) The estimated change in fees for
physicians’ services;
(2) The estimated change in the
average number of Medicare fee-forservice beneficiaries;
(3) The estimated projected growth in
real GDP per capita; and
(4) The estimated change in
expenditures due to changes in statute
or regulations.
In general, section 1848(f)(3) of the
Act requires us to publish SGRs for 3
different time periods, no later than
November 1 of each year, using the best
data available as of September 1 of each
year. Under section 1848(f)(3)(C)(i) of
the Act, the SGR is estimated and
subsequently revised twice (beginning
with the FY and CY 2000 SGRs) based
on later data. (The Act also provides for
adjustments to be made to the SGRs for
FY 1998 and FY 1999. See the February
28, 2003 Federal Register (68 FR 9567)
for a discussion of these SGRs.) Under
section 1848(f)(3)(C)(ii) of the Act, there
are no further revisions to the SGR once
it has been estimated and subsequently
revised in each of the 2 years following
the preliminary estimate. In this final
rule with comment, we are making our
preliminary estimate of the CY 2011
SGR, a revision to the CY 2010 SGR, and
our final revision to the CY 2009 SGR.
2. Physicians’ Services
Section 1848(f)(4)(A) of the Act
defines the scope of physicians’ services
covered by the SGR. The statute
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
indicates that ‘‘the term physicians’
services includes other items and
services (such as clinical diagnostic
laboratory tests and radiology services),
specified by the Secretary, that are
commonly performed or furnished by a
physician or in a physician’s office, but
does not include services furnished to a
Medicare+Choice plan enrollee.’’
We published a definition of
physicians’ services for use in the SGR
in the November 1, 2001 Federal
Register (66 FR 55316). We defined
physicians’ services to include many of
the medical and other health services
listed in section 1861(s) of the Act. As
discussed in the CY 2010 PFS final rule
with comment period (74 FR 61961), the
statute provides the Secretary with clear
discretion to decide whether physicianadministered drugs should be included
or excluded from the definition of
‘‘physicians’ services.’’ Accordingly, we
removed physician-administered drugs
from the definition of ‘‘physicians’
services’’ in section 1848(f)(4)(A) of the
Act for purposes of computing the SGR
and the levels of allowed expenditures
and actual expenditures beginning with
CY 2010, and for all subsequent years.
Furthermore, in order to effectuate fully
the Secretary’s policy decision to
remove drugs from the definition of
‘‘physicians’ services,’’ we removed
physician-administered drugs from the
calculation of allowed and actual
expenditures for all prior years.
Additionally, payment was made
under the PFS for several new benefit
categories in CY 2010 including
pulmonary rehabilitation (PR), cardiac
rehabilitation (CR), intensive cardiac
rehabilitation (ICR), and kidney disease
education (KDE) services. We note
further that section 101 of the MIPPA
added a new benefit category for
‘‘additional preventive services’’
effective January 1, 2009. Although we
neglected to identify and add these
additional benefit categories when
describing the scope of physicians’
services for purposes of the SGR in
course of rulemaking for CY 2010 and
CY 2009, respectively, we did include
payments for these services in
calculating target and actual PFS
expenditures beginning in CY 2009 for
additional preventive services and
beginning in CY 2010 for PR, CR, ICR,
and KDE services.
Section 4103 of the ACA added a new
benefit category for ‘‘personalized
prevention plan services’’ (which
include the annual wellness visit).
Payment for these services will be made
under the PFS, and payments for these
services will be included in calculating
target and actual PFS expenditures,
beginning January 1, 2011.
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73277
Thus, for purposes of determining
allowed expenditures, actual
expenditures for all years, and SGRs
beginning with CY 2010 and for all
subsequent years, we are specifying that
physicians’ services include the
following medical and other health
services if bills for the items and
services are processed and paid by
Medicare carriers (and those paid
through intermediaries where specified)
or the equivalent services processed by
the Medicare Administrative
Contractors (MACs):
• Physicians’ services.
• Services and supplies furnished
incident to physicians’ services, except
for the expenditures for drugs and
biologicals which are not usually selfadministered by the patient.
• Outpatient physical therapy
services and outpatient occupational
therapy services.
• Services of PAs, certified registered
nurse anesthetists, certified nurse
midwives, clinical psychologists,
clinical social workers, NPs, and
certified nurse specialists.
• Screening tests for prostate cancer,
colorectal cancer, and glaucoma.
• Screening mammography,
screening pap smears, and screening
pelvic exams.
• Diabetes outpatient selfmanagement training (DSMT) services.
• MNT services.
• Diagnostic x-ray tests, diagnostic
laboratory tests, and other diagnostic
tests (including outpatient diagnostic
laboratory tests paid through
intermediaries).
• X-ray, radium, and radioactive
isotope therapy.
• Surgical dressings, splints, casts,
and other devices used for the reduction
of fractures and dislocations.
• Bone mass measurements.
• An initial preventive physical
exam.
• Cardiovascular screening blood
tests.
• Diabetes screening tests.
• Telehealth services.
• Physician work and resources to
establish and document the need for a
power mobility device.
• Additional preventive services.
• Pulmonary rehabilitation.
• Cardiac rehabilitation.
• Intensive cardiac rehabilitation.
• Kidney disease education services.
• Personalized prevention plan
services.
3. Preliminary Estimate of the SGR for
2011
Our preliminary estimate of the CY
2011 SGR is -13.4 percent. We first
estimated the CY 2011 SGR in March
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73278
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
2010, and we made the estimate
available to the MedPAC and on our
Web site. Table 35 shows the March
2010 estimate and our current estimates
of the factors included in the CY 2011
SGR. The majority of the difference
between the March estimate and our
current estimate of the CY 2011 SGR is
explained by adjustments to reflect
several intervening legislative changes
that occurred after our March estimate
was prepared.
TABLE 35—CY 2011 SGR CALCULATION
Statutory factors
March estimate
Current estimate
Fees ...................................................................................
Enrollment ..........................................................................
Real Per Capita GDP .........................................................
Law and Regulation ...........................................................
0.2 percent (1.002) ............................................................
3.1 percent (1.031) ............................................................
0.8 percent (1.008) ............................................................
¥4.4 percent (0.956) ........................................................
0.2 percent (1.002)
2.4 percent (1.024)
0.7 percent (1.007)
¥16.2 percent (0.838)
Total ............................................................................
¥0.4 percent (0.996) ........................................................
¥13.4 percent (0.866)
Note: Consistent with section 1848(f)(2) of the Act, the statutory factors are multiplied, not added, to produce the total (that is, 1.002 × 1.024 ×
1.007 × 0.838 = 0.866). A more detailed explanation of each figure is provided in section II.F.6.a. of this final rule with comment period.
4. Revised Sustainable Growth Rate for
CY 2010
Our current estimate of the CY 2010
SGR is 8.3 percent. Table 36 shows our
preliminary estimate of the CY 2010
SGR that was published in the CY 2010
PFS final rule with comment period (74
FR 61965) and our current estimate. The
majority of the difference between the
preliminary estimate and our current
estimate of the CY 2010 SGR is
explained by adjustments to reflect
several intervening legislative changes
that have occurred since publication of
the CY 2010 final rule with comment
period.
TABLE 36—CY 2010 SGR CALCULATION
Statutory factors
Estimate from CY 2010 final rule
Current estimate
Fees ...................................................................................
Enrollment ..........................................................................
Real Per Capita GDP .........................................................
Law and Regulation ...........................................................
0.9 percent (1.009) ............................................................
1.2 percent (1.012) ............................................................
0.7 percent (1.007) ............................................................
¥11.3 percent (0.887) ......................................................
0.9
1.6
0.7
4.9
Total ............................................................................
¥8.8 percent (0.912) ........................................................
8.3 percent (1.083)
percent
percent
percent
percent
(1.009)
(1.016)
(1.007)
(1.049)
Note: A more detailed explanation of each figure is provided in section II.F.6.b. of this final rule with comment period.
5. Final Sustainable Growth Rate for CY
2009
The SGR for CY 2009 is 6.4 percent.
Table 37 shows our preliminary
estimate of the CY 2009 SGR from the
CY 2009 PFS final rule with comment
period (73 FR 69904), our revised
estimate from the CY 2010 PFS final
rule with comment period (74 FR
61966), and the final figures determined
using the best available data as of
September 1, 2010.
TABLE 37—CY 2009 SGR CALCULATION
Statutory factors
Estimate from CY 2009 final rule
Estimate from CY 2010 final rule
Final
Fees .....................................................
Enrollment ............................................
Real Per Capita GDP ..........................
Law and Regulation .............................
2.1 percent (1.021) .............................
¥0.2 percent (0.998) ..........................
1.2 percent (1.012) .............................
4.2 percent (1.042) .............................
1.8 percent (1.018) .............................
¥0.8 percent (0.992) ..........................
0.9 percent (1.009) .............................
4.1 percent (1.041) .............................
1.8 percent (1.018)
¥0.6 percent (0.994)
1.0 percent (1.010)
4.1 percent (1.041)
Total ..............................................
7.4 percent (1.074) .............................
6.1 percent (1.061) .............................
6.4 percent (1.064)
Note: A more detailed explanation of each figure is provided in section II.F.6.b. of this final rule with comment period.
6. Calculation of CYs 2011, 2010, and
2009 Sustainable Growth Rates
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
a. Detail on the CY 2011 SGR
(1) Factor 1—Changes in Fees for
Physicians’ Services (Before Applying
Legislative Adjustments) for CY 2011
All of the figures used to determine
the CY 2011 SGR are estimates that will
be revised based on subsequent data.
Any differences between these estimates
and the actual measurement of these
figures will be included in future
revisions of the SGR and allowed
expenditures and incorporated into
subsequent PFS updates.
This factor is calculated as a
weighted-average of the CY 2011
changes in fees for the different types of
services included in the definition of
physicians’ services for the SGR.
Medical and other health services paid
using the PFS are estimated to account
for approximately 89.4 percent of total
allowed charges included in the SGR in
CY 2011 and are updated using the MEI.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
The MEI for CY 2011 is 0.4 percent.
Diagnostic laboratory tests are estimated
to represent approximately 10.6 percent
of Medicare allowed charges included
in the SGR for CY 2011. Medicare
payments for these tests are updated by
the Consumer Price Index for Urban
Areas (CPI–U), which is 1.1 percent for
CY 2011. However, section 3401 of the
ACA reduces the CPI–U update applied
to clinical laboratory tests by a
productivity adjustment, but does not
allow this adjustment to cause the
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
update to be negative. The applicable
productivity adjustment for CY 2011 is
1.2 percent. Adjusting the CPI–U update
by the productivity adjustment results
in a ¥0.1 percent (1.1 percent–1.2
percent) update for CY 2011. However,
since section 3401 of the ACA does not
allow the productivity adjustment to
result in a negative CLFS update, the
result is that the CLFS update for CY
2011 is 0.0 percent. Additionally,
section 3401 of the ACA reduces the
update applied to clinical laboratory
tests by 1.75 percent for CYs 2011
through 2015. Therefore, for CY 2011,
diagnostic laboratory tests will receive
an update of ¥1.75 percent.
Additionally, as discussed in the CY
2010 PFS final rule with comment
period (74 FR 61961), we removed
physician-administered drugs from the
definition of ‘‘physicians’ services’’ in
73279
section 1848(f)(4)(A) of the Act for
purposes of computing the SGR and the
levels of allowed expenditures and
actual expenditures beginning with CY
2010, and for all subsequent years.
Therefore, drugs represent 0.0 percent of
Medicare allowed charges included in
the SGR in CY 2011.
Table 38 shows the weighted-average
of the MEI and laboratory price changes
for CY 2010.
TABLE 38—WEIGHTED-AVERAGE OF THE MEI AND LABORATORY PRICE CHANGES FOR CY 2011
Weight
Physician ..................................................................................................................................................................
Laboratory ................................................................................................................................................................
Weighted-average ....................................................................................................................................................
We estimate that the weighted-average
increase in fees for physicians’ services
in CY 2011 under the SGR (before
applying any legislative adjustments)
will be 0.2 percent.
(2) Factor 2—The Percentage Change in
the Average Number of Part B Enrollees
From CY 2010 to CY 2011
This factor is our estimate of the
percent change in the average number of
fee-for-service enrollees from CY 2010
to CY 2011. Services provided to
Medicare Advantage (MA) plan
Update
0.894
0.106
1.000
0.4
¥1.8
0.2
enrollees are outside the scope of the
SGR and are excluded from this
estimate. We estimate that the average
number of Medicare Part B fee-forservice enrollees will increase by 2.4
percent from CY 2010 to CY 2011. Table
39 illustrates how this figure was
determined.
TABLE 39—AVERAGE NUMBER OF MEDICARE PART B FEE-FOR-SERVICE ENROLLEES FROM CY 2010 TO CY 2011
[Excluding beneficiaries enrolled in MA plans]
2010
Overall ...........................................................................................................
Medicare Advantage (MA) .............................................................................
Net .................................................................................................................
Percent Increase ...........................................................................................
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
An important factor affecting fee-forservice enrollment is beneficiary
enrollment in MA plans. Because it is
difficult to estimate the size of the MA
enrollee population before the start of a
CY, at this time we do not know how
actual enrollment in MA plans will
compare to current estimates. For this
reason, the estimate may change
substantially as actual Medicare fee-forservice enrollment for CY 2011 becomes
known.
(3) Factor 3—Estimated Real Gross
Domestic Product Per Capita Growth in
2011
We estimate that the growth in real
GDP per capita from CY 2010 to CY
2011 will be 0.7 percent (based on the
10-year average GDP over the 10 years
of 2002 through 2011). Our past
experience indicates that there have also
been changes in estimates of real per
capita GDP growth made before the year
begins and the actual change in GDP
computed after the year is complete.
Thus, it is possible that this figure will
change as actual information on
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
43.932 million ........................................................
11.683 million ........................................................
32.249 million ........................................................
................................................................................
economic performance becomes
available to us in CY 2011.
(4) Factor 4—Percentage Change in
Expenditures for Physicians’ Services
Resulting From Changes in Statute or
Regulations in CY 2011 Compared With
CY 2010
The statutory and regulatory
provisions that will affect expenditures
in CY 2011 relative to CY 2010 are
estimated to have an impact on
expenditures of ¥16.2 percent. These
include the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act (DODAA), the
Temporary Extension Act (TEA), and
the Preservation of Access to Care for
Medicare Beneficiaries and Pension
Relief Act (PACMBPRA) which
provided for physician updates.
Furthermore, the ACA contained
provisions regarding the policy on
equipment utilization for imaging
services, the multiple procedure
payment reduction policy for imaging
services, and the annual wellness visit
providing personalized prevention plan
services.
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 4701
2011
Sfmt 4700
45.010 million
11.998 million
33.012 million
2.4 percent
b. Detail on the CY 2010 SGR
A more detailed discussion of our
revised estimates of the four elements of
the CY 2010 SGR follows.
(1) Factor 1—Changes in Fees for
Physicians’ Services (Before Applying
Legislative Adjustments) for CY 2010
This factor was calculated as a
weighted-average of the CY 2010
changes in fees that apply for the
different types of services included in
the definition of physicians’ services for
the SGR in CY 2010.
We estimate that services paid using
the PFS account for approximately 91.1
percent of total allowed charges
included in the SGR in CY 2010. These
services were updated using the CY
2010 MEI of 1.2 percent. We estimate
that diagnostic laboratory tests represent
approximately 8.9 percent of total
allowed charges included in the SGR in
CY 2010. Medicare payments for these
tests are updated by the CPI–U, which
is ¥1.4 percent for CY 2010. However,
section 145 of the MIPPA, as modified
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73280
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
by section 3401 of the ACA, reduced the
update applied to clinical laboratory
tests by 0.5 percent for CY 2009 and CY
2010. Therefore, for CY 2010, diagnostic
laboratory tests received an update of
¥1.9 percent. Since we removed
physician-administered drugs from the
definition of ‘‘physicians’ services’’ for
purposes of computing the SGR and the
levels of allowed expenditures and
actual expenditures beginning with CY
2010, and for all subsequent years,
drugs represent 0.0 percent of Medicare
allowed charges included in the SGR in
CY 2010.
Table 40 shows the weighted-average
of the MEI, laboratory, and drug price
changes for CY 2010.
TABLE 40—WEIGHTED-AVERAGE OF THE MEI, LABORATORY, AND DRUG PRICE CHANGES FOR CY 2010
Weight
Physician ..................................................................................................................................................................
Laboratory ................................................................................................................................................................
Drugs .......................................................................................................................................................................
Weighted-average ....................................................................................................................................................
After considering the elements
described in Table 40, we estimate that
the weighted-average increase in fees for
physicians’ services in CY 2010 under
the SGR (before applying any legislative
adjustments) will be 0.9 percent. Our
estimate of this factor in the CY 2010
PFS final rule with comment period was
0.9 percent (74 FR 61966).
(2) Factor 2—The Percentage Change in
the Average Number of Part B Enrollees
From CY 2009 to CY 2010
We estimate that the average number
of Medicare Part B fee-for-service
Update
0.911
0.089
0.000
1.000
1.2
¥1.9
0.0
0.9
enrollees (excluding beneficiaries
enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans)
increased by 1.6 percent in CY 2010.
Table 41 illustrates how we determined
this figure.
TABLE 41—AVERAGE NUMBER OF MEDICARE PART B FEE-FOR-SERVICE ENROLLEES FROM CY 2009 TO CY 2010
[Excluding beneficiaries enrolled in MA plans]
2009
Overall ........................................................................................
Medicare Advantage (MA) .........................................................
Net .............................................................................................
Percent Increase ........................................................................
Our estimate of the 1.6 percent change
in the number of fee-for-service
enrollees, net of Medicare Advantage
enrollment for CY 2010 compared to CY
2009, is a larger change than our
original estimate of 1.2 percent in the
CY 2010 PFS final rule with comment
period (74 FR 61967). While our current
projection based on data from 8 months
of CY 2010 differs from our original
estimate of 1.2 percent when we had no
actual data, it is still possible that our
final estimate of this figure will be
different once we have complete
information on CY 2010 fee-for-service
enrollment.
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
(3) Factor 3—Estimated Real Gross
Domestic Product Per Capita Growth in
CY 2010
We estimate that the growth in real
GDP per capita will be 0.7 percent for
CY 2010 (based on the 10-year average
GDP over the 10 years of CY 2001
through CY 2010). Our past experience
indicates that there have also been
differences between our estimates of
real per capita GDP growth made prior
to the year’s end and the actual change
in this factor. Thus, it is possible that
this figure will change further as
complete actual information on CY 2010
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
42.846 million ............................................................................
11.098 million ............................................................................
31.748 million ............................................................................
....................................................................................................
economic performance becomes
available to us in CY 2011.
(4) Factor 4—Percentage Change in
Expenditures for Physicians’ Services
Resulting From Changes in Statute or
Regulations in CY 2010 Compared With
CY 2009
The statutory and regulatory
provisions that will affect expenditures
in CY 2010 relative to CY 2009 are
estimated to have an impact on
expenditures of 4.9 percent. These
include the DODAA, TEA, and
PACMBPRA which provided for
physician updates. Also included are
the MIPPA provisions regarding the
physician update, Physician Quality
Reporting Initiative (PQRI) and eprescribing bonuses, the work GPCIs,
and payment provisions related to
certain pathology services. Additionally,
the ACA contained provisions regarding
the work GPCIs, the policy on
equipment utilization for imaging
services, coverage of preventive
services, and a physician enrollment
requirement.
c. Detail on the CY 2009 SGR
A more detailed discussion of our
final revised estimates of the four
elements of the CY 2009 SGR follows.
PO 00000
Frm 00112
2010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
43.932 million
11.683 million
32.249 million
1.6 percent
(1) Factor 1—Changes in Fees for
Physicians’ Services (Before Applying
Legislative Adjustments) for CY 2009
This factor was calculated as a
weighted-average of the CY 2009
changes in fees that apply for the
different types of services included in
the definition of physicians’ services for
the SGR in CY 2009. As we stated in the
CY 2010 PFS final rule with comment
period (74 FR 61965), although we
removed drugs from the calculation of
allowed and actual expenditures under
sections 1848(d)(3)(C) and 1848(d)(4) of
the Act retrospectively to the 1996/1997
base year, we determined that we were
only authorized to remove drugs from
the calculation of the SGR beginning
with CY 2010. Therefore, we did not
remove drugs from the SGR calculations
for previous years, including CY 2009.
Consistent with this determination, the
revisions to our estimate of the CY 2009
SGR will be limited to revisions to
reflect later data available as of
September 1, 2010, that were not
available when we published our
previous estimates.
Services paid using the PFS
accounted for approximately 82.3
percent of total Medicare-allowed
charges included in the SGR for CY
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73281
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
2009 and are updated using the MEI.
The MEI for CY 2009 was 1.6 percent.
Diagnostic laboratory tests represented
approximately 8.0 percent of total CY
2009 Medicare allowed charges
included in the SGR and were updated
by the CPI–U, which was 5.0 percent for
CY 2009. However, section 145 of the
MIPPA, as modified by section 3401 of
the ACA, reduced the update applied to
clinical laboratory tests by 0.5 percent
for CYs 2009 and 2010. Therefore, for
CY 2009, diagnostic laboratory tests
received an update of 4.5 percent. Drugs
represented approximately 9.7 percent
of total Medicare-allowed charges
included in the SGR for CY 2009. We
estimate a weighted-average change in
fees for drugs included in the SGR of 1.6
percent for CY 2009. Table 42 shows the
weighted-average of the MEI, laboratory,
and drug price changes for CY 2009.
TABLE 42—WEIGHTED-AVERAGE OF THE MEI, LABORATORY, AND DRUG PRICE CHANGES FOR CY 2009
Weight
Physician ..................................................................................................................................................................
Laboratory ................................................................................................................................................................
Drugs .......................................................................................................................................................................
Weighted-average ....................................................................................................................................................
After considering the elements
described in Table 42, we estimate that
the weighted-average increase in fees for
physicians’ services in CY 2009 under
the SGR (before applying any legislative
adjustments) was 1.8 percent. This
figure is a final one based on complete
data for CY 2009.
(2) Factor 2—The Percentage Change in
the Average Number of Part B Enrollees
From CY 2008 to CY 2009
We estimate the change in the number
of fee-for-service enrollees (excluding
Update
0.823
0.080
0.097
1.000
1.6
4.5
1.6
1.8
beneficiaries enrolled in MA plans)
from CY 2009 to CY 2010 was ¥0.6
percent. Our calculation of this factor is
based on complete data from CY 2009.
Table 43 illustrates the calculation of
this factor.
TABLE 43—AVERAGE NUMBER OF MEDICARE PART B FROM CY 2008 TO CY 2009
[Excluding beneficiaries enrolled in MA plans]
2008
Overall ......................................................................................
Medicare Advantage (MA) ........................................................
Net ............................................................................................
Percent Change ........................................................................
(3) Factor 3—Estimated Real Gross
Domestic Product Per Capita Growth in
CY 2009
We estimate that the growth in real
per capita GDP was 1.0 percent in CY
2009 (based on the 10-year average GDP
over the 10 years of CY 2000 through CY
2009). This figure is a final one based on
complete data for CY 2009.
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
(4) Factor 4—Percentage Change in
Expenditures for Physicians’ Services
Resulting From Changes in Statute or
Regulations in CY 2009 Compared With
CY 2008
Our final estimate for the net impact
on expenditures from the statutory and
regulatory provisions that affect
expenditures in CY 2009 relative to CY
2008 is 4.1 percent. These include the
DRA provision regarding payments for
imaging services, the Medicare,
Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of
2007 (Pub. L. 110–173) (MMSEA)
provision regarding the PQRI bonuses
payable in CY 2009, and the MIPPA
provisions regarding the physician
update, mental health services, and the
change in application of budget
neutrality to the CF.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
41.958 million ...........................................................................
10.008 million ...........................................................................
31.950 million ...........................................................................
..................................................................................................
G. The Update Adjustment Factor (UAF)
Section 1848(d) of the Act provides
that the PFS update is equal to the
product of the MEI and the UAF. The
UAF is applied to make actual and
target expenditures (referred to in the
statute as ‘‘allowed expenditures’’)
equal. As discussed previously, allowed
expenditures are equal to actual
expenditures in a base period updated
each year by the SGR. The SGR sets the
annual rate of growth in allowed
expenditures and is determined by a
formula specified in section 1848(f) of
the Act.
1. Calculation Under Current Law
Under section 1848(d)(4)(B) of the
Act, the UAF for a year beginning with
CY 2001 is equal to the sum of the
following—
• Prior Year Adjustment Component.
An amount determined by—
+ Computing the difference (which
may be positive or negative) between
the amount of the allowed expenditures
for physicians’ services for the prior
year (the year prior to the year for which
the update is being determined) and the
PO 00000
Frm 00113
2009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
42.846 million
11.098 million
31.748 million
¥0.6 percent
amount of the actual expenditures for
those services for that year;
+ Dividing that difference by the
amount of the actual expenditures for
those services for that year; and
+ Multiplying that quotient by 0.75.
• Cumulative Adjustment
Component. An amount determined
by—
+ Computing the difference (which
may be positive or negative) between
the amount of the allowed expenditures
for physicians’ services from April 1,
1996, through the end of the prior year
and the amount of the actual
expenditures for those services during
that period;
+ Dividing that difference by actual
expenditures for those services for the
prior year as increased by the SGR for
the year for which the UAF is to be
determined; and
+ Multiplying that quotient by 0.33.
Section 1848(d)(4)(E) of the Act
requires the Secretary to recalculate
allowed expenditures consistent with
section 1848(f)(3) of the Act. As
discussed previously, section 1848(f)(3)
specifies that the SGR (and, in turn,
allowed expenditures) for the upcoming
CY (CY 2011 in this case), the current
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73282
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
CY (that is, CY 2010) and the preceding
CY (that is, CY 2009) are to be
determined on the basis of the best data
available as of September 1 of the
current year. Allowed expenditures for
a year generally are estimated initially
and subsequently revised twice. The
second revision occurs after the CY has
ended (that is, we are making the
second revision to CY 2009 allowed
expenditures in this final rule with
comment).
Table 44 shows the historical SGRs
corresponding to each period through
CY 2011.
TABLE 44—ANNUAL AND CUMULATIVE ALLOWED AND ACTUAL EXPENDITURES FOR PHYSICIANS’ SERVICES FROM APRIL 1,
1996 THROUGH THE END OF THE CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR
Annual allowed
expenditures
($ in billions)
Period
1 $46.8
4/1/96–3/31/97 .....................................
4/1/97–3/31/98 .....................................
4/1/98–3/31/99 .....................................
1/1/99–3/31/99 .....................................
4/1/99–12/31/99 ...................................
1/1/99–12/31/99 ...................................
1/1/00–12/31/00 ...................................
1/1/01–12/31/01 ...................................
1/1/02–12/31/02 ...................................
1/1/03–12/31/03 ...................................
1/1/04–12/31/04 ...................................
1/1/05–12/31/05 ...................................
1/1/06–12/31/06 ...................................
1/1/07–12/31/07 ...................................
1/1/08–12/31/08 ...................................
1/1/09–12/31/09 ...................................
1/1/10–12/31/10 ...................................
1/1/11–12/31/11 ...................................
Cumulative
allowed
expenditures
($ in billions)
Annual actual
expenditures
($ in billions)
$46.8
47.0
47.8
12.4
37.0
49.5
54.1
61.2
64.6
70.2
78.3
83.5
84.6
84.5
86.7
90.6
92.9
NA
48.3
50.4
12.7
40.3
53.0
56.8
59.4
64.3
69.0
73.6
76.7
77.8
80.5
84.2
89.6
97.0
84.0
Cumulative
actual
expenditures
($ in billions)
$46.8
95.2
145.6
$46.8
93.9
141.7
141.7
178.8
178.8
232.9
294.2
358.7
429.0
507.2
590.7
675.3
759.8
846.4
937.0
1,029.9
NA
(2)
(3)
185.8
242.7
302.1
366.4
435.4
509.0
585.7
663.5
744.0
828.2
917.8
1,014.7
1,098.7
FY/CY SGR
(%)
N/A
FY 1998=3.2
FY 1999=4.2
FY 1999=4.2
FY 2000=6.9
FY 1999/2000
CY 2000=7.3
CY 2001=4.5
CY 2002=8.3
CY 2003=7.3
CY 2004=6.6
CY 2005=4.2
CY 2006=1.5
CY 2007=3.5
CY 2008=4.5
CY 2009=6.4
CY 2010=8.3
CY 2011=¥13.4
(1) Allowed expenditures in the first year (April 1, 1996–March 31, 1997) are equal to actual expenditures. All subsequent figures are equal to
quarterly allowed expenditure figures increased by the applicable SGR. Cumulative allowed expenditures are equal to the sum of annual allowed
expenditures. We provide more detailed quarterly allowed and actual expenditure data on our Web site at the following address: https://
www.cms.hhs.gov/SustainableGRatesConFact/. We expect to update the web site with the most current information later this month.
(2) Allowed expenditures for the first quarter of 1999 are based on the FY 1999 SGR.
(3) Allowed expenditures for the last three quarters of 1999 are based on the FY 2000 SGR.
Consistent with section 1848(d)(4)(E)
of the Act, Table 44 includes our second
revision of allowed expenditures for CY
2009, a recalculation of allowed
expenditures for CY 2010, and our
initial estimate of allowed expenditures
for CY 2011. To determine the UAF for
CY 2011, the statute requires that we
UAF =
11
Target10 − Actual10
Actual10
UAF11 = Update Adjustment Factor for
CY 2011 = ¥2.9 percent
Target10 = Allowed Expenditures for CY
2010 = $97.0 billion
× 0.75 +
incomplete actual expenditure data for
CY 2010, we are using an estimate for
this period. Any difference between
current estimates and final figures will
be taken into account in determining the
UAF for future years.
We are using figures from Table 44 in
the following statutory formula:
Target4 / 96 −12 / 10 − Actual4 / 96 −12 / 10
Actual10 × SGR11
Actual10 = Estimated Actual
Expenditures for CY 2010 = $92.9
billion
Target 4/96–12/10 = Allowed Expenditures
from 4/1/1996–12/31/2010 =
$1,014.7 billion
× 0.33
Actual 4/96–12/10 = Estimated Actual
Expenditures from 4/1/1996–12/31/
2010 = $1,029.9 billion
SGR11 = ¥13.4 percent (0.866)
Section 1848(d)(4)(D) of the Act
indicates that the UAF determined
under section 1848(d)(4)(B) of the Act
for a year may not be less than –0.07 or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
greater than 0.03. Since –0.029 is
between –0.07 and 0.03, the UAF for CY
2010 will be –0.029.
PO 00000
Frm 00114
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Section 1848(d)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act
indicates that 1.0 should be added to the
UAF determined under section
1848(d)(4)(B) of the Act. Thus, adding
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
ER29NO10.232
$97.0 − $92.9
$1, 014.7 − $1, 029.9
× 0.75 +
× 0.33 = −2.9%
$92.9
$92.9 × 0.866
ER29NO10.231
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
use allowed and actual expenditures
from April 1, 1996 through December
31, 2010 and the CY 2011 SGR.
Consistent with section 1848(d)(4)(E) of
the Act, we will be making revisions to
the CY 2010 and CY 2011 SGRs and CY
2010 and CY 2011 allowed
expenditures. Because we have
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
1.0 to –0.029 makes the UAF equal to
0.971.
H. Physician and Anesthesia Fee
Schedule Conversion Factors for CY
2011
The CY 2011 PFS CF is $25.5217. The
CY 2011 national average anesthesia CF
is $15.8085.
1. Physician Fee Schedule Update and
Conversion Factor
a. CY 2011 PFS Update
The formula for calculating the PFS
update is set forth in section
1848(d)(4)(A) of the Act. In general, the
PFS update is determined by
multiplying the CF for the previous year
by the percentage increase in the MEI
times the UAF, which is calculated as
specified under section 1848(d)(4)(B) of
the Act.
b. CY 2011 PFS Conversion Factor
Generally, the PFS CF for a year is
calculated in accordance with section
1848(d)(1)(A) of the Act by multiplying
the previous year’s CF by the PFS
update.
We note section 101 of the MIEA–
TRHCA provided a 1-year increase in
the CY 2008 CF and specified that the
CF for CY 2009 must be computed as if
the 1-year increase had never applied.
Section 101 of the MMSEA provided a
6-month increase in the CY 2009 CF,
from January 1, 2009, through June 30,
2009, and specified that the CF for the
remaining portion of CY 2009 and the
CFs for CY 2010 and subsequent years
must be computed as if the 6-month
increase had never applied. Section 131
of the MIPPA extended the increase in
the CY 2009 CF that applied during the
first half of the year to the entire year,
provided for a 1.1 percent increase to
the CY 2010 CF, and specified that the
CFs for CY 2011 and subsequent years
must be computed as if the increases for
CYs 2008, 2009, and 2010 had never
applied. Section 1011(a) of the DODAA
and section 5 of the TEA specified a
zero percent update for CY 2010,
effective January 1, 2010 through May
31, 2010. Subsequently, section
101(a)(2) of the PACMBPRA provided
for a 2.2 percent update to the CF,
effective from June 1, 2010 to November
30, 2010. Therefore, under current law,
the CF in effect in December 2010 is
$28.3868.
In addition, when calculating the PFS
CF for a year, section 1848(c)(2)(B)(ii)(II)
of the Act requires that increases or
decreases in RVUs may not cause the
amount of expenditures for the year to
differ more than $20 million from what
it would have been in the absence of
these changes. If this threshold is
exceeded, we must make adjustments to
preserve budget neutrality. We estimate
that CY 2011 RVU changes would result
in a decrease in Medicare physician
expenditures of more than $20 million.
Accordingly, we are increasing the CF
by 1.0045 to offset this estimated
73283
decrease in Medicare physician
expenditures due to the CY 2011 RVU
changes. Furthermore, as discussed in
section II.E.6 of this final rule with
comment period, we are decreasing the
CF by 0.9181 in order to offset the
increase in Medicare physician
payments due to the CY 2011 rescaling
of the RVUs so that the proportions of
total payments for the work, PE, and
malpractice RVUs match the
proportions in the final revised and
rebased MEI for CY 2011. Accordingly,
we calculate the CY 2011 PFS CF to be
$25.5217. This final rule with comment
period announces a reduction to
payment rates for physicians’ services in
CY 2011 under the SGR formula. These
payment rates are currently scheduled
to be reduced under the SGR system on
December 1, 2010, and then again on
January 1, 2011. The total reduction in
MPFS rates between November 2010
and January 2011 under the SGR system
will be 24.9 percent. By law, we are
required to make these reductions in
accordance with section 1848(d) and (f)
of the Act, and these reductions can
only be averted by an Act of Congress.
While Congress has provided temporary
relief from these reductions every year
since 2003, a long-term solution is
critical. We are committed to
permanently reforming the Medicare
payment formula.
We illustrate the calculation of the CY
2011 PFS CF in Table 45.
TABLE 45—CALCULATION OF THE CY 2011 PFS CF
December 2010 Conversion Factor ................................................................................
CY 2011 Medicare Economic Index ...............................................................................
CY 2011 Update Adjustment Factor ...............................................................................
CY 2011 RVU Budget Neutrality Adjustment .................................................................
CY 2011 Rescaling to Match MEI Weights Budget Neutrality Adjustment ....................
CY 2011 Conversion Factor ...........................................................................................
We note payment for services under
the PFS will be calculated as follows:
Payment = [(RVU work × GPCI work)
+ (RVU PE × GPCI PE) + (RVU
malpractice × GPCI malpractice)] × CF.
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
2. Anesthesia Conversion Factor
We calculate the anesthesia CF as
indicated in Table 45. Anesthesia
services do not have RVUs like other
PFS services. Therefore, we account for
any necessary RVU adjustments through
an adjustment to the anesthesia CF to
simulate changes to RVUs. More
specifically, if there is an adjustment to
................................................................
0.4 percent (1.0040)
¥2.9 percent (0.9710)
0.5 percent (1.0045)
¥8.2 percent (0.9181)
.....................................................................
the work, PE, or malpractice RVUs,
these adjustments are applied to the
respective shares of the anesthesia CF as
these shares are proxies for the work,
PE, and malpractice RVUs for anesthesia
services. Furthermore, as discussed in
section II.E.6 of this final rule with
comment period, we are rescaling the
RVUs so that the proportions of total
payments for the work, PE, and
malpractice RVUs match the
proportions in the final revised and
rebased MEI for CY 2011. Accordingly,
we are adjusting the anesthesia CF to
reflect the RVUs adjustments being
$28.3868
$25.5217
made to all other physician fee schedule
services to match the revised and
rebased MEI weights.
As explained previously, in order to
calculate the CY 2011 PFS CF, the
statute requires us to calculate the CFs
for CYs 2009, 2010, and 2011 as if the
various legislative changes to the CFs
for those years had not occurred.
Accordingly, under current law, the
anesthesia CF in effect in December
2010 is $16.6058. We illustrate the
calculation of the CY 2011 anesthesia
CF in Table 46.
TABLE 46—CALCULATION OF THE CY 2011 ANESTHESIA CONVERSION FACTOR
December 2010 Anesthesia Conversion Factor .............................................................
CY 2011 Medicare Economic Index ...............................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00115
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
................................................................
0.4 percent (1.0040)
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
$16.6058
73284
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 46—CALCULATION OF THE CY 2011 ANESTHESIA CONVERSION FACTOR—Continued
CY 2011 Update Adjustment Factor ...............................................................................
CY 2011 Anesthesia Adjustment ....................................................................................
CY 2011 Anesthesia Conversion Factor ........................................................................
III. Code-Specific Issues for the PFS
A. Therapy Services
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
1. Outpatient Therapy Caps for CY 2011
Section 1833(g) of the Act applies an
annual, per beneficiary combined cap
on expenses incurred for outpatient
physical therapy and speech-language
pathology services under Medicare Part
B. A similar separate cap for outpatient
occupational therapy services under
Medicare Part B also applies. The caps
apply to expenses incurred for therapy
services furnished in outpatient settings,
other than in an outpatient hospital
setting which is described under section
1833(a)(8)(B) of the Act. The caps were
in effect during 1999, from September 1,
2003 through December 7, 2003, and
continuously beginning January 1, 2006.
The caps are a permanent provision,
that is, there is no end date specified in
the statute for therapy caps. Beginning
January 1, 2006, the DRA provided for
exceptions to the therapy caps until
December 31, 2006. The exceptions
process for therapy caps has been
extended through December 31, 2009
pursuant to three subsequent
amendments (in MEIA–TRHCA,
MMSEA, and MIPPA).
Section 1833(g)(5) of the Act (as
amended by section 3103 of the ACA)
extended the exceptions process for
therapy caps through December 31,
2010. The annual change in the therapy
cap is computed by multiplying the cap
amount for CY 2010, which is $1,860,
by the MEI for CY 2011, and rounding
to the nearest $10. This amount is added
to the CY 2010 cap to obtain the CY
2011 cap. Since the MEI for CY 2011 is
0.4 percent, the therapy cap amount for
CY 2011 is $1870.
The agency’s authority to provide for
exceptions to therapy caps (independent
of the outpatient hospital exception)
will expire on December 31, 2010,
unless the Congress acts to extend it. If
the current exceptions process expires,
the caps will be applicable in
accordance with the statute, except for
services furnished and billed by
outpatient hospital departments.
Comment: The commenters
unanimously requested repeal of the
therapy caps, while characterizing caps
as arbitrary and medically unfounded
and the combination of cap amounts for
PT and SLP services as groundless. A
number of commenters argued that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
¥2.9 percent (0.9710)
¥2.3 percent (0.97651)
................................................................
therapy caps restrict provision of
medically necessary services to
beneficiaries. Several commenters
reported that patients are discharged for
care prior to recovery due to payment
restrictions and this leads to increased
medical costs for Medicare.
Response: Therapy caps are mandated
by statute. We have no authority to
repeal the caps, or to restructure the
grouping of therapy disciplines to
which the caps apply. However, we
understand the concerns of the
commenters, and we are actively
exploring alternatives to therapy caps to
inform the discussions about
approaches to identify and pay for those
therapy services that are necessary for
patients to attain the best outcomes with
the most efficient use of resources.
2. Alternatives to Therapy Caps
a. Background
In section 4541 of the Balanced
Budget Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105–33)
(BBA), the Congress enacted the
financial limitations on outpatient
therapy services (the ‘‘therapy caps’’
discussed above for physical therapy,
occupational therapy, and speechlanguage pathology). At the same time,
the Congress requested that the
Secretary submit a Report to Congress
that included recommendations on the
establishment of a revised coverage
policy for outpatient physical therapy
services and outpatient occupational
therapy services under the statute. The
Balanced Budget Refinement Act of
1999 (Pub. L. 106–113) (BBRA) placed
the first of a series of moratoria on
implementation of the limits. In
addition, it required focused medical
review of claims and revised the report
requirements in section 4541(d)(2) of
the BBA to request a report that
included recommendations on the
following: (A) The establishment of a
mechanism for assuring appropriate
utilization of outpatient physical
therapy services, outpatient
occupational therapy services, and
speech-language pathology services; and
(B) the establishment of an alternative
payment policy for such services based
on classification of individuals by
diagnostic category, functional status,
prior use of services (in both inpatient
and outpatient settings), and such other
criteria as the Secretary determines
appropriate, in place of the limits. In
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
$15.8085
1999, therapy services were not defined,
but services documented as therapy
were billed and reported when
furnished by a variety of individuals in
many different settings. These services
were not identified in a way that would
allow analysis of utilization or
development of alternative payment
policies. Since that time, we have
clarified the definition of therapy
services and applied the qualifications
of therapists consistently to outpatient
settings, which have facilitated analysis
of therapy services.
We have studied therapy services
with the assistance of a number of
contractors over the past 11 years.
Reports of these projects are available
on the CMS Web site at https://
www.cms.gov/TherapyServices/. On
November 9, 2004, we delivered the
Report to Congress, Number 137953,
‘‘Medicare Financial Limitations on
Outpatient Therapy Services’’ that
referenced two utilization analyses. We
periodically updated the utilization
analyses and posted other contracted
reports on the CMS web site in order to
further respond to the requirements of
the BBRA. Subsequent reports
highlighted the expected effects of
limiting services in various ways and
presented plans to collect data about
patient condition using available tools.
The general belief was that if patient
condition could be reliably described,
that approach would ensure appropriate
payment for appropriately utilized
services.
Over the past decade, significant
progress has been made in identifying
the outpatient therapy services that are
billed to Medicare, the demographics of
the beneficiaries who utilize those
services, the types of services, the
HCPCS codes used to bill the services,
the allowed and paid amounts of the
services, and the settings, geographic
locations, and provider or supplier
types where services are furnished.
Some of the information that is
necessary to ensure appropriate
utilization and develop objective and
equitable payment alternatives to
therapy caps based on patient condition
has proven difficult to develop. The
influence of prior use of inpatient
services on outpatient use of therapy
services was not accessible due to
systems issues and differences in the
policies, billing, and reporting practices
for inpatient and outpatient therapy
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
services. The weakness of the ICD–9–
CM diagnostic codes in describing the
condition of the rehabilitation patient
obscured analyses of claims to assess
the need for therapy services. The
primary diagnosis on the claim is a poor
predictor for the type and duration of
therapy services required, which
complicates assignment of patient
cohorts for analysis. Although changes
to the guidance in the Medicare Benefit
Policy Manual (Pub. 100–02) on
documentation of therapy services in
2005 improved the consistency of
records and facilitated chart review, it
became increasingly obvious that
neither claims analysis nor chart review
could serve as a reliable and valid
method to determine a patient’s need for
services or to form the basis for
equitable payment. We concluded that
in order to develop alternative payment
approaches to the therapy caps, we
needed a method to identify patients
with similar risk-adjusted conditions
(cohorts) and then we would identify
the therapy services that are necessary
for the patients to attain the best
outcomes with the most efficient use of
resources.
While we studied therapy utilization,
a number of proprietary tools were
developed by researchers in the
professional community to assess the
outcomes of therapy. Some tool
sponsors collected sufficient
information to predict with good
reliability the amount or length of
treatment that would result in the best
expected outcomes. We encouraged the
use of these proprietary tools in manual
instructions, but proprietary tools do
not serve our purposes because
modification of proprietary tools may
only be done by the tool sponsor. There
now are some versions of the tools in
the public domain and they are being
utilized widely to identify patient
conditions and, by some insurers, to pay
for efficient and effective treatment.
Examples of such tools include the
National Outcomes Measurement
System (NOMS) by the American
Speech-Language Hearing Association
and Patient Inquiry by Focus On
Therapeutic Outcomes, Inc. (FOTO).
In 2006, Focus on Therapeutic
Outcomes, Inc. delivered to CMS a
report titled, ‘‘Pay for Performance for
Physical Therapy and Occupational
Therapy,’’ which is also available on the
CMS Web site at https://www.cms.gov/
TherapyServices. The purpose of this
project was to simulate a pay-forperformance implementation, designed
to align financial incentives with the
achievement of better clinical outcomes
from services that were delivered
efficiently. The project, funded by HHS/
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
CMS Grant 18–P–93066/9–01,
demonstrated the predictive validity of
the risk-adjusted pay-for-performance
model and the feasibility of reducing
payments without affecting services to
beneficiaries who need them.
b. Current Activities
The Tax Relief and Health Care Act of
2006 (TRHCA) extended the therapy cap
exceptions process through December
31, 2007 and provided funds used for
two CMS projects related to developing
alternative payment approaches for
therapy services that are based on
beneficiary needs. A 5-year project titled
‘‘Development of Outpatient Therapy
Alternatives’’ (DOTPA), awarded to RTI
International, was initiated in order to
develop a comprehensive and uniform
therapy-related data collection
instrument, assess its feasibility, and
determine the subset of the measures
that we could routinely and reliably
collect in support of payment
alternatives. While DOTPA will identify
measurement items relevant to payment,
the project will not deliver a
standardized measurement tool. We
may either develop a tool or allow other
tools to be used for payment purposes
when they include those items that
identify the following: (1) Beneficiary
need; and (2) outcomes (that is
effectiveness of therapy services). In
addition to therapy caps, the DOTPA
project considers our interest in valuebased purchasing by identifying
components of value, including
beneficiary need and the effectiveness of
therapy services. The DOTPA project
reports are available on the contractor’s
Web site at https://optherapy.rti.org/.
The data collection design and
instrument development have been
completed, and a Paperwork Reduction
Act (PRA) package was submitted for
approval of the data collection forms by
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). The Federal Register notice for
the second round of public comment on
this package was published on April 23,
2010 (75 FR 21296). The PRA package
has been approved; the contractor is
recruiting potential participants in the
data collection, developing training
materials for participants, and updating
the project web site. We did not seek
public comments on the DOTPA project
in the proposed rule.
The TRCHA also funded the 2-year
project contracted to Computer Sciences
Corporation (CSC) entitled ‘‘Short Term
Alternatives for Therapy Services’’
(STATS). STATS has provided
recommendations regarding alternative
payment approaches to therapy caps
that could be considered before
completion of the DOTPA project. The
PO 00000
Frm 00117
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73285
STATS project draws upon the
analytical and clinical expertise of
contractors and stakeholders to consider
policies, measurement tools, and claims
data that are currently available to
provide further information about
patient condition and the outcomes of
therapy services. The final report,
received September 13, 2010, included
recommended actions we could take
within 2 or 3 calendar years to replace
the current cap limits on therapy
services with a policy that pays
appropriately for necessary therapy
services.
c. Potential Short-Term Approaches to
Therapy Caps
On June 30, 2009, we received a draft
of the CSC report titled ‘‘STATS
Outpatient Therapy Practice
Guidelines,’’ a summary of expert
workgroup discussions, and several
short-term payment alternatives for
consideration. CSC discussed options
based on the assumption that short-term
policy changes should facilitate the
development of adequate function and/
or outcomes reporting tools. In the
longterm, CSC recommended that
payment be based on function or quality
measurements that adequately perform
risk adjustment for episode-based
payment purposes.
Based on the draft report, additional
stakeholder input, and subsequent
communications with the contractor, in
the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule (75 FR
40097 through 40099) we discussed
several potential alternatives to the
therapy caps that could lead to more
appropriate payment for medically
necessary and effective therapy services
that are furnished efficiently. We
solicited public comments on the
proposed rule regarding all aspects of
these alternatives, including the
potential associated benefits or
problems, clinical concerns, practitioner
administrative burden, consistency with
other Medicare and private payer
payment policies, and claims processing
considerations. We did not propose
either short-term or long-term payment
alternatives to the therapy caps.
However, we referred readers to section
II.C.4.(c) of the proposed rule for our CY
2011 proposal to expand the MPPR
policy to ‘‘always therapy’’ services
furnished in a single session in order to
pay more appropriately for therapy
services, taking into consideration the
expected efficiencies when services are
furnished together. While we did not
propose the adoption of an MPPR policy
for therapy services specifically as an
alternative to the therapy caps, we
acknowledged that by paying more
appropriately for combinations of
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73286
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
therapy services that are commonly
furnished in a single session,
practitioners would be able to furnish
more medically necessary therapy
services to a given beneficiary before
surpassing the caps. We noted that the
proposed MPPR policy would have the
potential to reduce the number of
beneficiaries impacted by the therapy
caps in a given year.
Comment: Many commenters stated
that use of the financial cap on therapy
services as a rationale for the proposed
MPPR was unacceptable and not a
sound basis for such a significant policy
proposal. Quite a few commenters
contrasted the cap alternatives research
with the MPPR which, in the
commenters’ opinion, did not reflect a
similar level of analysis. Instead of
implementing the proposed MPPR, a
large majority of the commenters urged
CMS to place a high priority in
resources and funding for research to
identify alternatives to the cap that
would ensure patients receive medically
necessary therapy services.
While the commenters agreed that
more therapy could be furnished to a
beneficiary before surpassing the caps if
the payments were reduced, the
commenters believe that other, more
serious access problems would result
from arbitrary payment reductions
under an MPPR. Many commenters
were concerned that the proposed
MPPR policy might restrict access to
therapy services for patients with more
severe problems, especially neurological
problems and complex medical
conditions. Less payment, explained the
commenters, would force therapists to
spend less time with patients,
incentivize cutting corners, and
encourage greater fraud and abuse. The
commenters argued that the shortage of
therapists, particularly physical
therapists, would be exacerbated and
access to therapy services would be
severely jeopardized.
Response: We appreciate the effort
and resources contributed by
stakeholders to the discussion and
development of alternatives to therapy
caps. We look forward to the continued
cooperation of stakeholders as we
continue our work in this area over the
coming years. We refer readers to
section II.C.4.(c) of this final rule with
comment period for a detailed
discussion of the public comments and
our responses regarding the proposed
therapy MPPR.
The three specific short-term options
that we discussed in the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule would not have required
statutory changes when CSC originally
delivered them. In CY 2011, some
would require extension of the therapy
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
cap exceptions process. Some would
require moderate reporting changes that
would yield more detailed information
about patient function and progress to
inform future payment approaches and
facilitate the medical review of services
above the therapy caps at the present
time. Others require new coding and
bundled per-session payment that
would be a first step toward episodebased payment. They are not necessarily
independent of each other.
Under each of these alternatives,
administrative simplification with
respect to current policies, such as
HCPCS code edits and ‘‘ICD–9–CM to
HCPCS code’’ crosswalk edits that serve
to limit utilization without regard to the
patient’s clinical presentation, could be
pursued in the context of these options.
The first option would modify the
current therapy caps exceptions process
to capture additional clinical
information regarding therapy patient
severity and complexity in order to
facilitate medical review. This approach
would complement the DOTPA project,
which is identifying items to measure
patient condition and outcomes. We
believe the first option may have the
greatest potential for rapid
implementation that could yield useful
information in the short-term. In the CY
2011 PFS proposed rule (75 FR 40097),
we indicated that we were especially
interested in detailed public comments
on this option that could inform a
potential proposal to adopt such an
alternative through future rulemaking.
The second option would involve
introducing additional claims edits
regarding medical necessity, in order to
reduce overutilization. The third option
would be to adopt a per-session bundled
payment that would vary based on
patient characteristics and the
complexity of evaluation and treatment
services furnished in the session. Each
option would require significant
provider and contractor education, and
all would necessitate major claims
processing systems changes. Moreover,
some of the options may affect
beneficiaries by changing the type or
amount of services covered by Medicare
or the beneficiary’s cost sharing
obligations.
Comment: Many commenters agreed
that a long term solution to the therapy
caps is desirable. Generally, the
commenters supported an evidencebased payment system grounded in
accurate, comprehensive analysis of the
clinical characteristics of the wide range
of therapy patients in diverse settings
and the concept of bundled payment for
episodes of care based on clinical
characteristics of patients. Many
commenters urged CMS to place a high
PO 00000
Frm 00118
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
priority in resources and funding for
research to identify alternatives to the
cap that would ensure patients receive
medically necessary therapy services.
The commenters asserted that such
research would be a key factor in
identifying clinically appropriate ways
to control spending. Those who
commented on this issue commended
CMS for proposing alternatives that
reflect in-depth analytical work,
expressing appreciation to CMS and its
contractor for the opportunity to
participate on task forces and pledging
continued assistance in trials of
alternatives. The commenters also
commend CMS for recommending better
clinical information be included in
payment decisions.
MedPAC and some other commenters
supported all three alternatives as
reasonable steps consistent with the end
goals of value for purchases based on
the care needs of beneficiaries. Many
commenters supported the first option
or the third option, and very few
supported the second option. Regardless
of the alternative chosen, commenters
consistently recommended further study
and analysis, with a national
demonstration or pilot project to test
any alternative prior to implementation.
Response: We continue to believe that
the advice and assistance of
stakeholders, including clinicians and
practice administrators, are essential to
the development of policies that are
appropriate, realistic, and effective in
allowing necessary therapy care while
limiting overutilization. We appreciate
the time and effort provided by the
dedicated professionals involved in the
STATS workgroups and DOTPA
technical advisory panels.
Comment: A commenter suggested
that diagnoses cannot be used to predict
medical necessity. The same commenter
argued that if the patient were assessed
using self-reported functional status
measures that are risk-adjusted using
many variables, it would be possible to
predict outcomes, identify ineffective
treatment, and reduce gaming without
relying on clinician-generated estimates
known to be biased and fraught with
poor reliability and validity.
Several other commenters stated that
clinicians’ judgment is essential to
accurate outcomes assessment, and
these commenters provided examples of
clinical judgments believed essential to
appropriate care planning.
Response: None of the alternatives
discussed in the proposed rule would
require a measurement tool scored by
either a clinician or the patient. We note
the disagreement among the
commenters on this point.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Comment: While generally supportive
of the development of alternatives to
therapy caps, many commenters
expressed concern that there were
insufficient data and details of the
options discussed in the proposed rule
to develop a rational payment system
based on the options at this time.
Several commenters suggested that
sophisticated multivariate statistical
methods with a long list of clinically
appropriate risk-adjustment variables
would be required. Another commenter
recommended using risk-adjustment
models built on large aggregate datasets
to develop efficiency and effectiveness
projections on which payments could be
based.
Response: We agree that the
alternatives presented were not fully
developed and that statistically sound
methods of evaluation of the fully
developed alternatives would be
appropriate. We made no specific
proposal to adopt an alternative
beginning in CY 2011, but instead
presented three potential options in
order to gather additional public input
on the overall concepts and the details
to inform our future developmental
work in this area. We will continue to
review and consider all the information
provided to us and acknowledge that, in
the context of any future proposal, we
would need to provide further detail as
part of notice and comment rulemaking
in order for the public to provide
meaningful comment prior to the
adoption of changes to therapy
payment.
Comment: Many commenters
complained that therapy payments have
decreased relative to inflation over the
past 10 years. The commenters
described the practitioner’s struggle to
provide appropriate care and noted their
fear of alternatives that could result in
fewer resources with which to treat
beneficiaries. Some commenters stated
that Medicaid payments also decreased,
leaving them with less flexibility to
provide covered services to Medicare
beneficiaries. Several commenters
warned that those who bill therapy
services will find ‘‘creative’’ ways to
manage patients in the future, leading to
reduced quality of care, or that
therapists will be laid off, leading to
access problems for beneficiaries.
Some commenters recommended that
CMS take time to consider the potential
alternatives to therapy caps from all
angles related to cost, including the
costs of different health outcomes.
Several commenters reported that
outpatient physical therapy saves
Medicare spending by preventing more
expensive procedures and surgeries.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
Response: Achieving appropriate
payment for quality services that
quickly lead to good health outcomes is
among the major goals of our payment
policy. It is also our goal to limit
overutilization of services, and to
discourage the provision of services that
are not medically reasonable and
necessary or represent an abuse of
Medicare funds. To that end, we will
continue to develop policies aimed at
paying for those therapy services that
meet patients’ needs. The clear
challenge is to identify those needs and
the services required.
Comment: One commenter was
concerned that underlying therapy
utilization data are flawed due to
inconsistent coverage and payment
policies that also negatively affect good
clinical practice by restricting the
therapist’s clinical judgment. The
commenter provided detailed examples
to illustrate inconsistencies in forms
and billing rules between Part A and B
providers and suppliers which in the
aggregate, the commenter argued,
impede CMS’ ability to analyze claims
data for comparison purposes.
Differences due to National Correct
Coding Initiative (NCCI) and Medically
Unlikely Edit (MUE) policies and most
particularly local coverage
determinations (LCDs) were also
identified by the commenter as creating
significant variations among contractors.
The commenter was particularly
concerned about requirements for
specific ICD–9–CM and CPT code
combinations, which limit therapy
diagnoses or require specific diagnoses
as primary.
Response: We develop national and
local policies and guidelines as needed
to interpret statutory requirements and
to limit, whenever possible, abusive
behaviors while encouraging high
quality care and good outcomes for
beneficiaries. Since no one method is
entirely effective in curbing incorrect or
fraudulent billing practices, a number of
approaches have been adopted. We
attempt to coordinate these policies and
we recognize that it is sometimes
difficult for providers and suppliers to
stay informed about changes, especially
when they treat beneficiaries whose
services are impacted by different
payment policies. We will continue to
work cooperatively with interested
stakeholders, as we did with the STATS
project, to identify and resolve concerns
or conflicts regarding our policies. We
intend that any claims data collected in
a pilot study would be unencumbered
by conflicts that have been identified.
Comment: Many commenters stated
that the options are identified as
alternatives to the cap exceptions
PO 00000
Frm 00119
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73287
process, which expires December 31,
2010.
Response: The short-term alternatives
discussed are potential alternatives to
the therapy caps, and while it may be
possible to implement some as
modifications to the exceptions process,
we recognize that Congress would have
to act to extend the authority for a
therapy cap exceptions process or to
otherwise provide for certain
alternatives to therapy caps.
Option (1): Revise therapy caps
exceptions process by requiring the
reporting of new patient functionrelated Level II HCPCS codes and
severity modifiers.
This option would require that
clinicians submit beneficiary functionrelated nonpayable HCPCS codes to
replace the -KX modifier (Specific
required documentation on file). Codes
would not be submitted on every claim,
but at episode onset and at periodic
intervals (for example, progress report
intervals of 12 sessions or 30 days—
whichever is less). Codes would be
submitted for all patients in order for
the claims to be paid and not only those
claims approaching or surpassing the
therapy caps. The current -KX modifier
is not useful to identify claims
exceeding therapy caps, because it is
used for services both before and after
the caps are exceeded, and it must be
used on the entire claim for facilities.
New codes also would not identify
claims above the cap, but they would
perform the same function as the
current -KX modifier to signal that
documentation in the medical record
supported medical necessity that should
lead to an exception to the therapy caps.
The codes would also provide more
information for medical review.
Six Level II HCPCS G-codes
representing functions addressed in the
plan of care and 5 (or 7) modifiers
representing severity/complexity would
be utilized to report information on the
claim. Examples of six new functionrelated G-codes:
• GXXXU—Impairments to body
functions and/or structures—current.
• GXXXV—Impairments to body
functions and/or structures—goal.
• GXXXW—Activity limitations and/
or participation restrictions—current.
• GXXXX—Activity limitations and/
or participation restrictions—goal.
• GXXXY—Environmental barriers—
current.
• GXXXZ—Environmental barriers—
goal.
Two potential severity/complexity
scales have been suggested that would
require the adoption of 5 or 7 new
severity modifiers, respectively. Under
one scenario, modifiers based on the
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73288
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
International Classification of Function
would identify severity as follows:
• None (0 to 4 percent).
• MILD (5 to 24 percent).
• MODERATE (25 to 49 percent).
• SEVERE (50 to 95 percent).
• COMPLETE (96 to 100 percent).
Alternatively, a proportional severity/
complexity scale would use 7 modifiers
to describe impairments, limitations, or
barriers—
• 0 percent;
• 1 to 19 percent;
• 20 to 39 percent;
• 40 to 59 percent;
• 50 to 79 percent;
• 80 to 99 percent; or
• 100 percent.
Implementation of this general
approach might require 6 months to 2
years to modify claims processing for
the current therapy caps and exceptions
processing of claims, and to develop,
pilot test, and refine coding before
applying the approach nationally. While
therapists initially would need to learn
the new codes and update their billing
systems, ultimately their reporting
burden might be reduced because the
-KX modifier would not be required on
each claim line for patients with
expenditures approaching or exceeding
the therapy caps. This option could
potentially result in a small reduction in
outpatient therapy expenditures due to
increased Medicare contractor scrutiny
of episodes where functional severity
scores did not change over time, or to
other atypical reporting patterns
associated with the new codes.
In the longterm, these codes and
modifiers could be mapped to reliable
and validated measurement tools (either
currently available tools in the public
domain or newly developed tools from
items on the DOTPA instrument or the
Continuity Assessment Record and
Evaluation (CARE) tool). If statistically
robust patient condition information
were collected from claims data, it may
be possible to develop Medicare
payment approaches for outpatient
therapy services that could pay
appropriately and similarly for efficient
and effective services furnished to
beneficiaries with similar conditions
who have good potential to benefit from
the services furnished. At a minimum,
the new codes could allow contractors
to more easily identify and limit the
claims for beneficiaries who show no
improvement over reasonable periods of
time.
Comment: Most commenters
supported the concept of Option (1)
although often not without concerns
about the details of implementation.
The commenters generally endorsed the
concept of describing patients’ goals in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
terms of activity participation and
environmental barriers, in addition to
impairments based on the World Health
Organization’s (WHO’s) International
Classification of Functioning, Disability
and Health (ICF). Some supported
Option (1) as the best of the three
options as it could begin providing a
national overview of functional status
and severity of patients which would be
essential if CMS were to pursue future
episode-based payment. The majority of
commenters agreed with the concept of
developing an infrastructure to work
toward payment reform based on
episodes of care, patient characteristics,
functional status, rehabilitation
complexity, severity, and outcomes.
Many commenters supported Option (1)
as the first step in a plan to move toward
Option (3) that would introduce persession codes to bundle payment, as
described in detail below, and
ultimately episode-based payments,
although a few suggested the severity
codes could be used, after adequate
testing and definition, to inform
appropriate payment. Some commenters
recommended developing Option (1)
and suggested that further development
should include: definition of terms
(including the ICD–10 diagnosis codes
in 2013), input from therapists, field
testing, and data analysis to ensure that
payment appropriately reflects patient
complexity and risk before application
of the codes to individual therapy
disciplines.
The commenters in favor of this
option supported the use of ICF
language in descriptions, but
consistently preferred a 7-point rating
scale for severity over the 5-point scale
based on the ICF. Several commenters
also noted that sufficient training would
be required for contractors and
providers of service under this option.
Response: We appreciate the
perspectives of the commenters who see
Option (1) as a first step in the process
of exploring alternatives to the therapy
caps that could move toward payment
based on the needs of beneficiaries.
Comment: Many commenters opposed
this option as burdensome, easy to
‘‘game,’’ and lacking the potential for
saving money. The commenters in
opposition to the option claimed it
could require a great deal of research to
establish, validate and value codes, and
then pilot test, refine, establish intertester reliability, and modify the claims
processing process, which could take 2
years. Instead, the same commenters
recommended the use of valid and
reliable measurement tools currently in
the public domain and in use by
clinicians. One commenter requested
that CMS not use clinician-graded single
PO 00000
Frm 00120
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
item assessment scales of patient
severity or complexity, unless such
methodology possessed published
reliability and validity on the selection
and grading processes because there are
more psychometrically sound published
scales available that include a risk
adjustment process to predict treatment
success and number of visits and are
less vulnerable to gaming. If scales were
used, several commenters recommended
that they must be sensitive and cardinal
so each change would represent an
equal increment.
Response: We recognize that Option
(1) is not yet fully developed and would
require further study. As we consider
this option further, we will also assess
the feasibility of using currently
available validated measurement scales
in the public domain. The issues of
‘‘gaming’’ and savings remain of interest
in relationship to this and the other
options.
Comment: Several commenters voiced
serious concerns about the concept of
using function-related codes and
severity modifiers on the claim to
monitor patient improvement. The
commenters were alarmed that
contractors would deny services when
improvement was insufficiently
demonstrated, or when the beneficiary’s
goal was to prevent deterioration of
function. Several commenters were
concerned that a contractor’s attention
to function and severity modifiers might
cause the contractor to unduly limit the
therapy sessions a patient needed to
maintain or increase functionality.
A few commenters interpreted the
statute to require only that a service be
medically necessary to treat the
underlying illness or condition, and not
to require that the service lead to
improvement. According to the
commenters, a service required to
maintain current function is medically
necessary but the focus on identifying
improvement would prevent those
patients with progressive diseases from
receiving therapy to prevent further
decline in function when there is little
probability of meeting an undefined
improvement standard. A few
commenters provided citations of court
cases that rejected Medicare policies
and practices that denied therapy
services based on arbitrary rules of
thumb without consideration of the
patient’s individual condition.
Therefore, the same commenters
recommended that CMS omit reference
to improvement standards in any
proposal related to Option (1).
Response: The policies for Medicare
Part B outpatient therapy services
require payment for therapy services
that require the skills of a therapist. In
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
contrast, ‘‘Unskilled services are
palliative procedures that are repetitive
or reinforce previously learned skills, or
maintain function after a maintenance
program has been developed * * *.
services related to activities for the
general good and welfare of patients, for
example, general exercises to promote
overall fitness and flexibility and
activities to provide diversion or general
motivation, do not constitute therapy
services for Medicare purposes’’
(Medicare Benefit Policy Manual, Pub.
100–02, chapter 15, section 220.2.A.).
We note that when the goal of therapy
is to halt degeneration of function due
to disease, therapy is not palliative or
related to general welfare, but may be an
active treatment with measurable
outcomes. For that reason, we do not
anticipate that function-related codes
and severity modifiers would be used
exclusively as a proxy for the
determination of medical necessity.
The Medicare policy goes on to state,
‘‘ * * * services must be necessary for
the establishment of a safe and effective
maintenance program required in
connection with a specific disease state.
In the case of a progressive degenerative
disease, service may be intermittently
necessary to determine the need for
assistive equipment and/or establish a
program to maximize function * * *.’’
(Pub. L. 100–02, chapter 15, section
220.2.A.). Further details concerning
maintenance therapy and examples of
covered services to patients with
degenerative neurological diseases are
found in Pub. 100–02, chapter 15,
section 220.2.D.
Option (2): Enhance existing therapy
caps exceptions process by applying
medical necessity edits when perbeneficiary expenditures reach a
predetermined value.
The existing automatic process for
exceptions, and the revised exceptions
process described in Option (1) above,
pay practitioners indefinitely for
services if they attest on the claim by
appending a specific modifier to therapy
HCPCS codes that the services being
furnished are medically necessary and
that supporting documentation is
included in the medical record. Unless
the local contractor uses claims edits or
does post-payment review, these
processes do not identify or limit
unusually high annual per-beneficiary
utilization. High utilization is not
limited to beneficiaries with multiple or
complex conditions. We would use
existing therapy utilization data to
develop annual per-beneficiary medical
necessity payment edits, such as limits
to the number of services per-session,
per-episode, or per-diagnostic grouping,
for exceptions to the therapy caps which
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
would be set at benchmark payment
levels that only a small percentage of
beneficiaries would surpass in a single
year. Once these levels were reached,
additional claims would be denied and
practitioners would need to appeal
those denials if they wished to
challenge Medicare’s nonpayment.
This alternative would require 1 to 2
years to implement as an expansion of
existing policy, and its effects would be
anticipated by analysis of the current
utilization of therapy services.
Additional practitioner burden would
be incurred in the small number of cases
exceeding the per beneficiary
expenditure edits if the practitioner
chose to appeal the medical necessity
denial.
Comment: Few commenters preferred
Option (2) over the other two. In
addition, the commenters stated that
they were familiar with this approach
because other insurers use a similar
system of edits, so the adoption of
Option (2) for Medicare patients would
not represent an additional
administrative burden. The commenters
who favored this option reported that it
would be the easiest for CMS to
implement and would be the only
option likely to save money in the very
short-term. Some commenters who
favored this option would still prefer
the use of existing measurement tools to
gather data about therapy services. One
commenter pointed out that limits perdiagnosis should be based on reasonable
data that reflect good patient outcomes.
Most of the commenters who
supported Option (2) also noted that
this option could influence therapy
utilization and possibly outcomes,
creating flawed data that were not
representative of needed services. The
commenters were concerned that future
payment policy decisions might later be
based on those flawed data.
Response: We agree that Option (2)
has the benefit of being relatively easy
to implement and we appreciate the
perspective of some commenters on the
low anticipated burden. We also
recognize that a database of limited
services would not be appropriate to use
for estimating the full cost of medically
necessary services.
Comment: Some commenters took a
neutral position on this option, finding
that it could be part of a viable
alternative to therapy caps but only after
considerable study and development.
MedPAC noted that Option (2) would
implement more meaningful therapy
caps in the interim, while longer-term
solutions were being developed and
tested. At the same time, MedPAC
supported CMS’ efforts to identify
medically unnecessary care and to
PO 00000
Frm 00121
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73289
implement payment systems that ensure
that the program obtains value for its
purchases. Other commenters were
concerned that the benchmark levels for
edits be realistic and not arbitrary. The
commenters requested that CMS
consider a method to deal with outliers
without forcing denials and appeals.
Response: Option (2) could be used in
combination with other options. We
recognize the description we provided
was not specific about the edit levels
and that further deliberation would be
appropriate before edits could be
implemented.
Comment: The majority of
commenters opposed Option (2).
Although some commenters agreed that
edits for medically unlikely services are
useful and appropriate, they expressed
concerns about this approach because
edits can often be arbitrary, are not
based on patient needs, and may
improperly limit necessary services.
Some commenters asserted that
individuals with degenerative
conditions may require shorter sessions
over longer periods of time to address
functional loss and slow deterioration
and to maximize health outcomes. The
commenters also opposed edits that
would fail to address the affects of
cognitive impairment on treatment.
Several commenters cited the existing
ICD–9–CPT code crosswalks, LCDs,
NCCI edits, and MUEs as examples of
similar edits that commenters often
found to be clinically inappropriate.
The commenters argued that current
edits and policies based on unsupported
information led to denials and appeals
that were costly to therapists and CMS.
The commenters urged CMS to avoid
edits that lack clinical relevance or a
scientific basis and create anomalies in
claims data.
Response: Option (2) was developed
with input from therapy professionals
based on their review of therapy
utilization data. If this option were to be
implemented, we would, at a minimum,
review the advice and recommendations
of stakeholders, along with any
available utilization data to inform our
decisions regarding the edit levels.
Comment: A few commenters
criticized Option (2) as scientifically
flawed. One commenter reported that
use of a combined effectiveness (that is,
functional status change) and efficiency
(that is, number of treatment visits)
algorithm in a value-based payment
process is one of the few methods where
one could determine if the patient needs
more or less treatment to reach optimal
risk-adjusted gains in functional status.
The same commenter referenced
numerous research efforts that have
analyzed functional status outcomes in
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73290
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
rehabilitation using sophisticated riskadjustment methods and requested that
CMS use these as a basis for a new
payment policy.
Other commenters asserted that
currently available utilization data are
inadequate to develop predetermined
edit values, citing studies of therapy
utilization under contract to CMS and
studies performed by industry that
demonstrate why ICD–9 coding, lack of
function/severity data, and lack of a
definition for ‘‘episode’’ are problematic.
Response: Current therapy utilization
data reveal that one percent of
beneficiaries who receive services incur
costs that proportionately far exceed
those of the other 99 percent of
beneficiaries. However, we are also
aware that without some knowledge of
the condition of the beneficiary, it is
impossible to determine which, if any,
of those services were medically
necessary. While it would be desirable
to analyze more detailed utilization data
that include patient function/severity
outcomes for setting edit values, those
data are not available to us in the shortterm. We believe that the existing
limited utilization data, albeit not fully
descriptive of patients, could inform
potential future edit values for therapy
services.
Comment: If CMS plans to move
forward with edits, many commenters
strongly requested that professional
organizations be consulted to determine
whether such edits are clinically
appropriate and realistic. Some
commenters specifically urged CMS to
await the results of the DOTPA pilot in
the hope of capturing meaningful
clinical differences between patients
before applying edits. Before such edits
could reliably be applied to payment,
other commenters recommended that
CMS design, test, and evaluate
additional data on functional status and
barriers to participation. Many
commenters indicated that more data
are needed; especially thresholds based
on episodes, condition groupings, and
similar criteria that could trigger
medical review, but not support denial.
To that end, some commenters stated
that it might be possible to support this
approach under Option (2), but after
Option (1) was implemented.
Response: We understand the
commitment of stakeholders to the
development of alternatives to the
therapy caps based on clinically
appropriate policies. We will consider
the potential benefit of Option (1) to
develop data on which to base the edits
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
required under Option (2) as we further
contemplate alternatives to the therapy
caps.
Comment: A few commenters
opposed Option (2) edits because the
edits would virtually eliminate the
exceptions process mandated by law
and replace it with denial of claims at
a predetermined value, which may be
inconsistent with the statutory
requirement for an exceptions process.
The same commenters stated that there
would be no basis for edits until Option
(1) was implemented to provide more
detailed claims-based information.
Several commenters reported research
showing 10 percent of Part B patients in
nursing facilities have highly complex
problems, with multidisciplinary needs
and inconsistent patterns of therapy
service use. The commenters were
concerned that denials would interfere
with treatment of these complex
patients with special needs.
Response: Option (2) would require
an existing exception to the therapy
caps, which would be enhanced to
allow limited billing and payment for
medically necessary services that
exceed the caps. The option could not
be used if the exceptions process were
not extended. However, the Deficit
Reduction Act of 2005 that established
exceptions to the caps for medically
necessary therapy services also required
implementation of clinically
appropriate code edits in order to
identify and eliminate improper
payments for therapy services. CMS
currently applies NCCI and MUE edits
to therapy services that fail to meet a
reasonable assumption of medical
necessity. We view implementation of
Option (2) as consistent with our
current authority to create edits to
control inappropriate billings.
Benchmark levels for Option (2)
would be based on existing therapy
utilization data and limits would be set
at levels that a high percentage of
beneficiaries would not exceed. While it
may be helpful to have more data
related to patient condition as described
in Option (1) before implementing
Option (2), we do not consider such
information vital to the development of
limits that affect a very small percentage
of beneficiaries whose service payments
would so far exceed average payments
that they would be likely to include
inappropriate billings and would be
unlikely to interfere with the delivery of
medically necessary services.
Comment: If the option of
implementing edits were pursued,
PO 00000
Frm 00122
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
several commenters indicated that the
edits should be variable based on
clinical criteria, result in medical
review instead of denials, and reflect
issues of multidisciplinary care, care
coordination, and clinical issues.
Response: If Option (2) were to be
further developed, we would consider
the commenters’ suggestions prior to
finalizing a plan for implementation,
along with any new information
available from additional research
studies, OIG reports, or other sources.
Option (3): Introduce per-session
‘‘Evaluation/Assessment and
Intervention’’ (E&I) codes to bundle
payment for groups of current therapy
HCPCS codes into a single per-session
payment.
As discussed in section II.C.4.(c) of
this final rule with comment period,
multiple therapy services are often
furnished in a single session, and we
proposed to expand the MPPR policy to
‘‘always therapy’’ services in CY 2011 in
order to take into consideration the
efficiencies that occur when multiple
services (the typical therapy scenario)
are furnished in one session to a
beneficiary. Furthermore, we note that
section 1848(c)(2)(K) of the Act (as
added by section 3134 of the ACA)
regarding potentially misvalued codes
under the PFS specifies that the
Secretary may make appropriate coding
changes, which may include
consolidation of individual services into
bundled codes for payment under the
PFS, as part of her review and
adjustment of the relative values for
services identified as potentially
misvalued.
This option would require that
practitioners submit a single new Level
II HCPCS code to represent all the
therapy services currently reported and
paid separately for an outpatient
therapy session. Payment for the HCPCS
code would be based on patient
characteristics (as identified through
prior CMS contractor analyses) and the
complexity of the evaluation/assessment
and intervention services furnished
during the session. The new coding
requirements would not necessarily
disrupt the current exceptions process
or the revised exceptions process
described in Option (1) above.
Approximately 12 E&I codes would be
needed for each discipline, taking into
consideration the basic algorithm shown
in Table 47.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73291
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 47—EVALUATION/ASSESSMENT & INTERVENTION LEVEL II HCPCS CODES
Evaluation/assessment complexity
Minimal
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Intervention level ..................................................................................
We would need to develop and test
operational definitions for each E&I
code so that practitioners would be able
to properly report services and
appropriate relative values could be
established for each per-session code.
We believe that a pilot study might
reveal that the different practice
patterns for the three therapy
professions (physical therapy,
occupational therapy, and speechlanguage pathology) could necessitate
separate relative value determinations
for each E&I code by type of therapy
service furnished. As a result, up to 36
total new Level II HCPCS codes could
be needed (12 per discipline).
We anticipate that the definitions of
E&I codes 1 through 3 and 7 through 12
would describe services that may only
be furnished by a ‘‘clinician’’ (therapist,
physician, or non-physician
practitioner). E&I codes 1 through 3
would be reported for sessions that
consisted only of evaluations. In
addition, the definitions of E&I codes 4
through 6 would describe services that
could be furnished by or under the
permissible supervision of all qualified
outpatient therapy professionals. Based
upon historical therapy utilization
patterns, the vast majority of E&I codes
submitted would likely fall in the 4
through 9 code range. We would expect
the RVUs under the PFS for all E&I
codes to take into consideration the
efficiencies when multiple services
(those that would be currently reported
under multiple CPT codes) are
furnished.
This option would require 2 to 4 years
to add new codes and conduct a shortterm pilot study to refine coding and
value the 12 new HCPCS codes (or 36
if they are specific to each therapy
discipline). There would be significant
initial practitioner administrative
burden to learn new codes and update
billing systems. However, ultimately,
with elimination of the practitioner’s
reporting of 76 different codes and
many of the associated claims
processing edits, the administrative
burden of reporting therapy services to
Medicare would be minimized.
This bundled approach to reporting
and payment could result in more
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
None .................
Minimal .............
Moderate ..........
Significant .........
E&I
E&I
E&I
E&I
Code
Code
Code
Code
appropriate valuation of therapy
services that reflects efficiencies when
individually reported services are
furnished in the same session. As a
result, it could lead to reduced therapy
expenditures, as well as a reduction in
the number of beneficiaries affected by
the therapy caps in a given year.
Comment: The vast majority of
commenters concurred that provider
payments should be influenced by
underlying beneficiary characteristics.
Most commenters agreed that following
research and development, an episodebased payment alternative would be the
most feasible payment model for
outpatient therapy services in the
longterm, and some recommended it be
developed in a performance-based
model. The commenters generally
supported this option as a foundation to
those goals, but recommended expert
therapist input into the process and
further study to determine how such an
approach might affect different therapy
types and settings. Several commenters
noted that it would be critical to ensure
clear nomenclature, the availability of
an appropriate reporting methodology,
and adequate payment for these codes
that reflects the resources used to
provide these services.
To assure appropriate payment for
needed services, the commenters agreed
that the outcomes resulting from
provider interventions must be
incorporated in payment models. The
commenters believe that experience
gained in a transparent development
process could be carried over into future
payment system reform. Therefore, the
majority of commenters who supported
Option (3) also requested that there be
a transparent process of development
and testing in which expert therapists
from various settings were included.
Many also argued that Option (3) should
be developed only after Option (1) had
been implemented and function and
severity data had been collected to
inform the development of Option (3).
Response: We appreciate the support
of commenters for Option (3) and their
interest in moving toward long-term
goals by implementing short-term
approaches as an incremental step. We
agree that the information presented in
PO 00000
Frm 00123
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Moderate
#1 .....
#4 .....
#7 .....
#10 ...
E&I
E&I
E&I
E&I
Code
Code
Code
Code
#2 .....
#5 .....
#8 .....
#11 ...
Significant
E&I
E&I
E&I
E&I
Code
Code
Code
Code
#3.
#6.
#9.
#12.
the proposed rule was limited regarding
Option (3) and that further study would
be necessary before a bundled persession payment approach could be
implemented. We will consider the
commenters’ recommendations to
develop an episode-based payment
alternative in the future.
Comment: The concept of moving
toward per-session codes that would be
based on the severity of the patient and
intensity of therapist clinical judgment
and work involved in the provision of
the therapy service was welcomed by
many commenters. Those commenters
who encouraged CMS to use this option
to reduce the administrative burden of
counting minutes and eliminate NCCI
edits and MUEs anticipated
corresponding improvement in the
effective and efficient delivery of
clinical interventions. The commenters
urged CMS to ensure compliance of
policies related to Option (3) with other
payment policies, such as the delivery
of medically necessary care driven by
the development of an appropriate
functional goal-based plan of care.
Response: While a per-session
payment methodology could result in
modification of current policies
regarding counting treatment time, it
would not necessarily result in deleting
claims edits. If we were to adopt such
a methodology, we would assess the
current claims processing edits and
determine whether they continued to be
appropriate and/or implement new edits
to address potential issues under the
revised payment approach.
Comment: Some commenters
suggested a modified definition of
severity. The commenters recommended
two separate severity tables of ‘‘severity
or complexity,’’ one for evaluation and
the other for intervention. For each table
separately, severity/complexity of
clinical presentation would be rated as
low, moderate, or high. In all cases, the
commenters believe CMS should
identify the factors to be used to
determine severity for both evaluations
and interventions. The commenters
urged that CMS defer to professional
standards of practice and state law with
respect to the provision of services in
each category. Other commenters
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73292
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
recommended modifiers for complex
patients and comprehensive
multidisciplinary rehabilitation settings
to facilitate application of special
policies for those circumstances.
Response: The tables presented in the
proposed rule were illustrative of the
potential Level II per-session HCPCS
codes, and these codes would require
further development prior to
implementation. We appreciate the
commenters’ suggestions and will
consider them as we weigh this option.
Comment: Some commenters who
supported the general premise of Option
(3) and some commenters who opposed
it were not optimistic that per-session
payment could be developed in a
reliable and valid manner in the
shortterm.
Response: This alternative was
developed as a short-term action that
would start the process toward bundled
payments for therapy episodes. The
work completed by expert therapist
advisors to the STATS workgroups laid
a foundation that could facilitate
development of the initial per-session
HCPCS codes, which could reasonably
be based on utilization data that
demonstrated which services were
historically billed together most of the
time. We have analyzed data regarding
common therapy code combinations.
While a per-session payment approach
could have a significant impact on
payment for therapy services, we would
not expect that developing and valuing
per-session E&I codes would be a
particularly lengthy or complex process.
We note that over the past several years,
the CPT Editorial Panel has bundled
multiple services into a single code
numerous times in different medical
specialty areas and the AMA RUC has
then valued the new comprehensive
service by taking into account the
expected efficiencies in the physician
work and/or practice expense.
Comment: Rather than consign the
code definition and valuation processes
integral to Option (3) to the CPT
Editorial Panel and AMC RUC
processes, which have little
transparency, several commenters
recommended that CMS develop Level
II HCPCS codes for this purpose and
allow for continued stakeholder input as
to their valuation. Some commenters
expressed appreciation for being
included in the STATS process and
suggested it as a model for future
transparency in developing payment
policies.
Response: We appreciate the
confidence stakeholders expressed
regarding our capacity to develop
HCPCS codes and values using a
transparent process that includes input
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
from stakeholders. If we were to move
toward per-session payment in the
future, we would need to consider the
most appropriate approach to the
development and valuation of new
codes to describe those services. In the
meantime, we note that if the CPT
Editorial Panel were to develop new
codes for comprehensive therapy
services, as they have developed new
CY 2011 comprehensive codes for
cardiac catheterization and lower
extremity endovascular
revascularization services that bundle
services that are commonly furnished
together, we would consider those
therapy codes for adoption under the
PFS and would value them if we
recognized them for PFS payment.
Comment: Due to the nature of certain
services when assessment and
intervention are inseparable, some
commenters asserted that interventions
should not be included in this model
but should be separately identified. The
commenters provided the examples of
active wound care management and
prosthetic/orthotic management.
Response: The details of therapy E&I
codes have not been proposed or
finalized. We appreciate the perspective
of the commenters and will keep it in
mind if we were to pursue the creation
of per-session therapy codes in the
future.
Comment: While some commenters
stated that Option (3) has the potential
to simplify and increase consistency in
coding for therapy services, several
commenters who opposed this option
and Option (1) mentioned that providers
would learn to ‘‘game the system’’ and
that all patients would be documented
as severe on initial intake.
Response: We too are concerned about
approaches where providers could learn
to game the system. The commenters
who criticized this option generally
preferred the edits in Option (2).
Restriction on utilization of certain
codes sometimes increases the risk of
billing different codes, billing more of
the same codes, or increasing patient
visits, resulting in the same or greater
cost to the Medicare program. The edits
described in Option (2) would prevent
high payments for individual
beneficiaries, but might have little or no
effect on the payments to providers or
suppliers who increase the number of
beneficiaries treated. Generally, we
apply a number of different methods
concurrently to reduce risk.
At times, it may be difficult to know
whether the clinical judgment and
objective measurements have been
accurately reported or documented in
the record and whether the service
furnished is appropriately represented
PO 00000
Frm 00124
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
by the billed HCPCS code. Providers
focused on billing inappropriately may
also document inappropriately. In the
long term, we hope to incentivize
honest and ethical providers and
suppliers of services to furnish effective
and efficient, high quality services.
Possible fraudulent activity may be
identified by aberrant billing patterns,
and the new codes could facilitate the
identification of such patterns.
Several commenters expanded on the
options presented as alternatives to the
therapy caps or recommended options
of their own. A few presented their own
analyses of utilization to support their
recommendations.
Comment: Several commenters
recommended incorporation of
currently and publicly available
validated tools to inform the collection
of patient-specific information and
move toward performance-based
payment. A few commenters suggested
that the study ‘‘Pay-for-Performance for
Outpatient Physical Therapy and
Occupational Therapy’’ that Focus On
Therapeutic Outcomes (FOTO)
completed in 2006 under Grant #18–P–
93066–/0–01 might be a good template
from which to start a process to replace
caps and ultimately develop a valuebased purchasing process. The
commenters suggested the FOTO
predictive model could be used, after
pilot testing, to develop a
reimbursement process where care is
based on need and payment is based on
results.
Response: We recognize the
importance of demonstrating the
application of a value-based purchasing
approach to physical and occupational
therapy services. We posted the FOTO
study on the CMS Web site at: https://
www.cms.gov/TherapyServices/
downloads/P4PFinalReport06-0106.pdf.
We are aware that research continues
on the functional status indicator and
that other measurement tools are also
available in the public domain. The
STATS discussions resulted in some
improvements in the feasibility of
matching outcomes data to claims.
However, there are a number of
problems that would have to be resolved
before any of the currently available
versions of therapy outcomes tools
could be incorporated into payment
policy. The FOTO study did not address
value-based purchasing for speechlanguage pathology services and there
remain questions about applying the
FOTO functional status indicator, or any
self-reported measure, to certain
cognitively impaired patients or to the
Medicare population without further
refinement.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
As we continue to explore various
options, we would be interested in the
feasibility of using historical research,
existing electronic input systems, and
registry information to provide a
conceptual framework for alternative
payment systems.
Comment: Although CMS did not
discuss the option of establishing
therapy payments based on episodes in
the discussion of short-term options,
many commenters encouraged CMS to
pursue that goal. Using data obtained
from the severity/complexity codes
described in Option (1), DOTPA, and
other data initiatives, several
commenters urged CMS to undertake
research to develop a new episodic
prospective payment system for Part B
therapy services. Some commenters
described the details of a plan to base
therapy episode payment on groups
based on patient clinical characteristics,
considering mean episode costs,
adjusting for high and low outliers or
interrupted episodes, setting a default
payment for unmapped episode groups,
and also adjusting for local wage indices
and providing an annual market basket
payment rate update.
The opportunity for CMS to define
sessions and episodes more clearly and
the potential to support the overall goal
of payment reform was eagerly
anticipated by several commenters. The
commenters applauded CMS for
recognizing the potential opportunity to
gather these data on episodes for
payment of therapy services furnished
in the institutional setting.
Episode-based payment was
recommended as an alternative to the
proposed therapy MPPR by numerous
commenters. The commenters explained
that the fundamental problem with feefor-service payment is the incentive to
over utilize therapy services in the
outpatient setting and limit institutional
providers from using resources flexibly.
The commenters described analysis of a
large database of Medicare beneficiaries
as the basis for a methodology for
grouping diagnosis codes to create
episodes of care on which therapy
payment would be based. The
commenters noted that adjustment
would be needed to payments for
complex patients and readmissions. The
same commenters supported episode
payments for separate therapy
disciplines based on a patient’s medical
diagnosis and goals. A critical goal for
these commenters was to identify and
account for differences in the conditions
and needs of patients in skilled nursing
facilities as opposed to other outpatient
therapy settings.
Response: We did not discuss
development of episode-based payments
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
as an option in the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule because we recognize that
substantially more research would be
necessary to define the episodes and
determine what resources would be
needed for different groups or categories
of patients before the episodes could be
incorporated into a payment system,
particularly one that also addressed
quality, efficiency, and good health
outcomes. However, the absence of
discussion in our proposed rule of an
episode-based payment methodology as
a short-term therapy cap alternatives
option should not be interpreted as our
reluctance to pursue the definition of
episodes or the refinement of the
concept of episode-based payments.
Comment: A number of commenters
supported testing variables they believe
to be important in making a clinical
judgment concerning a patient’s
severity, including: general type of
patient (orthopedic, neurological,
medical, etc.); impairment (body part
treated); intake functional status; patient
age; symptom acuity; surgical history;
payer; gender; level of fear-avoidance of
physical activities; and number of comorbid conditions. Other commenters
urged inclusion of clinical judgment of
severity based on medical condition,
physical impairments resulting from
these conditions, patient function, and
ability to participate in activities of
daily living.
Response: As we progress in the
analysis of payment alternatives to the
therapy caps, we appreciate the
information on variables believed to be
critical by stakeholders who have
conducted related research and/or
furnished therapy services to a wide
array of patients in different clinical
settings. We welcome their expert
contributions and collaboration with us
on this important issue.
In conclusion, we emphasize that we
continue to be committed to developing
alternatives to the therapy caps that
would provide appropriate payment for
medically necessary and effective
therapy services furnished to Medicare
beneficiaries based on patient needs,
rather than the current therapy caps
which establish financial limitations on
Medicare payment for therapy services
in some outpatient settings regardless of
medical necessity. The Congress has
repeatedly intervened to allow
exceptions to these caps for certain time
periods, and the current exceptions are
automatically processed based on a
practitioner’s attestation that medical
necessity is documented in the chart for
an individual patient. We believe that,
ultimately, payment for therapy services
should incentivize the most effective
and efficient care, consistent with
PO 00000
Frm 00125
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73293
Medicare’s focus on value in its
purchasing.
The STATS contractor has worked
closely with a broad variety of
clinicians, administrators, scientists,
researchers, and other contractors to
develop the three alternatives presented
in this discussion in CY 2011
rulemaking for the PFS. We are grateful
for all public comments on the proposed
rule from interested stakeholders,
including individual therapists from
both facility and nonfacility outpatient
settings paid under Medicare Part B.
We are committed to finding
alternatives to the current therapy cap
limitations on expenditures for
outpatient therapy services that will
ensure that beneficiaries continue to
receive those medically necessary
therapy services that maximize their
health outcomes. We continue to
dedicate our resources to identifying
alternatives that would encourage the
most efficient and cost-effective
treatments. We believe motivated
therapists, with attention to the most
cost-effective practices, can incorporate
practice efficiencies that benefit patients
by achieving the best possible results at
the lowest cost. Our STATS and DOTPA
projects, which are currently engaged in
data collection and analysis to inform
short-term and long-term alternatives to
the therapy caps, respectively, lay the
foundation for future payment
alternatives for outpatient therapy
services. We are optimistic that the
STATS project has identified shortterm, feasible alternatives that may be
tested in the future. The DOTPA project
will create a tool and test its use to
collect patient condition information
that could then be applied to identify
patient need for therapy services.
Together, these projects may provide the
basis for a long-term plan to reshape
Medicare’s payment policy for
outpatient therapy services to align with
the value-based purchasing principles
that are now guiding principles of the
Medicare program.
B. Diabetes Self-Management Training
(DSMT) Services (HCPCS Codes G0108
and G0109)
1. Background
Section 1861(s)(2)(S) of the Act
provides for coverage of DSMT in
outpatient settings without limiting this
coverage to hospital outpatient
departments. DSMT services consist of
educational and training services
furnished to an individual with diabetes
by a certified provider in an outpatient
setting.
Section 1861(qq)(2)(A) of the Act
stipulates that training must be
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73294
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
furnished by a ‘‘certified provider’’
which is a physician or other individual
or entity that also provides other items
or services for which payment may be
made under Medicare. This program is
intended to educate beneficiaries in the
successful self-management of diabetes.
The program includes instructions in
self-monitoring of blood glucose;
education about diet and exercise; an
insulin treatment plan developed
specifically for the patient who is
insulin-dependent; and motivation for
patients to use the skills for selfmanagement. DSMT services are
reported under HCPCS codes G0108
(Diabetes outpatient self-management
training services, individual, per 30
minutes) and G0109 (Diabetes
outpatient self-management training
services, group session (2 or more), per
30 minutes).
2. Payment for DSMT Services
In accordance with section 1848(j)(3),
Medicare payment for outpatient DSMT
services is made under the PFS as
specified in § 414.1 through § 414.48.
When we created HCPCS codes G0108
and G0109, the only direct costs
included in the PE were registered nurse
labor. Section 410.144(a)(4)(a) states that
the DSMT team includes at least a
registered dietitian and a certified
diabetes educator. We initially did not
establish work RVUs for DSMT services
because we believed training would
typically be performed by individuals
other than a physician, such as a
registered nurse (65 FR 83130).
However, since that time, we have
received requests from a number of
stakeholders, including the American
Association of Clinical Endocrinologists
(AACE), the American Association of
Diabetes Educators (AADE), and the
Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation,
to include physician work in valuing
DSMT services that is similar to the
physician work that has been included
in medical nutrition therapy (MNT)
services since CY 2007 and kidney
disease education (KDE) services since
CY 2010. The stakeholders argued that
because physicians coordinate DSMT
programs, provide patient instruction,
and communicate with referring
physicians, physician work should be
included in the RVUs for DSMT
services. The stakeholders also
requested that we reconsider the direct
PE inputs for DMST services and
include clinical labor for diabetes
educators at a higher hourly rate instead
of registered nurse labor. In addition,
they stated that the supplies and
equipment in the PE for DSMT services
should be the same as for KDE services,
with additional direct PE inputs for a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
diabetes educator curriculum, data
tracking software, and DSMT program
accreditation.
For CY 2011, we proposed the
following:
• To assign physician work RVUs to
DSMT services that are comparable, as
adjusted for the service times of the
HCPCS codes, to the work RVUs for
MNT services. The rationale for the
proposed work RVUs for the DSMT
HCPCS G-codes was based on the
similarity of DSMT services to MNT
services in the individual (CPT code
97803) and group (CPT code 97804)
setting.
• That HCPCS G0108 for 30 minutes
of individual DSMT services would be
crosswalked to CPT code 97803
(Medical nutrition therapy; reassessment and intervention,
individual, face-to-face with the patient,
each 15 minutes) for purposes of
assigning work RVUs, with the
physician work RVUs for CPT code
97803 multiplied by two to account for
the greater time associated with HCPCS
code G0108 (that is, 30 minutes).
• That HCPCS G0109 for 30 minutes
of group DSMT services would be
crosswalked to CPT code 97804
(Medical nutrition therapy; group (2 or
more individuals(s)), each 30 minutes)
for purposes of assigning work RVUs.
• To modify the PE inputs for DSMT
services to reflect the current equipment
and supplies for the KDE HCPCS Gcodes implemented in the CY 2010 PFS
final rule with comment period (74 FR
61901) (that is, HCPCS codes G0420
(Face-to-face educational services
related to the care of chronic kidney
disease; individual, per session, per one
hour) and G0421 (Face-to-face
educational services related to the care
of chronic kidney disease; group, per
session, per one hour)), based on the
similarity in the equipment and
supplies necessary for DSMT and KDE
services. We made adjustments to some
of the equipment times for the 30
minute DSMT individual and group
services as compared to the one hour
individual and group KDE services.
• To include a diabetes educator
curriculum and data tracking software
in the PE inputs for DSMT services,
while noting that we did not include the
DSMT program accreditation costs
because it is our general practice not to
include these costs in the PE inputs.
• To utilize the same approach for
clinical labor as we adopted for MNT
services when we provided physician
work RVUs for those services in CY
2007 (71 FR 69645), rather than
changing the current labor type for
DSMT services. Specifically, we
removed all of the clinical labor from
PO 00000
Frm 00126
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the group DSMT code and most of the
clinical labor from the individual DSMT
code, given that we proposed work
RVUs for both DSMT HCPCS codes for
CY 2011.
In the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule (75
FR 40100), we stated our belief that
these proposals would value DSMT
services more consistently with other
similar services that are paid under the
PFS. As a result of our proposed CY
2011 changes, the proposed work RVUs
for HCPCS codes G0108 and G0109
were 0.90 and 0.25, respectively. As
described above, we also proposed to
modify the direct PE inputs for these
codes for CY 2011.
Comment: Numerous commenters
specifically supported the establishment
of work RVUs for the DSMT services
based on the work RVUs of the similar
MNT services, CPT codes 97803 for 15
minutes of individual MNT services and
97804 for 30 minutes of group MNT
services. Some commenters explained
that addition of work RVUs would lead
to higher payment rates for DSMT
services, resulting in a significant
positive impact on diabetes education
practices and increased patient access to
care for DSMT services. Several
commenters suggested that this change
would appropriately recognize the
active role many physicians contribute
to ensuring that their patients have
access to DSMT services and providing
care coordination and communication
with the multidisciplinary DSMT team
members. One commenter concurred
with the proposal to update the direct
PE inputs for the DSMT HCPCS codes
based on those assigned to the HCPCS
codes for KDE services.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ support for our proposal to
establish work RVUs and to update the
direct PE inputs for the DSMT services.
In conducting our review of the
public comments on this issue for this
final rule with comment period, we
examined newly available PFS claims
data for same day billings from one
provider for a single Medicare
beneficiary. In response to that analysis
and in accordance with our PFS
methodology which values services as
delivered to the typical patient, we note
that we have made minor adjustments to
some of the direct PE inputs for supplies
and equipment times for both HCPCS Gcodes for DSMT services, G0108 and
G0109, under our final CY 2011 policy.
We made these refinements after a
review of our PFS utilization data
indicated that 2 units of HCPCS code
G0108 (a total of 60 minutes) were
typically billed together on the same
day for the same patient, instead of the
one unit of HCPCS code G0108 (30
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
minutes) which was used as the
assumption for the typical session at the
time of our CY 2011 proposal. As a
result, we have assigned half of the
amount of the direct inputs for supplies
and equipment time in HCPCS code
G0420 (60 minutes individual KDE
services) to HCPCS code G0108 (30
minutes individual DSMT services).
Regarding the direct PE inputs for
HCPCS code G0109, we continue to
believe that there is a similarity among
the group and individual DSMT and
KDE services and the education
practices when these services are
delivered, as reflected in their PFS
utilization patterns. For this reason, we
have made minor modifications to the
PE inputs for HCPCS code G0109 (30
minutes of group DSMT services) to
reflect half of each input for HCPCS
code G0421 (60 minutes of group KDE
services) that parallel the modifications
we made for the individual DSMT
HCPCS code described previously. We
further note that these refinements to
the direct PE inputs for DSMT services
are based on the final adjustments that
were made to the direct PE inputs for
HCPCS codes G0420 and G0421 for KDE
services, discussed in section V. B.2.e.
of this final rule with comment period,
because our approach to establishing the
direct PE inputs for the DMST HCPCS
G-codes is based on the inputs for KDE
services.
As a result, the modifications we
made to the supplies and equipment
inputs for the DSMT HCPCS G-codes,
G0108 and G0109, equal half of the
same supply and equipment times in
the one hour HCPCS G-codes for KDE
services, G0420 and G0421.
In addition, because the $200 price of
the diabetes educator curriculum does
not meet the $500 floor we established
for inclusion in the equipment database,
we have bundled the diabetes educator
curriculum price with the $500 data
tracking software one because the
patient’s curriculum information is
typically recorded in the tracking
software. The equipment descriptor for
the data tracking software was modified
to read: Diabetes education data tracking
software, includes curriculum.
Accordingly, we changed the price
input from $500 to $700 and assigned
the bundled equipment a total of 4
minutes. In this way, we are including
the cost of the curriculum in the direct
PE inputs for DSMT services as we
proposed for CY 2011, while remaining
consistent with the established $500
floor on inclusion of equipment in the
PE database.
After consideration of the public
comments we received, we are
finalizing the proposed work RVUs and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
direct PE input for DSMT services, with
modification to make the PE
adjustments described previously. The
final CY 2011 direct PE database that
lists the direct PE inputs is available on
the CMS Web site under the downloads
for the CY 2011 PFS final rule with
comment period at: https://
www.cms.gov/PhysicianFeeSched/
PFSFRN/list.asp#TopOfPage. The final
CY 2011 RVUs for HCPCS codes G0108
and G0109 are displayed in Addendum
B to this final rule with comment
period.
C. End-Stage Renal Disease Related
Services for Home Dialysis (CPT codes
90963, 90964, 90965, and 90966)
1. End-Stage Renal Disease Home
Dialysis Monthly Capitation Payment
Services (CPT codes 90963, 90964,
90965, and 90966)
In the CY 2004 PFS final rule with
comment period (68 FR 63216), we
established new Level II HCPCS G-codes
for end-stage renal disease (ESRD)
monthly capitation payment (MCP)
services. For center-based patients,
payment for the G-codes varied based
on the age of the beneficiary and the
number of face-to-face visits furnished
each month (for example, 1 visit, 2–3
visits and 4 or more visits). Under the
MCP methodology, the lowest payment
applied when a physician provided one
visit per month; a higher payment was
provided for two to three visits per
month. To receive the highest payment,
a physician would have to provide at
least four ESRD-related visits per
month. However, payment for home
dialysis MCP services only varied by the
age of beneficiary. Although we did not
initially specify a frequency of required
visits for home dialysis MCP services,
we stated that we ‘‘expect physicians to
provide clinically appropriate care to
manage the home dialysis patient’’ (68
FR 63219).
Effective January 1, 2009, the CPT
Editorial Panel created new CPT codes
to replace the G-codes for monthly
ESRD-related services, and we accepted
the new codes for use under the PFS in
CY 2009. The CPT codes for monthly
ESRD-related services for home dialysis
patients include the following, as
displayed in Table 32 of the CY 2011
PFS proposed rule (75 FR 40101) and
reprinted as Table 48 below: 90963,
90964, 90965, and 90966. In addition,
the clinical vignettes used for the
valuation of CPT codes 90963, 90964,
90965, and 90966 include scheduled
(and unscheduled) examinations of the
ESRD patient.
Given that we pay for a physician (or
nonphysician practitioner (NPP)) to
PO 00000
Frm 00127
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73295
evaluate the ESRD patient over the
course of an entire month under the
MCP, we believe that it is clinically
appropriate for the physician (or NPP)
to have at least one in-person, face-toface encounter with the patient per
month. As such, for CY 2011 we
proposed to require the MCP physician
(or NPP) to furnish at least one inperson patient visit per month for home
dialysis MCP services (as described by
CPT codes 90963 through 90966). The
proposed requirement would be
effective for home dialysis MCP services
beginning January 1, 2011. As stated in
the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule (75 FR
40100), we believe this requirement
reflects appropriate, high quality
medical care for ESRD patients being
dialyzed at home and generally would
be consistent with the current standards
of medical practice.
Comment: Many commenters stated
that a monthly visit embodies the
standard of care for home dialysis
patients. However, many of the same
commenters also stated that it may not
always be feasible to furnish a face-toface visit every month for home dialysis
patients due to extenuating
circumstances. A number of
commenters explained that, in contrast
to patients who dialyze in a dialysis
center, home dialysis patients would
need to travel to the doctor’s office (or
the physician would need to visit the
patient’s home) which would be an
undue burden on both the physician
and the patient. To that end, several
commenters urged CMS to provide
flexibility in cases where a patient does
not show up for their scheduled
appointment and for those that cannot
travel due to significant geographic
distance between the patient and the
nephrologist. For example, some
specialty societies stated that pediatric
home dialysis patients may experience
exceptional circumstances due to the
scarcity of pediatric nephrologists and
remote geographic locations, making the
monthly face-to-face visit requirement
harder to fulfill. In these circumstances,
one commenter requested that CMS
consider allowing the MCP physician to
furnish at least 1 visit every 3 months
and allowing the other monthly visits to
be furnished as a telehealth service.
Additionally, several commenters
explained that the monthly management
of a home dialysis patient involves
many tasks (in addition to face-to-face
visits) including: Reviewing lab tests,
treatment data and the dialysis
prescription; monitoring the patient’s
vascular access; and overseeing quality
improvement activities (as well as
incurring the practice expense
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73296
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
associated with managing the patient’s
care). The commenters stated that the
MCP physician should not be
‘‘penalized’’ if the patient chooses not to
attend the monthly visit. Moreover,
many of the commenters who agreed
that monthly visits are optimal care did
not support a monthly visit requirement
for the home dialysis MCP service. The
commenters stated that the frequency of
face-to-face visits should remain at the
discretion of the nephrologist and
patient. Several of the commenters who
did not support a policy change also
stated that requiring a monthly visit
could create disincentives for providing
beneficiaries with home dialysis therapy
in circumstances where it may be
difficult for the MCP physician to
furnish a visit every month. The
commenters explained that
nephrologists may not want to
encourage home dialysis therapy if they
will not get paid as a result of a patient
‘‘opting out’’ of a scheduled visit.
Response: We continue to believe that
furnishing monthly face-to-face visits is
an important component of high quality
medical care for ESRD patients being
dialyzed at home and generally would
be consistent with the current standards
of medical practice. However, we also
acknowledge that extenuating
circumstances may arise that make it
difficult for the MCP physician (or NPP)
to furnish a visit to a home dialysis
patient every month. Therefore, we will
allow Medicare contractors the
discretion to waive the requirement for
a monthly face-to- face visit for the
home dialysis MCP service on a case-bycase basis, for example, when the MCP
physician’s (or NPP’s) notes indicate
that the MCP physician (or NPP)
actively and adequately managed the
care of the home dialysis patient
throughout the month. Additionally, as
we explained in the CY 2004 PFS final
rule with comment period (68 FR 63219
through 63220), we also believe that the
use of other practitioners working with
the MCP physician (or NPP) to furnish
the required monthly visit for the home
dialysis MCP service could help
alleviate scheduling issues and
problems related to geographic distance.
With regard to the comment on
furnishing the proposed required visit
for the home dialysis MCP as a
telehealth service, we note that any
interested parties may submit requests
to add services to the list of Medicare
telehealth services. Requests submitted
before the end of CY 2010 will be
considered for the CY 2012 PFS
proposed rule. Requestors should be
advised that each request to add a
service to the list of Medicare telehealth
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
services must include any supporting
documentation the requestor wishes us
to consider as we review the request.
For more information on submitting a
request for an addition to the list of
Medicare telehealth services, including
where to directly mail these requests,
we refer readers to section IV.B. of this
final rule with comment period and the
CMS Web site at: https://
www.cms.hhs.gov/telehealth.
Comment: Several commenters stated
that the conditions for coverage for
dialysis facilities require a monthly
interaction between a clinician
representing the facility and the home
dialysis patient. The commenters
believe that the conditions for coverage
for dialysis facilities permit flexibility in
the monthly visit requirement if the
patient chooses to opt out of the
monthly visit and requested that CMS
align the proposed visit requirement for
the home dialysis MCP service with the
‘‘flexibility’’ permitted under the
conditions for coverage for dialysis
facilities.
Response: With regard to conditions
for coverage for dialysis facilities,
§ 494.90(b)(4) of the regulations
specifies that the dialysis facility must
ensure that all dialysis patients are seen
by a physician, nurse practitioner,
clinical nurse specialist, or physician’s
assistant providing ESRD care at least
monthly. Section 494.100 requires ‘‘a
dialysis facility that is certified to
provide service to home patients to
ensure that home dialysis services are at
least equivalent to those provided to infacility patients and meet all applicable
conditions of this part.’’ In addition, the
interpretive guidance for part 494
entitled ‘‘Conditions for Coverage for
ESRD Facilities’’ specifies that a
monthly visit is required for each home
patient by a physician, an advanced
practice registered nurse, or a physician
assistant. The visit may be conducted in
the dialysis facility, at the physician’s
office, or in the patient’s home. The
guidelines state that ‘‘any patient may
choose not to be seen by a physician
every month’’ but also specify that if
there is a pattern of a patient
consistently missing physician and or
practitioner visits, the lack of medical
oversight should be addressed with the
patient in the plan of care.
The requirement for at least one
monthly visit with a clinician associated
with the dialysis facility is a condition
for coverage for the dialysis facility for
purposes of participating in the
Medicare program and not a direct
factor in determining the payment
amount for the dialysis facility. In other
words, the clinician visit is not a
PO 00000
Frm 00128
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
component of the facility’s composite
rate. However, as mentioned in the
background section, the clinical
vignettes used for the valuation of the
home dialysis MCP service under the
PFS include scheduled (and
unscheduled) examinations of the ESRD
patient. Given that physician or NPP
visits are a factor in determining the
PFS payment amount for the home MCP
service that is furnished to the typical
Medicare beneficiary, we do not believe
that the monthly visit requirement for
the home dialysis MCP service is
analogous to the visit requirement under
the conditions for coverage for dialysis
facilities that has no implications for
setting payment rates under the PFS.
Therefore, we do not agree that the visit
requirement for the home dialysis MCP
service necessarily should be ‘‘aligned’’
with the conditions for coverage for
dialysis facilities.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that CMS consider structuring the home
dialysis MCP similar to the center-based
MCP. Under this approach, the
commenter suggested that a higher
payment amount could be made for
home dialysis MCP services with at
least one in person, face-to-face visit per
month.
Response: We will consider the
commenter’s suggestion as we continue
to develop and refine Medicare payment
policy for physicians and practitioners
managing patients on dialysis. In the
event we decide to make changes in the
payment amount(s) for the home
dialysis MCP services, we would do so
in a future proposed rule where the
public would have the opportunity to
provide comments as afforded by the
rulemaking process.
After consideration of the public
comments we received, we are
finalizing our CY 2011 proposal, with
modification. We will require the MCP
physician (or NPP) to furnish at least
one in-person patient visit per month
for home dialysis MCP services (as
described by CPT codes 90963 through
90966). However, Medicare contractors
will have the discretion to waive the
monthly visit requirement for the home
dialysis MCP service on a case-by-case
basis.
2. Daily and Monthly ESRD-Related
Services (CPT Codes 90951 Through
90970)
In CY 2008, the AMA RUC submitted
recommendations for valuing the new
CY 2009 CPT codes displayed in Table
48 that replaced the MCP HCPCS
G-codes for monthly ESRD-related
services. We accepted these codes for
use under the PFS.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
73297
TABLE 48—MCP CODES RECOGNIZED UNDER THE PFS
MCP Code
Long descriptor
90951 ......................
End-stage renal disease (ESRD) related services monthly, for patients younger than 2 years of age to include monitoring
for the adequacy of nutrition, assessment of growth and development, and counseling of parents; with 4 or more faceto-face physician visits per month.
End-stage renal disease (ESRD) related services monthly, for patients younger than 2 years of age to include monitoring
for the adequacy of nutrition, assessment of growth and development, and counseling of parents; with 2–3 face-to-face
physician visits per month.
End-stage renal disease (ESRD) related services monthly, for patients younger than 2 years of age to include monitoring
for the adequacy of nutrition, assessment of growth and development, and counseling of parents; with 1 face-to-face
physician visit per month.
End-stage renal disease (ESRD) related services monthly, for patients 2–11 years of age to include monitoring for the
adequacy of nutrition, assessment of growth and development, and counseling of parents; with 4 or more face-to-face
physician visits per month.
End-stage renal disease (ESRD) related services monthly, for patients 2–11 years of age to include monitoring for the
adequacy of nutrition, assessment of growth and development, and counseling of parents; with 2–3 face-to-face physician visits per month.
End-stage renal disease (ESRD) related services monthly, for patients 2–11 years of age to include monitoring for the
adequacy of nutrition, assessment of growth and development, and counseling of parents; with 1 face-to-face physician
visit per month.
End-stage renal disease (ESRD) related services monthly, for patients 12–19 years of age to include monitoring for the
adequacy of nutrition, assessment of growth and development, and counseling of parents; with 4 or more face-to-face
physician visits per month.
End-stage renal disease (ESRD) related services monthly, for patients 12–19 years of age to include monitoring for the
adequacy of nutrition, assessment of growth and development, and counseling of parents; with 2–3 face-to-face physician visits per month.
End-stage renal disease (ESRD) related services monthly, for patients 12–19 years of age to include monitoring for the
adequacy of nutrition, assessment of growth and development, and counseling of parents; with 1 face-to-face physician
visit per month.
End-stage renal disease (ESRD) related services monthly, for patients 20 years of age and older; with 4 or more face-toface physician visits per month.
End-stage renal disease (ESRD) related services monthly, for patients 20 years of age and older; with 2–3 face-to-face
physician visits per month.
End-stage renal disease (ESRD) related services monthly, for patients 20 years of age and older; with 1 face-to-face physician visit per month.
End-stage renal disease (ESRD) related services for home dialysis per full month, for patients younger than 2 years of
age to include monitoring for the adequacy of nutrition, assessment of growth and development, and counseling of parents.
End-stage renal disease (ESRD) related services for home dialysis per full month, for patients 2–11 years of age to include monitoring for the adequacy of nutrition, assessment of growth and development, and counseling of parents.
End-stage renal disease (ESRD) related services for home dialysis per full month, for patients 12–19 years of age to include monitoring for the adequacy of nutrition, assessment of growth and development, and counseling of parents.
End-stage renal disease (ESRD) related services for home dialysis per full month, for patients 20 years of age and older.
90952 ......................
90953 ......................
90954 ......................
90955 ......................
90956 ......................
90957 ......................
90958 ......................
90959 ......................
90960 ......................
90961 ......................
90962 ......................
90963 ......................
90964 ......................
90965 ......................
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
90966 ......................
There are four additional CPT codes
for ESRD-related services that are
reported on a per-day basis. These daily
CPT codes are: 90967 (End-stage renal
disease (ESRD) related services for
dialysis less than a full month of
service, per day; for patients younger
than 2 years of age); 90968 (End-stage
renal disease (ESRD) related services for
dialysis less than a full month of
service, per day; for patients 2–11 years
of age); 90969 (End-stage renal disease
(ESRD) related services for dialysis less
than a full month of service, per day; for
patients 12–19 years of age); and 90970
(End-stage renal disease (ESRD) related
services for dialysis less than a full
month of service, per day; for patients
20 years of age and older).
For the MCP codes displayed in Table
32 of the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule,
the AMA RUC initially recommended
36 minutes of clinical labor time for the
pre-service period. They also
recommended an additional 6 minutes
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
in the post-period for CPT codes 90960,
90961, 90962, and 90966. For the four
codes describing daily services (CPT
codes 90967 through 90970), the AMA
RUC recommended including 1.2
minutes of clinical labor per day, which
is the prorated amount of pre-service
clinical labor included in the monthly
codes. The AMA RUC also
recommended that CPT codes 90952
and 90953 be contractor-priced.
In the CY 2009 PFS final rule with
comment period (73 FR 69898), we
asked the AMA RUC to reconsider their
recommended PE inputs in the interest
of making certain that they accurately
reflected the typical direct PE resources
required for these services. In addition,
we asked the AMA RUC to review the
physician times for CPT codes 90960
and 90961 that are used in the
calculation of the PE RVUs. We
accepted the work values for the new
CPT codes for ESRD-related services
PO 00000
Frm 00129
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
that were recommended by the AMA
RUC.
Since CY 2009, we have continued to
calculate the PE RVUs for the entire
series of MCP codes displayed in
Table 32 of the CY 2011 PFS proposed
rule (75 FR 40101) by using the direct
PE inputs from the predecessor HCPCS
G-codes, except for CPT codes 90952
and 90953 which are contractor-priced.
We have also continued to use the
physician time associated with the
predecessor HCPCS G-codes for CPT
codes 90960 and 90961 for purposes of
calculating the PE RVUs.
In CY 2009, the AMA RUC submitted
new recommendations for CPT codes
90951 and 90954 through 90970. For
each of the MCP codes (CPT code 90951
and CPT codes 90954 through 90966),
the AMA RUC recommended an
increased pre-service clinical staff time
of 60 minutes. For each of the daily
dialysis service codes (CPT codes 90967
through 90970), the AMA RUC
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73298
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
recommended an increased clinical
labor time of two minutes, which is the
prorated amount of clinical labor
included in the monthly codes. The
AMA RUC also recommended an
additional 38 minutes of physician time
for CPT codes 90960 and 90961. This
resulted in a total physician time of
128 minutes and 113 minutes,
respectively, for these codes. The AMA
RUC continued to recommend that CPT
codes 90952 and 90953 be contractorpriced.
For CY 2011, we proposed to accept
these AMA RUC recommendations as
more accurate reflections of the typical
direct PE resources required for these
services. Therefore, we proposed to
develop the PE RVUs for CPT code
90951 and CPT codes 90954 through
90970 using the direct PE inputs as
recommended by the AMA RUC and
reflected in the proposed CY 2011 PE
database, which is available on the CMS
Web site under the supporting data files
for the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule at:
https://www.cms.gov/
PhysicianFeeSched/. We also proposed
to use the AMA RUC-recommended
physician times for CPT codes 90960
and 90961. Consistent with the AMA
RUC’s recommendations, we proposed
to continue to contractor-price CPT
codes 90952 and 90953.
We did not receive public comment
on our proposal to accept these AMA
RUC recommendations as more accurate
reflections of the typical direct PE
resources required for these services.
Therefore, we are finalizing our CY 2011
proposal to develop the PE RVUs for
CPT code 90951 and CPT codes 90954
through 90970 using the direct PE
inputs as recommended by the AMA
RUC and reflected in the CY 2011 direct
PE database, which is available on the
CMS Web site under the supporting data
files for the CY 2011 PFS final rule with
comment period at: https://
www.cms.gov/PhysicianFeeSched/. We
will also use the AMA RUCrecommended physician times for CPT
codes 90960 and 90961. Consistent with
the AMA RUC’s recommendations, we
will continue to contractor-price CPT
codes 90952 and 90953.
D. Portable X–Ray Set-Up (HCPCS Code
Q0092)
When a portable x-ray is furnished to
a single patient, as many as four
component HCPCS codes may be billed
and paid for the service, including the
portable x-ray transportation (HCPCS
code R0070 (Transportation of portable
x-ray equipment and personnel to home
or nursing home, per trip to facility or
location, one patient seen)); the portable
x-ray set-up (HCPCS code Q0092 (Set-
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
up of portable x-ray equipment)); and
the professional and technical
components of the x-ray service itself
(CPT 70000 series). Currently, the direct
PE database contains x-ray equipment in
both the radiology codes in the 70000
series of CPT and HCPCS code Q0092,
the code for the set-up of a portable xray. In the technical component of the
x-ray service is the direct PE input of a
radiology room which contains x-ray
equipment for the various radiology
codes in the 70000 series of CPT. In
addition, portable x-ray equipment is
included as a direct PE input for HCPCS
code Q0092. Thus, x-ray equipment
currently is recognized within the direct
PE values for two of the HCPCS codes
that would be reported for the portable
x-ray service, resulting in an
overvaluation of the comprehensive
portable x-ray service.
Therefore, for CY 2011 we proposed
to remove portable x-ray equipment as
a direct PE input for HCPCS code
Q0092, in order to pay more
appropriately for the x-ray equipment
used to furnish a portable x-ray service.
We believe the resulting payment for the
comprehensive portable x-ray service
would more appropriately reflect the
resources used to furnish portable x-ray
services by providing payment for the xray equipment solely through payment
for the technical component of the x-ray
service that is furnished.
Comment: Several commenters
opposed the removal of portable x-ray
equipment as a direct PE input for
HCPCS code Q0092. The commenters
believe the elimination of the
equipment from HCPCS code Q0092 is
inconsistent with longstanding CMS
payment policy recognizing the unique
and additional costs incurred by
portable x-ray suppliers in furnishing
services that involve special equipment
requiring extra assembly and
disassembly time. In addition, the
commenters believe that the proposed
equipment elimination conflicts with
the statutory mandate of section 1848(c)
of the Act that CMS calculate the PFS
RVUs based on the actual resources
used in furnishing a service because
equipment is a legitimate direct PE
component of the set-up component
service (HCPCS code Q0092).
Response: We agree that x-ray
equipment is used to furnish a portable
x-ray service and the equipment set-up
is reported with HCPCS code Q0092.
However, because the portable x-ray setup service would always be reported
along with the technical component of
the x-ray service (CPT 70000 series) that
already includes x-ray equipment as a
direct PE input, to include x-ray
equipment again in the PE of the set-up
PO 00000
Frm 00130
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
code would clearly be duplicative. Only
one item of equipment, that is, a single
x-ray machine, is used in furnishing the
portable x-ray service. We are, therefore,
eliminating the portable x-ray
equipment from HCPCS code Q0092
and, instead, recognizing the cost of
such equipment in the direct PE for the
technical component of the x-ray
service.
Comment: According to several
commenters, because CMS has not
undertaken a review of all combinations
of services paid under the PFS that
together might comprise a
‘‘comprehensive service’’ to identify
potentially duplicative direct PE inputs
when the services are furnished
together, CMS should refrain from
applying the proposed policy to
suppliers of portable x-ray services.
Response: While it would require an
extensive analysis to review all
combinations of PFS services that may
be furnished together and identify
potentially duplicative PE inputs, the
PFS has several longstanding policies
that were adopted to provide
appropriate payment when certain
services are furnished together. For
example, existing multiple procedure
payment reduction policies reduce
payment for the second and subsequent
surgical procedures or technical
components of imaging services when
furnished to the same patient by the
same physician on the same day, based
partly on the presence of efficiencies in
the PE under such circumstances.
Furthermore, as discussed in section
II.C.4. of this final rule with comment
period, we are adopting a new multiple
procedure payment reduction policy for
CY 2011 for therapy services because of
the duplication in the PE when therapy
services are furnished together. Finally,
we note that for those CPT codes that
are designated as add-on codes to
primary services, we ensure that the
direct PE inputs do not duplicate inputs
in the primary services. Given our
ongoing efforts to more appropriately
value services furnished together, we
believe that HCPCS code Q0092
essentially functions as an ‘‘add-on’’
code to the primary service that it
generally accompanies, which is the
technical component of an x-ray service.
Therefore, we believe it is fully
consistent with our ongoing efforts to
recognize efficiencies through payment
policy when multiple services are
furnished together to remove the
duplicative x-ray equipment from the
direct PE inputs for HCPCS code Q0092.
Comment: A few commenters believe
that elimination of x-ray equipment in
HCPCS code Q0092 would have a
negative impact on the financial status
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
of portable x-ray suppliers who are
typically small business owners.
According to the commenters, CMS
should heed the statutory mandates of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
which require mitigation of such
adverse effects.
Response: We note that the RFA
requires only that we analyze regulatory
options for small businesses that
include a justification for the reason
action is being taken, the kinds and
number of small entities the rule affects,
and an explanation of any meaningful
options that achieve the objectives with
less significant adverse economic
impact on the small entities. The CY
2011 PFS proposed rule included a
regulatory impact analysis (75 FR 40230
through 40245), as does section XI.A. of
this final rule with comment period. As
a specialty, the aggregate impact on
portable x-ray suppliers from the PFS
changes proposed for CY 2011 was an
increase of 8 percent in the proposed
rule (75 FR 40232), and it is an increase
of 6 percent for CY 2011 as displayed
in Table 101 of this final rule with
comment period. Therefore, the
combined effect of all final PFS policies
for CY 2011 will not adversely impact
portable x-ray suppliers.
After consideration of the public
comments we received, we are
finalizing our CY 2011 proposal to
remove portable x-ray equipment as a
direct PE input for HCPCS code Q0092.
E. Pulmonary Rehabilitation Services
(HCPCS Code G0424)
In the CY 2010 PFS proposed rule (74
FR 33614), we proposed to create new
HCPCS G-code G0424 (Pulmonary
rehabilitation, including aerobic
exercise (includes monitoring), per
session, per day) to describe the services
of a pulmonary rehabilitation (PR)
program as specified in section 144(a) of
the Medicare Improvements for Patients
and Providers Act of 2008 (MIPPA).
Using CPT code 93797 (Cardiac rehab
without telemetry) as a reference code,
we proposed to assign 0.18 work RVUs
and 0.01 malpractice RVUs to G0424. To
establish PE RVUs, we reviewed the PE
inputs of similar services, particularly
those of the respiratory therapy HCPCS
codes G0237 (Therapeutic procedures to
increase strength or endurance or
respiratory muscles, face to face, one on
one, each 15 minutes (includes
monitoring)) and G0238 (Therapeutic
procedures to improve respiratory
function, other than described by
G0237, one on one, face to face, per 15
minutes (includes monitoring)), as well
as the cardiac rehabilitation codes, CPT
codes 93797 and 93798 (Physician
services for outpatient cardiac
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
rehabilitation; with continuous ECG
monitoring (per session)). In the CY
2010 PFS final rule with comment
period (74 FR 61886), we finalized our
proposal with modifications to the code
descriptor and PE inputs, as
recommended by some commenters.
Based on commenters’
recommendations from the CY 2010 PFS
final rule with comment period and
further information furnished by
stakeholders, for CY 2011 we proposed
to increase the work RVUs for HCPCS
code G0424 to 0.28 for CY 2011 to be
comparable to the work RVUs for
cardiac rehabilitation with monitoring
(CPT code 93798) in view of the
monitoring required for HCPCS code
G0424.
We also proposed to increase the
clinical labor time for the respiratory
therapist from 15 minutes to 30 minutes
and to crosswalk the PE equipment
inputs for HCPCS code G0424 to those
for respiratory treatment services
(HCPCS code G0238), which include a
1-channel ECG and a pulse oximeter.
We retained the treadmill currently
assigned to HCPCS code G0424 and
adjusted the equipment time to 45
minutes. While several public
commenters recommended this
equipment, these commenters also
requested a full 60 minutes of
respiratory therapist time be included in
the PE for HCPCS code G0424,
comparable to the 15 minutes of
respiratory therapist time included in
the one-on-one codes for 15 minutes of
respiratory treatment services (HCPCS
codes G0237 and G0238). However,
because pulmonary rehabilitation
services reported under HCPCS code
G0424 can be furnished either
individually or in groups, we believe
that 30 minutes of respiratory therapist
time would be more appropriate for
valuing the typical pulmonary
rehabilitation service.
Comment: Many commenters
applauded CMS for its proposal to
increase the work RVUs for HCPCS code
G0424 to 0.28. While the commenters
supported the increase in work RVUs in
the short term, they believe that an
accurate, independent assessment of the
work value associated with physician’s
office-based pulmonary rehabilitation is
the only reasonable way to determine
actual physician work. The commenters
stated that continuing to rely on work
values related to cardiac rehabilitation
is flawed, noting that the clinical
characteristics of the cardiac
rehabilitation patient are different from
the pulmonary rehabilitation patient.
Due to the expected frequency and
duration of acute events, the
commenters explained that the
PO 00000
Frm 00131
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73299
pulmonary rehabilitation patient would
require greater physician involvement.
Response: Until we gain more data
and experience on the use of this code
to report pulmonary rehabilitation
services furnished to Medicare
beneficiaries under the new
comprehensive benefit, we believe using
the work RVUs for cardiac rehabilitation
with monitoring (CPT code 93798) as a
crosswalk is appropriate for this service.
We further note that the crosswalk
methodology is commonly used by the
AMA RUC in recommending work
RVUs to us for new or revised codes.
Comment: A number of commenters
generally supported the increase in the
clinical labor time for a respiratory
therapist from 15 minutes to 30
minutes. While the commenters
generally agreed with CMS’ reasoning
for not increasing the respiratory
therapist time to 60 minutes, the
commenters noted that in the
physician’s office setting, pulmonary
therapy items and services are routinely
provided one-on-one, face-to-face,
requiring 60 minutes of individualized
therapy services by a respiratory
therapist. Some commenters believe that
the proposal to increase the respiratory
therapist time to only 30 minutes would
place physicians at an economic
disadvantage in the provision of
pulmonary rehabilitation items and
services when furnished in an office
setting due to the limited amount of
office space available to treat more than
one patient in the same time period.
One commenter suggested that the
respiratory therapist time be increased
to 45 minutes or that CMS consider the
development of a HCPCS code for the
provision of pulmonary rehabilitation
items and services to patients on a oneon-one, face-to-face per 15 minute basis
to ensure that physicians can provide
this service in the office setting. Another
commenter believed that HCPCS code
G0424 is undervalued at 0.46 PE RVUs
in comparison to the PE RVUs for other
PFS services that are conceptually
similar but do not include a treadmill,
arm ergometer, monitoring devices, or
emergency carts.
Response: Payment for services under
the PFS is resource-based, and
individual services are valued based
upon the resources needed to provide
the typical service. As we noted in the
CY 2011 PFS proposed rule (75 FR
40103), pulmonary rehabilitation
services reported under HCPCS code
G0424 can be furnished either
individually or in groups and we
continue to believe that 30 minutes of
respiratory therapist time is appropriate
for valuing the typical pulmonary
rehabilitation service. We believe that
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73300
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
pulmonary rehabilitation in the
physician’s office is most commonly
furnished to a group of patients, rather
than one-on-one for 60 minutes of
respiratory therapist time. Regarding the
commenter who was concerned that the
PE for HCPCS code G0424 was
undervalued in comparison to similar
services that do not use the equipment
necessary for HCPCS code G0424, we
note that we have utilized the standard
PFS PE methodology to develop the PE
RVUs for HCPCS code G0424 based on
the direct PE inputs we consider to be
appropriate.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that the valuing of HCPCS code G0424
is flawed and does not fully account for
the inclusion of all professionals who
are involved in the pulmonary
rehabilitation program, specifically
physical therapists. In addition, the
commenter referenced the CY 2010 PFS
final rule with comment (74 FR 61884)
where CMS stated and recognized that
physical therapists provide pulmonary
rehabilitation services. The commenter
believes that by only basing the value on
services performed by respiratory
therapists, CMS has miscalculated the
payment for the comprehensive,
multidisciplinary pulmonary
rehabilitation program and
recommended that CMS create a
separate HCPCS code with a higher
value that could be used to delineate
those patients who require
individualized physical therapy within
the pulmonary rehabilitation program.
Response: Like all services paid under
the PFS, pulmonary rehabilitation is
valued based on the staff type who
would typically perform this service, a
respiratory therapist. Because the items
and services furnished by a pulmonary
rehabilitation program are
individualized, we expect that
evaluations and individualized
treatments would be conducted by one
or more members of the
multidisciplinary team of the
pulmonary rehabilitation program with
the appropriate expertise. Therefore,
individualized treatment by a physical
therapist would be furnished when
required by the patient as part of the
pulmonary rehabilitation plan of care.
However, we do not believe
individualized treatment would be
typical and, therefore, we do not believe
the creation of a separate HCPCS code
with a higher value is necessary to
recognize those cases that require
individualized physical therapy as part
of a pulmonary rehabilitation program.
After consideration of the public
comments we received, we are
finalizing our CY 2011 proposal to
increase the work RVUs for HCPCS code
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
G0424 to 0.28 for CY 2011 to be
comparable to the work RVUs for
cardiac rehabilitation with monitoring
(CPT code 93798). In addition, we are
finalizing our CY 2011 proposal to
increase the clinical labor time for the
respiratory therapist from 15 minutes to
30 minutes and to crosswalk the PE
equipment inputs for HCPCS code
G0424 to those for respiratory treatment
services (HCPCS code G0238), which
include a 1-channel ECG and a pulse
oximeter.
F. Application of Tissue Cultured Skin
Substitutes to Lower Extremities
(HCPCS Codes G0440 and G0441)
There are currently two biological
products, Apligraf and Dermagraft,
which are FDA-approved for the
treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. While
commonly used by podiatrists for this
purpose, these products are also used by
other specialists in the treatment of
other clinical conditions, such as burns.
Many Medicare contractors have
established local coverage
determinations specifying the
circumstances under which these
services are covered. In the case of
diabetic foot ulcers, clinical studies of
Apligraf application were based on up
to 5 treatments over a 12-week period.
In contrast, Dermagraft was applied
weekly, up to 8 treatments over a 12week period.
The skin substitute CPT codes were
reviewed and new codes were last
created by the CPT Editorial Panel for
CY 2006. There are currently 2 skin
repair CPT codes that describe Apligraf
application, one primary code, CPT
code 15340 (Tissue cultured allogeneic
skin substitute; first 25 sq cm or less)
and one add-on code, CPT code 15341
(Tissue cultured allogeneic skin
substitute; each additional 25 sq cm, or
part thereof (List separately in addition
to code for primary procedure)) and 4
codes that describe Dermagraft
application, two initial codes based on
body area, CPT codes 15360 (Tissue
cultured allogeneic dermal substitute,
trunk, arms, legs; first 100 sq cm or less,
or 1% of body area of infants and
children) and 15365 (Tissue cultured
allogeneic dermal substitute, face, scalp,
eyelids, mouth, neck, ears, orbits,
genitalia, hands, feet, and/or multiple
digits; first 100 sq cm or less, or 1% of
body area of infants and children) and
two add-on codes, CPT codes 15361
(Tissue cultured allogeneic dermal
substitute, trunk, arms, legs; each
additional 100 sq cm, or each additional
1% of body area of infants and children,
or part thereof (List separately in
addition to code for primary procedure))
and 15366 (Tissue cultured allogeneic
PO 00000
Frm 00132
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
dermal substitute, face, scalp, eyelids,
mouth, neck, ears, orbits, genitalia,
hands, feet, and/or multiple digits; each
additional 100 sq cm, or each additional
1% of body area of infants and children,
or part thereof (List separately in
addition to code for primary
procedure)).
In the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule (75
FR 40103), we noted that several
stakeholders had expressed concern
about the appropriateness and equity of
the coding and payment for these
services, given their similar uses and the
office resources required when the
products are applied repeatedly over a
number of weeks for treatment of lower
extremity ulcers. They were concerned
that current coding, with the associated
payment policies and relative values,
does not provide for appropriate
payment for the services based on how
they are furnished. In addition, some
stakeholders believe that the current
coding and payment provides a
financial incentive for the selection of
one tissue cultured product over
another, rather than facilitating clinical
decision-making based solely on the
most clinically appropriate product for
the patient’s case. For example, the
Dermagraft and Apligraf application
codes have 90-day and 10-day global
periods, respectively, and their current
values include several follow-up office
visits. When patients are treated
periodically with repeated applications
of the products over several weeks, the
patients may be seen in follow-up by the
physician. However, those encounters
would not be evaluation and
management visits but, instead, would
be procedural encounters that would
typically be valued differently under the
PFS than the follow-up office visits
currently included in the values for the
Dermagraft and Apligraf application
codes. Furthermore, while different
stakeholders indicated that debridement
and site preparation are variably
performed when these products are
applied, the CPT codes for Dermagraft
application allow separate reporting of
these preparation services when they
are performed, while the Apligraf
application codes bundle these services.
Since CY 2006, the PFS has accepted
the AMA RUC work and PE
recommendations for the Dermagraft
and Apligraf application codes and has
paid accordingly.
With respect to Medicare payment
policy, some Medicare contractors allow
the use of modifier ¥58 (Staged or
related procedure or service by the same
physician during the postoperative
period) to be reported with the skin
substitute application codes and
provide full payment for the service
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
each time it is performed, even if the
subsequent application(s) is within the
global period of the service. Other
contractors do not allow the use of
modifier ¥58 and, therefore, provide a
single payment for a series of
applications over 90 days or 10 days, as
applicable to the particular code
reported for the product’s initial
application.
Because of the current inconsistencies
in valuing similar skin substitute
application services and the common
clinical scenarios for their use for
Medicare beneficiaries, in the CY 2011
PFS proposed rule (75 FR 40103), we
stated that we believe it would be
appropriate to temporarily create Level
II HCPCS G-codes to report application
of tissue cultured skin substitutes
applied to the lower extremities in order
to provide appropriate and consistent
payment for the services as they are
commonly furnished. Therefore, we
proposed to create two new HCPCS Gcodes for CY 2011, GXXX1 (Application
of tissue cultured allogeneic skin
substitute or dermal substitute; for use
on lower limb, includes the site
preparation and debridement if
performed; first 25 sq cm or less) and
GXXX2 (Application of tissue cultured
allogeneic skin or dermal substitute; for
use on lower limb, includes the site
preparation and debridement if
performed; each additional 25 sq cm),
that would be recognized for payment
under the PFS for the application of
Apligraf or Dermagraft to the lower
limb. These codes would not allow
separate reporting of CPT codes for site
preparation or debridement. We
emphasized that we would expect that
the use of these HCPCS G-codes for
payment under Medicare would be
temporary, while stakeholders work
through the usual channels to establish
appropriate coding for these services
that reflects the current common
clinical scenarios in which the skin
substitutes are applied. Furthermore, we
stated that we would expect to receive
recommendations from the AMA RUC
for appropriate work values and direct
practice expense inputs for the
applicable codes, according to the usual
process for new or revised codes.
Under the PFS, as a temporary
measure, the HCPCS G-codes would be
assigned a 0-day global period so
payment would be made each a time a
covered service was furnished. We
proposed to base payment on the
physician work relative values and the
direct PE inputs for the existing CPT
codes for Apligraf application, with
adjustments for the global period
differences because the HCPCS G-codes
and the Apligraf application CPT codes.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
These CPT codes resemble the new
HCPCS G-codes in terms of wound size
description and the inclusion of site
preparation and debridement in their
current values so we believe they
appropriately represent the physician
work involved in the proposed HPCPCS
G-codes. However, we proposed to
adjust the work RVUs of the Apligraf
application codes to derive the HCPCS
G-code proposed CY 2011 work values
by extracting the values for any office
visits and discharge day management
services because the HCPCS G-codes
have a 0-day global period. In addition,
we proposed to adjust the direct PE
inputs of the Apligraf application codes
to develop the proposed CY 2011 direct
PE inputs of the HPCPS G-codes that
have a 0-day global period.
Our crosswalks and adjustments
resulted in proposed CY 2011 work
RVUs of 2.22 for HPCPCS code GXXX1
and 0.50 for HCPCPS GXXX2. The
proposed direct PE inputs for HCPCS
codes GXXX1 and GXXX2 are included
in the direct PE database for the CY
2011 proposed rule that is posted on the
CMS Web site at: https://www.cms.gov/
PhysicianFeeSched/PFSFRN/list.asp.
We noted that many Medicare
contractors currently have local
coverage policies that specify the
circumstances under which Medicare
covers the application of skin
substitutes. The local coverage policies
may include diagnostic or prior
treatment requirements, as well as
frequency limitations on the number
and periodicity of treatments. We stated
our expectation that these policies
would be updated in the context of the
temporary new HCPCS G-codes that we
proposed for use in CY 2011 to report
the application of tissue cultured
allogeneic skin or dermal substitutes.
We proposed to establish the HCPCS Gcodes for temporary use in CY 2011 in
order to improve the consistency and
resource-based nature of PFS payments
for skin substitute application services
that require similar resources. However,
we noted our continued interest in
ensuring that skin substitutes are
properly utilized for Medicare
beneficiaries who will benefit from that
treatment. We indicated that we would
continue to monitor the utilization of
these services and plan to identify any
concerning trends in utilization that
contractors may want to examine further
through medical review or other
approaches.
Comment: While acknowledging
concerns with the existing CPT codes
for the application of skin substitutes,
several commenters opposed the
proposed HCPCS G-codes because the
commenters believe that CMS should
PO 00000
Frm 00133
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73301
wait for new codes to be created by the
CPT Editorial Panel and the associated
recommendations to be developed by
the AMA RUC for physician work and
direct PE inputs for any new codes. The
commenters argued that CMS’ proposal
to create new temporary codes would
circumvent or otherwise influence the
well-established processes already
underway to address issues identified
by the stakeholders. Several
commenters pointed out that CMS’
proposal would not treat the application
of skin substitutes that are not tissue
cultured similarly to the procedures for
the application of Apligraf and
Dermagraft. Because these commenters
argued that inconsistencies in coding
and payment for the other products
would continue, several commenters
recommended that CMS await a more
comprehensive solution from the CPT
Editorial Panel.
On the other hand, a number of
commenters supported the proposal to
establish the two new HCPCS G-codes,
and a few of these commenters
recommended no changes to the
proposed HCPCS code descriptors.
However, one commenter who generally
supported the proposal recommended
that CMS expand the proposed HCPCS
code descriptors to incorporate the
application of a broader range of skin
substitutes that were not tissue cultured,
specifically to include the application of
biologically active skin substitutes.
Another commenter requested that
CMS clarify the meaning of ‘‘dermal
substitute.’’ This commenter also
requested that CMS delete the words
‘‘for use on lower limb’’ and allow the
new codes to be used for application of
tissue cultured skin or dermal
substitutes on locations other than the
lower limb. Consistent with this
perspective, the commenter further
recommended that CMS not recognize
the existing CPT codes for application of
Apligraf and Dermagraft on other areas
of the body. The commenter argued that,
as proposed, the HCPCS G-codes would
lead to confusion and the potential for
fraudulent billing because both a
HCPCS G-code and a CPT code could
describe the application of the same
product to the lower extremities. The
commenter believes that CMS should
only recognize the proposed G-codes
under the PFS for the application of
tissue cultured skin or dermal
substitutes to any body site, to allow for
consistency in reporting and payment of
these services.
Several commenters requested that
CMS provide guidance on the proper
use of the current CPT codes and new
HCPCS G-codes for reporting the
application of skin substitutes. Other
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73302
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
commenters were concerned that the
temporary HCPCS G-codes could create
confusion, disrupt physician’s office
billing policies, and otherwise burden
coding staff and advised CMS to not
finalize the proposal.
Response: We appreciate the
perspectives of stakeholders and we
share the commenters’ desire for
appropriate and consistent payment that
is resource-based for the application of
skin substitutes as these services are
commonly furnished for appropriate
clinical indications. We appreciate and
value the work of the CPT Editorial
Panel in evaluating the complexities
and nuances in this area and look
forward to reviewing any new codes
created for CY 2012 or later years and
the AMA RUC recommendations for the
physician work and direct PE inputs for
those new codes. We note that there are
no new codes for CY 2011 that describe
the application of skin substitutes and,
therefore, new codes would not be
available before CY 2012 at the earliest.
In proposing to create two temporary
HCPCS G-codes for CY 2011, we sought
a fair and balanced temporary
alternative to provide appropriate and
equitable payment for the application of
tissue cultured skin or dermal
substitutes to the lower extremities.
While we understand from stakeholders
that the work of the CPT Editorial Panel
is ongoing in this area, our proposal was
specifically to establish temporary
HCPCS G-codes that would allow for
more appropriate reporting and
payment under certain scenarios in the
short term while a more comprehensive
solution is being developed and refined
by expert advisors. Because our
proposal was so limited in scope and
temporary, clearly it was not our
intention to circumvent or unduly
influence the CPT Editorial Panel or the
AMA RUC as these groups proceed in
their comprehensive work to establish
new codes and values for the
application of skin substitutes. We
would also not expect that the
characteristics of the temporary HCPCS
G-codes, in terms of terminology in the
code descriptors, global periods, work
values, or direct PE inputs, should
shape or otherwise affect the ongoing
work of stakeholders who are
developing a complete approach to
coding for the application of skin
substitutes. We acknowledge that new
CPT codes and their AMA RUCrecommended values and direct PE
inputs arising from these processes may
appropriately differ in one or multiple
characteristics from the temporary
HCPCS G-codes.
With regard to the commenters who
were concerned about the limited scope
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
of our proposal and suggested that we
not proceed or that we broaden the
scope of the proposed code descriptors
to address inequities and
inconsistencies that the commenters
believe would persist under our
proposal, we believe that the limited
proposal continues to be the most
appropriate temporary approach for CY
2011. First, it was not our intention to
comprehensively address the issue of
coding revisions for the application of
skin substitutes because we are aware of
the ongoing work of the CPT Editorial
Panel in this area and would not want
to undermine its deliberative process.
Moreover, based on the public
comments we received, we have reason
to believe that a revised coding structure
for the application of skin substitutes
will be available soon. Second, the
HCPCS G-codes that we proposed had a
0-day global period based on the FDAapproved indications and regimens for
the application of the tissue cultured
products to which the codes would
apply, and we are not certain to what
extent a 0-day global period would be
appropriate for the application of other
skin substitutes. Third, while several
commenters provided suggestions
regarding alternative language that
could be used in the HCPCS G-code
descriptors, it is unclear which skin
substitutes products would be
incorporated under the revised terms.
Some of the suggested alternatives
would use phrases such as ‘‘biologically
active’’ that, as far as we know, are not
fully defined in the medical community
and are not currently used in the CPT
code descriptors that describe the
application of skin substitutes. Because
of our uncertainty in this regard, we
would be hesitant to make such
significant revisions to the HCPCS Gcode descriptors without the
opportunity for public notice and
comment, which would allow
stakeholders the opportunity to provide
input about revised code descriptors
and the appropriateness of the values
for the HCPCS G-codes. In contrast, our
proposal relied upon the use of terms in
the HCPCS G-code descriptors that are
already included in the descriptors for
established CPT codes and, therefore,
we do not believe we would be setting
a precedent that would affect the
current work of the CPT Editorial Panel
on this issue. Finally, we do not see a
need to further clarify terms, such as
‘‘dermal substitute,’’ in the HCPCS Gcode descriptors because these are
currently used in the CPT code
descriptors and the same definitions
would apply to the G-codes.
PO 00000
Frm 00134
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Furthermore, we believe it would
continue to be appropriate to recognize
the existing CPT codes for the
application of tissue cultured skin or
dermal substitutes to areas of the body
other than the lower extremities. We
established the 0-day global period, the
physician work values, and the direct
PE inputs for the proposed HCPCS Gcodes based on the specific clinical
scenarios where Apligraf or Dermagraft
would be applied to treat lower
extremity ulcers. We do not necessarily
believe that the same global periods and
values would be appropriate for the
application of these products to other
body areas under different clinical
scenarios. The usual coding guidance
that providers should report the most
specific HCPCS code that describes the
service furnished would apply in the
case of the application of Apligraf or
Dermagraft. If one of these products
were applied to the lower extremities,
we would expect the HCPCS G-codes to
be reported, rather than the CPT codes,
as the HCPCS G-codes are more specific
to application in that body area.
Finally, because it is our common
practice to create one or more new
HCPCS G-codes for payment under the
PFS each year, we believe that
physicians’ offices are experienced in
integrating new codes into the reporting
of services furnished and paid under the
PFS. Not only are local coverage
determinations commonly applicable to
the application of skin substitutes, we
also understand that there are a subset
of physicians who regularly apply tissue
cultured skin or dermal substitutes to
lower extremities to treat ulcers. In this
context, we believe that our national
educational efforts, in addition to
education by local contractors, will
quickly disseminate information to the
relevant practitioners about these new
HCPCS G-codes and their appropriate
use in CY 2011.
After consideration of the public
comments we received, we are
finalizing our proposal, with editorial
modification, to create two new HCPCS
G-codes for reporting the application of
tissue cultured skin substitutes and
dermal substitutes to the lower
extremities in CY 2011. For internal
consistency, we are changing the
descriptors of HCPCS codes GXXX1 and
GXXX2 from the proposed language to
both refer to ‘‘skin substitute or dermal
substitute.’’ HCPCS code GXXX2 as
proposed read ‘‘Application of tissue
cultured allogeneic skin or dermal
substitute; for use on lower limb,
includes the site preparation and
debridement if performed; each
additional 25 sq cm.’’ The final codes
are HCPCS code G0440 (Application of
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
tissue cultured allogeneic skin
substitute or dermal substitute; for use
on lower limb, includes the site
preparation and debridement if
performed; first 25 sq cm or less) and
HCPCS code G0441 (Application of
tissue cultured allogeneic skin
substitute or dermal substitute; for use
on lower limb, includes the site
preparation and debridement if
performed; each additional 25 sq cm)
that will be recognized for payment
under the PFS in CY 2011.
Comment: A number of commenters
supported the assignment of a 0-day
global period to the application of tissue
cultured skin or dermal substitutes.
Many expressed the view that assigning
a 0-day global period to the codes would
allow the products to be prescribed and
administered based on their clinical
value, without concern for payment
differences between products. The
commenters who did not support the 0day global period were those who
believe that the proposal would further
payment inequities between products
used similarly. For example, one
commenter reasoned that, insofar as a
patient is likely to require multiple
administrations of a skin substitute
product during a 90-day period,
providers would have a significant
incentive to use the products whose
application would be reported under the
proposed codes rather than a product
whose application procedure continues
to have a 90-day global period.
Another commenter addressed the
bundling of site preparation and
debridement into the proposed HCPCS
codes GXXX1 and GXXX2. The
commenter argued that the proposed
values for the new codes HCPCS Gcodes would not be sufficient to account
for this work. The commenter
recommended that the proposed values
should be adjusted upward or separate
payment should be allowed for site
preparation and/or debridement.
In reviewing CMS’ proposed
methodology for setting the physician
work values for the HCPCS G-codes, one
commenter contended that CMS should
finalize a total of 2.86 works RVUs for
GXXX1 instead of the proposed 2.22
work RVUs. The commenter claimed
that the work RVUs for GXXX1 should
be crosswalked from CPT code 15340
less only the physician work for the two
post-procedure visits in CPT code 15340
which are not included in HCPCS code
GXXX1.
Another commenter recommended
that CMS review the proposed PE inputs
for the new HCPCS G-codes.
Specifically, the commenter explained
that the only difference in clinical labor
time between CPT code 15340 and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
HCPCS code GXXX1 should be an
adjustment to account for the difference
in the global period (10 days for CPT
code 15340 and 0 days for HCPCS code
GXXX1). The commenter also stated
that HCPCS code GXXX1 should
include all the pre-service clinical staff
time in CPT code 15340, yet did not for
the proposed rule. The commenter was
unclear on whether the post-service
clinical labor time was properly
adjusted to account for the change in
global period from CPT code 15340 to
HCPCS code GXXX1.
Response: We agree with the
commenters that a 0-day global period
is the most appropriate for the
application of tissue cultured skin
substitutes or dermal substitutes to the
lower limb for purposes of the
temporary HCPCS G-codes, pending a
comprehensive change in coding
established by the CPT Editorial Panel.
As discussed in the previous response,
we sought a fair and balanced temporary
solution to provide appropriate and
consistent payment for the application
of tissue cultured skin substitutes or
dermal substitutes to the lower limb.
The commenters who did not support
the 0-day global period were those who
were more broadly against the creation
of the new HCPCS G-codes codes
because of potential payment
imbalances between products that
would be included in the new codes
and those that would not be. No
commenters asserted that the 0-day
global period would be inappropriate
for the codes to which we proposed to
apply that period.
The proposed physician work values
for HCPSC G-codes G0440 and G0441
(proposed as HCPCS codes GXXX1 and
GXXX2, respectively) were crosswalked,
with adjustment for the different global
periods, from CPT codes 15340 and
15341. CPT codes 15340 and 15341
currently include site preparation and
debridement and, as such, the
additional reporting of a separate CPT
code for these activities, if performed on
the same site as the skin substitute
application procedure, is not permitted.
We believe that the values for both the
current CPT codes and the HCPCS Gcodes are clinically appropriate for the
services they describe, with payment for
site preparation and debridement
bundled if furnished.
In response to a commenter’s concern,
we reviewed the proposed valuation of
the physician work for HCPCS codes
G0440 and G0441 to ensure consistency
with our proposed methodology, and we
continue to believe that the appropriate
work value for HCPCS code G0440 is
2.22 RVUs as we proposed. HCPCS code
G0440 was crosswalked to CPT code
PO 00000
Frm 00135
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73303
15340, with adjustments to account for
the 0-day global period of the HCPCS Gcode. CPT code 15340, with a 10-day
global period, is currently valued to
include two CPT code 99212 (level 2
established patient office or other
outpatient visit) post-operative visits
(0.48 RVUs each, 0.96 RVUs total) and
half of one CPT code 99238 (Hospital
discharge day management; 30 minutes
or less) visit (1.28 RVUs each, 0.64
RVUs total). CPT code 15340 has a
current total physician work value of
3.82 RVUs. To adjust for the 0-day
global period for the minor procedure
described by HCPCS code G0440, we
believe it would be appropriate to
deduct the value of both the two postoperative office visits and the discharge
day visit. In the case of post-operative
office visits, these may be separately
reported and paid if medically
reasonable and necessary. In addition,
we also do not believe that a half
discharge day visit should be a building
block based on the clinical
characteristics of the procedure
described by HCPCS code G0440. When
we make these adjustments to the work
value of 3.82 RVUs for CPT code 15340,
2.22 work RVUs, the value we proposed
for HCPCS code G0440, remain.
We also reviewed the proposed PE
inputs included in the direct PE
database for the CY 2011 PFS proposed
rule. Like the physician work values, to
determine the PE inputs we crosswalked
HCPCS code G0440 from CPT code
15340 and HCPCS code G0441 from
CPT code 15341. As one commenter
observed, the difference in the values
should reflect the shift from a 10-day
global period to a 0-day global period.
However, for PE inputs, the change in
global period typically affects both the
pre- and post-service PE inputs. To
establish the post-operative clinical
labor time for HCPCS code G0440, we
subtracted out the time associated with
the two CPT code 99212 visits that were
removed (32 minutes total) and the half
discharge day visit (19 minutes total)
that was eliminated, bringing the postoperative clinical labor time down from
54 minutes to three minutes. For the
pre-service activities, while 0-day global
period procedures generally have 0
minutes of pre-service clinical labor
time allocated to them, we believe that
5 minutes in the nonfacility setting and
10 minutes in the facility setting reflect
more appropriate pre-service clinical
labor times in the instance of HCPCS
code G0440. These revised pre- and
post-service clinical labor times were
reflected in the proposed CY 2011 direct
PE database for HCPCS code G0440.
While we valued the physician work
and clinical labor time PE inputs
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73304
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
according to the crosswalk methodology
as described in the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule (75 FR 40103 through
40104), upon review of the new CY
2011 HCPCS G-codes for this final rule
with comment period, we noticed that
we had not applied the proposed
methodology to the PE inputs for
equipment and supplies. Therefore,
consistent with our proposal, we have
adjusted the supply and equipment PE
inputs for HCPCS codes G0440 and
G0441 in the final CY 2011 PE database
to reflect the shift to a 0-day global
period from a 10-day global period for
these HCPCS codes. As the equipment
and supply PE inputs for the 10-day
global period CPT codes reflect those
necessary for multiple visits to the
provider, the equipment and supply
inputs for the new HCPCS G-codes
codes should reflect more appropriate
values for codes with a 0-day global
period.
After consideration of the public
comments we received, we are
finalizing our proposal to value HCPCS
codes G0440 and G0441 as 0-day global
procedures into which site preparation
and debridement are bundled. As we
proposed, under our final policy we
have crosswalked the physician work
RVUs and direct PE inputs from CPT
codes 15340 and 15341 to HCPCS codes
G0440 and G0441, respectively, with
adjustments. We have adjusted the work
RVUs and the direct PE inputs (clinical
labor, equipment, and supplies) to
reflect the shift from a 10-day global
period to a 0-day global period for the
new HCPCS G-codes.
Comment: Several commenters were
concerned about the use of the -58
modifier for 10-day and 90-day global
surgical procedures for the application
of skin substitutes when repeated
application of a product within the
global period is the typical case. The
commenters were largely supportive of
eliminating the use of the -58 modifier
for the two new HCPCS codes which,
the commenters remarked, has been the
source of some confusion and has been
interpreted inconsistently by Medicare
contractors. The commenters explained
that the change to a 0-day global period
would result in no need for the -58
modifier to be reported with the HCPCS
G-codes. Several commenters
recommended that CMS provide
guidance on use of the -58 modifier with
the existing CPT codes for the
application of skin substitutes, most of
which have 90-day global period and all
of which would continue to be
recognized for payment under the PFS.
Response: Assignment of a 0-day
global period for the two HCPCS Gcodes eliminates the need for use of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
-58 modifier with these two new codes.
We recognize that the -58 modifier may
continue to be used in conjunction with
the other CPT codes with 10-day or 90day global periods for the application of
skin substitutes. Specific determinations
of the appropriate use of the -58
modifier will continue to be the
responsibility of individual Medicare
contractors.
In summary, after consideration of the
public comments we received, we are
finalizing our CY 2011 proposal, with
modification to adjust the supply and
equipment direct PE inputs, as well as
editorial modification to the code
descriptors for consistency, to create
two new HCPCS G-codes for CY 2011,
G0440 (Application of tissue cultured
allogeneic skin substitute or dermal
substitute; for use on lower limb,
includes the site preparation and
debridement if performed; first 25 sq cm
or less) and G0441 (Application of
tissue cultured allogeneic skin
substitute or dermal substitute; for use
on lower limb, includes the site
preparation and debridement if
performed; each additional 25 sq cm),
that will be recognized for payment
under the PFS for the application of
products described by the codes to the
lower limb. These codes do not allow
separate reporting of CPT codes for site
preparation or debridement. Providers
reporting the application of tissue
cultured allogeneic skin substitute or
dermal substitutes to the lower limb for
payment under the PFS in CY 2011
should report HCPCS code G0440, along
with HCPCS code G0441 if applicable
based on wound size, and not CPT code
15340, 15341, 15360, 16361, 15365, or
15366.
Under the PFS, as a temporary
measure, the HCPCS G-codes are
assigned a 0-day global period so
payment is made each a time a covered
service is furnished. As proposed, we
are basing payment on the physician
work relative values and the direct PE
inputs for the existing CPT codes 15340
and 15341 for Apligraf application, with
adjustments for the global period
differences between the HCPCS G-codes
and the Apligraf application CPT codes.
However, as we proposed, we have
adjusted the work RVUs of the Apligraf
application codes to derive the final CY
2011 HCPCS G-code work values by
extracting the values for any office visits
and discharge day management services
because the HCPCS G-codes have a 0day global period. In addition, with
modifications of our proposed PE
equipment and supply inputs to be fully
consistent with our crosswalk proposal,
we have adjusted the direct PE inputs of
the Apligraf application codes to
PO 00000
Frm 00136
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
develop the final CY 2011 direct PE
inputs for the HPCPS G-codes that have
a 0-day global period.
Our crosswalks and adjustments
result in CY 2011 final work RVUs of
2.22 for HCPCS code G0440 and 0.50 for
HCPCS G0441. The final direct PE
inputs for HCPCS codes G0440 and
G0442 are included in the direct PE
database for the CY 2011 PFS final rule
with comment period rule.
G. Canalith Repositioning (CPT code
95992)
For CY 2009, CPT created a new code
for canalith repositioning, specifically
CPT code 95992 (Canalith repositioning
procedure(s) (eg, Epley maneuver,
Semont maneuver), per day). This
service may be furnished by both
physicians and therapists. Although we
accepted the AMA RUC-recommended
work RVUs and PE inputs, we initially
bundled this procedure on an interim
basis in the CY 2009 PFS final rule with
comment period (73 FR 69896),
indicating that we believed it would be
paid through the E/M service that it
would accompany. Subsequently, in
view of concerns from therapists who
cannot furnish E/M services, we
clarified that therapists could report one
of the generally defined therapy CPT
codes when canalith repositioning was
furnished. In the CY 2010 PFS final rule
with comment period (74 FR 61766), we
changed the code’s status under the PFS
to ‘‘not recognized for payment under
Medicare,’’ consistent with our
expectation that another payable code
would be reported when the service was
furnished.
Based on further information from
stakeholders regarding the distinct and
separate nature of this procedure from
an E/M service and their request that we
recognize this CPT code for payment,
similar to our separate payment for most
other procedures commonly furnished
in association with an E/M service, we
proposed to recognize CPT code 95992
for payment under the CY 2011 PFS,
consistent with our typical treatment of
most other codes for minor procedures.
In doing so, we proposed to change the
code’s status to ‘‘A’’ and utilize the CY
2009 RUC recommendations for work
RVUs (0.75) and PE inputs for
establishing its payment in CY 2011.
(That is, status ‘‘A’’ means Active code.
These codes are separately payable
under the PFS if covered.) Because
canalith repositioning (CPT code 95992)
can be furnished by physicians or
therapists as a therapy service under a
therapy plan of care or by physicians as
physicians’ services outside of a therapy
plan of care, we would add CPT code
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
95992 to the ‘‘sometimes therapy’’ list on
the therapy code abstract file.
Comment: Many commenters
supported CMS’ proposal to
acknowledge the distinct and separate
nature of CPT code 95992 from an E/M
service by recognizing CPT code 95992
for separate payment and agreed with
the proposed use of the AMA RUCrecommended values for work RVUs
(0.75) and PE inputs for establishing
payment in CY 2011.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ support for our proposal.
After consideration of the public
comments we received, we are
finalizing our CY 2011 proposal to
recognize CPT code 95992 for payment
under the PFS. As a result, the code’s
status has been changed to ‘‘A’’ in
Addendum B to this final rule with
comment period and the CY 2009 AMA
RUC recommendations for work RVUs
(0.75) and PE inputs will be used for
establishing its payment in CY 2011.
(That is, status ‘‘A’’ means Active code.
These codes are separately payable
under the PFS if covered.) CPT code
95992 has also been added to the
‘‘sometimes therapy’’ list on the therapy
code abstract file.
H. Intranasal/Oral Immunization Codes
(CPT codes 90467, 90468, 90473, and
90474)
To ensure that the PE RVUs are
consistent between the intranasal/oral
and injectable immunization
administration CPT codes that describe
services that utilize similar PE
resources, we proposed to crosswalk the
PE values for CPT code 90471
(Immunization administration (includes
percutaneous, intradermal,
subcutaneous, or intramuscular
injections); one vaccine (single or
combination vaccine/toxoid)) to CPT
codes 90467 (Immunization
administration younger than age 8 years
(includes intranasal or oral routes of
administration) when the physician
counsels the patient/family; first
administration (single or combination
vaccine/toxoid), per day) and 90473
(Immunization administration by
intranasal or oral route; one vaccine
(single or combination vaccine/toxoid)).
Similarly, we also proposed to
crosswalk the PE values for CPT code
90472 (Immunization administration
(includes percutaneous, intradermal,
subcutaneous, or intramuscular
injections); each additional vaccine
(single or combination vaccine/toxoid)
(List separately in addition to code for
primary procedure)) to CPT codes 90468
(Immunization administration younger
than age 8 years (includes intranasal or
oral routes of administration) when the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
physician counsels the patient/family;
each additional administration (single
or combination vaccine/toxoid), per day
(List separately in addition to code for
primary procedure)) and 90474
(Immunization administration by
intranasal or oral route; each additional
vaccine (single or combination vaccine/
toxoid) (List separately in addition to
code for primary procedure)).
Comment: Many commenters
expressed support for the proposal. One
commenter questioned why the PE
values are currently different and
several other commenters urged CMS to
utilize the AMA RUC recommendations
and the resource-based methodology to
develop PE RVUs for these services in
CY 2011, rather than crosswalk the PE
RVUs.
Response: We appreciate the support
from the commenters for our proposal.
We would note that, even with the same
direct PE inputs, somewhat different PE
RVUs for the various CPT codes may
result from our PE methodology that
relies upon the historical specialty mix,
as reflected in the most recent PFS
utilization data, of providers who
furnished the services to allocate the
indirect PE. Therefore, because we
believe it is especially important to have
consistent PE values for payment of
these similar services under the PFS, we
are unable to utilize the AMA RUC
direct PE input recommendations and
the resource-based methodology to
develop PE RVUs for these services.
While in general we value services
under the PFS with reference to the
direct PE inputs recommended by the
AMA RUC and our standard resourcebased approach to establishing PE
RVUs, we note that we also commonly
use crosswalks to other similar codes to
establish the values for services in
certain circumstances. In this instance,
we believe a crosswalk is particularly
appropriate in order to maintain
appropriate relativity between similar
services and avoid the potential for nonclinically-based bias in favor of one
vaccine administration technique over
another.
Comment: A few commenters
questioned why the CY 2011 proposed
rule referenced ‘‘physician’’ counseling
when identifying CPT codes 90467 and
90468 and requested clarification that
nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician
assistants (PAs) also be included within
the scope of this proposal.
Response: We would like to clarify
that the reference to ‘‘physician’’
counseling noted by the commenters is
part of the official CPT code descriptors
for CPT codes 90467 and 90468.
Consistent with our usual interpretation
of CPT codes that include the term
PO 00000
Frm 00137
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73305
physician in the code descriptor, for
Medicare payment purposes this
specificity does not exclude NPs or PAs
from providing counseling to the
patient/family that is within the NP’s or
PA’s scope of practice.
Comment: Several commenters
recommended modifying the proposal
by crosswalking the PE RVUs for CPT
code 90466 (Immunization
administration younger than age 8 years
of age (includes percutaneous,
intradermal, subcutaneous, or
intramuscular injections) when the
physician counsels the patient/family;
each addition injection (single or
combination vaccine/toxoid) per day
(List separately in addition to code for
primary procedure)) to CPT code 90468
to achieve parity and reflect the
additional clinical time and other
practice expenses expended to provide
immunizations to young children.
Response: For CY 2011, the CPT
Editorial Panel revised the reporting of
immunization administration services
for the pediatric population. As a result,
CPT codes 90466 and 90468 have been
deleted and replaced with CPT code
90461 (Immunization administration
through 18 years of age via any route of
administration, with counseling by
physician or other qualified health
professional; each additional vaccine/
toxoid component (List separately in
addition to code for primary
procedure)). In addition, CPT codes
90465 (Immunization administration
younger than 8 years of age (includes
percutaneous, intradermal,
subcutaneous, or intramuscular
injections) when the physician counsels
the patient/family; first injection (single
or combination vaccine/toxoid), per
day) and 90467 were deleted and
replaced with CPT code 90460
(Immunization administration through
18 years of age via any route of
administration, with counseling by
physician or other qualified health care
professional; first vaccine/toxoid
component).
We agree with the commenters who
believe that consistency in the PE RVUs
across CPT codes with different code
descriptors reflecting immunization
services to different populations or
using different routes of administration
is desirable. As a matter of longstanding
policy (69 FR 66307), we have
crosswalked the nonfacility PE value
from CPT code 96372 (Therapeutic,
prophylactic, or diagnostic injection
(specify substance or drug);
subcutaneous or intramuscular)
[predecessor CPT codes 90782 and
90772] to the PE values for CPT code
90471 and to the HCPCS G-codes for
administration of specific vaccines. We
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73306
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
will continue this crosswalk for CY
2011 and, as we proposed, also
crosswalk the nonfacility PE value of
CPT code 90471 to CPT code 90473. The
PE value for CPT code 90472 is based
on the direct PE inputs for that code,
according to the usual PFS
methodology. We will crosswalk the
nonfacility PE value of CPT code 90472
to CPT code 90474 for CY 2011 as we
proposed. Finally, we are modifying our
CY 2011 proposal and crosswalking the
nonfacility PE RVUs for CPT codes
90472 and 90474 to new CPT code
90461 (replacement code for CPT codes
90466 and 90468) for CY 2011. In
addition, we will crosswalk the
nonfacility PE RVUs for CPT codes
90471 and 90473 to new CPT code
90460 (replacement code for CPT codes
90465 and 90467).
After consideration of the public
comments we received and the CY 2011
changes in codes for pediatric
immunization services by the CPT
Editorial Panel, we are finalizing our CY
2011 proposals, with the following
modifications. In summary, for CY 2011
we will—
• Crosswalk the nonfacility PE RVUs
for CPT codes 90472 and 90474 to new
CPT code 90461; and
• Crosswalk the nonfacility PE RVUs
for CPT codes 90471 to 90473 to new
CPT code 90460.
I. Refinement Panel Process
As discussed in the 1993 PFS final
rule with comment period (57 FR
55938), we adopted a refinement panel
process to assist us in reviewing the
public comments on interim physician
work RVUs for CPT codes with an
interim final status in each year and
developing final work values for the
subsequent year. We decided that the
panel would be comprised of a
multispecialty group of physicians who
would review and discuss the work
involved in each procedure under
review, and then each individual would
individually rate the work of the
procedure. We believed that
establishing the panel with a
multispecialty group would balance the
interests of those who commented on
the work RVUs against the budgetary
and redistributive effects that could
occur if we accepted extensive increases
in work RVUs across a broad range of
services. Historically, the refinement
panel has based its recommendation to
change a work value or to retain the
interim value has hinged solely on the
outcome of a statistical test on the
ratings (an F-test).
Depending on the number and range
of codes that public commenters,
typically specialty societies, request be
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
subject to refinement, we establish
refinement panels with representatives
from 4 groups of physicians: Clinicians
representing the specialty most
identified with the procedures in
question; physicians with practices in
related specialties; primary care
physicians; and contractor medical
directors (CMDs). Typically the
refinement panels meet in the summer
prior to the promulgation of the final
rule finalizing the RVUs for the codes.
Typical panels have included 8 to 10
physicians across the 4 groups. Over
time, the statistical test used to evaluate
the RVU ratings of individual panel
members have become less reliable as
the physicians in each group have
tended to select a previously discussed
value, rather than independently
evaluating the work. In addition, the
resulting RVUs have occasionally
exhibited rank order anomalies (that is,
a more complex procedure is assigned
lower RVUs than a less complex
procedure).
Recently, section 1848(c)(2)(K) of the
Act (as added by section 3134 of the
ACA) authorized the Secretary to review
potentially misvalued codes and make
appropriate adjustments to the relative
values. In addition, MedPAC has
encouraged CMS to critically review the
values assigned to the services under
the PFS. MedPAC has stated its belief
that CMS has historically relied too
heavily on specialty societies to identify
services that are misvalued by accepting
a high proportion of the
recommendations of the AMA RUC.
We believe the refinement panel
process continues to provide
stakeholders with a meaningful
opportunity to review and discuss the
interim work RVUs with a clinically
diverse group of experts which then
provides informed recommendations to
CMS. Therefore, in the CY 2011
proposed rule (75 FR 40105), we
indicated that we would like to
continue the refinement process,
including the established composition
that includes representatives from the 4
groups of physicians, but with
administrative modification and
clarification. Specifically, for refinement
panels beginning in CY 2011 (that is, for
those codes with CY 2011 interim
values that would be subject to
refinement during CY 2011), we
proposed to eliminate the use of the Ftest and instead base revised RVUs on
the median work value of the panel
members’ ratings. We believe this
approach will simplify the refinement
process administratively, while
resulting in a final panel
recommendation that reflects the
summary opinion of the panel members
PO 00000
Frm 00138
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
based on a commonly used measure of
central tendency that is not significantly
affected by outlier values. In addition,
we clarified that we have the final
authority to set the RVUs and, therefore,
may make adjustments to the work
RVUs resulting from refinement if
policy concerns warrant their
modification.
Comment: Most commenters
expressed support for the proposal to
eliminate the F-test, including the
increased transparency of the
refinement panel process that the
commenters believe would result from
this change. Many commenters,
including the AMA RUC, agreed with
the use of the median work value of the
panel members’ ratings and believe the
median would provide a clearer view of
the central tendency of the estimates
provided by the survey respondents. On
the other hand, several commenters
believe the current process is effective
and eliminates the effects of agreement
between the panel members’ ratings.
The AMA RUC recommended that
CMS be mindful when assigning
individuals to the refinement panel to
ensure that all members, including
CMDs, are not from the same specialties
that were involved in the public
comment originating the issue under
review. Another commenter cautioned
CMS that the refinement panels need to
be balanced and should ensure that
there is at least one representative on
the panel who has direct experience
with the procedure or service under
review.
Response: We appreciate the support
of the commenters regarding our
proposal to use the median work value
of the panel members’ ratings and will
move forward to finalize our proposal
for refinement panels beginning in CY
2011 (refinement of CY 2011 new/
revised codes with interim values).
When identifying individuals for the
refinement panel, including CMDs, we
attempt to select individuals from each
of the different specialties with an
interest in the codes being refined, not
just the specialty or specialties
responsible for the public comment
originating the request for refinement.
We also take steps to ensure that the
panel members have direct experience
and knowledge of the procedure or
service under review. We will certainly
continue our efforts in this regard.
However, we note that in recent years
the number of physicians who are
available to participate in the
refinement panel has been limited at
times, and some specialty societies have
had difficulty obtaining representation
for the panel.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Comment: Several commenters urged
CMS to use a methodology that would
allow the AMA RUC-recommended
value to prevail when appropriately
supported by the pertinent specialty
societies and when the value is strongly
supported by the rank order and
resources of the procedure, since the
PFS final rule with comment period is
the first opportunity for the public to
see the RVUs for the coming calendar
year. These commenters also believe a
full and fair review process is warranted
prior to the publication of these values
in the final rule with comment period.
Response: We note that PFS payments
for services are resource-based. When
reviewing the AMA RUC
recommendations, our decisions to
value services are based on the
resources needed to perform the typical
service and, therefore, these decisions
are based upon a thorough review of the
AMA RUC recommendations in the
context of the specific new or revised
codes. In those cases where we reject
the AMA RUC recommendations, we
publish our rationale in the PFS final
rule with comment period where we
first make the values public. These
values are published as interim final
values that are subject to public
comment. The public comment period
serves as the opportunity for public
review and we see no other alternative
to this timing, given the timeframes in
which the new or revised CPT codes
and the AMA RUC recommendations
regarding their values are available to us
and in which the new or revised CPT
codes must be incorporated into the PFS
for payment.
Comment: Several commenters
expressed concerns about the proposal
to allow CMS to have the final authority
to set the work RVUs if policy concerns
warrant modifications to the values
derived from the refinement process.
These commenters opposed this
proposal and recommended that the
decisions of the refinement panels
remain unchanged by CMS. The
commenters believe a major strength of
the current process is that is gives
stakeholders a strong incentive to
participate, knowing that the outcomes
of the process will not be overturned by
CMS.
Response: Although we appreciate the
concerns raised by the commenters, by
law, we retain the final responsibility
and authority to set the RVUs and,
therefore, may make adjustments to the
work RVUs resulting from refinement if
policy concerns (such as a rank order
anomaly) warrant their modifications.
Comment: One commenter urged
CMS to make the refinement process
transparent and open to the public.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
Response: We believe our proposal
would make the refinement process
more transparent, as noted by some
commenters. We further believe that
representation from specialty societies
as part of the AMA RUC process for
valuing the codes allows the input of
physicians who have direct experience
with the procedure or service under
review.
After consideration of the public
comments we received, we are
finalizing our CY 2011 proposal to
eliminate the use of the F-test for the
refinement panels and, instead, we will
base the revised RVUs on the median
work value of the panel members’
ratings. In addition, we note that CMS
retains the final authority to set the
RVUs and, therefore, make adjustments
to the work RVUs resulting from
refinement if policy concerns warrant
their modification.
J. Remote Cardiac Monitoring Services
(CPT codes 93012, 93229, 93268, and
93271)
In the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule (75
FR 40105), we reiterated our concerns
about the issue of developing PE RVUs
for services that are utilized 24 hours a
day, 7 days a week (24/7), such as those
that require certain centralized
monitoring system equipment and
which have been discussed in earlier
PFS rulemaking cycles, most recently in
the CY 2010 PFS final rule with
comment period (74 FR 61755). We
stated that the PE equipment
methodology was developed for
equipment that is in use during
standard physician’s office business
hours and not equipment that is used in
furnishing such continuous services,
and that we would conduct further
analysis of this issue. We indicated that
services that were contractor-priced in
CY 2009 remained contractor-priced in
CY 2010 and that any proposed changes
would be communicated through future
rulemaking.
In the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule (75
FR 40105), we explained that since
publication of the CY 2010 PFS final
rule with comment period, we focused
our additional analysis on 4 of the CPT
codes that commenters have brought to
our attention because they involve
concurrent, remote, 24/7 attended
monitoring of multiple patients from a
central location: CPT code 93012
(Telephonic transmission of postsymptom electrocardiogram rhythm
strip(s); 24-hour attended monitoring,
per 30 day period of time; tracing only);
CPT code 93229 (Wearable mobile
cardiovascular telemetry with
electrocardiographic recording,
concurrent computerized real time data
PO 00000
Frm 00139
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73307
analysis and greater than 24 hours of
accessible ECG data storage (retrievable
with query) with ECG triggered and
patient selected events transmitted to a
remote attended surveillance center for
up to 30 days; technical support for
connection and patient instructions for
use, attended surveillance, analysis and
physician prescribed transmission of
daily and emergent data reports); CPT
code 93268 (Wearable patient activated
electrocardiographic rhythm derived
event recording with presymptom
memory loop, 24-hour attended
monitoring, per 30 day period of time;
includes transmission, physician review
and interpretation); and CPT 93271 code
(Wearable patient activated
electrocardiographic rhythm derived
event recording with presymptom
memory loop, 24-hour attended
monitoring, per 30 day period of time;
monitoring, receipt of transmissions,
and analysis).
We pointed out that of these four
codes, CPT code 93229 is currently
contractor-priced in CY 2010, meaning
that the local Medicare contractors
determine payment rates for the service
within the PFS geographic areas in their
jurisdiction. The three services that are
currently nationally-priced on the PFS
are in the first year of a 4-year transition
to lower payment rates based on the use
of the PPIS data adopted in the CY 2010
PFS final rule with comment period. We
refer readers to section II.A.2. of this
final rule with comment period for a
description of the general PFS PE
methodology that is the basis for the
following discussion of approaches to
establishing PE RVUs for these four CPT
codes.
In the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule, we
explained that we examined several
alternative methods for developing PE
RVUS upon which PFS payment rates
for these four CPT codes could be based.
Each of these services involves
transmission of information from
multiple patients who wear individual
monitoring devices that transmit
patient-specific information to
centralized equipment that is
simultaneously in use for multiple
patients. We stated that we believed it
would be most consistent with the
principles underlying the PFS PE
methodology to classify the centralized
monitoring equipment as an indirect
cost since it is servicing multiple
patients at the same time. We explained
that after classifying this equipment as
an indirect cost, we used our standard
methodology to calculate an indirect
practice cost index value for each code
based on the PE/HR survey data of the
historical mix of specialties providing
these services. We went on to state that
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73308
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
establishing payment rates for these
codes based on this approach would
result in decreases in the payment rates
for these services, including the typical
contractor’s price for CPT code 93229.
For the three services that are nationally
priced, these decreases would be
relative to the lower payment rates
based on the use of the PPIS data after
the 4-year transition.
In the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule, we
acknowledged that we had also received
PE/HR data from the Remote Cardiac
Services Provider Group (RCSPG), a
group of Independent Diagnostic
Testing Facility (IDTF) suppliers of
these types of services. We explained
that for sensitivity analysis purposes,
we substituted these data for the PE/HR
data of the specialties performing these
services, while continuing to treat the
centralized monitoring equipment as an
indirect cost. We stated that we found
that establishing payment rates for these
codes based on the approach of using
the submitted RCSPG PE/HR data would
again result in decreases in the payment
rates for these services, including the
typical contractor’s price for CPT code
93229. As in the prior alternative, the
decreases for the nationally priced
codes would be relative to the payment
rates reflecting the 4-year transition to
the PPIS data.
We indicated that although we
believed that it would be most
consistent with the principles
underlying the PE methodology to
classify the centralized monitoring
equipment as an indirect cost, we also
performed a sensitivity analysis of the
payment rates if the centralized
monitoring equipment were classified as
a direct cost. In this simulation, we
assumed that the centralized monitoring
equipment was in year-round use, 7
days per week for 24 hours per day. We
found that establishing payment rates
for these codes based on the approach
of classifying the centralized monitoring
equipment as a direct cost would again
result in decreases in the payment rates
for the nationally priced services
relative to their payment rates after the
4-year transition to the use of the PPIS
data, as well as to the typical current
contractor’s price for CPT code 93229.
Finally, we explained that we
considered proposing contractor-pricing
for all four of these services for CY 2011
but were cognizant of past public
comments on this issue that had
requested that all of these services be
priced nationally on the PFS, including
the one service (CPT code 93229) that is
currently contractor-priced.
In the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule, we
also considered that the services
currently priced nationally on the PFS
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
were scheduled to receive lower
payment rates under the 4-year
transition to the PPIS data and that the
contractor’s price for CPT 93229 was
recently reduced in the area where the
majority of the billings for this service
currently occur.
We concluded that after taking all
these factors into consideration, we
were not proposing CY 2011
methodological or direct cost input
changes for CPT codes 93012, 93268, or
93271—the services that are nationally
priced under the PFS. We proposed to
continue contractor-pricing for CPT
93229 for CY 2011. We solicited public
comments on this issue, including
responses to our analysis of alternative
approaches to establishing PE RVUs for
24/7 services, and further discussion of
the issues we identified in our
alternative pricing methodologies. In
addition, while we had focused the 24/
7 services analysis up until that point in
time on developing the PE RVUS for
remote cardiac monitoring services, we
observed that there may be 24/7 services
in other areas of medicine, either
currently paid under the PFS or in
development for the future. Therefore,
we also solicited public comments on
these current or emerging 24/7 services,
including descriptions of the
similarities or differences between these
other services and remote cardiac
monitoring services, particularly with
respect to the issues we identified in our
analysis of alternative approaches to
establishing PE RVUs for remote cardiac
monitoring services under the PFS.
Comment: Several commenters
expressed concerns regarding CMS’
discussion of PFS payment for remote
cardiac monitoring, which included no
proposal of changes for CY 2011. The
commenters pointed out the benefits of
24/7 remote monitoring services for
cardiac and other specialty services and
argued that these types of services can
differ in complexity and frequency from
one another and from traditional
medical services. In general, the
commenters expressed interest in CMS
accurately capturing the cost
components for all of these services,
primarily arguing for the consideration
of these costs as direct costs.
One commenter explained that the
current methodology for assigning PE
RVUs does not work for remote cardiac
providers whose businesses are
structured differently from physicians’
practices and, as a result, the RVUs
assigned to the services do not reflect
their proper relative cost. Although
CMS focused its analysis on services
characterized by concurrent, remote, 24/
7 attended monitoring of multiple
patients from a single location, the
PO 00000
Frm 00140
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
commenter addressed cardiac event
monitoring, pacemaker monitoring,
Holter monitoring, International
Normalized Ratio (INR) monitoring, and
a number of new monitoring
technologies such as cardiac telemetry
under the umbrella term of remote
cardiac monitoring. The commenter
asserted that the IDTF providers of
remote cardiac monitoring services
operate on a 24/7 basis because the
services that they furnish require roundthe-clock service and are, therefore,
structured very differently from
physicians’ offices and other IDTFs. The
commenter argued that CMS should
utilize PE/HR data submitted by RCSPG,
a group of IDTF suppliers of these types
of services, to the entire ranging of
cardiac monitoring services furnished
by these providers. Alternatively, the
commenter indicated that CMS could
use the all physician indirect
percentage, use an indirect practice cost
index (IPCI) of one, and add equipment
costs to the PE formula for allocating
indirect costs in setting the PE RVUs for
cardiac monitoring services. Finally, the
commenter requested that if CMS did
not adopt one of the previous two
suggestions, then CMS should
temporarily suspend the phase-in of the
use of PPIS data for cardiac monitoring
services. Several other commenters also
requested that CMS suspend the PPIS
transition for remote cardiac monitoring
services.
Several commenters disagreed with
CMS regarding the appropriateness of
treating the centralized monitoring
equipment as an indirect cost, arguing
that the equipment is used specifically
for patients that are receiving a specific
service and, therefore, represents a
direct cost like other medical
equipment. The commenters contended
that the centralized equipment is
inherently different from other indirect
practice expenses that are used to run a
practice and are not tied directly to any
one particular service. One commenter
speculated that considering the cardiac
monitoring equipment as an indirect
expense would dilute the payment for
this cardiac telemetry by distributing it
to many people who are not providing
it. Another commenter expressed
concern that an indirect cost approach
does not appropriately account for the
significant differences in remote
monitoring services and thus cannot
accurately capture the cost components
of each.
With respect to the remote cardiac
monitoring service described by CPT
code 93229 which is contractor-priced,
one commenter made several specific
requests, namely that CMS: (1)
Nationally price CPT code 93229 rather
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
than contractor-price the service; (2)
consider the centralized monitoring
equipment associated with CPT code
93229 as a direct cost; (3) adjust the
equipment utilization assumption for
the centralized monitoring equipment
from 100 percent to 50 percent; (4) use
new direct cost inputs (for example, the
cost of the monitoring device worn by
patient) supplied by the commenter; (5)
incorporate a new PE/HR, based on the
cardiac monitoring industry-wide
RCSPG PE/HR data applied to all
cardiac monitoring services, based on
data from two telemetry providers for
CPT code 93229 that yields a PE/HR of
$243.22 that would be applied to CPT
code 93229, or based on data for
telemetry and cardiac event monitoring
(CEM) which results in a PE/HR of
$214.79 that would be applied to
telemetry and CEM services; and (6)
apply an additional indirect allocation
in the CMS PE methodology based on
the equipment direct costs as previously
recommended by one telemetry
provider. The commenter provided
equipment inputs and the associated
prices and further recommended that
CMS should continue to apply the
clinical labor and supply input items
associated with this services as
recommended by the AMA RUC.
Response: We appreciate the
continuing interest of the commenters
in the pricing of cardiac monitoring
services under the PFS. After further
review of this issue, while we continue
to recognize there are some unique
aspects to the services, we do not agree
with the commenters that the PE for
cardiac monitoring services cannot be
appropriately valued using the PFS PE
methodology. After our review, we
believe that we can appropriately
identify and price the direct cost inputs
for these services. Furthermore, we note
that the PPIS data for allocating indirect
costs is from a multispecialty, nationally
representative PE survey of both
physicians and NPPS and, as the most
comprehensive source of PE information
available to date, appropriate for use for
cardiac monitoring services. Therefore,
we disagree that we should suspend the
PE transition to the PPIS data or
otherwise change our established
methodology for setting the PE RVUs
furnished by a subset of providers in a
certain specialty area.
We continue to believe that it is more
appropriate to classify the costs
associated with the centralized
monitoring equipment, including the
hardware and software, workstation,
webserver, and call recording system, as
indirect costs since it is difficult to
allocate those costs to services furnished
to individual patients in a manner that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
adequately reflects the number of
patients being tested. This would be
true for CPT code 93229 which has not
previously been nationally priced. We
believe that the ability to appropriately
allocate costs to individual services is a
key concept that should guide our
adoption of the direct PE inputs for
services paid under the PFS. Having
drawn this conclusion, we plan to
review the direct PE inputs for other
nationally priced services that include
centralized monitoring equipment
under the PFS and, if we find that we
have not consistently treated that
equipment as an indirect cost, we may
propose changes to the direct PE inputs
for existing codes in a future PFS
rulemaking cycle.
We agree with several commenters
that it would be appropriate at this time
to nationally price CPT code 93229,
especially in light of our conclusion
regarding how the centralized
monitoring system should be treated
under the PFS PE methodology and the
fact that the commenters have provided
current prices and associated
documentation for the direct PE inputs
used in the typical case. Therefore, we
are accepting the AMA RUC
recommendations originally made for
CY 2009 (73 FR 69896) for clinical labor
and supplies for CPT code 93229 and
are utilizing these direct PE inputs for
CY 2011. With respect to the equipment
inputs provided to us by one commenter
who currently furnishes the majority of
services described by CPT code 93229,
under our final CY 2011 policy the only
piece of equipment that would be
appropriately treated as a direct PE
input is the cardiac telemetry
monitoring device worn by the patient.
The other equipment items, including
the monitoring system software and
hardware, workstation, webserver, and
call recording system are indirect
practice costs. Therefore, we are
accepting the commenter’s submission
of $21,575 as the price for this device
in the typical case, and applying a 50
percent utilization rate and useful life of
3 years as recommended by the
commenter.
We do not believe it would be
appropriate to deviate from our standard
PFS PE methodology to adopt a PE/HR
that is specific to CPT code 93229 or
any other set of cardiac monitoring
codes based on data from two telemetry
providers, from a subset of services
provided by certain specialty cardiac
monitoring providers, or from a certain
group of specialty providers that overall
furnish only a portion of cardiac
monitoring services, nor to change our
established indirect PE allocation
methodology. We believe the current PE
PO 00000
Frm 00141
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73309
methodology appropriately captures the
relative costs of these services in setting
their PE RVUs, based on the conclusion
we have drawn following our
assessment of the centralized
monitoring system that is especially
characteristic of services such as CPT
code 93229. We note that these direct
PE inputs are included in the final CY
2011 direct PE database that is posted
on the CMS Web site under downloads
for this CY 2011 PFS final rule with
comment period at: https://
www.cms.gov/PhysicianFeeSched/
PFSFRN/list.asp#TopOfPage. We
further note that the CY 2011 payment
for CPT code 93229 (without
considering the negative PFS update
that will apply for CY 2011 under
current law) is close to the current
typical contractor’s price for the service
in CY 2010.
After consideration of the public
comments we received, we are
establishing a national price for CPT
code 93229 based on nationally set
RVUs, instead of maintaining the code
as contractor-priced as we proposed. We
are adopting the AMA RUC’s
recommendations for the clinical labor
and supply inputs, and utilizing price,
utilization, and useful life information
provided by the commenters as
equipment inputs for the cardiac
telemetry monitoring device worn by
the patient. The final CY 2011 RVUs for
CPT code 93229 are displayed in
Addendum B to this final rule with
comment period. While we are making
no changes to the direct PE inputs for
other remote cardiac monitoring CPT
codes for CY 2011, we will consider in
the future whether changes could be
appropriate if we conclude that these
services utilize a centralized monitoring
system that would most appropriately
be treated an indirect cost.
Comment: While most of the
commenters addressed remote cardiac
monitoring services specifically
discussed in the CY 2011 PFS proposed
rule, several commenters addressed
other types of emerging 24/7 services.
One commenter described a pilot
program that utilizes telehealth to
monitor certain health status indicators
for cardiac patients. This monitoring
occurs during the day and night and
includes an assessment by a nurse. The
commenter stated that the initial results
of the pilot show a lower rate of hospital
readmissions for participants. The
commenter asserted that there is
currently no payment for this service,
and urged CMS to consider funding for
these types of programs.
Outside of cardiac monitoring,
another commenter noted that there are
many types of remote monitoring
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73310
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
services that provide important benefits,
especially for chronically ill patients.
The commenter explained that these
may include health status monitoring
services, activity and sensor monitoring
services, and medication dispensing and
monitoring services. The commenter
asserted that the resource requirements
for these types of services can differ in
complexity and frequency and may
involve varied resources, including
equipment and other fees; training and
coaching; data collection, monitoring
and documentation; and personal
emergency response. As such, the
commenter recommended that CMS’ PE
methodology for remote monitoring
services be as transparent and flexible as
possible to allow for these differences,
and to accurately capture the cost
components for each. Therefore, the
commenter, concluded that a direct cost
approach would be the most appropriate
approach in most cases.
Response: We thank the commenters
for providing information on other
current and emerging 24/7 services. We
will consider appropriate payment for
other 24/7 services under the PFS as
specific codes for such services are
created by the CPT Editorial Panel.
Regarding direct PE inputs for other
remote monitoring services, we
acknowledge diversity in the direct and
indirect costs to providers for furnishing
various monitoring services—and all
services—and believe that our current
PE methodology, as discussed earlier in
this section, is able to yield appropriate
values across this wide range. As stated
earlier in the context of remote cardiac
monitoring, we believe that the ability
to appropriately allocate costs to the
services furnished to individual patients
is a key concept that should guide our
adoption of the direct PE inputs for
services paid under the PFS, including
remote monitoring and other 24/7
services.
We look forward to continuing a
dialogue with stakeholders involved in
developing and furnishing 24/7 services
as medical practice evolves in order to
ensure that the PFS pays appropriately
for those 24/7 services that are covered
by Medicare and paid as physicians’
services.
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
IV. Medicare Telehealth Services for
the Physician Fee Schedule
A. Billing and Payment for Telehealth
Services
1. History
Prior to January 1, 1999, Medicare
coverage for services delivered via a
telecommunications system was limited
to services that did not require a faceto-face encounter under the traditional
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
model of medical care. Examples of
these services included interpretation of
an x-ray or electrocardiogram or
electroencephalogram tracing, and
cardiac pacemaker analysis.
Section 4206 of the BBA provided for
coverage of, and payment for,
consultation services delivered via a
telecommunications system to Medicare
beneficiaries residing in rural health
professional shortage areas (HPSAs) as
defined by the Public Health Service
Act. Additionally, the BBA required that
a Medicare practitioner (telepresenter)
be with the patient at the time of a
teleconsultation. Further, the BBA
specified that payment for a
teleconsultation had to be shared
between the consulting practitioner and
the referring practitioner and could not
exceed the fee schedule payment which
would have been made to the consultant
for the service provided. The BBA
prohibited payment for any telephone
line charges or facility fees associated
with the teleconsultation. We
implemented this provision in the CY
1999 PFS final rule with comment
period (63 FR 58814).
Effective October 1, 2001, section 223
of the Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP
Benefits Improvement Protection Act of
2000 (Pub. L. 106–554) (BIPA) added a
new section 1834(m) to the Act which
significantly expanded Medicare
telehealth services. Section
1834(m)(4)(F)(i) of the Act defines
Medicare telehealth services to include
consultations, office visits, office
psychiatry services, and any additional
service specified by the Secretary, when
delivered via a telecommunications
system. We first implemented this
provision in the CY 2002 PFS final rule
with comment period (66 FR 55246).
Section 1834(m)(4)(F)(ii) of the Act
required the Secretary to establish a
process that provides for annual updates
to the list of Medicare telehealth
services. We established this process in
the CY 2003 PFS final rule with
comment period (67 FR 79988).
As specified in regulations at
§ 410.78(b), we generally require that a
telehealth service be furnished via an
interactive telecommunications system.
Under § 410.78(a)(3), an interactive
telecommunications system is defined
as multimedia communications
equipment that includes, at a minimum,
audio and video equipment permitting
two-way, real-time interactive
communication between the patient and
the practitioner at the distant site.
Telephones, facsimile machines, and
electronic mail systems do not meet the
definition of an interactive
telecommunications system. An
interactive telecommunications system
PO 00000
Frm 00142
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
is generally required as a condition of
payment; however, section 1834(m)(1)
of the statute does allow the use of
asynchronous ‘‘store-and-forward’’
technology in delivering these services
when the originating site is a Federal
telemedicine demonstration program in
Alaska or Hawaii. As specified in
regulations at § 410.78(a)(1), store and
forward means the asynchronous
transmission of medical information
from an originating site to be reviewed
at a later time by the practitioner at the
distant site.
Medicare telehealth services may be
provided to an eligible telehealth
individual notwithstanding the fact that
the individual practitioner providing
the telehealth service is not at the same
location as the beneficiary. An eligible
telehealth individual means an
individual enrolled under Part B who
receives a telehealth service furnished at
an originating site. As specified in BIPA,
originating sites are limited under
section 1834(m)(3)(C) of the statute to
specified medical facilities located in
specific geographic areas. The initial list
of telehealth originating sites included
the office of a practitioner, a critical
access hospital (CAH), a rural health
clinic (RHC), a federally qualified health
center (FQHC) and a hospital. More
recently, section 149 of the Medicare
Improvements for Patients and
Providers Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110–275)
(MIPPA) expanded the list of telehealth
originating sites to include hospitalbased renal dialysis centers, skilled
nursing facilities (SNFs), and
community mental health centers
(CMHCs). In order to serve as a
telehealth originating site, these sites
must be located in an area designated as
a rural HPSA, in a county that is not in
a metropolitan statistical area (MSA), or
must be an entity that participate in a
Federal telemedicine demonstration
project that has been approved by (or
receives funding from) the Secretary as
of December 31, 2000. Finally, section
1834(m) of the statute does not require
the eligible telehealth individual to be
presented by a practitioner at the
originating site.
2. Current Telehealth Billing and
Payment Policies
As noted above, Medicare telehealth
services can only be furnished to an
eligible telehealth beneficiary in an
originating site. An originating site is
defined as one of the specified sites
where an eligible telehealth individual
is located at the time the service is being
furnished via a telecommunications
system. In general, originating sites
must be located in a rural HPSA or in
a county outside of an MSA. The
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
originating sites authorized by the
statute are as follows:
• Offices of a physician or
practitioner
• Hospitals
• CAHs
• RHCs
• FQHCs
• Hospital-Based or Critical Access
Hospital-Based Renal Dialysis Centers
(including Satellites)
• SNFs
• CMHCs
Currently approved Medicare
telehealth services include the
following:
• Initial inpatient consultations
• Follow-up inpatient consultations
• Office or other outpatient visits
• Individual psychotherapy
• Pharmacologic management
• Psychiatric diagnostic interview
examination
• End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD)
related services
• Individual medical nutrition
therapy (MNT)
• Neurobehavioral status exam
• Individual health and behavior
assessment and intervention (HBAI).
In general, the practitioner at the
distant site may be any of the following,
provided that the practitioner is
licensed under State law to furnish the
service being furnished via a
telecommunications system:
• Physician
• Physician assistant (PA)
• Nurse practitioner (NP)
• Clinical nurse specialist (CNS)
• Nurse midwife
• Clinical psychologist
• Clinical social worker
• Registered dietitian or nutrition
professional.
Practitioners furnishing Medicare
telehealth services are located at a
distant site, and they submit claims for
telehealth services to the Medicare
contractors that process claims for the
service area where their distant site is
located. Section 1834(m)(2)(A) of the
Act requires that a practitioner who
furnishes a telehealth service to an
eligible telehealth individual be paid an
amount equal to the amount that the
practitioner would have been paid if the
service had been furnished without the
use of a telecommunications system.
Distant site practitioners must submit
the appropriate HCPCS procedure code
for a covered professional telehealth
service, appended with the –GT (Via
interactive audio and video
telecommunications system) or –GQ
(Via asynchronous telecommunications
system) modifier. By reporting the –GT
or –GQ modifier with a covered
telehealth procedure code, the distant
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
site practitioner certifies that the
beneficiary was present at a telehealth
originating site when the telehealth
service was furnished. The usual
Medicare deductible and coinsurance
policies apply to the telehealth services
reported by distant site practitioners.
Section 1834(m)(2)(B) of the Act
provides for payment of a facility fee to
the originating site. To be paid the
originating site facility fee, the provider
or supplier where the eligible telehealth
individual is located must submit a
claim with HCPCS code Q3014
(Telehealth originating site facility fee),
and the provider or supplier is paid
according to the applicable payment
methodology for that facility or location.
The usual Medicare deductible and
coinsurance policies apply to HCPCS
code Q3014. By submitting HCPCS code
Q3014, the originating site authenticates
that it is located in either a rural HPSA
or non-MSA county or is an entity that
participates in a Federal telemedicine
demonstration project that has been
approved by (or receives funding from)
the Secretary as of December 31, 2000
as specified in section
1834(m)(4)(C)(i)(III) of the Act.
As described above, certain
professional services that are commonly
furnished remotely using
telecommunications technology, but
that do not require the patient to be
present in-person with the practitioner
when they are furnished, are covered
and paid in the same way as services
delivered without the use of
telecommunications technology when
the practitioner is in-person at the
medical facility furnishing care to the
patient. Such services typically involve
circumstances where a practitioner is
able to visualize some aspect of the
patient’s condition without the patient
being present and without the
interposition of a third person’s
judgment. Visualization by the
practitioner can be possible by means of
x-rays, electrocardiogram or
electroencephalogram tracings, tissue
samples, etc. For example, the
interpretation by a physician of an
actual electrocardiogram or
electroencephalogram tracing that has
been transmitted via telephone (that is,
electronically, rather than by means of
a verbal description) is a covered
physician’s service. These remote
services are not Medicare telehealth
services as defined under section
1834(m) of the Act. Rather, these remote
services that utilize telecommunications
technology are considered physicians’
services in the same way as services that
are furnished in-person without the use
of telecommunications technology; they
are paid under the same conditions as
PO 00000
Frm 00143
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73311
in-person physicians’ services (with no
requirements regarding permissible
originating sites), and should be
reported in the same way (that is,
without the –GT or –GQ modifier
appended).
B. Requests for Adding Services to the
List of Medicare Telehealth Services
As noted above, in the December 31,
2002 Federal Register (67 FR 79988), we
established a process for adding services
to or deleting services from the list of
Medicare telehealth services. This
process provides the public with an
ongoing opportunity to submit requests
for adding services. We assign any
request to make additions to the list of
Medicare telehealth services to one of
the following categories:
• Category 1: Services that are similar
to professional consultations, office
visits, and office psychiatry services. In
reviewing these requests, we look for
similarities between the requested and
existing telehealth services for the roles
of, and interactions among, the
beneficiary, the physician (or other
practitioner) at the distant site and, if
necessary, the telepresenter. We also
look for similarities in the
telecommunications system used to
deliver the proposed service, for
example, the use of interactive audio
and video equipment.
• Category 2: Services that are not
similar to the current list of telehealth
services. Our review of these requests
includes an assessment of whether the
use of a telecommunications system to
deliver the service produces similar
diagnostic findings or therapeutic
interventions as compared with the inperson delivery of the same service.
Requestors should submit evidence
showing that the use of a
telecommunications system does not
affect the diagnosis or treatment plan as
compared to in-person delivery of the
requested service.
Since establishing the process to add
or remove services from the list of
approved telehealth services, we have
added the following to the list of
Medicare telehealth services: individual
HBAI services; psychiatric diagnostic
interview examination; ESRD services
with 2 to 3 visits per month and 4 or
more visits per month (although we
require at least 1 visit a month to be
furnished in-person by a physician,
CNS, NP, or PA in order to examine the
vascular access site); individual MNT;
neurobehavioral status exam; and initial
and follow-up inpatient telehealth
consultations for beneficiaries in
hospitals and skilled nursing facilities
(SNFs).
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73312
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Requests to add services to the list of
Medicare telehealth services must be
submitted and received no later than
December 31 of each calendar year to be
considered for the next rulemaking
cycle. For example, requests submitted
before the end of CY 2010 are
considered for the CY 2012 proposed
rule. Each request for adding a service
to the list of Medicare telehealth
services must include any supporting
documentation the requester wishes us
to consider as we review the request.
Because we use the annual PFS
rulemaking process as a vehicle for
making changes to the list of Medicare
telehealth services, requestors should be
advised that any information submitted
is subject to public disclosure for this
purpose. For more information on
submitting a request for an addition to
the list of Medicare telehealth services,
including where to mail these requests,
we refer readers to the CMS Web site at
https://www.cms.gov/telehealth/.
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
C. Submitted Requests for Addition to
the List of Telehealth Services for CY
2011
We received requests in CY 2009 to
add the following services as Medicare
telehealth services effective for CY 2011:
(1) Individual kidney disease education
(KDE) services; (2) individual diabetes
self-management training (DSMT)
services; (3) group KDE, DSMT, MNT,
and HBAI services; (4) initial,
subsequent, and discharge day
management hospital care services;
(5) initial, subsequent, discharge day
management, and other nursing facility
care services; (6) neuropsychological
testing services; (7) speech-language
pathology services; and (8) home wound
care services. The following presents a
discussion of these requests, including
our proposed additions to the CY 2011
telehealth list.
1. Individual KDE Services
The American Society of Nephrology,
Dialysis Patient Citizens, AMGEN, and
Kidney Care Partners submitted requests
to add individual KDE services,
reported by HCPCS code G0420 (Faceto-face educational services related to
the care of chronic kidney disease;
individual, per session, per one hour),
to the list of approved telehealth
services for CY 2011 on a category 1
basis.
Individual KDE services, covered
under the new Medicare KDE benefit
effective for services furnished
beginning in CY 2010, are defined as
face-to-face educational services
provided to a patient with stage IV
chronic kidney disease (CKD). We
believe the interaction between a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
practitioner and a beneficiary receiving
individual KDE services is similar to the
education, assessment, and counseling
elements of individual MNT services,
reported by HCPCS code G0270
(Medical nutrition therapy;
reassessment and subsequent
intervention(s) following second referral
in same year for change in diagnosis,
medical condition or treatment regimen
(including additional hours needed for
renal disease), individual, face to face
with the patient, each 15 minutes); CPT
code 97802 (Medical nutrition therapy;
initial assessment and intervention,
individual, face-to-face with the patient,
each 15 minutes); and CPT code 97803
(Medical nutrition therapy; reassessment and intervention,
individual, face-to-face with the patient,
each 15 minutes), all services that are
currently on the telehealth list.
Therefore, we proposed to add HCPCS
code G0420 to the list of telehealth
services for CY 2011 on a category 1
basis and to revise our regulations at
§ 410.78(b) and § 414.65(a)(1) to include
individual KDE as a Medicare telehealth
service.
Comment: Several commenters
expressed support for CMS’ proposal to
add KDE services to the list of Medicare
telehealth services for CY 2011. One
commenter stated that the proposal
would provide patients at risk for
developing chronic kidney disease and
ESRD with access to educational
services that may help in controlling the
progression of disease. Another
commenter suggested that delivery of
KDE services through telehealth would
provide beneficiaries with the flexibility
to interact with practitioners in a
manner tailored to their needs, thus
facilitating a more patient-centered
approach. Another commenter noted
that greater flexibility in the provision
of KDE services is particularly
important in rural areas where
individuals do not have as much access
to dialysis centers.
Response: We agree with the
commenters that adding KDE services to
the list of Medicare telehealth services
may be valuable to Medicare
beneficiaries, especially insofar as it
helps provide greater access to the
services for beneficiaries in rural or
other isolated areas.
Comment: One commenter who
supported the proposal also encouraged
the CMS to maintain its existing policy
regarding the qualified providers for
KDE services in order to appropriately
ensure the quality and content conveyed
to patients in educational sessions and
remain concordant with the intent of
MIPPA.
PO 00000
Frm 00144
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Response: We note that the addition
of KDE to the list of Medicare telehealth
services does not alter the qualifications
for providers of KDE services as
specified in § 410.48 of the regulations.
After consideration of the public
comments we received, we are
finalizing our CY 2011 proposal to add
HCPCS code G0420 to the list of
telehealth services for CY 2011 on a
category 1 basis and to revise our
regulations at § 410.78(b) and
§ 414.65(a)(1) to include individual KDE
as a Medicare telehealth service.
2. Individual DSMT Services
The Tahoe Forest Health System and
the Marshfield Clinic submitted
requests to add individual DSMT
services, reported by HCPCS code
G0108 (Diabetes outpatient selfmanagement training services,
individual, per 30 minutes), to the list
of telehealth services for CY 2011 on a
category 1 basis. In the CY 2009 PFS
final rule with comment period (73 FR
69743), we stated that we believe
individual DSMT services are not
analogous to individual MNT services
because of the element of skill-based
training that is encompassed within
individual DSMT services that is not an
aspect of individual MNT services (or
any other services currently approved
for telehealth). Due to the statutory
requirement that DSMT services include
teaching beneficiaries the skills
necessary for the self-administration of
injectable drugs, we have stated our
belief that DSMT, whether provided to
an individual or a group, must be
evaluated as a category 2 service as
specified in the CY 2009 PFS proposed
rule (73 FR 38516). Prior to CY 2011
rulemaking, we had considered several
previous requests to add DSMT to the
list of Medicare telehealth services. We
had not added individual DSMT to the
list of telehealth services because we
believe that skill-based training, such as
teaching patients how to inject insulin,
would be difficult to accomplish
effectively without the physical
presence of the teaching practitioner (70
FR 45787 and 70157, and 73 FR 38516
and 69743).
In considering the new request to add
individual DSMT services to the list of
telehealth services in CY 2011, we took
into account requestors’ argument that
individual DSMT services are highly
similar to individual MNT services and
that injection training constitutes just a
small proportion of DSMT services.
Except for the component of individual
DSMT services that involves instruction
in self-administration of injectable drugs
for eligible beneficiaries, we agreed with
the requestors that individual DSMT
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
services are similar to individual MNT
services, which are currently on the list
of Medicare telehealth services. We note
that Medicare coverage of DSMT
services was initially authorized in the
BBA. After more than a decade of
Medicare coverage, the most recent
information shows that DSMT continues
to be significantly underutilized in the
context of the eligible population of
Medicare beneficiaries. While we are
uncertain to what extent geographic
barriers to care contribute to this
underutilization, given the morbidity
associated with poorly managed
diabetes and the growing evidence-base
regarding effective DSMT services, we
believe it is very important to facilitate
Medicare beneficiary access to these
underutilized services. While we were
previously concerned about treating the
components of DSMT services
differently in the context of considering
DSMT services for the telehealth list, in
the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule (75 FR
40108), we stated our belief that our
concern regarding the skill-based
injection training component of DSMT
services could be addressed by
imposing a requirement that a minimum
portion of the training be furnished inperson. We noted that for beneficiaries
who meet the coverage criteria,
Medicare covers 10 hours of DSMT
services in the year following the initial
training, as described in the Medicare
Benefit Policy Manual (Pub. 100–02,
Chapter 15, Section 300.3). Taking into
consideration the initial year coverage
of DSMT services, for CY 2011 we
proposed that a minimum of 1 hour of
instruction in injection training must be
furnished in-person during the year
following the initial DSMT service.
Imposing this condition would allow us
to expand access to DSMT services by
adding individual DSMT services to the
list of telehealth services, while
ensuring effective injection training for
beneficiaries.
Therefore, we proposed to add HCPCS
code G0108 to the list of telehealth
services beginning in CY 2011. We also
proposed that, as a condition of
payment for individual DSMT services
furnished as telehealth services to an
eligible telehealth individual, a
minimum of 1 hour of in-person
instruction in the self-administration of
injectable drugs must be furnished to
the individual during the year following
the initial DSMT service. The injection
training may be furnished through
either individual or group DSMT
services. By reporting the –GT or –GQ
modifier with HCPCS code G0108 as a
telehealth service, the distant site
practitioner would certify that the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
beneficiary has received or will receive
1 hour of in-person DSMT services for
purposes of injection training during the
year following the initial DSMT service.
Consistent with this proposal, we
proposed to revise our regulations at
§ 410.78(b) and § 414.65(a)(1) to include
individual DSMT services as a Medicare
telehealth service, with the exception of
1 hour of in-person instruction in selfadministration of injectable drugs which
must be furnished to the eligible
telehealth individual as individual or
group DSMT services during the year
following the initial DSMT service.
Comment: A number of commenters
expressed support for CMS’ proposal to
add DSMT services to the list of
Medicare telehealth services. One
commenter requested that CMS clarify
that this proposal would permit NPs
and PAs in all patient care settings to
provide and bill for DSMT services
furnished through telehealth
technologies.
Response: As we stated in the CY
2011 PFS proposed rule (75 FR 40109),
our proposal is consistent with the
statutory requirements of section
1834(m)(1) of the Act and as provided
in § 410.141(e) that individual DSMT
services may be furnished by a
physician, individual, or entity that
furnishes other services for which direct
Medicare payment may be made and
that submits necessary documentation
to, and is accredited by, an accreditation
organization approved by us as
described in the Benefit Policy Manual
(Pub. 100–04, chapter 15, section 300.2).
However, consistent with the statutory
requirements of section 1834(m)(1) of
the Act and as provided in
§ 410.78(b)(1) and (b)(2) of our
regulations, Medicare telehealth
services, including individual DSMT
furnished as a telehealth service, can
only be furnished by a licensed
physician, PA, NP, CNS, certified nursemidwife, clinical psychologist, clinical
social worker, or registered dietitian or
nutrition professional. Additionally, the
site of the beneficiary must conform
with the statutory requirements of
telehealth originating sites from section
1834(m)(3)(C) of the Act and described
in section IV.A. 2. of this final rule with
comment period.
Comment: One commenter requested
that pharmacists be added to the list of
eligible Medicare telehealth distant site
practitioners. The commenter stated that
since pharmacists are already providing
valuable DSMT services to patients inperson, these practitioners should not
be excluded from providing those same
valuable services via telehealth.
Response: Under section 1834(m) of
the Act, payment is made for a Medicare
PO 00000
Frm 00145
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73313
telehealth service furnished by a
physician or practitioner in a distant
site. For purposes of Medicare
telehealth services, the physician or
practitioner must either be a physician
as defined in section 1861(r) of the Act
or another practitioner as defined in
section 1842(b)(18)(C) of the Act.
Because pharmacists do not fall within
these statutory definitions, we do not
have the authority to make payment to
pharmacists as eligible distant site
practitioners for Medicare telehealth
services.
After consideration of the public
comments we received, we are
finalizing our CY 2011 proposal to add
HCPCS code G0108 to the list of
telehealth services beginning in CY
2011. As a condition of payment for
individual DSMT services furnished as
telehealth services to an eligible
telehealth individual, a minimum of 1
hour of in-person instruction in the selfadministration of injectable drugs must
be furnished to the individual during
the year following the initial DSMT
service. The injection training may be
furnished through either individual or
group DSMT services. By reporting the
–GT or –GQ modifier with HCPCS code
G0108 as a telehealth service, the
distant site practitioner certifies that the
beneficiary has received or will receive
1 hour of in-person DSMT services for
purposes of injection training during the
year following the initial DSMT service.
Consistent with this final policy, we are
revising our regulations at § 410.78(b)
and § 414.65(a)(1) to include individual
DSMT services as a Medicare telehealth
service, with the exception of 1 hour of
in-person instruction in selfadministration of injectable drugs which
must be furnished to the eligible
telehealth individual as individual or
group DSMT services during the year
following the initial DSMT service.
We note that, as specified in
§ 410.141(e), individual DSMT services
may be furnished by a physician,
individual, or entity that furnishes other
services for which direct Medicare
payment may be made and that submits
necessary documentation to, and is
accredited by, an accreditation
organization approved by CMS.
However, consistent with the statutory
requirements of section 1834(m)(1) of
the Act and as provided in
§ 410.78(b)(1) and (b)(2) of our
regulations, Medicare telehealth
services, including individual DSMT
furnished as a telehealth service, can
only be furnished by a licensed
physician, PA, NP, CNS, certified nursemidwife, clinical psychologist, clinical
social worker, or registered dietitian or
nutrition professional.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73314
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
3. Group KDE, MNT, DSMT, and HBAI
Services
The American Society of Nephrology,
Dialysis Patient Citizens, AMGEN,
Tahoe Forest Health Systems, Kidney
Care Partners, the American
Telemedicine Association, and the
Marshfield Clinic submitted requests to
add one or more of the following group
services to the telehealth list for CY
2011:
• Group KDE services, reported by
HCPCS code G0421 (Face-to-face
educational services related to the care
of chronic kidney disease; group, per
session, per one hour);
• Group MNT services, reported by
CPT code 97804 (Medical nutrition
therapy; group (2 or more individual(s)),
each 30 minutes);
• Group DSMT services, reported by
HCPCS code G0109 (Diabetes outpatient
self-management training services,
group session (2 or more), per 30
minutes); and/or
• Group HBAI services, reported by
CPT code 96153 (Health and behavior
intervention, each 15 minutes, face-toface; group (2 or more patients)) and
96154 (Health and behavior
intervention, each 15 minutes, face-toface; family (with the patient present)).
When furnished as individual
services, HBAI and MNT services are
currently on the list of Medicare
telehealth services. Furthermore, we
proposed to add individual KDE and
DSMT services to the list of Medicare
telehealth services beginning in CY
2011 as described above.
In the CY 2007 and CY 2010 PFS
rulemaking cycles (70 FR 45787 and
70157, and 74 FR 33543 and 61764), we
stated that we did not believe that group
services could be appropriately
delivered through telehealth. In the CY
2011 PFS proposed rule (75 FR 40109),
we observed that currently there are no
group services approved as Medicare
telehealth services and that there is a
different interactive dynamic between
the practitioner and his or her patients
in group services as compared to
individual services. We previously had
considered requests to add various
group services to the list of Medicare
telehealth services on a category 2 basis
because we had believed that, especially
given the interactive dynamic between
practitioners and their patients, group
services were not similar to other
services on the list of Medicare
telehealth services. Therefore, we had
maintained that it was necessary to
evaluate the addition of group services
by comparing diagnostic findings or
therapeutic interventions when services
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
are furnished via telehealth versus when
services are furnished in-person.
In the CY 2011 proposed rule (75 FR
40109), we stated that we continue to
believe that the group dynamic may be
a critical and defining element for
certain services, and that this
characteristic precludes many group
services from being considered on a
category 1 basis for addition to the list
of Medicare telehealth services. For
example, we believe that due to the
therapeutic nature of the group dynamic
that is integral to group psychotherapy,
group psychotherapy is fundamentally
different from other Medicare telehealth
services and, therefore, could not be
considered on a category 1 basis for
addition to the telehealth services list.
For the same reason, in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, we do not
believe group psychotherapy services
could be appropriately delivered
through telehealth.
However, upon further consideration,
with regard to the particular group
education and training services for
which we received requests for addition
to the Medicare telehealth services list,
for CY 2011 we concluded that we
believe the group dynamic is not central
to the core education and training
components of these particular services,
specifically DSMT, MNT, KDE, and
HBAI services. We believe that these
group services are sufficiently similar to
the individual, related services that are
already on the telehealth services list or
were proposed for addition beginning in
CY 2011. Specifically, we believe that
for these group services, which consist
principally of an information exchange
for the purpose of education and
training, the roles of, and interactions
between, the patients and the
practitioner are sufficiently similar to
the related individual education and
training services that the services can be
furnished appropriately as a telehealth
service.
Therefore, we proposed to add HCPCS
code G0421 for group KDE services, CPT
code 97804 for group MNT services,
HCPCS code G0109 for group DSMT
services, and CPT codes 96153 and
96154 for group HBAI services to the
Medicare telehealth services list on a
category 1 basis for CY 2011.
Furthermore, because the concerns we
raised above regarding adequate
injection training with the addition of
individual DSMT are also present for
group DSMT, we proposed to require
the same minimum of 1 hour of inperson instruction for injection training
within the year following the initial
DSMT service for any beneficiary that
receives DSMT services via telehealth.
By reporting the –GT or –GQ modifier
PO 00000
Frm 00146
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
with HCPCS code G0109, the distant
site practitioner would certify that the
beneficiary has received or will receive
1 hour of in-person instruction in selfadministration of injectable drugs which
must be furnished to the eligible
telehealth individual as individual or
group DSMT services during the year
following the initial DSMT service.
Consistent with this proposal to add
these group education and training
services, we also proposed to revise our
regulations at § 410.78(b) and
§ 414.65(a)(1) to include group KDE,
MNT, DSMT, and HBAI services as
Medicare telehealth services, with the
exception of 1 hour of in-person
instruction in self-administration of
injectable drugs which must be
furnished to the eligible telehealth
individual as individual or group DSMT
services in the year following the initial
DSMT service.
Comment: Many commenters agreed
with CMS’ proposal to add group KDE,
MNT, DSMT, and HBAI to the list of
Medicare telehealth services for CY
2011. Some commenters commended
CMS’ willingness to expand the list of
Medicare telehealth services and
explained that the additions would
facilitate beneficiary access to care.
Many commenters also urged CMS to
make further additions to the list of
Medicare telehealth services beyond
those proposed for CY 2011.
Response: We believe adding these
group services to the list of Medicare
telehealth services will facilitate
beneficiary access to care, and we
appreciate the commenters’ shared
interest in that goal.
The process for requesting additional
services to be added to the list of
Medicare telehealth services is
described in section IV.B. of this final
rule with comment period. Requests for
additions for CY 2012 must be received
by the end of CY 2010. Further
information is available about the
process on the CMS web site at: https://
www.cms.gov/telehealth/.
After consideration of the public
comments we received, we are
finalizing our CY 2011 proposal to add
HCPCS code G0421 for group KDE
services, CPT code 97804 for group
MNT services, HCPCS code G0109 for
group DSMT services, and CPT codes
96153 and 96154 for group HBAI
services to the Medicare telehealth
services list on a category 1 basis.
Furthermore, because we have the same
concerns for group DSMT services that
we raised above regarding adequate
injection training for individual DSMT
services, we are requiring the same
minimum of 1 hour of in-person
instruction for injection training within
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
the year following the initial DSMT
service for any beneficiary that receives
DSMT services via telehealth. By
reporting the –GT or –GQ modifier with
HCPCS code G0109, the distant site
practitioner would certify that the
beneficiary has received or will receive
1 hour of in-person DSMT services for
purposes of injection training during the
year following the initial DSMT service.
Consistent with the addition of these
group education and training services,
we are also revising our regulations at
§ 410.78(b) and § 414.65(a)(1) to include
group KDE, MNT, DSMT, and HBAI
services as Medicare telehealth services,
with the exception of 1 hour of inperson instruction for injection training
within the year following the initial
DSMT service.
As described above for individual
DSMT services, we note that group
DSMT services may be furnished by a
physician, individual, or entity that
furnishes other services for which direct
Medicare payment may be made and
that submits necessary documentation
to, and is accredited by, an accreditation
organization approved by CMS, as
specified in § 410.141(e) for DSMT
services. However, consistent with the
statutory requirements of section
1834(m)(1) of the Act and as provided
in § 410.78(b)(1) and (b)(2) of our
regulations, Medicare telehealth
services, including group DSMT
furnished as a telehealth service, can
only be furnished by a licensed
physician, PA, NP, CNS, certified nursemidwife, clinical psychologist, clinical
social worker, or registered dietitian or
nutrition professional.
4. Initial, Subsequent, and Discharge
Day Management Hospital Care Services
The University of Louisville School of
Medicine, the American Telemedicine
Association, and Mille Lacs Health
System submitted various requests to
add initial hospital care services
(reported by CPT codes 99221 (Level 1
initial hospital care), 99222 (Level 2
initial hospital care), and 99223 (Level
3 initial hospital care)); subsequent
hospital care services (reported by CPT
codes 99231 (Level 1 subsequent
hospital care), 99232 (Level 2
subsequent hospital care), and 99233
(Level 3 subsequent hospital care)); and/
or hospital discharge day management
services (reported by CPT codes 99238
(Hospital discharge day management; 30
minutes or less) and 99239 (Hospital
discharge day management; more than
30 minutes) to the Medicare telehealth
services list beginning in CY 2011,
generally on a category 1 basis. Some of
the requestors also recommended that
we limit the delivery of these services
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
through telehealth to the provision of
services to patients with a psychiatric
diagnosis or to those treated in a
psychiatric hospital or licensed
psychiatric bed.
We appreciate the recommendations
of the requestors to substantially expand
the list of Medicare telehealth services.
The requestors submitted a number of
studies regarding the outcomes of
telehealth services in caring for patients
with psychiatric diagnoses. However,
we note that the CPT codes for hospital
care services are used to report care for
hospitalized patients with a variety of
diagnoses, including psychiatric
diagnoses. In the CY 2011 PFS proposed
rule (75 FR 40110), we stated our belief
that it would not be appropriate to add
services to the telehealth list only for
certain diagnoses because the service
described by a HCPCS code is
essentially the same service, regardless
of the patient’s diagnosis. When
evaluating the addition of services for
telehealth on a category 1 basis, our
focus is on the roles of, and interactions
among, the beneficiary, the physician or
practitioner, and the telepresenter (if
applicable), which generally are similar
across diagnoses for services that may
be reported with the same HCPCS
codes. Even in the unique case of
certain ESRD services, we limited
additions to the list of Medicare
telehealth services based on the
appropriateness of certain specific
codes, taking into consideration the full
service descriptions (69 FR 47511).
Therefore, we continue to believe that it
is most appropriate to consider
additions to the list of telehealth
services based on the overall suitability
of the services described by the relevant
HCPCS codes to delivery through
telehealth.
In the CY 2005, CY 2008, and CY
2009 PFS rulemakings (69 FR 47510 and
66276, 72 FR 38144 and 66250, and 73
FR 38517 and 69745, respectively), we
did not add initial, subsequent, or
discharge day management hospital care
services to the list of approved
telehealth services because of our
concern regarding the use of telehealth
for the ongoing evaluation and
management (E/M) for the generally
high acuity of hospital inpatients. While
we continue to have some concern in
this area, we also share the requestors’
interest in improving access for
hospitalized patients to care furnished
by treating practitioners. Therefore, we
reevaluated these services in the context
of the CY 2011 requests, including
considering the possibility that these
services could be added on a category 1
basis based on their resemblance to
services currently on the telehealth list,
PO 00000
Frm 00147
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73315
such as initial and follow-up inpatient
telehealth consultations. The following
presents a discussion of our review for
the CY 2011 proposed rule of the
subcategories of hospital care services
included in these requests.
Currently, one of the three codes for
an initial hospital care service
(specifically CPT codes 99221, 99222, or
99223) is reported for the first hospital
inpatient E/M visit to the patient by the
admitting or a consulting practitioner
when that visit is furnished in person.
In addition, we note that currently there
are several HCPCS G-codes on the
Medicare telehealth services list that
may be reported for initial and followup inpatient consultations through
telehealth, specifically HCPCS codes
G0406 (Follow-up inpatient telehealth
consultation, limited, physicians
typically spend 15 minutes
communicating with the patient via
telehealth); G0407 (Follow-up inpatient
telehealth consultation, intermediate,
physicians typically spend 25 minutes
communicating with the patient via
telehealth); G0408 (Follow-up inpatient
telehealth consultation, complex,
physicians typically spend 35 minutes
or more communicating with the patient
via telehealth); G0425 (Initial inpatient
telehealth consultation, typically 30
minutes communicating with the
patient via telehealth); G0426 (Initial
inpatient telehealth consultation,
typically 50 minutes communicating
with the patient via telehealth); and
G0427 (Initial inpatient telehealth
consultation, typically 70 minutes or
more communicating with the patient
via telehealth).
While initial inpatient consultation
services are currently on the list of
approved telehealth services, there are
no services on the current list of
telehealth services that resemble initial
hospital care for an acutely ill patient by
the admitting practitioner who has
ongoing responsibility for the patient’s
treatment during the hospital course.
Therefore, we were unable to consider
initial hospital care services on a
category 1 basis for the telehealth list for
CY 2011.
We reviewed the documentation
submitted in support of adding the
initial hospital care codes to the
Medicare telehealth services list as
category 2 requests. Most of the studies
provided by the requestors were specific
to the treatment of patients with
particular diagnoses. Additionally, the
studies were not specific to initial
hospital care visits by admitting
practitioners. Finally, most of the
studies concluded that more research
was required in order to establish
medical equivalence between telehealth
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73316
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
and in-person services. Therefore, we
received no information that provides
robust support for the addition of initial
hospital care services to the approved
telehealth list on a category 2 basis. The
initial hospital care codes describe the
first visit to the hospitalized patient by
the admitting practitioner who may or
may not have seen the patient in the
decision-making phase regarding
hospitalization. We believe it is critical
that the initial hospital visit by the
admitting practitioner be conducted inperson to ensure that the practitioner
with ongoing treatment responsibility
comprehensively assesses the patient’s
condition upon admission to the
hospital through a thorough in-person
examination. Therefore, we did not
propose to add initial hospital care
services to the Medicare telehealth
services list for CY 2011.
We again considered adding
subsequent hospital care services
reported by CPT codes 99231 through
99233 to the telehealth list for CY 2011
on a category 1 basis. In the CY 2005
and CY 2008 PFS proposed rules (69 FR
47511 and 72 FR 38155), we stated that
the potential acuity of patients in the
hospital setting precludes consideration
of subsequent hospital visits as similar
to existing telehealth services. However,
as stated earlier, we also note that
HCPCS codes for initial and follow-up
inpatient consultation services are on
the list of telehealth services. These E/
M services are furnished to high acuity
hospitalized patients, although not by
the admitting practitioner himself or
herself. However, in light of the
increasingly prevalent care model that
entails multidisciplinary team care for
patients with complex medical illnesses
that involve multiple body systems,
consulting practitioners may often play
a key, intensive, and ongoing role in
caring for hospitalized patients.
Therefore, we believe that subsequent
hospital care visits by a patient’s
admitting practitioner may sufficiently
resemble follow-up inpatient
consultation services to consider these
subsequent hospital care services on a
category 1 basis for the telehealth list.
While we still believe the potential
acuity of hospital inpatients is greater
than those patients likely to receive
currently approved Medicare telehealth
services, we also believe that it would
be appropriate to permit some
subsequent hospital care services to be
furnished through telehealth in order to
ensure that hospitalized patients have
frequent encounters with their
admitting practitioner. However, we
also continue to believe that the
majority of these visits should be in-
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
person to facilitate the comprehensive,
coordinated, and personal care that
medically volatile, acutely ill patients
require on an ongoing basis.
Therefore, for CY 2011 we proposed
that subsequent hospital care services,
specifically CPT codes 99231, 99232,
and 99233, be added to the list of
telehealth services on a category 1 basis
for CY 2011, but with some limitations
on the frequency with which these
services may be furnished through
telehealth. Because of our concerns
regarding the potential acuity of
hospital inpatients, we proposed to
limit the provision of subsequent
hospital care services through telehealth
to once every 3 days. We were confident
that admitting practitioners would
continue to make appropriate in-person
visits to all patients who need such care
during their hospitalization. Consulting
practitioners should continue to use the
inpatient telehealth consultation HCPCS
G-codes, specifically G0406, G0407,
G0408, G0425, G0426, or G0427 when
reporting consultations furnished to
inpatients via telehealth.
Consistent with this proposal, we
proposed to revise § 410.78(b) and
§ 414.65(a)(1) to include subsequent
hospital care services as Medicare
telehealth services, with the limitation
of one telehealth subsequent hospital
care service every 3 days.
We also considered adding hospital
discharge day management services to
the list of telehealth services. These
services, reported by CPT codes 99238
and 99239, include the final
examination of the patient, discussion
of the hospital stay, instructions for
continuing care to all relevant
caregivers, and preparation of discharge
records, prescriptions, and referral
forms. These services are furnished
when a practitioner deems it medically
reasonable and necessary to assess a
patient’s readiness for discharge and to
prepare a patient for discharge from an
acute care environment to a less
intensive setting. There are no services
on the current list of telehealth services
that resemble such preparation of a
patient for discharge. We believe it is
especially important that, if a
practitioner furnishes a discharge day
management service, the service be
furnished in-person in order to allow
the practitioner to comprehensively
assess the patient’s status in preparation
for discharge so that the patient will
have a higher likelihood of making a
successful transition to the less
intensive setting. Therefore, we did not
consider hospital discharge day
management services for addition to the
Medicare telehealth services list on a
category 1 basis.
PO 00000
Frm 00148
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
We reviewed the documentation
submitted by requestors in support of
adding these codes to the Medicare
telehealth services list on a category 2
basis. Most of the submitted studies
were specific to the treatment of
patients with specific diagnoses and
were not specific to discharge services.
Additionally, most of the studies
concluded that more research was
required in order to establish medical
equivalence between telehealth and inperson services. The submitted
documentation did not provide the
necessary evidence to alter our previous
conclusion that hospital discharge day
management services should be
provided in-person in light of the acuity
of hospitalized patients, their typically
complex post-hospitalization care
needs, and the importance of patient
education by the admitting practitioner
who had ongoing responsibility for the
patient’s treatment during the hospital
stay. Therefore, we did not propose to
add hospital discharge day management
services to the list of telehealth services
for CY 2011.
Comment: Many commenters
expressed support for all of CMS’
proposed additions to the list of
Medicare telehealth services, including
subsequent hospital care services. One
commenter urged CMS to focus on
adding services where research
demonstrates that technology can
facilitate medically equivalent services
and improve beneficiary access to
providers, and to carefully monitor
implementation of any new telehealth
services to ensure that patients’
experience of the care is positive and
that patient outcomes are not
compromised. The commenter
encouraged CMS’ continued attention to
the evidence and the role of patient
needs as CMS evaluates telehealth
requests. The commenter cited CMS’
decision not to propose the addition of
hospital discharge day management
services as a Medicare telehealth service
as an example of the agency applying
appropriate rigor to best reflect patient
needs and preferences.
Response: We appreciate the support
for our proposed additions, as well as
our consideration and decisions
regarding requested additions to
telehealth services that we did not
propose to add to the list of telehealth
services for CY 2011.
After consideration of the public
comments we received, we are
finalizing our CY 2011 proposal to add
subsequent hospital care services,
specifically CPT codes 99231, 99232,
and 99233, to the list of telehealth
services on a category 1 basis for CY
2011, but with the limitation of one
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
subsequent hospital care service
furnished through telehealth every 3
days. We are revising § 410.78(b) and
§ 414.65(a)(1) accordingly to include
subsequent hospital care services as
Medicare telehealth services, with the
limitation of one telehealth subsequent
hospital care service every 3 days. We
are also finalizing our decision not to
add initial or discharge day
management hospital care services to
the list of Medicare telehealth services.
5. Initial, Subsequent, Discharge Day
Management, and Other Nursing
Facility Care Services
The American Telemedicine
Association and the Marshfield Clinic
submitted requests to add nursing
facility care codes, covering the
spectrum of initial (reported by CPT
codes 99304 (Level 1 initial nursing
facility care), 99305 (Level 2 initial
nursing facility care) and 99306 (Level
3 initial nursing facility care));
subsequent (reported by CPT codes
99307 (Level 1 subsequent nursing
facility care), 99308 (Level 2 subsequent
nursing facility care), 99309 (Level 3
subsequent nursing facility care), and
99310 (Level 4 subsequent nursing
facility care)); discharge day
management (reported by CPT codes
99315 (Nursing facility discharge day
management; 30 minutes or less) and
99316 (Nursing facility discharge day
management; more than 30 minutes));
and other (reported by CPT code 99318
(Evaluation and management of a
patient involving an annual nursing
facility assessment)) services, to the
Medicare telehealth services list
beginning in CY 2011. The commenters
requesting the addition of these services
expressed concerns regarding limited
access to care if we did not allow these
services to be furnished through
telehealth, and requested that CMS
acknowledge the recent Congressional
inclusion of nursing facilities as
telehealth originating sites by adding
these codes to the list of Medicare
telehealth services.
In the CY 2010 PFS proposed and
final rules (74 FR 33544 and 74 FR
61762), we discussed concerns about
potential disparities in patient acuity
between nursing facility services and
the current list of Medicare telehealth
services. We also declined to add
HCPCS codes to the Medicare telehealth
services list that are used exclusively to
describe Federally-mandated nursing
facility visits. As discussed in the CY
2010 PFS proposed rule (74 FR 33543),
the long-term care regulations at
§ 483.40(c) require that residents of
SNFs receive initial and periodic
personal visits. These regulations ensure
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
that at least a minimal degree of
personal contact between a practitioner
and a SNF resident is maintained, both
at the point of admission to the facility
and periodically during the course of
the resident’s stay. We continue to
believe that these Federally-mandated
visits should be conducted in-person,
and not as Medicare telehealth services.
Therefore, in the CY 2010 PFS final rule
with comment period, we revised
§ 410.78 to preclude physicians and
other practitioners from furnishing the
physician visits required under
§ 483.40(c) through telehealth.
We reviewed the use of telehealth for
each of the subcategories of nursing
facility services included in the requests
for CY 2011. We identified the E/M
services that fulfill Federal requirements
for personal visits under § 483.40(c),
and we did not propose for CY 2011 to
add any HCPCS codes to the Medicare
telehealth services list that are used
exclusively to describe these Federallymandated visits. These codes include
the CPT codes for initial nursing facility
care (CPT codes 99304 through 99306)
that are used to report the initial E/M
visit that fulfills Federally-mandated
requirements under § 483.40(c) and
other nursing facility service (CPT code
99318) that is only payable by Medicare
if the visit is substituted for a Federallymandated visit under § 483.40(c).
The nursing facility discharge day
management services reported under
CPT code 99315 and 99316 are E/M
visits that prepare a nursing facility
resident for discharge from the facility.
There are no Medicare requirements
that such a service be furnished. If a
practitioner chooses to furnish this
service, we continue to believe that an
in-person visit is most appropriate in
order to ensure the resident is prepared
for discharge from the nursing facility.
These services are furnished when a
practitioner deems it medically
reasonable and necessary to assess a
patient’s readiness for and to prepare a
patient being discharged from the
monitored nursing facility environment
to another typically less intensive
setting. There are no services on the
current list of telehealth services that
resemble such preparation of a patient
for discharge. As in the case of hospital
discharge day management services, we
believe it is especially important that, if
a practitioner furnishes a nursing
facility discharge day management
service, the service be furnished inperson. The practitioner must be able to
comprehensively assess the patient’s
status in preparation for discharge so
that the patient will have a higher
likelihood of making a successful
transition from the nursing facility to
PO 00000
Frm 00149
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73317
another setting. Therefore, we did not
consider nursing facility discharge day
management services for addition to the
Medicare telehealth services list on a
category 1 basis for CY 2011. When we
considered the addition of these
services under category 2, we had no
evidence that nursing facility discharge
services furnished through telehealth
are equivalent to in-person discharge
services. Therefore, we did not propose
to add nursing facility discharge day
management services to the CY 2011
telehealth list.
Subsequent nursing facility services,
reported by CPT codes 99307 through
99310, may be used to report either a
Federally-mandated periodic visit under
§ 483.40(c) or another E/M visit, prior to
or after the initial nursing facility care
visit, as long as the subsequent nursing
facility care visit is medically
reasonable and necessary for the
resident’s care. While we continue to
believe that many SNF residents have
complex medical care needs, we believe
that it is appropriate to consider the
addition of these codes to the telehealth
list on a category 1 basis. As we state
above in the context of our discussion
of subsequent hospital care services, the
HCPCS codes for initial and follow-up
inpatient consultation services for
nursing facility patients are on the list
of Medicare telehealth services, and
subsequent nursing facility services are
similar to those services. These E/M
services are furnished to high acuity,
complex SNF patients, although not by
the admitting practitioner himself or
herself. Therefore, we believe that
subsequent nursing facility visits by a
patient’s admitting practitioner
sufficiently resemble follow-up
inpatient consultation services to
consider them on a category 1 basis for
the telehealth list. We concluded for CY
2011 that it would be appropriate to
permit some subsequent nursing facility
care services to be furnished through
telehealth to ensure that complex
nursing facility patients have frequent
encounters with their admitting
practitioner, although we continue to
believe that the Federally-mandated
visits should be in-person to facilitate
the comprehensive, coordinated, and
personal care that these complex
patients require on an ongoing basis.
Therefore, we proposed that
subsequent nursing facility care
services, specifically CPT codes 99307,
99308, 99309 and 99310, be added to
the list of Medicare telehealth services
on a category 1 basis beginning in CY
2011, with some limitations on
furnishing these services through
telehealth. Because of our concerns
regarding the potential acuity and
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73318
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
complexity of SNF inpatients, we
proposed to limit the provision of
subsequent nursing facility care services
furnished through telehealth to once
every 30 days. We were especially
interested in public comments,
including any evidence regarding
patterns of high quality care and clinical
outcomes, regarding this proposal to
limit the provision of subsequent
nursing facility care services furnished
through telehealth to once every 30
days. We remain committed to ensuring
that SNF inpatients receive appropriate
in-person visits and that Medicare pays
only for medically reasonable and
necessary care. Currently and
continuing in CY 2011, an unlimited
number of initial and follow-up
consultation services may be furnished
through telehealth to these patients, so
we believe that only a limited number
of subsequent nursing facility care
services by the admitting practitioner
would be appropriate for SNF
inpatients. Finally, we specified that
subsequent nursing facility care services
reported for a Federally-mandated
periodic visit under § 483.40(c) may not
be furnished through telehealth. In light
of this CY 2011 proposal, we were
confident that admitting practitioners
would continue to make appropriate inperson visits to all patients who need
such care during their SNF stay.
Consistent with our proposal, we
proposed to revise § 410.78(b) and
§ 414.65(a)(1) to include subsequent
nursing facility care services as
Medicare telehealth services, with the
limitation of one telehealth subsequent
nursing facility care service every 30
days. Federally-mandated periodic
visits may not be furnished through
telehealth, as specified currently in
§ 410.78(e)(2).
Comment: One commenter
recommended that CMS limit the use of
telehealth for subsequent nursing
facility care services to CPT codes 99307
and 99308, the lower two levels of care.
The commenter stated that the
subsequent nursing facility care services
described by CPT codes 99309 and
99310, the higher two levels of care,
require a detailed to comprehensive
history and examination, along with
moderate to complex decisionmaking
that warrant an in-person visit with the
physician. The same commenter
disagreed with the limitation of one
telehealth subsequent nursing facility
care service every 30 days and suggested
that unless and until evidence of
overutilization is obtained, the limit
could hinder access to appropriate care
under the telehealth benefit. The
commenter agreed with the CMS policy
that all Federally-mandated visits as
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
defined by the long-term care
regulations § 483.40(c) should be
conducted in-person and not as
Medicare telehealth services.
Response: We appreciate the response
to our specific request for public
comment regarding the addition of
subsequent nursing facility care services
to the list of Medicare telehealth
services with the limitation of one
telehealth subsequent nursing facility
care service every 30 days. As we stated
in the proposed rule (75 FR 40112), we
remain committed to ensuring that SNF
inpatients receive appropriate in-person
visits and that Medicare pays only for
medically reasonable and necessary
care. We received no new evidence from
the commenter regarding patterns of
high quality care and clinical outcomes
in terms of our proposal to limit the
provision of subsequent nursing facility
care services furnished through
telehealth to once every 30 days.
Because we want to ensure that nursing
facility patients with complex medical
conditions have appropriately frequent
medically reasonable and necessary
encounters with their admitting
practitioner, we continue to believe that
it would be appropriate to permit the
full range of subsequent nursing facility
care services to be furnished through
telehealth. At the same time, because of
our concerns regarding the potential
acuity and complexity of SNF
inpatients, we want to ensure that these
patients continue to receive in-person
visits as appropriate to manage their
care. We are adding these services as
Medicare telehealth services with the
limitation as we proposed, and we
remain confident that admitting
practitioners will continue to make
appropriate in-person visits to all
patients who need such care during
their SNF stay.
After consideration of the public
comments we received, we are
finalizing our CY 2011 proposal to add
subsequent nursing facility care
services, specifically CPT codes 99307,
99308, 99309 and 99310, to the list of
Medicare telehealth services on a
category 1 basis beginning in CY 2011,
with limits to the provision of
subsequent nursing facility care services
furnished through telehealth to once
every 30 days. We are revising
§ 410.78(b) and § 414.65(a)(1) to include
subsequent nursing facility care services
as Medicare telehealth services, with the
limitation of one telehealth subsequent
nursing facility care service every 30
days. Federally-mandated periodic
visits may not be furnished through
telehealth, as specified currently in
§ 410.78(e)(2).
PO 00000
Frm 00150
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
6. Neuropsychological Testing Services
The American Telemedicine
Association submitted a request to add
neuropsychological testing services,
described by CPT codes 96119
(Neuropsychological testing (for
example, Halstead-Reitan
Neuropsychological Battery, Wechsler
Memory Scales and Wisconsin Card
Sorting Test), per hour of the
psychologist’s or physician’s time, both
face-to-face time administering tests to
the patient and time interpreting these
test results and preparing the report);
and 96119 (Neuropsychological testing
(for example, Halstead-Reitan
Neuropsychological Battery, Wechsler
Memory scales and Wisconsin Card
Sorting Test), with qualified health care
professional interpretation and report,
administered by technician, per hour of
technician time, face-to-face), to the list
of telehealth services for CY 2011 based
on their similarity to other telehealth
services.
In the CY 2008 PFS final rule with
comment period (72 FR 66251), we
stated that we have received conflicting
comments and data regarding the
appropriateness of furnishing
neuropsychological testing via
telehealth. While we appreciate the
recent request for addition of these same
services to the Medicare telehealth
services list, we did not believe that
these services are similar to services
currently on the Medicare telehealth
services list and, therefore, we
concluded that they would not be
appropriate for consideration or
addition under category 1 for CY 2011.
In the CY 2011 request for the addition
of the these services, we received no
information to indicate that the
diagnostic findings of
neuropsychological testing through
telehealth are similar to those based
upon in-person testing, and therefore
that testing through telehealth does not
affect the patient’s diagnosis.
Consequently, we did not propose to
add neuropsychological testing services
to the list of approved Medicare
telehealth services for CY 2011.
We received no public comments
regarding our discussion of the request
to add neuropsychological testing to the
list of Medicare telehealth services.
Therefore, we are finalizing our decision
not to add neuropsychological testing to
the list of Medicare telehealth services
for CY2011.
7. Speech-Language Pathology Services
The Marshfield Clinic submitted a
request to add various speech-language
pathology services to the list of
approved telehealth services for CY
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
2011. Speech-language pathologists are
not permitted under section
1842(b)(18)(C) of the Act to furnish and
receive payment for Medicare telehealth
services. Therefore, we did not propose
to add any speech-language pathology
services to the list of Medicare
telehealth services for CY 2011. For
further discussion of these services in
the context of telehealth, we refer
readers to the CY 2005 and CY 2007 PFS
proposed and final rules with comment
period (69 FR 47512 and 66276, and 71
FR 48995 and 69657).
Comment: One commenter stated that
research has proven that audiology
procedures offered via telehealth
services have great potential. The
commenter also stated that CMS should
use its broad discretion in implementing
programs to expand the list of available
telehealth services to include audiology.
Response: It is not within our
administrative authority to pay speech
language pathologists and audiologists
for services furnished via telehealth.
The statute authorizes the Secretary to
pay for telehealth services only when
furnished by a physician or a
practitioner as those terms are defined
in section 1834(m)(4)(D) and (E) of the
Act.
After consideration of the public
comment we received, we are finalizing
our decision not to add various speechlanguage pathology services to the list of
approved telehealth services for CY
2011.
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
8. Home Wound Care Services
Wound Care Associates, LLC,
submitted a request to add wound care
in the home setting to the list of
Medicare telehealth services. A patient’s
home is not permitted under current
statute to serve as an originating site for
Medicare telehealth services. Therefore,
we did not propose to add home wound
care services to the list of Medicare
telehealth services for CY 2011.
We received no public comments
regarding our discussion of the request
to add wound care in the home setting
to the list of Medicare telehealth
services. Therefore, we are finalizing
our decision not to add wound care in
the home setting to the list of Medicare
telehealth services for CY2011.
9. Other Issues
We received other public comments
on matters related to Medicare
telehealth services that were not the
subject of proposals in the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule. We thank the
commenters for sharing their views and
suggestions. Because we did not make
any proposals regarding these matters,
we do not generally summarize or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
respond to such comments in this final
rule with comment period. However, we
are summarizing and responding to the
following comments in order to reiterate
certain information.
Comment: One commenter requested
an explanation of the acceptable time
and format to request or recommend
changes to the criteria set in 2003 by
which CMS considers specific services
for Medicare coverage when furnished
through telehealth.
Response: As we discussed in the CY
2010 PFS final rule with comment
period (74 FR 61766), our established
criteria and process for reviewing
requests to add to the list of approved
Medicare telehealth services were
subject to full notice and comment
procedures in the CY 2003 PFS
proposed and final rules. Since we did
not make any proposals relating to the
criteria or process for CY 2011, any
potential revisions to the process for
adding or deleting services from the list
of approved Medicare telehealth
services are outside the scope of this CY
2011 final rule with comment period.
Throughout the year, we regularly
meet with parties who want to share
their views on topics of interest to them.
These discussions may provide us with
information regarding changes in
medical practice and afford
opportunities for the public to bring to
our attention issues they believe we
should consider for future rulemaking.
Thus, we encourage stakeholders to
contact us at any time if there are topics
related to physician payment policy that
they would like to discuss.
Comment: One commenter requested
an explanation regarding how the
payment rates for telehealth
consultations are set in a manner that is
consistent with section 1834(m)(2)(A) of
the Act that requires Medicare to pay a
practitioner who furnishes a telehealth
service an amount equal to the amount
that the practitioner would have been
paid if the service had been furnished
without the use of a
telecommunications system.
Response: As we stated in the CY
2009 PFS final rule with comment
period (73 FR 69745), we established
the RVUs for follow-up inpatient
telehealth consultations at the same
level as the RVUs established for
subsequent hospital care (as described
by CPT codes 99231 through 99233). For
CY 2010, we established the RVUs for
initial inpatient telehealth consultations
at the same level as the RVUs for initial
hospital care (as described by CPT codes
99221 through 99223) (75 FR 61775).
We believe this is appropriate because
a physician or practitioner furnishing a
telehealth service is paid an amount
PO 00000
Frm 00151
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73319
equal to the amount that would have
been paid if the service had been
furnished without the use of a
telecommunication system. Since
physicians and practitioners furnishing
follow-up inpatient consultations in an
in-person encounter must continue to
utilize subsequent hospital care codes
(as described by CPT codes 99231
through 99233) and those furnishing
initial inpatient consultations in an inperson encounter must generally utilize
initial hospital care codes (as described
by CPT codes 99221 through 99223), we
believe it is appropriate that the RVUs
for the subsequent and initial telehealth
HCPCS G-codes are set at the same level
as the subsequent and initial hospital
care codes, respectively.
D. Summary of CY 2011 Telehealth
Policies
In summary, we are finalizing our
proposals to add the following
requested services to the list of
Medicare telehealth services for CY
2011:
• Individual and group KDE services
(HCPCS codes G0420 and G0421,
respectively);
• Individual and group DSMT
services, with a minimum of 1 hour of
in-person instruction to be furnished in
the year following the initial DSMT
service to ensure effective injection
training (HCPCS codes G0108 and
G0109, respectively);
• Group MNT and HBAI services
(CPT codes 97804, and 96153 and
96154, respectively);
• Subsequent hospital care services,
with the limitation for the patient’s
admitting practitioner of one telehealth
visit every 3 days (CPT codes 99231,
99232, and 99233); and
• Subsequent nursing facility care
services, with the limitation for the
patient’s admitting practitioner of one
telehealth visit every 30 days (CPT
codes 99307, 99308, 99309, and 99310).
Furthermore, we are revising
§ 410.78(b) and § 414.65(a)(1)
accordingly. Specifically, we are adding
individual and group KDE services,
individual and group DSMT services,
group MNT services, group HBAI
services, and subsequent hospital care
and nursing facility care services to the
list of telehealth services for which
payment will be made at the applicable
PFS payment amount for the service of
the practitioner. In addition, we have
reordered the listing of services in these
two sections and removed ‘‘initial and
follow-up inpatient telehealth
consultations furnished to beneficiaries
in hospitals and SNFs’’ in § 410.78(b)
because these are described by the more
general term ‘‘professional
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73320
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
consultations’’ that is in the same
section. Finally, we are continuing to
specify that the physician visits
required under § 483.40(c) may not be
furnished as telehealth services.
E. Telehealth Originating Site Facility
Fee Payment Amount Update
Section 1834(m) of the Act establishes
the payment amount for the Medicare
telehealth originating site facility fee for
telehealth services provided from
October 1, 2001, through December 31
2002, at $20. For telehealth services
provided on or after January 1 of each
subsequent calendar year, the telehealth
originating site facility fee is increased
by the percentage increase in the MEI as
defined in section 1842(i)(3) of the Act.
The MEI increase for 2011 is 0.4
percent. Therefore, for CY 2011, the
payment amount for HCPCS code Q3014
(Telehealth originating site facility fee)
is 80 percent of the lesser of the actual
charge or $24.10. The Medicare
telehealth originating site facility fee
and MEI increase by the applicable time
period is shown in Table 49.
TABLE 49—THE MEDICARE TELEHEALTH ORIGINATING SITE FACILITY
FEE AND MEI INCREASE BY THE APPLICABLE TIME PERIOD
Facility
fee
MEI
increase
(%)
$20.00
N/A
$20.60
3.0
$21.20
2.9
$21.86
3.1
$22.47
2.8
$22.94
2.1
$23.35
1.8
$23.72
1.6
$24.00
1.2
$24.10
0.4
Period
10/01/2001–12/31/
2002
01/01/2003–12/31/
2003
01/01/2004–12/31/
2004
01/01/2005–12/31/
2005
01/01/2006–12/31/
2006
01/01/2007–12/31/
2007
01/01/2008–12/31/
2008
01/01/2009–12/31/
2009
01/01/2010–12/31/
2010
01/01/2011–12/31/
2011
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
V. Addressing Interim Final Relative
Value Units From CY 2010 and
Establishing Interim Relative Value
Units for CY 2011
A. Background
In accordance with section 1848(c) of
the Act, CMS determines work, PE, and
malpractice RVUs for each service paid
under the PFS. On an annual basis, the
AMA RUC provides CMS with
recommendations regarding physician
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
work values for new, revised, and
potentially misvalued codes. Over the
last several years, CMS, in conjunction
with the AMA RUC, has identified and
reviewed numerous potentially
misvalued CPT codes. In 2006, the AMA
RUC established the Five-Year Review
Identification Workgroup to identify
potentially misvalued services using the
following screens: ‘‘New Technology;’’
‘‘Site-of-Service Anomalies;’’ ‘‘ High
Volume Growth;’’ ‘‘CMS Fastest
Growing;’’ ‘‘High Intra-Service Work per
Unit Time (IWPUT);’’ ‘‘Services
Surveyed by One Specialty—Now
Performed by a Different Specialty;’’
‘‘Harvard-Valued, Utilization over 1
Million;’’ ‘‘Harvard Valued, Utilization
over 100,000;’’ and ‘‘Codes Reported
Together/Bundled CPT Services.’’ In
addition to providing recommendations
to CMS for work RVUs, the AMA RUC’s
Practice Expense Subcommittee reviews
and then the AMA RUC recommends
direct PE inputs (clinical labor, medical
supplies, and medical equipment) for
individual services. To guide the
establishment of malpractice RVUs for
new and revised codes before the next
5-Year Review of Malpractice, the AMA
RUC also provides crosswalk
recommendations, that is, ‘‘source’’
codes with a similar specialty mix of
practitioners furnishing the source code
and the new/revised code. CMS reviews
the AMA RUC recommendations on a
code-by-code basis. For AMA RUC
recommendations regarding physician
work RVUs, we determine whether we
agree with the recommended work
RVUs for a service (that is, we agree the
valuation is accurate), or, if we disagree,
we determine an alternative value that
better reflects our estimate of the
physician work for the service. Because
of the timing of the CPT Editorial Panel
decisions, AMA RUC recommendations,
and our rulemaking cycle, we publish
these work RVUs in the PFS final rule
with comment period as interim final
values, subject to public comment.
Similarly, we assess the AMA RUC’s
recommendations for direct PE inputs
and malpractice crosswalks, and
establish PE and malpractice interim
final values, which are also subject to
comment. We note that, with respect to
interim final PE RVUs, the main aspect
of our valuation that is open for public
comment for a new, revised, or
potentially misvalued code is the direct
PE inputs and not the other elements of
the PE valuation methodology, such as
the indirect cost allocation
methodology, that also contribute to
establishing the PE RVUs for a code.
The public comment period on the PFS
PO 00000
Frm 00152
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
final rule with comment period remains
open for 60 days after the rule is issued.
If we receive public comments on the
interim final work RVUs for a specific
code indicating that refinement of the
interim final work value is warranted
based on sufficient information from the
commenters concerning the clinical
aspects of the physician work associated
with the service (57 FR 55917), we refer
the service to a refinement panel, as
discussed in further detail in sections
III.I. and V.B.1. of this final rule with
comment period.
In the interval between closure of the
comment period and the subsequent
year’s PFS final rule with comment
period, we consider all of the public
comments on the interim final work, PE,
and malpractice RVUs for the new,
revised, and potentially misvalued
codes and the results of the refinement
panel, if applicable. Finally, we address
the interim final RVUs (including the
interim final direct PE inputs) by
providing a summary of the public
comments and our responses to those
comments, including a discussion of
any changes to the interim final work or
malpractice RVUs or direct PE inputs, in
the following year’s PFS final rule with
comment period. We then typically
finalize the direct PE inputs and the
work, PE, and malpractice RVUs for the
service in that year’s PFS final rule with
comment period, unless we determine it
would be more appropriate to continue
their interim final status for another
year and solicit further public comment.
B. Addressing Interim Final RVUs From
CY 2010
In this section, we address the interim
final values published in Appendix C of
the CY 2010 PFS final rule with
comment period (74 FR 62144 through
62146), as subsequently corrected in the
December 10, 2009 (74 FR 65449) and
May 11, 2010 correction notices (75 FR
26350). We discuss the results of the CY
2010 refinement panel, respond to
public comments received on specific
interim final values (including direct PE
inputs) from CY 2010, address the status
of the interim final values of a number
of potentially misvalued codes from CY
2009 and CY 2010, and address the
other new, revised, or potentially
misvalued codes with interim final
values for CY 2010 that are not
specifically discussed elsewhere in this
final rule with comment period.
We note that the final CY 2011 direct
PE database that lists the direct PE
inputs is available on the CMS Web site
under the downloads for the CY 2011
PFS final rule with comment period at:
https://www.cms.gov/
PhysicianFeeSched/PFSFRN/
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
list.asp#TopOfPage. The final CY 2011
work, PE, and malpractice RVUs are
displayed in Addendum B to this final
rule with comment period.
1. CY 2010 Interim Final Work RVUs
Referred to the Refinement Panel
We received public comments on 4
CPT codes with CY 2010 interim final
work values. We referred these services
to the CY 2010 refinement panel for
further review. For ease of discussion,
we will be referring to these services as
‘‘refinement codes.’’ Consistent with past
practice (62 FR 59084), we convened a
multispecialty panel of physicians to
assist us in the review of the comments.
The panel was moderated by our
physician advisors, and consisted of the
following voting members:
• One or two clinicians representing
the commenting organization.
• Two primary care clinicians
nominated by the American Academy of
Family Physicians and the American
College of Physicians.
• Three contractor medical directors
(CMDs).
• Clinicians with practices in related
specialties who were expected to have
knowledge of the services under review.
We assembled a set of 300 reference
services and asked the panel members
to compare the clinical aspects of
physician work for the refinement code
to one or more of the reference services.
In compiling the set of reference
services, we attempted to include: (1)
Services that are commonly performed
for which the work RVUs are not
controversial; (2) services that span the
spectrum of work intensity; and (3) at
least three services performed by each of
the major specialties that furnish the
refinement codes so that the perspective
of relevant specialties would be
represented. The panel process was
designed to capture each participant’s
independent judgment and his or her
clinical experience which informed and
drove the discussion of the refinement
code during the refinement panel
proceedings. Following the discussion,
each voting participant rated the
physician work of the refinement code.
Ratings were obtained individually and
confidentially, with no attempt to
achieve consensus among the panel
members.
We then analyzed the ratings for each
refinement code based on a
presumption that the interim final work
RVUs were correct unless the ratings
clearly indicated a different result.
Ratings of work were analyzed for
consistency among the four different
groups (commenting organization,
primary care physicians, CMDs, and
related clinicians) represented on the
panel. In addition, we used statistical
tests to determine whether there was
sufficient agreement among the groups
of the panel and whether the agreedupon RVUs differed significantly from
the interim final RVUs published in
Addendum C of the CY 2010 final rule
with comment period. We did not
modify the interim final RVUs unless
there was clear agreement for a change.
If there was agreement across groups for
change, but the groups did not agree on
what the new RVUs should be, we
eliminated the outlier group and looked
for agreement among the remaining
groups as the basis for new RVUs for the
refinement code. This methodology is
consistent with the historical refinement
process as established in the November
25, 1992 PFS final rule with comment
period (57 FR 55938).
Our decision to convene
multispecialty panels of physicians and
73321
to apply the statistical tests described
above has historically been based on our
need to balance the interests of those
who commented on the interim final
work values with the redistributive
effects that would occur in other
specialties if the work values were
changed. We refer readers to section
III.I. of this final rule with comment
period for a full discussion of the
changes to the refinement process that
we are adopting for refinement panels
beginning in CY 2011.
Table 50 lists those refinement codes
reviewed under the CY 2010 refinement
panel process described in this section.
The table includes the following
information:
• CPT Code. This is the CPT code for
a service.
• Short Descriptor. This is an
abbreviated version of the narrative
description of the code.
• CY 2010 Interim Final Work RVUs.
The interim final work RVUs that
appeared in the CY 2010 PFS final rule
with comment period (74 FR 61949
through 61953), as subsequently
corrected in the December 10, 2009 (74
FR 65449) and May 11, 2010 correction
notices (75 FR 26350), are shown for
each reviewed code.
• Requested Work RVUs. This
column identifies the work RVUs
requested by the commenters.
• CY 2011 Final Work RVUs. This
column contains the final work RVUs
after consideration by the refinement
panel.
We note that we are accepting the
results of the CY 2010 refinement panel
for all of these codes as the final work
RVUs for CY 2011. These final values
are also displayed in Addendum B to
this final rule with comment period.
TABLE 50—CPT CODES REVIEWED UNDER THE CY 2010 REFINEMENT PANEL PROCESS
CPT Code
74261
78451
78452
95905
Mod
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
26
26
26
26
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
a. Insertion of Breast Prosthesis (CPT
Code 19340)
CPT code 19340 (Immediate insertion
of breast prosthesis following
mastopexy, mastectomy or in
reconstruction) was identified by CMS
for AMA RUC review as requested by
the specialty society. The AMA RUC
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
Requested work
RVUs
2.28
1.38
1.62
0.05
2.40
1.40
1.75
0.15
Ct colonography, w/o dye .................................
Ht muscle image spect, sing ............................
Ht muscle image spect, mult ............................
Motor/sens nrve conduct test ...........................
2. CY 2010 Interim Final RVUs for
Which Public Comments Were Received
VerDate Mar<15>2010
CY 2010 interim
final work RVUs
Short descriptor
recommended 13.78 work RVUs for CY
2010, which CMS accepted. However, as
noted by a public comment on the CY
2010 PFS final rule with comment
period, the interim final CY 2010 work
RVUs published in the CY 2010 PFS
final rule with comment period (74 FR
61779, 62023 and 62144) for this service
did not reflect the increases in the
evaluation and management services for
the post-operative visits associated with
PO 00000
Frm 00153
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
CY 2011 final
work RVUs
2.40
1.38
1.62
0.05
this service that resulted from the CY
2010 changes to the consultation code
policy. The work RVUs for CPT code
19340 with these increases included are
13.99 RVUs. This correction was
included in the May 11, 2010 correction
notice to the CY 2010 final rule with
comment period (75 FR 26356). We are
finalizing the interim work RVUs for
CPT code 19340 of 13.99 for CY 2011.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73322
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
b. Computed Tomographic
Colonography (CPT Code 74261)
c. Myocardial Perfusion Imaging (CPT
Codes 78451, 78452, 78453, and 78454)
For CPT code 74261, (Computed
tomographic (CT) colonography,
diagnostic, including image
postprocessing; without contrast
material), the AMA RUC recommended
2.40 work RVUs. During the AMA RUC
meeting, this code was compared to two
CPT codes: 75635 (Computed
tomographic angiography, abdominal
aorta and bilateral iliofemoral lower
extremity runoff, with contrast
material(s), including noncontrast
images, if performed, and image
postprocessing (work RVUs = 2.40)) and
78815 (Positron emission tomography
(PET) with concurrently acquired
computed tomography (CT) for
attenuation correction and anatomical
localization imaging; skull base to midthigh (work RVUs = 2.44)). Based on the
comparisons of similar physician work,
physician time, and intensity/
complexity measures, the AMA RUC
determined that work RVUs of 2.40
were appropriate for CPT code 74261.
We disagreed with the AMA RUCrecommended work RVUs and believe
CPT code 74263 (Computed
tomographic (CT) colonography,
screening, including image
postprocessing) represents a more
comparable service because it has
virtually the same description of work,
pre-, intra-, and post-service time for
which the AMA RUC recommended
work RVUs of 2.28. Therefore, we
assigned interim final work RVUs of
2.28 to CPT code 74261 for CY 2010.
Comment: Several commenters
disagreed with the interim final work
RVUs assigned by CMS and believe that
equalizing the work RVUs for diagnostic
and screening computed tomographic
colonography ignores the reality that
patients referred for diagnostic study, by
definition, have greater complexity.
These commenters believed that for this
reason and the increased time involved
with a diagnostic study, higher work
RVUs are necessary to maintain the
proper relativity with the corresponding
screening CPT code 74263. The
commenters recommended that CMS
accept the AMA RUC-recommended
work RVUs of 2.40 for CPT code 74261
and refer this code to the CY 2010
refinement panel for review.
Response: Based on the concerns
expressed by the commenters, we
referred this code to the CY 2010
refinement panel for review. As a result
of the statistical analysis of the CY 2010
refinement panel ratings, we are
assigning 2.40 work RVUs to CPT code
74261 as the final value for CY 2011.
For CPT code 78451 (Myocardial
perfusion imaging, tomographic
(SPECT) (including attenuation
correction, qualitative or quantitative
wall motion, ejection fraction by first
pass or gated technique, additional
quantification, when performed); single
study, at rest or stress (exercise or
pharmacologic)), the AMA RUC
recommended 1.40 work RVUs, while
the AMA RUC recommended 1.75 work
RVUs for CPT code 78452 (Myocardial
perfusion imaging, tomographic
(SPECT) (including attenuation
correction, qualitative or quantitative
wall motion, ejection fraction by first
pass or gated technique, additional
quantification, when performed);
multiple studies, at rest and/or stress
(exercise or pharmacologic) and/or
redistribution and/or rest reinjection).
Upon review of the AMA RUC
recommendations for these codes, it was
unclear what methodology the AMA
RUC used to calculate the recommended
work RVUs for CPT code 78451.
Therefore, we disagreed with the AMA
RUC-recommended work RVUs of 1.40
for CPT code 78451 and believe the
work RVUs for the survey 25th
percentile were more appropriate.
Therefore, we assigned interim final
work RVUs of 1.38 to CPT code 78451
for CY 2010.
For CPT code 78452, we disagreed
with the reference code used, CPT code
70496 (Computed tomographic
angiography, head, with contrast
material(s), including noncontrast
images, if performed, and image
postprocessing (work RVUs = 1.75)). We
believe CPT code 78452 is comparable
to CPT code 73219 (Magnetic resonance
(eg, proton) imaging, upper extremity,
other than joint; with contrast
material(s) (work RVUs = 1.62)), which
has the same pre-, intra-, and postservice time. Therefore, we assigned
interim final work RVUs of 1.62 to CPT
code 78452 for CY 2010.
We accepted the CY 2010
recommendations of the AMA RUC for
the direct PE inputs for CPT codes
78451, 78452, 78453, and 78454 (75 FR
61955).
Comment: Several commenters
disagreed with the interim final work
RVUs assigned by CMS for these two
services. The commenters pointed out
that the specialty and AMA RUC
recommendations for both of these
services already reflected a tremendous
reduction from the work RVUs for the
services as reported by multiple
component codes in previous years and
expressed disappointment that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00154
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
additional reductions were made by
CMS. The commenters explained that in
an effort to maintain relativity between
CPT codes 78451 and 78452, the
recommended RVUs for 78451 were
derived by calculating the relationship
between the median survey RVUs for
CPT codes 78451 and 78452 and
maintaining this relationship between
the recommended RVUs for CPT codes
78451 and 78452. That is, the survey
work RVU relationship between CPT
code 78451: 78452 is [1.50: 1.87],
leading to the same relationship
between the AMA RUC-recommended
RVUs for 78451: 78452 of [1.40: 1.75].
The AMA RUC agreed that the
computed work RVUs, 1.40 for CPT
code 78451, maintain the relativity of
the original survey data and provide an
appropriate measure of the work for
CPT code 78451.
The commenters believe that CMS
does not have the special expertise
necessary to choose a different reference
code than the code selected by the
multispecialty AMA RUC panel and
disagreed with the reference code used
by CMS for establishing work RVUs for
CPT code 78452. The AMA RUC
pointed out that the reference code has
no associated computer post-processing
analysis, requires the interpretation of
fewer images, and has no additional
cine-motion images to analyze and
interpret, all of which are included in
the myocardial perfusion imaging
procedures.
The commenters requested that CMS
accept the AMA RUC recommendations
of 1.40 work RVUs for CPT code 78451
and 1.75 work RVUs for CPT code
78452 and refer these codes to the CY
2010 refinement panel for review.
Response: Based on the concerns
expressed by the commenters, these
codes were referred to the CY 2010
refinement panel for review. As a result
of the statistical analysis of CY 2010
refinement panel ratings, the work
RVUs for these codes were unchanged.
Therefore, we are adopting the interim
final values for these codes as final,
with 1.38 work RVUs for CPT code
78451 and 1.62 work RVUs for CPT
code 78452 for CY 2011.
Comment: Several commenters
asserted that CMS had incorrectly
crosswalked equipment time inputs for
several myocardial perfusion imaging
codes (CPT codes 78451, 78452, 78453,
and 78454), rather than accepting the
AMA RUC recommendations for these
codes as CMS had stated in the CY 2010
PFS final rule with comment period (74
FR 61955). One commenter further
suggested that the useful life of 5 years
for the Cobalt-57 flood source was
incorrect.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ assistance, and we
corrected the equipment times in the
May 11, 2010 correction notice to the
CY 2010 PFS final rule with comment
period (75 FR 26356 and 26570). We are
finalizing these direct PE inputs for CY
2011. We also proposed to change the
useful life of the Cobalt-57 flood source
from 5 to 2 years for CY 2011 (75 FR
40056). We address our final policies
regarding this proposal in section
II.A.3.b.(4) of this final rule with
comment period.
Comment: Several commenters
expressed concern that CMS applied
fully transitioned PE RVUs to the new
and revised CY 2010 CPT codes,
specifically CPT codes 78451, 78452,
78453, and 78554. The commenters
argued that the result of the lack of a
transition to use of the PPIS data was an
immediate 26 percent reduction for
myocardial perfusion imaging services,
simply because the CPT code
descriptors had been revised to capture
multiple procedure components. The
commenters requested that the new CPT
codes follow the same blend of new and
previous PE RVUs that was applied to
the existing CPT codes in CY 2010 and
later years.
Response: Our longstanding policy is
that if the CPT Editorial Panel creates a
new code for a given year, the new code
would be paid at its fully implemented
PFS amount and not at a transition rate
for that year. Consistent with this
policy, the new CY 2010 myocardial
perfusion imaging codes, and all other
new CY 2010 CPT codes, are not being
paid based on transitional PE RVUs in
CY 2010. We will continue to pay these
services based on the fully implemented
PE RVUs in CY 2011, the same approach
we are applying to other CPT codes that
were new for CY 2010 or CY 2011.
d. Nerve Conduction Test (CPT Code
95905)
For CPT code 95905 (Motor and/or
sensory nerve conduction, using
preconfigured electrode array(s),
amplitude and latency/velocity study,
each limb, includes F-wave study when
performed, with interpretation and
report), the AMA RUC recommended
0.05 work RVUs, which we accepted in
the CY 2010 PFS final rule with
comment (74 FR 61953).
Comment: One commenter requested
that CMS refer CPT code 95905 to the
CY 2010 refinement panel for review.
The commenter believes the AMA RUC
erred in its recommendation to CMS in
regard to the physician work involved.
The commenter noted that when this
code was discussed at the AMA RUC
meeting, the commenter and other
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
specialty societies that presented this
code to the AMA RUC recommended
assignment of 0.15 work RVUs. The
commenter also believes that the
undervaluation of the physician work
for this service may undermine the
ability of physicians to provide the
service.
Response: Based on the concerns
expressed by the commenter, this code
was referred to the CY 2010 refinement
panel for review. As a result of the
statistical analysis of the CY 2010
refinement panel ratings, the work
RVUs for this code were unchanged.
Therefore, we are finalizing the interim
final values for CPT code 95905 as 0.05
work RVUs for CY 2011.
e. Kidney Disease Education Services
(HCPCS Codes G0420 and G0421)
During rulemaking for CY 2010, we
adopted policies to provide for the
implementation of section 152(b) of the
MIPPA which created a new benefit
category for kidney disease education
(KDE) services for Medicare
beneficiaries diagnosed with Stage IV
chronic kidney disease (CKD). The
MIPPA also amended section 1848(j)(3)
of the Act which allows for payment of
KDE services under the PFS. For CY
2010, we proposed and finalized the
RVUs for the two HCPCS G-codes
established for the payment of KDE
services (74 FR 61901), G0420 (Face-toface educational services related to the
care of chronic kidney disease;
individual, per session, per one hour)
and G0421 (Face-to-face educational
services related to the care of chronic
kidney disease; group, per session, per
one hour). For purposes of valuing the
HCPCS codes for KDE services, we
based the work RVUs and the PE inputs,
with minor modifications, on CPT codes
for medical nutrition therapy (MNT)
services, specifically CPT code 97802
(Medical nutrition therapy; initial
assessment and intervention,
individual, face-to-face with the patient,
each 15 minutes) and CPT code 97804
(Medical nutrition therapy; group (2 or
more individual(s)), each 30 minutes),
because we believed these services to be
similar. We crosswalked the work RVUs
for HCPCS code G0420 from CPT code
97802 and for HCPCS code G0421 from
CPT code 97804. We multiplied the
work RVUs for HCPCS code G0420 by
four and the work RVUs for HCPCS
code G0421 by two to account for the
fact that we crosswalked a 15 minute
code to a 60 minute code (CPT code
97802 to HCPCS code G0420) and a 30
minute code to a 60 minute code (CPT
code 97804 to HCPCS code G0421). In
order to determine the direct PE inputs
for the KDE services, we indicated that
PO 00000
Frm 00155
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73323
we did not perform straight
multiplication of the actual MNT inputs
because we did not believe that the
required equipment and supplies for the
KDE services would increase in direct
proportion to the increased time for the
codes. For both HCPCS codes G0420
and G0421, we noted that we did not
increase the equipment time-in-use for
the body analysis machine, printer, or
scale, and that we did increase the
inputs for the table, computer, paper,
and other printed materials.
Comment: Several commenters
expressed support for the CY 2010 work
RVUs for the KDE HCPCS codes G0420
and G0421. However, one commenter
requested that CMS include the supplies
for the KDE services as directly
proportional multiple units of the MNT
services in order to appropriately pay
for the costs of care, noting that HCPCS
code G0420 (60 minutes) should have 4
times as many supplies as those in CPT
code 97802 (15 minutes) and HCPCS
code G0421 (60 minutes) should have 2
times as many as those in CPT code
97804 (30 minutes).
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ support for the interim
final work
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ support for the interim
final work RVUs we established for
HCPCS codes G0420 and G0421 for KDE
services and we are finalizing those
work RVUs for CY 2011. After reviewing
the direct PE inputs for supplies in both
the KDE HCPCS G-codes (G0420 and
G0421) and the MNT CPT codes (CPT
codes 97802 and 97804), we agree with
the commenter that we had not
increased the number of sheets of paper
for either HCPCS code G0420 or G0421
as we indicated we would (74 FR
61901). Therefore, we have increased
the number of paper sheets from 2 in
CPT code 97802 (15 minutes) to 8 in
HCPCS code G0420 (60 minutes) and
from 2 in CPT code 97804 (30 minutes)
to 4 in HCPCS code G0421 (60 minutes).
We have also made conforming changes
to the printer times for both KDE HCPCS
G-codes in the equipment file because
we base the printer time on the number
of sheets of paper. We are adopting
these modified direct PE inputs for
HCPCS codes G0420 and G0421 as final
for CY 2011.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73324
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
f. Excision of Soft Tissue and Bone
Tumors (CPT codes 21011 through
21016, 21552, 21554 through 21558,
21930 through 21933, 21395, 21936,
22900 through 22905, 23071, 23073,
23075 through 23078, 23200, 23210,
23220, 24071, 24073, 24075 through
24077, 24079, 24150 through 24153,
25071, 25073, 25075 through 25078,
25170, 26111, 26113, 26115 through
26118, 26250, 26255, 26260, 26262,
27043, 27045, 27047 through 27049,
27059, 27075 through 27078, 27327
through 27329, 27337, 27339, 27364,
27365, 27615, 27616, 27618, 27619,
27632, 27634, 27619, 27645 through
27647, 28039, 28041, 28043, 28045
through 28047, 28171, 28173, and
28175)
For CY 2010, the CPT Editorial Panel
split 31 excision codes into 62 codes
differentiated by the size of the excised
lesion, 18 codes were revised, and 12
additional codes were created. Although
we had significant concerns with the
pre-service times and the AMA RUCrecommended work RVUs for these
codes for CY 2010, in the context of
public comments on the CY 2010
proposed rule regarding the site-ofservice anomaly codes, we agreed to
accept the AMA RUC-recommended
work values for these codes on an
interim final basis for CY 2010 (74 FR
61954). We also requested that the AMA
RUC reexamine the minutes allocated
for positioning of the patient for these
codes. We noted that we would work
with the AMA RUC to address our
concerns about the valuation of these
codes and would consider whether it
would be appropriate to propose further
changes in future rulemaking. We
indicated that we did not agree with the
AMA RUC’s recommendations for the
inclusion of inpatient hospital care
services in these codes, particularly in
the cases of codes that would be
reported for the smaller-sized tumors.
As a result, we stated that we would
monitor the frequency data for these
codes and may propose further changes
to the work RVUs in the future based on
these data. We emphasized that the
AMA RUC itself recommended that
these services be re-reviewed to
determine the accuracy of the utilization
assumptions once 2 years of utilization
data were available.
In addition, we noted that the CPT
2010 instructions regarding the use of
the excision and resection of soft tissue
and bone tumor codes advised that a
complex repair may be separately
reported. However, longstanding
Medicare policy generally includes
payment for all simple, intermediate,
and complex repairs of procedural
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
incisions and, therefore, Medicare
would not separately pay for complex
repairs associated with procedures
reported by these codes.
Comment: Several commenters were
pleased that CMS agreed to accept the
AMA RUC-recommended values for
these new and revised codes. One
commenter endorsed CMS’ decision to
closely monitor the utilization rates for
these codes and believes this would be
important to ensure accurate payment.
The commenters did not see a need for
CMS or the AMA RUC to review the
pre-service times assigned to the codes
and stated that all of these times were
derived from the AMA RUC’s preservice time package methodology, a
methodology that CMS has historically
supported. The commenters asserted
that the times assigned are reflective of
the actual patient positioning times.
Therefore, the commenters urged CMS
to withdraw the request that the AMA
RUC revisit the pre-service times for
these codes. The commenters asserted
that further review would add extra
time and work to the already significant
workload of the AMA RUC and would
not result in any changes.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ support for our acceptance
of the AMA RUC-recommended values
for these new and revised codes and we
are finalizing the interim final work
RVUs for these codes for CY 2011. As
we stated in the CY 2010 PFS final rule
with comment period, we will continue
to monitor the frequency data for these
codes and work with the AMA RUC to
address our concerns and, if
appropriate, propose further changes in
future rulemaking. In addition, we are
reiterating our request originally made
in the CY 2010 PFS final rule with
comment period (74 FR 61954) that the
AMA RUC review the pre-service times
for these codes and provide their
recommendations to us.
g. Cryoablation of Prostate (CPT code
55873)
In June 2008, CMS requested that the
AMA RUC review the nonfacility direct
PE inputs for CPT code 55873
(Cryosurgical ablation of the prostate
(includes ultrasonic guidance for
interstitial cryosurgical probe
placement). During this review, the
AMA RUC recognized that this service
was initially reviewed as a new code by
the AMA RUC in February 2001. The
AMA RUC believed that the intraservice physician time since the initial
review had declined (from 200 minutes)
as the service is now more commonly
performed. The AMA RUC agreed with
the specialty society that the service
should be surveyed for physician work
PO 00000
Frm 00156
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
and also recommended revisions in the
direct PE inputs. As a result of the AMA
RUC review and input from the
specialty society, the AMA RUC
recommended 13.45 work RVUs and
revisions to the direct PE inputs for this
service for CY 2010. We reviewed these
recommendations and accepted the
AMA RUC-recommended work RVUs
for this code and the direct PE inputs in
the CY 2010 PFS final rule with
comment (74 FR 61954 and 61955).
Comment: One commenter expressed
concern about the reduction in the work
RVUs for CPT code 55873 and the lack
of public notice given prior to the
reduction. The commenter believes that
the intra-service time was
underestimated and could vary based on
the skill set of the physician. The
commenter requested that CMS reinstate
the work RVUs as included in the CY
2010 PFS proposed rule for CY 2010 (74
FR 33740).
Response: While we originally
requested that the AMA RUC review the
nonfacility direct PE inputs for CPT
code 55873, we believe that it is
appropriate for the AMA RUC to
respond to its findings during a limited
review by taking other actions that it
believes to be appropriate for the
particular circumstances, such as
requesting that procedures be
resurveyed. We followed our usual
methodology for revised codes whereby
we respond to the AMA RUC work
recommendations and adopt interim
final values in the final rule with
comment period for the upcoming year.
In this way, we facilitate appropriate
payment for the services on an interim
final basis while providing public notice
and the opportunity for public comment
prior to finalizing the values in the
following year.
We note that the RVUs for services
paid under the PFS are resource-based,
and individual services are valued
based upon the typical resources used to
provide the service. Because clinical
utilization of this service has increased
over the last several years and
information from the current AMA RUC
survey suggests there has been a
decrease in intra-service time from 200
to 100 minutes, we continue to believe
the reduction in intra-service time and
the revised work RVUs as recommended
to us by the AMA RUC are clinically
appropriate for this service. We
commonly expect greater work
efficiency as clinical experience with a
new service increases over time, and
this service fits that profile. Therefore,
we are finalizing the interim final work
RVUs of 13.60 for CPT code 55873 for
CY 2011.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Comment: One commenter stated that
the 162 minutes of clinical labor time
for CPT code 55873 in the final CY 2010
PFS direct PE database should be 168
minutes. The commenter also indicated
that supply code SD074 be included as
an input for CPT code 55873 based on
the AMA RUC’s CY 2010
recommendations.
Response: We appreciate the
commenter bringing this information to
our attention and agree with the
commenter’s assessment. The 6 minutes
of clinical labor time missing from the
direct PE inputs for CPT code 55873
have now been included, as has the
filiform, and these changes are reflected
in the final CY 2011 PFS direct PE
database. We are finalizing these direct
PE inputs for CPT code 55873 for CY
2011.
h. Urodynamics Studies (CPT Codes
51728 and 51729)
In February 2008, the AMA RUC
identified CPT codes 51726 (Complex
cystometrogram (ie, calibrated
electronic equipment)); 51772 (Urethral
pressure profile studies (UPP) (urethral
closure pressure profile), any
technique); 51795 (Voiding pressure
studies (VP); bladder voiding pressure,
any technique); and 51797 (Voiding
pressure studies, intra-abdominal (ie,
rectal, gastric, intraperitoneal) (List
separately in addition to code for
primary procedure)) through the ‘‘Codes
Reported Together’’ potentially
misvalued codes screen as combinations
of codes that were reported together
more than 95 percent of the time. The
AMA RUC referred all four codes to the
CPT Editorial Panel for creation of CPT
codes for new comprehensive services
and for reorganization of the coding
structure to reflect the typical
procedures performed. As a result, CPT
codes 51772 and 51795 were deleted,
CPT code 51797 was revised, and CPT
codes 51727 (Complex cystometrogram
(ie, calibrated electronic equipment);
with urethral pressure profile studies
(ie, urethral closure pressure profile),
any technique); 51728 (Complex
cystometrogram (ie, calibrated
electronic equipment); with voiding
pressure studies (i.e., bladder voiding
pressure), any technique); and 51729
(Complex cystometrogram (i.e.,
calibrated electronic equipment); with
voiding pressure studies (ie, bladder
voiding pressure) and urethral pressure
profile studies (i.e., urethral closure
pressure profile), any technique) were
created for CY 2010. Accordingly, the
AMA RUC reviewed the clinical labor
inputs for the typical patient and made
minor edits regarding the intra-service
time for these services. In addition, the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
AMA RUC made adjustments to the
medical supplies and equipment. As
noted in the CY 2010 PFS final rule
with comment period (74 FR 61955), we
accepted these recommendations for the
direct PE inputs on an interim final
basis.
Comment: Several commenters
asserted that CPT codes 51728 and
51729 should have additional clinical
labor inputs, including a greater number
of minutes during the intra-service
period and minutes during the preservice period. These commenters also
requested revisions to the PE supply
inputs for the codes.
Response: We discuss our CY 2011
proposal and the final CY 2011 policy
with respect to the direct PE inputs for
CPT codes 51728 and 51729 in section
II.A.3.c.(5) of this final rule with
comment period. As we state there, we
reviewed the direct PE inputs for these
two CPT codes and three related CPT
codes following revised AMA RUC
recommendations for CY 2011. We
agreed with the AMA RUC
recommendations regarding changes for
CY 2011. Specifically, we believe the
pre-service nonfacility clinical labor
time for the 0-day global period CPT
codes 51725 (simple cystometrogram
(CMG) (eg, spinal manometer)) and
51726 should be removed and the intraservice clinical labor time for CPT code
51726 should also be reduced,
consistent with the usual treatment of
other 0-day global codes. We believe the
AMA RUC provided recommendations
to us regarding the direct PE inputs for
these cystometrogram services that
accurately reflect the costs of the
resources (that is, the clinical labor,
equipment, and supplies) typically
required to furnish these services to
Medicare beneficiaries.
Comment: Several additional
commenters alerted CMS to incorrect
supply inputs for CPT codes 51728 and
51729. The commenters noted that the
AMA RUC direct PE recommendations
for CPT code 51728 included an
additional beaker. In the case of CPT
code 51729, the commenters stated that
CMS did not include the recommended
beaker and tubing in the direct PE
database for the CY 2010 final rule with
comment period.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ assistance, and we made
these corrections in the May 11, 2010
correction notice to the CY 2010 PFS
final rule with comment period (75 FR
26356 and 26478). We are finalizing
these direct PE inputs, as corrected, for
CPT codes 51728 and 51239 for CY
2011.
PO 00000
Frm 00157
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73325
i. Coronary Computed Tomographic
Angiography (CPT Codes 75571, 75572,
75573, and 75574)
In October 2008, the CPT Editorial
Panel deleted eight Category III CPT
codes (0144T through 0151T) and
created four new codes for CY 2010,
specifically CPT codes 75571
(Computed tomography, heart, without
contrast material, with quantitative
evaluation of coronary calcium); 75572
(Computed tomography, heart, with
contrast material, for evaluation of
cardiac structure and morphology
(including 3D image postprocessing,
assessment of cardiac function, and
evaluation of venous structures, if
performed)); 75573 (Computed
tomography, heart, with contrast
material, for evaluation of cardiac
structure and morphology in the setting
of congenital heart disease (including
3D image postprocessing, assessment of
LV cardiac function, RV structure and
function and evaluation of venous
structures, if performed)); and 75574
(Computed tomographic angiography,
heart, coronary arteries and bypass
grafts (when present), with contrast
material, including 3D image
postprocessing (including evaluation of
cardiac structure and morphology,
assessment of cardiac function, and
evaluation of venous structures, if
performed)) to describe the evolution of
the performance of cardiac and coronary
computed tomography for specific
clinical scenarios. We accepted the
AMA RUC recommendations for direct
PE inputs for these codes on an interim
final basis for CY 2010 (74 FR 61955).
Comment: Several commenters stated
that the final CY 2010 PFS direct PE
database included incomplete direct PE
inputs for CPT codes 75572 and 75573.
The commenters also submitted
updated pricing information for the 64slice CT scanner.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ assistance, and we
corrected these errors in the May 11,
2010 correction notice to the CY 2010
PFS final rule with comment period (75
FR 26356 and 26543). We are finalizing
the direct PE inputs for CPT codes
75571, 75572, 75573, and 75574, as
corrected, for CY 2011. Additionally, we
proposed an updated price for the 64slice CT scanner and its accompanying
software in the CY 2011 PFS proposed
rule (75 FR 40062). We address that
proposal and our final CY 2011 policy
in section II.A.3.c.(2) of this final rule
with comment period.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73326
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
j. Adjacent Tissue Transfer or
Rearrangement (CPT Codes 14301 and
14302)
CPT code 14300 (Adjacent tissue
transfer or rearrangement, more than 30
sq cm, unusual or complicated, any
area) was identified by the Five-Year
Review Identification Workgroup
through its ‘‘Site-of-Service Anomalies’’
screen for potentially misvalued codes
and subsequently identified through the
‘‘CMS Fastest Growing’’ screen. The
service was referred to the CPT Editorial
Panel to clarify the coding for tissue
transfers involving different size areas.
As a result, CPT code 14300 was deleted
and two new codes, CPT codes 14301
(Adjacent tissue transfer or
rearrangement, any area; defect 30.1 sq
cm to 60.0 sq cm) and 14302 (Adjacent
tissue transfer or rearrangement, any
area; each additional 30.0 sq cm, or part
thereof (List separately in addition to
code for primary procedure)) were
created. We accepted the AMA RUC
recommendations for direct PE inputs
on an interim final basis for CY 2010 (74
FR 61955).
Comment: One commenter stated that
there were discrepancies between the
AMA RUC recommendations and the
direct PE inputs for CPT codes 14301
and 14302.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ assistance, and we
corrected these errors in the May 11,
2010 correction notice to the CY 2010
PFS final rule with comment period (75
FR 26356 and 26368). Upon additional
review of the direct PE inputs for
consistency with the CY 2010 AMA
RUC recommendations for this CY 2011
final rule with comment period, we also
found that the instrument pack for CPT
code 14301 should be EQ138
(instrument pack, medium ($1500 and
up)) instead of EQ137 (instrument pack,
basic ($500-$1499)). Furthermore, CPT
code 14301 should have one SA054
(pack, post-op incision care (suture)) as
a supply input in both the nonfacility
and facility settings. The final CY 2011
PFS direct PE database reflects these
additional corrections. We are finalizing
the direct PE inputs for CPT codes
14301 and 14302 for CY 2011.
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
k. Insertion of a Temporary Prostatic
Urethral Stent (CPT code 53855)
CPT code 53855 (Insertion of a
temporary prostatic urethral stent,
including urethral measurement) was
created for CY 2010 to describe the
service previously reported under the
Category III CPT code 0084T. We
accepted the AMA RUC
recommendations for direct PE inputs
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
on an interim final basis for CY 2010 (74
FR 61955).
Comment: One commenter stated that
CPT code 53855 was incorrectly missing
supply codes SD074 and SH050 as
inputs in the final CY 2010 PFS direct
PE database. The commenter also noted
that SJ038 was incorrectly substituted
for SJ032.
Response: We appreciate the
commenter bringing these items to our
attention and agree with the
commenter’s assessment. The supply
items for CPT code 53588 (filiform and
one unit of lidocaine) have been
included in the direct PE inputs and we
have replaced petroleum jelly with
lubricating jelly. These changes are
reflected in the final CY 2011 PFS direct
PE database. We are finalizing the
revised direct PE inputs for CPT code
53855 for CY 2011.
l. High Dose Rate Brachytherapy (CPT
codes 77785, 77786, and 77787)
CPT codes 77785 (Remote
afterloading high dose rate radionuclide
brachytherapy; 1 channel); 77786
(Remote afterloading high dose rate
radionuclide brachytherapy; 2–12
channels); and 77787 (Remote
afterloading high dose rate radionuclide
brachytherapy; over 12 channels) were
identified by the Five-Year Review
Identification Workgroup through the
‘‘CMS Fastest Growing’’ and ‘‘High
Volume Growth’’ potentially misvalued
codes screens and later revised by the
CPT Editorial Panel for CY 2009. As a
result, the AMA RUC made
recommendations for physician work
and direct PE inputs for these revised
services for CY 2009, which we
accepted in the CY 2009 PFS final rule
with comment period (73 FR 69892).
Upon acceptance of the AMA RUC
recommendations, we received several
comments concerning the direct PE
direct inputs (for example, supply costs
and the useful life of the renewable
sources) related to several high dose
radiation therapy and placement CPT
codes. In the CY 2010 PFS proposed
rule (74 FR 33532), we requested that
the AMA RUC revisit the direct PE
inputs for these services. In response to
our request, the AMA RUC reviewed the
direct PE inputs for these services and
made adjustments to the clinical labor
staff type, changed the time for some
activities, and edited the medical
supplies and equipment for the typical
patient scenario. In addition, the AMA
RUC also recommended further
discussion between the specialty and
CMS regarding appropriate resolution of
the PE input price for the Iridium-192
brachytherapy source typically used in
CPT codes 77785, 77786, and 77787. We
accepted these direct PE
recommendations for CY 2010 on an
interim final basis (74 FR 61782).
Comment: One commenter informed
CMS of two concerns regarding CPT
codes 77785, 77786, and 77787. The
commenter stated that the AMA RUC
summary direct PE output table
included incorrectly doubled PE inputs
for each of the codes. The commenter
also pointed out that the medical
physicist clinical labor time for CPT
code 77786 should be 54 minutes
instead of 29 minutes.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ assistance, and we
corrected these errors in the May 11,
2010 correction notice to the CY 2010
PFS final rule with comment period (75
FR 26356 and 26564). We are finalizing
the direct PE inputs for CPT codes
77785, 77786, and 77787, as corrected,
for CY 2011.
m. Injection of Facet Joint (CPT Codes
64490, 64491, 64492, 64493, 64494, and
64495)
Facet joint injection services were
identified by the Five-Year Review
Identification Workgroup ‘‘High Volume
Growth’’ potentially misvalued codes
screen and referred to the CPT Editorial
Panel to create an appropriate coding
structure to report primary and
additional injections. As a result, the
four existing codes describing these
services were deleted and CPT codes
66490 (Injection(s), diagnostic or
therapeutic agent, paravertebral facet
(zygapophyseal) joint (or nerves
innervating that joint) with image
guidance (fluoroscopy or CT), cervical
or thoracic; single level); 64491
(Injection(s), diagnostic or therapeutic
agent, paravertebral facet
(zygapophyseal) joint (or nerves
innervating that joint) with image
guidance (fluoroscopy or CT), cervical
or thoracic; second level (List separately
in addition to code for primary
procedure)); 64492 (Injection(s),
diagnostic or therapeutic agent,
paravertebral facet (zygapophyseal) joint
(or nerves innervating that joint) with
image guidance (fluoroscopy or CT),
cervical or thoracic; third and any
additional level(s) (List separately in
addition to code for primary
procedure)); 64493 (Injection(s),
diagnostic or therapeutic agent,
paravertebral facet (zygapophyseal) joint
(or nerves innervating that joint) with
image guidance (fluoroscopy or CT),
lumbar or sacral; single level); 64494
(Injection(s), diagnostic or therapeutic
agent, paravertebral facet
(zygapophyseal) joint (or nerves
innervating that joint) with image
guidance (fluoroscopy or CT), lumbar or
PO 00000
Frm 00158
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
sacral; second level (List separately in
addition to code for primary
procedure)); and 64495 (Injection(s),
diagnostic or therapeutic agent,
paravertebral facet (zygapophyseal) joint
(or nerves innervating that joint) with
image guidance (fluoroscopy or CT),
lumbar or sacral; third and any
additional level(s) (List separately in
addition to code for primary procedure))
were created for CY 2010. Accordingly,
the AMA RUC reviewed the direct PE
inputs as recommended by the specialty
and made some minor edits to the
clinical labor and medical supplies to
reflect the typical patient service, which
we accepted in the CY 2010 PFS final
rule with comment on an interim final
basis (74 FR 61955).
Comment: Several commenters stated
that the equipment and supplies listed
in the final CY 2010 PFS direct PE
database for CPT codes 64490, 64491,
64492, 64493, 64494, and 64495 were
incorrect and not consistent with the
AMA RUC’s recommendations.
Response: We verified that the
equipment and supplies listed as direct
inputs for these codes in the final CY
2011 direct PE database match the CY
2010 recommendations provided to us
by the AMA RUC. We encourage
stakeholders who believe a change is
required in the direct PE inputs
associated with a particular service in
the typical case that is furnished in the
facility or nonfacility setting to address
these concerns with the AMA RUC. We
are finalizing these direct PE inputs for
CPT codes 64490, 64491, 64492, 64493,
64494, and 64495 for CY 2011.
n. Knee Arthroscopy (CPT Code 29870)
In the CY 2008 PFS final rule (72 FR
66238), we deferred the establishment of
nonfacility direct PE inputs for CPT
code 29870 (Arthroscopy, knee,
diagnostic, with or without synovial
biopsy (separate procedure)) and stated
that the physicians performing
arthroscopic services in the nonfacility
setting should be given the opportunity
to have a multispecialty review by the
AMA RUC. We accepted the AMA RUC
recommendations for nonfacility direct
PE inputs in the CY 2010 PFS final rule
with comment period on an interim
final basis (74 FR 61955).
Comment: One commenter indicated
that the wrong arthroscopic system was
approved by the AMA RUC for CPT
code 29870.
Response: We verified that the
equipment input for this code in the
final CY 2011 PFS direct PE database
matches the recommendation provided
to us by the AMA RUC. We encourage
stakeholders who believe a change is
required in the direct PE inputs
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
associated with a particular service in
the typical case that is furnished in the
facility or nonfacility setting to address
these concerns with the AMA RUC. We
are finalizing the direct PE inputs for
CPT code 298770 for CY 2011.
3. Status of Interim Final Work RVUs for
Potentially Misvalued Site-of-Service
Anomaly Codes From CY 2009 and CY
2010
In previous years, we have requested
that the AMA RUC review codes that,
according to Medicare claims data, have
experienced a change in the typical siteof-service since the original valuation of
the code. The AMA RUC reviewed and
recommended to CMS revised work
RVUs for 29 codes for CY 2009 and 11
codes for CY 2010 that were identified
as having site-of-service anomalies. In
the CYs 2009 and 2010 PFS final rules
with comment period (73 FR 69883 and
74 FR 61776 through 61778,
respectively), we indicated that
although we would accept the AMA
RUC valuations for these site-of-service
anomaly codes on an interim final basis
through CY 2010, we had ongoing
concerns about the methodologies used
by the AMA RUC to review these
services. We requested that the AMA
RUC reexamine the site-of-service
anomaly codes and use the building
block methodology to revalue the
services (74 FR 61777).
For CY 2011, as discussed in more
detail in section II.C.3.d. of this final
rule with comment period, we are
requesting that the AMA RUC
reconsider its previously recommended
values, which have been applied on an
interim final basis in CYs 2009 and
2010, and revise the work RVUs to
better reflect the intensity of the services
and the revised physician times and
post-procedure visits included in the
valuation of these codes. Until we
receive the revised values from the
AMA RUC for CY 2012 and can make
a determination regarding them, we are
continuing to accept the existing AMA
RUC-recommended work RVUs listed in
Tables 14 and 15 in section II.C.3.d. of
this final rule with comment period on
an interim final basis for CY 2011.
4. Other New, Revised, or Potentially
Misvalued Codes With CY 2010 Interim
Final RVUs Not Specifically Discussed
in the CY 2011 Final Rule With
Comment Period
For all other CY 2010 new, revised, or
potentially misvalued codes with CY
2010 interim final RVUs that are not
specifically discussed in this final rule
with comment period, we are finalizing,
without modification, the interim final
work and malpractice RVUs and direct
PO 00000
Frm 00159
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73327
PE inputs that we initially adopted for
CY 2010.
C. Establishment of Interim Final RVUs
for CY 2011
In this section, we discuss the
establishment of work, PE, and
malpractice interim final RVUs for CY
2011 and issues related to the processes
for establishing these values. These CY
2011 work, PE, and malpractice interim
final RVUs, and the associated direct PE
inputs, are open to comment on this CY
2011 final rule with comment period. In
general, the work, PE, and malpractice
RVUs and the associated direct PE
inputs for the CY 2011 new and revised
codes will be finalized in the CY 2012
PFS final rule with comment period,
where we will also respond to the
public comments received on the values
and direct PE inputs that are adopted on
an interim final basis in this CY 2011
final rule with comment period. The
final CY 2011 PFS direct PE database
and the crosswalks for the malpractice
RVUs for new and revised codes are
posted on the CMS Web site under the
downloads for the CY 2011 PFS final
rule with comment period at: https://
www.cms.gov/PhysicianFeeSched/
PFSFRN/list.asp#TopOfPage.
For CY 2011, we received AMA RUC
recommendations for 325 new, revised,
and potentially misvalued CPT codes
and 93 recommended deletions. Of the
325 codes, 84 were identified as
potentially misvalued, 125 as new, and
116 as revised. After subtracting out
CPT codes for which no work RVU
recommendation were given—including
codes listed on the Clinical Lab Fee
Schedule (CLFS), vaccine codes, and
technical component only codes—there
were 291 codes for which the AMA RUC
provided work RVU recommendations
for CY 2011: 82 CPT codes classified by
the AMA RUC as potentially misvalued,
108 as new, and 101 as revised. Of note,
as displayed in Table 53, we consider
204 of the AMA RUC work
recommendations for CY 2011 new and
established CPT codes to be for codes
identified through, created as a result of,
or valued in association with service(s)
identified through a potentially
misvalued code screen. Additionally,
we received direct PE input
recommendations from the AMA RUC
for 325 CPT codes for CY 2011.
For CY 2011, we note that the CPT
Editorial Panel deleted CPT codes
0160T (Therapeutic repetitive
transcranial magnetic stimulation
treatment planning) and 0161T
(Therapeutic repetitive transcranial
magnetic stimulation treatment delivery
and management, per session) and
created two new CPT codes, 90867
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73328
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
(Therapeutic repetitive transcranial
magnetic stimulation treatment;
planning) and 90868 (Therapeutic
repetitive transcranial magnetic
stimulation treatment; delivery and
management, per session). Due to the
timing of the creation of these codes, the
AMA RUC was unable to provide work
and PE recommendations for CY 2011.
As a result, these codes will be
contractor-priced for CY 2011.
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
1. Establishment of Interim Final Work
RVUs for CY 2011
a. Background
As we previously explained in section
V.A. of this final rule with comment
period, on an annual basis, the AMA
RUC provides CMS with
recommendations regarding physician
work values for new, revised, and
potentially misvalued codes. We review
the AMA RUC-recommended work
RVUs on a code-by-code basis. We
determine whether we agree with the
AMA RUC’s recommended work RVUs
for a service (that is, we agree the
valuation is accurate), or, if we disagree,
we determine an alternative value that
better reflects our estimate of the
physician work for the service.
As stated earlier, the AMA RUC
provided work RVU recommendations
for 291 CPT codes. Of the 291, we are
accepting 207 (71 percent) of the AMA
RUC-recommended values and
providing alternative values for the
remaining 84 (29 percent). Over the last
several years our rate of acceptance of
the AMA RUC recommendations has
been higher, at 90 percent or greater.
However, in response to concerns
expressed by MedPAC, the Congress,
and other stakeholders regarding the
accurate valuation of services under the
PFS, we have intensified our scrutiny of
the work valuations of new, revised, and
potentially misvalued codes. We note
that most recently, the law was
amended (section 1848(c)(2)(L) of the
Act (as added by section 3134 of the
ACA)) to add a new requirement which
specifies that the Secretary shall
establish a formal process to validate
RVUs under the PFS. The validation
process may include validation of work
elements (such as time, mental effort
and professional judgment, technical
skill and physical effort, and stress due
to risk) involved with furnishing a
service and may include validation of
the pre-, post-, and intra-service
components of work. Furthermore, the
Secretary is directed to validate a
sampling of the work RVUs of codes
identified through any of the seven
categories of potentially misvalued
codes specified by section
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
1848(c)(2)(K)(ii) of the Act (as added by
section 3134 of the ACA). While we are
currently in the planning stage of
developing a formal validation process,
we believe we should be incorporating,
where appropriate, the validation
principles specified in the law. That is,
in reviewing the CY 2011 AMA RUC
recommendations for valuing the work
of new, revised, and potentially
misvalued services, we have expended
significant effort in evaluating whether
the recommended values reflect the
work elements, such as time, mental
effort, and professional judgment,
technical skill and physical effort, and
stress due to risk, involved with
furnishing the service. We subjected
each of the CY 2011 codes to a rigorous
clinical review, examining the pre-,
post-, and intra-service components of
the work. If we concluded that the AMA
RUC’s recommended value for a code
was not accurate, we looked for
comparisons with other established
reference codes with clinical similarity
or analogous pre-, post-, and intraservice times, and, where applicable,
employed the building block approach
to inform our interim final decision to
establish an alternative value that we
believe is more appropriate.
The AMA RUC has emphasized the
need to value services ‘‘relative’’ to other
services, explaining in its public
comment on the CY 2011 PFS proposed
rule that it will ‘‘continue to employ
magnitude estimation in developing
relative value recommendations as it is
the cornerstone of the RBRVS (resourcebased relative value scale).’’ We agree
that services paid under the PFS should
be reviewed and valued in manner
consistent with Medicare payment
policy to maintain appropriate relativity
between services and promote accurate
pricing. In our review of the 291 CY
2011 AMA RUC recommendations for
work values, we noted that the AMA
RUC used a variety of approaches and
methodologies to arrive at the
recommended work values. For some
codes, the AMA RUC used magnitude
estimation in conjunction with survey
data from physician surveys conducted
by the specialty societies to support the
values. For other codes, the AMA RUC
used magnitude estimation to override
the results of the survey data,
recommending to CMS a value that was
not based on survey data but rather,
justified in terms of its appropriate
relativity within the system to other
similar services. The AMA RUC may
also elect to use a crosswalk approach
in valuing a code by applying a work
value from a currently valued code to
the code under review based on the
PO 00000
Frm 00160
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
clinical similarity of the procedures or
explicit considerations of pre-, intra-,
and post-service times. In some
instances, the AMA RUC asserted that it
used the building block methodology to
value the code, a methodology CMS has
historically supported (74 FR 61776).
We understand that the AMA RUC
believes that it must approach valuation
on a code-by-code basis, and depending
on the context of the particular code,
some methodologies may be better
suited than others for valuation
purposes. However, we remain
concerned over the variations and some
applications of the AMA RUC’s
methodologies which, if we continue to
accept them, could contribute to
inaccuracy in the relativity of physician
work valued under the PFS for different
services. Our concerns at this time
include the following methodological
issues which we observed during our
review of the CY 2011 AMA RUC work
recommendations:
• AMA RUC-recommended values
without benefit of a survey: For a
number of codes, the AMA RUC
justified the work RVUs by crosswalking
the codes to existing codes deemed
comparable by the AMA RUC. Since the
specialty society did not conduct a
survey for these codes, there are no
survey data to back up the
recommended work RVUs.
• Surveys conducted on existing
codes produced predictable results: In
providing recommendations for existing
potentially misvalued codes, the AMA
RUC often recommended maintaining
the current work RVUs and supported
this valuation by citing the survey
results. Upon clinical review of a
number of these cases, we are concerned
over the validity of the survey results
since the survey values often are very
close to the current code values.
Increasingly, rather than recommending
the median survey value that has
historically been most commonly used,
the AMA RUC is choosing to
recommend the 25th percentile value,
potentially responding to the same
concern we have identified.
• AMA RUC deviated significantly or
disregarded survey results completely:
For the majority of codes, the AMA RUC
cited the survey results in support of the
work RVU recommendations and in
many instances adopted either the
survey median or 25th percentile value
as the AMA RUC-recommended value.
However, in some instances, the AMA
RUC recommended work RVUs which
deviated significantly from the survey
results. Rather than using the survey
data, the AMA RUC appears to have
relied on another methodology to value
the code, such as ‘‘magnitude
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
estimation’’ or crosswalk to a
comparable code.
In reviewing the 291 work RVU
recommendations from the AMA RUC
for CY 2011, we concluded that the
strongest support for the valuation of a
code occurred when the AMA RUC
cited multiple germane methodologies
that all yielded a similar value that was
also supported by the survey. We
tended to accept the AMA RUCrecommended values in these instances.
However, we found the weakest and
least convincing valuations occurred in
cases where the AMA RUC either
deviated significantly or disregarded the
survey results in favor of tweaking
various components of the code in order
to justify a value which the AMA RUC
believed was correct due to perceived
‘‘magnitude estimation’’ for that code.
We are concerned that such actions by
the AMA RUC may create problems for
any systematic validation processes that
could be implemented in the future as
required by section 1848(c)(2)(L) of the
Act (as added by section 3134 of the
ACA).
Accordingly, for those CY 2011 codes
for which we did not accept the AMA
RUC recommendations and are instead
establishing alternative interim final
values, we discuss our decisions based
on groupings of codes in the following
sections. Table GG4 at the end of this
section displays the AMA RUC
recommendations and interim final
work RVUs for CY 2011 new, revised,
and potentially misvalued codes. b. CY
2011 Interim Final Work RVUs for New
and Revised Codes (1) CY 2011 New
and Revised Codes that Do Not
Represent Major New Comprehensive
Services
We provide an explanation in the
following sections of our rationale for
not accepting particular AMA RUCrecommended or Health Care
Professional Advisory Committee
(HCPAC)-recommended work RVUs for
CY 2011 new and revised CPT codes
that do not represent major new
comprehensive services that are listed
in Table 51 and discussed in the
subsequent section. The issues are
arranged by type of service in CPT code
order and address only work RVUs.
These codes are listed in Table 53,
which includes a complete list of all
new, revised, and potentially misvalued
CPT codes with CY 2011 AMA RUC
work RVU recommendations and CMS’
interim final decisions for CY 2011.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
(A) Excision and Debridement (CPT
Codes 11010, 11011, 11012, 11042,
11043, 10144, 11045, 11046, 11047, and
97598)
CPT codes 11043 (Debridement; skin,
subcutaneous tissue, and muscle) and
11044 (Debridement; skin, subcutaneous
tissue, muscle, and bone) were
identified by the AMA RUC’s Five-Year
Review Identification Workgroup
through the ‘‘Site-of-Service Anomalies’’
potentially misvalued codes screen in
September 2007. The AMA RUC
recommended that the entire family of
services described by CPT codes 11040
through 11044 and 97597 and 97598 be
referred to the CPT Editorial Panel
because the current descriptors allowed
reporting of the codes for a bimodal
distribution of patients and also to
better define the terms excision and
debridement. These codes were
included with many other codes under
review by the CPT Excision and
Debridement Workgroup. CPT codes
11010, 11011, 11012, and 11042 through
11047 were reviewed by the AMA RUC
and CPT codes 97597 and 97598 were
reviewed by the HCPAC.
The code descriptors for CPT codes
11010 (Debridement including removal
of foreign material at the site of an open
fracture and/or an open dislocation (e.g.,
excisional debridement); skin and
subcutaneous tissues); 11011
(Debridement including removal of
foreign material at the site of an open
fracture and/or an open dislocation (e.g.,
excisional debridement); skin,
subcutaneous tissue, muscle fascia, and
muscle); and 11012 (Debridement
including removal of foreign material at
the site of an open fracture and/or an
open dislocation (e.g., excisional
debridement); skin, subcutaneous
tissue, muscle fascia, muscle, and bone)
were revised to clarify to payors and
providers that these codes describe
debridement of a single traumatic
wound caused by an open fracture
which creates a single exposure, despite
the number of fractures or dislocations
in the same anatomic site. The AMA
RUC and the specialty society agreed
that the revisions made to these
descriptors were editorial and the
current work RVUs for these services
correctly related to the typical patient
and should be maintained,
recommendations which we have
accepted on an interim final basis for
CY 2011.
The CPT Editorial Panel revised the
descriptor for CPT code 11042
(Debridement subcutaneous tissue
(includes epidermis and dermis, if
performed); first 20 square centimeters
or less). As a result, the AMA RUC
PO 00000
Frm 00161
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73329
reviewed the specialty-recommended
work RVUs for this service, 1.12 work
RVUs (the previous AMA RUC HCPAC
recommendation as valued during the
CY 2005 Five-Year Review of Work),
and noted that they were higher than
the current PFS value for this service
(0.80 work RVUs). The AMA RUC
determined that there was compelling
evidence to consider new work RVUs
for this service. The AMA RUC also
reviewed the survey data for CPT code
11042 and made slight changes to the
pre-, intra-, and post-service times. This
service was compared to the key
reference CPT code 16020 (Dressings
and/or debridement of partial-thickness
burns, initial or subsequent; small (less
than 5% total body surface area)) (work
RVUs = 0.80) and MPC CPT code 56605
(Biopsy of vulva or perineum (separate
procedure); 1 lesion) (work RVUs =
1.10). Based on these comparisons, the
AMA RUC agreed that the previous
AMA RUC HCPAC recommendation of
1.12 work RVUs was an appropriate
value as it would maintain relativity
between the key reference code and the
surveyed code. The AMA RUC
recommended work RVUs of 1.12 for
CPT code 11042.
We disagree with the AMA RUCrecommended value for this service and
are maintaining the current work RVUs
of 0.80. We believe the AMA RUCrecommended value (1.12 work RVUs)
was based on the old surveyed value.
The reference code, CPT code 16020,
has more overall time but is valued at
0.80 work RVUs. In addition, the
reference code has a size limitation that
varies by individual body size, but the
surveyed CPT code 11042 has an addon code (CPT code 11045) for each
additional 20 square centimeters.
Therefore, we are not accepting the
AMA RUC recommendation and are
assigning an alternative value of 0.80
work RVUs to CPT code 11042 on an
interim final basis for CY 2011.
For CPT code 11045 (Debridement
subcutaneous tissue (includes epidermis
and dermis, if performed); each
additional 20 square centimeters, or part
thereof (List separately in addition to
code for primary procedure)), which is
the add-on code to CPT code 11042, the
AMA RUC recommended 0.69 work
RVUs. This value was obtained by
applying a 14 percent reduction to the
median work value of 0.80 to maintain
the relativity between CPT codes 11042
and 11045 of the survey data collected.
Due to the reduction in work RVUs to
CPT code 11042 by CMS, we reduced
the AMA RUC-recommended work
RVUs of 0.69 for CPT code 11045 and
assigned 0.33 work RVUs to this service.
This value was obtained by removing
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73330
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
the pre- and post-service time from the
interim final RVUs of 0.80 for the
primary procedure (CPT code 11042).
Therefore, we are assigning an
alternative value of 0.33 work RVUs to
CPT code 11045 on an interim final
basis for CY 2011.
CPT codes 11043 (Debridement,
muscle and/or fascia (includes
epidermis, dermis, and subcutaneous
tissue, if performed); first 20 square
centimeters or less) and 11044
(Debridement, bone (includes
epidermis, dermis, subcutaneous tissue,
muscle and/or fascia, if performed); first
20 square centimeters or less) were
surveyed as 90-day global codes.
However, due to disagreement with the
survey vignettes and the new global
period (90 days), in addition to broad
variations in surveyed facility length of
stay, the AMA RUC requested that CMS
change the global period to 0 days. CMS
agreed and the codes were resurveyed as
0-day global codes.
For CPT code 11043, the AMA RUC
recommended 3.00 work RVUs. The
AMA RUC reviewed the survey data and
compared the surveyed code to the key
reference CPT code 15002 (Surgical
preparation or creation of recipient site
by excision of open wounds, burn
eschar, or scar (including subcutaneous
tissues), or incisional release of scar
contracture, trunk, arms, le.g.s; first 100
sq cm or 1% of body area of infants and
children) (work RVUs = 3.65). The AMA
RUC noted that the reference code had
significantly more total service time as
compared to the surveyed code and that
the surveyed code was less intense to
perform in comparison to the reference
code. Based on this comparison, the
AMA RUC recommended work RVUs of
3.00, the survey 25th percentile for this
service.
The AMA RUC-recommended work
inputs for this service include less
clinical time and fewer follow-up E/M
visits than are currently attributed to the
performance of this service; however,
the AMA RUC-recommended work RVU
value decreased by only 0.14 RVUs. We
disagree with the AMA RUCrecommended RVUs for this service and
believe 2.00 work RVUs, the survey low
value, reflects a more appropriate
decrease in work RVU value given the
recommended decrease in clinical time
and follow-up E/M visits. Therefore, we
are assigning an alternative value of 2.00
work RVUs to CPT code 11043 on an
interim final basis for CY 2011.
For CPT code 11046 (Debridement,
muscle and/or fascia (includes
epidermis, dermis, and subcutaneous
tissue, if performed); each additional 20
square centimeters, or part thereof (List
separately in addition to code for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
primary procedure)), which is the addon code to CPT code 11043, the RUC
recommended 1.29 work RVUs, the
survey 25th percentile. To maintain
consistency and relativity between this
add-on code and its primary code (CPT
code 11043), for which we are
recommending the survey low value as
discussed above, and given the time and
intensity the AMA RUC recommended
to perform this service, we disagree with
the AMA RUC-recommended work
RVUs for this service and believe 0.70
work RVUs, the survey low value, are
more appropriate. Therefore, we are
assigning an alternative value of 0.70
work RVUs to CPT code 11046 on an
interim final basis for CY 2011.
For CPT code 11044, the AMA RUC
recommended 4.56 work RVUs. The
AMA RUC reviewed the survey data and
compared the surveyed code to the
reference CPT code 15004 (Surgical
preparation or creation of recipient site
by excision of open wounds, burn
eschar, or scar (including subcutaneous
tissues), or incisional release of scar
contracture, face, scalp, eyelids, mouth,
neck, ears, orbits, genitalia, hands, feet
and/or multiple digits; first 100 sq cm
or 1% of body area of infants and
children) (work RVUs = 4.58). The AMA
RUC noted that the reference code had
the same intra-service time and that the
surveyed code and the reference code
required similar mental effort and
judgment to perform. Based on this
comparison, the AMA RUC
recommended work RVUs of 4.56, the
survey 25th percentile, and believes this
value accurately reflects the relative
physician work to perform this service
and maintains proper rank order with
CPT codes 11042 and 11043. The AMA
RUC-recommended work inputs for this
service include less clinical time and
fewer follow-up E/M visits than are
currently attributed to the performance
of this service; however, the AMA RUCrecommended work RVUs increased.
We disagree with the AMA RUCrecommended work RVUs for this
service and believe 3.60 work RVUs, the
survey low value, reflect a more
appropriate decrease in work RVU value
given the recommended decrease in
clinical time and follow-up E/M visits.
Therefore, we are assigning an
alternative value of 3.60 work RVUs to
CPT code 11044 on an interim final
basis for CY 2011.
For CPT code 11047 (Debridement,
bone (includes epidermis, dermis,
subcutaneous tissue, muscle and/or
fascia, if performed); each additional 20
square centimeters, or part thereof) the
AMA RUC recommended 2.00 work
RVUs, the survey median value. To
maintain consistency and relativity
PO 00000
Frm 00162
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
between this add-on code and its
primary code (CPT code 11044), for
which we are recommending the survey
low value as discussed above, and given
the time and intensity the AMA RUC
recommended to perform this service,
we disagree with the AMA RUCrecommended value and believe 1.20
RUVs, the survey low value, are more
appropriate for this service. Therefore,
we are assigning 1.20 work RVUs to CPT
code 11047 on an interim final basis for
CY 2011.
For CY 2011, the services previously
reported by CPT codes 11040
(Debridement; skin, partial thickness)
and 11041 (Debridement; skin, full
thickness) will now be reported with
revised CPT codes 97597 (Debridement
(eg, high pressure waterjet with/without
suction, sharp selective debridement
with scissors, scalpel and forceps), open
wound, (eg, fibrin, devitalized
epidermis and/or dermis, exudate,
debris, biofilm), including topical
application(s), wound assessment, use
of a whirlpool, when performed and
instruction(s) for ongoing care, per
session, total wound(s) surface area; first
20 square centimeters or less) and 97598
(Debridement (eg, high pressure waterjet
with/without suction, sharp selective
debridement with scissors, scalpel and
forceps), open wound, (e.g., fibrin,
devitalized epidermis and/or dermis,
exudate, debris, biofilm), including
topical application(s), wound
assessment, use of a whirlpool, when
performed and instruction(s) for
ongoing care, per session, total
wound(s) surface area; each additional
20 square centimeters, or part thereof
(List separately in addition to code for
primary procedure)). The HCPAC
recommended 0.54 work RVUs for CPT
code 97597, which is a value between
the CY 2010 values for CPT code 11040
(0.50 work RVUs) and CPT code 97597
(0.58 work RVUs), which we have
accepted on an interim final basis in
this final rule with comment period for
CY 2011. However, the work RVUs for
this CPT code were further subject to a
work budget neutrality adjustment, as
discussed in section V.C.1.b.(iii) of this
final rule with comment period.
For CPT code 97598, the HCPAC
recommended 0.40 work RVUs, the
survey 25th percentile. We disagree
with the HCPAC-recommended value
for this service and, given the similarity
of code descriptors between the 11000
series and the 97000 series CPT codes,
we believe a more appropriate value
would be 0.25 RVUs, the survey low
value, as it is more consistent with the
work RVU value associated with new
add-on CPT code 11045, discussed
above. We also believe the post-service
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
time for CPT code 97598 should be
reduced to 0 minutes to coincide with
the CPT codes in the 11000 series,
which have 0 or 1 minute of postservice time. Therefore, we are assigning
an alternative value of 0.25 work RVUs
to CPT code 97598 and reducing the
post-service time to 0 minutes on an
interim final basis for CY 2011.
However, the work RVUs for this CPT
code were subject to a work budget
neutrality adjustment, as discussed in
section V.C.1.b.(iii) of this final rule
with comment period.
(B) Arthrodesis Including Discectomy
(CPT Code 22551)
As a result of CPT code 22554
(Arthrodesis, anterior interbody,
including disc space preparation,
discectomy, osteophytectomy and
decompression of spinal cord and/or
nerve roots; cervical, below C2) being
reviewed by the AMA RUC because of
its identification by the Five-Year
Review Identification Workgroup
‘‘Codes Reported Together’’ potentially
misvalued codes screen in February
2008, CPT code 22551 ((Arthrodesis,
anterior interbody, including disc space
preparation, discectomy,
osteophytectomy and decompression of
spinal cord and/or nerve roots; cervical,
below C2)) was created by the CPT
Editorial Panel in October 2009, to
describe fusion and discectomy of the
anterior cervical spine. The AMA RUC
recommended 24.50 work RVUs. The
specialty society requested 25.00 work
RVUs. Upon review of the AMA RUCrecommended value and the reference
codes used, it was unclear why the
AMA RUC decided not to accept the
specialty society’s recommended value
of 25.00 work RVUs. We disagree with
the AMA RUC-recommended value of
24.50 and believe work RVUs of 25.00
are appropriate for this service. We are
also requesting that the specialty society
re-review with the AMA RUC the preservice times for codes in this family
since concerns were noted in the AMA
RUC recommendation about the preservice time for this service. Therefore,
we are assigning an alternative value of
25.00 work RVUs to CPT code 22551 on
an interim final basis for CY 2011.
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
(C) Strapping Lower Extremity (CPT
Codes 29540 and 29550)
CPT code 29540 (Strapping; ankle
and/or foot) was identified by the FiveYear Review Identification Workgroup
‘‘Harvard-Valued’’ potentially misvalued
codes screen with utilization over
100,000 screen in October 2009. The
AMA RUC recommended this whole
family of services be surveyed.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
For CPT code 29540, the HCPAC
recommended 0.39 work RVUs. The
HCPAC compared the total time
required for CPT code 29540 to 29580
(Strapping; Unna boot), 18 and 27
minutes, respectively, and noted that
CPT code 29540 requires less time,
mental effort/judgment, technical skill
and psychological stress than CPT code
29580. The HCPAC determined that
CPT code 29540 was approximately 30
percent less intense and complex than
CPT code 29580, resulting in work
RVUs of 0.39 for CPT code 29540. We
disagree with the HCPAC-recommended
value for this service and believe work
RVUs of 0.32 are appropriate. We
believe CPT code 11720 (Debridement
of nail(s) by any method(s); 1 to 5) (work
RVUs = 0.32) is a more appropriate
crosswalk. Therefore, we are assigning
an alternative value of 0.32 work RVUs
to CPT code 29540 on an interim final
basis for CY 2011.
For CPT code 29550 (Strapping; toes),
the HCPAC recommended 0.25 work
RVUs. The HCPAC compared this
service to CPT code 97762 (Checkout for
orthotic/prosthetic use, established
patient, each 15 minutes) (work RVUs =
0.25), which requires the same intensity
and complexity to perform as CPT code
29550. The HCPAC recommended
crosswalking the work RVUs for 29550
to reference CPT code 97762. The
HCPAC reviewed the survey time and
determined that 7 minutes pre-service, 5
minutes intra-service, and 1 minute
immediate post-service time were
appropriate to perform this service. We
disagree with the HCPAC-recommended
value for this service and believe work
RVUs of 0.15, the survey low value, are
appropriate, with 5 minutes of pre- and
intra-service time and 1 minute of postservice time, as we believe the HCPACrecommended pre-service time of 7
minutes is excessive. Therefore, we are
assigning an alternative value of 0.15
work RVUs to CPT code 29550 on an
interim final basis for CY 2011.
(D) Paraesophageal Hernia Procedures
(CPT Codes 43333 and 43335)
In February 2010, the CPT Editorial
Panel deleted six existing codes and
created ten new codes to remove
obsolete and duplicative codes and add
new codes to report current surgical
techniques for paraesophageal hernia
repair. For CPT code 43333 (Repair,
paraesophageal hiatal hernia (including
fundoplication), via laparotomy, except
neonatal; with implantation of mesh or
other prosthesis), the AMA RUC
recommended 30.00 work RVUs. The
AMA RUC recommended 33.00 work
RVUs for CPT code 43335 (Repair,
paraesophageal hiatal hernia (including
PO 00000
Frm 00163
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73331
fundoplication), via thoracotomy,
except neonatal; with implantation of
mesh or other prosthesis). While the
AMA RUC-recommended values are the
survey median values, we disagree with
them. We adjusted the AMA RUCrecommended values for the codes
without implantation of mesh or other
prosthesis upward by 2.50 work RVUs
to account for the differential between
those codes and the parallel codes with
implantation of mesh or other
prosthesis. We note that 2.50 work
RVUs was the lowest differential that
was recommended by the AMA RUC
between the with/without implantation
of mesh or other prosthesis codes in this
family. That is, for CPT code 43333, the
revised work RVUs were established by
adding 2.50 work RVUs to the AMA
RUC-recommended work RVUs of 26.60
for CPT code 43332 (Repair,
paraesophageal hiatal hernia (including
fundoplication), via laparotomy, except
neonatal; without implantation of mesh
or other prosthesis), which resulted in
work RVUs of 29.10. Likewise, for CPT
code 43335, the revised work RVUs
were established by adding 2.50 work
RVUs to the AMA RUC-recommended
work RVUs of 30.00 for CPT code 43334
(Repair, paraesophageal hiatal hernia
(including fundoplication), via
thoracotomy, except neonatal; without
implantation of mesh or other
prosthesis), resulting in work RVUs of
32.50. Therefore, we are assigning
alternative work RVUs of 29.10 to CPT
code 43333 and 32.50 to CPT code
43335 on an interim final basis for CY
2011. However, the work RVUs for this
CPT code were subject to a work budget
neutrality adjustment, as discussed in
section V.C.1.b.(iii) of this final rule
with comment period.
(E) Vaginal Radiation Afterloading
Apparatus for Clinical Brachytherapy
(CPT Codes 57155 and 57156)
CPT Code 57155 (Insertion of uterine
tandems and/or vaginal ovoids for
clinical brachytherapy) was originally
identified through the Five-Year Review
Identification Workgroup ‘‘Site-ofService Anomalies’’ potentially
misvalued codes screen in September
2007 and was later revised by the CPT
Editorial Panel to indicate insertion of a
single tandem rather than tandems.
For CY 2011, the AMA RUC
recommended 5.40 work RVUs for CPT
code 57155 (Insertion of uterine
tandems and/or vaginal ovoids for
clinical brachytherapy). This value was
established based on the survey 25th
percentile and a review of comparable
services, specifically CPT codes 55920
(Placement of needles or catheters into
pelvic organs and/or genitalia (except
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73332
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
prostate) for subsequent interstitial
radioelement application)(work RVUs =
8.31); 50382 (Removal (via snare/
capture) and replacement of internally
dwelling urethral stent via percutaneous
approach, including radiological
supervision and interpretation) (work
RVUs = 5.50); and 52001
(Cystourethroscopy with irrigation and
evacuation of multiple obstructing clots)
(work RVUs = 5.44). We disagree with
the AMA RUC-recommended value for
this service because the method used to
derive the value lacked a defined logic.
We believe work RVUs of 3.37 are
appropriate for this service, which is the
same as the value assigned to CPT code
58823 (Drainage of pelvic abscess,
transvaginal or transrectal approach,
percutaneous (eg, ovarian, pericolic)),
which we also believe is a more
comparable code. Therefore, we are
assigning an alternative value of 3.37
work RVUs to CPT code 57155 on an
interim final basis for CY 2011.
For CPT code 57156 (Insertion of a
vaginal radiation afterloading apparatus
for clinical brachytherapy), the AMA
RUC recommended 2.69 work RVUs, the
survey 25th percentile. Given our
decision to revise downward the work
RVUs for CPT code 57185, a related
code, upon review of the AMA RUC
recommendations for CPT code 57156,
we believe that the AMA RUCrecommended value of 2.69 is too high.
In light of this, we are crosswalking the
value of CPT code 57156 from CPT code
62319 (Injection, including catheter
placement, continuous infusion or
intermittent bolus, not including
neurolytic substances, with or without
contrast (for either localization or
epidurography), of diagnostic or
therapeutic substance(s) (including
anesthetic, antispasmodic, opioid,
steroid, other solution), epidural or
subarachnoid; lumbar, sacral (caudal))
(work RVUs = 1.87), which has the same
intra-service time (30 minutes) and
overall lower total time than the
comparison services referenced by the
AMA RUC. Therefore, we are assigning
an alternative value of 1.87 work RVUs
to CPT code 57156 on an interim final
basis for CY 2011.
(F) Vagus Nerve Stimulator (CPT Codes
61885, 64568, 64569, and 64570)
CPT code 61885 (Insertion or
replacement of cranial neurostimulator
pulse generator or receiver, direct or
inductive coupling; with connection to
a single electrode array) was identified
by the Five-Year Review Identification
Workgroup by its ‘‘Site-of-Service
Anomalies’’ screen for potentially
misvalued codes in September 2007.
After reviewing the vagal nerve
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
stimulator family of services, the
specialty societies agreed that the family
lacked clarity and the CPT Editorial
Panel created three new codes to
accurately describe revision of a vagal
nerve stimulator lead, the placement of
the pulse generator and replacement or
revision of the vagus nerve electrode.
For CY 2011, the AMA RUC
recommended 6.44 work RVUs for CPT
code 61885. Upon review of the AMA
RUC recommendations, the method
used to establish the AMA RUCrecommended value for this service
lacked a defined logic. Although the
AMA RUC compared this service to the
key reference service, CPT code 63685
(Insertion or replacement of spinal
neurostimulator pulse generator or
receiver, direct or inductive coupling)
(Work RVUs = 6.05) and other relative
services and noted the similarities in
times, an appropriately rigorous
methodology was not used. The AMA
RUC-recommended work RVUs did not
adequately account for the elimination
of two inpatient visits and the reduction
in outpatient visits for this service. We
disagree with the AMA RUCrecommended value and believe 6.05
work RVUs, the survey 25th percentile,
are appropriate for this service.
Therefore, we are assigning an
alternative value of 6.05 work RVUs to
CPT code 61885 on an interim final
basis for CY 2011.
For CPT code 64568 (Incision for
implantation of cranial nerve (eg, vagus
nerve) neurostimulator electrode array
and pulse generator), the AMA RUC
recommended 11.19 work RVUs.
Similar to the rationale provided by the
AMA RUC for the valuation of CPT code
61885, the method used to value this
service lacked a defined logic. As with
CPT code 61885 discussed above, to
which this code is related, we disagree
with the AMA RUC-recommended value
for this service and believe the survey
25th percentile, 9.00 work RVUs, is
appropriate. Therefore, we are assigning
an alternative value of 9.00 work RVUs
to CPT code 64568 on an interim final
basis for CY 2011.
For CPT code 64569 (Revision or
replacement of cranial nerve (eg, vagus
nerve) neurostimulator electrode array,
including connection to existing pulse
generator), the AMA RUC recommended
15.00 work RVUs, the survey median
value, and 13.00 work RVUs, the survey
median value, for CPT code 64570
(Removal of cranial nerve (eg, vagus
nerve) neurostimulator electrode array
and pulse generator). Based on the
reduction in work RVUs for CPT codes
61885 and 64568 that we are adopting
on an interim final basis for CY 2011
and to maintain relativity for the codes
PO 00000
Frm 00164
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
in this family, we believe work RVUs of
11.00, the survey 25th percentile, are
appropriate for CPT code 64569 and
work RVUs of 9.10, the survey 25th
percentile, are appropriate for CPT code
64570. Therefore, we are assigning an
alternative value of 11.00 work RVUs to
CPT code 64569 and 9.10 work RVUs to
CPT code 64570 on an interim final
basis for CY 2011.
(G) Ultrasound of Extremity (CPT Codes
76881 and 76882)
In October 2008, CPT code 76880
(Ultrasound, extremity, nonvascular,
real time with image documentation)
was identified by the Five-Year Review
Identification Workgroup through its
‘‘CMS Fastest Growing’’ screen for
potentially misvalued codes. In
February 2009, the CPT Editorial Panel
deleted CPT code 76880 and created
two new codes, CPT codes 76881
(Ultrasound, extremity, nonvascular,
real-time with image documentation;
complete) and 76882 (Ultrasound,
extremity, nonvascular, real-time with
image documentation; limited anatomic
specific) to distinguish between the
comprehensive diagnostic ultrasound
and the focused anatomic-specific
ultrasound.
For CPT code 76881, the AMA RUC
recommended work RVUs of 0.72 and a
total time of 25 minutes. For CPT code
76882, the AMA RUC recommended
0.50 work RVUs and a total time of 21
minutes. The predecessor CPT code
76880 (Ultrasound, extremity,
nonvascular, real time with image
documentation) described a nonvascular
ultrasound of the entire extremity and
was assigned work RVUs of 0.59 and a
total time of 18 minutes. The new CPT
codes describe a complete service, CPT
code 76881, and a limited service, CPT
code 76882 (defined as examination of
a specific anatomic structure, such as a
tendon or muscle).
We disagree with the AMA RUC
recommendations for these services. For
CPT code 76881, we do not believe an
increase in work RVUs is justified given
that this service will be reported for the
evaluation of the extremity, as was CPT
code 76800 which is being deleted for
CY 2011. Therefore, we believe work
RVUs of 0.59 are appropriate for this
service, consistent with the value of the
predecessor code. For CPT code 76882,
we believe a value of 0.41 is more
appropriate, representing a statistical
computation based on maintaining the
relationship between the AMA RUCrecommended values for CPT codes
76881 and 76882. Therefore, we are
assigning alternative work RVUs of 0.59
to CPT code 76881 and 0.41 to CPT code
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
76882 on an interim final basis for CY
2011.
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
(H) Evaluation of Fine Needle Aspirate
(CPT Code 88172)
Due to confusion amongst payers and
providers, in February 2010 the CPT
Editorial Panel revised the descriptor for
CPT code 88172 (Cytopathology,
evaluation of fine needle aspirate;
immediate cytohistologic study to
determine adequacy of specimen(s)) and
created a new code, CPT code 88177
(Cytopathology, evaluation of fine
needle aspirate; immediate
cytohistologic study to determine
adequacy for diagnosis, each separate
additional evaluation episode, same
site), to report the first evaluation
episode and each additional episode of
cytopathology evaluation of fine needle
aspirate. For CPT code 88172, the AMA
RUC recommended work RVUs of 0.69
based on comparing this code to several
other services, without the use of an
appropriate methodology. We disagree
with the AMA RUC-recommended value
and believe the current work RVUs of
0.60 are appropriate and should be
maintained for this service. Although
the code has been revised, no
explanation by the AMA RUC was
provided to demonstrate an increase in
work, and we do not believe the work
has changed. Therefore, we are
assigning an alternative value of 0.60
work RVUs to CPT code 88172 on an
interim final basis for CY 2011.
(I) Immunization Administration (CPT
Code 90460 and 90461)
The CPT Editorial Panel revised the
reporting of immunization
administration in the pediatric
population in order to better align the
service with the evolving best practice
model of delivering combination
vaccines. For CY 2011, the AMA RUC
recommended 0.20 work RVUs for CPT
code 90460 (Immunization
administration through 18 years of age
via any route of administration, with
counseling by physician or other
qualified health care profession; first
vaccine/toxoid component) and 0.16
work RVUs for CPT code 90461
(Immunization administration through
18 years of age via any route of
administration, with counseling by
physician or other qualified health
profession; each additional vaccine/
toxoid component (List separately in
addition to code for primary
procedure)). This is an increase from the
current values for the predecessor
services. The AMA RUC states that the
increase in recommended work RVUs is
due to increased time for patient
education. In addition, effective January
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
1, 2011, reporting and payment for these
services is to be structured on a per
toxoid basis rather than a per vaccine
(combination of toxoids) basis as it was
in prior years. We disagree with the
AMA RUC-recommended values for
these services and are maintaining the
current work RVUs for the related
predecessor codes of 0.17 RVUs for CPT
code 90460 and 0.15 work RVUs for
CPT code 90461 since these codes
would be billed on a per toxoid basis in
CY 2011. Therefore, we are assigning
alternative values of 0.17 work RVUs to
CPT code 90460 and 0.15 work RVUs to
CPT code 90461 on an interim final
basis for CY 2011.
(J) Diabetic Retinopathy Imaging (CPT
Code 92228)
In February, 2010 the CPT Editorial
Panel established two codes for
reporting remote imaging for screening
retinal disease and management of
active retinal disease. For CPT code
92228 (Remote imaging for monitoring
and management of active retinal
disease (eg, diabetic retinopathy) with
physician review, interpretation and
report, unilateral or bilateral), the AMA
RUC recommended 0.44 work RVUs.
The AMA RUC compared this service to
CPT code 92250 (Fundus photography
with interpretation and report) (Work
RVUs = 0.44) due to similar times and
believes this service is comparable to
the service under review. We disagree
with the reference service used by the
AMA RUC and compared this code to
another diagnostic service, CPT code
92135 (Scanning computerized
ophthalmic diagnostic imaging,
posterior segment, (eg, scanning laser)
with interpretation and report,
unilateral) (Work RVUs = 0.35), which
we believe is more equivalent but has
more pre- and intra-service time. Upon
further review of CPT code 92228 and
the time and intensity needed to
perform this service, we believe work
RVUs of 0.30, the survey low value, are
more appropriate. Therefore, we are
assigning an alternative value of 0.30
work RVUs to CPT code 92228 on an
interim final basis for CY 2011.
(K) Speech-Language Pathology Services
(CPT Codes 92508 and 92606)
Section 143 of the MIPPA specifies
that speech-language pathologists may
independently report services they
provide to Medicare patients. Starting in
July 2009, speech-language pathologists
were able to bill Medicare as
independent practitioners. As a result,
the American Speech-Language-Hearing
Association (ASHA) requested that CMS
ask the AMA RUC to review the speechlanguage pathology codes to newly
PO 00000
Frm 00165
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73333
value the professionals’ services in the
work and not the practice expense.
ASHA indicated that it would survey
the 12 speech-language pathology codes
over the course of the CPT 2010 and
CPT 2011 cycles. Four of these services
were reviewed by the HCPAC or the
AMA RUC and were included in the CY
2010 PFS final rule with comment
period (74 FR 61784 and 62146). For CY
2011, the HCPAC submitted work
recommendations for the remaining
eight codes.
For CPT code 92508 (Treatment of
speech, language, voice,
communication, and/or auditory
processing disorder; group, 2 or more
individuals), the HCPAC recommended
0.43 work RVUs which was derived by
dividing the value for CPT code 92507
(Treatment of speech, language, voice,
communication, and/or auditory
processing disorder; individual) (work
RVUs = 1.30) by 3, as the specialty
society stated to the AMA RUC that
there are typically 3 participants in a
group. We disagree with the HCPACrecommended value for this service and
believe it is too high. We believe work
RVUs of 0.33 are more appropriate,
which was derived by dividing the
value for CPT code 92507 by 4
participants, as we understand from
providers that 4 more accurately
represents the typical number of
participants in a group. Additionally,
the work RVUs derived from dividing
the RVUs for the related individual
treatment code by 4, 0.33 RVUs, are
appropriate for this group treatment
service relative to the work RVUs of
0.27 for CPT code 97150 (Therapeutic
procedure(s), group (2 or more
individuals)) which is furnished to a
similar patient population, namely
patients who have had a stroke.
Therefore we are assigning alternative
work RVUs of 0.33 to CPT code 92508
on an interim final basis for CY 2011.
For CPT code 92606 (Therapeutic
service(s) for the use of non-speechgenerating device, including
programming and modification), the
HCPAC recommended 1.40 work RVUs,
the survey median value. This service is
currently bundled under the PFS and
we will maintain this status for CY
2011. We are publishing the AMA RUCrecommended value in Addendum B to
this final rule with comment period in
accordance with our usual practice for
bundled services.
(L) Sleep Testing (CPT Codes 95806 and
95807)
Sleep testing CPT codes were
identified by the Five-Year Review
Identification Workgroup as potentially
misvalued codes through the ‘‘CMS
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73334
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Fastest Growing’’ potentially misvalued
codes screen. The CPT Editorial Panel
created separate Category I CPT codes to
report for unattended sleep studies. The
AMA RUC recommended concurrent
review of the family of sleep codes.
For CPT code 95806 (Sleep study,
unattended, simultaneous recording of,
heart rate, oxygen saturation, respiratory
airflow, and respiratory effort (eg,
thoracoabdominal movement)), the
AMA RUC recommended 1.28 work
RVUs. The AMA RUC recommended
1.25 work RVUs for CPT code 95807
(Sleep study, simultaneous recording of
ventilation, respiratory effort, ECG or
heart rate, and oxygen saturation,
attended by a technologist). Although
the AMA RUC-recommended values for
these codes reflect the survey 25th
percentile, we disagree with the values
and believe the values should be
reversed because of the characteristics
of the services. CPT code 95807 has 5
minutes more pre-service time but a
lower AMA RUC-recommended value.
Therefore, we have assigned alternative
values of 1.25 work RVUs to CPT code
95806 and 1.28 work RVUs to CPT code
95807 on an interim final basis for CY
2011.
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
(M) Subsequent Hospital Observation
Care
At the June 2009 CPT Editorial Panel
meeting, three new codes were
approved to report subsequent
observation services in a facility setting.
These codes are CPT code 99224 (Level
1 subsequent observation care, per day);
CPT code 99225 (Level 2 subsequent
observation care, per day): and CPT
code 99226 (Level 3 subsequent
observation care, per day).
The AMA RUC reviewed the survey
data for CPT code 99224 and accepted
the following physician times: 5
minutes of pre-service, 10 minutes of
intra-service, and 5 minutes of postservice time. The AMA RUC believed
this code was comparable in physician
time and intensity to CPT code 99231
(Level 1 subsequent hospital care, per
day, for the evaluation and management
of a patient), and recommended work
RVUs of 0.76. Similarly, the AMA RUC
reviewed the survey data for CPT code
99225 and accepted the following
physician times: 9 minutes of preservice, 20 minutes of intra-service, and
10 minutes of post-service time. The
AMA RUC believed this code was
comparable in physician time and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
intensity to CPT code 99232 (Level 2
subsequent hospital care, per day, for
the evaluation and management of a
patient), and recommended work RVUs
of 1.39. Finally, the AMA RUC reviewed
the survey data for CPT code 99226 and
accepted the following physician times:
10 minutes of pre-service, 30 minutes of
intra-service, and 15 minutes of postservice time. The AMA RUC believed
this code was comparable in physician
time and intensity to CPT code 99233
(Level 3 subsequent hospital care, per
day, for the evaluation and management
of a patient), and recommended work
RVUs of 2.00.
Observation services are outpatient
services ordered by a patient’s treating
practitioner. Admission of the patient to
the hospital as an inpatient or the
ending of observation services must also
be ordered by the treating practitioner.
CMS has stated that in only rare and
exceptional cases would reasonable and
necessary outpatient observation
services span more than 48 hours. In the
majority of cases, the decision whether
to discharge a patient from the hospital
following resolution of the reason for
the observation care or to admit the
patient as an inpatient can be made in
less than 48 hours, usually in less than
24 hours. Consequently, we believe that
the acuity level of the typical patient
receiving outpatient observation
services would generally be lower than
that of the inpatient level. We believe
that if the patient’s acuity level is
determined to be at the level of the
inpatient, the patient should be
admitted to the hospital as an inpatient.
We note that CMS has publicly stated in
a recent letter to the AHA that ‘‘it is not
in the hospital’s or the beneficiary’s
interest to extend observation care
rather than either releasing the patient
from the hospital or admitting the
patient as an inpatient * * *’’
Consequently, we are not accepting
the AMA RUC’s recommendation to
value the subsequent observation care
codes at the level of subsequent
inpatient hospital care services. Instead,
to recognize the differences in patient
acuity between the two settings, we
removed the pre- and post-services
times from the AMA RUCrecommended values for subsequent
observation care, reducing the values to
approximately 75 percent of the values
for the subsequent hospital care codes.
Therefore, we are assigning alternative
work RVUs of 0.54 to CPT code 99224,
PO 00000
Frm 00166
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
0.96 to CPT code 99225, and 1.44 to
CPT code 99226 on an interim final
basis for CY 2011.
(2) Comprehensive Codes for a Bundle
of Existing Component Services
A subset of AMA RUC work RVU
recommendations addressed valuing
new CY 2011 CPT codes resulting from
the bundling of two or more existing
component services performed together
95 percent or more of the time. We
expect this bundling of component
services to continue over the next
several years as the AMA RUC further
recognizes the work efficiencies for
services commonly furnished together.
Stakeholders should expect that
increased bundling of services into
fewer codes will result in reduced PFS
payment for a comprehensive service by
explicitly considering the efficiencies in
work and/or PE that may occur when
component services are furnished
together.
For CY 2011, the AMA RUC provided
CMS with recommendations for several
categories of new comprehensive
services that historically have been
reported under multiple component
codes. In some CY 2011 cases, the CPT
Editorial Panel undertook relatively
minor bundling, such as bundling the
associated imaging with a procedure in
a single new CPT code. In other cases,
the CPT Editorial Panel bundled
significant component codes for distinct
procedures that were previously
separately reported. This section focuses
on the latter cases, and we note that
these codes fall into three major clinical
categories: Endovascular
revascularization, computed
tomography (CT), and diagnostic cardiac
catheterization. While we acknowledge
that each category of services is unique,
since bundling of component services is
likely to occur more often in the coming
years we believe a consistent approach
is especially important when valuing
bundled services as part of the
potentially misvalued codes initiative in
order to ensure that we fully account for
the resulting work efficiencies.
Specifically, we recommend that the
AMA RUC use, whenever possible, the
building block approach, which is a
consistent and transparent methodology
based on the components of a code.
The new CY 2011 comprehensive
codes in these three clinical categories
are displayed in Table 51 and our
discussion of their work values follows.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
73335
TABLE 51—NEW CY 2011 COMPREHENSIVE CODES AND WORK RVUS FOR ENDOVASCULAR REVASCULARIZATION, CT,
AND DIAGNOSTIC CARDIAC CATHETERIZATION SERVICES
CPT code
AMA RUCrecommended
work RVUs
Long descriptor
CY 2011
interim
final Work
RVUs
Endovascular Revascularization
37220 ...............
37221 ...............
37222 ...............
37223 ...............
37224 ...............
37225 ...............
37226 ...............
37227 ...............
37228 ...............
37229 ...............
37230 ...............
37231 ...............
37232 ...............
37233 ...............
37234 ...............
37235 ...............
Revascularization, endovascular, open or percutaneous, iliac artery, unilateral, initial vessel;
with transluminal angioplasty.
Revascularization, endovascular, open or percutaneous, iliac artery, unilateral, initial vessel;
with transluminal stent placement(s), includes angioplasty within the same vessel, when
performed.
Revascularization, endovascular, open or percutaneous, iliac artery, each additional
ipsilateral iliac vessel; with transluminal angioplasty (List separately in addition to code for
primary procedure).
Revascularization, endovascular, open or percutaneous, iliac artery, each additional
ipsilateral iliac vessel; with transluminal stent placement(s) (List separately in addition to
code for primary procedure), includes angioplasty within the same vessel, when performed.
Revascularization, endovascular, open or percutaneous, femoral/popliteal artery(s), unilateral; with transluminal angioplasty.
Revascularization, endovascular, open or percutaneous, femoral/popliteal artery(s), unilateral; with atherectomy, includes angioplasty within the same vessel, when performed.
Revascularization, endovascular, open or percutaneous, femoral/popliteal artery(s), unilateral; with transluminal stent placement(s), includes angioplasty within the same vessel,
when performed.
Revascularization, endovascular, open or percutaneous, femoral/popliteal artery(s), unilateral; with transluminal stent placement(s) and atherectomy, includes angioplasty within
the same vessel, when performed.
Revascularization, endovascular, open or percutaneous, tibial/peroneal artery, unilateral, initial vessel; with transluminal angioplasty.
Revascularization, endovascular, open or percutaneous, tibial/peroneal artery, unilateral, initial vessel; with atherectomy, includes angioplasty within the same vessel, when performed.
Revascularization, endovascular, open or percutaneous, tibial/peroneal artery, unilateral, initial vessel; with transluminal stent placement(s) , includes angioplasty within the same
vessel, when performed.
Revascularization, endovascular, open or percutaneous, tibial/peroneal artery, unilateral, initial vessel; with transluminal stent placement(s) and atherectomy, includes angioplasty
within the same vessel, when performed.
Revascularization, endovascular, open or percutaneous, tibial/peroneal artery, unilateral,
each additional vessel; with transluminal angioplasty (List separately in addition to code
for primary procedure).
Revascularization, endovascular, open or percutaneous, tibial/peroneal artery, unilateral,
each additional vessel; with atherectomy (List separately in addition to code for primary
procedure), includes angioplasty within the same vessel, when performed.
Revascularization, endovascular, open or percutaneous, tibial/peroneal artery, unilateral,
each additional vessel; with transluminal stent placement(s) (List separately in addition to
code for primary procedure), includes angioplasty within the same vessel, when performed.
Revascularization, endovascular, open or percutaneous, tibial/peroneal artery, unilateral,
each additional vessel; with transluminal stent placement(s) and atherectomy (List separately in addition to code for primary procedure), includes angioplasty within the same
vessel, when performed.
8.15
8.15
10.00
10.00
3.73
3.73
4.25
4.25
9.00
9.00
12.00
12.00
10.49
10.49
14.50
14.50
11.00
11.00
14.05
14.05
13.80
13.80
15.00
15.00
4.00
4.00
6.50
6.50
5.50
5.50
7.80
7.80
1.74
1.82
2.01
1.74
1.82
2.01
3.02
2.72
4.32
4.75
5.98
6.24
4.95
4.79
CT Abdomen/CT Pelvis
74176 ...............
74177 ...............
74178 ...............
Computed
Computed
Computed
regions,
gions.
tomography, abdomen and pelvis; without contrast material ..................................
tomography, abdomen and pelvis; with contrast material .......................................
tomography, abdomen and pelvis; without contrast material in one or both body
followed by with contrast material(s) and further sections in one or both body re-
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Diagnostic Cardiac Catheterization
93451 ...............
93452 ...............
93453 ...............
93454 ...............
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Right heart catheterization including measurement(s) of oxygen saturation and cardiac output, when performed.
Left heart catheterization including intraprocedural injection(s) for left ventriculography, imaging supervision and interpretation, when performed.
Combined right and left heart catheterization including intraprocedural injection(s) for left
ventriculography, imaging supervision and interpretation, when performed.
Catheter placement in coronary artery(s) including intraprocedural injection(s) for coronary
angiography, imaging supervision and interpretation;.
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00167
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73336
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 51—NEW CY 2011 COMPREHENSIVE CODES AND WORK RVUS FOR ENDOVASCULAR REVASCULARIZATION, CT,
AND DIAGNOSTIC CARDIAC CATHETERIZATION SERVICES—Continued
AMA RUCrecommended
work RVUs
CPT code
Long descriptor
93455 ...............
with catheter placement(s) in bypass graft(s) (internal mammary, free arterial, venous
grafts) including intraprocedural injection(s) for bypass graft angiography.
with right heart catheterization ...............................................................................................
with catheter placement(s) in bypass graft(s) (internal mammary, free arterial, venous
grafts) including intraprocedural injection(s) for bypass graft angiography and right heart
catheterization.
with left heart catheterization including intraprocedural injection(s) for left
ventriculography, when performed.
with left heart catheterization including intraprocedural injection(s) for left
ventriculography, when performed, catheter placement(s) in bypass graft(s) (internal mammary, free arterial, venous grafts) with bypass graft angiography.
with right and left heart catheterization including intraprocedural injection(s) for left
ventriculography, when performed.
with right and left heart catheterization including intraprocedural injection(s) for left
ventriculography, when performed, catheter placement(s) in bypass graft(s) (internal mammary, free arterial, venous grafts) with bypass graft angiography.
Injection procedure during cardiac catheterization including image supervision, interpretation, and report; for selective coronary angiography during congenital heart catheterization.
for selective opacification of aortocoronary venous or arterial bypass graft(s) (eg,
aortocoronary saphenous vein, free radial artery, or free mammary artery graft) to one or
more coronary arteries and in situ arterial conduits (eg, internal mammary), whether native
or used for bypass to one or more coronary arteries during congenital heart catheterization,
when performed.
for selective left ventricular or left arterial angiography .........................................................
for selective right ventricular or right atrial angiography .......................................................
for supravalvular aortography ................................................................................................
for pulmonary angiography ....................................................................................................
93456 ...............
93457 ...............
93458 ...............
93459 ...............
93460 ...............
93461 ...............
93563 ...............
93564 ...............
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
93565
93566
93567
93568
...............
...............
...............
...............
The AMA RUC used a variety of
methodologies in developing RVUs for
comprehensive codes in these three
categories of bundled services. To
develop the RVUs for the
comprehensive endovascular
revascularization services, the AMA
RUC generally recommended the
median work RVUs from the physician
survey performed by the specialty
society. The recommended values for
the comprehensive services are an
average of 27 percent lower than the
summed RVUs of the component
services (taking into consideration any
MPPR that would currently apply)
included in the bundle. To develop the
RVUs for comprehensive CT services,
the AMA RUC recommended taking the
sum of 100 percent of the current work
RVUs for the code with the highest
RVUs and 50 percent for the second
code. Under this methodology, the
recommended work RVUs for the
comprehensive CT codes are
consistently approximately 25 percent
lower than the sum of the RVUs for the
component services. The approach of a
uniform discount on the second CT
service resembles an MPPR and, given
the public concerns regarding our
proposed expansion of current MPPR
policies under the PFS for CY 2011 as
discussed in section II.C.4. of this final
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
rule with comment period, we are
unsure how the AMA RUC’s
recommended CT methodology actually
considered the physician work required
for the specific component services
being bundled. Nevertheless, while we
believe that the application of a
consistent approach to valuing
comprehensive services is desirable, we
agree that the decreased work RVUs the
AMA RUC recommended for
comprehensive services in these two
categories reflect a reasonable
estimation of the work efficiencies
created by the bundling of the
component services. Therefore, we are
accepting as interim final work RVUs
the AMA RUC-recommended values for
endovascular revascularization and CT
services listed in Table 51 for CY 2011.
To develop the RVUs for
comprehensive diagnostic cardiac
catheterization services, the AMA RUC
generally recommended the lower of
either the sum of the current RVUs for
the component services or the physician
survey 25th percentile value. In most
cases, the AMA RUC’s recommendation
for the comprehensive service was
actually the sum of the current work
RVUs for the component services and
we are unsure how this approach is
resource-based with respect to
physician work. We are also concerned
PO 00000
Frm 00168
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
CY 2011
interim
final Work
RVUs
6.15
5.54
6.00
7.66
6.15
6.89
6.51
5.85
7.34
6.60
7.88
7.35
9.00
8.10
2.00
1.11
2.10
1.13
1.90
0.96
1.08
0.98
0.86
0.86
0.97
0.88
that the physician survey appears to
have overstated the work for these wellestablished procedures so significantly
that the 25th percentile value was
usually higher than the sum of the
current RVUs for the component
services. Under this methodology, the
AMA RUC-recommended RVUs for the
comprehensive codes for diagnostic
cardiac catheterization are an average of
only one percent lower than the sum of
the RVUs for the component services
(taking into consideration any MPPR
that would currently apply) included in
the bundle.
We do not find the AMA RUC’s
methodology or the resulting values in
this case to be acceptable for a major
code refinement exercise of this nature.
If we were to accept the AMA RUC’s
recommended values for these cardiac
catheterization codes, we essentially
would be agreeing with the presumption
that there are negligible work
efficiencies gained in the bundling of
these cardiac catheterization services.
On the contrary, we believe that the
AMA RUC did not fully consider or
account for the efficiency gains when
the component services are furnished
together, including the significant
reduction in service time. Rather, the
AMA RUC appears to have considered
only the summation of the component
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
services to the comprehensive service.
Therefore, we are requesting that the
AMA RUC reexamine these codes as
quickly as possible, given the significant
PFS utilization and spending for cardiac
catheterization services, and put
forward an alternative approach to
valuing these services that would
produce relative values that are
resource-based and do not rely
predominantly on the current
component service values in a circular
rationale.
Since we believe that the new
comprehensive diagnostic cardiac
catheterization codes would be
overvalued under the AMA RUC’s CY
2011 recommendations, we have
employed an interim methodology to
determine alternative values for these
services which we are assigning as the
interim final work RVUs for CY 2011.
To account for efficiencies inherent in
bundling, we set the work RVUs for all
of the CY 2011 cardiac catheterization
codes for which we received AMA RUC
recommendations to 10 percent less
than the sum of the current work RVUs
for the component codes, taking into
consideration any MPPR that would
apply under current PFS policy. These
values are displayed in Table 51 and in
Addendum B and C to this final rule
with comment period. We recognize
that this interim methodology is not
highly specific and further acknowledge
that the use of another approach by the
AMA RUC may have differential effects
on the values of the new comprehensive
services compared to the proportionate
reduction on the sum of the RVUs for
the component services that we have
adopted as a temporary methodology.
However, given the complexity of the
component code combinations that
contribute to the comprehensive cardiac
catheterization codes and the apparent
overstatement of physician work from
the physician survey, we are unable to
present a more refined, code-specific
methodology for the interim final
values. Instead, based upon a very
conservative estimate of the work
efficiencies we would expect to be
present when multiple component
services are bundled together into a
single comprehensive service, we have
set interim final work values for the
cardiac catheterization codes using a 10
percent reduction on the current values.
As points of comparison, we note that
the current MPPR policies under the
PFS for imaging and surgical services
reduce payment for the second and
subsequent procedures by 50 percent on
the TC and complete service,
respectively, and, as discussed in detail
in section II.C.4. of this final rule with
comment period, we are adopting a 25
percent MPPR on the PE component of
payment for therapy services in CY
2011. We further note that the servicespecific work efficiencies for the other
two major categories of new bundled
codes for CY 2011, specifically
endovascular revascularization and CT,
are generally between 20 and 35
percent.
(3) Work Budget Neutrality for Clinical
Categories of CPT Codes
Work budget neutrality, as a concept,
is applied to hold the aggregate work
RVUs constant within a set of clinically
related CPT codes, while maintaining
the relativity of values for the individual
codes within that set. In some cases,
when the CPT coding framework for a
clinically related set of CPT codes is
revised by the creation of new CPT
codes or existing CPT codes are
revalued, the aggregate work RVUs
recommended by the AMA RUC within
a clinical category of CPT codes may
change, although the actual physician
work for the services has not changed.
When this occurs, work budget
neutrality may be applied to adjust the
work RVUs of each clinically related
CPT code so that the sum of the new/
revised code work RVUs (weighted by
projected utilization) for a set of CPT
codes would be the same as the sum of
the current work RVUs (weighted by
73337
projected utilization) for that set of
codes.
When the AMA RUC recommends
work RVUs for new or revised CPT
codes, we review the work RVUs and
adjust or accept the recommended
values as appropriate, making note of
whether any estimated changes in
aggregate work RVUs would result from
true changes (increases or decreases) in
physician work or from structural
coding changes. We then determine
whether the application of budget
neutrality within sets of codes is
appropriate. That is, if, within a set of
clinically related codes, the aggregate
work RVUs would increase under the
RVUs we would be adopting for the
upcoming year but without a
corresponding true increase in
physician work, we generally view this
as an indication that an adjustment to
ensure work budget neutrality within
the set of CPT codes is warranted.
As the AMA RUC and CMS move to
bundle and revalue more existing codes,
creating significant structural coding
changes, ensuring work budget
neutrality is an important principle so
that these changes are not unjustifiably
redistributive among PFS services. This
year, we found four sets of clinically
related CPT codes where we believe the
application of work budget neutrality is
appropriate. That is, in these clinical
areas, we believe the increases in
aggregate work RVUs for the related
services that would result from the work
RVUs we would adopt (either the AMA
RUC-recommended work RVUs or the
alternative work RVUs determined by
CMS) would not represent a true
increase in the physician work for these
services. These codes are in the areas of
paraesophageal hernia procedures,
obstetrical care, esophageal motility and
high resolution esophageal pressure
topography, and skin excision and
debridement.
Table 52 lists the CPT codes that are
affected by an application of work
budget neutrality in CY 2011.
TABLE 52—CY 2011 WORK BUDGET NEUTRALITY (BN) FOR CLINICAL CATEGORIES OF NEW/REVISED CODES
CPT Code
AMA RUCrecommended
work RVUs
Short descriptor
CMSrecommended
work RVUs
pre-BN
CY 2011
interim final
work RVUs
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Paraesophageal Hernia Procedures, BN Factor of 0.7374
43283
43327
43328
43332
43333
43334
43335
43336
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Lap esoph lengthening ..................................................................................
Esoph fundoplasty lap ...................................................................................
Esoph fundoplasty thor ..................................................................................
Transab esoph hiat hern rpr ..........................................................................
Transab esoph hiat hern rpr ..........................................................................
Transthor diaphrag hern rpr ..........................................................................
Transthor diaphrag hern rpr ..........................................................................
Thorabd diaphr hern repair ...........................................................................
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00169
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
4.00
18.10
27.00
26.60
30.00
30.00
33.00
35.00
29NOR2
4.00
18.10
27.00
26.60
29.10
30.00
32.50
35.00
2.95
13.35
19.91
19.62
21.46
22.12
23.97
25.81
73338
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 52—CY 2011 WORK BUDGET NEUTRALITY (BN) FOR CLINICAL CATEGORIES OF NEW/REVISED CODES—Continued
AMA RUCrecommended
work RVUs
CPT Code
Short descriptor
43337 ...............
43338 ...............
CMSrecommended
work RVUs
pre-BN
37.50
3.00
37.50
3.00
27.65
2.21
32.69
14.37
18.54
1.71
1.61
6.31
11.16
2.47
36.17
16.13
22.00
34.40
16.09
20.26
36.69
16.66
22.53
32.16
14.37
18.01
1.71
1.61
6.31
11.16
2.47
35.64
16.13
21.47
33.87
16.09
19.73
36.16
16.66
22.00
28.69
12.82
16.07
1.53
1.44
5.63
9.96
2.20
31.80
14.39
19.15
30.22
14.35
17.60
32.26
14.86
19.63
Thorabd diaphr hern repair ...........................................................................
Esoph lengthening .........................................................................................
CY 2011
interim final
work RVUs
Obstetrical Care, BN Factor of 0.8922
59400
59409
59410
59412
59414
59425
59426
59430
59510
59514
59515
59610
59612
59614
59618
59620
59622
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
Obstetrical care .............................................................................................
Obstetrical care .............................................................................................
Obstetrical care .............................................................................................
Antepartum manipulation ...............................................................................
Deliver placenta .............................................................................................
Antepartum care only ....................................................................................
Antepartum care only ....................................................................................
Care after delivery .........................................................................................
Cesarean delivery ..........................................................................................
Cesarean delivery only ..................................................................................
Cesarean delivery ..........................................................................................
Vbac delivery .................................................................................................
Vbac delivery only .........................................................................................
Vbac care after delivery ................................................................................
Attempted vbac delivery ................................................................................
Attempted vbac delivery only ........................................................................
Attempted vbac after care .............................................................................
Esophageal Motility and High Resolution Esophageal Pressure Topography, BN Factor of 0.8500
91010 ...............
91013 ...............
Esophagus motility study ...............................................................................
Esophgl motil w/stim/perfus ...........................................................................
1.50
0.21
1.50
0.21
1.28
0.18
0.54
0.40
0.54
0.25
0.51
0.24
Skin Excision and Debridement, BN Factor of 0.9422
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
97597 ...............
97598 ...............
Rmvl devital tis 20 cm/< ................................................................................
Rmvl devital tis addl 20 cm< .........................................................................
For the paraesophageal hernia
procedures, the CPT Editorial Panel
deleted six existing CPT codes and
created ten new codes to remove
obsolete and duplicative codes and add
new codes to report current surgical
techniques for paraesophageal hernia
procedures. Since in this case there
would be more codes that describe the
same physician work with a greater
degree of precision, the aggregate
increase in work RVUs that would result
from our adoption of the CMSrecommended RVUs that are largely
based on the AMA RUC’s work RVU
recommendations would not represent a
true increase in physician work.
Therefore, we believe it would be
appropriate to apply work budget
neutrality to this set of codes. After
reviewing the AMA RUC-recommended
work RVUs, we adjusted the work RVUs
for two codes (CPT codes 43333 and
43335) as described previously in
section V.C.1.b.(i)(4) of this final rule
with comment period, and then applied
work budget neutrality to the set of
clinically related CPT codes. The work
budget neutrality factor for these 12
paraesophageal hernia procedure CPT
codes is 0.7374.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
For the obstetrical care codes, the
AMA RUC reviewed 17 existing
obstetrical care codes as part of the
potentially misvalued codes initiative. It
recommended significant increases in
the work RVUs for some of the
comprehensive obstetrical care codes
(incorporating more than one element of
antepartum care, delivery, and/or
postpartum care) largely to address the
management of labor. While we
generally agree with the resulting AMA
RUC-recommended rank order of
services in this family, the aggregate
increase in work RVUs for the
obstetrical services that would result
from our adoption of the CMSrecommended work RVUs that are
largely based on the AMA RUC work
RVU recommendations is not indicative
of a true increase in physician work for
the services. Therefore, we believe it
would be appropriate to apply work
budget neutrality to this set of codes.
After reviewing the AMA RUCrecommended work RVUs, we adjusted
the work RVUs for several codes as
described in the following section
V.C.1.c.(6) of this final rule with
comment period, and then applied work
budget neutrality to the set of clinically
PO 00000
Frm 00170
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
related CPT codes. The work budget
neutrality factor for the 17 obstetrical
care CPT codes is 0.8922.
For esophageal motility and high
resolution esophageal pressure
topography, two CPT codes were
deleted and the services will be reported
under a revalued existing CPT code and
a new add-on code in CY 2011. We
agree with the AMA RUC that there is
compelling evidence to change the work
RVUs for the existing code to account
for the inclusion of procedures with
higher work RVUs that would
previously have been reported under the
deleted codes. We also agree with the
AMA RUC-recommended work RVUs
for the add-on code. While we agree
with the AMA RUC’s recommendations
for the new work RVUs for both codes,
we do not believe that this structural
coding change should result in an
increase in aggregate physician work for
the same services and, therefore, we
believe it would be appropriate to apply
work budget neutrality to this set of
codes. The work budget neutrality factor
for these 2 codes is 0.8500.
In the skin excision and debridement
category, two CPT codes were deleted
and the services that would previously
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
have been reported under these codes
will be reported under two existing
codes in CY 2011. However, the two
existing wound management codes have
been restructured from describing two
distinct procedures reported based on
wound surface area to describing a
primary procedure and an add-on
procedure that would additionally be
reported in the case of a larger wound.
Once again, the increase in aggregate
work RVUs that would result from our
adoption of the CMS-recommended
work RVUs that are largely based on the
AMA RUC work RVU recommendations
do not represent a true increase in
physician work for these procedures.
Therefore, we believe it would be
appropriate to apply work budget
neutrality to this set of codes. After
reviewing the AMA RUC-recommended
work RVUs, we adjusted the work RVUs
for one code (CPT code 97598) as
described previously in section
V.C.1.b.(i)(1) of this final rule with
comment period, and then applied work
budget neutrality to the set of clinically
related CPT codes. The budget
neutrality factor for these 2 codes is
0.9422.
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
c. CY 2011 Interim Final Work RVUs for
Potentially Misvalued Codes
In the following section, we provide
a discussion of our rationale for not
accepting particular AMA RUCrecommended work RVUs for CY 2011
CPT codes that have been identified as
potentially misvalued through the AMA
RUC’s screens and with CMS guidance.
Table 53 lists all 291 CPT codes for
which the AMA RUC has provided CMS
with work RVU recommendations for
CY 2011. Furthermore, the table
displays the AMA RUC’s recommended
work value as well as CMS’ interim final
decisions for CY 2011. For CY 2011, the
AMA RUC provided work RVU
recommendations for a total of 82 codes
identified as potentially misvalued in
categories based on the screen that
identified the codes, including
‘‘Harvard-Valued;’’ ‘‘CMS Fastest
Growing:’’ and ‘‘Site-of-Service
Anomalies.’’ For CY 2011, CMS is not
accepting 26 of the 82 AMA RUCrecommended work values for codes
identified as potentially misvalued. We
are instead providing alternative interim
final work RVUs as discussed in the
forthcoming section.
(1) Excision and Debridement (CPT
Codes 11043 and 11044)
CPT codes 11043 (Debridement; skin,
subcutaneous tissue, and muscle) and
11044 (Debridement; skin, subcutaneous
tissue, muscle, and bone) were
identified by the AMA RUC’s Five-Year
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
Review Identification Workgroup
through the ‘‘Site-of-Service Anomalies’’
potentially misvalued codes screen in
September 2007. The AMA RUC
recommended that the entire family of
services described by CPT codes 11040
through 11044 and 97597 and 97598 be
referred to the CPT Editorial Panel
because the current descriptors allowed
reporting of the codes for a bimodal
distribution of patients and also to
better define the terms excision and
debridement. For CY 2011, the AMA
RUC reviewed this family of codes
which includes the two potentially
misvalued codes, CPT codes 11043 and
11044, and provided work RVU
recommendations to CMS. Since the
family also included other new and
revised codes, we have consolidated the
discussion of Excision and Debridement
codes in section V.C.1.b.(i)(1), which
discusses new and revised codes.
Section V.C.1.b.(i)(1) provides the
complete discussion of CMS’ interim
final work RVU decisions for this family
of codes. However, to summarize the
CMS decisions in brief, we disagree
with the AMA RUC’s CY 2011 work
RVU recommendations and are
assigning alternative values for both
CPT codes 11043 and 11044 on an
interim final basis for CY 2011.
(2) Strapping Lower Extremity (CPT
Code 29540)
CPT code 29540 (Strapping; ankle
and/or foot) was identified as a
potentially misvalued code through the
Five-Year Review Identification
Workgroup under the ‘‘Harvard Valued’’
codes potentially misvalued codes
screen for services with utilization over
100,000. This code is also a member of
a family of codes under review for CY
2011 and as such, the full discussion for
the Strapping Lower Extremity family is
provided in section V.C.1.b.(i)(3), which
discusses new and revised codes.
However, to summarize the CMS
decision in brief, we disagree with the
AMA RUC’s CY 2011 work RVU
recommendations and are assigning an
alternative value of 0.32 RVUs to CPT
code 29540 on an interim final basis for
CY 2011.
(3) Control Nasal Hemorrhage (CPT
Code 30901)
CPT code 30901 (Control nasal
hemorrhage, anterior, simple (limited
cautery and/or packing) any method)
was identified as a potentially
misvalued code through the Five-Year
Review Identification Workgroup under
the ‘‘Harvard Valued’’ potentially
misvalued codes screen for services
with utilization over 100,000. The AMA
RUC agreed with the specialty society,
PO 00000
Frm 00171
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73339
stating that there is no compelling
evidence to change the current work
RVUs of 1.21. To support the current
valuation, the AMA RUC compared CPT
code 30901 to CPT code 36620 (Arterial
catheterization or cannulation for
sampling, monitoring or transfusion
(separate procedure); percutaneous),
and agreed that CPT code 30901
required slightly more total service time
to perform but required comparable
intensity and complexity. The AMA
RUC also compared CPT code 30901 to
the key reference code CPT code 31231
(Nasal endoscopy, diagnostic, unilateral
or bilateral (separate procedure) and
agreed that code CPT code 30901 would
be relatively more intense/complex. We
disagree with the AMA RUC’s CY 2011
work RVU recommendation to maintain
the current work RVUs of 1.21 for code
CPT code 30901 because the AMA RUCrecommended work value does not
appropriately account for the significant
reduction in intra-service time. We
believe the more appropriate work
RVUs are 1.10, based on the survey 25th
percentile. Therefore, we are assigning
an alternative value of 1.10 work RVUs
to CPT code 29540 on an interim final
basis for CY 2011.
(4) Cystourethroscopy (CPT Codes
52281 and 52332)
CPT codes 52281 (Cystourethroscopy,
with calibration and/or dilation of
urethral stricture or stenosis, with or
without meatotomy, with or without
injection procedure for cystography,
male or female) and 52332
(Cystourethroscopy, with insertion of
indwelling ureteral stent (e.g., Gibbons
or double-J type) were identified as a
potentially misvalued code through the
Five-Year Review Identification
Workgroup under the ‘‘Harvard Valued’’
potentially misvalued codes screen for
services with utilization over 100,000.
The AMA RUC reviewed the survey
results and determined that the
physician time of 16 minutes pre-, 20
minutes intra-, and 10 minutes
immediate post-service time and
maintaining the current work RVUs of
2.80 appropriately account for the time
and work required to perform this
procedure. We disagree with the CY
2011 AMA RUC work RVU
recommendation to maintain the current
RVUs for this code because the
physician time to perform this service (a
building block of the code) has changed
since the original ‘‘Harvard values’’ were
established, as indicated by the AMA
RUC-recommended reduction in preservice time. Accounting for the
reduction in pre-service time, we
calculated work RVUs that are close to
the survey 25th percentile. Therefore,
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73340
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
we are assigning 2.60 work RVUs to CPT
code 52281 on an interim final basis for
CY 2011.
Similarly, for CPT code 52332, we
disagree with the AMA RUC’s CY 2011
work RVU recommendation to maintain
the current value due to the same
concerns, a significant reduction in preservice time. Based on the same
building block rationale we applied to
CPT code 52281, the other code within
this family, we believe 1.47, which is
the survey 25th percentile and
maintains rank order, is a more
appropriate valuation for 52332.
Therefore, we are assigning an
alternative value of 1.47 work RVUs to
CPT code 52332 on an interim final
basis for CY 2011.
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
(5) Vaginal Radiation Afterloading
Apparatus for Clinical Brachytherapy
(CPT Code 51755)
CPT code 57155 (Insertion of uterine
tandems and/or vaginal ovoids for
clinical brachytherapy) was identified
as a potentially misvalued code by the
Five-Year Review Identification
Workgroup through the ‘‘Site-of-Service
Anomalies’’ potentially misvalued codes
screen. This code is a member of a
family of codes under review for CY
2011 and as such, the full discussion for
the family is provided in section
V.C.1.b.(1)(E), which discusses new and
revised codes. However, to summarize
the CMS decision in brief, we disagree
with the AMA RUC’s CY 2011 work
RVU recommendations and are
assigning an alternative value of 3.37
RVUs to CPT code 57155 on an interim
final basis for CY 2011.
(6) Obstetrical Care Codes (CPT Codes
59440, 59410, 59510, 59515, 59610,
59614, 59618, and 59622)
As a result of being identified as
potentially misvalued codes by the FiveYear Review Identification Workgroup
‘‘High IWPUT’’ screen for potentially
misvalued codes, the AMA RUC
reviewed the CPT codes that define
obstetrical care (CPT codes 59400
through 59622). CPT codes 59400,
59410, 59510, 59515, 59610, 59614,
59618 and 59622 include antepartum
care and/or delivery as well as
postpartum care for which the AMA
RUC recommended significantly
increased work values. The AMA RUC
recommended 32.69 work RVUs for CPT
code 59400 (Routine obstetric care
including antepartum care, vaginal
delivery (with or without episiotomy,
and/or forceps) and postpartum care);
18.54 work RVUs for CPT code 59410
(Vaginal delivery only (with or without
episiotomy and/or forceps); including
postpartum care); 36.17 work RVUs for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
CPT code 59510 (Routine obstetric care
including antepartum care, cesarean
delivery, and postpartum care); 22.00
work RVUs for CPT code 59515
(Cesarean delivery only; including
postpartum care), 34.40 work RVUs for
CPT code 59610 (Routine obstetric care
including antepartum care, vaginal
delivery (with or without episiotomy,
and/or forceps) and postpartum care,
after previous cesarean delivery); 20.26
work RVUs for CPT code 59614 (Vaginal
delivery only, after previous cesarean
delivery (with or without episiotomy
and/or forceps); including postpartum
care), 36.69 work RVUs for CPT code
59618 (Routine obstetric care including
antepartum care, cesarean delivery, and
postpartum care, following attempted
vaginal delivery after previous cesarean
delivery); and 22.53 work RVUs for CPT
code 59622 (Cesarean delivery only,
following attempted vaginal delivery
after previous cesarean delivery;
including postpartum care). For
postpartum care with delivery, which is
included in all of these codes, the AMA
RUC recommended one CPT code 99214
(Level 4 established patient office or
other outpatient visit).
We disagree with the AMA RUCrecommended work RVUs for these
services and believe that one CPT code
99213 visit (Level 3 established patient
office or other outpatient visit) more
accurately reflects the services
furnished for this postpartum care visit.
Therefore, for all CPT code 99214 blocks
for CPT codes that include postpartum
care following delivery visits, we have
converted the CPT code 99214 visit to
a CPT code 99213 visit and have revised
the work RVUs accordingly. Therefore,
we are adopting alternative work RVUs
and are assigning 32.16 work RVUs to
CPT code 59400; 18.01 work RVUs to
CPT code 59410; 35.64 work RVUs to
CPT code 59510; 21.47 work RVUs to
CPT code 59515; 33.87 work RVUs to
CPT code 59610; 19.73 work RVUs to
CPT code 59614; 36.16 work RVUs to
CPT code 59618; and 22.00 work RVUs
to CPT code 59622, prior to the work
budget neutrality adjustment as
discussed in section V.C.1.b.(3) of this
final rule with comment period, on
interim final basis for CY 2011.
(7) Vagus Nerve Stimulator (CPT Code
61885)
CPT code 61885 (Insertion or
replacement of cranial neurostimulator
pulse generator or receiver, direct or
inductive coupling; with connection to
a single electrode array) was identified
as a potentially misvalued code by the
Five-Year Review Identification
Workgroup under the ‘‘Site-of-Service
Anomalies’’ screen for potential
PO 00000
Frm 00172
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
misvalued codes. We discuss this code
in the context of the Vagus Nerve
Stimulator family, provided in section
V.C.1.b.(i)(6), which discusses new and
revised codes. However, to summarize
the CMS decision in brief, we disagree
with the AMA RUC’s CY 2011 work
RVU recommendations and are
assigning an alternative value of 6.05
RVUs to CPT code 61885 on an interim
final basis for CY 2011.
(8) Transforaminal Epidural Injection
(CPT Code 64483)
CPT code 64483 (Injection(s),
anesthetic agent and/or steroid,
transforaminal epidural, with image
guidance (fluoroscopy or CT), lumbar or
sacral; single level) was identified as a
potentially misvalued code through the
Five-Year Review Identification
Workgroup under the ‘‘CMS Fastest
Growing’’ potentially misvalued codes
screen. The AMA RUC compared
components of this code (pre-, intra-,
and post-service times, in addition to
intensity) to a number of other codes,
although the AMA RUC’s application of
the crosswalk methodology was unclear
to us. The AMA RUC recommended
1.90 work RVUs; however, we disagree
with AMA RUC’s CY 2011 work RVU
recommendation and believe 1.75 work
RVUs, based on the survey 25th
percentile, more appropriately accounts
for the significant reductions in pre-,
intra-, and post-service time. Therefore,
we are assigning an alternative value of
1.75 work RVUs to CPT code 64483 on
an interim final basis for CY 2011.
(9) CT Thorax (CPT Code 71250)
CPT Code 71250 (Computed
tomography, thorax; without contrast
material) was identified as a potentially
misvalued code by the Five-Year
Review Identification Workgroup under
the ‘‘CMS Fastest Growing’’ potentially
misvalued codes screen. This service
had never been surveyed by the AMA
RUC until this review was conducted
for CY 2011. The specialty
recommended a pre-service time of 5
minutes based on the survey results and
the AMA RUC concurred. The AMA
RUC also agreed that the surveyed intraservice of 15 minutes and immediate
post-service time of 5 minutes were
typical for the physician work required
for the service. While the AMA RUC
accepted the survey results for
physician times based on its
comparisons to similar services and
other considerations, the AMA RUC
believed maintaining the code’s current
value of 1.16 work RVUs was more
appropriate, noting that this
recommended value is slightly lower
than the survey 25th percentile of 1.20.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
We disagree with the AMA RUC’s CY
2011 work RVU recommendation to
maintain the current value for CPT code
71250 and similar codes. As we have
previously discussed, we are
increasingly concerned over the validity
of accepting work valuations based
upon surveys conducted on existing
codes as we have noticed a pattern of
predictable survey results. That is, in
providing recommendations for existing
potentially misvalued codes in CY 2011,
the AMA RUC often recommended
maintaining the current work RVUs and
supported this valuation by citing the
survey results. Upon clinical review of
a number of these cases, we are
concerned over the validity of the
survey results since the survey values
often are very close to the current
known value for the code. We are
concerned that this may indicate a bias
in the survey results since respondents
would know the current value for the
existing code at the time the survey is
being conducted. Increasingly, rather
than recommending the median survey
value that has historically been most
commonly used, the AMA RUC is
choosing to recommend the 25th
percentile value, potentially responding
to the same concern we have identified.
Therefore, based on our concern that CT
codes would continue to be misvalued
if we were to accept the AMA RUC
recommendation to maintain the current
value, we are assigning an alternative
value of 1.00 work RVUs (the survey
low value) to CPT code 71250 on an
interim final basis for CY 2011.
(10) CT Spine (CPT Code 72125)
CPT codes 72125 (Computed
tomography, cervical spine; without
contrast material); 72128 (Computed
tomography, thoracic spine; without
contrast material); and 72131
(Computed tomography, lumbar spine;
without contrast material) were
identified as potentially misvalued
codes by the Five-Year Review
Workgroup under the ‘‘CMS Fastest
Growing’’ screen for potentially
misvalued codes. For CPT code 72125,
the AMA RUC concurred with the
specialty-recommended pre-service time
of 5 minutes based on the survey
results. The AMA RUC also agreed that
the surveyed intra-service of 15 minutes
and immediate post-service time of 5
minutes were typical for the physician
work required for the service. The AMA
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
RUC compared this service to other
comparable services and concluded that
it was appropriate to maintain the
current work RVUs of 1.16.
Similarly, for CPT codes 72128 and
72131, the AMA RUC accepted the
survey physician times, but also
disregarded the survey work RVU
results. Upon clinical review of these
codes in this family, we are concerned
over the validity of the survey results
since the survey 25th percentile values
are very close to the current value of
1.16 RVUs for the code. As we stated
previously, we are concerned that this
pattern may indicate a bias in the survey
results. Therefore, based on our concern
that the CT codes would continue to be
misvalued if we were to accept the
AMA RUC recommendation to maintain
the current values, we are assigning
alternative work RVUs of 1.00 (the
survey low value) to CPT codes 72125,
72128, and 72131 on an interim final
basis for CY 2011.
(11) CT Upper and CT Lower Extremity
(CPT Code 73200 and 73700)
CPT codes 73200 (Computed
tomography, upper extremity; without
contrast material) and 73700 (Computed
tomography, lower extremity; without
contrast material) were identified as
potentially misvalued codes by the FiveYear Review Workgroup under the
‘‘CMS Fastest Growing’’ screen for
potentially misvalued codes. Similar to
the other CT codes previously
discussed, the AMA RUC reviewed the
survey results and accepted the survey
physician times, recommending
maintaining the current work RVUs of
1.09 for these services. Our clinical
review of the codes, CPT codes 73200
and 73700, as with the other CT codes
previously discussed, concluded that
maintaining the current values would
result in an overvaluing of this type of
service. We remain concerned over the
validity of the survey results. Therefore,
based on our concern that CT codes
would continue to be misvalued if we
were to accept the AMA RUC
recommendation to maintain the current
values, we disagree with the AMA
RUC’s CY 2011 work RVU
recommendations. We are assigning
alternative work RVUs of 1.00 (the
survey low RVU value) to CPT codes
73200, and 73700 on an interim final
basis for CY 2011.
PO 00000
Frm 00173
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73341
(12) Radiation Treatment Management
(CPT Code 77427)
CPT code 77427 (Radiation treatment
management, 5 treatments) was
identified as a potentially misvalued
code by the Five-Year Identification
Workgroup’s ‘‘Site-of-Service
Anomalies’’ screen for potentially
misvalued codes in 2007. For CY 2011,
the AMA RUC reviewed the specialty
survey results and agreed that the
surveyed physician time of 7 minutes
pre-service, 70 minutes intra-service,
and 10 minutes immediate post-service
is appropriate. The AMA RUC also used
the building block approach to value the
treatment visits associated with CPT
code 77427. The AMA RUC averaged
the number of weekly E/M visits, that is,
4 of CPT code 99214 (Level 4
established patient office or other
outpatient visit) and 2 of CPT code
99213 (Level 3 established patient office
or other outpatient visit) over 6 weeks
to calculate an E/M building block of
1.32 RVUs. Similarly, to value the postoperative office visits associated with
this code, the AMA RUC calculated a
building block of 0.57 to account for the
average over 6 weeks of ‘‘E/M visits after
treatment planning.’’ The AMA RUC
then crosswalked the physician times
for CPT code 77427 to CPT code 77315
(Teletherapy, isodose plan (whether
hand or computer calculated); complex
(mantle or inverted Y, tangential ports,
the use of wedges, compensators,
complex blocking, rotational beam, or
special beam considerations)) and used
the value of CPT code 77315 as the
remaining building block for CPT code
77427. Accordingly, the AMA RUC
calculated total work RVUs of 3.45 and
recommended this value for CPT code
77427.
Upon clinical review, we modified
one of the building blocks that the AMA
RUC used to calculate the work RVUs
associated with the treatment E/M office
visits. We believe instead of the average
based upon 4 units of CPT code 99214
and 2 units of CPT code 99213, a more
appropriate estimation would be an
average of 3 units of CPT code 99214
and 3 units of CPT code 99213.
Accordingly, we are assigning an
alternative value of 2.92 work RVUs to
CPT code 77427 on an interim final
basis for CY 2011.
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00174
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
ER29NO10.253
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73342
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00175
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73343
ER29NO10.254
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00176
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
ER29NO10.255
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73344
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00177
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73345
ER29NO10.256
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00178
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
ER29NO10.257
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73346
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00179
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73347
ER29NO10.258
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00180
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
ER29NO10.259
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73348
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00181
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73349
ER29NO10.260
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
73350
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
BILLING CODE 4120–01–C
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
2. Establishment of Interim Final Direct
PE Inputs for CY 2011
a. Background
As we previously explained in section
V.A. of this final rule with comment
period, on an annual basis, the AMA
RUC provides CMS with
recommendations regarding direct PE
inputs, including clinical labor,
supplies, and equipment, for new,
revised, and potentially misvalued
codes. These recommendations,
therefore, include inputs for all direct
PE categories excluding supply prices
and equipment prices and useful life
inputs, which are specifically discussed
in section II.A.3.e. of this final rule with
comment period.
We review the AMA RUCrecommended direct PE inputs on a
code-by-code basis, including the
recommended facility PE inputs and/or
nonfacility PE inputs, as clinically
appropriate for the code. We determine
whether we agree with the AMA RUC’s
recommended direct PE inputs for a
service or, if we disagree, we refine the
PE inputs to represent inputs that better
reflect our estimate of the PE resources
required for the service in the facility
and/or nonfacility settings. We also
confirm that CPT codes should have
facility and/or nonfacility direct PE
inputs and make changes based on our
clinical judgment and any PFS payment
policies that would apply to the code.
We received direct PE input
recommendations from the AMA RUC
for 325 CPT codes for CY 2011,
including those CPT codes where the
AMA RUC recommended no changes to
the direct PE inputs of existing codes.
We note that we have included in this
count those recommendations received
from the AMA RUC that were provided
for CY 2011 and addressed in the CY
2011 PFS proposed rule. These
recommendations are discussed in
section II.A.3.c. of this final rule with
comment period. We have accepted for
CY 2011, as interim final and without
refinement, the direct PE inputs based
on the recommendations submitted by
the AMA RUC for the 258 codes listed
in Table 54.
For the remainder of the AMA RUC’s
direct PE recommendations for 67
codes, we have accepted the PE
recommendations submitted by the
AMA RUC as interim final, but with
refinements. These codes and the
refinements to their direct PE inputs are
listed in Table 55.
Accordingly, while Table 55 details
the CY 2011 refinements of the AMA
RUC’s direct PE recommendations at the
code-specific level, we discuss the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
general nature of some common
refinements and the reasons for
particular refinements in the following
section. We note that the final CY 2011
PFS direct PE database reflects the
refined direct PE inputs that we are
adopting on an interim final basis for
CY 2011. That database is available
under downloads for the CY 2011 PFS
final rule with comment period on the
CMS Web site at: https://www.cms.gov/
PhysicianFeeSched/PFSFRN/list.
asp#TopOfPage.
b. CY 2011 Interim Final Direct PE
Inputs for New, Revised, and Potentially
Misvalued Codes
(1) General Equipment Time
Many of the refinements to the AMA
RUC direct PE recommendations were
made in the interest of promoting a
transparent and consistent approach to
equipment time inputs. In the past, the
AMA RUC did not always provide us
with recommendations regarding
equipment time inputs. In CY 2010, we
requested that the AMA RUC provide
equipment times along with the other
direct PE recommendations. Subsequent
to that request, we provided the AMA
RUC with general guidelines regarding
appropriate equipment time inputs. We
appreciate the AMA RUC’s willingness
to provide us with these additional
inputs as part of their direct PE
recommendations.
In general, the equipment time inputs
correspond to the intra-service portion
of the clinical labor times. We have
clarified that assumption to consider
equipment time as the sum of the times
within the intra-service period when a
clinician is using the piece of
equipment, plus any additional time the
piece of equipment is not available for
use for another patient due to its use
during the designated procedure. In
addition, when a piece of equipment is
typically used during additional visits
included in a service’s global period, the
equipment time should also reflect that
use.
Certain highly technical pieces of
equipment and equipment rooms are
less likely to be used by a clinician over
the full course of a procedure and are
typically available for other patients
during time that may still be in the
intra-service portion of the service. We
adjust those equipment times
accordingly. For example, CPT code
74178 (Computed tomography,
abdomen and pelvis; without contrast
material in more than one body region)
includes 3 minutes of intra-service
clinical labor time associated with
obtaining the patient’s consent for the
procedure. Since it would be atypical
PO 00000
Frm 00182
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
for this activity to occur within the CT
room, we believe these 3 minutes
should not be attributed to the CT room.
We are refining the CY 2011 AMA
RUC direct PE recommendations to
conform to these equipment time
policies. These refinements are reflected
in the final CY 2011 PFS direct PE
database and detailed in Table 55.
(2) Equipment Time and Clinical Labor
for Conscious Sedation
In services that include conscious
sedation recovery, clinical labor and
equipment time inputs are generally
established using a distinctive logic. In
the case of these services, clinical labor
time is based on 15 minutes of
registered nurse (RN) recovery
monitoring for each hour monitored
following the procedure to account for
a typical 1:4 nurse to patient ratio.
Times for equipment used during the
recovery monitoring period, therefore,
are equal to four times the number of
RN minutes during the recovery
monitoring period.
Equipment time for pieces of
equipment used in conscious sedation
should generally include time to
administer the anesthesia, time for the
procedure, and time to monitor the
patient following the procedures.
Standard equipment and supplies for
conscious sedation include: EQ011
(ECG, 3-channel (with SpO2, NIBP,
temp, resp)); EF019 (stretcher chair);
EQ032 (IV infusion pump); and SA044
(pack, conscious sedation).
We are refining the CY 2011 AMA
RUC direct PE recommendations to
conform to these policies. These
refinements are reflected in the final CY
2011 PFS direct PE database and
detailed in Table 55.
(3) Equipment Time for Add-On Codes
For add-on codes, only minutes
allocated to the procedure itself are
added to the time for the equipment,
since any additional minutes would
duplicate the equipment time already
accounted for in the primary procedure
that accompanies the add-on code.
We are refining the CY 2011 AMA
RUC PFS direct PE recommendations to
conform to this policy. These
refinements are reflected in the final CY
2011 PFS direct PE database and
detailed in Table 55.
(4) Changes in Standard Uses of Certain
Supplies
As discussed in section II.A.3.b.(1) of
this final rule with comment period, we
are finalizing our proposal to remove
the supply item ‘‘biohazard bag’’ from
the direct PE database because the item
is considered an indirect practice
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
expense. Additionally, as discussed in
section II.A.3.b.(6) of this final rule with
comment period, we are finalizing our
CY 2011 proposal to remove the pulse
oximeter with printer (CMS Equipment
Code EQ211) as an input for the 118
codes that also contain the ECG, 3channel (with SpO2, NIBP, temp, resp)
(CMS Equipment Code EQ011).
We are refining the CY 2011 AMA
RUC PFS direct PE recommendations to
conform to these policies. These
refinements are reflected in the final CY
2011 PFS direct PE database and
detailed in Table 55.
(5) New Supply and Equipment Items
When clinically appropriate, the
AMA RUC generally recommends the
use of supply and equipment items that
already exist in the direct PE database
for new, revised, and potentially
misvalued codes. Some
recommendations include supply or
equipment items that are not currently
in the direct PE database. In these cases,
the AMA RUC has historically
recommended a new item be created
and has facilitated CMS’ pricing of that
item by working with the specialty
societies to provide sales invoices to us.
We appreciate the contributions of the
AMA RUC in that process.
Despite the assistance of the AMA
RUC for CY 2011, we did not receive
adequate information for pricing the
following new supply items included in
the AMA RUC’s CY 2011 direct PE
recommendations: SC098 (Catheter,
angiographic, Berman); SD251 (Sheath
Shuttle (Cook)); SD255 (Reentry Device
(Frontier, Outback, Pioneer)); SD257
(Tunneler); and SD258 (Vacuum Bottle).
We agree with the AMA RUC that these
supply items are appropriate direct PE
inputs for the associated procedures.
However, because these items do not
resemble current supplies in the PE
database, we were unable to identify
existing supplies with input prices to
substitute for the AMA RUCrecommended direct PE inputs. We
were also unable to estimate the prices
for these new supply items based on
analogy to existing supplies in the direct
PE database because, as stated
previously, they are not clinically
similar to existing items in the direct PE
database and we do not have
information on the pricing of the new
supply items. Therefore, our only
alternative for these supply items for CY
2011 was to accept them as direct PE
inputs for the associated services based
on the AMA RUC recommendations, but
to price them at $0 for CY 2011. For CY
2012, we will consider the prices for
these supply items eligible to be
updated through the process we are
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
finalizing for CY 2011 that is described
in section II.A.3.e. of this final rule with
comment period.
In the case of certain other direct PE
recommendations for CY 2011, the
AMA RUC has recommended new
supply or equipment items that we
believe to be already described by
existing items in the direct PE database.
Therefore, we are refining the AMA
RUC CY 2011 direct PE
recommendations to utilize existing
supply and equipment items in the PE
database where appropriate. These
refinements are reflected in the final CY
2011 PFS direct PE database and
detailed in Table 55.
(6) Endovascular Revascularization
Stents
In reviewing the supply input
recommendations from the AMA RUC
for CPT codes describing certain
endovascular revascularization services,
we considered the quantity of high-cost
stents associated with some of the
codes. The recommendations included
two or three stents for each of the
following six CPT codes: 37226
(Revascularization, femoral/popliteal
artery(s), unilateral; with transluminal
stent placement(s)); 37227
(Revascularization, femoral/popliteal
artery(s), unilateral; with transluminal
stent placement(s) and atherectomy);
37230 (Revascularization, tibial/
peroneal artery, unilateral, initial vessel;
with transluminal stent placement(s));
37231 (Revascularization, tibial/
peroneal artery, unilateral, initial vessel;
with transluminal stent placement(s)
and atherectomy); 37234
(Revascularization, tibial/peroneal
artery, unilateral, each additional vessel;
with transluminal stent placement(s)
(List separately in addition to code for
primary procedure)); and 37235
(Revascularization, tibial/peroneal
artery, unilateral, each additional vessel;
with transluminal stent placement(s)
and atherectomy (List separately in
addition to code for primary
procedure)).
Given the complex clinical nature of
these services, their new pricing in the
nonfacility setting under the PFS, and
the high cost of each stent, we were
concerned that two or three stents could
overestimate the number of stents used
in the typical office procedure that
would be reported under one of the CPT
code. Therefore, we examined CY 2009
hospital OPPS claims data for the
combinations of predecessor codes that
would have historically been reported
for each case reported in under CY 2011
under a single comprehensive code.
Because of the OPPS device-toprocedure claims processing edits, all
PO 00000
Frm 00183
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73351
prior cases would have included HCPCS
C-code for at least one stent on the claim
for the case. Based on our analysis of
these data, we determined that for each
new CY 2011 comprehensive code, the
predecessor code combinations would
have used only one stent in 65 percent
or more of the cases. We have no reason
to believe that when these new CPT
codes are reported for procedures
performed in the nonfacility setting,
patients would receive more than the
one stent typically used in the hospital
outpatient setting. Therefore, we are
refining the CY 2011 AMA RUC
recommendations to include one stent
in the direct PE inputs for each of the
six endovascular revascularization stent
insertion codes, including the add-on
codes. These refinements are reflected
in the final CY 2011 PFS direct PE
database.
(7) Nasal/Sinus Endoscopy Supply and
Equipment Items
The AMA RUC recommendation for
direct PE inputs for CPT code 31295
(Nasal/sinus endoscopy, surgical; with
dilation of maxillary sinus ostium (e.g.,
balloon dilation), transnasal or via
canine fossa), included irregular supply
and equipment inputs. The AMA RUC
recommended two similar, new supply
items, specifically ‘‘kit, sinus surgery,
balloon (maxillary, frontal, or
sphenoid)’’ and ‘‘kit, sinus surgery,
balloon (maxillary)’’ as supply inputs
with a quantity of one-half for each
item. We believe that this
recommendation was intended to reflect
an assumption that each of these
distinct supplies is used in
approximately half of the cases when
the service is furnished. In general, the
direct PE inputs should reflect the items
used when the service is furnished in
the typical case. Therefore, the quantity
of supply items associated with a code
should reflect the actual units of the
item used in the typical case, and not be
reflective of any estimate of the
proportion of cases in which any supply
item is used. We note, however, that
fractional inputs are appropriate when
fractional quantities of a supply item are
typically used, as is commonly the case
when the unit of a particular supply
reflects the volume of a liquid supply
item instead of quantity. Additionally,
in the case of certain services with
global service periods, fractional
quantities of supplies may be
appropriate when fractional numbers of
post-service office visits are associated
with a code.
Upon receipt of these
recommendations, we requested that the
AMA RUC clarify the initial
recommendation by determining which
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73352
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
of these supply items would be used in
the typical case. The AMA RUC
recommended that the supply item ‘‘kit,
sinus surgery, balloon (maxillary,
frontal, or sphenoid)’’ be included in the
inputs for the code. We considered that
recommendation, but we believe that
the item ‘‘kit, sinus surgery, balloon
(maxillary)’’ is more clinically
appropriate based on the description of
CPT code 32195.
The AMA RUC recommendation for
equipment inputs for the same code
(CPT code 31295) included a parallel
irregularity by distributing half of the
equipment minutes to each of two
similar pieces of equipment, one
existing and one new: ‘‘Endoscope,
rigid, sinoscopy’’ (ES013) and
‘‘fiberscope, flexible, sinoscopy’’ (new).
We believe that this recommendation
was intended to reflect an assumption
that each of these distinct pieces of
equipment is used in approximately half
of the cases in which the service is
furnished. In general, the direct PE
inputs should reflect the items used
when the service is furnished in the
typical case. Therefore, the equipment
time inputs associated with a code
should reflect the number of minutes an
equipment item is used in the typical
case, and not be distributed among a set
of equipment items to reflect an
estimate of the proportion of cases in
which a particular equipment item
might be used. However, we note that in
the case of certain services with global
service periods, distribution of
equipment minutes among similar
equipment items may be appropriate
when fractional numbers of post-service
office visits are associated with a code.
Upon review of these items, we believe
that the new piece of equipment,
‘‘fiberscope, flexible, sinoscopy,’’ is more
clinically appropriate based on the
description of CPT code 32195.
We are refining the CY 2011 AMA
RUC direct PE recommendations to
conform to these determinations. These
refinements are reflected in the final CY
2011 PFS direct PE database and
detailed in Table 55.
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
TABLE 54—CPT CODES WITH ACCEPTED AMA RUC DIRECT PE
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CY 2011
CODES
CPT
Code
11010
11011
11012
11045
11046
11047
......
......
......
......
......
......
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Short descriptor
Debride skin at fx site
Debride skin musc at fx site
Deb skin bone at fx site
Deb subq tissue add-on
Deb musc/fascia add-on
Deb bone add-on
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
TABLE 54—CPT CODES WITH ACCEPTED AMA RUC DIRECT PE
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CY 2011
CODES—Continued
TABLE 54—CPT CODES WITH ACCEPTED AMA RUC DIRECT PE
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CY 2011
CODES—Continued
CPT
Code
CPT
Code
11900
11901
12001
12002
12004
12005
12006
12007
12011
12013
12014
12015
12016
12017
12018
15823
19357
20005
20664
20930
20931
22315
22552
22554
22585
22851
23430
27065
27066
27067
27070
27071
29540
29550
29914
29915
29916
30901
31256
31267
31276
31287
31288
33411
33620
33621
33622
33860
33863
33864
34900
35471
36410
37205
37206
37207
37208
37222
37223
37232
37233
37765
37766
38900
43283
43327
43328
PO 00000
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
Short descriptor
Injection into skin lesions
Added skin lesions injection
Repair superficial wound(s)
Repair superficial wound(s)
Repair superficial wound(s)
Repair superficial wound(s)
Repair superficial wound(s)
Repair superficial wound(s)
Repair superficial wound(s)
Repair superficial wound(s)
Repair superficial wound(s)
Repair superficial wound(s)
Repair superficial wound(s)
Repair superficial wound(s)
Repair superficial wound(s)
Revision of upper eyelid
Breast reconstruction
I&d abscess subfascial
Application of halo
Sp bone algrft morsel add-on
Sp bone algrft struct add-on
Treat spine fracture
Addl neck spine fusion
Neck spine fusion
Additional spinal fusion
Apply spine prosth device
Repair biceps tendon
Remove hip bone les super
Remove hip bone les deep
Remove/graft hip bone lesion
Part remove hip bone super
Part removal hip bone deep
Strapping of ankle and/or ft
Strapping of toes
Hip arthro w/femoroplasty
Hip arthro acetabuloplasty
Hip arthro w/labral repair
Control of nosebleed
Exploration maxillary sinus
Endoscopy maxillary sinus
Sinus endoscopy surgical
Nasal/sinus endoscopy surg
Nasal/sinus endoscopy surg
Replacement of aortic valve
Apply r&l pulm art bands
Transthor cath for stent
Redo compl cardiac anomaly
Ascending aortic graft
Ascending aortic graft
Ascending aortic graft
Endovasc iliac repr w/graft
Repair arterial blockage
Non-routine bl draw > 3 yrs
Transcath iv stent percut
Transcath iv stent/perc addl
Transcath iv stent open
Transcath iv stent/open addl
Iliac revasc add-on
Iliac revasc w/stent add-on
Tib/per revasc add-on
Tibper revasc w/ather add-on
Stab phleb veins xtr 10–20
Phleb veins—extrem 20+
Io map of sent lymph node
Lap esoph lengthening
Esoph fundoplasty lap
Esoph fundoplasty thor
Frm 00184
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
43332 ......
43333 ......
43334 ......
43335 ......
43336 ......
43337 ......
43338 ......
43605 ......
43753 ......
47480 ......
47490 ......
49324 ......
49327 ......
49400 ......
49412 ......
49419 ......
49421 ......
49422 ......
50250 ......
50542 ......
50590 ......
50684 ......
*51725 ....
*51726 ....
*51727 ....
*51728 ....
*51729 ....
51736 ......
51741 ......
52281 ......
52332 ......
55866 ......
55876 ......
59400 ......
59409 ......
59410 ......
59412 ......
59414 ......
59425 ......
59426 ......
59430 ......
59510 ......
59514 ......
59515 ......
59610 ......
59612 ......
59614 ......
59618 ......
59620 ......
59622 ......
61781 ......
61782 ......
61783 ......
61885 ......
62268 ......
62269 ......
62281 ......
62319 ......
63075 ......
63076 ......
63610 ......
*64420 ....
*64421 ....
64480 ......
64484 ......
64508 ......
64561 ......
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
Short descriptor
Transab esoph hiat hern rpr
Transab esoph hiat hern rpr
Transthor diaphrag hern rpr
Transthor diaphrag hern rpr
Thorabd diaphr hern repair
Thorabd diaphr hern repair
Esoph lengthening
Biopsy of stomach
Tx gastro intub w/asp
Incision of gallbladder
Incision of gallbladder
Lap insert tunnel ip cath
Lap ins device for rt
Air injection into abdomen
Ins device for rt guide open
Insert tun ip cath w/port
Ins tun ip cath for dial opn
Remove tunneled ip cath
Cryoablate renal mass open
Laparo ablate renal mass
Fragmenting of kidney stone
Injection for ureter x-ray
Simple cystometrogram
Complex cystometrogram
Cystometrogram w/up
Cystometrogram w/vp
Cystometrogram w/vp&up
Urine flow measurement
Electro-uroflowmetry first
Cystoscopy and treatment
Cystoscopy and treatment
Laparo radical prostatectomy
Place rt device/marker pros
Obstetrical care
Obstetrical care
Obstetrical care
Antepartum manipulation
Deliver placenta
Antepartum care only
Antepartum care only
Care after delivery
Cesarean delivery
Cesarean delivery only
Cesarean delivery
Vbac delivery
Vbac delivery only
Vbac care after delivery
Attempted vbac delivery
Attempted vbac delivery only
Attempted vbac after care
Scan proc cranial intra
Scan proc cranial extra
Scan proc spinal
Insrt/redo neurostim 1 array
Drain spinal cord cyst
Needle biopsy spinal cord
Treat spinal cord lesion
Inject spine w/cath l/s (cd)
Neck spine disk surgery
Neck spine disk surgery
Stimulation of spinal cord
Nblock inj intercost sng
Nblock inj intercost mlt
Inj foramen epidural add-on
Inj foramen epidural add-on
Nblock carotid sinus s/p
Implant neuroelectrodes
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
73353
TABLE 54—CPT CODES WITH ACCEPTED AMA RUC DIRECT PE
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CY 2011
CODES—Continued
TABLE 54—CPT CODES WITH ACCEPTED AMA RUC DIRECT PE
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CY 2011
CODES—Continued
TABLE 54—CPT CODES WITH ACCEPTED AMA RUC DIRECT PE
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CY 2011
CODES—Continued
CPT
Code
CPT
Code
CPT
Code
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
64566 ......
64568 ......
64569 ......
64570 ......
64581 ......
64611 ......
*64620 ....
64708 ......
64712 ......
64713 ......
64714 ......
65778 ......
65780 ......
66761 ......
67028 ......
69802 ......
70010 ......
71250 ......
72125 ......
72128 ......
72131 ......
73080 ......
73200 ......
73510 ......
73610 ......
73630 ......
73700 ......
74430 ......
*75571 ....
*75572 ....
*75573 ....
*75574 ....
75954 ......
75960 ......
75962 ......
75964 ......
76000 ......
76942 ......
77003 ......
*77011 ....
77012 ......
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Short descriptor
Neuroeltrd stim post tibial
Inc for vagus n elect impl
Revise/repl vagus n eltrd
Remove vagus n eltrd
Implant neuroelectrodes
Chemodenerv saliv glands
Injection treatment of nerve
Revise arm/leg nerve
Revision of sciatic nerve
Revision of arm nerve(s)
Revise low back nerve(s)
Cover eye w/membrane
Ocular reconst transplant
Revision of iris
Injection eye drug
Incise inner ear
Contrast x-ray of brain
Ct thorax w/o dye
Ct neck spine w/o dye
Ct chest spine w/o dye
Ct lumbar spine w/o dye
X-ray exam of elbow
Ct upper extremity w/o dye
X-ray exam of hip
X-ray exam of ankle
X-ray exam of foot
Ct lower extremity w/o dye
Contrast x-ray bladder
Ct hrt w/o dye w/ca test
Ct hrt w/3d image
Ct hrt w/3d image congen
Ct angio hrt w/3d image
Iliac aneurysm endovas rpr
Transcath iv stent rs&i
Repair arterial blockage
Repair artery blockage each
Fluoroscope examination
Echo guide for biopsy
Fluoroguide for spine inject
Ct scan for localization
Ct scan for needle biopsy
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
*77301 ....
77427 ......
88120 ......
88121 ......
88172 ......
88173 ......
88177 ......
88300 ......
88302 ......
88304 ......
88305 ......
88307 ......
88309 ......
88363 ......
88367 ......
88368 ......
90460 ......
90461 ......
90870 ......
90935 ......
90937 ......
90945 ......
90947 ......
91013 ......
*91038 ....
91117 ......
*91132 ....
*91133 ....
92081 ......
92082 ......
92132 ......
92133 ......
92134 ......
92504 ......
92507 ......
92508 ......
92606 ......
92607 ......
92608 ......
92609 ......
93040 ......
PO 00000
Short descriptor
Radiotherapy dose plan imrt
Radiation tx management x5
Cytp urne 3–5 probes ea spec
Cytp urine 3–5 probes cmptr
Cytp dx eval fna 1st ea site
Cytopath eval fna report
Cytp c/v auto thin lyr addl
Surgical path gross
Tissue exam by pathologist
Tissue exam by pathologist
Tissue exam by pathologist
Tissue exam by pathologist
Tissue exam by pathologist
Xm archive tissue molec anal
Insitu hybridization auto
Insitu hybridization manual
Imadm any route 1st vac/tox
Imadm any route addl vac/tox
Electroconvulsive therapy
Hemodialysis one evaluation
Hemodialysis repeated eval
Dialysis one evaluation
Dialysis repeated eval
Esophgl motil w/stim/perfus
Esoph imped funct test > 1h
Colon motility 6 hr study
Electrogastrography
Electrogastrography w/test
Visual field examination(s)
Visual field examination(s)
Cmptr ophth dx img ant segmt
Cmptr ophth img optic nerve
Cptr ophth dx img post segmt
Ear microscopy examination
Speech/hearing therapy
Speech/hearing therapy
Non-speech device service
Ex for speech device rx 1hr
Ex for speech device rx addl
Use of speech device service
Rhythm ecg with report
Frm 00185
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
93041
93042
93224
93225
93226
93227
93228
93270
93271
93272
93462
93463
93563
93564
93565
93652
93922
93923
93924
95800
95801
95803
95805
95806
95807
95808
95810
95811
95857
95950
95953
96105
97598
99224
99225
99226
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
Short descriptor
Rhythm ecg tracing
Rhythm ecg report
Ecg monit/reprt up to 48 hrs
Ecg monit/reprt up to 48 hrs
Ecg monit/reprt up to 48 hrs
Ecg monit/reprt up to 48 hrs
Remote 30 day ecg rev/report
Remote 30 day ecg rev/report
Ecg/monitoring and analysis
Ecg/review interpret only
L hrt cath trnsptl puncture
Drug admin & hemodynmic meas
Inject congenital card cath
Inject hrt congntl art/grft
Inject l ventr/atrial angio
Ablate heart dysrhythm focus
Upr/l xtremity art 2 levels
Upr/lxtr art stdy 3+ lvls
Lwr xtr vasc stdy bilat
Slp stdy unattended
Slp stdy unatnd w/anal
Actigraphy testing
Multiple sleep latency test
Sleep study unatt&resp efft
Sleep study attended
Polysomnography 1–3
Polysomnography 4 or more
Polysomnography w/cpap
Cholinesterase challenge
Ambulatory eeg monitoring
Eeg monitoring/computer
Assessment of aphasia
Rmvl devital tis addl 20 cm<
Subsequent observation care
Subsequent observation care
Subsequent observation care
*CPT codes discussed in more detail in section II.A.3.c. of this final rule with comment
period.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00186
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
ER29NO10.261
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73354
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00187
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73355
ER29NO10.262
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00188
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
ER29NO10.263
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73356
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00189
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73357
ER29NO10.264
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00190
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
ER29NO10.265
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73358
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00191
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73359
ER29NO10.266
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00192
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
ER29NO10.267
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73360
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00193
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73361
ER29NO10.268
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00194
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
ER29NO10.269
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73362
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00195
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73363
ER29NO10.270
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00196
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
ER29NO10.271
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73364
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00197
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73365
ER29NO10.272
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00198
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
ER29NO10.273
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73366
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00199
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73367
ER29NO10.274
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00200
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
ER29NO10.275
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73368
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00201
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73369
ER29NO10.276
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00202
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
ER29NO10.277
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73370
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00203
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73371
ER29NO10.278
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00204
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
ER29NO10.279
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73372
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00205
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73373
ER29NO10.280
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00206
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
ER29NO10.281
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73374
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00207
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73375
ER29NO10.282
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00208
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
ER29NO10.283
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73376
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
3. Establishment of Interim Final
Malpractice RVUs for CY 2011
According to our final policy as
discussed in section II.B.2. of this CY
2011 final rule with comment period,
we have assigned malpractice RVUs for
CY 2011 new and revised codes by a
crosswalk to a similar source code. We
have reviewed the malpractice source
code AMA RUC recommendations for
224 CY 2011 new and revised codes and
we are accepting them all for CY 2011.
According to our policy, we have
adjusted the malpractice RVUs of the
CY 2011 new/revised codes for
differences in work RVUs (or, if greater,
the clinical labor portion of the fully
implemented PE RVUs) between the
source code and the new/revised code
to reflect the specific risk-of-service for
the new/revised code. The source code
crosswalks for the CY 2011 new/revised
codes are subject to public comment on
this CY 2011 final rule with comment
period, as well as the CY 2011
malpractice RVUs of the new/revised
codes that are listed in Addendum C to
this final rule with comment period.
Table 8 lists the CY 2011 new/revised
codes and their respective source codes
for determining the interim final CY
2011 malpractice RVUs. We are also
posting the crosswalk on the CMS Web
site under the downloads for the CY
2011 PFS final rule with comment
period at: https://www.cms.gov/
PhysicianFeeSched/PFSFRN/
list.asp#TopOfPage.
VI. Provisions of the Affordable Care
Act
The following section addresses
certain provisions of the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act
(Pub. L. 111–148), enacted on March 23,
2010, as amended by the Health Care
and Education Reconciliation Act of
2010 (Pub. L. 111–152) enacted on
March 30, 2010 (collectively known as
the Affordable Care Act (ACA)).
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
A. Section 3002: Improvements to the
Physician Quality Reporting System
Section 3002 of the ACA makes a
number of changes to the Physician
Quality Reporting System (previously
referred to as the Physician Quality
Reporting Initiative, or PQRI), including
authorizing incentive payments through
2014, and requiring a payment
adjustment beginning in 2015, for
eligible professionals who do not
satisfactorily submit quality data. For a
more detailed discussion of the
provisions of section 3002 of the ACA,
please refer to section VII.F.1. of this
final rule with comment period.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
B. Section 3003: Improvements to the
Physician Feedback Program and
Section 3007: Value-Based Payment
Modifier Under the Physician Fee
Schedule
1. Background
As required under section 1848 (n) of
the Act, as added by section 131(c) of
MIPPA, we established and
implemented by January 1, 2009, the
Physician Resource Use Measurement &
Reporting (RUR) Program (now referred
to as the Physician Feedback Program)
for purposes of providing confidential
reports to physicians that measure the
resources involved in furnishing care to
Medicare beneficiaries. Section 1848(n)
of the Act also authorizes us to include
information on the quality of care
furnished to Medicare beneficiaries by a
physician or group of physicians.
We are continuing a phased
implementation of the Physician
Feedback Program. Phase I was
discussed in the CY 2010 proposed and
final rules (74 FR 33589, and 74 FR
61844, respectively), and has been
completed. Phase I consisted of several
activities including extensive data
analysis to inform decisions about
topics such as measures, attribution,
and risk adjustment and formative
testing of report design with practicing
physicians. We concluded Phase I by
sending to individual practicing
physicians in 12 geographic areas 4
several hundred reports that contained
per capita and episode-based cost
information.
Phase I of the Physician Feedback
Program focused on providing
confidential feedback on resource use
measures. Section 1848 (n)(1)(A)(iii) of
the Act states that the Secretary may
also include information on the quality
of care furnished to Medicare
beneficiaries by physicians (or groups of
physicians) in the feedback reports. We
believe that providing physicians with
feedback on both quality and cost is
consistent with the direction of other
CMS value-based purchasing (VBP)
initiatives. As a result, we decided to
include quality measures in Phase II of
the Physician Feedback Program and, in
particular, we considered measures
used in the Physician Quality Reporting
System (previously referred to as the
Physician Quality Reporting Initiative
(PQRI)) and claims-based measures such
as the measures used in the Generating
Medicare Physician Quality
4 The 12 geographic areas are: Boston, MA,
Syracuse, NY, Northern New Jersey, Greenville, SC,
Miami, FL, Little Rock, AR, Indianapolis, IN,
Cleveland, OH, Lansing, MI, Phoenix, AZ, Seattle,
WA, and Orange County, CA.
PO 00000
Frm 00209
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73377
Performance Measurement Results
(GEM) project (74 FR 61846).
Section 1848 (n)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act
also states that the Secretary may
provide reports at the physician group
level. Accordingly, as part of Phase II of
the Physician Feedback Program, we
will also include reporting to group
practices, defined as more than one
physician practicing medicine together
(74 FR 61846). In addition, we noted
that the definition applies to the
following types of physician groups: (1)
Formally established single or multispecialty group practices; (2) physicians
practicing in defined geographic
regions; and (3) physicians practicing
within facilities or larger systems of care
(74 FR 61846). As we continue with
Phase II, we plan to report to both
physician group practices and their
affiliated practitioners, recognizing that
many physicians practice in
arrangements other than solo practices.
We believe that using both group and
individual level reporting will also
allow us to gain experience with the
sample size issues that arise when
individual physicians have too few
Medicare beneficiaries with specific
conditions to generate reliable
information. (See the CY 2010 final rule
with comment period (74 FR 61844) for
a detailed discussion of plans for
Phase II.)
2. Effect of the ACA of 2010 on the
Program
The ACA contains two provisions
relevant to the Physician Feedback
Program. Section 3003 of the ACA
continues the confidential feedback
program and requires the Secretary,
beginning in 2012, to provide reports
that compare patterns of resource use of
individual physicians to other
physicians. In addition, section 3007 of
the ACA requires the Secretary to apply
a separate, budget-neutral payment
modifier to the Fee-For-Service PFS
payment formula. The value-based
payment modifier, which will be phased
in beginning January 1, 2015 through
January 1, 2017, will provide for
differential payment under the fee
schedule to a physician or groups of
physicians, and later, possibly to other
eligible professionals, based upon the
relative quality and cost of care of their
Medicare beneficiaries. Accordingly,
our goal is to have Medicare physicians
receive a confidential feedback report
prior to implementation of the valuebased payment modifier. We view these
two provisions as complementary, as we
expect the work done for the Physician
Feedback Program under section 3003 of
the ACA will inform our
implementation of the value-based
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73378
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
payment modifier under section 3007 of
the ACA. The approach used for
performance assessment in the
confidential feedback reports will serve
as the foundation for implementing the
value-based payment modifier.
Specifically, throughout future phases
of reports under the Physician Feedback
Program, we will continue to enhance
our measures and methods and improve
the content of the reports based on both
our research and the feedback of
stakeholders before the value-based
payment modifier begins to affect
physician payments in 2015.
We plan to engage in a large-scale
effort to garner widespread stakeholder
involvement with regard to how we
continue to build and expand the
confidential feedback program and
transition to implementation of the
value-based payment modifier. We
recognize that such a payment modifier
may have an impact on the delivery of
care to Medicare beneficiaries. Reports
that will be produced in the future
based on changes as a result of section
3003 of the ACA will contain both cost
and quality data, and work done to
improve these reports with regard to fair
and actionable measures in each of
these domains will aid our decision
making in how to apply the value-based
payment modifier. We intend to seek
stakeholder input on various aspects of
program design, including cost and
quality measures, methodologies for
compositing measures, and feedback
report content and delivery. Such
feedback may be gathered through
rulemaking, open door forums, or other
mechanisms. Below we summarize the
public comments received on the
changes we proposed to make to Phase
II of the Physician Feedback Program.
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
3. Summary of Comments and Phase II
Proposed Changes
a. Episode Groupers
We intend that reports in Phase II of
the Physician Feedback Program will be
distributed in the fall of 2010. However,
we proposed several changes to the
program parameters for Phase II that
were finalized in prior rules (75 FR
40114). First, we proposed to
discontinue our use of commerciallyavailable proprietary episode grouping
software given limitations we noted in
proprietary episode grouping software
we used in previous phases of the
program. In addition, we noted that
section 3003 of the ACA requires that
the Secretary develop a Medicarespecific episode grouper by January 1,
2012, and make the details of the
episode grouper available to the public.
It is our intent that the Medicare-
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
specific episode grouper will address
the limitations we found in the
proprietary software.
We recognize that, because of its
disease/condition-specific focus,
episode-based cost information can be
more meaningful and actionable for
physicians than per capita information.
We plan to provide such information in
feedback reports after public grouper
software is developed. Prior to that, we
may consider other potential interim
options for episode grouping to provide
such information. As we indicated, we
believe that our use of proprietary
episode grouping software in the
previous phases of the program had
certain limitations (75 FR 40114). These
software products were not intended for
use with Medicare claims data, and we
discovered several problems with the
data outputs. Specifically, the groupers
do not work well to create episodes for
beneficiaries with multiple chronic
conditions, which is a significant
portion of Medicare beneficiaries.
For example, when a beneficiary with
a chronic disease is hospitalized for an
acute condition, that beneficiary most
likely also receives treatments unrelated
to the condition for which he or she is
hospitalized, but related to the chronic
disease. The groupers, which are
proprietary and often referred to as
‘‘black boxes,’’ do not enable users to
understand the coding to determine
how to accommodate these issues.
Therefore, we had to make several
decisions about how to pre-process the
claims data so that the groupers could
recognize and attempt to deal with these
issues in the clinical grouping logic.
After report production in Phase I, we
discovered several problems with the
pre-processing, which resulted in
inaccurate episode cost information
being disseminated.
Until a Medicare-specific episode
grouping software is developed, we plan
to produce reports for Phase II that
contain annualized per capita cost
information. More specifically, instead
of episode-specific cost information, we
plan to provide all patient per capita
cost information, as well as per capita
cost information for those beneficiaries
with five common chronic diseases: (1)
Diabetes; (2) congestive heart failure; (3)
coronary artery disease; (4) chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease; and (5)
prostate cancer. This information will
not be limited to the cost of treating the
disease itself, but will provide total Part
A/B per capita cost information, as well
as service category breakdowns, for the
care received by the subset of attributed
beneficiaries with that disease.
Comment: Many commenters were
supportive of CMS’ decision to
PO 00000
Frm 00210
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
discontinue using the proprietary
episode grouper software in Phase II and
instead to develop a Medicare-specific
grouper available to the public. Several
of these commenters discussed the
specific limitations of proprietary
groupers and also the importance of
developing and utilizing a Medicarespecific episode grouper available to the
public. Many commenters urged CMS to
include extensive testing and
stakeholder input while developing the
Medicare-specific grouper. These
commenters asserted that it was
important that the process to develop a
Medicare-specific grouper be available
to the public, as well as the
methodology such a grouper will
employ, remain transparent, and open
for public review and recommendation.
A few commenters expressed concern
about CMS’ ability to create a fair and
accurate Medicare-specific episode
grouper in the timeline allotted for its
implementation. One commenter
specifically requested that CMS, to the
extent possible, express concern about
the timeline enacted by Congress.
Another commenter opposed dropping
the episode grouper in Phase II and
requested that CMS use this time to test
and explore different episode grouping
methodologies.
Response: We appreciate these
comments in support of our proposal to
discontinue our use of commerciallyavailable proprietary episode grouping
software due to concerns over their
suitability for use with Medicare claims
and the pending development of a
Medicare-specific episode grouper. Our
research has documented that the
currently available episode groupers, as
they are now configured, present
significant challenges to their use with
our highly complex patient population.
Therefore, we believe it is appropriate to
discontinue use of the commercially
available episode groupers for the Phase
II reports and until a Medicare-specific
episode grouper is available. We
acknowledge the suggestion, however,
that CMS test and explore different
episode grouping methodologies. We are
bound by statute to make the details of
the developed Medicare-specific
episode grouper available to the public
and intend to do so. We also intend to
involve the stakeholder community and
to receive their input during the testing
stage. We acknowledge that there are
many challenges involved in deciding
on the methodologies to utilize in
developing the episode grouper. We also
acknowledge that the statutorily
required timeframe for development of
the grouper is one of those challenges.
We believe that the episode grouper is
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
a useful element in appropriately
providing effective and actionable cost
measures for physician feedback. We
intend to research and test many
different methodologies in order to
create a fair and appropriate episode
grouper for the Medicare population
and will incorporate episode-based cost
measures into the physician feedback
reports as early as possible.
After considering all of the public
comments received regarding this issue
and for the reasons we explained above,
we are finalizing our proposal to
discontinue use of the commerciallyavailable proprietary episode grouping
software for Phase II reports.
b. Quality Measures
We proposed to exclude data from the
Physician Quality Reporting System in
the Physician Feedback Program reports
even though commenters have been
generally supportive of including
Physician Quality Reporting System
measures in the reports (75 FR 40114).
The first year of the Physician Quality
Reporting System was 2007,
participation was still quite low, and the
first round of Physician Quality
Reporting feedback reports contained
errors that necessitated correction. To
date, work by CMS’ Physician Feedback
Program support contractor has been
based upon claims data from 2007.
Because of the low number of
physicians reporting under the
Physician Quality Reporting System in
2007, and because providers have the
flexibility to choose which measures to
report under the Physician Quality
Reporting System, we believe the
resulting small numbers of physicians
reporting an individual measure would
greatly limit meaningful peer
comparisons, and thus the number of
providers who would receive a feedback
report. Therefore for Phase II, we
proposed to use the claims-based
measures developed by CMS in the
GEM project (75 FR 40115).5 This is a
core set of 12 process quality measures
developed by HEDIS that can be
calculated using only administrative
claims data. Several chronic conditions
that are prevalent in the Medicare
population are captured by this set of
measures. However, in future phases of
the program, we intend to explore the
possibility of linking the Physician
Feedback Program to the Electronic
Health Record (EHR) incentive program
for meaningful use of EHR technology
(as added by the Health Information
Technology for Economic and Clinical
Health Act (Title IV of Division B of the
Recovery Act, together with Title XIII of
5 https://www.cms.gov/GEM.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
Division A of the Recovery Act)
(HITECH)), and the group practice
reporting option (GPRO) in the
Physician Quality Reporting System.
Both of these programs offer measures
and measure sets, as well as methods of
reporting data which would be
conducive to meaningful peer
comparisons among physicians.
Comment: Several commenters agreed
with our proposal to not use Physician
Quality Reporting System measures
during Phase II. These commenters
argued that the Physician Quality
Reporting System measures are
voluntarily reported, some reports have
contained errors, and therefore, these
data are inadequate for assessing quality
for many providers. Several commenters
voiced concerns and/or disagreement
with using GEM measures as an
alternative to the Physician Quality
Reporting System measures. These
commenters claimed that the GEM
measures are too focused on primary
care and prevention, are limited in
scope (for example, do not contain any
measures for prostate cancer, and breast
and colorectal cancer measures are only
related to screening), and have few, if
any, measures pertaining to some
specialties. Some commenters
advocated for the future use of
Physician Quality Reporting System
measures claiming that more eligible
professionals are participating in the
program now. Several commenters
agreed with CMS’ decision to explore
linking the Physician Feedback Program
with the EHR incentive program.
Response: We appreciate these
comments and we understand the
commenters’ concern that the 12 core
GEM measures may not fully measure
the broad scope of care delivered to
Medicare beneficiaries. However, the
GEM measures serve as an initial core
measure set, upon which a larger set can
be built for purposes of including in
future reports. We also believe that the
GEM measures will yield sufficient
information to allow peer group
comparisons. In contrast, the Physician
Quality Reporting System data available
to us for the Phase II reports were very
limited and would not provide
sufficient data for the minimum case
size and number of peers needed to
report data for many physicians. We
plan to take into account the limitations
commenters raised as we explore our
options for choosing and developing
measures for subsequent phases of the
Physician Feedback Program and the
development of the value-based
payment modifier. As part of this
process, we fully intend to explore the
possibility of linking this program to the
EHR incentive program for meaningful
PO 00000
Frm 00211
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73379
use of electronic health records, and the
GPRO option in the Physician Quality
Reporting System. We recognize the
need to develop a comprehensive
measure set that will fairly measure
both quality and resource use. We
intend to work with the stakeholder
community to create a fair, reasonable,
and actionable set of measures that we
expect to publish not later than January
1, 2012 for future use in determining the
value-based payment modifier.
After considering all of the comments
we received and for the reasons
discussed above, we are finalizing our
proposal to not include Physician
Quality Reporting System data in the
Phase II reports.
c. Report Distribution
We proposed to distribute reports
electronically in Phase II, by leveraging
the infrastructure used to distribute
Physician Quality Reporting System
feedback reports (75 FR 40155). We
believe this infrastructure will enable
groups to utilize an electronic portal to
download their Phase II reports.
Individual practitioners will be able to
contact their MACs/fiscal intermediaries
to receive an e-mailed copy of their
reports. We have received feedback from
physicians that the reports distributed
in Phase I were too long and
cumbersome to manage in hard copy.
We proposed consolidating the report
and disseminating it electronically for
easier navigation. Below we summarize
our responses to public comments we
received regarding this proposal.
Comment: Most commenters generally
expressed support for our proposal to
distribute reports electronically in Phase
II utilizing the existing infrastructure
that is used to distribute Physician
Quality Reporting System feedback
reports. One commenter in particular,
noted that the Physician Quality
Reporting System portal was
cumbersome and that security issues
created access problems. Many
commenters stressed that the reports
need to be easy to navigate and need to
be easily understood.
Response: We agree that electronic
delivery is a desirable means of
distribution for these reports and are
continuing to evaluate and develop
methods to make future reports easily
accessible, user friendly and
informative. We appreciate all of the
feedback from commenters regarding
this proposal. While we acknowledge
that users have expressed difficulty in
using the Physician Quality Reporting
System portal, it was the best option for
electronic dissemination of the Phase II
reports. In the future we will consider
all of the potential options available to
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73380
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
us and will take these suggestions into
account when developing future means
of report distribution. After taking into
consideration the comments
summarized above, we are finalizing our
proposal to distribute Phase II reports
electronically utilizing the existing
infrastructure used to distribute
Physician Quality Reporting System
feedback reports. In the future, as we
disseminate increasing numbers of
reports, we will provide information
regarding how individuals and groups
can access their reports through subregulatory guidance and other means of
notification.
4. Implementation of Sections 3003 and
3007 of the ACA
Sections 3003 and 3007 of the ACA
contain several important
implementation dates. In addition to
developing an episode grouper by
January 1, 2012, we are required by the
same date to publish the cost and
quality measures we intend to use for
purposes of the value-based payment
modifier. The payment modifier will
become effective for certain physicians
and groups of physicians on January 1,
2015, with a phased implementation so
that all physicians paid under the PFS
will be subject to the value-based
payment modifier by January 1, 2017.
On or after January 1, 2017, we have the
authority to also apply the payment
modifier to other eligible professionals.
Through the rulemaking process in
2013, we will begin implementing the
program parameters for the value-based
payment modifier.
In anticipation of implementing
sections 3003 and 3007 of the ACA, we
intend to perform extensive data
analysis and research, and to seek
stakeholder input on issues related to
cost and quality measures so that we
can be prepared to publish, by January
1, 2012, measures we intend to use for
purposes of the value-based payment
modifier. We intend for the work done
in establishing cost and quality
measures for purposes of the payment
modifier to inform the continued
dissemination of confidential feedback
reports to both individual physicians
and physician groups. Specifically, the
measures chosen for purposes of the
value-based payment modifier will be
included in future phases of the
confidential feedback reports.
As noted previously, Phase I included
reports to several hundred physicians.
In Phase II, during Fall 2010, we
anticipate disseminating reports to
about 40 large physician groups and the
approximately 2,000 physicians
affiliated with those groups. We
anticipate future phases of the reports to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
include additional dissemination to
increasing numbers of practitioners and
groups such that virtually every
applicable Medicare practitioner
receives a report prior to
implementation of the value-based
payment modifier.
5. Summary of Comments Sought on
Specific Statistical Issues Related to the
ACA Sections 3003 and 3007
We recognize that there are many
important decisions to be made when
implementing a program that compares
physicians to their peers, especially
when such information can lead to
differential payment. Since the
inception of the Physician Feedback
program, all data have been price
standardized which includes accounting
for geographic adjustments. We have
identified important statistical issues in
previous rules, and as we have done in
previous rules, we sought input on
several of these topics as they relate to
future phases of reports. These include,
but are not limited to: risk adjustment;
attribution; benchmarking; peer groups;
minimum case sizes; cost and quality
measures; and compositing methods.
Specific parameters of the Physician
Feedback Program are based on the most
current information we have available to
us. These parameters will continue to
evolve and we will continue to evaluate
them as the state of the art in these areas
continues to improve. Therefore, in the
proposed rule, we solicited public
comment on the following statistical
and methodological issues (75 FR
40115).
a. Risk Adjustment
The cost data used in Phase I were
risk adjusted. For the per capita costs,
we used CMS’ Hierarchical Condition
Categories (HCC) model developed for
risk adjustment in Medicare Advantage
plans. This model takes into account
beneficiary characteristics such as age,
sex, and Medicaid status, and then
predicts costs for beneficiaries based on
their unique mix of health conditions.
Several other socioeconomic factors,
such as the median income per capita in
the county where the physician
practices, were used. For the episodebased costs, we used the risk adjustment
method built into the proprietary
grouper software. Regression analyses
indicated that these additional
socioeconomic factors did little to
improve the fit of the model.
The cost data in Phase II are risk
adjusted using the HCC model, but
excluding the additional socioeconomic
factors such as the median income per
capita in the county where the
physician practices, that had been used
PO 00000
Frm 00212
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
in Phase I. And since there are no
episode-based costs in Phase II—only
annual per capita costs—the HCC model
will be the only method used. Other
methods of risk adjustment, such as the
CC (complications and co-morbidities)
and MCC (major complications and comorbidities) indicators implemented in
the 2008 MS–DRG system, were
considered but not employed.
The quality data included in Phase II
will not be risk adjusted because the
GEM measures are all clinical process
measures, measure specifications
provided detailed inclusion/exclusion
criteria, and it is generally accepted that
such measures need not be risk
adjusted. Beneficiaries should receive
the indicated preventive services (for
example, breast cancer screening)
regardless of their demographic
characteristics or presence or absence of
health conditions.
We solicited comment on the
appropriate method for risk adjusting
cost data, as well as our reasoning for
not risk adjusting clinical process
quality measures (75 FR 40115) and the
comments we received are summarized
below.
Comment: There were a number of
comments regarding the need to risk
adjust for socioeconomic and cultural
differences (including English
proficiency, literacy, poverty, and
family structure) and multiple comorbidities in order to avoid creating a
disincentive for physicians who treat
disadvantaged or complex patient
populations. If socioeconomic factors
are not added to the HCC model,
commenters suggested using an
alternative method to account for these
factors such as a stratified analysis and
comparison among similar providers
and/or similar patient groups. Similarly,
some commenters suggested that
patients with substance abuse and
mental health co-morbidities should be
stratified into a distinct cohort. Other
commenters suggested that exclusions
be allowed for patient non-adherence or
for cases of terminal illness. While there
was general agreement that process
measures do not require risk
adjustment, several of the commenters
pointed out that socioeconomic factors
can also impact process and claimsbased measures and risk adjustment of
these measures should be considered on
a measure by measure basis.
Commenters asserted that outcome
measures should be risk adjusted and
some suggested that CMS use publically
available risk models developed by
specialty societies. Some commenters
suggested that CMS provide evidence of
the utility and reliability of using HCC
to risk adjust per capita measures.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Several commenters suggested that CMS
test multiple methodologies for risk
adjustment and perform appropriate
statistical analyses to determine
variability among the different
methodologies. Commenters
emphasized the need to implement a
methodology that would be transparent
to the public and all stakeholders.
Response: We thank the commenters
for their thoughtful input. In Phase II
reports, we will employ the same
method of risk adjustment for per capita
cost measures as we use in our Medicare
Advantage (MA) program, that is, the
hierarchal condition category (HCC)
model. We will continue to seek
stakeholder input as we consider these
comments and ways to improve our risk
adjustment methodology.
b. Attribution
Deciding which physician(s) is/are
responsible for the care of which
beneficiaries is an important aspect of
measurement. We must strike a balance
between only attributing cost
information to physicians for the
services they personally delivered, and
attributing costs to physicians based on
a more encompassing view of the
services provided to each beneficiary so
as to encourage better care coordination
and accountability for patient outcomes.
There are several methods that are
generally used for attributing
beneficiaries’ costs to physicians for the
purposes of measuring and comparing
performance. In Phase I, we used two
different attribution methodologies. Half
of the reports used the multipleproportional attribution, in which a
beneficiary’s costs were summed, and
then divided among the physicians who
treated that beneficiary in the same
proportion as their share of evaluation
and management (E&M) services
provided. The other half of the reports
used the plurality-minimum method, in
which a beneficiary’s entire cost (either
for the episode or for the year) was
attributed to the physician who
performed the plurality of the E&M
services, subject to a minimum
percentage (in that case, 10 percent).
In Phase II reports, we plan to use the
plurality-minimum method with a
minimum percentage threshold of E&M
services of 20 percent for individual
physicians and a minimum percentage
threshold of E&M services of 30 percent
of the E&M services for physician group
level reports (75 FR 40116). These
minimum threshold determinations
were based on our analysis of the claims
data. We recognize that other attribution
methods exist, which may be either
more or less appropriate given the
aspect of care one is measuring. For
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
example, it may be desirable to attribute
the entire cost of a surgical episode to
the performing surgeon. Another
method for attributing costs is referred
to as multiple-even, in which the entire
beneficiary’s cost is attributed to
multiple physicians who treated the
beneficiary.
We sought comment on the topic of
attribution methodologies, including
both of those we have already used in
the program, as well as others. The
comments we received are summarized
below.
Comment: Many commenters voiced
concern about the plurality minimum
attribution method that CMS has
planned to use in its Phase II feedback
reports. A number of commenters asked
that we ensure that the plurality
minimum method does not penalize
primary care doctors by holding them
accountable for all the services
beneficiaries receive, since they only
deliver a subset of all of the care a
beneficiary receives. Other commenters
were concerned that if there were too
many visits to a specialist, the specialist
might get penalized. Many commenters
were opposed to the plurality minimum
model, not wanting to be held
accountable for care they do not
influence. Others expressed concern
that costs could be attributed incorrectly
and also that unintended changes in
referral patterns might result, as
physicians might be influenced by the
cost of care without regard to quality.
One commenter requested that CMS
consider attribution options built on
threshold concepts or specific
agreement between a physician/medical
group and patient on responsibility for
management of a specific condition
with the goal of focusing measurement
and attribution assignment on those
patients who are truly under the care of
the physician or group for the condition.
Another commenter asked CMS to
ensure that the same patient is
attributed for resource use and quality,
and additionally to clarify if patients
will be attributed to primary care and
specialists. Generally, specialty
physician associations supported the
multiple-proportional attribution
method, pointing out that there is
shared accountability in delivering
preventive and many other services.
One commenter believed that the
multiple-even method should be used,
and in the case of surgical episodes, the
entire cost should be attributed to the
performing surgeon.
Other commenters believed that the
plurality minimum method was
acceptable, but strongly urged CMS to
continually analyze whether this
methodology results in fair and accurate
PO 00000
Frm 00213
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73381
reports under different clinical
scenarios, especially those where
multiple co-morbidities are present. In
addition, these commenters urged CMS
to statistically examine the impact of
changing the minimum thresholds.
Several commenters recommended that
CMS test multiple attribution models
and evaluate the results. Another
commenter recommended extensive
chart reviews in order to ensure that the
claims data supports the attribution
model used. Several commenters
pointed out that the choice of
attribution method will not influence
patient behavior and suggested
incorporating patient accountability,
including compliance. There were
several comments about hospital costs
being attributed to physicians that
suggested alignment with other
programs such as Hospital Value-Based
Purchasing. One commenter suggested
using multiple models and not a single
model of attribution. One commenter
noted that the problem of small
numbers may make it difficult to fairly
assess the costs at the individual level.
Overall, commenters pointed out that
the method(s) used should be accurate,
transparent, and not disadvantage small
or rural practices.
Response: We appreciate the input
from commenters. We will continue to
consider and evaluate how to apply
attribution methods to physician
feedback reports and seek stakeholder
input. In Phase II reports, we plan to use
the plurality-minimum method with a
minimum percentage threshold of E&M
services of 20 percent for individual
physicians and a minimum percentage
threshold of E&M services of 30 percent
of the E&M services for physician group
level reports.
c. Benchmarking and Peer Groups
Determining how to most relevantly
compare physicians to a standard or to
their peers is also an important policy
aspect of the program. CMS’ research
conducted in Phase I of the program
indicated that physicians prefer to be
compared only to those physicians most
like them (that is, the narrowest peer
group). We recognize the importance of
fair comparison, but are also faced with
the challenge that very narrow peer
groups, especially among specialist and
subspecialists are most often not large
enough to make statistically significant
comparisons.
The individual-level reports in both
phases of the program have contained,
or will contain, two peer group
comparisons: (1) Physicians in the same
specialty in the same geographic area;
and (2) physicians in the same specialty
across all 12 geographic areas. In each
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73382
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
of these peer groups, a physician is
shown where he or she falls on a
distribution that specifically identified
the 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles.
These benchmarks were finalized on an
interim basis in the CY 2010 proposed
rule (74 FR 33589).
In determining differences among
providers for episode-based measures in
Phase I, we used a minimum frequency
test. For per capita measures in Phase I,
a physician had to have a case size of
20 or more beneficiaries to be measured
and compared. There was no minimum
peer group size requirement.
The original MIPPA mandate requires
us to make comparisons among
physicians on cost, and gives the
Secretary the authority to include
comparisons on quality. The use of
quality measures in the program was
finalized in the CY 2010 final rule (74
FR 61846). In Phase II, comparisons
with appropriate peer groups will be
made for both measures of cost and
quality. Phase II reports will be
provided only to those physicians that
have 30 or more patients for each of the
cost measures. For the quality measures,
we plan to use the measure
specifications in the GEM project to
define minimum case sizes, which are at
least 11 beneficiaries. We also plan to
impose a minimum peer group size of
30 in Phase II for each of the cost and
quality measures. A minimum sample
size of 30 is generally accepted in the
research community as the minimum
sample size to represent a group and
make comparisons.
We solicited comment on the most
appropriate and relevant peer groups for
comparison, including the appropriate
minimum case sizes and minimum peer
group sizes. We were also interested in
suggested methodologies that could be
applied to small case sizes. The
comments we received are summarized
below.
Comment: Several commenters
recommended that CMS establish
separate benchmark measures for
teaching medical facilities. These
commenters argued that the proposed
methodology should take into account
the multiple missions of academic
clinical facilities because their cases are
often more complex. Other commenters
recommended that CMS establish
benchmarks that compared physicians
to other physicians with similar
practices and/or who perform similar
procedures and additionally take into
account sub-specialties and geography
as peer groups will vary. These
commenters suggested that CMS work
with specialty groups and communities
to develop the best comparisons. Other
commenters noted that CMS needs to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
account for issues such as the difference
between a practicing surgeon and a
surgeon who does little surgery but acts
more as a manager of care. These
commenters asserted that this type of
differentiation can be identified through
review of claims history and data
accessible through specialty
organizations. Several commenters
recommended that hospitalists and
hospital groups be benchmarked against
other hospital-based physicians or
groups, preferably in similar practice
settings, for example, emergency
departments. A number of commenters
suggested that CMS use metrics such as
measures of statistical precision,
multiple metrics including mean,
median, percentiles in defining
parameters for peer groups rather than
use arbitrary numbers for minimum
sample size. One commenter
recommended that a power analysis be
conducted to identify an appropriate
sample size to be used for
benchmarking.
Response: We appreciate the feedback
we received from commenters and will
take these into consideration for the
future. While we will continue to
explore these issues, in Phase II reports,
we will use the peer group and
minimum case size of 30 as outlined
above and in the proposed rule.
d. Cost and Quality Measures and
Compositing Methods
As mentioned above, and in previous
rules, section 1848(n)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act
gives the Secretary the authority to
include both cost and quality
information in the feedback reports. In
Phase I, we chose to use only cost
information, and used both per capita
and episode cost measurements. As
mentioned above, we previously
finalized the use of quality measures in
Phase II (74 FR 61846), but finalized our
proposal to discontinue our use of
episode cost measurements.
Accordingly, we have yet to include any
composite measures of cost or quality in
the feedback reports.
Section 3007 of the ACA requires us
to establish a value-based payment
modifier to pay physicians differentially
based both on their quality of care and
their costs of care using composites of
both quality and cost measures.
Accordingly, we will need to devise a
methodology in the future for
compositing cost measures and quality
measures, including considering, among
other things, possible methodologies to
develop the value-based payment
modifier. In the future, episode-based
cost measures developed using the
Medicare-specific episode grouper
software also may be considered in
PO 00000
Frm 00214
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
developing a composite of cost
measures. Other domains of measures
that may be considered include patientlevel utilization statistics (for example,
emergency department visits per 1,000
patients) and structural measures such
as whether a provider has adopted an
electronic health record. We recognized
that measure composites are
methodologically and operationally
complex and, therefore, we sought early
comments on this topic (75 FR 40116).
The comments we received are
summarized below.
Comment: Many commenters stressed
the importance of measuring both
quality and cost of care to ensure useful
and meaningful comparisons of
physician work. Several commenters
asserted that focusing on cost measures
alone was insufficient and urged CMS to
include quality measures in the
comparison to resource utilization
feedback reports. These commenters
asserted that composite measures of cost
and quality provide the most
meaningful context to capture and
review resource utilization. Several
comments focused on the challenge of
measuring quality at the physician level
and the importance that the measures be
fair, meaningful and actionable, and
accurately applied. Incorporation of
standards and measures endorsed by the
National Quality Forum (NQF) was also
recommended as well as annual
measure updates of quality measures. A
number of commenters stressed the
importance of maintaining the focus on
quality and outcomes measurement.
Types of quality measures suggested for
inclusion in the reports included
structure, patient safety, clinical
processes of care, patient experience,
care coordination and clinical
outcomes, weighted toward clinical
outcomes, care coordination, and
patient experience. Several commenters
remarked on the limitation of claimsbased measures for quality and one
recommended that outcomes measures
be based on clinical rather than
administrative data. One commenter
stated that ICD–10 will enhance
evaluation of physician performance
and suggested evaluation of quality be
delayed until ICD–10 is implemented.
One commenter suggested a disease
focus on peripheral vascular disease.
Several commenters suggested that CMS
work with specialty societies on using
available registries of physician level
data as a source of physician quality
performance. Many commenters stated
that quality should be weighted higher
than cost, but agreed both need to be
reported. Many commenters encouraged
CMS to work expeditiously with
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
stakeholders to improve quality
measures for inclusion in the valuebased payment modifier. Some
commenters acknowledged CMS’
recognition that measure composites are
methodologically and operationally
complex and urged CMS to carefully
test and evaluate different composite
methodologies before implementing the
value-based payment modifier. These
commenters argued that the first step in
creating a composite measure is to
identify the individual components (for
example, individual measures) that
should go into the composite, and
therefore CMS should ensure that a
reliable Medicare-specific episode
grouper is in place as it would be
essential to this initial process. One
commenter suggested any composite
measures developed by CMS should be
reviewed by the multi-stakeholder
consultative partnership defined in
section 3014 of the ACA prior to any
adoption into the physician payment
program.
Some commenters mentioned that the
National Quality Forum and the
American Medical Association’s
Physician Consortium for Performance
Improvement (PCPI) had developed
guidance on creating composite
measures. These commenters argued
that CMS needed to engage in more
empirical work on creating composite
measures before implementing a
modifier for physician payment. These
commenters expressed concern that an
accurate value-based payment modifier
based on resource use would be ready
for 2015, given the substantial statistical
and methodological hurdles that must
be overcome in creating cost and quality
composites and a single cost and quality
index. They concluded by saying that
CMS should continue to seek
stakeholder comment throughout the
composite measure development
process. One commenter urged CMS to
ensure that compliance with preventive
health service measurements be taken
into account when developing the
composite measures.
Response: As required under the
statute, we plan to identify the measures
of resource use and quality that will
comprise composites of cost and quality
for the physician feedback reports and
for the value-based payment modifier by
January 1, 2012. We thank the
commenters for their many thoughtful
suggestions and recommendations on
cost and quality measures and
compositing methods. As we stated
above, we solicited public comment to
inform potential future policies on these
issues, and the Physician Feedback
Program in general. We thank the public
for their thoughtful comments and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
appreciate the feedback received from
stakeholders. In addition, a number of
societies and organizations volunteered
support and also volunteered to share
research findings that they believe is
applicable to this program.
We fully expect to draw on the
expertise of stakeholders as we continue
to work on implementing the physician
feedback program and implementation
of the value-based payment modifier.
Moreover, we plan to engage in open
and continuing dialogue with
stakeholders on both the Physician
Feedback Program and value-based
payment modifier.
In addition to the comments we
solicited and received on specific
methodological issues related to
production of the feedback reports, we
also received a number of general
comments and suggestions regarding the
development of reports to ensure access,
utility, and relevance.
Comment: A number of commenters
suggested that the reports be:
Interactive, easy to understand, timely,
actionable, inclusive of sufficient detail,
inclusive of data on cost categories (for
example, imaging use, prescriptions,
hospitalizations, etc.) and impactful.
Some commenters requested the
capability to drill down on data,
especially if a physician is shown to be
a high cost outlier. One commenter
requested that the physicians have the
ability to review the reports and correct
any data that they believe is inaccurate.
Others reiterated that all methodologies
and algorithms should be in the public
domain along with clear plans for
evaluating the viability and impact of
the reports and reporting mechanisms.
We received more than one suggestion
for alignment with the HITECH payment
incentive program and other programs,
in order to alleviate reporting burden
and variation. Another commenter
supported the creation of group reports,
but suggested CMS explore alternative
ways to define and determine affiliation
with a medical practice group rather
than relying solely on tax identification
numbers (TINs). Many strongly
encouraged CMS to engage public
stakeholders intensely and specifically
mentioned the importance of working
with specialists, specialty societies,
clinical experts, treatment guideline
developers, and manufacturers on the
issues that specifically pertain to their
respective interests and expertise in
creating measures, composite measures,
and performance reporting. Finally, a
commenter requested that the reports
include graphical and numerical
illustrations of data.
In addition, we received a number of
comments on the value-based payment
PO 00000
Frm 00215
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73383
modifier although we did not solicit
specific comments or make proposals.
Our summary of these comments
follows:
Comment: A number of commenters
supported the idea of a value-based
payment modifier using the confidential
feedback reports as the foundation and
applauded CMS’ intentions for a
transparent process seeking stakeholder
input on the methodology through
rulemaking and other public forums.
However, other commenters expressed
caution in proceeding given the lack of
experience with the quality and
resource measures which are yet to be
published, and the evolutionary nature
of the methodology to develop quality
and resource scores that will comprise
the value-based payment modifier.
Several commenters recommended that
the value-based payment modifier
program be delayed until CMS could
demonstrate that it has in place reliable
and accurate methodologies for
implementation. Several of these
commenters urged CMS to thoroughly
test out multiple models and
methodologies and discuss advantages
and disadvantages with the multiple
stakeholders.
Response: We appreciate the above
input from stakeholders. We will
continue to seek further stakeholder
input and comment through future
rulemaking and other venues, such as
open door forums and listening
sessions, as we continue to implement
the Physician Feedback Program and
develop the specifications to implement
the value-based payment modifier.
C. Section 3102: Extension of the Work
Geographic Index Floor and Revisions
to the Practice Expense Geographic
Adjustment Under the Medicare
Physician Fee Schedule, and Protections
for Frontier States as Amended by
Section 10324
Section 1848(e)(1)(E) of the Act (as
amended by section 3102(a) of the ACA)
extended application of the 1.0 work
GPCI floor for services furnished
through December 31, 2010. In addition,
section 1848(e)(1) of the Act (as
amended by section 3102(b) of the ACA)
specified that for CY 2010 and CY 2011,
the employee wage and rent portions of
the PE GPCI must reflect only one-half
of the relative cost differences for each
locality compared to the national
average and includes a ‘‘hold harmless’’
provision for any PFS locality that
would receive a reduction to its PE GPCI
resulting from the limited recognition of
cost differences. Section 1848(e)(1) of
the Act (as amended by section 3102(b)
of the ACA) also required an analysis of
the current methods and data sources
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73384
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
used to determine the relative cost
differences in office rent and employee
wages compared to the national average
and the cost share weights assigned to
each PE GPCI component: employee
wages, office rent, and supplies. Finally,
section 1848(e)(1) of the Act (as
amended by section 3102(b) of the ACA)
required the Secretary to make
appropriate adjustments to the PE GPCI
by no later than January 1, 2012. In
addition, section 1848(e)(1) of the Act
(as amended by section 10324(c) of the
ACA) established a 1.0 PE GPCI floor for
services furnished in frontier states
effective January 1, 2011. The
provisions of the ACA related to the
GPCIs are discussed in detail in section
II.D. of this final rule with comment
period.
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
D. Section 3103: Extension of
Exceptions Process for Medicare
Therapy Caps
Section 1833(g)(5) of the Act (as
amended by section 3103 of the ACA)
extended the exceptions process for
spending limitations on therapy services
in certain outpatient settings through
December 31, 2010. Therapy caps are
discussed in detail in section III.A. of
this final rule with comment period.
E. Section 3104: Extension of Payment
for Technical Component of Certain
Physician Pathology Services
Section 542(c) of the Medicare,
Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits
Improvement and Protection Act of
2000 (BIPA) (Pub. L. 106–554), as
amended by section 732 of the Medicare
Prescription Drug, Improvement, and
Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) (Pub.
L. 108–173), section 104 of division B of
the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of
2006 (MIEA–TRHCA) (Pub. L. 109–432),
section 104 of the Medicare, Medicaid,
and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007
(MMSEA) (Pub. L. 110–173), and
section 136 of the Medicare
Improvements for Patients and
Providers Act of 2008 (MIPPA) (Pub. L.
110–275) was amended by section 3104
of the ACA to continue payment to
independent laboratories for the TC of
physician pathology services for fee-forservice Medicare beneficiaries who are
inpatients or outpatients of a covered
hospital through CY 2010. The technical
component (TC) of physician pathology
services refers to the preparation of the
slide involving tissue or cells that a
pathologist interprets. The professional
component (PC) of physician pathology
services refers to the pathologist’s
interpretation of the slide.
When the hospital pathologist
furnishes the PC service for a hospital
patient, the PC service is separately
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
billable by the pathologist. When an
independent laboratory’s pathologist
furnishes the PC service, the PC service
is usually billed with the TC service as
a combined service.
Historically, any independent
laboratory could bill the Medicare
contractor under the PFS for the TC of
physician pathology services for
hospital patients even though the
payment for the costs of furnishing the
pathology service (but not its
interpretation) was already included in
the bundled inpatient stay payment to
the hospital. In the CY 2000 PFS final
rule with comment period (64 FR 59408
through 59409), we stated that this
policy has contributed to the Medicare
program paying twice for the TC service:
(1) To the hospital, through the
inpatient prospective payment rate,
when the patient is an inpatient; and (2)
to the independent laboratory that bills
the Medicare contractor, instead of the
hospital, for the TC service. While the
policy also permits the independent
laboratory to bill for the TC of physician
pathology services for hospital
outpatients, in this case, there generally
would not be duplicate payment
because we would expect the hospital to
not also bill for the pathology service,
which would be paid separately to the
hospital only if the hospital were to
specifically bill for it. We further
indicated that we would implement a
policy to pay only the hospital for the
TC of physician pathology services
furnished to its inpatients.
Therefore, in the CY 2000 PFS final
rule with comment period, we revised
§ 415.130(c) to state that for physician
pathology services furnished on or after
January 1, 2001 by an independent
laboratory, payment is made only to the
hospital for the TC furnished to a
hospital inpatient. Ordinarily, the
provisions in the PFS final rule with
comment period are implemented in the
following year. However, the change to
§ 415.130 was delayed 1 year (until
January 1, 2001), at the request of the
industry, to allow independent
laboratories and hospitals sufficient
time to negotiate arrangements.
Full implementation of § 415.130 was
further delayed by section 542 of the
BIPA and section 732 of the MMA,
which directed us to continue payment
to independent laboratories for the TC
of physician pathology services for
hospital patients for a 2-year period
beginning on January 1, 2001 and for
CYs 2005 and 2006, respectively. In the
CY 2007 MPFS final rule with comment
period (71 FR 69624 and 69788), we
amended § 415.130 to provide that, for
services furnished after December 31,
2006, an independent laboratory may
PO 00000
Frm 00216
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
not bill the carrier for the TC of
physician pathology services furnished
to a hospital inpatient or outpatient.
However, section 104 of the MIEA–
TRHCA continued payment to
independent laboratories for the TC of
physician pathology services for
hospital patients through CY 2007, and
section 104 of the MMSEA further
extended such payment through the first
6 months of CY 2008.
Section 136 of the MIPPA extended
the payment through CY 2009. Most
recently, section 3104 of the ACA
amended the prior legislation to extend
the payment through CY 2010.
Consistent with this legislative
change, we proposed to revise
§ 415.130(d) to: (1) Amend the effective
date of our payment policy to reflect
that for services furnished after
December 31, 2010, an independent
laboratory may not bill the Medicare
contractor for the TC of physician
pathology services furnished to a
hospital inpatient or outpatient; and
(2) reformat this subsection into
paragraphs.
Comment: One commenter urged
CMS to implement the provision to
continue to pay independent
laboratories for the TC of physician
pathology services for fee-for-service
Medicare beneficiaries who are
inpatients or outpatients of a covered
hospital on a permanent basis which
would eliminate the potential for
complicated billing that occurs each
time the provision is set to expire and
is subsequently extended by.
Response: Payment for the costs of
furnishing the pathology service (but
not its interpretation) is already
included in the bundled inpatient stay
payment to the hospital. We continue to
believe that this payment provision
represents a duplicate payment for the
TC service: (1) To the hospital, through
the inpatient prospective payment rate,
when the patient is an inpatient; and (2)
to the independent laboratory that bills
the Medicare contractor, instead of the
hospital, for the TC service.
After consideration of the public
comment we received we are finalizing
the proposed policy to continue
payment to independent laboratories for
the TC of physician pathology services
for fee-for-service Medicare
beneficiaries who are inpatients or
outpatients of a covered hospital for CY
2010. Absent legislation that extends
this provision, for services furnished
after December 31, 2010, an
independent laboratory may not bill the
Medicare contractor for the TC of
physician pathology services for fee-forservice Medicare beneficiaries who are
inpatients or outpatients of a covered
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
hospital. Accordingly, we are finalizing
the proposed revisions to § 415.130(d) to
reflect this change.
F. Sections 3105 and 10311: Extension
of Ambulance Add-Ons
1. Amendment to Section 1834(l)(13) of
the Act
Section 146(a) of the MIPPA amended
section 1834(l)(13)(A) of the Act to
specify that, effective for ground
ambulance services furnished on or after
July 1, 2008 and before January 1, 2010,
the ambulance fee schedule amounts for
ground ambulance services shall be
increased as follows:
• For covered ground ambulance
transports which originate in a rural
area or in a rural census tract of a
metropolitan statistical area, the fee
schedule amounts shall be increased by
3 percent.
• For covered ground ambulance
transports which do not originate in a
rural area or in a rural census tract of
a metropolitan statistical area, the fee
schedule amounts shall be increased by
2 percent.
Sections 3105(a) and 10311(a) of the
ACA further amend section
1834(l)(13)(A) of the Act to extend the
payment add-ons described above for an
additional year, such that these add-ons
also apply to covered ground ambulance
transports furnished on or after January
1, 2010 and before January 1, 2011. We
stated in the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule
(75 FR 40117) that we are revising
§ 414.610(c)(1)(i) to conform the
regulations to this statutory
requirement. This statutory requirement
is self-implementing. A plain reading of
the statute requires only a ministerial
application of the mandated rate
increase, and does not require any
substantive exercise of discretion on the
part of the Secretary. For further
information regarding the extension of
these payment add-ons, please see
Transmittal 706 (Change Request 6972)
dated May 21, 2010.
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
2. Amendment to Section 146(b)(1) of
MIPPA
Section 146(b)(1) of the MIPPA
amended the designation of rural areas
for payment of air ambulance services.
The statute specified that any area that
was designated as a rural area for
purposes of making payments under the
ambulance fee schedule for air
ambulance services furnished on
December 31, 2006, shall continue to be
treated as a rural area for purposes of
making payments under the ambulance
fee schedule for air ambulance services
furnished during the period July 1, 2008
through December 31, 2009. Sections
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
3105(b) and 10311(b) of the ACA amend
section 146(b)(1) of MIPPA to extend
this provision for an additional year,
through December 31, 2010.
Accordingly, for areas that were
designated as rural on December 31,
2006, and were subsequently redesignated as urban, we have reestablished the ‘‘rural’’ indicator on the
ZIP Code file for air ambulance services,
effective January 1, 2010 through
December 31, 2010. We stated in the CY
2011 PFS proposed rule (75 FR 40118)
that we are revising § 414.610(h) to
conform the regulations to this statutory
requirement. This statutory requirement
is self-implementing. A plain reading of
the statute requires only a ministerial
application of a rural indicator, and
does not require any substantive
exercise of discretion on the part of the
Secretary. For further information
regarding the extension of this MIPPA
provision, please see Transmittal 706
(Change Request 6972) dated May 21,
2010.
3. Amendment to Section 1834(l)(12) of
the Act
Section 414 of the MMA added
paragraph (12) to section 1834(l) of the
Act, which specified that in the case of
ground ambulance services furnished on
or after July 1, 2004, and before January
1, 2010, for which transportation
originates in a qualified rural area (as
described in the statute), the Secretary
shall provide for a percent increase in
the base rate of the fee schedule for such
transports. The statute requires this
percent increase to be based on the
Secretary’s estimate of the average cost
per trip for such services (not taking
into account mileage) in the lowest
quartile of all rural county populations
as compared to the average cost per trip
for such services (not taking into
account mileage) in the highest quartile
of rural county populations. Using the
methodology specified in the July 1,
2004 interim final rule (69 FR 40288),
we determined that this percent
increase was equal to 22.6 percent. As
required by the MMA, this payment
increase was applied to ground
ambulance transports that originated in
a ‘‘qualified rural area;’’ that is, to
transports that originated in a rural area
included in those areas comprising the
lowest 25th percentile of all rural
populations arrayed by population
density. For this purpose, rural areas
included Goldsmith areas (a type of
rural census tract). Sections 3105(c) and
10311(c) of the ACA amend section
1834(l)(12)(A) of the Act to extend this
rural bonus for an additional year
through December 31, 2010. Therefore,
as directed by the ACA, we are
PO 00000
Frm 00217
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73385
continuing to apply the rural bonus
described above (in the same manner as
in previous years), to ground ambulance
services with dates of service on or after
January 1, 2010 and before January 1,
2011 where transportation originates in
a qualified rural area.
We stated in the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule (75 FR 40118) that we are
revising § 414.610(c)(5)(ii) to conform
the regulations to this statutory
requirement. This statutory requirement
is self-implementing. The statute
requires a 1-year extension of the rural
bonus (which was previously
established by the Secretary), and does
not require any substantive exercise of
discretion on the part of the Secretary.
For further information regarding the
extension of this rural bonus, please see
Transmittal 706 (Change Request 6972)
dated May 21, 2010.
A summary of the comments we
received and our responses are included
below.
Comment: Despite the extension of
the ambulance payment add-ons under
the ACA as discussed above, one
commenter stated that ‘‘it has become
increasingly difficult to continue to
operate with the reimbursement cuts
that went into effect January 1, 2010’’.
They expressed concern that Medicare
payment rates for ambulance services
are not keeping up with inflation in the
industry. They were also concerned that
this is the first time in nearly a decade
that the ambulance industry will be
experiencing negative growth.
Response: We are not sure what
reimbursement cuts the commenter is
referring to in 2010. As discussed above,
pursuant to sections 3105 and 10311 of
the ACA, we are required to extend
certain ambulance payment add-ons
through December 31, 2010. Thus, as
discussed above, we are revising our
regulations to conform the regulations to
these statutory requirements. To date,
Congress has not extended these
payment add-ons beyond December 31,
2010, and thus we are not authorized to
provide these add-ons beyond December
31, 2010.
Comment: One commenter stated that
CMS must provide instructions to its
contractors that direct them to reprocess
claims paid at the original 2010 rates.
Response: Several provisions of the
ACA require retroactive adjustments to
Medicare claims, including claims for
ambulance services, because these
provisions have effective dates prior to
the ACA’s enactment or shortly
thereafter. We are currently developing
the best course of action for addressing
past claims that were processed under
pre-ACA rules. The volume of claims
that must be adjusted is unprecedented
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73386
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
and a careful process must be deployed
to ensure that new claims coming into
the Medicare program are processed
timely and accurately, even as we
address making retroactive adjustments.
Once this process has been developed,
we will provide instructions to our
contractors regarding adjusting
ambulance claims that were paid under
the pre-ACA rules in order to apply the
payment add-ons required by the ACA.
In this final rule with comment
period, we are finalizing the revisions to
§ 414.610(c)(1)(i), (c)(5)(ii), and (h), as
discussed above and in the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule, in order to conform the
regulations to the requirements set forth
in sections 3105 and 10311 of the ACA.
We note that in § 414.610(c)(1), we have
made minor formatting revisions for
clarification purposes. In addition, in
§ 414.610(c)(1)(i), we have corrected a
typographical error that appeared in the
CY 2011 PFS proposed rule (75 FR
40258) by changing ‘‘December 21’’ to
‘‘December 31’’ to conform with the ACA
requirements. As we discuss above,
sections 3105 and 10311 of the ACA are
self-implementing and do not require
any substantive exercise of discretion by
the Secretary.
G. Section 3107: Extension of Physician
Fee Schedule Mental Health Add-On
Section 3107 of the ACA amended
section 138(a)(1) of the MIPPA to
continue the 5 percent increase in
Medicare payment for specified mental
health services through December 31,
2010. This payment increase was
originally authorized under section 138
of the MIPPA from July 1, 2008 until
December 31, 2009. Accordingly,
payment for the 24 psychiatry CPT
codes in Table 56, representing
‘‘specified services,’’ remains increased
by 5 percent through December 31,
2010.
TABLE 56—SPECIFIED MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES SUBJECT TO THE FIVE PERCENT INCREASE IN MEDICARE PAYMENT
THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2010
Office or Other Outpatient Facility
Insight Oriented, Behavior Modifying and/or Supportive Psychotherapy:
90804 (Individual psychotherapy, insight oriented, behavior modifying and/or supportive, in an office
to 30 minutes face-to-face with the patient;)
90805 (Individual psychotherapy, insight oriented, behavior modifying and/or supportive, in an office
to 30 minutes face-to-face with the patient; with medical evaluation and management services)
90806 (Individual psychotherapy, insight oriented, behavior modifying and/or supportive, in an office
to 50 minutes face-to-face with the patient;)
90807 (Individual psychotherapy, insight oriented, behavior modifying and/or supportive, in an office
to 50 minutes face-to-face with the patient; with medical evaluation and management services)
90808 (Individual psychotherapy, insight oriented, behavior modifying and/or supportive, in an office
to 80 minutes face-to-face with the patient;)
90809 (Individual psychotherapy, insight oriented, behavior modifying and/or supportive, in an office
to 80 minutes face-to-face with the patient; with medical evaluation and management services)
Interactive Psychotherapy:
90810 (Individual psychotherapy, interactive, using play equipment, physical
verbal communication, in an office or outpatient facility, approximately 20 to
90811 (Individual psychotherapy, interactive, using play equipment, physical
verbal communication, in an office or outpatient facility, approximately 20 to
tion and management services)
90812 (Individual psychotherapy, interactive, using play equipment, physical
verbal communication, in an office or outpatient facility, approximately 45 to
90813 (Individual psychotherapy, interactive, using play equipment, physical
verbal communication, in an office or outpatient facility, approximately 45 to
tion and management services)
90814 (Individual psychotherapy, interactive, using play equipment, physical
verbal communication, in an office or outpatient facility, approximately 75 to
90815 (Individual psychotherapy, interactive, using play equipment, physical
verbal communication, in an office or outpatient facility, approximately 75 to
tion and management services)
or outpatient facility, approximately 20
or outpatient facility, approximately 20
or outpatient facility, approximately 45
or outpatient facility, approximately 45
or outpatient facility, approximately 75
or outpatient facility, approximately 75
devices, language interpreter, or other mechanisms of non30 minutes face-to-face with the patient;)
devices, language interpreter, or other mechanisms of non30 minutes face-to-face with the patient; with medical evaluadevices, language interpreter, or other mechanisms of non50 minutes face-to-face with the patient;)
devices, language interpreter, or other mechanisms of non50 minutes face-to-face with the patient; with medical evaluadevices, language interpreter, or other mechanisms of non80 minutes face-to-face with the patient;)
devices, language interpreter, or other mechanisms of non80 minutes face-to-face with the patient; with medical evalua-
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Inpatient Hospital, Partial Hospital or Residential Care Facility
Insight Oriented, Behavior Modifying and/or Supportive Psychotherapy:
90816 (Individual psychotherapy, insight oriented, behavior modifying and/or supportive, in an inpatient hospital, partial hospital or residential care setting, approximately 20 to 30 minutes face-to-face with the patient;)
90817 (Individual psychotherapy, insight oriented, behavior modifying and/or supportive, in an inpatient hospital, partial hospital or residential care setting, approximately 20 to 30 minutes face-to-face with the patient; with medical evaluation and management services)
90818 (Individual psychotherapy, insight oriented, behavior modifying and/or supportive, in an inpatient hospital, partial hospital or residential care setting, approximately 45 to 50 minutes face-to-face with the patient;)
90819 (Individual psychotherapy, insight oriented, behavior modifying and/or supportive, in an inpatient hospital, partial hospital or residential care setting, approximately 45 to 50 minutes face-to-face with the patient; with medical evaluation and management services)
90821 (Individual psychotherapy, insight oriented, behavior modifying and/or supportive, in an inpatient hospital, partial hospital or residential care setting, approximately 75 to 80 minutes face-to-face with the patient;)
90822 (Individual psychotherapy, insight oriented, behavior modifying and/or supportive, in an inpatient hospital, partial hospital or residential care setting, approximately 75 to 80 minutes face-to-face with the patient; with medical evaluation and management services)
Interactive Psychotherapy:
90823 (Individual psychotherapy, interactive, using play equipment, physical devices, language interpreter, or other mechanisms of nonverbal communication, in an inpatient hospital, partial hospital or residential care setting, approximately 20 to 30 minutes face-to-face with
the patient;)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00218
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
73387
TABLE 56—SPECIFIED MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES SUBJECT TO THE FIVE PERCENT INCREASE IN MEDICARE PAYMENT
THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2010—Continued
90824 (Individual psychotherapy, interactive, using play equipment, physical devices, language interpreter, or other mechanisms of nonverbal communication, in an inpatient hospital, partial hospital or residential care setting, approximately 20 to 30 minutes face-to-face with
the patient; with medical evaluation and management services)
90826 (Individual psychotherapy, interactive, using play equipment, physical devices, language interpreter, or other mechanisms of nonverbal communication, in an inpatient hospital, partial hospital or residential care setting, approximately 45 to 50 minutes face-to-face with
the patient;)
90827 (Individual psychotherapy, interactive, using play equipment, physical devices, language interpreter, or other mechanisms of nonverbal communication, in an inpatient hospital, partial hospital or residential care setting, approximately 45 to 50 minutes face-to-face with
the patient; with medical evaluation and management services)
90828 (Individual psychotherapy, interactive, using play equipment, physical devices, language interpreter, or other mechanisms of nonverbal communication, in an inpatient hospital, partial hospital or residential care setting, approximately 75 to 80 minutes face-to-face with
the patient;)
90829 (Individual psychotherapy, interactive, using play equipment, physical devices, language interpreter, or other mechanisms of nonverbal communication, in an inpatient hospital, partial hospital or residential care setting, approximately 75 to 80 minutes face-to-face with
the patient; with medical evaluation and management services)
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Comment: One commenter supported
CMS’ proposal to continue the current
5 percent increase in Medicare payment
for specified mental health services
through December 31, 2010.
Response: We appreciate the support
of our efforts to implement this
mandated mental health add-on
provision that extends the expiration of
the 5 percent increase in payment for
specified outpatient mental health
services from January 1, 2010 to
December 31, 2010.
After consideration of the public
comment we received, we are finalizing
the extension of the 5 percent increase
in Medicare payment under the PFS
from January 1, 2010 to December 31,
2010.
H. Section 3108: Permitting Physician
Assistants To Order Post-Hospital
Extended Care Services
The ACA included a selfimplementing provision relating to
SNFs. Section 3108 of the ACA adds
physician assistants (PAs) to the list of
practitioners (that is, physicians, nurse
practitioners (NPs), and clinical nurse
specialists) that can perform the
required initial certification and
periodic recertification under section
1814(a)(2)(B) of the Act with respect to
the SNF level of care. Accordingly, we
proposed to make appropriate revisions
to include PAs in § 424.20(e)(2), in
which we refer to NPs, clinical nurse
specialists, and PAs collectively as
‘‘physician extenders.’’
We received no comments on this
proposal and, therefore, are finalizing
this provision as proposed without
further modification.
I. Section 3111: Payment for Bone
Density Tests
Section 1848(b) of the Act (as
amended by section 3111 of the ACA)
changed the payment calculation for
dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
services described by two specified
DXA CPT codes for CYs 2010 and 2011.
This provision required payment for
these services at 70 percent of the
product of the CY 2006 RVUs for these
DXA codes, the CY 2006 conversion
factor (CF), and the geographic
adjustment for the relevant payment
year.
Effective January 1, 2007, the CPT
codes for DXA services were revised.
The former DXA CPT codes 76075 (Dual
energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA),
bone density study, one or more sites;
axial skeleton (eg, hips, pelvis, spine));
76076 (Dual energy X-ray
absorptiometry (DXA), bone density
study, one or more sites; appendicular
skeleton (peripheral) (for example,
radius, wrist, heel)); and 76077 (Dual
energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA),
bone density study, one or more sites;
vertebral fracture assessment) were
deleted and replaced with new CPT
codes 77080, 77081, and 77082 that
have the same respective code
descriptors as the predecessor codes.
Section 1848(b) of the Act (as amended
by section 3111 of the ACA) specifies
that the revised payment applies to two
of the predecessor codes (CPT codes
76075 and 76077) and ‘‘any succeeding
codes,’’ which are, in this case, CPT
codes 77080 and 77082.
Section 1848(b) (as amended by
section 3111 of the ACA) revised the
payment for CPT codes 77080 and
77082 during CY 2010 and CY 2011. We
have provided payment in CY 2010
under the PFS for CPT codes 77080 and
77082 at the specified rates. (Additional
information regarding the CY 2010
payment rates for these services is
available in CR 6973, published May 10,
2010.)
Because the statute specifies a
payment amount for these services as
described previously, we proposed to
impute RVUs for CY 2011 that would
provide the specified payment amount
PO 00000
Frm 00219
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
for these services when multiplied by
the CY 2011 CF. Specifically, we
divided the payment amount based on
the statutory requirements by the CY
2011 CF for the proposed rule and
distributed the imputed total RVUs
across the work, PE, and malpractice
components proportionately to their CY
2006 distribution. Therefore, these
imputed RVUs for CPT codes 77080 and
77082 were displayed in Addendum B
to the CY 2011 proposed rule.
Comment: Many commenters
supported the ACA provision requiring
a specific payment amount for DXA
services. Several commenters requested
that CMS include in the final rule a
sample payment calculation for CPT
codes 77080 and 77082 to clarify the
calculation for these two codes and to
facilitate proper processing of claims by
Medicare contractors. In addition, one
commenter requested that CMS
recalculate any imputed RVUs for DXA
services based on the final conversion
factor reflected in the CY 2011 PFS final
rule with comment period.
Response: We appreciate the
comments we received on our proposal.
We note that any changes to the
proposed rule calculation that resulted
from changes between proposed rule
values and final rule values have been
incorporated in the final determination
of the RVUs for these codes upon which
PFS payment is based. That said, we are
updating our calculation for this final
rule with comment period to reflect the
final CY 2011 conversion factor
applicable under current law that is
discussed in section II.H.1.b. of this
final rule with comment period. A
sample payment calculation for CPT
code 77080 is included below.
Sample CY 2011 Calculation of
Medicare Payment Rates for CPT Code
77080 (CY 2006 CPT Code 76075)
As discussed above, section 1848(b) of
the Act (as amended by section 3111 of
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73388
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
the ACA) required us to provide
payment for CPT code 77080 at 70
percent of the product of the CY 2006
RVUs for the specified DXA code, the
CY 2006 CF, and the geographic
adjustment for the relevant payment
year in which the service is furnished.
The CY 2006 RVUs for CPT code
76075 (77080) can be found in Table 57
below.
TABLE 57—CY 2006 RVUS FOR CPT CODE 77080 (CY 2006 CPT CODE 76075)
2006
Physician work
RVUs
CY 2006 CPT Code
Mod
CY 2006 Short
descriptor
76075 .........................
76075 .........................
76075 .........................
26 ..
TC
.......
Dxa bone density, axial ................................
Dxa bone density, axial ................................
Dxa bone density, axial ................................
First, we multiplied the CY 2006
RVUs listed in Table 57 above by the CY
2006
Nonfacility
PE RVUs
0.30
0.00
0.30
2006
Facility
PE RVUs
0.10
3.10
3.20
2006
Malpractice
RVUs
0.10
NA
NA
0.01
0.17
0.18
2006 CF, which was $37.8975. These
results are shown in Table 58 below.
TABLE 58—CY 2006 RVUS FOR CPT CODE 77080 MULTIPLIED BY THE CY 2006 CF
Mod
76075 .....................................................
76075 .....................................................
76075 .....................................................
26
TC
..............................
Second, we took 70 percent of the
result to arrive at the CY 2011 national
payment amounts for each component
CY 2006
Nonfacility
PE RVUs*
2006 CF
CY 2006
Physician work
RVUs* 2006 CF
CY 2006 CPT Code
$11.37
NA
11.37
CY 2006
Facility
PE RVUs*
2006 CF
$3.79
117.48
121.27
CY 2006
Malpractice
RVUs* 2006 CF
$3.79
NA
NA
$0.38
6.44
6.82
of the CPT code. These results are
shown in Table 59 below.
TABLE 59—CY 2011 NATIONAL PAYMENT AMOUNTS FOR CPT CODE 77080
CY 2006 CPT Code
Mod
76075 ............................................................................
76075 ............................................................................
76075 ............................................................................
CY 2011
Physician work
payment amount
26 ..
TC
.......
Third, in order to determine the CY
2011 RVUs for CPT code 77080 (76075)
that are displayed in Addendum B to
this final rule with comment period, we
divided the CY 2011 national payment
amounts shown in Table 59 by the CY
2011 CF (discussed in section II.G.1. of
this final rule with comment period) of
$25.5217. These results are shown in
CY 2011
Nonfacility PE
payment amount
$7.96
NA
7.96
CY 2011 Facility
PE payment
amount
$2.65
82.24
84.89
Table 60 and in Addendum B to this
final rule with comment period.
We note that RVUs under the PFS are
generally resource-based and, therefore,
are typically unaffected by changes to
the CF. However, because the statute
essentially sets a fixed payment amount
for DXA services, the CF directly
determines the RVUs for CPT code
77080 as we must impute RVUs for the
CY 2011
Malpractice
payment amount
$2.65
NA
NA
$0.27
4.51
4.78
DXA services in CY 2011. Therefore,
when there are changes to the PFS CF,
we must make corresponding changes to
the RVUs for CPT codes 77080 and
77082 for CY 2010 and CY 2011 in order
to maintain the fixed national payment
amount specified in the statute, which
is then subject to geographic adjustment
as indicated below.
TABLE 60—CY 2011 RVUS FOR CPT CODE 77080
(NOTE: Calculated using the current law CY 2011 CF of $25.5217)
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
CY 2011 CPT Code
Mod
77080 ....................................................................................................
77080 ....................................................................................................
77080 ....................................................................................................
CY 2011
Physician
work
RVUs
26 ..
TC
.......
Finally, in order to provide payment
for a specific DXA service furnished by
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
0.31
0.00
0.31
a practitioner, the RVUs listed in Table
60 would be multiplied by the CY 2011
PO 00000
Frm 00220
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
CY 2011
Nonfacility
PE RVUs
0.10
3.22
3.32
CY 2011
Facility
PE RVUs
0.10
NA
NA
CY 2011
Malpractice
RVUs
0.01
0.18
0.19
CF and subject to geographic adjustment
based on the CY 2011 GPCIs that apply
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
to the location where the service is
furnished.
In summary, after consideration of the
public comments we received, we are
finalizing our proposed CY 2011
payment methodology for CPT codes
77080 and 77082 in accordance with the
section 1848(b) of the Act (as amended
by section 3111 of the ACA). In CY
2011, payment for CPT codes 77080 and
77082 will be made at 70 percent of the
product of the CY 2006 RVUs for the
specified DXA codes, the CY 2006 CF,
and the CY 2011 geographic adjustment.
J. Section 3114: Improved Access for
Certified Nurse-Midwife Services
Section 1833(a)(1)(K) of the Act (as
amended by section 3114 of the ACA)
increased the amount of Medicare
payment made under the PFS for
certified nurse-midwife (CNM) services.
Currently, section 1833(a)(1)(K) of the
Act specifies that the payment amount
for CNM services is 80 percent of the
lesser of the actual charge or 65 percent
of the PFS amount for the same service
furnished by a physician. Under section
1833(a)(1)(K) of the Act (as amended by
section 3114 of the ACA), effective for
services furnished on or after January 1,
2011, Medicare payment for CNM
services is increased to 100 percent of
the PFS amount for the same service
furnished by a physician (or 80 percent
of the actual charge if that is less). We
proposed to revise our regulations at
§ 414.54 (Payment for certified nursemidwives’ services) accordingly to
reflect the increased payment for CNM
services effective for services furnished
on or after January 1, 2011.
Although CNMs are currently paid
under Medicare Part B for their
professional services, there is no
mention of CNMs under the regulatory
provision that lists the providers and
suppliers of services to whom payment
is made under the Medicare Part B
program. Accordingly, we proposed to
make a technical revision to § 410.150
(To whom payment is made) to specify
that Medicare Part B pays CNMs for
professional services in all settings, as
well as services and supplies furnished
incident to those services.
CNMs are authorized under the
statute to be paid directly for services
that they are legally authorized to
furnish under State law and that are of
the type that would otherwise be
covered if furnished by a physician or
incident to a physician’s services.
Additionally, there is no requirement
for physician oversight or supervision of
CNMs. Accordingly, CNMs are
authorized to personally furnish
diagnostic tests that fall under their
State scope of practice without regard to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
the levels of physician supervision
required under the diagnostic tests
benefit. Therefore, we proposed to
revise § 410.32(b)(2) (Exceptions to the
levels of physician supervision required
for diagnostic tests) to include CNMs
who furnish diagnostic tests that fall
within their State scope of practice.
Comment: Several commenters
welcomed the proposed increase in
Medicare payment for CNM services
effective January 1, 2011, stating that
this policy would provide equitable
payment under Medicare to CNMs.
These commenters claimed that
Medicare payment to CNMs at 100
percent of the Medicare Part B PFS
amount that would be paid to a
physician (or 80 percent of the actual
charge if that is less) represents policy
reform resulting from advocacy over a
number of years. The commenters
believe that the Medicare payment
increase will enable CNMs across the
nation to expand services to women
with disabilities of childbearing age, as
well as to senior women who are
Medicare patients. The commenters
noted that previously the 35 percent
payment differential between CNMs and
other health professionals furnishing
similar services limited the expansion of
CNM services to Medicare patients.
Additionally, the commenters asserted
that CNMs serve a critical role as
primary care providers for women
throughout their lifespan and claimed
that regulatory changes to unleash the
potential of this group of providers were
critically needed to fill the gaps in
primary care.
The commenters also supported CMS’
proposed technical revisions to
§ 410.150 and § 410.32. The proposed
changes to § 410.150 would include
CNMs as a supplier of services to whom
Medicare payment can directly be made
for their professional services in all
settings and for services and supplies
furnished incident to their professional
services. Additionally, the commenters
believe that the proposed changes to
§ 410.32 would clarify that when CNMs
personally perform diagnostic tests,
these health professionals are not
subject to physician supervision for
payment of diagnostic tests.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ support for implementing
the new statutory provision that
increases Medicare Part B payment for
CNM services, effective January 1, 2011,
from 80 percent of the lesser of the
actual charge or 65 percent of the PFS
amount that would be paid to a
physician to 100 percent of the
Medicare Part B PFS amount that would
be paid to a physician or 80 percent of
the actual charge if that is less.
PO 00000
Frm 00221
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73389
After consideration of the public
comments we received, we are
finalizing our CY 2011 proposal to
increase the Medicare Part B payment
amount for CNM services under the PFS
from 65 percent of the PFS amount that
would be paid to a physician to 100
percent of the PFS amount that would
be paid to a physician, or 80 percent of
the actual charge if that is less. We are
also finalizing our proposed
modification to § 414.54 to reflect this
statutory change, with clarification to
state that the amount paid to a CNM
may not exceed 100 percent of the PFS
amount that would be paid to a
physician for the same service furnished
on or after January 1, 2011. In addition,
we are finalizing, without modification,
our proposed revisions to § 410.32 and
§ 410.150.
K. Section 3122: Extension of Medicare
Reasonable Costs Payments for Certain
Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests
Furnished to Hospital Patients in
Certain Rural Areas
Section 416 of the MMA established
a reasonable cost payment for outpatient
clinical diagnostic laboratory tests
furnished by hospitals with fewer than
50 beds that are located in qualified
rural areas for cost reporting periods
beginning during the 2-year period
beginning on July 1, 2004.
Section 105 of the Tax Relief and
Health Care Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109–
432) (TRHCA) extended the 2-year
period in section 416(b) of the MMA for
an additional cost-reporting year.
Section 107 of the Medicare,
Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of
2007 (Pub. L. 110–173) (MMSEA)
extended the time period for cost
reporting periods beginning on July 1,
2004 and ending on June 30, 2008. For
some hospitals with cost reports that
began as late as June 30, 2008, this
extension affected services performed as
late as June 29, 2009, because this was
the date those cost reports would have
closed.
Section 3122 of the ACA reinstitutes
reasonable cost payment for clinical
diagnostic laboratory tests performed by
hospitals with fewer than 50 beds that
are located in qualified rural areas as
part of their outpatient services for cost
reporting periods beginning on or after
July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011. For
some hospitals with cost reports that
begin as late as June 30, 2011, this
reinstitution of reasonable cost payment
could affect services performed as late
as June 29, 2012, because this is the date
those cost reports will close.
We received no comments on this
proposal and therefore are finalizing
this provision without modification.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73390
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
L. Section 3134: Misvalued Codes Under
the Physician Fee Schedule
Section 1848(c)(2)(K) of the Act (as
added by section 3134 of the ACA)
required the Secretary to periodically
review and identify potentially
misvalued codes and make appropriate
adjustments to the relative values of
those services identified as being
potentially misvalued. Section
1848(c)(2)(K) of the Act (as added by
section 3134 of the ACA) further
specified that the Secretary may use
existing processes to receive
recommendations on the review and
appropriate adjustment of potentially
misvalued services, as well as conduct
surveys or implement other data
collection activities, studies, or other
analyses as the Secretary determines to
be appropriate to facilitate the review
and appropriate adjustment of the
relative values of potentially misvalued
codes. Finally, section 1848(c)(2)(L) of
the Act (as added by section 3134 of the
ACA) provided that the Secretary shall
establish a process to validate relative
value units under the PFS.
We note that over the past several
years, we have been working with the
AMA RUC to identify approaches to
addressing the issue of potentially
misvalued services. Our CY 2011
approaches to categories of potentially
misvalued codes are discussed in
section II.C. of this final rule with
comment period.
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
M. Section 3135: Modification of
Equipment Utilization Factor for
Advanced Imaging Services
1. Adjustment in Practice Expense To
Reflect Higher Presumed Utilization
Section 1848(b)(4)(C) of the Act (as
added by section 3135(a) of the ACA)
adjusted the utilization rate beginning
in CY 2011 for expensive diagnostic
imaging equipment to a 75 percent
assumption in the methodology for
establishing the PE of the RVUs of
procedures that use this equipment.
In the CY 2010 PFS final rule with
comment period (74 FR 61755), we
finalized a policy to increase the
utilization rate to 90 percent for
expensive diagnostic equipment priced
at more than $1 million (CT and MRI
scanners), providing for a 4-year
transition to the 90 percent utilization
rate from the CY 2009 utilization rate of
50 percent. Therefore, in CY 2010 we
were transitioning to a 90 percent
equipment utilization rate assumption,
applying a 25/75 blend of the new and
old PE RVUs, respectively, for the
associated procedures. Section
1848(b)(4)(C) of the Act (as added by
section 3135(a) of the ACA) does not
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
provide for any further transition and,
therefore, we are assigning a 75 percent
equipment utilization rate assumption
to CT and MRI scanners, effective
January 1, 2011. Under section
1848(b)(4) of the Act (as amended by
section 3135(a) of the ACA), this change
in the equipment utilization rate
assumption from CY 2010 to CY 2011 is
not budget neutral under the PFS. The
equipment utilization rate assumption
remains at 50 percent for all other
equipment included in the PFS PE
methodology. Further discussion of our
final CY 2011 policies regarding the
equipment utilization rate assumption
can be found in section II.A.3.a. of this
final rule with comment period.
2. Adjustment in Technical Component
‘‘Discount’’ on Single-Session Imaging to
Consecutive Body Parts
Section 1848(b)(4)(D) of the Act (as
added by section 3135(a) of the ACA)
increased the established PFS multiple
procedure payment reduction (MPPR)
for the TC of certain single-session
imaging services to consecutive body
areas from 25 to 50 percent, effective
July 1, 2010, and section
1848(c)(2)(B)(v)(VI) of the Act (as added
by section 3135(b) of the ACA)
exempted this percent change from the
PFS budget neutrality provision. This
policy is discussed in detail in section
II.C.4 of this final rule with comment
period.
Effective January 1, 2006, we adopted
an MPPR of 25 percent for the TC of
certain diagnostic imaging procedures,
applied to the second and subsequent
services when more than one service in
one of 11 imaging families, defined by
imaging modality and contiguous body
area, is furnished in a single session (70
FR 70261 through 70263). The
established imaging MPPR applies to TC
services and to the TC of global services.
It does not apply to PC services or to the
PC of global services. Under this policy,
full payment was made for the TC of the
highest priced procedure, while
payment was made at 75 percent of the
TC for each additional procedure. As of
July 1, 2010 and continuing in CY 2011,
payment is made at full payment for the
TC of the highest paying procedure,
while at 50 percent of the TC for each
additional procedure, consistent with
the new statutory provision. Further
discussion of the MPPR policies
affecting nonsurgical PFS services can
be found in section II.C.4. of this final
rule with comment period.
PO 00000
Frm 00222
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
N. Section 3136: Revision for Payment
for Power-Driven Wheelchairs
1. Payment Rules for Power Wheelchairs
Durable medical equipment (DME) is
defined at section 1861(n) of the Act
and includes wheelchairs necessary for
use in the patient’s home. Section
1861(n) of the Act provides that
wheelchairs included in the definition
of DME ‘‘may include a power-operated
vehicle that may be appropriately used
as a wheelchair, but only where the use
of such a vehicle is determined to be
necessary on the basis of the
individual’s medical and physical
condition.’’ The general Medicare
payment rules for DME are set forth in
section 1834(a) of the Act and 42 CFR
part 414, subpart D of our regulations.
Section 1834(a)(1) of the Act and
§ 414.210(a) of our regulations establish
that the Medicare payment for a DME
item is generally equal to 80 percent of
either the lower of the actual charge or
the fee schedule amount for the item
less any unmet Part B deductible. The
beneficiary coinsurance is generally
equal to 20 percent of either the lower
of the actual charge or the fee schedule
amount for the item once the deductible
is met.
For Medicare payment purposes,
power wheelchairs or power-driven
wheelchairs are classified under various
HCPCS codes based on the level of
performance and functional
characteristics of each power
wheelchair that accommodate the
specific needs of patients. Power
wheelchairs classified under
performance Groups 1 through 3 are
covered under Medicare for use in the
patient’s home. Power wheelchair
groups were established in 2006 with
the release of the Power Mobility Device
Coding Guidelines published by the
Durable Medical Equipment Regional
Carriers (DMERCs) currently called the
Durable Medical Equipment Medicare
Administrative Contractors (DME
MACs). The DMEPOS quality standards
define certain power wheelchairs falling
as ‘‘complex, rehabilitative’’ power
wheelchairs, and these ‘‘complex,
rehabilitative’’ power wheelchairs are
treated as a separate product category
for the purpose of implementing the
DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Program
(CBP) mandated by section 1847(a) of
the Act. In both the quality standards
and the DMEPOS CBP, complex,
rehabilitative power wheelchairs are
defined or identified as power
wheelchairs classified as Group 2 power
wheelchairs with power options that
can accommodate rehabilitative features
(for example, tilt in space) or Group 3
power wheelchairs. Section
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
1847(a)(2)(A) of the Act, as amended by
section 154(a)(1)(B) of MIPPA, excludes
complex, rehabilitative power
wheelchairs classified within Group 3
from the DMEPOS CBP.
With the exception of power
wheelchairs furnished during calendar
year 1990, power wheelchairs have been
paid under the capped rental category of
DME since January 1, 1989. The
payment rules for capped rental DME
are provided at section 1834(a)(7) of the
Act and § 414.229 of our regulations.
Payment for these items is generally on
a monthly rental basis, with rental
payments capped at 13 months. After a
13-month period of continuous use
during which rental payments are made,
the statute and regulations require that
the supplier transfer title to the
wheelchair to the beneficiary. In
addition, effective for power
wheelchairs furnished on or after
January 1, 1991, section 1834(a)(7) of
the Act, as amended by section
4152(c)(2)(D) of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101–
508), mandates that the supplier of the
power wheelchair offer the patient the
option to purchase rather than rent the
item. Since 1991, over 95 percent of
Medicare beneficiaries have exercised
this lump-sum purchase option for
power wheelchairs.
Consistent with payment for other
DMEPOS items, § 414.210(f)(1) permits
payment for replacement of capped
rental DME if the item has been in
continuous use for the equipment’s
reasonable useful lifetime or is lost,
stolen, or irreparably damaged. Section
414.210(f)(1) states the reasonable useful
lifetime for equipment is determined
through program instructions. In the
absence of CMS program instructions,
the carrier may determine the
reasonable useful lifetime for
equipment, but in no case can it be less
than 5 years. Computation is based on
when the equipment is delivered to the
beneficiary, not the age of the
equipment. If the beneficiary elects to
obtain a new capped rental item after
the reasonable useful lifetime, a new 13month rental payment period would
begin for the new equipment in
accordance with the requirements of
§ 414.229.
Pursuant to section 1834(a)(7)(A)(i)(II)
of the Act and § 414.229(b), the current
capped rental fee schedule amounts
applicable to wheelchairs for months 1
thru 3 of the 13-month capped rental
period are calculated to pay 10 percent
of the purchase price recognized in the
statute for the item. The rental fee
schedule amounts for months 4 through
13 of the 13-month capped rental period
are calculated to pay 7.5 percent of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
purchase price for the item. The
purchase price is determined consistent
with section 1834(a)(8) of the Act and
§ 414.229(c) and § 414.220(e) and (f) and
is calculated based on average allowed
payments for the purchase of new items,
and is updated by the covered item
update, as required by section
1834(a)(14) of the Act and § 414.229(d).
The purchase fee schedule amount for
new power wheelchairs acquired on a
lump sum purchase basis is 100 percent
of the purchase price calculated for the
item, as discussed above.
2. Revision of Payment Amounts for
Power Wheelchairs
Section 3136(a) of the ACA made
several changes to section 1834(a)(7)(A)
of the Act. Section 3136(a)(1) of the
ACA amends section 1834(a)(7)(A) of
the Act by adding a new subclause (III)
to section 1834(a)(7)(A)(i) of the Act.
Subclause (III) revises the capped rental
fee schedule amounts for all power
wheelchairs, modifying the current
payment structure of 10 percent of the
purchase price for months 1 through 3
and 7.5 percent of that purchase price
for months 4 through 13 that was
previously discussed.
The rental fee schedule amount for
months 1 through 3 of the 13-month
capped rental period for power
wheelchairs is revised to 15 percent of
the purchase price for the item. The
rental fee schedule amounts for months
4 through 13 of the 13-month capped
rental period for power wheelchairs is
revised to 6 percent of the purchase
price for the item. The statutory
provision does not change the
methodologies used to calculate and
subsequently update the purchase price
of power wheelchairs. Therefore, the
methodology described previously for
determining the purchase price amounts
will continue to apply.
Pursuant to section 3136(c) of the
ACA, the changes made by section
3136(a) of the ACA apply to powerdriven wheelchairs furnished on or after
January 1, 2011. Furthermore, as
discussed previously, section 3136(c)(2)
of the ACA states that the changes made
by section 3136(a) of the ACA,
including the new payment structure for
power wheelchairs, do not apply to
payment made for items and services
furnished pursuant to contracts entered
into under section 1847 of the Act for
the DMEPOS CBP prior to January 1,
2011, which applies to the
implementation of the first round of the
DMEPOS CBP. As a result, contract
suppliers furnishing power wheelchairs
in competitive bidding areas (CBA)
pursuant to contracts entered into prior
to January 1, 2011, as part of Round 1
PO 00000
Frm 00223
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73391
of the DMEPOS CBP will continue to be
paid based under the current regulations
using 10 percent of the purchase price
for months 1 through 3 and 7.5 percent
for each of the remaining months. We
did not receive public comment on our
proposed changes to § 414.202,
§ 414.229, and § 414.408, and therefore
we are finalizing our proposals without
modification.
3. Elimination of Lump Sum Payment
for Standard Power Wheelchairs
Section 3136(a)(2) of the ACA further
amends section 1834(a)(7)(A)(iii) of the
Act by inserting the term ‘‘complex,
rehabilitative’’ before the term ‘‘powerdriven wheelchairs.’’ As a result, section
1834(a)(7)(A)(iii) of the Act now extends
the lump sum purchase option only to
complex, rehabilitative power
wheelchairs. As discussed above,
‘‘complex, rehabilitative’’ power
wheelchairs are power wheelchairs that
are classified as: (1) Group 2 power
wheelchairs with power options that
can accommodate rehabilitative features
(for example, tilt in space), or (2) Group
3 power wheelchairs. We consider all
other power wheelchairs to be standard
power wheelchairs. Therefore, we
proposed to interpret the language
‘‘complex, rehabilitative’’ in section
1834(a)(7)(A) of the Act consistent with
this longstanding classification. As a
result, the changes made by section
3136 of the ACA to section
1834(a)(7)(A)(iii) of the Act eliminate
the lump sum purchase option for
standard power wheelchairs.
Pursuant to section 3136(c) of the
ACA, the changes made to section
1834(a)(7)(A)(iii) of the Act apply to
power-driven wheelchairs furnished on
or after January 1, 2011. The lump sum
purchase payment option will no longer
extend to standard power driven
wheelchairs furnished on or after
January 1, 2011.
Furthermore, section 3136(c)(2) of the
ACA states that the changes made by
section 3136(a) of the ACA, including
the limitation of the lump sum purchase
payment option to complex,
rehabilitative power wheelchairs, do not
apply to payment made for items and
services furnished pursuant to contracts
entered into under section 1847 of the
Act for the DMEPOS CBP prior to
January 1, 2011, pursuant to the
implementation of the first round of the
DMEPOS CBP. As a result, contract
suppliers furnishing power wheelchairs
in CBAs in accordance with contracts
entered into prior to January 1, 2011 as
part of Round 1 of the DMEPOS CBP
must continue to offer beneficiaries the
lump sum purchase option for all power
wheelchairs.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73392
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
We proposed changes to § 414.229
and § 414.408 to reflect our
interpretation of these statutory
requirements.
Comment: Several commenters stated
that the changes regarding the lump
sum payment option will make it more
difficult for many suppliers to furnish
standard power wheelchairs because
suppliers usually purchase wheelchairs
from manufacturers using the full lump
sum payments. One commenter stated
that some homecare providers will need
to arrange for loans to obtain sufficient
finances to purchase wheelchairs that
are then paid for by the Medicare
program and beneficiaries over the
longer 1-month payment period and if
the recent capital markets for loans do
not improve, CMS should consider a
delay in implementing our regulations.
Response: While we recognize that
the regulatory changes require
adjustments by standard power
wheelchair suppliers, we do not believe
that section 3136(a)(2) of the ACA
provides flexibility to delay the
implementation of this provision.
Moreover, these concerns are related to
the financial relationships developed by
manufacturers of standard power
wheelchairs with the suppliers who
furnish patients with wheelchairs,
which is not within the purview of our
regulations. As we explained in the
proposed rule (75 FR 40121), power
wheelchairs have been paid under the
capped rental category of DME since
1989, and the option to purchase in
addition to the rental payment method
was established in 1991. Thus, section
3136(a)(2) of the ACA and the regulatory
changes implementing that provision
are not establishing a new rental
payment methodology. We expect
suppliers will be able to adapt
expeditiously to furnishing standard
power wheelchairs under a rental
payment structure. Finally, we believe
that there may be some financial benefit
to suppliers as a result of this change.
As is the case for manual wheelchairs
furnished to Medicare beneficiaries,
suppliers of standard power
wheelchairs furnished to Medicare
beneficiaries on or after January 1, 2011,
may be able to rent these items to
multiple beneficiaries if the
beneficiaries use the items for fewer
than 13 continuous months. In many
cases where a power wheelchair is
rented to multiple beneficiaries, the
supplier will receive more than 13
monthly payments for the item,
including payments based on 15 percent
of the statutory purchase price for the
first 3 months that each beneficiary
rents the item.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
Comment: Several commenters raised
a concern that the elimination of the
lump sum payment method will cause
a significant increase in monthly rental
claims submitted for standard power
wheelchairs; thereby, increasing
administrative claims processing costs.
One commenter noted that in the event
claims processing contractors have
difficulty processing claims, we did not
discuss how to apply interest rates for
Medicare overpayments or
underpayments.
Response: We appreciate this
comment regarding the efficient
implementation of the provision of
section 3136 of the ACA, which
includes a requirement that payment for
all standard power wheelchairs be made
on a monthly rental basis effective
January 1, 2011. We are working with
our contractors to make the necessary
changes to the claims processing
systems in order to be ready to process
additional standard power wheelchair
rental claims with dates of service on or
after January 1, 2011. Also, we have
coordinated within CMS and our
partners to update educational materials
for our beneficiaries. With regard to
overpayments or underpayments, these
issues will be handled in the same
manner as overpayments or
underpayments are handled for capped
rental DME in general.
Comment: Several commenters
stressed the need to clarify the
conditions of payment requirements for
power wheelchairs that are rented after
a break in service or change in patient
condition. These commenters stated that
because the majority of power
wheelchairs have been paid under the
lump sum purchase payment method,
physicians and suppliers performed the
documentation requirements set forth in
§ 410.38(c)(2) prior to initial delivery of
the standard power wheelchairs. These
documentation requirements specify the
physician or treating practitioner must
conduct a face-to-face examination of
the patient to determine that the power
wheelchair is medically necessary
before it is dispensed to the beneficiary.
In addition, the supplier must perform
an on-site evaluation of the patient’s
home to develop supporting
documentation for the initial delivery
and payment for a power wheelchair. As
a result of the elimination of the lump
sum purchase option for standard power
wheelchairs, more power wheelchairs
will be paid under the rental payment
method after January 1, 2011. Thus, the
commenters urged that the regulations
should clarify whether a new face-toface examination and home evaluation
must be performed when a break in
service of greater than 60 days occurs.
PO 00000
Frm 00224
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Response: This comment is outside
the scope of the CY 2011 PFS proposed
rule. We did not propose any changes to
the conditions of payment set forth in
§ 410.28(c)(2). We again note, however,
that payments on a rental basis for
capped rental items, including power
wheelchairs, have been made since
January 1, 1989. The payment and
coverage requirements identified by the
commenters for power mobility devices
(PMDs), including power-operated
vehicles or scooters and standard and
complex, rehabilitative power
wheelchairs, must be met before the
item is furnished to the beneficiary on
either a purchase or rental basis. Section
3136 of the ACA, which in part
eliminates the purchase option for
standard power wheelchairs furnished
on or after January 1, 2011, has no
impact on these requirements. They
remain in effect for all PMDs furnished
to Medicare beneficiaries on a purchase
or rental basis, including rented power
wheelchairs. Payment for capped rental
items is limited to 13 months of
continuous use, defined at § 414.230.
Section 414.230(d) sets forth the criteria
for a new rental period: during this 13month capped rental period, a break in
use of the equipment for more than 60
continuous days, plus the days
remaining in the rental month in which
use ceases, would result in the start of
a new period of continuous use and a
new 13-month capped rental period if
the supplier submits a new prescription,
new medical necessity documentation,
and documentation that describes the
reason for the interruption in use and
documents that medical necessity in the
prior rental episode ended. Section 3136
of the ACA has no impact on the
requirements set forth in § 414.230
regarding continuous use of capped
rental items.
Comment: One commenter requested
a revision to the billing modifiers for
Advance Beneficiary Notice of
Noncoverage (ABN) to utilize when a
supplier bills for furnishing a
wheelchair that has features beyond
what is covered by Medicare.
Response: This comment is outside
the scope of the CY 2011 PFS proposed
rule because we did not propose any
changes to the billing modifiers for
ABNs. Nevertheless, we encourage
interested parties to follow our HCPCS
editorial process and submit coding
recommendations by following the
instructions found at our Web site at
https://www.cms.gov/
MedHCPCSGenInfo.
Comment: One commenter requested
clarification on whether the beneficiary
retains ownership of power wheelchair
associated accessories (for example
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
elevated leg rests or adjustable height
arms rests) during or after the rental
period. These associated accessories are
not included with the rental of the
standard power wheelchair base
equipment.
Response: Payment for accessories for
power wheelchairs that are not included
in the basic equipment package for the
wheelchair and are separately payable
items under the inexpensive or
routinely purchased (IRP) DME category
is made on either a rental or lump sum
purchase basis. If payment is made on
a lump sum basis to the supplier for an
associated accessory, then the
beneficiary owns the accessory for use
with the standard power wheelchair
during and after the 13-month
wheelchair rental period. If payment is
made on a rental basis for an accessory
in the IRP category and it appears that
the beneficiary will use the wheelchair
for the full 13-month capped rental
period, the beneficiary may elect to
purchase the accessory, and the
Medicare allowed payment for purchase
of the accessory would be equal to the
lowed of the actual charge or the
purchase fee schedule amount, less
cumulative paid rental amounts. Title to
an accessory for a power wheelchair
that is not included in the basic
equipment package for the wheelchair
and is a separately payable item under
the capped rental DME category is
transferred to the beneficiary following
the 13-month capped rental period.
Comment: One commenter requested
information on how to apply the
calculation of the reasonable useful
lifetime to a standard power wheelchair
which had been in continuous use for
10 months prior to being returned to a
supplier and then after appropriate
cleaning and servicing is placed with a
different beneficiary. Also, the
commenter requested how to apply the
calculation of the reasonable useful
lifetime if the standard power
wheelchair is assigned to several
beneficiaries under similar
circumstances and remains in
continuous use beyond 13 months
because of use by multiple beneficiaries
prior to title being transferred to the last
beneficiary.
Response: The regulations applicable
to calculation of the reasonable useful
lifetime are located at § 414.210(f) and
state that computation of the reasonable
useful lifetime of equipment is based on
when the equipment is delivered to the
beneficiary, not the age of the
equipment. At the end of 13 months
rental use of a DME item, the supplier
must transfer title to the item, such as
a power wheelchair, to the beneficiary
in accordance with § 414.229(f)(2). If,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
following transfer of title, it is
determined that the power wheelchair
will not last for the entire reasonable
useful lifetime, the supplier is required
by § 414.210(e)(4) to replace the
equipment at no cost to the beneficiary
or the Medicare program.
Comment: One commenter expressed
concern that the proposed changes to
§ 414.408(f)(1) will force suppliers to
convert to a rental payment model of
furnishing standard power wheelchairs
prior to the end of the 3 year contract
period for DMEPOS Round 1 Rebid
CBAs although their bids included an
assumption that the lump sum payment
method would continue into subsequent
years. Another commenter believed
inequalities occur by continuing the
option of a lump sum payment method
for standard power wheelchairs in
Round 1 Rebid CBAs but not in other
geographic areas.
Response: Section 3136(c)(2) of the
ACA states that the change made by
section 3136(a) of the ACA, eliminating
the lump sum payment method for
standard power wheelchairs, does not
apply to payment made for items and
services furnished pursuant to contracts
entered into under section 1847 of the
Act for the DMEPOS CBP prior to
January 1, 2011 pursuant to the
implementation of the first round of the
DMEPOS competitive bidding program
(CBP). We noted that although these
changes will not apply to payment made
for items and services furnished
pursuant to the contracts awarded
following the Round 1 Rebid, contract
suppliers must prepare for the
elimination of the lump sum payment
method for standard power wheelchairs
that will take effect at the end of the 3
year contract period. When the Round 1
contracts are recompeted, suppliers will
submit bids for furnishing power
wheelchairs on a rental only basis.
Comment: One commenter suggested
Medicare should consider implementing
a serial number tracking program for
power wheelchairs to improve antifraud efforts.
Response: This comment is outside
the scope of the CY 2011 PFS proposed
rule. We appreciate the commenter’s
suggestion and will consider studying
the feasibility of a nationwide serial
tracking program for power wheelchairs
for future rulemaking efforts. We were
informed that nationwide there are more
than 106 styles of power wheelchairs
available from 22 manufacturers. A
nationwide serial tracking program
would require significant program
resources and stakeholder input which
we would need to conduct prior to
rulemaking.
PO 00000
Frm 00225
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73393
After considering the comments
received, we are adopting, without
modification, our proposed changes to
§ 414.229 and § 414.408 that eliminate
the lump sum payment option for
standard power wheelchairs.
O. Section 3139: Payment for Biosimilar
Biological Products
Section 3139 of the ACA amends
section 1847A of the Act to provide for
Medicare payment of biosimilar
biological products using the average
sale price (ASP) methodology.
Section 1847A(c)(6)(H) of the Act, as
added by the ACA, defines a biosimilar
biological product as a biological
product approved under an abbreviated
application for a license of a biological
product that relies in part on data or
information in an application for
another biological product licensed
under section 351 of the Public Health
Service Act (PHSA). The reference
biological product for a biosimilar
biological product is defined by the
statute as the biological product
licensed under such section 351 of the
PHSA that is referred to in the
application of the biosimilar biological
product.
The ACA also amends section
1847A(b) of the Act by adding
paragraph 8 to specify that the payment
amount for a biosimilar biological
product will be the sum of the following
two amounts: The ASP of all NDCs
assigned to the biosimilar biological
product determined using the
methodology in section 1847A(b)(6) of
the Act, and 6 percent of the payment
amount determined using the
methodology in section 1847A(b)(4) of
the Act for the corresponding reference
biological product. Sections 7001 to
7003 of the ACA also established a
licensing pathway for biosimilar
biological products, and in accordance
with the statute, the effective date for
Medicare ASP statutory provisions is
July 1, 2010. We proposed to make
conforming regulation text changes at
§ 414.902 and § 414.904 and we
solicited comments regarding our
conforming changes.
We anticipate that as biosimilar
biological drug products are approved,
we will receive ASP sales data through
the ASP data submission process and
publish national payment amounts in a
manner that is consistent with our
current approach to other drugs and
biologicals that are paid under section
1847A of the Act and set forth in 42 CFR
part 414 subpart J. Until we have
collected sufficient sales data as
reported by manufacturers, payment
limits will be determined in accordance
with the provisions in section
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73394
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
1847A(c)(4) of the Act. If no
manufacturer data is collected, prices
will be determined by local contractors
using any available pricing information,
including provider invoices. More
information about the ASP payment
methodology and the data submission
process may be found on the CMS Web
site at https://www.cms.gov/
McrPartBDrugAvgSalesPrice/01_
overview.asp and in section VII.A.1.,
‘‘Carry Over ASP,’’ of this final rule with
comment period.
Comment: Several commenters
supported the proposed regulation text
changes.
Response: Based on the comments
that we received, we are finalizing our
proposal and regulation text without
additional modification.
Comment: Several commenters
requested that CMS assign biosimilars
and other brand name drugs and
biologicals separate HCPCS codes in
order to facilitate the tracking of items
paid under section 3139 of the ACA, as
well as branded drugs and biologicals
subject to fees under section 9008 of the
ACA.
Response: We appreciate the
comments; however, our proposal did
not address procedures for assignment
of HCPCS codes, and so these comments
are outside the scope of this rule. For
more information about the HCPCS
coding process, we refer you to https://
www.cms.gov/MedHCPCSGenInfo/.
In summary, we are finalizing our
proposed definitions of biosimilar
biological, reference biological and our
proposed payment methodology
without additional modification.
P. Section 3401: Revision of Certain
Market Basket Updates and
Incorporation of Productivity
Improvements Into Market Basket
Updates That Do Not Already
Incorporate Such Improvements
1. ESRD Market Basket Discussion
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Section 3401(h) of the ACA amended
section 1881(b)(14)(F) of the Act and
directs the Secretary to annually
increase payment amounts established
under the ESRD market basket. Please
see section VII.E. of this final rule with
comment for a detailed description of
these provisions.
2. Productivity Adjustment Regarding
the Ambulatory Surgical Center
Payment System, and the Ambulance,
Clinical Laboratory and DMEPOS Fee
Schedules
Section 3401 of the ACA requires that
the update factor under certain payment
systems be annually adjusted by
changes in economy-wide productivity.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
The year that the productivity
adjustment is effective varies by
payment system. Specifically, section
3401 of the ACA requires that, in CY
2011 (and in subsequent years) update
factors under the ambulatory surgical
center (ASC) payment system, the
ambulance fee schedule (AFS), the
clinical laboratory fee schedule (CLFS),
and the DMEPOS fee schedules be
adjusted by changes in economy-wide
productivity. Section 3401(a) of the
ACA amends section 1886(b)(3)(B) of
the Act to add clause (xi)(II) which sets
forth the definition of this productivity
adjustment. The statute defines the
productivity adjustment to be equal to
the 10-year moving average of changes
in annual economy-wide private
nonfarm business multifactor
productivity (MFP) (as projected by the
Secretary for the 10-year period ending
with the applicable fiscal year, year,
cost reporting period, or other annual
period) (the ‘‘MFP adjustment’’). The
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is the
agency that publishes the official
measure of private non-farm business
MFP. Please see https://www.bls.gov/mfp
which is the link to the BLS historical
published data on the measure of MFP.
As stated in the PFS proposed rule (75
FR 40123), the projection of MFP is
currently produced by IHS Global
Insight (IGI), an economic forecasting
firm. As described in the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule, in order to generate a
forecast of MFP, IGI replicated the MFP
measure calculated by the BLS using a
series of proxy variables derived from
the IGI US Macro-economic models.
These models take into account a very
broad range of factors that influence the
total U.S. economy. IGI forecasts the
underlying proxy components such as
Gross Domestic Product (GDP), capital,
and labor inputs required to estimate
MFP and then combines those
projections according to the BLS
methodology.
In Table 34 of the proposed rule (75
FR 40123), we identified each of the
MFP component series employed by the
BLS and the corresponding concepts
estimated by IGI that appeared to be the
best measure at the time of the proposed
rule. IGI found that the historical growth
rates of the BLS components used to
calculate MFP and the IGI components
identified and listed in the PFS
proposed rule (75 FR 40123) were
consistent across all series and therefore
suitable proxies for calculating MFP. We
proposed a method in which IGI uses
the growth rates of the forecasted IGI
concepts to project BLS’ components of
MFP. The resulting MFP adjustment
derived from using this method was
proposed to be used under section 3401
PO 00000
Frm 00226
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
of the ACA to adjust the updates for the
ASC payment system, the AFS, the
CLFS, and the DMEPOS fee schedules.
Since the proposed rule, BLS issued
revised estimates of private nonfarm
business MFP (released on August 24,
2010). We also received public
comments on the proposed calculation
of the MFP adjustment. We summarize
these comments and our responses
below.
Comment: Several commenters stated
that CMS provided no details in the
proposed rule on the data and
calculations that it used in making the
MFP estimates, instead referring readers
to the BLS, which only provides
historical data. The commenters stated
that this level of information is
insufficient for public comment. The
commenters requested that CMS fully
disclose the methods and data sources
used for the MFP estimate for public
comment before implementing the
multifactor productivity adjustment to
the ASC payment system and to the
other payment systems. Another
commenter stated that transparency is
needed concerning the assumptions
underlying the projection of MFP and
the commenter asked that CMS address
this in the final rule so a better
understanding can be gained about how
CMS arrived at its MFP adjustment.
Response: The CY 2011 PFS proposed
rule included a citation to the BLS Web
site. This link provided a lengthy
detailed description of the methodology
that is used by the BLS to construct an
estimate of MFP for the private nonfarm
business sector, including a discussion
of the underlying series used in the MFP
calculation. For the forecasted estimate
of MFP, we then identified in Table 34
in the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule (75
FR 40123) the forecasted series that
closely align to the series used by BLS.
The data source for these forecasted
series is IGI, an economic forecasting
firm. Following the methodology as
described in the BLS documentation
that we provided in the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule, a forecast of MFP was
created using the IGI series. Given the
information that was presented in the
CY 2011 PFS proposed rule, we believe
that we provided adequate information
regarding the methods, calculations, and
data sources used for the MFP estimate.
In this final rule with comment period,
we have included below a more detailed
description of this methodology for even
greater transparency.
In response to the public comments
we received requesting additional
information on the assumptions
underlying the projection of MFP, we
note that the projection of MFP is not
driven by specific assumptions. The
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
underlying series forecasted by IGI are
derived from a set of complex economic
forecasting models that project various
components of the total U.S. economy.
These models are intended to capture
many drivers of economic growth in the
U.S. economy. Therefore, the
underlying series that IGI uses to
calculate a forecast of MFP are products
of this economy-wide macroeconomic
model as opposed to being based on a
specific set of assumptions.
Comment: Several commenters
expressed concern that current
economic conditions are distorting the
factor used for the productivity
adjustment, potentially leading to
unintended consequences. These
commenters claim that the original
intent of the productivity adjustment
was to hold providers to a standard of
productivity improvement achieved by
the rest of the economy. However, the
commenters stated that when
productivity gains are driven by
undesirable trends in the economy, this
adjustment could lead to excessive cuts.
The current ‘‘jobless recovery’’ is
inflating productivity as output
increases but a key input—
employment—continues to stagnate.
The commenters claim that cutting
Medicare payments by this inflated
figure could hurt hospitals and other
health care providers and suppliers that
have been one of the few sources of
continued job growth in this economy.
Response: We are required by law to
implement section 3401 of the ACA,
which requires that in CY 2011 (and in
subsequent years) update factors under
the ASC payment system, the AFS, the
CLFS, and the DMEPOS fee schedules
be adjusted by the 10-year moving
average of changes in annual economywide multi-factor productivity for the
private non-farm business sector.
Although we believe that the IGI
method of calculating a forecast of MFP
discussed in the CY 2011 PFS proposed
rule (75 FR 40123) is appropriate and
accurately reflects the 10-year moving
average of changes in annual economywide multi-factor productivity, in
response to this comment, CMS and IGI
reevaluated the series that are used to
calculate MFP to ensure that the
underlying components that are
ultimately selected are those that will
produce a measure of MFP that most
closely tracks the official measure of
MFP as published by BLS. While the
concepts listed in Table 34 of the CY
2011 PFS proposed rule were similar to
the underlying concepts used by BLS (as
73395
discussed in the proposed rule), CMS
and IGI subsequently determined that
there are technically superior IGI series
for output and labor that can be used to
derive a calculation of MFP (still using
the method as described in the proposed
rule), that will ultimately result in a
more appropriate forecast of MFP. The
IGI method is described in more detail
below and we note that the
methodology is the same methodology
as was described in the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule, which is aligned closely
with the methodology employed by the
BLS. For more information regarding the
BLS method for estimating productivity
we refer the commenter to the following
link: https://www.bls.gov/mfp/mprtech.
pdf.
Table 61 lists the MFP component
series employed by the BLS and the
corresponding concepts estimated by
IGI as specified in Table 34 of the CY
2011 PFS proposed rule and in this final
rule. Please note that, in BLS’ revised
MFP estimates published on August 24,
2010, the index series was rebased from
2000=100 to 2005=100. Thus, Table 61
refers to the BLS series in 2005 dollars
whereas Table 34 of the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule referred to the BLS series
in 2000 dollars.
TABLE 61—MULTIFACTOR PRODUCTIVITY COMPONENT SERIES EMPLOYED BY THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS AND
IHS GLOBAL INSIGHT
IGI series—proposed rule
IGI series—final rule
Real value-added output, constant 2005 dollars
Real gross non-farm value added output,
chained 2005 dollar billions.
Private non-farm business sector labor input;
2005=100.00.
Aggregate capital inputs; 2005=100.00 .............
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
BLS series
Hours of all persons—private nonfarm business sector; 1992=1.0.
Real effective capital stock used for full employment GDP, chained 2005 dollar billions.
Non-housing non-government non-farm real
GDP, Billions of chained 2005 dollars—annual rate.
Man-hours in private nonfarm establishments,
Billions of hours—annual rate.
Real effective capital stock used for full employment GDP, Billions of chained 2005
dollars.
In this final rule with comment
period, we are finalizing the same IGI
method as described in the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule, with minor technical
improvements to the underlying
concepts used to calculate MFP. We
have also included a more detailed
description below of the methodology
(which was described in the proposed
rule and which we are finalizing in this
final rule with comment period) used to
calculate MFP in response to the public
comments we received.
To create a forecast of BLS’ MFP
index, the forecasted annual growth
rates of the ‘‘non-housing, nongovernment, non-farm, real GDP’’, ‘‘manhours in private nonfarm
establishments’’, and ‘‘real effective
capital stock’’ series (ranging from 2009
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
to 2020) are used to ‘‘grow’’ the levels of
the ‘‘real value-added output,’’ ‘‘private
non-farm business sector labor input,’’
and ‘‘aggregate capital input’’ series
published by the BLS. Using these three
key concepts, MFP is derived by
subtracting the contribution of labor and
capital inputs from output growth.
However, in order to estimate MFP,
we need to understand the relative
contributions of labor and capital to
total output growth. Therefore, two
additional measures are needed to
operationalize the estimation of the IGI
MFP projection: Labor compensation
and capital income. The sum of labor
compensation and capital income
represents total income. The BLS
calculates labor compensation and
capital income (in current dollar terms)
PO 00000
Frm 00227
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
to derive the nominal values of labor
and capital inputs. IGI uses the ‘‘nongovernment total compensation’’ and
‘‘flow of capital services from the total
private non-residential capital stock’’
series as proxies for the BLS’ income
measures. These two proxy measures for
income are divided by total income to
obtain the shares of labor compensation
and capital income to total income.
In order to estimate labor’s
contribution and capital’s contribution
to the growth in total output, the growth
rates of the proxy variables for labor and
capital inputs are multiplied by their
respective shares of total income. These
contributions of labor and capital to
output growth are subtracted from total
output growth to calculate the ‘‘change
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73396
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
in the growth rates of multifactor
productivity’’:
MFP = Total output growth—{(labor
input growth*labor compensation share)
+ (capital input growth * capital income
share)}
The change in the growth rates (also
referred to as the compound growth
rates) of the IGI MFP are multiplied by
100 in order to calculate the percent
change in growth rates (the percent
change in growth rates are published by
the BLS for its historical MFP measure).
Finally, the growth rates of the IGI MFP
are converted to index levels based to
2005 to be consistent with the BLS’
methodology.
For benchmarking purposes, the
historical growth rates of IGI’s proxy
variables were used to estimate a
historical measure of MFP, which was
compared to the historical MFP estimate
published by the BLS. The comparison
revealed that the growth rates of the
components were consistent across all
series, and therefore validated the use of
the proxy variables in generating the IGI
MFP projections.
The resulting MFP index was then
interpolated to a quarterly frequency
using the Bassie method for temporal
disaggregation. The Bassie technique
utilizes an indicator (pattern) series for
its calculations. IGI uses the index of
output per hour (published by the BLS)
as an indicator when interpolating the
MFP index.
As discussed below, for each of these
payment systems, the update factor is
the percentage increase (or percentage
decrease for the CLFS) in the consumer
price index for all urban consumers
(CPI–U) (referred to as the ‘‘CPI–U
update factor’’).
For all four payment systems, section
3401 of the ACA generally states that
the Secretary shall reduce the CPI–U
adjustment by the MFP adjustment. In
order to calculate the MFP-adjusted
updates to these payment systems, we
proposed that the MFP percentage
adjustment would be subtracted from
the CPI–U update factor. For example, if
the update factor (CPI–U) is 4.0 percent,
and the projected MFP is 1.3 percent,
the MFP–Adjusted update factor (or
MFP–Adjusted CPI–U for these payment
systems) would be a 2.7 percent
increase.
We proposed that the end of the 10year moving average of changes in the
MFP should coincide with the end of
this CPI–U timeframe (75 FR 40123).
Since the CPI–U update factor is
reduced by the MFP adjustment to
determine the annual update for these
payment systems, we stated that we
believe it is appropriate for the numbers
associated with both parts of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
calculation to be projected as of the
same end date. In this way, changes in
market conditions are aligned.
In this final rule with comment
period, we wanted to further clarify how
for each payment system, the end of the
10-year moving average of changes in
the MFP will coincide with the period
on which the CPI–U is calculated. In the
case of the ASC payment system, the
CPI–U projected for the 12-month
period ending with the midpoint of the
year involved, which is CY 2011 for this
final rule with comment period.
Therefore, the end of the 10-year
moving average of changes in the MFP
is projected so that it ends with the
midpoint of the year involves, which is
CY 2011 for this final rule with
comment period. In the case of the AFS,
CLFS, and DMEPOS fee schedules, the
CPI–U is estimated for the period
ending June 30th of the year preceding
the update year itself, which is CY 2010
for this final rule with comment period.
Therefore, the end of the 10-year
moving average of changes in the MFP
is estimated so that it ends June 30th of
the year preceding the update year
itself, which is CY 2010 for this final
rule with comment period.
We proposed to round the final
annual adjustment to the one-tenth of
one percentage point level up or down
as applicable according to conventional
rounding rules (that is, if the number we
are rounding is followed by 5, 6, 7, 8,
or 9, we will round the number up; if
the number we are rounding is followed
by 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4, we will round the
number down).
In the following sections, we provide
more information on the statutory
requirements and proposals for each of
the four payment systems. The statutory
requirements for the ASC payment
system were also addressed in the CY
2011 OPPS/ASC final rule with
comment period. We note that, in the
CY 2011 PFS proposed rule (75 FR
40123 through 40125), we described the
legislative provision and outlined the
methodology used to calculate and
apply the MFP adjustment to determine
the annual updates for ASC payment
system, the AFS, the CLFS, and the
DMEPOS fee schedules for CY 2011 and
each subsequent year. We stated that we
would set forth the final MFP
adjustment for CY 2011 in this final rule
with comment period. Also, we stated
in the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule (75
FR 40123) that once we finalize the
methodology for determining and
applying the MFP adjustment to the
CPI–U update factors for these payment
systems, for subsequent calendar years,
as we have done in the past, we would
notify the general public of the annual
PO 00000
Frm 00228
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
update to the AFS, CLFS, and DMEPOS
fee schedules via CMS instruction and
on the CMS Web site. These
notifications would set forth both the
CPI–U percentage increase (or, for the
CLFS, the percentage decrease) and the
MFP adjustment for the applicable year.
For ASCs, for subsequent calendar
years, as we have done in the past, we
stated that we would continue to notify
the general public of the annual update
to the ASC payment amount via the
annual OPPS/ASC rulemaking process.
In summary, as discussed previously,
we are finalizing the same IGI method
as described in the CY 2011 proposed
rule to calculate the MFP adjustment,
with minor technical improvements to
the underlying concepts used to
calculate the MFP adjustment.
Furthermore, as proposed, the MFP
adjustment is calculated so that the end
of the 10-year moving average of
changes in the MFP will coincide with
the end of the CPI–U timeframe for each
of the four payment systems (that is, the
ASC payment system, AFS, CLFS, and
DMEPOS fee schedules) so that market
conditions are aligned. Also, as
proposed, we will round the final
annual adjustment to the one-tenth of
one percentage point level up or down
as applicable according to conventional
rounding rules. Using the methodology
finalized previously, the final MFP
adjustment for CY 2011 is 1.3 percent
for the ASC payment system, and 1.2
percent for the AFS, CLFS, and
DMEPOS fee schedules. We are also
finalizing our proposal to calculate the
MFP-adjusted updates for the ASC
payment system, the AFS, the CLFS and
the DMEPOS fee schedules for CY 2011
and each subsequent year by subtracting
the MFP adjustment from each payment
system’s CPI–U update factor, as further
described in the following sections.
a. Ambulatory Surgical Centers (ASCs)
Section 1833(i)(2)(C)(i) of the Act
requires that, if the Secretary has not
updated the ASC payment amounts in a
calendar year, the payment amounts
‘‘shall be increased by the percentage
increase in the Consumer Price Index
for all urban consumers (U.S. city
average) as estimated by the Secretary
for the 12-month period ending with the
midpoint of the year involved.’’ Because
the Secretary does update the ASC
payment amounts annually, we adopted
a policy, which we codified at
§ 416.171(a)(2)(ii), to update the ASC
conversion factor using the CPI–U for
CY 2010 and subsequent calendar years.
Therefore, the annual update to the ASC
payment system is the CPI–U (referred
to as the CPI–U update factor). Section
3401(k) of the ACA amends section
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
1833(i)(2)(D) of the Act by adding a new
clause (v) which requires that ‘‘any
annual update under [the ASC payment]
system for the year [after application of
any reduction in any update for failure
to report on quality measures, if the
Secretary implements a quality
reporting program for ASCs] shall be
reduced by the productivity adjustment
described in section 1886(b)(3)(B)(xi)(II)
of the Act’’ (which we refer to as the
MFP adjustment) effective with the
calendar year beginning January 1, 2011.
Section 3401(k) of the ACA states that
application of the MFP adjustment to
the ASC payment system may result in
the update to the ASC payment system
being less than zero for a year and may
result in payment rates under the ASC
payment system for a year being less
than such payment rates for the
preceding year.
In accordance with section
1833(i)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, before
applying the MFP adjustment, the
Secretary first determines the
‘‘percentage increase’’ in the CPI–U,
which we interpret cannot be a negative
number. Thus, in the instance where the
percentage change in the CPI–U for a
year is negative, we proposed to hold
the CPI–U update factor for the ASC
payment system to zero. Section
1833(i)(2)(D)(v) of the Act, as added by
section 3401(k) of the ACA, then
requires that the Secretary reduce the
CPI–U update factor (which would be
held to zero if the CPI–U percentage
change is negative) by the MFP
adjustment, and states that application
of the MFP adjustment may reduce this
percentage change below zero. If the
application of the MFP adjustment to
the CPI–U percentage increase would
result in an MFP-adjusted CPI–U update
factor that is less than zero, then the
annual update to the ASC payment rates
would be negative and payments would
decrease relative to the prior year.
Table 62 provides illustrative
examples of how we proposed the MFP
adjustment would be applied to the ASC
payment system. These examples show
the implication of a positive CPI–U
update factor with a smaller MFP
adjustment, a positive CPI–U update
factor with a large MFP adjustment, and
a CPI–U update factor of zero. We
discussed the application of the MFP
adjustment to the CPI–U update factor
for the ASC payment system under the
OPPS/ASC CY 2011 proposed rule (75
FR 46359). We solicited comment on the
specific mathematical calculation of the
MFP adjustment and noted that
comments on the application of the
MFP adjustment to the CPI–U update
factor under the ASC payment system
should be made to the OPPS/ASC CY
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
2011 proposed rule (75 FR 46359). As
discussed previously, we received and
responded to comments on the
calculation of the MFP adjustment and
have finalized this methodology as
described above. In the CY 2011 OPPS/
ASC final rule with comment period, we
respond to any comments received and
finalize the methodology for applying
the MFP adjustment to the CPI–U
update factor for ASCs.
TABLE 62—MULTIFACTOR PRODUCTIVITY ADJUSTED PAYMENT UPDATE:
ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE
CPI–U
(percent)
MFP
Adjustment
(percent)
4.0
4.0
0.0
MFP-Adjusted CPI–U
update
factor
(percent)
1.3
4.7
0.2
2.7
¥0.7
¥0.2
b. Ambulance Fee Schedule (AFS)
In accordance with section
1834(l)(3)(B) of the Act, the AFS rates
are required to be increased each year
by the percentage increase in the CPI–
U (U.S. city average) for the 12-month
period ending with June of the previous
year. We refer to this update as the
Ambulance Inflation Factor (AIF).
Section 3401(j) of the ACA amends
section 1834(l)(3) of the Act to add a
new subclause (C) which states that, for
CY 2011 and each subsequent year, after
determining the percentage increase
under section 1834(l)(3)(B) of the Act
(that is, the CPI–U percentage increase,
or AIF), the Secretary shall reduce such
percentage increase by the MFP
adjustment described in section
1886(b)(3)(B)(xi)(II) of the Act (as
discussed previously). Section 3401(j) of
the ACA further amends section
1834(l)(3) of the Act to state that the
application of subclause (C) (that is, the
reduction of the CPI–U percentage
increase by the MFP adjustment) may
result in that percentage increase being
less than zero for a year, and may result
in payment rates for a year being less
than such payment rates for the
preceding year.
In accordance with section 1834(l)(3)
of the Act as amended by section 3401(j)
of the ACA, before applying the MFP
adjustment, the Secretary first
determines the ‘‘percentage increase’’ in
the CPI–U, which we interpret cannot
be a negative number. Thus, in the
instance where the percentage change in
the CPI–U for a year is negative, we
proposed to hold the AIF to zero. The
statute then requires that the Secretary
reduce the CPI–U percentage increase
PO 00000
Frm 00229
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73397
(which would be held to zero if the CPI–
U percentage change is negative) by the
MFP adjustment, and states that
application of the MFP adjustment may
reduce this percentage increase below
zero. If the application of the MFP
adjustment to the CPI–U percentage
increase would result in an MFPadjusted AIF that is less than zero, then
the annual update to the AFS would be
negative and payments would decrease
relative to the prior year.
Table 63 provides illustrative
examples of how we proposed the MFP
adjustment would be applied to the
AFS. Finally, we proposed to revise
§ 414.610(f) to require that the AIF be
reduced by the MFP adjustment as
required by the statute in determining
the annual update under the ambulance
fee schedule for CY 2011 and each
subsequent year, and to revise § 414.620
to state that changes in payment rates
resulting from the incorporation of the
AIF and the MFP adjustment will be
announced by CMS by instruction and
on the CMS Web site, as we previously
discussed.
TABLE 63—EXAMPLES OF THE APPLICATION OF THE MULTIFACTOR PRODUCTIVITY ADJUSTMENT TO THE AMBULANCE FEE SCHEDULE
[In percent]
A
CPI–U
2.0
0.0
¥2.0
1.0
B
AIF
C
MFP Adjustment
2.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
D
Final
update
rounded
0.7
¥1.3
¥1.3
¥0.3
Comment: A few commenters stated
that the payment rates for ambulances
have consistently fallen further behind
the actual cost of providing the service.
One commenter stated that the annual
update as adjusted by the MFP
adjustment would create a permanent
disparity between future increases in
Medicare’s reimbursement for
ambulance services and the increased
costs of providing those services. The
commenter stated that the two largest
operational costs for ambulance services
are personnel and fuel, neither of which
readily lends itself to operational
efficiencies. In particular, they claim
that small and rural providers lack the
volume of transports needed to obtain
any meaningful economies of scale.
These commenters acknowledge that the
MFP adjustment is mandated by law,
but they state that it will likely result in
a net decrease in the already insufficient
base reimbursement rate for air
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73398
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
ambulances. One commenter urged
CMS to take whatever steps are within
its authority to mitigate the potentially
devastating effects of this new
requirement.
Response: As discussed previously
and in the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule
(75 FR 40124), we are required by law
to implement section 3401(j) of the
ACA, which requires that for CY 2011
and each subsequent year, after
determining the percentage increase
under section 1834(l)(3)(B) of the Act
(that is, the CPI–U percentage increase,
or AIF), the Secretary shall reduce such
percentage increase by the MFP
adjustment described in section
1886(b)(3)(B)(xi)(II) of the Act. In
response to the request that we
‘‘mitigate’’ any potentially negative
effects of the MFP adjustment, we
reiterate that we are required to apply
the MFP adjustment to the AIF in the
manner specified by the ACA, and we
are not authorized by statute to
implement measures to mitigate the
effects of this adjustment. We note that
certain temporary payment add-ons,
currently codified at section 1834(l)(12)
and (13) of the Act and at section
146(b)(1) of the MIPAA, were extended
by the ACA through December 31, 2010
(see section VI.F(1) and (3). of this final
rule). To date, Congress has not
extended these payment add-ons
beyond December 31, 2010. Therefore,
we are finalizing the methodology for
applying the MFP adjustment to the AIF
for the AFS as described in the
proposed rule. We did not receive any
comments regarding the proposed
changes to § 414.610(f) and § 414.620 as
discussed above. Therefore, we are
revising the regulation text in
§ 414.610(f) and § 414.620 as proposed,
with the following minor technical
change. In § 414.610(f), for clarification
purposes, we have made a technical
revision to refer to the definition of the
productivity adjustment in section
1886(b)(3)(B)(xi)(II) of the Act.
c. Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule
Section 1833(h)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, as
amended by section 3401(l) of the ACA,
states that the Secretary shall set the
CLFS ‘‘for the 12-month period
beginning July 1, 1984, adjusted
annually (to become effective on
January 1 of each year) by, subject to
clause (iv) [as added by the ACA], a
percentage increase or decrease equal to
the percentage increase or decrease in
the Consumer Price Index for All Urban
Consumers (United States city average)
minus, for each of the years 2009
through 2010, 0.5 percentage points’’.
Therefore, the adjustment to the fee
schedule can be an increase or a
decrease.
Section 3401(l) of the ACA also adds
new clause (iv) that applies in CY 2011
and each subsequent year. This clause
requires the Secretary to reduce the
adjustment in clause (i): (1) By the MFP
adjustment described in section
1886(b)(3)(B)(xi)(II) of the Act for 2011
and each subsequent year and (2) by
1.75 percentage points for each year of
2011 through 2015 (the ‘‘percentage
adjustment’’). However, section 3401(l)
of the ACA states that the MFP
adjustment will not apply in a year
where the adjustment to the fee
schedule determined under clause (i) is
zero or a percentage decrease for a year.
Further, the application of the MFP
adjustment shall not result in an
adjustment to the fee schedule under
clause (i) of less than zero for a year.
Therefore, we proposed to apply the
MFP adjustment as follows:
• If the CPI–U update factor is
positive, it would be reduced by the
MFP adjustment. However, if
application of the MFP adjustment
would result in a negative update, the
update would be held to zero.
• If the CPI–U update factor is zero or
negative, the MFP adjustment would not
be applied.
Section 3401(l) of the ACA also states
that the application of the percentage
adjustment may result in an adjustment
to the fee schedule under clause (i)
being less than zero for a year and may
result in payment rates for a year being
less than such payment rates for the
preceding year. Therefore, we are
applying the percentage reduction of
1.75 percentage points to any
adjustment to the fee schedule under
the CLFS as directed by section 3401(l)
of the ACA.
Table 64 provides illustrative
examples of how we proposed these
adjustments would be applied to fees
under the CLFS.
TABLE 64—EXAMPLES OF THE APPLICATION OF THE MULTIFACTOR PRODUCTIVITY ADJUSTMENT TO THE CLINICAL LAB FEE
SCHEDULE
A
B
C
D
E
CPI–U
MFP
Adjustment
Productivity
adjusted update
(¥1.75%)
Percentage point reduction
Resultant change to CLFS
Greater of 0.0% or
(Col. A)¥(Col. B)
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
2.0%
0.0%
¥2.0%
1.3%
N/A
N/A
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
¥1.75%
¥1.75%
¥1.75%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
We did not receive any public
comments on the proposed
methodology for applying the MFP
adjustment and the percentage
adjustment to the CPI–U update factor
for the CLFS. Therefore, we are
finalizing the methodology for applying
the MFP adjustment and the percentage
adjustment to the CPI–U update factor
for the CLFS as described in the
proposed rule.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Col. C¥Col. D
d. DMEPOS Fee Schedule
Sections 1834(a)(14), 1834(h)(4), and
1842(s)(1) of the Act mandate annual
updates to the fee schedule amounts
established in accordance with these
respective sections for covered items of
durable medical equipment defined in
section 1834(a)(13) of the Act, prosthetic
devices, orthotics, and prosthetics
defined in section 1834(h)(4)(B) and (C)
of the Act, and parenteral and enteral
nutrients, equipment, and supplies
described in section 1842(s)(2)(D) of the
PO 00000
Frm 00230
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
¥1.05%
¥1.75%
¥1.75%
Act. The annual updates for 2011 for
these sections are based on the
percentage increase in the CPI–U for the
12-month period ending with June 2010.
The annual updates for years
subsequent to 2011 will be based on the
percentage increase in the CPI–U for the
12-month period ending with June of
the previous year (that is, June 2011 for
2012, June 2012 for 2013, etc.). Since
1990 for durable medical equipment,
prosthetic devices, orthotics, and
prosthetics and since 2003 for
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
parenteral and enteral nutrients,
equipment, and supplies, we have
notified the public of these annual fee
schedule updates through program
instructions.
Section 3401(m) of the ACA amends
section 1834(a)(14) of the Act to add a
new subparagraph (L) which provides
that, for CY 2011 and each subsequent
year, the fee schedule update factor
based on the CPI–U for the 12-month
period ending with June of the previous
year is to be reduced by the MFP
adjustment described in section
1886(b)(3)(B)(xi)(II) of the Act (as
discussed previously). Section 3401(m)
of the ACA further amends section
1834(a)(14) of the Act to state that the
application of subparagraph (L) (that is,
the reduction of the CPI–U percentage
increase by the MFP adjustment) may
result in that percentage increase being
less than zero for a year, and may result
in payment rates for a year being less
than such payment rates for the
preceding year.
Section 3401(n) of ACA amends
section 1834(h)(4)(A) of the Act to add
a new clause (xi) which provides that,
for CY 2011 and each subsequent year,
the fee schedule update factor based on
the CPI–U for the 12-month period
ending with June of the previous year is
to be reduced by the MFP adjustment
described in section 1886(b)(3)(B)(xi)(II)
of the Act (as discussed previously).
Section 3401(n) of the ACA further
amends section 1834(h)(4) of the Act to
state that the application of
subparagraph (A)(xi) (that is, the
reduction of the CPI–U percentage
increase by the MFP adjustment) may
result in that percentage increase being
less than zero for a year, and may result
in payment rates for a year being less
than such payment rates for the
preceding year.
Section 3401(o) of ACA amends
section 1842(s)(1) of the Act to add a
new subparagraph (B) and clause (ii)
which provides that, for CY 2011 and
each subsequent year, the fee schedule
update factor based on the CPI–U for the
12-month period ending with June of
the previous year is to be reduced by the
MFP adjustment described in section
1886(b)(3)(B)(xi)(II) of the Act (as
discussed above). Section 3401(o) of the
ACA further amends section 1842(s)(1)
of the Act to state that the application
of subparagraph (B)(ii) (that is, the
reduction of the CPI–U percentage
increase by the MFP adjustment) may
result in that percentage increase being
less than zero for a year, and may result
in payment rates for a year being less
than such payment rates for the
preceding year.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
The MFP adjustments to the CPI–U
percentage increases used in calculating
the fee schedule adjustment factors for
these DMEPOS items and services as
mandated by sections 3401(m), (n), and
(o) of ACA are simple mathematical
calculations and are ministerial in
nature. Therefore, we plan to implement
these adjustments for 2011 and
subsequent years as part of the annual
program instructions related to the
DMEPOS fees schedule updates.
Comment: Several commenters stated
that there were flawed assumptions
underlying the statutory requirements of
section 3401 of the ACA. Since the MFP
measures the contributions to
productivity of all sectors involved in
production, the commenters argued that
the indiscriminate application of the
MFP to DMEPOS items was
fundamentally flawed.
Response: As discussed previously,
sections 3401(m), (n), and (o) of the
ACA require us to implement the MFP
adjustments to the CPI–U percentage
increases for DMEPOS items and
services. Therefore, we are finalizing
our proposal to apply the MFP
adjustments to the CPI–U percentage
increases for DMEPOS items and
services for calendar year 2011 and
subsequent years.
Q. Section 4103: Medicare Coverage of
Annual Wellness Visit Providing a
Personalized Prevention Plan
1. Background and Statutory Authority
a. Medicare Coverage of Preventive
Physical Examinations and Routine
Checkups
Section 1862(a)(7) of the Act
explicitly prohibits Medicare payment
for routine physical checkups with
certain exceptions. One exception is for
the Initial Preventive Physical Exam
(also referred to as the ‘‘Welcome to
Medicare’’ exam) established for new
beneficiaries effective for services
furnished on or after January 1, 2005.
Section 4103 of the ACA has provided
another exception to section 1862(a)(7)
of the Act. Congress expanded Medicare
coverage under Part B to include an
Annual Wellness Visit (AWV) Providing
Personalized Prevention Plan Services
(hereinafter referred to as the annual
wellness visit) in sections 1861(s)(2)(FF)
and 1861(hhh) of the Act. This
expanded benefit is effective on
January 1, 2011.
Preventive care has become an
increasing focus of the Medicare
program. For instance, section 101 of
the MIPPA expanded Medicare’s
authority to establish coverage for
additional preventive services that meet
specified criteria. Among other things,
PO 00000
Frm 00231
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73399
the AWV will encourage beneficiaries to
obtain the preventive services already
covered by Medicare, and that are
appropriate for each individual
beneficiary.
b. Requirements for Coverage of an
Annual Wellness Visit
Section 4103 of the ACA provides for
coverage of an AWV, which includes
and/or takes into account a health risk
assessment (HRA), and creates a
personalized prevention plan for
beneficiaries, subject to certain
eligibility and other limitations. Section
4103 of the ACA also requires the
identification of elements that must be
provided to a beneficiary as part of the
first visit for personalized prevention
plan services and requires the
establishment of a yearly schedule for
appropriate provision of such elements
thereafter.
The ACA specifies elements to be
included in a personalized prevention
plan, including establishment of, or
update to, the individual’s medical and
family history, a list of the individual’s
current providers and suppliers and
medications prescribed for the
individual; measurement of height,
weight, body-mass index (BMI) or waist
circumference, and blood pressure;
detection of any cognitive impairment;
establishment or update of an
appropriate screening schedule for the
next 5 to 10 years; establishment or
update of a list of risk factors and
conditions (including any mental health
conditions) for which interventions are
recommended or underway; and
furnishing of personalized health advice
and referral, as appropriate, to health
education or preventive counseling
services or programs. The ACA also
permits the Secretary to add other
elements to the AWV determined to be
appropriate.
2. Regulatory Revisions—Summary of
Proposed Rule and Comments
The following is a summary of the
provisions of the proposed rule and of
the comments received. We received 75
public comments on the proposed rule
regarding the AWV. Commenters
included national and state professional
associations, medical societies and
national medical advisory groups,
hospital associations and hospitals,
physicians, registered dietitians,
occupational therapists, senior advisory
groups, health insurance associations,
manufacturers, and others. While a
number of commenters expressed
concern that the proposal was either too
prescriptive, not sufficiently targeted to
development of an individual’s
personalized prevention plan, or was
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73400
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
not broad enough to include additional
screening or prevention services; a large
majority of commenters applauded
CMS’ efforts in developing the rule and
generally supported its major elements.
Many suggested clarification and
revision of the rule in a number of
different areas, including the proposed
definitions of ‘‘detection of any
cognitive impairment,’’ and ‘‘health
professional,’’ and the components of
the first and subsequent AWVs. One
special concern of a number of
commenters was related to the health
risk assessment (HRA). Some provisions
of section 4103 of the ACA require the
HRA be included in the new AWV,
which is effective January 1, 2011. Other
provisions of section 4103 of the ACA
give the Secretary a longer period of
time to develop an HRA in consultation
with relevant groups and entities.
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
a. Revisions to § 411.15, Particular
Services Excluded From Coverage
To conform the regulations to the
statutory requirements of the ACA, we
proposed to revise § 411.15 by
specifying an exception to the routine
physical checkups exclusion from
coverage in § 411.15(a)(1) and modifying
§ 411.15(k)(15). We proposed to add a
provision to permit coverage of AWVs
that meet the eligibility limitations and
the conditions for coverage we are
specifying in § 410.15 (Annual Wellness
Visit Providing Personalized Prevention
Plan Services).
Coverage of the AWV is furnished
under Medicare Part B only. As
provided in the statute, this new
coverage allows payment for an AWV if
provided on or after January 1, 2011 for
an individual who is no longer within
12 months after the effective date of his
or her first Medicare Part B coverage
period, and has not received either an
IPPE or an AWV within the past 12
months.
b. Revisions to Part 410, Subpart B—
Medical and Other Health Services
We proposed to add § 410.15, Annual
wellness visits providing Personalized
Prevention Plan Services: Conditions for
and limitations on coverage, to codify
the coverage of the annual wellness visit
providing personalized prevention plan
services.
We proposed to define several terms
in § 410.15(a), including: (1) Detection
of any cognitive impairment; (2) Review
of the individual’s functional ability and
level of safety; (3) Health professional;
(4) Establishment of, or update to the
individual’s medical and family history;
(5) Eligible beneficiary; (6) First annual
wellness visit providing personalized
prevention plan services; and (7)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
Subsequent annual wellness visit
providing personalized prevention plan
services.
Further, the ACA allows the addition
of any other element determined
appropriate by the Secretary for
inclusion in an AWV. We reviewed the
relevant medical literature, current
clinical practice guidelines, and the
recommendations of the United States
Preventive Services Task Force
(USPSTF). Pursuant to that review, we
proposed to add depression screening
and functional status screening as
elements of the first AWV only. In its
December 2009 Recommendation
Statement, the USPSTF recommends
screening adults for depression when
staff-assisted depression care supports
are in place to assure accurate diagnosis,
effective treatment and follow-up
(Grade: B recommendation). That is, the
USPSTF recommends the service; there
is high certainty that the net benefit is
moderate or there is moderate certainty
that the net benefit is moderate to
substantial.
The USPSTF is currently updating its
1996 recommendation regarding
screening for hearing impairment in
older adults as well as its
recommendation on falls in the elderly.
Until those recommendations can be
published, functional status screening
(including assessment of hearing
impairment, ability to successfully
perform activities of daily living, fall
risk, and home safety) appears
supportable by evidence only for the
first AWV.
We also proposed that the definition
of the term ‘‘Establishment of, or an
update to the individual’s medical and
family history’’ include more than a list
of all of an individual’s prescribed
medications as provided in the statute,
but also supplements such as vitamins
and calcium that an individual may be
exposed to or use. Supplements such as
these are commonly used by many
beneficiaries and the medical literature
supports that their use be closely
monitored by health professionals
because they can interact with
prescribed medications and may result
in unintended medical problems in
individual cases. The statute expressly
permits the Secretary to add other
elements such as this to the AWVs.
To facilitate future consideration of
coverage of additional elements in the
definitions of the first and subsequent
AWVs in § 410.15(a), we proposed that
the determination of other required
elements for those purposes will be
made through the national coverage
determination (NCD) process. The NCD
process, as described in section 1862(l)
of the Act, is evidence based,
PO 00000
Frm 00232
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
transparent, and furnishes the
opportunity for public comment.
(1) Definitions
We proposed to add the following
definitions to § 410.15(a):
• Detection of any cognitive
impairment, for purposes of this section,
means assessment of an individual’s
cognitive function by direct observation,
with due consideration of information
obtained by way of patient report,
concerns raised by family members,
friends, caretakers, or others.
Comment: A number of commenters
strongly supported the mandatory
inclusion of ‘‘detection of any cognitive
impairment’’ in the new AWV, but
several suggested the proposed
definition did not go far enough and
needed to be clarified. One commenter
suggested that the definition was ‘‘too
vague and may be interpreted as
optional by a provider unless a
subjective memory complaint is raised
by the individual or a concern is raised
by family members, friends, caretakers,
or others’’, and that a brief cognitive
screening test was necessary ‘‘to
accurately identify the presence of
cognitive deficits, and to indicate
whether additional testing is necessary
* * *’’ Another commenter expressed
concern that ‘‘physicians cannot
accurately assess cognitive function
* * * by relying on direct observation
or by report of the patient or
knowledgeable informant.’’ The
commenter cited several recent
publications and their own experience
in support of revising the definition to
include use of a standardized screening
test. A number of commenters
supporting the importance of the
‘‘detection of cognitive impairment’’
element, however, agreed with the
definition that is used in the proposed
rule, which does not require a
standardized screening tool.
Response: We agree with the
commenters that the ‘‘detection of
cognitive impairment’’ is an important
element of the AWV. As Boustani and
colleagues (Ann Internal Medicine
2003;138:927–937) noted: ‘‘Dementia
causes a high burden of suffering for
patients, their families, and society. For
patients, it leads to increased
dependency and complicates other
comorbid conditions. For families, it
leads to anxiety, depression, and
increased time spent caring for a loved
one. The annual societal cost of
dementia is approximately $100 billion
(health care and related costs as well as
lost wages for patients and family
caregivers).’’
Several commenters suggested
revising the proposed definition by the
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
addition of a standardized screening
tool. With the considerable variability in
the range and causes of cognitive
impairment, it is difficult to more
specifically define this element without
limiting it to specific diseases such as
Alzheimer’s since dementia in and of
itself is broadly defined. The American
Psychiatric Association stated: ‘‘the
essential features of a dementia are
acquired multiple cognitive deficits that
usually include memory impairment
and at least one of the following
phenomena in the absence of a delirium
that might explain the deficit: aphasia,
apraxia, agnosia, or a disturbance in
executive functioning (the ability to
think abstractly and to plan, initiate,
sequence, monitor, and stop complex
behavior) (https://
www.psychiatryonline.com/
content.aspx?aID=152634#152634).’’
However, an evidence-based,
standardized screening tool is not
currently available. The USPSTF noted:
‘‘most screening tests have been
evaluated in studies with small sample
sizes, and the populations of patients on
whom screening instruments have been
tested have varied greatly, making it
difficult to determine the overall
performance of screening tests for
dementia’’ (https://
www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/
3rduspstf/dementia/dementrr.pdf).
They concluded ‘‘that the evidence is
insufficient to recommend for or against
routine screening for dementia in older
adults (I grade).’’ Since there is no
nationally recognized screening tool for
the detection of cognitive impairments
at the present time, we are adopting the
language in § 410.15(a) as proposed.
We disagree with one of the
commenter’s assertions that, in general,
a physician cannot accurately assess
cognitive function by direct observation
or report of the patient or by report of
the patient knowledgeable informant.
We believe that physicians can use their
best clinical judgment in the detection
and diagnosis of cognitive impairments,
along with determining whether
additional resources may need to be
used in the course of screening and
treatment of the patient. We will
continue to actively monitor
advancements in screening, collaborate
with the USPSTF, and will consider
revising this element if the evidence is
sufficient and a standardized screening
test becomes available.
• Review of the individual’s
functional ability and level of safety, for
purposes of this section includes, at a
minimum, assessment of the following
topics:
++ Hearing impairment;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
++ Ability to successfully perform
activities of daily living;
++ Fall risk;
++ Home safety.
Comment: One commenter asked
CMS to add ‘‘assessment of level of
support’’ to the proposed definition of
‘‘review of the individual’s functional
ability and level of safety’’ to recognize
that the availability of a caregiver is an
important indication of a beneficiary’s
ability to function and of their level of
safety.
Response: We agree that family
caregivers play an important role in the
lives of the individuals they care for and
support. However, we believe that the
term as defined in the proposed rule is
flexible enough to include a discussion
of the availability of a caregiver as part
of the review of functional ability and
level of safety, if determined
appropriate by the health professional
furnishing the AWV. Therefore, we are
not adopting this public comment and
are adopting the definition as proposed.
• Health professional, for purposes of
this section means:
++ A physician who is a doctor of
medicine or osteopathy (as defined in
section 1861(r)(1) of the Act); or
++ A practitioner as described in
clause (i) of section 1842(b)(18)(C) of the
Act, that is, a physician assistant, nurse
practitioner, or clinical nurse specialist
(as defined in section 1861(aa)(5) of the
Act); or
++ A medical professional (including
a health educator, registered dietitian, or
nutritionist) or a team of medical
professionals, who are working under
the supervision of a physician as
defined in this definition.
Comment: A number of commenters
requested clarification of specific
elements of the definition of the term
‘‘Health professional’’ and offered
specific suggestions for revisions that
might be made in the definition in the
final rule. One commenter suggested
that section 4103 of the ACA provided
that the AWV could be performed by a
health professional or a team of health
professionals such as a registered nurse
that works under the supervision of a
physician. When registered nurses or
other medical professionals who are not
Medicare-recognized providers or
practitioners perform the AWV under
the supervision of a physician, the
commenter assumes that the visit
‘‘would be billed by the supervising
physician who may or may not see the
patient during the visit.’’ The
commenter believed that because the
AWV has its own benefit category then
Medicare payments would not fall
under the ‘‘incident to’’ benefit (section
PO 00000
Frm 00233
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73401
1861(s)(2)(B) of the Act and the
’incident to’ criteria would not need to
be met.
Response: We agree with the
commenter that the AWV has its own
benefit category as provided in section
1861(s)(2)(FF) and section 1861 (hhh) of
the Act and, therefore, is not subject to
the ‘‘incident to’’ rules. The commenter
is also correct that our intent is that
where the wellness visit is performed by
a ‘‘team of medical professionals
working under the supervision of a
physician’’ it is the supervising
physician who would bill Medicare Part
B for the visit. In this final rule, we are
clarifying that the visit would be
furnished under the ‘‘direct supervision’’
(as defined in 42 CFR 410.32(b)(3)(ii)),
of a physician (as defined in paragraph
(i) of this definition). Direct supervision
in the office setting means that the
physician must be present in the office
suite and immediately available to
furnish assistance and direction
throughout the performance of the
procedure. It does not mean that the
physician must be present in the room
when the procedure is performed. In
response to the public comment, we are
amending the definition of the term
‘‘health professional’’ in the final rule to
read in paragraph (iii) as follows:
‘‘A medical professional (including a
health educator, a registered dietitian, or
nutrition professional, or other licensed
practitioner or a team of such medical
professionals, working under the direct
supervision (as defined in 42 CFR
410.32(b)(3)(ii)) of a physician as
defined in paragraph (i) of this
definition.’’
Comment: A commenter asserted that
the definition of ‘‘health professional’’
should recognize other potential
members of the team beyond those
listed in the examples in the statute.
The commenter recommends that CMS
‘‘specify who may or should be a part of
the team and should define ‘medical
professional’ as licensed health
practitioners whose services are
specifically covered and regulated by
Medicare. Otherwise, in the
commenter’s view, paraprofessionals,
non-licensed providers or others may be
inappropriately used as part of the team.
The commenter supported the
requirement ‘‘that the team should be
directed by a physician,’’ but believes
‘‘CMS should provide some standards
for the members of the team as a
protection for consumers and to assure
that funding for this visit will be spent
on authentic, appropriate and regulated
services.’’ The commenter also suggested
that occupational therapists be
specifically included as a potential
component of the team.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73402
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Another commenter asked CMS to
clarify ‘‘how the required tasks in the
visit will be performed and how care
coordination will occur among the
eligible medical professionals and/or
team that provides the AWV.’’
Response: While we appreciate the
commenters’ concerns, we are not
assigning particular tasks or restrictions
for specific members of the team in this
final rule. We believe it is better for the
supervising physician to assign specific
tasks to qualified team members (as long
as they are licensed in the State and
working within their state scope of
practice). This approach gives the
physicians and the team the flexibility
needed to address the beneficiary’s
particular needs on a particular day. It
also empowers the physician to
determine whether specific medical
professionals (such as occupational
therapists) who will be working on his
or her wellness team are needed on a
particular day. The physician is able to
determine the coordination of various
team members during the AWV.
Comment: One commenter urged
CMS to revise its proposed definition of
‘‘Health professional’’ to include the
phrase ‘‘practicing in any particular
patient care setting.’’ The commenter
believed that this clarification is needed
to ‘‘encourage retail based practitioners
to provide these services, thereby
making this benefit more appealing for
patients.’’ The commenter suggested that
‘‘retail based health practitioners are
uniquely positioned to ensure the
optimal utilization of this new benefit.’’
Response: Although we are interested
in encouraging the maximum use of the
AWV and encourage all of the health
professionals listed in section
1861(hhh)(3) of the Act that are
qualified to furnish this service to
participate in providing this part B
service, we are not adopting the
commenter’s suggestion to include the
phrase ‘‘practicing an any particular
patient care setting.’’ This particular
phrase is not used in section
1861(hhh)(3) of the Act, which instead
references specific health professionals
that may furnish the AWV without
regard to a particular physical location.
Moreover, we note that the phrase ‘‘any
particular patient care setting’’ is
ambiguous, and may in fact
unintentionally narrow the availability
of the benefit or raise unnecessary
questions regarding the setting.
Therefore, we are not adopting the
commenter’s suggested revision of that
definition to include language on
specific patient care settings.
Comment: One commenter noted that
certified nurse-midwives (CNMs) are
not specifically mentioned in the ACA
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
as it relates to the AWV, though nurse
practitioners and clinical nurse
specialists are enumerated among
practitioners eligible to participate. The
commenter requested that CMS review
the education, background and scope of
practice services under the Medicare
program and ensure that CNMs are
clearly eligible to provide the Medicare
AWV.
Response: Congress defined the term
‘‘health professional’’ as including
certain practitioners ‘‘described in
clause (i) of section 1842(b)(18)(C)’’ of
the Act. Clause (i) specifically includes
physician assistants (PAs), nurse
practitioners (NPs) and clinical nurse
specialists. CNMs, in contrast, are
identified in clause (iii) of 1842
(b)(18)(C) of the Act. Given the
specificity of the cross-reference to only
clause (i), we presume that Congress
acted intentionally by not including a
reference to clause (iii). Thus, we
believe additional legislation would be
needed to recognize CNMs as a ‘‘health
professional’’ under this section.
However, we note, that it is possible
that a CNM could be chosen by a
physician as a member of the team of
professionals under the physician’s
supervision.
Comment: One commenter requested
that CMS clarify the language of the
proposed rule in the definition of
‘‘medical professional’’ in § 410.31(a).
Section 4103 of the ACA uses the terms
‘‘registered dietitian’’ or ‘‘nutrition
professional’’ in its definition of
‘‘medical professional’’ eligible to be
involved in the AWV. The proposed
rule used the term ‘‘nutritionist’’ instead
of ‘‘nutrition professional.’’ The
commenter asks CMS to replace the
term ‘‘nutritionist’’ with ‘‘nutrition
professional’’ in § 410.15(a).
Response: We agree with the
commenter and we are replacing the
term ‘‘nutritionist’’ with the term
‘‘nutrition professional’’ in § 410.15(a) of
the final rule, which is consistent with
the language used in section 4103 of the
ACA.
Comment: One commenter is
concerned about the CMS proposal to
require the term ‘‘physician’’ for
purposes of the definition of ‘‘health
professional’’ to be either a doctor of
medicine or a doctor of osteopathy as
defined in section 1861(r)(1) of the Act.
The commenter suggests that we use the
full definition of a ‘‘physician as defined
in section 1861(r) of the Act.
Response: Section 4103 of the ACA
does not specifically define what type of
physician is eligible for performing or
supervising the team of health
professionals who will be performing or
supervising the AWV. In developing the
PO 00000
Frm 00234
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
proposed rule, we considered the
various types of physicians that are
identified in section 1861(r)(2), (r)(3),
(r)(4), and (r)(5) of the Act. These
include doctors of dental surgery,
doctors of podiatric medicine, doctors of
optometry, and chiropractors, whose
scope of medical practice is generally
limited by State law to a particular part
(or parts) of the human anatomy. Given
the State licensing restrictions, some
individuals who are physicians for
certain limited purposes under
section1861(r) of the Act could exceed
their scope of practice if they attempted
to furnish the AWV. Based on this
information, we are leaving the
definition of a physician unchanged in
the final rule.
• Establishment of, or an update to
the individual’s medical and family
history, for purposes of this section,
means, at minimum, the collection and
documentation of the following:
++ Past medical and surgical history,
including experiences with illnesses,
hospital stays, operations, allergies,
injuries, and treatments.
++ Use or exposure to medications
and supplements, including calcium
and vitamins.
++ Medical events experienced by the
beneficiary’s parents and any siblings
and children, including diseases that
may be hereditary or place the
individual at increased risk.
Comment: A number of commenters
requested that additional items be
included in the definition of the term
‘‘Establishment of, or an update to the
individual’s medical and family
history,’’ such as tobacco use, sexual
history, history and results of pelvic
exams, and falls history.
Response: Our proposed definition at
§ 410.15(a) was not intended to establish
an exhaustive list of the elements of an
individual’s medical and family history.
We included the phrase ‘‘at minimum’’
to reflect that the listed criteria
represent a floor and not a ceiling on the
items included in the medical and
family history. We agree that the items
of additional information identified by
the commenters are relevant and could
be included in the medical and family
history that is maintained by the health
professional for the Medicare
beneficiary. However, we believe that
the term as defined in the proposed rule
is flexible enough to encompass the
additional items requested by the
commenters. Therefore, we are not
adopting the commenters’ specific
language and are implementing the
proposed definition in this final rule.
• Eligible beneficiary, for purposes of
this section, means an individual who is
no longer within 12 months after the
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
effective date of his or her first Medicare
Part B coverage period, and has not
received either an initial preventive
physical examination or an AWV
providing a personalized prevention
plan within the past 12 months.
Comment: Several commenters
suggested that CMS misinterpreted the
eligibility criteria for the AWV and its
relationship to the one-time initial
preventive physical examination
defined in section 1861(ww)(1) of the
Act, which is only covered during the
first 12 months after a beneficiary’s
enrollment in Medicare Part B takes
effect.
In suggesting that CMS’ proposed
definition was inappropriate, one
commenter pointed to statutory
language that states: ‘‘A beneficiary shall
only be eligible to receive an initial
preventive physical examination (as
defined under subsection (ww)(1)) at
any time during the 12-month period
after the date that the beneficiary’s
coverage begins under Part B and shall
be eligible to receive personalized
prevention plan services under this
subsection provided that the beneficiary
has not received such services within
the preceding 12 month period.’’ The
commenter argued that this language
intends either an initial preventive
physical examination or an AWV to be
available during the 12-month period
after an individual’s Part B coverage
begins provided the individual has not
received either service within the
preceding 12-months. To further bolster
this argument, the commenter points to
clause (ii) of paragraph (G) directing the
Secretary to ‘‘establish procedures to
make beneficiaries aware of the option
to select an initial preventive physical
examination or personalized prevention
plan services during the period of 12months after the date that a beneficiary’s
coverage begins under Part B, which
shall include information regarding any
relevant differences between such
services.’’
Response: The statutory text cited by
the commenter fails to reflect a later
Congressional amendment. Specifically,
Congress replaced the language of
paragraph (G) by section 10402(b) of the
ACA. That amendment replaced the text
cited by the commenter so that the
version of paragraph (G) that was
enacted into law reads: ‘‘A beneficiary
shall be eligible to receive only an
initial preventive physical examination
(as defined under subsection (ww)(1))
during the 12-month period after the
date that the beneficiary’s coverage
begins under Part B and shall be eligible
to receive personalized prevention plan
services under this subsection each year
thereafter provided that the beneficiary
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
has not received either an initial
preventive physical examination or
personalized prevention plan services
within the preceding 12-month period.’’
This amendment clarifies that only an
initial preventive physical examination
is covered during the 12-month period
after an individual’s Part B coverage
begins, and that coverage of the new
AWVs begins during the individual’s
second year of Part B coverage. In other
words, they were intended to be
sequential, not concurrent, benefits. We
believe the proposed definition of
‘‘eligible beneficiary’’ included in the
proposed rule correctly implements this
aspect of sections 4103 and 10402(b) of
the ACA. Therefore, we are finalizing
the proposed definition without
accepting the commenters’ suggestion.
(2) Requirements of the First Annual
Wellness Visit Providing Personalized
Prevention Plan Services
We proposed that the first AWV
providing personalized prevention plan
services for purposes of this benefit
include the following:
• Establishment of an individual’s
medical and family history.
• Establishment of a list of current
providers and suppliers that are
regularly involved in providing medical
care to the individual.
• Measurement of an individual’s
height, weight, body mass index (or
waist circumference, if appropriate),
blood pressure, and other routine
measurements as deemed appropriate,
based on the individual’s medical and
family history.
• Detection of any cognitive
impairment that the individual may
have.
• Review of the individual’s potential
(risk factors) for depression, including
current or past experiences with
depression or other mood disorders,
based on the use of an appropriate
screening instrument for persons
without a current diagnosis of
depression, which the health
professional as defined in this section
may select from various available
screening questions or standardized
questionnaires designed for this purpose
and recognized by national professional
medical organizations.
• Review of the individual’s
functional ability and level of safety,
based on direct observation or the use
of appropriate screening questions or a
screening questionnaire, which the
health professional as defined in this
section may select from various
available screening questions or
standardized questionnaires designed
for this purpose and recognized by
PO 00000
Frm 00235
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73403
national professional medical
organizations.
• Establishment of the following:
++ A written screening schedule, such
as a checklist, for the next 5 to 10 years
as appropriate, based on
recommendations of the USPSTF and
the Advisory Committee on
Immunization Practices, and the
individual’s health status, screening
history, and age-appropriate preventive
services covered by Medicare.
++ A list of risk factors and conditions
for which primary, secondary or tertiary
interventions are recommended or are
underway, including any mental health
conditions or any such risk factors or
conditions that have been identified
through an initial preventive physical
examination (as described under
§ 410.16), and a list of treatment options
and their associated risks and benefits.
• Furnishing of personalized health
advice to the individual and a referral,
as appropriate, to health education or
preventive counseling services or
programs aimed at reducing identified
risk factors and improving self
management, or community-based
lifestyle interventions to reduce health
risks and promote self-management and
wellness, including weight loss,
physical activity, smoking cessation, fall
prevention, and nutrition.
• Any other element determined
appropriate through the National
Coverage Determination process.
Comment: A number of commenters
were supportive of the proposal to use
the national coverage determination
process and rely on the USPSTF
recommendations in developing the
definitions of the first and subsequent
AWV definitions, along with the
addition of any other elements in the
future, since the services need to be
based on evidence. One commenter
suggested that CMS publish a notice in
the Federal Register about
consideration of other preventive
services via the NCD process. The
commenter expressed concern that
many groups and members of the public
were more familiar with the regulatory
notification process than the NCD
process.
Response: We appreciate the
commenter’s concerns regarding
receiving timely information about
topics that CMS is considering for
coverage of preventive services via the
NCD process. As discussed in the
preamble, the NCD process is an
evidence-based, transparent process and
furnishes the opportunity for public
comment, and is described in section
1862(l) of the Act. The CMS Web site at
https://www.cms.gov/mcd/
index_list.asp?list_type=nca contains a
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73404
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
list of all national coverage analyses that
are currently under consideration.
Those interested in receiving
information via e-mail regarding
national coverage analyses under
consideration can sign up to receive email notifications via the CMS coverage
listserv at https://www.cms.gov/
InfoExchange/
03_listserv.asp#TopOfPage. Given the
relatively fast timeline described in
section 1862(l) of the Act, we do not
believe it is feasible to add a
requirement for publication of a notice
in the Federal Register whenever an
NCD is opened. Therefore, we are not
adopting the public comment. Please
note that we do publish a listing in the
Federal Register of all NCDs that are
issued. This information is included in
the quarterly notice issued pursuant to
section1871(c) of the Act.
Comment: Several commenters noted
that we did not include the health risk
assessment (HRA) in our proposal that
section 4103 of the ACA ultimately
requires to be part of the AWV. Several
of these commenters strongly supported
the CMS approach of not immediately
implementing the HRA requirement on
January 1, 2011. Some commenters
noted that a separate ACA provision
also concerns the establishment of an
HRA, but used later deadlines.
Specifically, section 1861(hhh)(4)(A) of
the Act requires consultation to develop
publically available guidelines for HRAs
by March 23, 2011. One commenter
noted that ‘‘the relative recent enactment
of the Affordable Care Act provided
CMS little time to establish standard
processes related to a health risk
assessment (HRA).’’ Another commenter
stressed the need for a standardized
HRA model or models that is/are
recognized and accepted nationally.
Another commenter urged us to act as
expeditiously as possible in a
consultative way by directly engaging
the major medical organizations and
stakeholders who represent physicians
and other clinicians who see Medicare
beneficiaries. One commenter
recommended that the ‘‘HRA program
should also be pilot-tested before widely
imposed to determine such critical
factors as the effectiveness of the
guidelines and the administrative
burden imposed on the physicians.’’
However, other commenters
expressed the view that the HRA is such
a fundamental element of the new AWV
that it should be added to the final rule
and required beginning January 1, 2011.
One commenter indicated that the
absence of an HRA ‘‘will delay the
opportunity to improve beneficiaries’
health and to control costs as a result.
We believe that the HRA is the lynchpin
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
that makes the wellness visit more than
another office visit and should be
included as a required element
beginning January 1, 2011.’’ Several of
these commenters suggested that CMS
should rely on the National Committee
for Quality Assurance (NCQA)
certification process, the Utilization
Review Accreditation Committee
(URAC) accreditation process, or
another certification process that
already exists effective January 1, 2011,
at least as an interim measure.
Response: We agree with commenters
that the HRA is an important part of the
AWV and we are working to fully
implement this relevant provision of the
ACA. However, because the statute has
specified a time frame and procedures
that require consultation with relevant
groups and entities prior to publication
of the required HRA guidelines, it is not
possible to complete those procedures
by January 1, 2011. Moreover, we do not
believe it would be prudent to mandate
an interim HRA without completing the
consultation process that Congress has
specifically required. The point of the
consultation is to achieve a greater
national consensus on the HRA to be
used. As one of the large physician
specialty groups has noted during the
public comment period, a standardized
HRA is needed to ‘‘ensure use of
appropriate and robust HRA from a
marketplace where considerable
variation exists today.’’ We agree with
this commenter that what is needed is
an HRA ‘‘that has been standardized by
the Department of Health and Human
Services.’’ The development of an
evidence-based, standardized model,
nonetheless requires extensive work and
input from a number of public agencies,
professional societies and private
organizations. It is important to
carefully complete that process so that
the evidence-based standard will have a
sound scientific foundation and broad
acceptance.
Consistent with the statutory
deadlines, and one commenter’s
suggestion ‘‘that the Secretary of HHS
expedite the development of a
standardized HRA,’’ CMS is
collaborating with the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
which is directed by section 4004(f) of
the ACA to develop a personalized
prevention plan tool and has an indepth knowledge of HRAs. We
understand that CDC is planning to
convene an open scientific meeting in
Atlanta at the beginning of 2011 to
facilitate that development. This
meeting should allow broad public
input into the development of an
evidence-based standardized HRA, as
recommended by the American Medical
PO 00000
Frm 00236
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Association (AMA) which urged ‘‘CMS
to continue to develop the HRA
guidelines, in consultation with the
AMA and other relevant stakeholders
representing physicians,’’ and the
American College of Physicians (ACP)
which recommended ‘‘that the agency
engage directly with the most relevant
stakeholders * * * to ensure that the
HRA fulfills the vital role of promoting
optimal preventive care and related
interventions envisioned by the ACA.’’
CMS has also commissioned a
technology assessment from the Agency
for Healthcare Research and Quality
(AHRQ) to be completed by the end of
2010 that will help in the development
of the HRA guidelines and model.
While commenters have suggested
that we require the use of one or more
currently available assessment tools
until an evidence-based standardized
model is available, we believe it would
be premature and inefficient to make
such a recommendation at this time
without adequate scientific review and
broader stakeholder input. As noted in
the proposed rule, HRA guidelines and
standards are being developed by the
CDC and when a model HRA instrument
is available and determined by the
Secretary to be appropriate for the use
of Medicare beneficiaries, we will revise
these regulations to include the HRA as
an element in the definition of the
AWV.
Comment: Several comments
expressed concern that there were too
many required elements in the
definition of the ‘‘First annual wellness
visit’’ and that the definition should be
modified so that some of the elements
are discretionary based on an
individual’s medical history or the
results of an HRA and one suggested
that CMS should ‘‘clarify the role that
the HRA care plan plays in addressing
these elements as a prelude to the office
visit.’’ This commenter noted that the
proposed CMS definition ‘‘assumes that
the physician does not already know the
patient’s medical and family history or
other providers and suppliers involved
in the patient’s care’’ which may not
always be the case.
One commenter stated that the AWV
‘‘is supposed to deliver a service tailored
to the specific needs of the patient based
on some combination of the HRA
results, medical history, and
practitioner expertise. Some elements
could be required for every patient
because the level of appropriateness
does not vary much from patient to
patient based on age, gender, and other
factors. However, there are some
elements the need for which varies
greatly from patient to patient and even
over time.’’ This commenter
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
recommended ‘‘that CMS add general
language stating that certain elements
can be addressed, at least to some
degree, as part of the HRA.’’
Response: We agree that a physician’s
or other health professional’s need to
include certain elements of the AWV
may vary with the professional’s
knowledge of the individual’s medical
and family history and, in particular,
with the results of an HRA, if available.
However, until HRA guidelines have
been developed and a standardized
HRA model or models has/have been
recognized and accepted nationally by
the Secretary for use by Medicare
beneficiaries, we do not believe it is
appropriate to include more flexibility
or alternatives to the proposed elements
of the first wellness visit. Therefore, we
are leaving the proposed elements (i)
through (viii) of the definition of the
first AWV unchanged in this final rule.
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
(3) Requirements of Subsequent Annual
Wellness Visits Providing Personalized
Prevention Plan Services
We proposed that subsequent AWVs
providing personalized prevention plan
services for purposes of this benefit
include the following:
• An update of the individual’s
medical and family history.
• An update of the list of current
providers and suppliers that are
regularly involved in providing medical
care to the individual, as that list was
developed for the first AWV providing
personalized prevention plan services.
• Measurement of an individual’s
weight (or waist circumference), blood
pressure, and other routine
measurements as deemed appropriate,
based on the individual’s medical and
family history.
• Detection of any cognitive
impairment, as that term is defined in
this section, that the individual may
have.
• An update to both of the following:
++ The written screening schedule for
the individual as that schedule was
developed at the first AWV providing
personalized prevention plan services.
++ The list of risk factors and
conditions for which primary,
secondary or tertiary interventions are
recommended or are under way for the
individual as that list was developed at
the first AWV providing personalized
prevention plan services.
• Furnishing of personalized health
advice to the individual and a referral,
as appropriate, to health education or
preventive counseling services or
programs as that advice and related
services are defined in paragraph (a) of
this section.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
• Any other element determined
through the NCD process.
We proposed that body-mass index
(BMI) should be calculated at the first
AWV and may be recalculated at
subsequent AWVs, if indicated. Given
the general stability of adult height, we
would not expect the BMI to
meaningfully change in the absence of
significant weight change. In the
proposed rule, we did not require
measurement of the individual’s height
in the subsequent annual visit.
We proposed to add two distinct
elements to the definition of the first
AWV only: Depression screening and
functional status and level of safety
assessment. Our review of the medical
literature and the USPSTF
recommendations indicates that the
optimum frequency for those services is
unknown. In the proposed rule, we
stated we believe it would be premature
and beyond the current evidence to
require depression screening and
functional status assessment included in
the definition of subsequent visits, but
they may be performed at these visits,
if indicated.
Comment: A number of commenters
expressed concern that the proposed
definition of the term ‘‘Subsequent
annual wellness visit * * *’’ did not
include the depression screening and
the functional ability and level of safety
screening, elements (v) and (vi),
respectively, that were included in the
proposed definition of the term ‘‘First
annual wellness visit.’’ One commenter
noted that ‘‘while the USPSTF states
that the optimal interval for screening is
unknown, it does recognize that
recurrent screening may be needed for
certain patients.’’ At a minimum, the
commenter suggested that ‘‘the
regulations should require additional
screening for depression after new
chronic conditions are diagnosed and
when reduction in functioning is
noted.’’ The commenter also indicated
that yearly screening for functional
ability and level of safety ‘‘is important
to determine changes in functional
impairments identified in previous
screening as well as any new
limitations. Such screening will assist in
determining care plans, further
assessments, and other services to allow
a beneficiary to remain in the
community as long as possible.’’
Response: We agree that depression
screening in older adults is important.
We have reviewed the USPSTF
guidelines (https://
www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/
uspstf09/adultdepression/addeprrs.htm)
and have decided not to include it as a
required element for subsequent AWVs
largely since the USPSTF states that ‘‘the
PO 00000
Frm 00237
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73405
optimum interval for screening for
depression is unknown.’’ In addition,
the USPSTF only recommends
depression screening ‘‘when staffassisted depression care supports are in
place to assure accurate diagnosis,
effective treatment, and follow-up.’’ It is
unclear if these supports are universally
available in physician offices to allow
adequate routine screening at the AWV.
The USPSTF further notes: ‘‘recurrent
screening may be most productive in
patients with a history of depression,
unexplained somatic symptoms,
comorbid psychological conditions (for
example, panic disorder or generalized
anxiety), substance abuse, or chronic
pain.’’ If an individual is determined to
be in this category from prior screening,
such as at the IPPE or through an HRA,
then it would appear appropriate on an
individual basis to continue screening
and to tailor the AWV based on risk.
Regarding functional ability and
safety, we agree that for certain
individuals, functional status and safety
assessments (for example, fall
prevention) may be important to
consider on a more routine basis. For
the general Medicare population, there
are no A or B recommendations by the
USPSTF in these areas and thus we
have decided not to add functional
status and safety assessments as
universally required elements for the
subsequent AWV. The AWV does allow
for an individualized approach with a
personalized prevention plan. For
certain individuals where these areas
are determined to be priorities, specific
evaluations may be voluntary parts of
subsequent visits. Since we closely
monitor the USPSTF recommendations
for updates or changes, if specific new
or revised recommendations come out
in the future, we may consider
modifications at that time.
Comment: Several commenters
requested that we add additional
screening elements to the first and
subsequent AWVs regarding: (1)
Alcohol use status; (2) Tobacco use or
other substance use status; (3) Sexual
health and incontinence; (4) Physical
activity level; (5) Risk of falls; (6)
Nutrition status including under
nutrition and/or malnutrition; (7) Vision
and eye health; (8) an assessment for
osteoarthritis; and (9) assessment of gait
and balance.
Response: We appreciate the
suggestions provided. The intent of the
proposed definition for ‘‘establishment
of, or an update to the individual’s
medical and family history’’ means at a
minimum the collection and
documentation of the information
outlined in the proposed definition of
this term. Additional items like those
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73406
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
suggested by the commenters can be
identified and discussed as part of the
establishment of, or an update to the
individual’s medical and family history.
We do not believe that it is necessary to
outline an exhaustive list of various
items that may be included in the
definition. We believe that physical
activity level and risk of falls are
adequately addressed in the definition
of ‘‘review of the individual’s functional
ability and level of safety’’.
We recognize that the health
professional (or supervising physician
in the case of a team of medical
professionals) furnishing the AWV is
qualified and would be able to
determine the specific additional
information that needs to be discussed
in order to establish a comprehensive
medical and family history and provide
the best care possible for the individual.
In the future, as the medical science
continues to evolve, CMS may consider
adding other elements to the first and
subsequent AWVs through use of the
national coverage determination
process, if considered appropriate.
Comment: One commenter requested
that the first and subsequent AWVs
include a detailed current medications
and supplements list as part of the
individual’s medical and family history.
Response: We agree that medications
and supplements such as vitamins and
calcium are an important part of an
individual’s medical and family history.
We included in the proposed definition
of the ‘‘Establishment of, or an update to
the individual’s medical and family
history’’ provisions for the collection
and documentation of use or exposure
to medications and supplements,
including calcium and vitamins. We
believe the information included in the
definition addresses the commenter’s
concerns and, therefore, we are
implementing element (i) of the first
AWV and element (i) of the subsequent
AWV, as proposed, in this final rule.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that measurement of BMI be viewed as
a vital sign that should be included in
both the first and subsequent AWVs.
Response: We explained in the
preamble to the proposed rule that
‘‘body mass index (BMI) should be
calculated at the first AWV and may be
recalculated at subsequent visits if
indicated. Given the general stability of
adult height, we would not expect the
BMI to meaningfully change in the
absence of significant weight change,
and therefore we are not requiring
measurement of the individual’s height
during subsequent AWVs. Accordingly,
in this final rule, we are not adding the
BMI requirement to the subsequent
AWV.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
Comment: Several commenters
suggested CMS should specify in the
final rule that an individual’s family
history of various diseases, obesity, or
risk factors for a disease such as
diabetes should be included in the list
of risk factors and conditions for which
primary, secondary or tertiary
interventions are recommended for an
individual as described in element
(vii)(B) of the first AWV and element
(v)(B) of the subsequent AWV.
Response: We agree that the risk
factors and conditions identified by the
commenters should be reflected in the
list of risk factors referenced in element
(vii)(B) of the first AWV and element
(V)(B) of the subsequent AWV for
possible referral if the individual’s
health professional determines that it is
appropriate to do so, based on the
information obtained during the first
and/or subsequent AWV. Therefore, we
believe no additional changes to the
description of ‘‘individual’s medical and
family history’’ as part of the elements
of the first and subsequent AWVs are in
order.
Comment: We received a number of
comments from physicians, health care
providers, and others urging us to add
voluntary advance care planning as an
element to the definitions of both the
‘‘first annual wellness visit’’ and the
‘‘subsequent annual wellness visit.’’
They base their recommendation upon a
number of recent research studies, and
the inclusion by statute of a similar
element in the existing initial
preventive physical examination (IPPE)
benefit. One commenter noted that ‘‘the
new wellness visit was wisely designed
to build on the initial preventive
physical exam, providing an ongoing,
systematic focus on wellness and
prevention by harmonizing Medicare
services into a coordinated benefit.’’
Another commenter stated that ‘‘the
AWV provides an appropriate setting for
providers to initiate voluntary
conversations about future care wishes,
as they counsel beneficiaries on other
aspects of their health and achieving
their personal health goals.’’ The
commenter added that the ‘‘care plans
discussed in the ’Welcome to Medicare
visit’ should not be frozen in time, but
revisited as an important component of
patient wellness.’’
Response: We agree that voluntary
advance care planning should be added
as an element of the definitions of both
the ‘‘first annual wellness visit’’ and the
‘‘subsequent annual wellness visit’’
based on the evidence described below,
and the inclusion of a similar element
in the IPPE benefit (also referred to as
the Welcome to Medicare visit), since
January 1, 2009. We believe that this
PO 00000
Frm 00238
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
will help the physician to better align
the personal prevention plan services
with the patient’s personal priorities
and goals.
Recently, Detering and colleagues
(British Medical Journal 2010;
340:c1345) reported that ‘‘advance care
planning improves end of life care and
patient and family satisfaction and
reduces stress, anxiety, and depression
in surviving relatives.’’ Silveira and
colleagues (New England Journal of
Medicine 2010; 362:1211–8) reported
that ‘‘data suggest that most elderly
patients would welcome these
discussions.’’ Lastly, a study by Fischer
and colleagues (Journal of the American
Geriatric Society 2010; 58:400–401)
found ‘‘no evidence that these (advance
directive) discussions or completing an
advance directive lead to harm.’’
Based on the available evidence and
other relevant information, we are
adding to the final regulation a
definition of the term ‘‘voluntary
advance care planning’’ to read as
follows:
‘‘Voluntary advance care planning’’
means, for purposes of this section,
verbal or written information regarding
the following areas:
(1) An individual’s ability to prepare
an advance directive in the case where
an injury or illness causes the
individual to be unable to make health
care decisions.
(2) Whether or not the physician is
willing to follow the individual’s wishes
as expressed in an advance directive.
This definition is based on the
definition of ‘‘end-of-life planning’’,
which is included as an element of the
IPPE as described in section
1861(ww)(3) of the Act. Thus, the
addition of ‘‘voluntary advance care
planning’’ to the AWVs extends to those
visits a similar element to the one
already in the one-time IPPE.
We are also revising the definitions of
the terms ‘‘First annual wellness visit’’
and ‘‘Subsequent annual wellness visit’’
by inserting a new element (ix) to the
definition of the term ‘‘first annual
wellness visit’’ and a new element (vii)
to the definition of the term ‘‘subsequent
annual wellness visit’’ in § 410.15 (a) of
the final regulation text that would read
as follows: ‘‘Voluntary advance care
planning as that term is defined in this
section upon agreement with the
individual.’’
Comment: Commenters requested that
we specifically require that certain
referrals for various services be included
as part of the personalized prevention
plan including: (1) Community-based
and other lifestyle management services;
(2) kidney disease education services;
(3) urogynecologist visits to discuss
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
incontinence issues; and (4) tobacco use
cessation counseling and related
services.
Response: In the proposed rule, the
definition for the first AWV included
provisions for the furnishing of
personalized health advice and a
referral, as appropriate, to health
education or preventive counseling
services or programs aimed at reducing
identified risk factors and improving
self-management, including weight loss,
physical activity, smoking cessation, fall
prevention, and nutrition. Under the
definition of the subsequent AWV, we
included provisions for furnishing of
personalized health advice to the
individual and a referral as appropriate,
to health education or preventive
counseling services.
We believe that the health
professionals who are furnishing the
AWVs whether they be first or
subsequent visits are the most qualified
to determine an appropriate list of
referrals for education services and
preventive counseling services for each
individual. We believe that the
proposed definitions for the first and
subsequent AWVs address commenters’
concerns regarding community-based
and lifestyle management services,
kidney disease education services,
referrals to further discuss treatment for
incontinence issues, and tobacco use
cessation counseling services.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that CMS require the identification of a
family caregiver that provides care for
and supports a beneficiary with chronic
conditions. The commenter states that
‘‘it is vitally important for medical
professionals to know whether the
beneficiary has a family caregiver or has
a family member/friend who will fill
that role.’’
Response: We appreciate the role that
family caregivers provide in the lives of
individuals with chronic conditions. We
expect that the identification of a family
care giver will be addressed when the
health professional furnishing the AWV
discusses the patient’s ability to
successfully perform activities of daily
living. However, we do not believe the
identification of a caregiver should be
required of beneficiaries who wish to
take advantage of AWVs so we are not
requiring such identification in the final
rule.
Comment: Several commenters
suggested that CMS use its authority
under section 4105 of the ACA to
expand Medicare coverage of certain
preventive services that are already
available under Part B such as screening
for abdominal aortic aneurysms, HIV
screening, colorectal cancer screening,
breast cancer screening
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
(mammography), and counseling/
intensive behavioral (nutrition)
counseling in accordance with the
USPSTF recommendations for these
services. Other commenters suggested
using this authority to expand Medicare
Part B coverage for preventive
immunizations to include vaccinations
such as herpes zoster and tetanus shots,
which are currently covered under Part
D in accordance with the
recommendations of the Advisory
Committee on Immunizations Practices
(ACIP) for adults age 65 and older.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ support for expanded
coverage of preventive services under
the Part B program. Section 4105 of the
ACA grants the Secretary the authority
to modify or eliminate coverage of
certain preventive services that are
already available to certain beneficiaries
to the extent that such modification or
elimination of coverage is consistent
with the recommendations of the
USPSTF. Many of the items requested
(including coverage of ultrasound
screening for abdominal aortic
aneurysms, medical nutrition therapy,
certain colorectal cancer screening tests,
and mammography) are already
recognized as ‘‘preventive services’’ in
section 1861(ww)(2) of the Act. Because
those items are already covered by
Medicare, we will need to further
evaluate whether coverage for those
items or services should be modified in
light of the specific grades of the
USPSTF as permitted under section
4105 of the ACA. Due to the
complexities of considering whether to
modify or eliminate coverage of certain
preventive services under Medicare Part
B, we decided not to address this
subject in the proposed rule, which
focuses instead on implementation of
section 4103 and 4104 of the ACA.
We note that we may consider other
expansions in Medicare coverage for
‘‘additional preventive services’’ in the
future through section 1861(ddd)(1) of
the Act. Under the ‘‘additional
preventive service’’ statute, however, the
recommendations of the Advisory
Committee on Immunizations Practices
(ACIP) alone do not provide a basis for
expanded coverage. Additional
information regarding Medicare
coverage for additional preventive
services can be found in the Federal
Register (November 19, 2008, (73 FR
69869 through 69870 and 69933)) and
§ 410.64. We will continue to monitor
the USPSTF recommendations for
updates or changes, and when
appropriate, consider possible coverage
through the NCD process. We also note
that individuals can request a NCD
using the procedures set forth in our
PO 00000
Frm 00239
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73407
Guidance Document: ‘‘Factors CMS
Considers in Opening a National
Coverage Determination,’’ available at
https://www.cms.gov/mcd/
ncpc_view_document.asp?id=6. We also
note that the Secretary has exercised the
authority granted by section
1861(ddd)(1) of the Act to add coverage
under Part B of ‘‘additional preventive
services’’ such as HIV screening for
individuals at high risk consistent with
the USPSTF recommendations. Since
many of the items that the commenters
requested are already covered as
‘‘preventive services’’ or ‘‘additional
preventive services,’’ we are not making
any changes based on these comments
at the present time. We will continue to
monitor access to these preventive
services and may exercise the authority
granted by section 4105 of the ACA in
the future.
Comment: A commenter requested
CMS to ‘‘consider whether there are
opportunities to leverage its ‘coverage
with evidence development’ process to
help build the evidence base for new
preventive services.’’ The commenter
further suggested CMS ‘‘review those
preventive services with a USPSTF
grade of ‘I’ (‘insufficient evidence to
recommend for or against’) and consider
the development of a ‘coverage with
evidence development’ initiative to help
generate the data needed to fully assess
certain preventive services’’ via
partnerships with other federal
agencies.
Response: We are interested in
increasing the evidence base concerning
new preventive services. We will need
to further consider whether the CED
process could be used for items or
services that currently are rated with an
‘‘I.’’ We note that under § 410.64 of these
regulations, an ‘‘additional preventive
service’’ must have a grade of A or B
recommendation by the USPSTF.
Because this suggestion will require
further study, we are not making any
changes to our final rule at this time.
Comment: Several commenters
provided suggestions for continuing
education and outreach regarding issues
related to the new AWV. One
commenter asked that we educate
providers about evidence based
recommendations for colorectal cancer
screening and monitor adherence to
guidelines via performance measures.
Another commenter requested
education and outreach materials
regarding the AWV and materials that
also explain the differences between the
initial preventive physical examination
and the new AWV. An additional
commenter requested that we inform
patients of the importance of preventive
services including colorectal cancer
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73408
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
screening options (colonoscopy,
sigmoidoscopy, and fecal occult blood
tests).
Response: We agree that it is
important to raise awareness concerning
the expanded Medicare coverage
provided under the ACA. We will issue
appropriate manual instructions and
other educational information to the
Medicare providers and beneficiaries,
including an MLN Matters article
(Medicare Learning Network) and
information in the 2011 Medicare and
You Handbook regarding
implementation of the new AWV
benefit.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that we eliminate the
initial preventive physical examination
since it is similar to the provisions of
the new AWV.
Response: We appreciate the attention
being drawn to the similarity between
the initial preventive physical
examination and the new AWV. While
we did model some of the elements of
the new AWV after elements in the
initial preventive physical exam, we
note that these statutory provisions are
separate and distinct benefits and that
Medicare beneficiaries will be eligible to
receive both of these benefits in
sequence if the appropriate regulatory
requirements are met.
In summary, as a result of the
comments received, we are making the
following changes in this final rule:
• We are amending the definition of
the term ‘‘health professionals’’ to read
in paragraph (iii) as follows: ‘‘A medical
professional (including a health
educator, a registered dietitian, or
nutrition professional, or other licensed
practitioner or a team of such medical
professionals, working under the direct
supervision (as defined in
§ 410.32(b)(3)(ii)) of a physician as
defined in paragraph (i) of this
definition.’’
• We are adding to the final
regulation the definition of the term
‘‘voluntary advance care planning’’ to
read as follows:
‘‘Voluntary Advance care planning’’
means, for purposes of this section,
verbal or written information regarding
the following areas:
(1) An individual’s ability to prepare
an advance directive in the case where
an injury or illness causes the
individual to be unable to make health
care decisions.
(2) Whether or not the physician is
willing to follow the individual’s wishes
as expressed in an advance directive.
• We are also revising the definitions
of the terms ‘‘First AWV’’ and
‘‘Subsequent AWV’’ by inserting a new
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
element (ix) to the definition of the term
‘‘first AWV’’ and a new element (vii) to
the definition of the term ‘‘subsequent
AWV’’ in § 410.15(a) of the final
regulation text that would read as
follows: ‘‘Voluntary advance care
planning as that term is defined in this
section upon agreement with the
individual.’’
3. Payment for the Annual Wellness
Visit Providing Personalized Prevention
Plan Services (PPPS)
Section 4103 of the ACA created a
new benefit for an ‘‘annual wellness
visit’’ (AWV) with personalized
prevention plan services. The ACA
amended section 1861(s)(2) of the Act
by adding a new subparagraph (FF) to
provide for coverage of the AWV
beginning January 1, 2011. Section 4103
of the ACA also added new subsection
(hhh) to section 1861 of the Act to
define ‘‘personalized prevention plan
services’’ and to specify who may
furnish these services. Finally, section
4103 of the ACA amended section
1848(j)(3) of the Act and provided for
payment of AWVs under the PFS, and
specifically excluded the AWV from the
hospital OPPS. Therefore, a single
payment under the PFS would be made
when an AWV is furnished by a
physician, physician assistant, nurse
practitioner, or clinical nurse specialist,
or by a medical professional or team of
medical professionals, as determined
appropriate by the Secretary, under the
supervision of a physician.
To allow for Medicare reporting and
payment of the AWV, we proposed to
create two new HCPCS G-codes for
reporting the first wellness visit and
creation of a personalized prevention
plan and the subsequent visits available
to the beneficiary every 12 months.
Specifically, we proposed to establish
the following two new HCPCS codes for
CY 2011: GXXXA (AWV; includes a
personalized prevention plan of service
(PPPS), first visit) and GXXXB (AWV;
includes a personalized prevention plan
of service (PPPS), subsequent visit). A
beneficiary’s first AWV to any
practitioner would be reported to
Medicare under HCPCS code GXXXA,
even if the beneficiary had previously
received an initial preventive physical
examination (IPPE) that was covered by
Medicare. Beneficiaries, in their first 12
months of Part B coverage, would
continue to be eligible only for an IPPE.
After the first 12 months of Part B
coverage, on or after January 1, 2011,
beneficiaries would be eligible for an
AWV described by HCPCS code GXXXA
or GXXXB, provided that the beneficiary
has not received an IPPE or AWV within
the preceding 12-month period.
PO 00000
Frm 00240
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Comment: Several commenters noted
that the IPPE and the first AWV are very
similar services with significant overlap.
These commenters urged CMS not to
develop a separate coding structure for
the first AWV as it would be a burden
for practitioners to review and
determine the specific preventive
service the beneficiary is eligible for on
a given date. In addition, the
commenters noted that a delay in
information being available through the
Common Working File (CWF) may
cause practitioners to inaccurately
determine a beneficiary’s eligibility for
a particular service, be it the IPPE, the
first AWV, or a subsequent AWV. One
commenter requested that CMS clarify
that a beneficiary may choose either an
IPPE or a first AWV during the
beneficiary’s first 12 months of Part B
coverage.
Response: The set of services
described by the IPPE is very specific
and while the services contained in the
IPPE may be similar to the services
included in the AWV, these are two
separate benefits under Medicare. Just
as there are component services
specified for the IPPE, there are
component services specified for the
AWV. Moreover, according to section
1861(hhh)(4)(G) of the Act (as added by
section 4103(b) of the ACA), a
beneficiary is eligible only for the IPPE
during the 12-month period after the
date the beneficiary’s coverage begins
under Part B and is only eligible for the
AWV each year thereafter. Therefore, in
order to be able to identify the particular
benefit and services furnished to a
beneficiary and ensure coverage of the
services, we believe that we must
distinguish between the IPPE and the
AWV through the use of distinct HCPCS
codes. We understand that there may be
instances where practitioners may
experience a delay in the information
available through the CWF, but we
expect the situations where this would
affect the services furnished (and
subsequently billed) by a practitioner
would be uncommon. The CWF will
reflect the beneficiary’s eligibility for
the IPPE or first or subsequent AWV
based on all claims submitted to date to
the Medicare contractors. Only under
the limited circumstances where a
practitioner previously furnished an
IPPE or AWV to the beneficiary but had
not yet submitted the claim to Medicare
would a practitioner inaccurately
determine a beneficiary’s eligibility for
the IPPE or first or subsequent AWV.
Comment: Several commenters urged
CMS to recognize the CPT codes in the
Preventive Medicine Services series,
ranging from 99381 (Initial
comprehensive preventive medicine
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
evaluation and management of an
individual including an age and gender
appropriate history, examination,
counseling/anticipatory guidance/risk
factor reduction interventions, and the
ordering of laboratory/diagnostic
procedures, new patient; infant (age
younger than 1 year)) through 99397
(Periodic comprehensive preventive
medicine reevaluation and management
of an individual including an age and
gender appropriate history,
examination, counseling/anticipatory
guidance/risk factor reduction
interventions, and the ordering of
laboratory/diagnostic procedures,
established patient; 65 years and older),
for reporting and payment of the AWV,
rather than creating the two new
HPCPCS G-codes as proposed. The
commenters noted that the practitioner
could report the appropriate CPT code
based on the beneficiary’s age and new
or established patient status, allowing
specific reporting of the AWV with a
CPT code that would result in
appropriate payment for the service
provided to the beneficiary. In addition,
the commenters urged CMS to use the
existing CPT Editorial Panel and the
AMA RUCs process to modify these
existing codes so they would be
applicable for AWV services.
Response: Prior to the establishment
of the IPPE benefit, Preventive Medicine
Services CPT codes in the range from
99381 through 99397 were excluded
from Medicare coverage because
preventive medicine evaluation and
management services were noncovered
by Medicare. When the IPPE benefit was
implemented, we created HCPCS code
G0402 (Initial preventive physical
examination; face-to-face visit, services
limited to new beneficiary during the
first 12 months of Medicare enrollment)
as we have specifically defined through
the regulatory process the elements that
are required for this service to be billed
and paid by Medicare. We refer readers
to the Medicare Claims Processing
Manual, Pub. 100–04, chapter 18,
section 80 for additional information
regarding the components of the IPPE.
When implementing the IPPE, we
recognized that CPT codes describing
preventive services were available, but
we did not believe it was appropriate to
use these existing CPT codes for the
IPPE, given the general nature of the
services they describe in contrast to the
specific nature of the IPPE service.
Similarly, in section VI.Q.2. of this
final rule with comment period, we
have adopted the final specific
components of the AWV for CY 2011,
consistent with the statutory
requirements for the service. While we
acknowledge that the elements of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
preventive medicine evaluation and
management (E/M) services reported by
the CPT codes could significantly
overlap with the components of the
AWV, we believe that it is important to
utilize specific HCPCS codes to identify
the AWV as there are coverage
periodicity requirements that apply to
the AWV, as well as specific
requirements regarding the elements of
the AWV. While we understand the
commenters’ request to use the
established set of CPT codes for the
AWV, we do not believe that the
existing CPT code descriptors should be
subject to adjustment and limitation
based on this new benefit as these CPT
codes are currently used by many
practitioners to report noncovered
preventive medicine E/M services
furnished to Medicare beneficiaries. In
addition, coverage for the AWV begins
on January 1, 2011, and we believe that
our authority to create and maintain
Level II HCPCS codes allows us a
mechanism to implement these codes
quickly and effectively. While we would
not necessarily be opposed to the use of
CPT codes to report the AWV in the
future if CPT codes existed that met our
specific purposes, time does not allow
for the establishment of new CPT codes
or the revision of existing codes for the
AWVs that are covered as of January 1,
2011.
After consideration of the public
comments we received, we are
finalizing our CY 2011 proposal to
adopt two new HCPCS G-codes for
reporting the AWV in CY 2011. While
we proposed these codes as GXXXA and
GXXXB for the first and subsequent
AWVs, respectively, the final codes and
their descriptors are G0438 (Annual
wellness visit; includes a personalized
prevention plan of service (PPPS), first
visit) and G0439 (Annual wellness visit;
includes a personalized prevention plan
of service (PPPS), subsequent visit). We
note that practitioners furnishing a
preventive medicine E/M service that
does not meet the requirements for the
IPPE or the AWV would continue to
report one of the preventive medicine
E/M services CPT codes in the range of
99381 through 99397 as appropriate to
the patient’s circumstances, and these
codes continue to be noncovered by
Medicare.
A beneficiary would be eligible for
one first AWV covered by Medicare that
must include all of the required
elements that we have adopted in our
final policy for CY 2011, as discussed in
section VI.Q.2. of this final rule with
comment period. All subsequent AWVs
would include the required elements for
those visits as also described in section
VI.Q.2. of this final rule with comment
PO 00000
Frm 00241
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73409
period. All AWVs other than the
beneficiary’s first AWV would be
reported as subsequent visits, even if a
different practitioner furnished the
subsequent AWV. We expect there to be
continuity and communication among
the practitioners caring for beneficiaries
over time with respect to AWVs, and
this would include the case where a
different practitioner furnishing a
subsequent AWV would update the
information in the patient’s medical
record based on the patient’s interval
history since the previous AWV.
As we stated in the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule (75 FR 40128), the first
AWV described by HCPCS code GXXXA
(G0438) is similar to the IPPE that is
currently reported with HCPCS code
G0402 (Initial preventive physical
examination; face-to-face visit, services
limited to new beneficiary during the
first 12 months of Medicare enrollment).
We believe that the physician work and
nonfacility PE of the IPPE and the first
AWV are very similar, given that both
represent an initial beneficiary visit
focused on prevention. In the CY 2010
PFS final rule with comment period
discussion of payment for the IPPE (74
FR 61767), we noted that in the context
of physician work and intensity, HCPCS
code G0402 was most equivalent to CPT
code 99204 (Level 4 new patient office
or other outpatient visit). Therefore, for
CY 2011, we proposed to crosswalk the
same physician work RVUs of 2.43 from
CPT code 99204 to HCPCS codes G0402
and GXXXA (G0438). Similarly, we
believe the direct PE inputs for all of
these services are similar and, therefore,
we proposed to assign the same direct
PE inputs to HCPCS codes G0402 and
GXXXA (G0438) as are included for CPT
code 99204. We noted that currently,
the direct PE inputs for HCPCS code
G0402 also include preventive
assessment forms, and we proposed to
add this supply to the PE for HCPCS
code GXXXA (G0438) as well because
we believe it would be used in the first
AWV. The proposed CY 2011 PE and
malpractice RVUs for HCPCS code
GXXXA (G0438) were displayed in
Addendum B to the proposed rule (75
FR 40640). We also noted that we
proposed no facility PE RVUs for
HCPCS code GXXXA (G0438) because
only a single payment would be made
under the PFS when this service is
furnished. There is no separate facility
payment for GXXXA (G0438) when a
practitioner furnishes this service in the
facility setting.
Moreover, in the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule (75 FR 40128), we also
indicated that we believe that a
subsequent AWV described by HCPCS
code GXXXB (G0439) is most similar,
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73410
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
from the perspectives of physician work
and PE, to CPT code 99214 (Level 4
established patient office or other
outpatient visit). The subsequent AWV
is a patient visit for PPPS that includes
certain required elements, such as
updating information regarding the
patient’s history, risk factors, and
regular medical care providers and
suppliers since the prior AWV, and
obtaining routine measurements. We
believe the physician work and direct
PE of a subsequent AWV are similar, in
terms of E/M visit level, to the first
AWV, which we proposed to value like
a level 4 new patient office or other
outpatient visit, as we had previously
valued the IPPE. However, the
subsequent AWV would typically be for
an established patient and, as described
earlier in this section, we proposed that
only certain AWV elements must be
furnished in the first AWV. As a result,
in the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule (75
FR 40129), we stated that we believe it
would be most appropriate to value the
subsequent AWV based upon an E/M
visit for an established patient.
Therefore, for CY 2011 we proposed to
crosswalk the same physician work
RVUs of 1.50 from CPT code 99214 to
HCPCS code GXXXB (G0439).
Furthermore, we believe the direct PE
inputs for these two services are also
similar and, therefore, we proposed to
assign the same direct PE inputs to
HCPCS code GXXXB (G0439) as were
assigned to CPT code 99214. We note
that we also proposed to add the same
preventive assessment forms to the PE
for HCPCS code GXXXB (G0439) as we
proposed to add for HCPCS code
GXXXA (G0438) because we believe this
supply would be used in both the first
and subsequent AWVs. The proposed
CY 2011 PE and malpractice RVUs for
HCPCS code GXXXB were displayed in
Addendum B to the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule (75 FR 40640). Similar to
our treatment of HCPCS code GXXXA
(G0438) for the first AWV, we proposed
no facility PE RVUs for HCPCS code
GXXXB (G0439) as only a single
payment would be made under the PFS
when this service is furnished. There is
no separate facility payment for GXXXB
(G0439) when a practitioner furnishes
this service in the facility setting.
Comment: A number of commenters
supported the proposed payment for the
first and subsequent AWVs based on a
crosswalk to level 4 new and
established patient office and other
outpatient visits. Several commenters
recommended that CMS vary the
payment for the AWV based on the
visit’s complexity, arguing that
beneficiaries with multiple health risk
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
factors would require additional
practitioner time and intensity for the
AWV. One commenter recommended
that CMS value the first and subsequent
AWVs based on the values applicable to
level 5 new and established patient
office and other outpatient visits,
arguing that the typical Medicare
beneficiary would have multiple health
risk factors that would need to be
addressed in the AWV through a
complex plan specific to that
beneficiary’s situation. Other
commenters argued that CMS should
recognize the preventive medicine E/M
services CPT codes from 99381 through
99387, whose values vary based on age
and new or established patient status, to
ensure appropriate payment for the first
and subsequent AWVs. Furthermore,
one commenter also pointed out that the
existing preventive medicine E/M
services CPT codes are currently being
revalued by the AMA RUC as part of the
Fourth 5-Year Review of Work to ensure
that the values for the services are
commensurate with the level of
practitioner work involved in furnishing
the medical service.
A few commenters noted that they
currently bill preventive medicine
services E/M CPT codes 99381 through
99397 which are noncovered in
Medicare, and indicated as such with
status ‘‘N’’ (Noncovered service), in
conjunction with Medicare-covered E/M
visits. The commenters requested that
CMS clarify whether practitioners
would continue to be able to bill
additional preventive services in the
CPT code range of 99381 through 99397
in conjunction with the AWV.
Response: As discussed earlier in this
section, we are adopting the final
HCPCS codes G0438 and G0439 for
reporting the first and subsequent
AWVs, rather than recognizing the CPT
codes for preventive medicine E/M
services as covered only for purposes of
the AWVs. With respect to the values
for those preventive medicine E/M
services CPT codes that some
commenters believe would be
appropriate for payment of the first and
subsequent AWVs, we have not adopted
the values for Medicare because the
codes are noncovered by Medicare.
Nevertheless, we publish the AMA
RUC-recommended work values and the
PE RVUs that result from application of
our standard PE methodology to the
AMA RUC-recommended PE inputs in
Addendum B for the CPT codes. We
compared the values we proposed for
HCPCS codes G0438 and G0439 with
the preventive medicine E/M services
CPT codes because of the commenters’
reasoning that these AMA RUCrecommended values would result in
PO 00000
Frm 00242
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
appropriate payment for AWVs. The
values we proposed for HCPCS codes
G0438 based on the work value and
direct PE inputs for a level 4 new
patient office or other outpatient visit
are actually slightly higher (2.43 work
RVUs; 2.14 fully implemented
nonfacilty PE RVUs) than the new
patient, 65 years and older CPT
preventive medicine E/M services code
(2.06 work RVUs; 1.87 nonfacility PE
RVUs). In contrast, the values we
proposed for HCPCS code G0439 based
on the work value and direct PE inputs
for a level 4 established patient office or
other outpatient visit are slightly lower
(1.50 work RVUs; 1.59 nonfacilty PE
RVUs) than the establish patient, 65
years and old CPT preventive services
code (1.71 work RVUs; 1.62 nonfacility
RVUs). We note that if the AMA RUC
provides revised recommendations to us
for these preventive medicine E/M
services CPT codes for a future year, we
may conduct this analysis again based
on that new information.
As discussed above, we note that
additional preventive medicine services
E/M CPT codes 99381 through 99397,
noncovered by Medicare and indicated
with status ‘‘N,’’ may be furnished in
conjunction with Medicare-covered E/M
visits, including the AWV. However, we
believe that it would be difficult to
distinguish an AWV from another
preventive medicine E/M service
furnished in the same encounter that
would be reported under a preventive
medicine services E/M CPT code as
there is substantial overlap in the
components of CPT codes 99381
through 99397 and HCPCS codes G0438
and G0439 reported for the AWV.
Based on the final elements of the first
and subsequent AWVs as adopted in
section VI.Q.2. of this final rule, we do
not believe that the first and subsequent
AWVs would usually require the 60 or
40 minutes of physician face-to-face
time that is typically associated with the
level 5 new or established patient office
or other patient visit, respectively. We
continue to believe, as we proposed,
that the typical physician time would be
45 or 25 minutes of face-to-face time,
like that of the level 4 new or
established patient office or other
outpatient visit, respectively. We also
believe the direct PE inputs for the
AWV may be appropriately crosswalked
to the direct PE inputs for the level 4
new or established patient office or
other outpatient visit, with the addition
of preventive assessment forms to both
HCPCS codes G0438 and G0439, as we
also proposed.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that the upcoming definition of a health
risk assessment (HRA) may add more
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
work to the AWV. The commenter
recommended that once the HRA has
been established, CMS should
incorporate the RVUs from CPT code
99420 (Administration and
interpretation of health risk assessment
instrument (eg, health hazard appraisal)
into the RVUs associated with the AWV
to ensure that the costs of the HRA are
recognized as part of the AWV service.
Response: As discussed previously in
this section, the HRA guidelines and the
model HRA tool are not yet available.
As is our standard process, when more
information becomes available on the
nature of a particular service or the
elements of the services change, we
reevaluate the valuation of the services.
Therefore, when the HRA is
incorporated into the AWV, we will
reevaluate the values for HCPCS codes
G0438 and G0439.
After consideration of the public
comments we received, we are
finalizing our CY 2011 proposal to
crosswalk the physician work RVUs of
2.43 from CPT code 99204 (level 4 new
patient office or other outpatient visit)
to HCPCS codes G0402 (IPPE) and
G0438 (first AWV) and the physician
work RVUs of 1.50 from CPT code
99214 (level 4 established patient office
or outpatient visit) to HCPCS code
G0439 (subsequent AWV). Similarly, we
believe the direct PE inputs for all of
these services are similar and, therefore,
we are assigning the same direct PE
inputs to HCPCS codes G0402 and
G0438 as are included for CPT code
99204 and the same direct PE inputs to
HCPCS code G0439 as are assigned to
CPT code 99214. Preventive assessment
forms have been added as supplies to
both HCPCS codes G0438 and G0439.
The final direct PE inputs for these
codes are included in the final CY 2011
direct PE database available under
downloads for the CY 2011 PFS final
rule with comment period on the CMS
web site at: https://www.cms.gov/
PhysicianFeeSched/PFSFRN/
list.asp#TopOfPage. The final work, PE,
and malpractice RVUs for HCPCS codes
G0438 and G0439 are displayed in
Addendum B to this final rule with
comment period. There is no separate
facility payment for HCPCS code G0438
or G0439 when a practitioner furnishes
either service in the facility setting.
In the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule (75
FR 40129), we noted that while we
believe there could be overlap in the
direct PE, malpractice expense, and
physician work in both history taking
and examination of the patient in the
context of the initial or subsequent
AWV and another E/M service, we did
not propose to limit the level of a
medically necessary E/M visit when
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
furnished and billed with an AWV. As
we stated in the CY 2005 PFS final rule
with comment period with respect to
the IPPE (69 FR 66289 through 66290),
we do not want to prohibit the reporting
of an appropriate level of service when
it is necessary to evaluate and treat the
beneficiary for acute and chronic
conditions. However, at the same time,
we believe the practitioner is better able
to discuss health promotion, disease
prevention, and the educational
opportunities available with
beneficiaries when their health status
has been stabilized and the beneficiary
is physically receptive. Therefore,
depending on the clinical
circumstances, a CPT code for a
medically necessary E/M visit may be
reported and appended with CPT
modifier-25 (Significant, separately
identifiable evaluation and management
service by the same physician on the
same day of the procedure or other
service) to designate the E/M visit as a
separately identifiable service from the
initial or subsequent AWV. However, in
the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule (75 FR
40129) we explained that we believe
this scenario would be uncommon, and
that we expect that no components of an
encounter attributable to the AWV
would be used in determining the level
of a separate E/M visit that would also
be reported.
Comment: A few commenters
disagreed with CMS’ assertion that
reporting a significant, separately
identifiable E/M visit for the same
encounter as an AWV would be
unusual. The commenters believe that
reporting an E/M visit with an AWV
would be typical, as the age and health
conditions of the typical Medicare
beneficiary would likely result in
problem-oriented E/M services being
furnished in association with the AWV
in order to fully address the medical
problems that were identified in the
encounter. The commenters explained
that providing this care during the same
encounter as the AWV would be both
clinically appropriate and convenient
for the beneficiary.
Response: While we continue to
believe that a practitioner is better able
to discuss health promotion, disease
prevention, and health education
opportunities with beneficiaries when
their health status has been stabilized
and the beneficiary is physically
receptive to prevention, the goal of the
AWV, we acknowledge that the AWV
encounter may provide an annually
recurring opportunity for a beneficiary
to receive medical care for his or her
health problems. However, we continue
to believe that a beneficiary who has an
acute medical problem or condition
PO 00000
Frm 00243
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73411
would not receive optimal benefit from
the AWV, which focuses on health
promotion in the longer term. We
encourage practitioners to be thoughtful
regarding the best timing of the AWV to
maximize its impact on beneficiary
health since the AWV is covered by
Medicare no more frequently than once
every 12 months. Therefore, as we
proposed, depending on the clinical
circumstances, a CPT code for a
medically necessary E/M visit may be
reported and appended with CPT
modifier ¥25 (Significant, separately
identifiable evaluation and management
service by the same physician on the
same day of the procedure or other
service) to designate the E/M visit as a
separately identifiable service from the
initial or subsequent AWV.
With respect to beneficiary costsharing, section 4103(c)(1) of the ACA
amended section 1833(a)(1) of the Act
and added subparagraph (X), referring to
the PPPS to state that the amount paid
shall be 100 percent of the lesser of the
actual charge for the services or the
amount determined under the payment
basis determined under section 1848 of
the Act, thereby eliminating
coinsurance for the AWV. Finally,
section 4103(c)(4) of the ACA amended
section 1833(b) of the Act to specify that
the Part B deductible will not apply to
the AWV.
Comment: Many commenters
expressed support for CMS’ proposal to
waive the beneficiary deductible and
coinsurance for the AWV. The
commenters noted that this waiver
would likely encourage more
beneficiaries to receive an AWV.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ support for our proposal to
eliminate the beneficiary cost-sharing
for the AWV as the statute requires. We
refer readers to section VI.R. of this final
rule with comment period for further
discussion of the waiver of the
deductible and coinsurance for
preventive services beginning in CY
2011.
In summary, for CY 2011 we are
adopting the following new HCPCS Gcodes for reporting the AWV: G0438
(Annual wellness visit; includes a
personalized prevention plan of service
(PPPS), first visit); and G0439 (Annual
wellness visit; includes a personalized
prevention plan of service (PPPS),
subsequent visit). These codes are
valued for payment under the PFS using
a crosswalk methodology for the work
RVUs and direct PE inputs from the
level 4 new and established patient
office or other outpatient visit CPT
codes. The final work, PE, and
malpractice RVUs for HCPCS codes
G0438 and G0439 are displayed in
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73412
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Addendum B to this final rule with
comment period. The deductible and
coinsurance for the AWV is waived
when coverage begins in CY 2011.
Finally, the CPT code for a medically
necessary E/M visit may be reported and
appended with CPT modifier ¥25
(Significant, separately identifiable
evaluation and management service by
the same physician on the same day of
the procedure or other service) to
designate the E/M visit as a separately
identifiable service from the initial or
subsequent AWV when both are
provided in the same encounter.
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
R. Section 4104: Removal of Barriers to
Preventive Services in Medicare
1. Definition of ‘‘Preventive Services’’
Section 4104 of the ACA revised
section 1861(ddd) of the Act and added
paragraph (3), which defined the term
‘‘preventive services’’ as follows:
• The specific services currently
listed in section 1861(ww)(2) of the Act
with the explicit exclusion of
electrocardiograms (as specified in
section 1861(ww)(2)(M) of the Act);
• The initial preventive physical
examination (IPPE) established by
section 611 of the MMA and defined in
section 1861(ww)(1) of the Act; and
• The annual wellness visit including
personalized preventive plan services,
as specified by section 1861(hhh) of the
Act as added by section 4103 of the
ACA. We refer readers to section VI.Q.
of this final rule with comment period
for the CY 2011 provisions related to the
coverage of and payment for the annual
wellness visit. The regulations regarding
coverage of the IPPE are specified in
§ 410.16 and remain unchanged by the
ACA.
The specific preventive services
included in the definition of ‘‘preventive
services’’ in section 1861(ddd)(3)(A) of
the Act as cross-referenced to section
1861(ww)(2) of the Act, excluding
electrocardiograms, include the
following:
• Pneumococcal, influenza, and
hepatitis B vaccine and administration.
• Screening mammography.
• Screening pap smear and screening
pelvic exam.
• Prostate cancer screening tests.
• Colorectal cancer screening tests.
• Outpatient diabetes selfmanagement training (DSMT).
• Bone mass measurement.
• Screening for glaucoma.
• Medical nutrition therapy (MNT)
services.
• Cardiovascular screening blood
tests.
• Diabetes screening tests.
• Ultrasound screening for abdominal
aortic aneurysm (AAA).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
• Additional preventive services
identified for coverage through the
national coverage determination (NCD)
process.
In the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule (75
FR 41029), we indicated that at that
time the only additional preventive
service identified for coverage through
the NCD process was HIV testing. A
proposed NCD for smoking cessation
services for asymptomatic patients was
released in May 2010 on the CMS Web
site at: https://www.cms.gov/mcd/
index_list.asp?list_type=nca. We stated
that we would address the applicability
of section 1861(ddd)(3)(A) of the Act (as
added by section 4104 of the ACA) to
these services if an NCD establishing
them as additional preventive services
was finalized. As of August 25, 2010,
CMS finalized an NCD for ‘‘Counseling
to Prevent Tobacco Use’’ and established
smoking cessation services for
asymptomatic patients, thus qualifying
them as ‘‘additional preventive services’’
as defined at section 1861(ddd)(3)(A) of
the Act, as cross-referenced to section
1861(ww)(2) of the Act.
We proposed to add the definition of
‘‘preventive services’’ in § 410.2 to
implement the provisions of section
1861(ddd)(3) of the Act (as added by
section 4104 of the ACA).
Comment: Many commenters
supported CMS’ definition of
‘‘preventive services,’’ observing that the
definition was fully aligned with section
1861(ddd)(3) of the Act (as added by
section 4104 of the ACA).
Response: We appreciate the support
of the commenters and are adopting this
definition of ‘‘preventive services’’ in
this final rule with comment period.
Comment: Several commenters
expressed confusion about Medicare’s
definition of ‘‘preventive services’’ and
its relationship to those services with a
United States Preventive Services Task
Force (USPSTF) recommendation grade
of A [An ‘‘A’’ rating means the USPSTF
recommends the service. There is high
certainty that the net benefit is
substantial.] or B [A ‘‘B’’ rating means
the USPSTF recommends the service.
There is high certainty that the net
benefit is moderate or there is moderate
certainty that the net benefit is moderate
to substantial.].
Response: It appears that some of the
commenters’ confusion may be due to
the use of two similar terms in the
Medicare Act. In section 1861(ddd) of
the Act, Congress defined two terms of
art. The term, ‘‘preventive services,’’ is
described in section 1861(ddd)(3) of the
Act and in this final rule with comment
period in § 410.2. Congress also defined
the term ‘‘additional preventive
services’’ and that term was previously
PO 00000
Frm 00244
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
defined in § 410.64 of our regulations.
Under section 1861(ddd)(1) of the Act,
in order for the Secretary to add an
‘‘additional preventive service,’’ the
Secretary is required to use the national
coverage determination process.
Moreover, in addition to other
standards, the item or service must be
recommended with a grade of A or B by
the USPSTF.
In section 1861(ddd)(3) of the Act (as
added by section 4104 of the ACA),
Congress expanded Medicare coverage
under Part B to encourage the use of
‘‘preventive services.’’ Among other
things, Congress removed some of the
Part B cost-sharing obligations to
encourage patients to obtain certain of
these services. We note that ‘‘additional
preventive services’’ are one of the
categories of specific services that are
covered under section 1861(ww)(2) of
the Act and, therefore, also fall within
the term ‘‘preventive services’’ based on
the cross-reference in section
1861(ddd)(3)(A) of the Act. Other
specific services that are listed in
section 1861(ww)(2) of the Act and that
are included in the definition of
‘‘preventive services’’ are not required to
have a grade A or B recommendation
from the USPSTF. As we stated in the
CY 2011 PFS proposed rule (75 FR
40130), ‘‘[n]ot all preventive services
described in subparagraph (A) of section
1861(ddd)(3) of the Act are
recommended by the USPSTF with a
grade of A or B, and, therefore, some of
the preventive services do not meet the
criteria in sections 1833(a)(1) and (b)(1)
of the Act for the waiver of the
deductibles and coinsurance.’’ We hope
that this technical explanation helps to
eliminate any confusion concerning the
two separate terms of art.
Comment: Several commenters
observed that some services, such as
intensive behavioral (nutrition)
counseling, have been given a grade A
or B recommendation by the USPSTF
but are not listed as ‘‘additional
preventive services’’ in the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule. Another commenter
requested that CMS identify all
USPSTF-recommended services as
‘‘additional preventive services’’ and,
therefore, recognize them as having a
benefit category under Medicare, even if
their coinsurance and deductible are not
waived because their USPSTF
recommendation is not a grade A or B.
Response: Under section 1861(ddd)(1)
of the Act and our regulations in
§ 410.64, an item or service must meet
other standards in addition to having
received a grade of A or B
recommendation by the USPSTF in
order for the Secretary to determine that
an item is an ‘‘additional preventive
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
service.’’ As we previously noted,
‘‘additional preventive services’’ must
also be established by using the NCD
process. While some of the services
recommended by the commenters for
addition to Medicare’s list of ‘‘additional
preventive services’’ have a grade A or
B recommendation by the USPSTF, this
recommendation alone is not sufficient
for those services to be included as
‘‘additional preventive services’’ that are
covered by Medicare Part B. For
instance, some of the USPSTF
recommendations may be directed to a
particular patient population (for
example, pediatric services) that may
not include Medicare beneficiaries.
However, we acknowledge the
potential value to Medicare
beneficiaries of those preventive
services recommended by the USPSTF
for populations covered by Medicare
based on the medical evidence that led
to the grade A or B recommendation.
While certain preventive services with
such a recommendation may not yet be
covered by Medicare, these services
have the potential to improve the health
of beneficiaries. Therefore, we plan to
proactively pursue Medicare coverage of
‘‘additional preventive services’’ with a
grade A or B USPSTF recommendation
through our current processes on our
own initiative in light of our
commitment to the health and wellness
of Medicare beneficiaries.
Comment: A few commenters
suggested the inclusion of additional
services in the definition of ‘‘preventive
services,’’ including items or services
that have not been reviewed by the
USPSTF or where there is no NCD. In
addition, several commenters urged
CMS to recognize recommendations
from organizations other than the
USPSTF when considering services for
inclusion as ‘‘additional preventive
services.’’
Response: Because the term
‘‘preventive services,’’ is specifically
defined by statute in section
1861(ddd)(3) of the Act, we do not have
unlimited authority to simply add items
or services to this definition. As we
have noted, however, the Secretary may
add items or services as ‘‘additional
preventive services’’ if the item or
service meets the existing criteria in
§ 410.64. Among other things, the
statute specifically requires that a new
‘‘additional preventive service’’ must
have a grade A or B recommendation by
the USPSTF.
We do not have the authority under
section 1861(ddd)(1)(B) of the Act to
add ‘‘additional preventive services’’
based on the recommendations of other
groups or organizations. We recognize
that in other sections of the ACA,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
Congress specifically recognized the
expertise of other organizations with
respect to coverage of preventive health
services. For instance, in section 1001 of
the ACA, Congress amended section
2713 of the Public Health Service Act so
that certain group health plans and
health insurance issuers must provide
coverage of preventive health services
that were recommended by several other
organizations. The Medicare statute,
however, does not permit
recommendations from other advisory
bodies to substitute for
recommendations from the USPSTF
regarding Medicare coverage of
‘‘additional preventive services.’’
Comment: A number of commenters
supported CMS’ inclusion of certain
vaccines in the definition of ‘‘preventive
services.’’ Other commenters were
concerned that the USPSTF does not
currently review or provide
recommendations regarding vaccine or
vaccine administration and instead
urged CMS to consider
recommendations from the CDC’s
Advisory Committee on Immunization
Practices (ACIP). Several commenters
requested that vaccines such as
diphtheria, pertussis, herpes zoster,
tetanus, hepatitis A vaccine,
meningococcal vaccine, measlesmumps-rubella, and varicella be
considered ‘‘additional preventive
services’’ as they are recommended by
the ACIP. The commenters requested
that CMS provide coverage for all
vaccines recommended by the ACIP
under Part B, noting that currently some
vaccines are covered under Part B while
others are covered under Part D.
Response: Medicare has covered
certain vaccines and their
administration under Part B, including
influenza, pneumococcal, and hepatitis
B, as a result of a specific statute,
section 1861(s)(10) of the Act. Those
services are specifically cross-referenced
in section 1861(ww)(2)(A) of the Act,
and are included in the definition of
‘‘preventive services’’ by section
1861(ddd)(3)(A) of the Act. While we
acknowledge that the ACIP currently
makes recommendations concerning
immunizations, section 1861(ddd)(1) of
the Act does not permit us to use
recommendations from the ACIP as the
basis for coverage of vaccines as
‘‘additional preventive services.’’ As the
commenters observed, vaccines that are
not covered by Medicare Part B may be
covered by Part D.
Comment: Several commenters
requested that CMS not wait for an NCD
for smoking cessation services but,
instead, proactively identify smoking
cessation services as preventive services
effective for CY 2011.
PO 00000
Frm 00245
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73413
Response: The Medicare statute
requires the Secretary to use the
national NCD process when considering
adding services as an ‘‘additional
preventive service.’’ Consistent with the
public process and timeframes required
by section 1862(l) of the Act, our NCD
expanding coverage for counseling to
prevent tobacco use for asymptomatic
patients was effective on August 25,
2010. Thus, the ‘‘additional preventive
services’’ covered by Medicare Part B
currently include services described by
HCPCS codes G0436 (Smoking and
tobacco cessation counseling visit for
the asymptomatic patient; intermediate,
greater than 3 minutes, up to 10
minutes) and G0437 (Smoking and
tobacco cessation counseling visit for
the asymptomatic patient; intensive,
greater than 10 minutes).
Comment: Several commenters
requested coverage of routine HIV
testing for all individuals, including
persons at low risk for HIV infection,
regardless of risk, based on more recent
data, or based upon the C rating of the
USPSTF.
Response: We are not able to accept
the public comment to extend coverage
for HIV screening for all individuals
under the Medicare program because
the USPSTF grade A or B
recommendation was limited to specific
populations and the USPSTF
specifically made a grade C
recommendation about HIV screening
for ‘‘adolescents and adults who are not
at increased risk for HIV infection.’’ Our
statute and regulations only permit
coverage of ‘‘additional preventive
services’’ which have been
recommended with a grade of A or B by
the USPSTF and do not permit coverage
as ‘‘additional preventive services’’ of
services with grade C recommendations.
As a result of the NCD, Medicare
covers screening of at risk individuals
for HIV described by three HCPCS
codes, specifically G0432 (Infectious
agent antigen detection by enzyme
immunoassay (EIA) technique,
qualitative or semi-qualitative, multiplestep method, HIV–1 or HIV–2,
screening); G0433 (Infectious agent
antigen detection by enzyme-linked
immunosorbent assay (ELISA)
technique, antibody, HIV–1 or HIV–2,
screening); and G0435 (Infectious agent
antigen detection by rapid antibody test
or oral mucosa transudate, HIV–1 or
HIV–2, screening)). These HCPCS codes
are all listed in Table 65 of the following
section because their beneficiary costsharing will be waived in CY 2011.
Comment: Several commenters
encouraged CMS to develop
transparency in its interactions with the
USPSTF and CMS coverage
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73414
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
determinations. The commenters urged
CMS to support increased opportunities
for stakeholders to participate in the
USPSTF process.
Response: As required by section
1862(l) of the Act, the NCD process
includes an opportunity for public
comment on a proposed decision. With
respect to any proposed NCD for an
‘‘additional preventive service,’’ we
include a summary of the USPSTF
recommendations in our proposed
decision memorandum. The Secretary is
required to respond to the public
comments when issuing a final
determination. We believe that this
process is open and transparent and that
the public comments have improved the
quality of our final decisions.
While some commenters have
requested greater opportunities for
public participation prior to the
USPSTF recommendations, the process
that the USPSTF utilizes in making its
expert recommendations is beyond the
scope of this rulemaking. The USPSTF,
first convened by the U.S. Public Health
Service in 1984, and since 1998
sponsored by the AHRQ, is an
independent panel of private-sector
experts in prevention and primary care
that makes recommendations that are
independent of the U.S. government.
The USPSTF conducts impartial
assessments of the scientific evidence
for the effectiveness of a broad range of
clinical preventive services, including
screening, counseling, and preventive
medications. The mission of the
USPSTF is to evaluate the benefits of
individual services based on age,
gender, and risk factors for disease;
make recommendations about which
preventive services should be
incorporated routinely into primary
medical care and for which populations;
and identify a research agenda for
clinical preventive care. The USPSTF
has partners from the fields of primary
care, public health, health promotion,
policy, and quality improvement.
Liaisons from these groups and from
Federal health agencies, including CMS,
contribute their expertise in the peer
review of draft USPSTF documents and
help disseminate the work of the
USPSTF to their members.
After consideration of the public
comments we received, we are
finalizing our proposed definition of
preventive services. Specifically,
preventive services include the IPPE;
the AWV; pneumococcal, influenza, and
hepatitis B vaccine and administration;
screening mammography; screening pap
smear and screening pelvic exam;
prostate cancer screening tests;
colorectal cancer screening tests;
outpatient diabetes self-management
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
training (DSMT); bone mass
measurement; screening for glaucoma;
medical nutrition therapy (MNT)
services; cardiovascular screening blood
tests; diabetes screening tests;
ultrasound screening for abdominal
aortic aneurysm (AAA); and additional
preventive services identified for
coverage through the NCD process. To
date, two items or services have been
added as ‘‘additional preventive
services’’ by NCDs. These services are
HIV screening for at risk individuals
and smoking and tobacco cessation
counseling for asymptomatic
individuals.
We are adopting the proposed
definition of ‘‘preventive services’’ in
§ 410.2 to implement the provisions of
section 1861(ddd)(3) of the Act (as
added by section 4104 of the ACA), with
modification of § 410.2(3) to read
‘‘Annual Wellness Visit (AWV),
providing Personalized Prevention Plan
Services (PPPS) (as specified by section
1861(hhh)(1) of the Act)’’ to utilize
wording that is consistent with final
§ 410.15, Annual Wellness Visits
Providing Personalized Prevention Plan
Services: Conditions for and Limitations
on Coverage.
Furthermore, in this final rule with
comment period, we are making a
technical revision to § 410.64
(Additional Preventive Services) to
conform with section 1861(ddd)(1) of
the Act, as amended by section 4104 of
the ACA. We are revising § 410.64(a) by
removing the words ‘‘not otherwise
described in this subpart’’ and adding
the words ‘‘not described in
subparagraphs (1) or (3) of § 410.2 of
this subpart’’ in their place. This change
reflects section 1861(ddd)(1) of the Act
(as amended by section 4104(a)(2) of the
ACA).
2. Deductible and Coinsurance for
Preventive Services
Section 4104(b)(4) of the ACA
amended section 1833(a)(1) of the Act
by requiring 100 percent Medicare
payment for the IPPE and for those
Medicare-covered preventive services
recommended by the United States
Preventive Services Task Force
(USPSTF) with a grade of A or B for any
indication or population and that are
appropriate for the individual. In other
words, this provision waived any
coinsurance that would otherwise be
applicable under section 1833(a)(1) of
the Act for the IPPE and for those items
and services listed in section
1861(ww)(2) of the Act (excluding
electrocardiograms) to which the
USPSTF has given a grade of A or B
recommendation. In addition, section
4103(c)(1) of the ACA amended section
PO 00000
Frm 00246
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1833(a)(1) of the Act to waive the
coinsurance for the AWV. The
coinsurance represents the beneficiary’s
share of the payment to the provider or
supplier for furnished services.
Coinsurance generally refers to a
percentage (for example, 20 percent) of
the Medicare payment rate for which
the beneficiary is liable and is
applicable under the PFS, while
copayment generally refers to an
established amount that the beneficiary
must pay that is not necessarily related
to a particular percentage of the
Medicare payment, and is applicable
under the OPPS. We refer readers to the
CY 2011 OPPS/ASC final rule with
comment period for provisions related
to payment for preventive services,
including waiver of the deductible and
copayment, under the OPPS.
Section 4104(c) of the ACA amended
section 1833(b)(1) of the Act to waive
the Part B deductible for preventive
services described in subparagraph (A)
of section 1861(ddd)(3) of the Act that
have a grade of A or B recommendation
from the USPSTF for any indication or
population and are appropriate for the
individual. In addition, section
1833(b)(1) of the Act (as amended by
section 4103(c)(4) of the ACA) waived
the Part B deductible for the AWV
including personalized prevention plan
services. These provisions are effective
for services furnished on or after
January 1, 2011. Section 101(b)(2) of the
MIPPA previously amended section
1833(b) of the Act to waive the
deductible for the IPPE effective January
1, 2009.
Not all preventive services described
in subparagraph (A) of section
1861(ddd)(3) of the Act are
recommended by the USPSTF with a
grade of A or B and, therefore, some of
the preventive services do not meet the
criteria in sections 1833(a)(1) and (b)(1)
of the Act for the waiver of the
deductible and coinsurance. However,
with certain exceptions noted below,
the changes made by section 4104 of the
ACA do not affect most of the
preexisting provisions in sections
1833(a) and 1833(b) of the Act (codified
in regulations in § 410.160(b) and
§ 410.152) that waive the deductible and
coinsurance for specific services. For
example, section 1833(a)(1)(D) of the
Act already waives the coinsurance and
section 1833(b)(3) of the Act already
waives the deductible for clinical
laboratory tests (including tests
furnished for screening purposes).
Section 4104 of the ACA does not
change these provisions and, therefore,
the waiver of both the deductible and
coinsurance remain in place for all
clinical laboratory tests, regardless of
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
whether the particular clinical
laboratory test meets the USPSTF
grading criteria specified in sections
1833(a)(1) and 1833(b)(1) of the Act (as
amended by section 4104 of the ACA)
for waiver of the deductible and
coinsurance as a preventive service.
Similarly, both the deductible and
coinsurance were already waived, prior
to the ACA, for influenza and
pneumococcal vaccines and their
administration, and the deductible (but
not the coinsurance) was already
waived for screening mammography,
screening pelvic exams, colorectal
cancer screening procedures, ultrasound
screening for abdominal aortic
aneurysms, and the IPPE.
As discussed in the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule (75 FR 40130), the
following preventive services listed in
section 1833(ddd)(3)(A) of the Act (as
added by section 4104 of the ACA) are
not recommended by the USPSTF with
a grade of A or B for any indication or
population: digital rectal examination
furnished as a prostate cancer screening
service; glaucoma screening; DSMT
services; and barium enema furnished
as a colorectal cancer screening service.
Specifically, HCPCS code G0102
(Prostate cancer screening; digital rectal
exam), which does not have a grade of
A or B from the USPSTF for any
indication or population, will continue
to be subject to the deductible and
coinsurance as there is no statutory
provision to the contrary. However, the
deductible and coinsurance for HCPCS
code G0103 (Prostate cancer screening;
prostate specific antigen test (PSA)) will
continue to be waived in accordance
with sections 1833(a)(1)(D) and
1833(b)(3) of the Act (applying to
clinical laboratory tests), even though
this service also does not have a grade
of A or B from the USPSTF.
Glaucoma screening services,
described by HCPCS codes G0117
(Glaucoma screening for high risk
patients furnished by an optometrist or
ophthalmologist) and G0118 (Glaucoma
screening for high risk patient furnished
under the direct supervision of an
optometrist or ophthalmologist), will
continue to be subject to the deductible
and coinsurance because these services
are not recommended with a grade of A
or B by the USPSTF for any indication
or population and there is no other
statutory provision to exempt them.
Similarly, DSMT services are currently
not rated by the USPSTF, and there is
no other statutory provision to except
them from applicability of the
deductible and coinsurance. Therefore
the deductible and coinsurance
requirements will continue to apply.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
Barium enemas furnished as
colorectal cancer screening tests,
described by HCPCS codes G0106
(Colorectal cancer screening; alternative
to G0104, screening sigmoidoscopy,
barium enema) and G0120 (Colorectal
cancer screening; alternative to G0105,
screening colonoscopy, barium enema),
do not have a grade of A or B from the
USPSTF for any indication or
population. However, the deductible
does not apply to barium enemas
furnished as colorectal cancer screening
tests, because colorectal cancer
screening tests are explicitly excluded
from the deductible in section
1833(b)(8) of the Act. However, there is
no specific exclusion of barium enemas
from the coinsurance requirement in
section 1833(b)(1) of the Act and,
therefore, this requirement, as
applicable, continues to apply to barium
enemas. We note that the USPSTF has
given a grade A recommendation to
screening colonoscopy, screening
flexible sigmoidoscopy, and fecal occult
blood screening tests, and that, as a
result, both the deductible and
coinsurance are waived for these
colorectal cancer screening tests under
section 4104 of the ACA.
In developing recommendations
regarding preventive services for the CY
2011 PFS proposed rule, we recognized
that the USPSTF may make
recommendations that are specific to a
clinical indication or population, at
times including characteristics such as
gender and age in its recommendations.
In accordance with section 4014 of the
ACA, we proposed to waive the
deductible and coinsurance for a
Medicare-covered preventive service,
with no limits on the indication or
population, as long as that service is
recommended by the USPSTF with a
grade of A or B for at least one
indication and/or population. However,
we noted that all existing Medicare
coverage policies for such services,
including any limitations based on
indication or population would
continue to apply. In some cases,
national coverage policies may currently
limit Medicare coverage based on the
indication or population, consistent
with the USPSTF recommendations
with a grade of A or B for the indication
or population. In other cases where
Medicare does not explicitly noncover
preventive services for a specific
population or indication, we stated that
we would expect that, particularly in
those cases where the USPSTF
recommendation grade is a D (that is,
the USPSTF recommends against the
service because there is moderate or
high certainty that the service has no net
PO 00000
Frm 00247
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73415
benefit or that the harms outweigh the
benefits), practitioners would only order
those preventive services that are
clinically appropriate for the
beneficiary. We noted that if we had
concerns in the future about the
appropriateness of preventive services
for an indication or population in light
of the USPSTF’s recommendations, we
may consider using our authority under
section 1834(n)(1) of the Act (as added
by section 4105 of the ACA) to modify
Medicare coverage of any preventive
service to be consistent with the
recommendations of the USPSTF.
We note also that the USPSTF ceased
to make recommendations with regard
to vaccines and vaccine administration
after CY 1996, so as not to conflict with
the recommendations of the CDC’s
ACIP. However, the USPSTF’s most
recent vaccine recommendations gave a
grade of B to influenza and
pneumococcal vaccines and their
administration and a grade of A to
hepatitis B vaccine and its
administration. While sections
1833(a)(1) and 1833(b)(1) of the Act (as
amended by section 4104 of the ACA)
require that a preventive service receive
a grade A or B recommendation from
the USPSTF for the coinsurance and
deductible to be waived, the statute
does not specify that the recommended
grade must be furnished by the USPSTF
within any given timeframe. The
USPSTF grades from 1996 for these
vaccination services are the most
current USPSTF grades and have never
been withdrawn. Therefore, we believe
that these preventive services meet the
requirements of the statute for the
waiver of the deductible and
coinsurance. We also noted that the
CDC’s ACIP currently recommends
influenza, pneumococcal, and hepatitis
B vaccines.
We proposed to update § 410.160(b),
which lists the services for which
expenses incurred are not subject to the
Part B annual deductible and do not
count toward meeting that deductible.
Specifically, we proposed to revise
§ 410.160(b)(2) to include influenza and
hepatitis B vaccines and their
administration, in addition to
pneumococcal vaccine and its
administration. In addition, in
§ 410.160(b), we also proposed to add
exceptions for bone mass measurement,
MNT services, and the AWV.
In § 410.152, we proposed to revise
paragraph (l) to establish the amount of
payment under the applicable payment
system for providers and suppliers of
the services listed in paragraph (1).
Table 38 of the CY 2011 PFS proposed
rule (75 FR 40131 through 40135)
identified the HCPCS codes that we
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73416
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
proposed to identify as ‘‘preventive
services,’’ in addition to the IPPE and
the AWV, as well as the most recent
USPSTF grade, if any, that was the basis
for our policy with regard to waiver of
the deductible and coinsurance. Table
38 also identified the Medicare payment
system under which the HCPCS code
would be paid when furnished outside
of the facility setting.
Comment: Many commenters
supported CMS’ proposal to waive the
deductible and coinsurance for those
Medicare-covered preventive services
with a grade A or B USPSTF
recommendation for any indication or
population, as well as for the IPPE and
the AWV. The commenters
acknowledged that CMS did not
propose to modify current Medicare
policy that may cover a preventive
service only under specific
circumstances. The commenters
supported CMS’ proposal to rely on
practitioners’ clinical judgment to order
preventive services that are clinically
appropriate for specific beneficiaries.
Many commenters noted that CMS’
‘‘quick implementation’’ of this
provision underscores the agency’s
commitment to removing barriers to
preventive health care.
A few commenters expressed concern
regarding how CMS may incorporate
USPSTF recommendations into the
Medicare benefit structure in the future
and cautioned CMS not to adopt
policies that would result in Medicare
not covering important preventive
services for an older population. For
example, the USPSTF recommendations
for mammography in women do not
apply to individuals age 75 or older, and
the commenters were concerned that
future changes to CMS policies could
result in Medicare not covering
important preventive services for an
older population.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ support for our proposal to
waive the beneficiary deductible and
coinsurance for most preventive
services beginning in CY 2011. We
continue to believe that is appropriate to
waive the beneficiary deductible and
coinsurance for preventive services with
a grade A or B recommendation by the
USPSTF for any indication or
population, if Medicare covers the
particular service under Part B.
However, we reiterate that if we develop
concerns in the future about the
appropriateness of preventive services
for an indication or population in light
of the USPSTF’s recommendations, we
may consider using our authority under
section 1834(n)(1) of the Act (as added
by section 4105 of the ACA) to modify
Medicare coverage of any preventive
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
service to be consistent with the
recommendations of the USPSTF.
Comment: Several commenters
expressed concern over the USPSTF
rating of I for glaucoma screening [An
‘‘I’’ rating means that the USPSTF
concludes that the current evidence is
insufficient to assess the balance of
benefits and harms of the service.
Evidence is lacking, of poor quality, or
conflicting, and the balance of benefits
and harms cannot be determined].
Others were concerned about the rating
of D for prostate cancer screening [A ‘‘D’’
rating means that the USPSTF
recommends against the service. There
is moderate or high certainly that the
service has no net benefit or that the
harms outweigh the benefits]. Other
commenters noted the lack of a specific
USPSTF rating for DSMT services. The
commenters argued that because these
services were covered by Medicare as
preventive services, the beneficiary costsharing should be waived to ensure
access to these services.
Response: Glaucoma screening, digital
prostrate screening, and DSMT services
are covered by Medicare under Part B
and are specific categories of
‘‘preventive services’’ included in
section 1861(ddd)(3)(A) of the Act (as
added by section 4014 of the ACA).
However, as these services do not have
a USPSTF grade A or B
recommendation, the deductible and
coinsurance cannot be waived. Thus,
the coinsurance and deductible will
continue to apply to these services
when they are furnished to a Medicare
beneficiary.
Comment: Some commenters were
concerned that ultrasound screening for
abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA),
while a preventive service covered by
Medicare and with a grade B
recommendation from the USPSTF,
would continue to require a physician
referral in order for the preventive
service to be furnished and for the
waiver of cost-sharing to apply.
Furthermore, the commenters objected
to the current requirement that coverage
of ultrasound screening for AAA relies
upon a referral as a result of the IPPE
because the IPPE is only available to
beneficiaries during their first 12
months of Part B enrollment.
Response: Ultrasound screening for
AAA is a preventive service covered by
Medicare, with certain restrictions set
forth in § 410.19 of our regulations.
Because this service has a grade B
recommendation from the USPSTF, the
deductible and coinsurance will be
waived beginning in CY 2011 for
covered services. While we appreciate
the commenters’ concerns regarding the
existing requirements for ultrasound
PO 00000
Frm 00248
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
screening for AAA, the current
requirement for a referral as a result of
the IPPE is required by section
1861(s)(2)(AA) of the Act and continues
to apply.
Comment: In the context of many
commenters’ recommendations to add
new preventive services for coverage
under Part B as ‘‘additional preventive
services,’’ most commenters also
recommended that the beneficiary costsharing for these services be waived.
The services addressed by the
commenters included services with
current grade A or B USPSTF
recommendations, those with other
grade USPSTF recommendations, those
that have never been reviewed by the
USPSTF, those with recommendations
from other advisory organizations but
the USPSTF, and other vaccines for
which the USPSTF no longer makes
recommendations.
Response: As discussed earlier in this
section, the statute permits us to add
‘‘additional preventive services’’ to
Medicare coverage only if those services
have a grade A or B recommendation
from the USPSTF. Other grade USPSTF
recommendations or recommendations
from other advisory groups, including
the ACIP, cannot substitute for the grade
A or B USPSTF recommendation. In the
event that we add ‘‘additional
preventive services’’ in the future, as we
have HIV screening for at risk
individuals and smoking and tobacco
cessation counseling for asymptomatic
individuals in CY 2010, the Medicare
deductible and coinsurance will be
waived for those services.
Comment: One commenter expressed
concern that CMS was limiting the
waiver of beneficiary cost-sharing to
only those vaccines covered under
Medicare Part B. The commenter
contended that the ACIP recommends
vaccines that are covered under
Medicare Part D, and not Part B, and
therefore not subject to the waiver.
Response: We recognize that many
preventive vaccines such as herpes
zoster and hepatitis A are covered for
beneficiaries under Medicare Part D and
the commenter is correct that Medicare
Part D is not included in section
1861(ddd) of the Act (as amended by
section 4104 of the ACA). Section
1861(ddd)(1)(C) of the Act limits
‘‘additional preventive services’’ to those
appropriate for individuals entitled to
benefits under Medicare Part A or
enrolled under Medicare Part B only. In
addition, the statute only permits
expansions if the item or services based
on a grade of A or B recommendation
by the USPSTF.
Comment: Several commenters
appreciated the clarity of Table 38 in the
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
CY 2011PFS proposed rule (75 FR
40131 through 40135), and requested
that a table such as this be made
available on the CMS Web site that
reflects CMS’ final policies regarding
preventive services and beneficiary costsharing on a HCPCS code-specific basis.
Other commenters requested additional
provider and beneficiary educational
materials to clarify preventive services
benefits under Medicare, to identify
which preventive services would
continue to be subject to beneficiary
cost-sharing, and to specify which
preventive services would meet the
requirements for the waiver of
deductible and coinsurance where
Medicare would make 100 percent
payment.
Response: We are in the process of
developing educational materials that
will reflect and communicate to
beneficiaries and providers the CY 2011
changes to beneficiary cost-sharing for
preventive services under Medicare. We
agree with the commenters that it is
critical to effectively educate
beneficiaries and providers about the
preventive services covered by Medicare
and specifically those services that will
be paid at 100 percent by Medicare
beginning in CY 2011 to help expand
access to these important services. MLN
Matters articles, quick reference guides,
and the Medicare and You Handbook
will all be developed and/or updated to
reflect the provisions of the ACA and
are examples of some the provider and
beneficiary educational materials that
will be available. We appreciate the
recommendations of the commenters
regarding the format for specific
information that we could make
available on the CMS web site, and we
will keep these suggestions in mind as
we further refine our educational
strategy.
After consideration of the public
comments we received, we are
finalizing our proposal to waive the
deductible and coinsurance for most
preventive services, and for the IPPE
and the AWV, beginning in CY 2011.
Table 65 displays the HCPCS codes
that we are finalizing as ‘‘preventive
services’’ under section 1861(ddd)(3)(A)
of the Act (as added by section 4014 of
the ACA) and identifies the HCPCS
codes for the IPPE and the AWV. Table
65 also indicates the most recent
USPSTF grade, if any, that is the basis
for our policy with regard to waiver of
the deductible and coinsurance, as
applicable, and the Medicare payment
system under which the HCPCS code
would be paid when furnished outside
of the facility setting.
Since the publication of the CY 2011
PFS proposed rule, final Level II HCPCS
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
codes have been assigned for the AWV,
as well as the ‘‘additional preventive
services’’ for HIV screening for at risk
individuals and smoking and tobacco
cessation counseling for asymptomatic
individuals. Therefore, these services
and their associated Level II HCPCS
codes are all displayed in Table 65. In
addition, beginning in CY 2011,
Medicare will no longer recognize CPT
code 90658 (Influenza virus vaccine,
split virus, when administered to
individuals 3 years of age and older, for
intramuscular use) but, instead will use
5 new HCPCS Q codes to report
influenza vaccines that would otherwise
have been reported under CPT code
90658. Therefore, these HCPCS Q-codes
are included in Table 65, and they will
be recognized as of January 1, 2011. CPT
code 90658 is no longer displayed in the
table. Finally, it has come to our
attention since publication of the CY
2011 PFS proposed rule that CPT code
86689 (HTLV or HIV antibody,
confirmatory test (e.g., Western Blot))
describes a diagnostic test, not
specifically an HIV screening test that
would be reported for a screening
service that is covered by Medicare,
and, therefore, this CPT is not included
in Table 65.
We are adopting proposed § 410.152
to specify the amounts of payment, with
modification of (13) to read ‘‘Annual
Wellness Visit (AWV), providing
Personalized Prevention Plan Services
(PPPS)’’ and proposed § 410.160 to
specify exclusion from the Part B annual
deductible, with modification of (12) to
read ‘‘Annual Wellness Visit (AWV),
providing Personalized Prevention Plan
Services (PPPS).’’ These modifications
utilize wording that is consistent with
final § 410.15, Annual Wellness Visits
Providing Personalized Prevention Plan
Services: Conditions for and Limitations
on Coverage.
Section 10501(i)(2) of the ACA
amended the definition of Federally
Qualified Health Center (FQHC) services
as defined in section 1861(aa)(3)(A) of
the Act by replacing the specific
references to services provided under
section 1861(qq) and (vv) of the Act
(diabetes outpatient self-management
training services and medical nutrition
therapy services, respectively) with
preventive services as defined in section
1861(ddd)(3) of the Act, as established
by section 4014(a)(3) of the ACA. These
changes are effective for services
provided on or after January 1, 2011.
Accordingly, we are proposing to
conform the regulations to the new
statutory requirement by adding a new
section § 405.2449 which would add the
new preventive services definition to
the definition of FQHC services effective
PO 00000
Frm 00249
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73417
for services provided on or after January
1, 2011.
Section 1861(ddd)(3) of the Act
defines ‘‘preventive services’’ as
consisting of the following three
components:
• Screening and preventive services
described in section 1861(ww)(2) of the
Act (other than electrocardiograms
described in subparagraph (M) of that
subsection).
• An initial preventive physical
examination, as defined in section
1861(ww) of the Act.
• Personalized prevention plan
services as defined in section
1861(hhh)(1) of the Act.
We proposed to add each of these
three components into the new
Medicare FQHC preventive services
definition in a new § 405.2449.
Section 4104(b) of the ACA, as
amended by section 10406 of the ACA,
waives coinsurance for preventive
services by adding section 1833(a)(1)(Y)
to the Act to require waiver of
coinsurance for preventive services that
are recommended with a grade of A or
B by the USPSTF for any indication or
population. This provision is
specifically designed to remove barriers
to affording and obtaining such
preventive services under Medicare.
In addition, section 10501(i)(3)(B)(ii)
of the ACA added section 1833(a)(1)(Z)
to the Act to require a 20 percent
coinsurance on all FQHC services after
implementation of the FQHC
prospective payment system. We believe
we can give both section 1833(a)(1)(Y)
and (Z) of the Act, and the definition of
FQHC services (revised to include the
broader scope of preventive services)
their best effect by providing Medicare
payment at 100 percent for preventive
services as defined at section 1861
(ddd)(3) of the Act, effective January 1,
2011.
Section 1833(b)(4) of the Act
stipulates that the Medicare Part B
deductible shall not apply to FQHC
services. The ACA makes no change to
this provision; therefore Medicare will
continue to waive the Part B deductible
for all FQHC services, including
preventive services added by the ACA.
We received a number of public
comments on the addition of preventive
services to the Medicare FQHC benefit.
These comments included questions
regarding how these benefits are paid
and clarification on the waiver of
coinsurance on these benefits in the
Medicare FQHC setting. The comments
are addressed individually below.
Comment: One commenter indicated
that prior to enactment of the ACA,
many health centers provided added
preventive services as part of the
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73418
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
primary and preventive care offered at
the center. Yet when provided to
Medicare beneficiaries, they received no
additional reimbursement. The
commenter noted that since the
inception of the Medicare FQHC benefit
in 1992, Medicare added thirteen new
services to its coverage, yet those
services have not been included as
FQHC services, except for diabetes self
management training and medical
nutrition therapy which were added by
the Deficit Reduction Act.
Response: We recognize that prior to
enactment of the ACA, many FQHCs
may have provided some or all of the
same preventive services since added to
the Medicare FQHC benefit package by
the ACA. We also agree that many new
preventive services have been added to
Medicare since 1992, and except for
diabetes self management training and
medical nutrition therapy, which were
added by the Deficit Reduction Act of
2005, these services had not been
specifically added to the Medicare
FQHC benefit package under the law.
We believe the addition of these
preventive services to the Medicare
FQHC benefit through provisions in the
ACA, along with the waiver of
beneficiary cost sharing for these
services in the Medicare FQHC setting,
eliminates both prior statutory
restrictions from Medicare coverage in
the FQHC setting as well as potential
financial barriers beneficiaries might
otherwise face in obtaining these
services.
Comment: One commenter requested
further clarification in both this
preamble and the final regulation text at
§ 405.2449 on the application of the
waiver of coinsurance in the FQHC
setting and CMS’ statement that it will
allow 100 percent reimbursement for
these preventive services. The
commenter stated that health centers are
reimbursed 100 percent of their costs for
the provision of influenza,
pneumococcal, and Hepatitis B
vaccinations, in accordance with
Section 1861(s)(10)(A) of the Act. The
commenter further noted that this
reimbursement is done separately and
outside the Medicare FQHC upper
payment limit. The commenter asserted
that the payment limit negatively
impacts an overwhelming majority of
health centers, and therefore encouraged
CMS to use a similar method to
determine the reimbursement for these
new FQHC preventive services. The
commenter further asserted that using a
similar method to determine
reimbursement would allow for health
centers to provide more comprehensive
preventive care to their patients,
alleviate the financial restrictions faced
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
by health centers in providing these
critical services, and would be in the
best interests of CMS, health centers,
and their patients. Finally, the
commenter noted that because the list of
new preventive services includes the
provision of influenza, pneumococcal
and hepatitis B vaccinations, CMS must
ensure that health centers do not lose
their current reimbursement structure
for these services.
Response: No coinsurance will be
imposed upon ACA-added preventive
services in Medicare FQHCs.
Accordingly, final settlement with
FQHCs will reflect the policy that no
coinsurance amounts will be subtracted
from the reasonable cost of ACA-added
preventive benefits. Final settlement is
determined on the basis of the Medicare
cost report, the CMS–222–92. We made
no proposal to exempt ACA-added
preventive services from tests of
reasonableness such as the Medicare
FQHC upper payment limits. Further,
we do not agree that CMS should use
the same methodology presently
employed to pay FQHCs for influenza
and pneumococcal vaccinations (see
discussion of Hepatitis B vaccinations
below) to pay for new Medicare FQHC
preventive services added by the ACA.
We believe the average cost per-visit
payment methodology, which is the
general payment methodology
employed by Medicare to pay for
Medicare FQHC services, was implicit
in the proposal as we proposed no
changes to Medicare FQHC payment
regulations to implement this new
preventive services addition. In
addition, we believe the general
payment methodology for Medicare
FQHCs, which is based on an allinclusive-cost-per-visit, is better suited
and most appropriate for payment of
new preventive services such as the
annual wellness visit. It is our belief
that the Medicare FQHC per-visit upper
payment limits ($126.10 urban and
$109.14 rural in CY 2011) remain
reasonable and adequate not only for
existing Medicare FQHC services but
also for new preventive services as well.
Accordingly, we cannot accept the
comment to exclude new preventive
services from the Medicare FQHC upper
payment limits. The Medicare FQHC
upper payment limits and the general
per-visit payment methodology
employed to pay for Medicare FQHC
services will apply to new Medicare
FQHC preventive services.
While we clarify the waiver of
coinsurance and application of
Medicare FQHC payment methodology
and upper payment limits to new
preventive services in this preamble, we
cannot accept the comment to provide
PO 00000
Frm 00250
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
further clarification within the final
regulation text at § 405.2449. Section
405.2449 is placed within Medicare
FQHC regulations which pertain to the
description of Medicare FQHC services
and not payment. We made no proposal
to change payment and accordingly
make no changes to Medicare FQHC
payment regulations.
Finally, we note that we did not
propose, nor are we making any changes
to, how influenza, pneumococcal and
hepatitis B vaccinations are paid in
Medicare FQHCs. Accordingly, health
centers will not lose their current
reimbursement structure for these
services. We agree that health centers
are reimbursed 100 percent of their
costs for the provision of influenza and
pneumococcal vaccinations. We further
agree that payment for influenza and
pneumococcal vaccinations in Medicare
FQHCs is done separately and outside
the Medicare FQHC upper payment
limit. However, we note for clarification
purposes that prior to the effective date
of the ACA provisions adding new
preventive services to the Medicare
FQHC benefit, the waiver of Part B
coinsurance did not extend to Hepatitis
B vaccinations. Hepatitis B vaccinations
were covered in Medicare FQHCs in
accordance with Section 1861(aa)(3)(A)
of the Act which through reference to
section 1861(aa)(1)(A) of the Act
included all section 1861(s)(10) of the
Act services including section
1861(s)(10)(B) of the Act, Hepatitis B
vaccinations. The waiver of the 20
percent Medicare Part B coinsurance in
Section 1833(a)(3)(A) of the Act
extended only to Section 1861(s)(10)(A)
of the Act services and not to section
1861(s)(10)(B) of the Act Hepatitis B
vaccinations. To summarize this
clarification, prior to the effective date
of the ACA provisions adding new
preventive services to the Medicare
FQHC benefit, the waiver of Medicare
Part B coinsurance did not extend to
Section 1861(s)(10)(B) of the Act
Hepatitis B vaccinations, hence these
services were subject to Medicare Part B
coinsurance and paid at 80 percent (not
100 percent) of reasonable costs in
accordance with the provisions in
section 1833(a)(3) of the Act. Effective
with implementation of ACA provisions
on January 1, 2011, Part B coinsurance
on Hepatitis B vaccinations is waived as
they are now included in the definition
of ‘‘preventive services’’ in section
1861(ddd)(3)(A) of the Act as crossreferenced to section 1861(ww)(2) of the
Act.
Consistent with our response to
public comment above, and in
conformance with the preventive
services definition in section
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
1861(ddd)(3) of the Act, we are
finalizing this new Medicare FQHC
preventive services provision without
modification. We will conform the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
regulations to the new statutory
requirements by adding a new section
§ 405.2449, adding the new preventive
services definition to the definition of
PO 00000
Frm 00251
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73419
FQHC services effective for services
provided on or after January 1, 2011.
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00252
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
ER29NO10.284
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73420
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00253
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73421
ER29NO10.285
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00254
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
ER29NO10.286
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73422
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00255
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73423
ER29NO10.287
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00256
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
ER29NO10.288
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73424
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00257
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73425
ER29NO10.289
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00258
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
ER29NO10.290
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73426
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00259
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73427
ER29NO10.291
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00260
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
ER29NO10.292
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73428
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00261
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73429
ER29NO10.293
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00262
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
ER29NO10.294
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73430
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
BILLING CODE 412–01–C
3. Extension of Waiver of Deductible to
Services Furnished in Connection With
or in Relation to a Colorectal Cancer
Screening Test That Becomes Diagnostic
or Therapeutic
Section 4104(c) of the ACA amended
section 1833(b) of the Act to waive the
Part B deductible for colorectal cancer
screening tests that become diagnostic.
Specifically, section 1833(b)(1) of the
Act (as amended by section 4104(c)(2) of
the ACA) waived the deductible with
respect to a colorectal cancer screening
test regardless of the code that is billed
for the establishment of a diagnosis as
a result of the test, or for the removal of
tissue or other matter or other procedure
that is furnished in connection with, as
a result of, and in the same clinical
encounter as a screening test. We
proposed that all surgical services
furnished on the same date as a planned
screening colonoscopy, planned flexible
sigmoidoscopy, or barium enema be
considered to be furnished in
connection with, as a result of, and in
the same clinical encounter as the
screening test. In the event of a
legislative change to this policy (for
example, a statutory change that would
waive the coinsurance for these related
services in addition to the deductible),
we would reassess the appropriateness
of this proposed definition of services
that are furnished in connection with, as
a result of, and in the same clinical
encounter as the colorectal cancer
screening test that becomes diagnostic.
We also noted that the beneficiary’s
annual deductible would likely be met
when any surgical procedure (related or
not) is furnished on the same day as the
scheduled screening test.
We proposed to implement this
provision by creating a HCPCS modifier
that providers and practitioners would
append to the diagnostic procedure
code that is reported instead of the
screening colonoscopy or screening
flexible sigmoidoscopy HCPCS code or
as a result of the barium enema when
the screening test becomes a diagnostic
service. The claims processing system
would respond to the modifier by
waiving the deductible for all surgical
services on the same date as the
diagnostic test. We proposed that
coinsurance would continue to apply to
the diagnostic test and to other services
furnished in connection with, as a result
of, and in the same clinical encounter as
the screening test.
Comment: Many commenters
expressed support for CMS’ proposal to
waive the deductible in cases where a
screening colonoscopy for colorectal
cancer becomes diagnostic. The
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
commenters believe that the proposal to
waive the Medicare deductible for any
surgical service performed on the same
day and in the same clinical encounter
as a screening colonoscopy if the service
is appended with a modifier is a sound
approach to implementing the policy.
However, a few commenters
requested that CMS also waive the
coinsurance for a procedure that was a
planned colorectal cancer screening test,
regardless of the code that is billed for
the establishment of a diagnosis as a
result of the test, or for the removal of
tissue or other matter or other procedure
that is furnished in connection with, or
as a result of, and in the same clinical
encounter as a screening test. The
commenters were concerned that
beneficiaries may refrain from
undergoing a covered colorectal cancer
screening test if coinsurance could
apply to a resulting diagnostic test and
other services furnished in the same
encounter as the planned colorectal
cancer screening test. As an alternative,
several commenters recommend that
CMS not apply a coinsurance
requirement to the part of the procedure
that is screening in nature.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ support for our proposal,
including the proposed administrative
requirements for practitioners and
providers to identify the circumstances
under which the waiver of the
deducible would apply. As stated above,
section 1833(b)(1) of the Act (as
amended by section 4104(c)(2) of the
ACA) waived the Part B deductible for
colorectal cancer screening tests that
become diagnostic. The statute does not
currently permit waiver of coinsurance
for these circumstances as the 20
percent coinsurance applies to all
service furnished under the PFS unless
there is a specific statutory exception.
We believe that a statutory change
would be necessary in order to waive
the coinsurance for these related
services, in addition to the waiver of the
deductible.
In response to those commenters who
suggested, as an alternative, that we
identify the screening portion of the
diagnostic test in order to waive the
coinsurance for only that portion, we
are unable to identify a portion of a
diagnostic test that is ‘‘screening’’
because a HCPCS code for a diagnostic
test would be reported and, therefore,
we would consider the whole test to be
diagnostic in nature.
After consideration of the public
comments we received, we are
finalizing our CY 2011 proposal to
waive the deductible for colorectal
cancer screening tests that become
diagnostic. Providers and practitioners
PO 00000
Frm 00263
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73431
would append new HCPCS modifier -PT
(Colorectal cancer screening test,
converted to diagnostic test or other
procedure) to the diagnostic procedure
code that is reported instead of the
screening colonoscopy or screening
flexible sigmoidoscopy HCPCS code or
as a result of the barium enema when
the screening test becomes a diagnostic
service. The claims processing system
would respond to the modifier by
waiving the deductible for all surgical
services on the same date as the
diagnostic test. Coinsurance would
continue to apply to the diagnostic test
and to other services furnished in
connection with, as a result of, and in
the same clinical encounter as the
screening test.
S. Section 5501: Expanding Access to
Primary Care Services and General
Surgery Services
1. Section 5501(a): Incentive Payment
Program for Primary Care Services
a. Background
Section 5501(a) of the ACA revised
section 1833 of the Act by adding a new
paragraph (x), ‘‘Incentive Payments for
Primary Care Services.’’ Section 1833(x)
of the Act states that in the case of
primary care services, furnished on or
after January 1, 2011 and before January
1, 2016 by a primary care practitioner,
there shall also be paid on a monthly or
quarterly basis an amount equal to 10
percent of the payment amount for such
services under Part B.
Section 1833(x)(2)(A) of the Act (as
added by section 5501(a) of the ACA)
defines a primary care practitioner as:
(1) A physician, as described in section
1861(r)(1) of the Act, who has a primary
specialty designation of family
medicine, internal medicine, geriatric
medicine, or pediatric medicine; or (2)
a nurse practitioner, clinical nurse
specialist, or physician assistant as
defined in section 1861(aa)(5) of the
Act, and in all cases, for whom primary
care services accounted for at least 60
percent of the allowed charges under
Part B for the practitioner in a prior
period as determined appropriate by the
Secretary.
Section 1833(x)(2)(B) of the Act (as
added by section 5501(a)(2)(B) of the
ACA) defines primary care services as
those services identified by the
following HCPCS codes as of January 1,
2009 (and as subsequently modified by
the Secretary, as applicable):
• 99201 through 99215 for new and
established patient office or other
outpatient E/M visits;
• 99304 through 99340 for initial,
subsequent, discharge, and other
nursing facility E/M services; new and
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73432
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
established patient domiciliary, rest
home (eg, boarding home), or custodial
care E/M services; and domiciliary, rest
home (eg, assisted living facility), or
home care plan oversight services; and
• 99341 through 99350 for new and
established patient home E/M visits.
These codes are displayed in Table 66.
All of these codes remain active in CY
2011 and there are no other codes used
to describe these services.
TABLE 66—PRIMARY CARE SERVICES ELIGIBLE FOR PRIMARY CARE INCENTIVE PAYMENTS IN CY 2011
CPT Code
Description
99201
99202
99203
99204
99205
99211
99212
99213
99214
99215
99304
99305
99306
99307
99308
99309
99310
99315
99316
99318
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
99324
99325
99326
99327
99328
99334
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
99335 .............................................................................................................
99336 .............................................................................................................
99337 .............................................................................................................
99339 .............................................................................................................
99340 .............................................................................................................
99341
99342
99343
99344
99345
99347
99348
99349
99350
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
b. Primary Care Incentive Payment
Program (PCIP)
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
(1) Primary Specialty Designation
For primary care services furnished
on or after January 1, 2011 and before
January 1, 2016, we proposed to provide
a 10 percent incentive payment to
primary care practitioners, identified as
the following: (1) In the case of
physicians, enrolled in Medicare with a
primary specialty designation of 08family practice, 11-internal medicine,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
Level 1 new patient office or other outpatient visit.
Level 2 new patient office or other outpatient visit.
Level 3 new patient office or other outpatient visit.
Level 4 new patient office or other outpatient visit.
Level 5 new patient office or other outpatient visit.
Level 1 established patient office or other outpatient visit.
Level 2 established patient office or other outpatient visit.
Level 3 established patient office or other outpatient visit.
Level 4 established patient office or other outpatient visit.
Level 5 established patient office or other outpatient visit.
Level 1 initial nursing facility care.
Level 2 initial nursing facility care.
Level 3 initial nursing facility care.
Level 1 subsequent nursing facility care.
Level 2 subsequent nursing facility care.
Level 3 subsequent nursing facility care.
Level 4 subsequent nursing facility care.
Nursing facility discharge day management; 30 minutes.
Nursing facility discharge day management; more than 30 minutes.
Other nursing facility services; evaluation and management of a patient involving an annual nursing facility assessment.
Level 1 new patient domiciliary, rest home, or custodial care visit.
Level 2 new patient domiciliary, rest home, or custodial care visit.
Level 3 new patient domiciliary, rest home, or custodial care visit.
Level 4 new patient domiciliary, rest home, or custodial care visit.
Level 5 new patient domiciliary, rest home, or custodial care visit.
Level 1 established patient domiciliary, rest home, or custodial care
visit.
Level 2 established patient domiciliary, rest home, or custodial care
visit.
Level 3 established patient domiciliary, rest home, or custodial care
visit.
Level 4 established patient domiciliary, rest home, or custodial care
visit.
Individual physician supervision of a patient in home, domiciliary or
rest home recurring complex and multidisciplinary care modalities;
30 minutes.
Individual physician supervision of a patient in home, domiciliary or
rest home recurring complex and multidisciplinary care modalities;
30 minutes or more.
Level 1 new patient home visit.
Level 2 new patient home visit.
Level 3 new patient home visit.
Level 4 new patient home visit.
Level 5 new patient home visit.
Level 1 established patient home visit.
Level 2 established patient home visit.
Level 3 established patient home visit.
Level 4 established patient home visit.
37-pediatrics, or 38-geriatrics; or (2) in
the case of nonphysician practitioners
(NPPs), enrolled in Medicare with a
primary care specialty designation of
50-nurse practitioner, 89-certified
clinical nurse specialist, or 97-physician
assistant; and (3) for whom the primary
care services displayed in Table 66
accounted for at least 60 percent of the
allowed charges under Part B for such
practitioner during the time period that
is specified by the Secretary, and
proposed in this section. Hereinafter, we
PO 00000
Frm 00264
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
refer to practitioners with these primary
Medicare specialty designations as
potential primary care practitioners and
the potential primary care practitioner’s
ratio of primary care allowed charges to
allowed charges under Part B
(multiplied by 100) as the primary care
percentage.
Comment: Many commenters
expressed support for the PCIP and
general appreciation for the increased
payment for primary care services.
Some commenters approved of the
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
proposed inclusion of nonphysician
practitioners (NPPs) in the program, but
asked for clarification on the practice
settings where these practitioners may
furnish PCIP-eligible services. However,
several commenters disagreed with the
proposed specialty limitations for the
PCIP. The commenters recommended
that several additional specialties be
eligible for the PCIP including, but not
limited to, neurology, chiropractics,
infectious disease, endocrinology, and
certified nurse-midwives. The
commenters contended that many
practitioners in these other specialties
provide primary care services and have
the requisite education and training,
similar to the potential primary care
practitioners in the designated
specialties to which payment under the
PCIP was proposed.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ support of the PCIP. We
recognize that a variety of specialties
may provide primary care services as
defined broadly under the statute by the
E/M codes displayed in Table 66 and, in
some cases, these specialist
practitioners may truly function as
‘‘primary care practitioners’’ in the
common use of the term (providing first
contact, coordinated, continuous care
for certain patients under their care).
However, section 1833(x) of the Act (as
added by section 5501(a) of the ACA)
specifies in the definition of primary
care practitioner the physician
specialties that are considered as
primary care for purposes of the PCIP.
Under section 1833(x)(2)(A)(i)(I) of the
Act, only physicians with a primary
specialty designation of family
medicine, internal medicine, geriatric
medicine, or pediatric medicine are
considered potential primary care
physicians. The provision does not
authorize us to add other Medicare
specialty designations to the definition
of a primary care practitioner for
purposes of the PCIP. Therefore, as
proposed, we will identify physicians
that have a primary specialty
designation of family medicine, internal
medicine, geriatric medicine, or
pediatric medicine (along with nurse
practitioners, clinical nurse specialists,
and physician assistants) for further
evaluation as potential primary care
practitioners for purposes of the PCIP.
We note that the PCIP does not place
limitations on the setting of the primary
care services for which a primary care
practitioner may be paid an incentive
payment. However, as a practical
matter, the statutorily defined primary
care services to which the PCIP applies
may limit the setting of the services on
which a PCIP payment is based. For
example, there are no inpatient hospital
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
care E/M services on the list of primary
care services for purposes of the PCIP.
The PCIP payment is an amount equal
to 10 percent of the payment for primary
care services furnished by the primary
care practitioner.
Comment: Several commenters
commended CMS for proposing that the
PCIP payment would be in addition to
payments under other incentive
programs under Medicare, arguing that
this policy is particularly important to
encourage the delivery of primary care
services to underserved Medicare
populations. However, some
commenters recommended that CMS
increase the amount of PCIP payments
because the commenters believe that 10
percent is an insufficient financial
incentive to encourage primary care
practice over specialty practice as a
career path for medical and other health
professional students.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ suggestions that primary
care should continue to be a Medicare
priority and acknowledge that payment
incentives are one of many factors that
may influence health professional
student career choice. While we
recognize the importance of encouraging
primary care practice and ensuring the
accessibility of primary care services,
section 1833(x) of the Act (as added by
section 5501(a) of the ACA) explicitly
states the incentive payment amount,
and does not grant authority to the
Secretary to adjust the payment amount.
According to this provision, primary
care practitioners (those who meet the
specialty designation and primary care
percentage criteria) qualify for an
incentive payment equaling 10 percent
of the payment amount under Part B for
the primary care services they furnish.
Therefore, we are maintaining the PCIP
incentive payment amount at 10
percent, as we proposed. The statute
also specifies that the PCIP payment is
to be determined without regard to any
payment for the primary care service
under section 1833(m) of the statute
(currently, the HPSA physician bonus
payment program). Therefore, we are
also adopting as final our proposal to
make any PCIP payment in addition to,
but determined without regard to, any
HPSA physician bonus payment.
(2) Primary Care Percentage Calculation
In the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule (74
FR 10137), we proposed to use the most
current full year of claims data to
identify primary care practitioners
eligible for the PCIP for a CY based on
the practitioner’s primary specialty (as
identified on claims) and the
practitioner’s primary care percentage
calculated based on the primary care
PO 00000
Frm 00265
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73433
services displayed in Table 66. We
commonly use the most recent full year
of claims data for purposes of
establishing annual payment amounts
under a number of Medicare’s fee-forservice programs. A potential primary
care practitioner would be eligible for
the PCIP in a CY if the practitioner’s
primary care percentage, calculated as
the practitioner’s allowed charges for
primary care services (identified in
Table 66) (the numerator) divided by his
or total allowed charges under Part B
(the denominator) and multiplied by
100, meets or exceeds the 60 percent
threshold. We note that the
practitioner’s specialty is applied to the
claim by the claims processing system
and reflects the practitioner’s primary
specialty designation for purposes of
Medicare enrollment on the date the
claim is processed, which would
usually be close to the date on which
the service was actually furnished to the
beneficiary. We would identify primary
care practitioners eligible for the PCIP
for a year by the individual physician/
practitioner national provider identifier
(NPI) number using the most current
full year of claims data available.
Comment: Many commenters
described problems potential primary
care practitioners would likely
encounter in meeting the 60 percent
eligibility threshold requirement for the
PCIP. The commenters pointed to a few
reasons why a potential primary care
practitioner’s primary care percentage
may not meet the 60 percent threshold.
Most commenters believe that the
denominator in the primary care
percentage calculation, or ‘‘allowed
charges under Part B’’ as CMS proposed,
was too broad, and would limit the
number of potential primary care
practitioners who would qualify for the
PCIP. For example, the commenters
speculated that under the proposed
threshold calculation, more than onethird of family practitioners and more
than 60 percent of general internists
would not qualify for the PCIP.
Generally, the commenters requested
that CMS interpret the phrase ‘‘allowed
charges under this part’’ in section
1833(x) of the Act (as added by section
5501(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the ACA) more
narrowly to decrease the denominator in
the primary care percentage calculation
and thereby increase the number of
potential primary care practitioners who
would qualify for the PCIP.
Several commenters, including
MedPAC, recommended that CMS use
only the total allowed charges under the
PFS, rather than all charges under Part
B, as the denominator in the potential
primary care practitioner’s primary care
percentage calculation. The commenters
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73434
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
argued that a potential primary care
practitioner’s billings under his or her
NPI for Part B services not paid under
the PFS (including laboratory services,
drugs, and durable medical equipment
(DME)) would depend upon the
organizational structure of the potential
primary care practitioner’s practice and,
therefore, would be unrelated to
whether the practitioner was serving as
a ‘‘true primary care practitioner’’ for
Medicare beneficiaries under his or her
care. The commenters asserted that
under other sections of the Act,
‘‘allowed charges under this part’’ has
been interpreted by CMS to mean
‘‘allowed charges under the PFS.’’ The
commenters did not believe that
potential primary care practitioners
serving as ‘‘true primary care
practitioners’’ should be penalized with
respect to PCIP eligibility because they
furnish non-PFS Part B services to their
patients.
In addition, other commenters argued
that ‘‘true primary care practitioners’’
caring for their patients across all
settings in accordance with a traditional
primary care model commonly furnish
other types of services to their patients
that are paid under the PFS but that are
not defined as primary care services
under the PCIP, such as inpatient
hospital care and emergency department
visits. The commenters were concerned
that providing hospital care to their
patients consistent with the goal of
improved continuity of care would
disadvantage ‘‘true primary care
practitioners’’ with respect to the
primary care percentage calculation
and, ultimately, eligibility for the PCIP.
Several commenters emphasized that
potential primary care practitioners in
rural areas would be more likely to
provide a wider variety of services to
their patients due to the lack of other
more specialized providers in their area,
which could make them less likely to
qualify for the PCIP. Many commenters
contended that the amount of these
specific non-primary care PFS allowed
charges would be sufficiently large to
prevent ‘‘true primary care practitioners’’
from meeting the 60 percent primary
care percentage threshold. MedPAC and
several other commenters recommended
that CMS remove hospital E/M visits
from the denominator of the primary
care percentage calculation, explaining
that this approach would neither
penalize nor reward potential primary
care practitioners who provide hospital
care to their patients with respect to
eligibility for the PCIP.
Response: We understand
commenters’ concerns regarding the
criteria for the PCIP eligibility
determination, and in particular the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
total amount of allowed charges used in
the denominator for calculation of the
potential primary care practitioner’s
primary care percentage. We also
believe that it is important that the
eligibility determination be based on a
fair representation of potential primary
practitioners’ services so that ‘‘true
primary care practitioners’’ may meet or
exceed the qualifying primary care
percentage threshold for the PCIP,
regardless of how they may have chosen
to organize their medical practice.
We agree with some commenters who
suggested that section 1833(x)(2)(A)(ii)
of the Act (as added by section 5501(a)
of the ACA) allows some flexibility in
implementing the PCIP primary care
percentage calculation, based on the
phrase in the 60 percent threshold
specification that states, ‘‘at least 60
percent of the allowed charges under
this part for such physician or
practitioner in a prior period as
determined appropriate by the
Secretary.’’
We considered several refinements to
determine a potential primary care
practitioner’s allowed charges
consistent with the goal of eliminating
potential biases that could affect ‘‘true
primary care practitioners’’ who practice
under certain conditions and structural
constraints. We reviewed recent
Medicare claims data by specialty
designation to determine which Part B
services accounted for the highest
allowed charges for primary care
practitioners, focusing on those services
that are not defined as primary care
services and, therefore, contribute to
increasing the magnitude of the
denominator in the primary care
percentage. We found that many
potential primary care practitioners had
significant allowed charges for hospital
inpatient care and emergency
department visits, which are not
considered primary care services for
purposes of the PCIP, consistent with
the observations of some commenters.
Due to the high allowed charges for
these hospital visits compared to other
primary care services, ‘‘true primary care
practitioners’’ providing hospital
inpatient and emergency department
care for their patients would be less
likely to qualify for the PCIP. We also
found that rural practitioners,
specifically family physicians, may be
disproportionately unlikely to qualify
for the PCIP because they typically
provide a wider variety of services,
including hospital inpatient care and
emergency department visits, than their
urban counterparts. This difference in
the profile of potential primary care
practitioners’ services was even greater
for family physicians in frontier states.
PO 00000
Frm 00266
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Our review of non-PFS Part B services
furnished by potential primary care
practitioners, including laboratory
services, drugs, and DME, showed that
allowed charges for these services were
typically only a small percentage of the
total amount of a potential primary care
practitioner’s allowed charges under
Part B. However, while less influential
than the inclusion of hospital visits in
the denominator of the primary care
percentage for purposes of determining
whether a potential primary care
practitioner meets the PCIP eligibility
threshold, we believe that the inclusion
of the non-PFS services in the
denominator could also lead to bias
against ‘‘true primary care practitioners’’
who provide a full spectrum of care to
their patients.
Therefore, in an effort to eliminate
potential bias against potential primary
care practitioners who are ‘‘true primary
care practitioners’’ with certain primary
care practice patterns, we are modifying
our proposal and will remove certain
services from the total allowed charges
that is the denominator of the primary
care percentage calculation. In the CY
2011 PFS proposed rule (74 FR 40136),
we proposed to use all allowed charges
under Part B as the denominator in the
calculation to determine whether a
potential primary care practitioner
meets the 60 percent eligibility
threshold requirement. Following our
analysis of Medicare claims data, we
will remove all non-PFS allowed
charges and allowed charges for
evaluation and management (E/M)
services furnished to hospital inpatients
and outpatients by potential primary
care practitioners from the total allowed
charges under Part B. The specific E/M
services that we are removing from the
denominator for purposes of the
primary care percentage calculation are
displayed in Table 67. We note that we
are not removing hospital inpatient
consultation E/M services from the
denominator, either face-to-face or via
telehealth, because we believe these E/
M services do not reflect the types of
services that would be furnished by
‘‘true primary care practitioners’’ serving
a primary care function for their
patients as reflected in their primary
care practice patterns.
In other words, PFS charges excluding
allowed charges for hospital E/M
services will be the denominator in the
final primary care percentage
calculation for PCIP eligibility
determination: [primary care services/
(PFS charges—hospital E/M charges)]
multiplied by 100. The potential
primary care practitioner primary care
percentage calculation is subject to
traditional rounding rules with respect
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
to the 60 percent eligibility threshold,
meaning 59.5 percent and above will be
rounded to 60 percent.
These refinements remove the largest
categories of non-primary care allowed
charges furnished by ‘‘true primary care
practitioners’’ from the primary care
percentage calculation used for
determination of PCIP eligibility,
typically decreasing the magnitude of
the denominator and resulting in a
higher proportion of primary care to
non-primary care services for a given
potential primary care practitioner.
Limiting the allowed charges to the PFS
also removes drugs, laboratory services,
and DME from the denominator
calculation. While these non-PFS
allowed charges are not a large
percentage of most potential primary
care practitioners’ allowed charges
under Part B, we acknowledge the
commenters’ assertions that many
potential primary care practitioners who
are ‘‘true primary care practitioners’’
furnish these services to their patients
under certain primary care practice
models. Therefore, we also believe it is
appropriate to remove the non-PFS
allowed charges from the denominator
of the primary care percentage
calculation. In effect, removing allowed
charges for hospital E/M and non-PFS
services from the total allowed charges
in the denominator of the primary care
percentage calculation allows
significantly more potential primary
care practitioners to qualify for the
PCIP, while still limiting the payment
73435
incentive to ‘‘true primary care
practitioners’’ who predominantly serve
a primary care function for their
patients. With use of this revised
denominator in the primary care
percentage calculation, we estimate that
over 80 percent of physicians who
currently are enrolled in Medicare with
a primary specialty designation of
family medicine and almost 60 percent
of physicians with a designation of
internal medicine would qualify for the
PCIP based on CY 2009 claims data.
This revised calculation removes bias
with respect to eligibility of ‘‘true
primary care practitioners’’ for the PCIP
based on the specific primary care
practice characteristics and model they
utilize in caring for their patients.
TABLE 67—EXCLUDED HOSPITAL EVALUATION AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES FROM THE DENOMINATOR FOR THE PCIP
PRIMARY CARE PERCENTAGE CALCULATION
CPT Code
99217
99218
99219
99220
99221
99222
99223
99231
99232
99233
99234
99235
99236
99238
Description
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
99239 ......................................................................................................................................
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
99281
99282
99283
99284
99285
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
Comment: A number of commenters
recommended that CMS add additional
services commonly furnished by ‘‘true
primary care practitioners’’ to the list of
primary care services for purposes of
calculation of the primary care
percentage and payment of the incentive
payments themselves, which are made
at 10 percent of the Medicare payment
for primary care services. Among the
numerous services recommended as
additions by the commenters are
hospital E/M visits, preventive services
such as immunizations, certain
diagnostic tests, and services related to
home health. The commenters argued
that, by increasing the numerator of the
primary care percentage calculation
used for determining PCIP eligibility,
more potential primary care
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
Observation care discharge day management.
Level 1 initial observation care, per day.
Level 2 initial observation care, per day.
Level 3 initial observation care, per day.
Level 1 initial hospital care, per day.
Level 2 initial hospital care, per day.
Level 3 initial hospital care, per day.
Level 1 subsequent hospital care, per day.
Level 2 subsequent hospital care, per day.
Level 3 subsequent hospital care.
Level 1 observation or inpatient hospital care.
Level 2 observation or inpatient hospital care.
Level 3 observation or inpatient hospital care.
Hospital discharge day management; 30 minutes or
less.
Hospital discharge day management; more than 30
minutes.
Level 1 emergency department visit.
Level 2 emergency department visit.
Level 3 emergency department visit.
Level 4 emergency department visit.
Level 5 emergency department visit.
practitioners would qualify for the PCIP.
Moreover, several commenters argued
that, when furnished by ‘‘true primary
care practitioners,’’ these additional
services are, in fact, primary care
services and therefore should be subject
to the incentive payment. The
commenters suggested the phrase, ‘‘and
as subsequently modified by the
Secretary’’ in section 1833(x)(2)(B) of the
Act (as added by section 5501(a) of the
ACA) following the HCPCS codes
defined as primary care services, could
be read to provide CMS authority to add
services to the list of primary care
services. However, some commenters
expressed concern that adding services,
such as hospital E/M visits, to the list
primary care services would qualify
many hospitalists for the PCIP with the
PO 00000
Frm 00267
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
result that the PCIP would be applied
inappropriately to practitioners
predominantly furnishing hospital
services. If CMS were to contemplate
adding hospital E/M services to the list
of primary care services, the
commenters argued that CMS should
exclude clinicians with hospitalists’
claim patterns, even when those
practitioners have a potential primary
care specialty designation.
Response: While we appreciate
commenters’ interest in increasing the
number of practitioners qualifying for
the PCIP, we do not believe that section
1833(x)(2)(B) of the Act (as added by
section 5501(a) of the ACA) authorizes
us to add services to the list of primary
care services specified in the Act.
Section 1833(x)(2)(B) of the Act (as
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73436
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
added by section 5501(a) of the ACA)
clearly specifies the HCPCS codes that
are considered primary care services for
purposes of the PCIP, stating ‘‘The term
‘primary care services’ means services
identified, as of January 1, 2009, by the
following HCPCS codes (and as
subsequently modified by the Secretary)
* * *.’’ This phrase appears in other
sections of the Act, and we have
consistently interpreted it to refer to the
same services that may be reported
under different HCPCS codes when
those codes change over time. We do
not believe the phrase ‘‘and as
subsequently modified by the Secretary’’
authorizes us to add codes (additional
services) to the definition of primary
care services.
Comment: Several commenters
expressed concern regarding the
reduced likelihood that ‘‘true primary
care practitioners’’ in rural areas would
qualify for the PCIP because primary
care practitioners in remote areas
commonly furnish a greater variety of
services than those on the list of specific
primary care services. The commenters
recommended that rural practitioners be
qualified for the PCIP based on another
primary care percentage threshold that
better suits the practice patterns of rural
practitioners, including accounting for
hospital E/M visits without penalizing
the practitioners. Some commenters
asserted that the PCIP would only
benefit those practitioners furnishing
services in health professional shortage
areas (HPSAs) based on their belief that
the PCIP was limited to primary care
practitioners furnishing primary care
services in HPSAs or that primary care
practitioners would benefit at the cost of
other specialty practitioners because of
considerations of budget neutrality
under the PFS.
Response: We appreciate the concerns
of the commenters regarding rural
practitioners and their special practice
patterns. As discussed earlier in this
section, we have modified our primary
care percentage calculation for purposes
of comparison with the 60 percent PCIP
eligibility threshold so that all potential
primary care practitioners, including
potential primary care practitioners in
rural areas, will not miss the PCIP
eligibility threshold as a result of
furnishing hospital visits to their
patients. With regard to applying special
criteria for the primary care percentage
calculation for rural practitioners, we
note that section 1833(x) of the Act does
not include any provision that would
make the location of the primary care
services or the primary care practitioner
a factor for PCIP eligibility; the same
eligibility determination is applicable to
all potential primary care practitioners.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
In contrast to the HPSA physician
bonus payment program and the HPSA
Surgical Incentive Program (HSIP), the
PCIP does not consider geographic
location in determining practitioner
eligibility or the primary care services
for which the incentive payments will
be made. Although practitioners in rural
areas will benefit from the PCIP in the
same way as practitioners in other
regions, as we note above, PCIP
payments will be made in addition to
the regular Part B payments for primary
care services furnished by eligible
primary care practitioners and, if
applicable, the HPSA physician bonus
payment will also be made. Finally, we
note that primary care incentive
payments are not subject to the budget
neutrality adjustment under the PFS, so
PCIP payments will not affect payment
for other services for which payment is
made under the PFS.
After consideration of the public
comments we received, we are
finalizing our policy for calculation of
the primary care percentage, with
certain modifications from the proposed
policy. The numerator of the primary
care percentage for each NPI is the sum
of the allowed charges for the primary
care services listed in Table 66, as we
proposed. However, the denominator is
the allowed charges under the PFS
minus the allowed charges for the
hospital E/M services listed in Table 67,
which is a change from our proposal.
We will calculate the primary care
percentage for each NPI of a potential
primary care practitioner and, if the
calculation rounds to 60 percent or
greater, the potential primary care
practitioner with that NPI will qualify to
receive PCIP payments for the
applicable year.
(3) Period of Claims Data for Primary
Care Percentage Calculation
As we discussed in the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule (74 FR 40137), we
proposed to use CY 2009 PFS claims
data, processed through June 30, 2010,
for determining PCIP practitioner
eligibility for CY 2011. This would
ensure analysis of about 99 percent of
CY 2009 claims to determine
practitioner eligibility for PCIP payment
beginning January 2011. We note that
the MMA changed the requirements for
critical access hospital (CAH) billing for
practitioners’ professional services and,
therefore, modifications were made to
the Medicare claims processing system
to require CAHs to identify the
practitioner furnishing a service on the
CAH claim for that professional service.
However, because the rendering
practitioner has only been identified on
CAH claims since July 1, 2009, for the
PO 00000
Frm 00268
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
first year of the PCIP we are proposing
to identify eligible practitioners using
only 6 months of CAH data for those
CAHs paid under the optional method.
Thereafter, we would update the list of
practitioners eligible for the PCIP
annually based on the most recent
available full year of PFS and CAH
claims data.
To the extent practitioners were paid
under the PFS during the historical
claims data year for some primary
services, and CAHs were paid under the
optional method for those same
practitioners’ other professional
services, we would aggregate the
historical claims data from all settings
by the practitioner’s NPI in order to
determine whether the practitioner is
eligible for PCIP payments. We
proposed that for all potentially eligible
primary care practitioners (both
practitioners paid under the PFS and
practitioners for whose professional
services CAHs are paid under the
optional method), the period of claims
data used for the annual determination
of the practitioner’s primary care
percentage would lag the PCIP payment
year by 2 years (for example, CY 2010
claims data would be used for the CY
2012 PCIP). This 2-year lag is consistent
with other areas of the Medicare
program where we rely on information
from claims data to inform payment in
a future year, such as the use of CY 2009
PFS utilization data in the
establishment of certain aspects of CY
2011 PFS payment rates.
Under the proposed PCIP eligibility
determination method, it would be
necessary to revise the list of PCIPeligible primary care practitioners based
on updated claims data regarding
primary specialty designation and
primary care percentage each year. The
revised list of primary care practitioners
developed prior to the beginning of the
next CY would establish a practitioner’s
eligibility for PCIP payments for the full
next CY. That is, once eligible for the
PCIP for a given CY, the practitioner
would receive PCIP payments for
primary care services furnished
throughout that full CY. We would then
reassess the practitioner’s PCIP
eligibility for the next year’s payments.
As a result, under our proposal, a
practitioner newly enrolling in
Medicare during a CY would not be
eligible for the PCIP until Medicare
claims data reflecting the practitioner’s
primary care specialty and primary care
percentage that equals or exceeds the 60
percent threshold were available to
establish the practitioner’s eligibility for
the next PCIP year. Similarly, an
enrolled practitioner’s change in
primary specialty designation (either to
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
or from a primary care specialty) would
not affect that practitioner’s eligibility
for the PCIP until the practitioner’s
claims reflecting the change were
available for analysis in preparation for
the next applicable CY PCIP. In the CY
2011 PFS proposed rule (74 FR 40138),
we indicated that, given the statutory
requirement for PCIP eligibility that a
potential primary care practitioner’s
primary care services account for at
least 60 percent of the allowed charges
under Part B for the practitioner in a
prior period as determined by the
Secretary, we saw no clear alternative
methodologies that would allow PCIP
payments to be made to those
practitioners newly enrolling in
Medicare without the 2-year lag in
eligibility determination that was
described previously. However, given
our general interest in supporting
primary care practitioners and entry
into primary care practice by new
physicians and nonphysician
practitioners in order to ensure that
Medicare beneficiaries have access to
these important services, we asked for
public comments on alternative
approaches for establishing PCIP
eligibility for newly enrolled
practitioners that would be consistent
with the statutory requirement.
Comment: Several commenters
opposed the proposed 2-year lag in the
data used for PCIP eligibility
determination (for example, CY 2009
claims data for CY 2011 PCIP payment).
The commenters contended that the 2year lag would not accurately represent
changes in practice or changes in
specialty designation, and requested
that CMS exercise flexibility in
determining the prior period in order to
more closely align the eligibility and
payment periods. Some commenters
recommended that CMS decrease the
timeframe of claims data used for
eligibility determination to less than a
year in order to use claims data from the
year immediately prior to the incentive
payment year. Other commenters
suggested that CMS repeat the eligibility
determination for potential primary care
practitioners more frequently than
annually, allowing multiple
opportunities for potential primary care
practitioners to meet the primary care
percentage threshold because the
commenters believe that practitioners
may experience seasonal variations in
their practice patterns.
The commenters were especially
concerned about the eligibility
determination for practitioners who
newly enroll in Medicare because there
would be no Medicare claims data for
these practitioners from the 2 years
prior to the PCIP payment year. The
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
commenters were concerned that all
newly enrolled potential primary care
practitioners would, therefore, be
ineligible for the PCIP for up to 2 years
during their initial period of practice.
The commenters contended that the 2year interval would discourage, or at a
minimum not encourage, primary care
practice as a career choice. A few
commenters also raised concerns about
the corresponding 2-year lag time in
PCIP eligibility for practitioners who
change their Medicare-enrolled
specialty to one that would make them
potential primary care practitioners.
The commenters recommended a
variety of approaches for CMS to
consider in addressing PCIP eligibility
for newly enrolled potential primary
care practitioners. The commenters’
recommendations included using claims
data for a 6-month prior period in order
to limit the lag time; making a lump
sum PCIP payment after the conclusion
of the PCIP payment year once
eligibility could be confirmed; placing
PCIP payments into escrow accounts to
be paid after the potential primary care
practitioner’s first year of practice if the
primary care percentage threshold was
met; or presuming the eligibility of all
practitioners with the designated
enrolled specialties until claims data
demonstrated that they did not qualify
for the PCIP.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ interest in closely aligning
the period of claims data used to
determine PCIP eligibility with the time
period where the primary care services
subject to the incentive payment would
be furnished in order to identify those
primary care practitioners with the most
current primary care practice patterns
for the PCIP. For practitioners who were
enrolled in Medicare 2 years prior to the
PCIP payment year, as we proposed, we
believe it is important to consider a full
year of claims data rather than a shorter
period, in order to account for seasonal
variations in care patterns and more
accurately represent the totality of PFS
services provided by the potential
primary care practitioner. Medical
practices often experience fluctuations
in the services that they provide over a
year. A longer data period helps to
smooth the variation and, therefore,
better represents the totality of the
potential primary care practitioner’s
practice. Due to the time necessary to
receive and process claims data, using
the claims data from the full year prior
to the PCIP payment year for calculating
the primary care percentage would
delay incentive payments until after the
third quarter of the PCIP payment year
for all eligible primary care
practitioners, a delay which we believe
PO 00000
Frm 00269
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73437
is not desirable because the statute
indicates that we should make quarterly
or monthly PCIP payments. Therefore,
we believe that the 2-year lag method,
as described in the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule (74 FR 40137), is the most
appropriate approach to determining
eligibility for most potential primary
care practitioners because it allows for
a review of a full year of claims data
without delaying incentive payments for
most eligible primary care practitioners.
However, we recognize the special
circumstances of newly enrolled
potential primary care practitioners, in
that they do not have the claims history
from 2 years prior to the PCIP payment
year to determine their eligibility. We
believe it is important to give potential
primary care practitioners newly
enrolling in Medicare in the year
immediately preceding the PCIP
payment year the opportunity to qualify
for the PCIP with minimal delay.
Therefore, for these practitioners, we
will determine PCIP eligibility based on
a different prior period than for those
practitioners who are already enrolled
in Medicare and who have Medicare
claims data from 2 years prior to the
PCIP payment year available for
analysis. Section 1833(x) of the Act (as
added by Section 5501(a) of the ACA)
gives the Secretary the authority to
establish the period of allowed charges
used to assess the potential primary care
practitioner’s primary care percentage
with regard to the minimum 60 percent
threshold required for PCIP eligibility.
For newly enrolled potential primary
care practitioners only, we will use the
available claims data from the year
immediately preceding the PCIP
payment year (for example, CY 2010
claims data for CY 2011 PCIP payment)
to determine PCIP eligibility. We will
use all claims data available for the
newly enrolled potential primary care
practitioner from that prior year to
determine PCIP eligibility, with no
minimum time period that the potential
primary care practitioner must have
been enrolled in Medicare in that prior
year. Therefore, a newly enrolled
potential primary care practitioner
would need to wait no more than one
year and potentially significantly less
than one year following enrollment and
first billing in order for the primary care
services furnished by that eligible
primary care practitioner to be subject to
the PCIP in the year following the
practitioner’s initial enrollment.
Due to the processing lag for claims
data from the previous CY, PCIP
payments for newly enrolled primary
care practitioners will be delayed until
after the end of the third quarter of the
PCIP payment year, although the PCIP
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73438
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
payments will ultimately be made for all
primary care services the eligible
practitioners furnished throughout the
full PCIP payment year. Following that
first PCIP eligibility determination in
the year immediately following the
potential primary care practitioner’s
enrollment in Medicare, PCIP eligibility
will be determined as specified
previously for a practitioner who was
enrolled in Medicare 2 years prior to the
PCIP payment year.
For example, if a practitioner newly
enrolled in Medicare any time during
CY 2010 with a primary specialty
designation of family medicine and
furnished services that were billed to
Medicare, in CY 2011 we will evaluate
the family physician’s CY 2010 claims
data to determine whether the physician
meets the 60 percent primary care
percentage eligibility threshold for CY
2011 payment under the PCIP. We
would not be able to make this
assessment until the CY 2010 claims
data are substantially complete and,
therefore, would anticipate making a
determination regarding the physician’s
eligibility some time after the midpoint
of CY 2011. If the family physician is
eligible for the PCIP, we would make a
lump sum payment for those primary
care services furnished earlier in CY
2011 prior to the determination of
eligibility and then we would begin
making quarterly PCIP payments
following the third quarter of CY 2011.
For the same physician for the CY 2012
PCIP payment year, we would again
refer to CY 2010 claims data to assess
whether the physician is eligible for the
PCIP and, if applicable (eligibility could
potentially change with more complete
CY 2010 data than were available for the
CY 2011 determination), make quarterly
PCIP payments to that physician in CY
2012.
The use of a different prior period in
the case of newly enrolled potential
primary care practitioners will allow us
more quickly to assess whether the
practitioner qualifies for the PCIP and
make any applicable PCIP payment,
while allowing PCIP payments for
established primary care practitioners to
be made timely for each quarter of the
PCIP payment year based on the use of
a different prior period to determine the
eligibility of previously enrolled
potential primary care practitioners. The
use of the more recent prior period for
PCIP eligibility determination will not
apply to practitioners who are already
enrolled in Medicare 2 years prior to the
PCIP payment year, but switch their
specialty designation to a potential
primary care specialty in the year
immediately preceding the PCIP
payment year. As we explained in the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
CY 2011 PFS proposed rule (74 FR
40138) and discuss further below, we do
not want to encourage practitioners to
change their specialty designation
merely for the purpose of garnering
PCIP payments. Moreover, if we were to
make an accommodation for
practitioners enrolled in Medicare who
change their specialty to a potential
primary care practitioner specialty after
the data year used for PCIP eligibility
determination, we would also need to
devise a process to remove practitioners
from PCIP eligibility if they changed to
a non-primary care specialty during that
same period. We believe the incentives
and the practice challenges experienced
by newly enrolling practitioners are not
the same as those for established
practitioners and, on balance, we
continue to believe it is appropriate to
establish PCIP eligibility based upon
claims data for a full CY. This policy
will also ensure greater predictability of
payment, which is an important
objective of the PCIP and Medicare
payment policy in general.
We do not agree with commenters
who recommended that we make PCIP
payments to newly enrolled potential
primary care practitioners based on a
self-certification process or
presumptions about eligibility. Making
incentive payments prior to review of a
practitioner’s eligibility based on claims
data would inevitably result in
inappropriate PCIP payments to
potential primary care practitioners.
Any such payments would constitute
overpayments subject to recoupment,
which would place a burden on our
claims processing systems and on the
practitioners themselves.
After consideration of the public
comments we received, we are
finalizing our CY 2011 proposal to use
Medicare claims data for the year 2
years prior to the PCIP payment year to
determine PCIP eligibility for those
potential primary care practitioners who
were enrolled in Medicare in that year.
However, we are modifying the
proposed policy to use claims data from
the year immediately preceding the
PCIP payment year in order to
determine PCIP eligibility for potential
primary care practitioners who newly
enroll in Medicare in the year
immediately preceding the PCIP
payment year. The PCIP payments to
newly enrolled potential primary care
practitioners, if applicable, will be made
as a lump sum for those primary care
services furnished earlier in the PCIP
payment year by the eligible primary
care practitioner as a soon as an
eligibility determination can be made in
the PCIP payment year. Quarterly PCIP
payments for these eligible primary care
PO 00000
Frm 00270
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
practitioners will begin following the
third quarter of the PCIP payment year.
In the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule (74
FR 40138), we stated that we plan to
monitor changes in the primary
specialty designations of enrolled
practitioners over time and would
expect not to see significant changes in
the specialties of currently enrolled
practitioners as a result of the PCIP
payments. We would expect that
physicians changing their primary
specialty to one of the primary care
specialties of family medicine, internal
medicine, geriatric medicine, or
pediatric medicine and who would be
newly eligible for the PCIP are
furnishing primary care services to the
patients in their practices. Consistent
with our past policies, we would expect
that physicians changing their primary
specialty designation under Medicare
would make such changes only so that
their primary specialty designation is
fully consistent with the specific or
unique type of medicine they practice.
If we find that physicians are changing
their specialty designations (for
example, cardiologists who designate
their primary specialty as internal
medicine, although they practice
cardiology) in order to take advantage of
the PCIP payments, we would
considering making future revisions to
eliminate such an outcome.
Comment: Several commenters agreed
that CMS should review the specialty
designations of physicians and
nonphysician practitioners to ensure
there is no gaming of the system in
order for practitioners to qualify for the
PCIP.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ support and plan to follow
closely the changes in the Medicare
primary specialty designations of
physicians and nonphysician
practitioners. As we stated previously, if
we find that practitioners are changing
their specialty designations in order to
become eligible for PCIP payments
rather than to reflect their actual
practice, we may consider making
future revisions to address this problem.
(4) PCIP Payment
We proposed in the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule (74 FR 40138) that PCIP
payments would be calculated by the
Medicare contractors and made
quarterly on behalf of the eligible
primary care practitioner for the
primary care services furnished by the
practitioner in that quarter, consistent
with the established Medicare HPSA
physician bonus program (Medicare
Claims Processing Manual, Pub. 100–04,
Chapter 12, Section 90.4.4) and the
proposed HSIP described in section
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
III.S.2. of this final rule with comment
period. The primary care practitioners’
professional services may be paid under
the PFS based on a claim for
professional services or, where the
practitioner has reassigned his or her
benefits to a CAH paid under the
optional method, to the CAH based on
an institutional claim.
Comment: Several commenters
supported CMS’ proposal to make
incentive payments quarterly. These
commenters agreed that quarterly
payments would mitigate the
administrative burden and better
account for the practice patterns of the
various types of primary care
practitioners submitting claims for
primary care services.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ support of the quarterly
PCIP payments. We agree that the
quarterly payments would work well
with the billing cycles of many
practitioners and would be consistent
with Medicare payment policies for
other incentive programs.
As discussed in CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule (74 FR 40138), eligible
primary care practitioners would be
identified on a claim based on the NPI
of the rendering practitioner. If the
claim is submitted by a practitioner’s
group practice or a CAH, the rendering
practitioner’s NPI must be included on
the line-item for the primary care
service (identified in Table 66) in order
for a determination to be made
regarding whether or not the service is
eligible for payment of the PCIP. We
note that, in order to be eligible for the
PCIP, physician assistants, clinical
nurse specialists, and nurse
practitioners must be billing for their
services under their own NPI and not
furnishing services incident to
physicians’ services. Regardless of the
specialty area in which they may be
practicing, these specific NPPs would be
eligible for the PCIP based on their
enrolled potential primary care
practitioner specialty if their historical
primary care percentage equals or
exceeds the 60 percent threshold.
In the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule (75
FR 41038), we indicated that section
1833(x)(4) of the Act (as added by
section 5501(a) of the ACA) specifies
that ‘‘there shall be no administrative or
judicial review under section 1869, or
section 1878, or otherwise, respecting
the identification of primary care
practitioners.’’ We believe that the
inclusion of this language is intended to
provide a means for the practical
implementation of this provision. We
explained that we must develop a
process and identify primary care
practitioners before we can make
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
payments under the PCIP to the eligible
primary care practitioners. The statute
gives CMS the authority to make final
determinations of eligible primary care
practitioners that are not subject to
appeal through the various channels
normally available to practitioners, in
order for the timely payments under the
PCIP to occur. In contrast, if the
eligibility determinations that we must
make under this provision were subject
to appeal, the timely implementation of
this program could be jeopardized and
payments under the PCIP could be
significantly delayed. However, we
stated that we did not believe that the
‘‘no administrative or judicial review’’
clause precludes CMS from correcting
errors resulting from clerical or
mathematical mistakes. Therefore, we
indicated that practitioners would have
the opportunity to notify CMS of
clerical or mathematical errors that may
have occurred during the process of
identifying eligible primary care
practitioners for PCIP payment and that
may have resulted in a mistaken
eligibility determination for the PCIP.
Comment: Several commenters
supported the review of the PCIP
eligibility determinations for clerical or
mathematical mistakes. The
commenters agreed that a review of the
data calculations may be necessary
when errors are suspected. Some
commenters further asked for
clarification and transparency regarding
the formula and data that are used for
eligibility determinations. Finally,
several commenters requested that CMS
provide notification to individual
qualifying primary care practitioners
even if the PCIP payment is made to the
group practice under a reassignment
arrangement.
Response: We appreciate the support
of the commenters for a review when
suspected clerical or mathematical
mistakes are identified. As described
earlier in this section, the formula used
to determine the primary care
percentage for a potential primary care
practitioner is the practitioner’s allowed
charges from the applicable data year
(the prior period) for primary care
services (listed in Table 66) divided by
the total allowed charges under the PFS,
excluding hospital E/M visits (listed in
Table 67), and multiplied by 100. The
specialty designation and allowed
charges used to identify a potential
primary care practitioner and calculate
the primary care percentage are based
on the claims data that are submitted by
the practitioner during the applicable
prior year for eligibility determination
for the PCIP payment year, which
depends on whether the potential
primary care practitioner was newly
PO 00000
Frm 00271
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73439
enrolled in Medicare in the year
immediately prior to the PCIP payment
year or previously enrolled in Medicare.
Those data will be reviewed when we
are assessing a suspected mistake.
We note that Medicare contractors
will post a list of individual primary
care practitioners eligible for the PCIP
for a year, along with their NPIs, on
their web sites. We do not anticipate
providing individual notices to PCIPeligible primary care practitioners for
each year. Rather, primary care
practitioners, including those who have
reassigned their benefits, can confirm
their eligibility for the PCIP for a year
without direct individual notification.
In the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule (75
FR 41038), we further noted that section
1833(x)(3) of the Act (as added by
section 5501(a) of the ACA) authorizes
payment under the PCIP as an
additional payment amount for
specified primary care services without
regard to any additional payment for the
service under section 1833(m) of the
Act. Therefore, an eligible primary care
physician furnishing a primary care
service in a HPSA may receive both a
HPSA physician bonus payment under
the established program and a PCIP
payment under the new program
beginning in CY 2011, but the PCIP
payment is made without regard to the
HPSA physician bonus payment
amount. In addition, payments for
outpatient CAH services under section
1834(g)(2)(B) of the Act (as amended by
section 5501(a) of the ACA) would not
be affected by the PCIP payment
amounts made to the CAH on behalf of
the primary care practitioner.
(5) Summary of Final PCIP Policies
In summary, after consideration of the
public comments we received, we are
finalizing our CY 2011 proposals for the
PCIP, with modification. Practitioners
with a designated primary Medicareenrolled specialty of family medicine,
internal medicine, geriatric medicine,
pediatric medicine, nurse practitioner,
clinical nurse specialist, or physician
assistant and whose primary care
percentage, calculated as primary care
allowed charges divided by PFS allowed
charges excluding hospital E/M visits,
and then multiplied by 100, exceeds 60
percent will be eligible for the PCIP. The
primary care percentage will be
calculated based on claims data from 2
years prior to the PCIP payment year for
practitioners enrolled in Medicare in
that year, and from the year
immediately prior to the PCIP payment
year for practitioners newly enrolling in
that year. Beginning immediately
following the first quarter of CY 2011,
incentive payments for primary care
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73440
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
services furnished by eligible
practitioners will be paid quarterly after
the conclusion of the calendar quarter,
in addition to payments by Medicare for
the primary care services and other
incentive program payments. The list of
eligible primary care practitioners will
be updated annually based upon our
analysis of claims data from the
subsequent reference period.
Accordingly, we are finalizing our
regulation at new § 414.80 to specify the
requirements of the PCIP. While we are
finalizing our proposed definition of
primary care services in § 414.80(a), we
are revising our proposed definition of
eligible primary care practitioners in
§ 414.80(a)(i)(B) and (ii)(B) to specify
that at least 60 percent of the
physician’s or practitioner’s allowed
charges under the PFS (excluding
hospital evaluation and management
visits) during a reference period
specified by the Secretary are for
primary care services. We are finalizing
§ 414.80(b) as proposed to provide
eligible primary care practitioners a 10
percent incentive payment for primary
care services, in addition to the amount
that would otherwise be paid for their
professional services under Part B.
Quarterly PCIP payments will be made
to eligible practitioners or to CAHs paid
under the optional method that are
billing on behalf of practitioners for
their professional services for identified
primary care services.
2. Section 5501(b): Incentive Payment
Program for Major Surgical Procedures
Furnished in Health Professional
Shortage Areas
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
a. Background
Section 1833(m) of the Act provides
for an additional 10 percent incentive
payment when physicians’ services are
furnished to a covered individual in an
area designated as a geographic Health
Professional Shortage Area (HPSA) as
identified by the Secretary prior to the
beginning of such year. Section 5501(b)
of the ACA revises section 1833 of the
Act by adding new subparagraph (y),
‘‘Incentive Payments for Major Surgical
Procedures Furnished in Health
Professional Shortage Areas.’’
In the case of major surgical
procedures furnished by a general
surgeon on or after January 1, 2011 and
before January 1, 2016, in an area
designated under section 332(a)(1)(A) of
the Act as a geographic HPSA, they
would be paid on a monthly or quarterly
basis an amount equal to 10 percent of
the payment amount for eligible services
under Part B. Section 1833(y)(2)(A) of
the Act (as added by section 5501(b) of
the ACA) defines a general surgeon as
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
a physician who is described in section
1861(r)(1) of the Act and who has
designated a CMS specialty code of 02general surgery as his or her primary
specialty code in the physician’s
enrollment in Medicare under section
1866(j) of the Act.
Section 1833(y)(2)(B) of the Act (as
added by section 5501(b) of the ACA)
defines major surgical procedures as
surgical procedures for which a 10-day
or 90-day global period is used for
payment under the PFS under section
1848(b) of the Act. In Addendum B to
the CY 2010 PFS final rule with
comment period (74 FR 62017 through
62143), as corrected in the correction
notice (74 FR 65455 through 65457), we
identified 489 10-day global procedure
codes and 3,796 90-day global
procedure codes for a total of 4,285
surgical procedure codes that would
have met the surgical procedure criteria
for the incentive payment if it were
applicable in CY 2010.
b. HPSA Surgical Incentive Payment
Program (HSIP)
For services furnished on or after
January 1, 2011 and before January 1,
2016, in the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule
(75 FR 40139) we proposed to provide
a 10 percent incentive payment to
general surgeons, identified by their
enrollment in Medicare with a primary
specialty code of 02-general surgery, in
addition to the amount they would
otherwise be paid for their professional
services under Part B, when they
furnish a major surgical procedure in a
location defined by the Secretary as of
December 31 of the prior year as a
geographic HPSA. As with the PCIP
described above, we stated in the CY
2011 PFS proposed rule (75 FR 40139)
that we did not believe surgeons would
change their Medicare specialty
designation in order to take advantage of
the HSIP payments. However, we
described our plan to monitor the
specialty designations of enrolled
physicians, and if we were to find that
surgeons were changing their primary
specialty designation to general surgery
in order to take advantage of the HSIP
payments, we would consider making
future revisions to eliminate such an
outcome.
Consistent with the established
Medicare HPSA physician bonus
program, we proposed that HSIP
payments be calculated by Medicare
contractors based on the criteria for
payment discussed earlier in this
section, and payments would be made
quarterly on behalf of the qualifying
general surgeon for the qualifying major
surgical procedures. The surgeons’
professional services would be paid
PO 00000
Frm 00272
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
under the PFS based on a claim for
professional services or, when a
physician has reassigned his or her
benefits to a CAH paid under the
optional method, to the CAH based on
an institutional claim.
Qualifying general surgeons would be
identified on a claim for a major surgical
procedure based on the primary
specialty of the rendering physician,
identified by his or her NPI, of 02general surgery. If the claim is
submitted by a physician’s group
practice or a CAH, the rendering
physician’s NPI must be included on the
line-item for the major surgical
procedure in order for a determination
to be made regarding whether or not the
procedure is eligible for payment under
the HSIP.
For HSIP payment to be applicable,
the major surgical procedure must be
furnished in an area designated by the
Secretary as of December 31 of the prior
year as a geographic HPSA. We stated
that we would provide HSIP payments
for major surgical procedures furnished
by general surgeons in the same HPSAs
as we currently recognize for purposes
of payment of all physicians under the
established Medicare HPSA physician
bonus program under section 1833(m) of
the Act.
Each year, we publish a list of zip
codes eligible for automatic payment of
the HPSA physician bonus payment at:
https://www.cms.gov/
hpsapsaphysicianbonuses/
01_overview.asp. We proposed to use
the same list of zip codes for automatic
payment of the incentive payment for
qualifying surgical procedures furnished
by general surgeons. We also proposed
to create a new HCPCS code modifier to
identify circumstances when general
surgeons furnish qualifying surgical
procedures in areas that are designated
as HPSAs as of December 31 of the prior
year, but that are not on the list of zip
codes eligible for automatic payment.
The new modifier would be appended
to the major surgical procedure on
claims submitted for payment, similar to
the current process for payment of the
Medicare HPSA physician bonus when
the geographic HPSA is not a HPSA
identified for automatic payment.
Consistent with the statutory
requirement, we would define major
surgical procedures as those for which
a 10-day or 90-day global period is used
for payment under the PFS. For CY
2011, approximately 4,300 10-day and
90-day global surgical procedures codes
were identified in Addendum B to the
CY 2011 PFS rule (75 FR 40262 through
40641) under the far right column
labeled ‘‘Global’’ and designated with
‘‘010’’ or ‘‘090,’’ respectively.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
We further noted that section
1833(y)(3) of the Act (as added by
section 5501(b)(1) of the ACA)
authorizes payment under the HSIP as
an additional payment amount for
specified surgical services without
regard to any additional payment for the
service under section 1833(m) of the
Act. Therefore, a general surgeon may
receive both a HPSA physician bonus
payment under the established
Medicare HPSA physician bonus
program and a HSIP payment under the
new program beginning in CY 2011, but
the HSIP payment would be made
without regard to the HPSA physician
bonus payment amount. In addition,
payments for outpatient CAH services
under section 1834(g)(2)(B) of the Act
(as amended by section 5501(b) of the
ACA) would not be affected by the HSIP
payment amounts made to the CAH on
behalf of the general surgeon.
Accordingly, for CY 2011, we
proposed to revise § 414.2 and add the
definitions of ‘‘HPSA’’ and ‘‘major
surgical procedure.’’ We also proposed
to revise § 414.67 to move the existing
provisions to paragraph (a) to be
grouped as the ‘‘Health Professional
Shortage Area (HPSA) physician bonus
program’’ and adding a new paragraph
(b) for the ‘‘HPSA surgical incentive
payment program’’ provisions. Section
414.67(b) would state that general
surgeons who furnish identified 10-day
and 90-day global period surgical
procedures in an area designated by the
Secretary as of December 31 of the prior
year as a geographic HPSA that is
recognized by Medicare for the HPSA
physician bonus program as specified
under renumbered § 414.67(a)(1) would
receive a 10 percent incentive payment
in addition to the amount that would
otherwise be paid for their professional
services under Part B. Physicians
furnishing services in areas that are
designated as geographic HPSAs prior to
the beginning of the year but not
included on the published list of zip
codes for which automated HPSA
surgical incentive payments are made
would report a specified HCPCS code
modifier to receive the HSIP payment.
Quarterly incentive payments would be
made to physicians or to CAHs paid
under the optional method when billing
on behalf of physicians for their
professional services.
Comment: A number of commenters
supported CMS’ proposal to implement
the HSIP. A few commenters
recommended expanding the geographic
eligibility criteria for the HSIP to
increase the number of qualifying
procedures furnished by general
surgeons for which the incentive
payment would be made. These
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
commenters suggested that CMS
introduce three modifications to the
proposed criteria in order to provide the
incentive payment for major surgical
procedures furnished by general
surgeons to Medicare beneficiaries who
have limited access to general surgical
care. Specifically, the commenters
recommended that CMS additionally
provide the incentive payment for: (1)
Qualifying surgical procedures
performed by a general surgeon in a
hospital adjacent to a recognized HPSA;
(2) qualifying surgical procedures
performed by a general surgeon who
resides in a recognized HPSA; and (3)
qualifying surgical procedures
performed by a general surgeon who has
an office in a recognized HPSA. The
commenters argued that the proposed
policy would narrowly limit the
availability of the general surgery
incentive payments by linking payments
only to surgical procedures furnished in
established HPSAs. The commenters
concluded that the proposed policy
would result in relatively fewer general
surgeons receiving the incentive
payments and would not capture
surgical procedures furnished in all of
the nation’s geographic areas in which
there is a shortage of general surgeons.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ support for our proposal.
Regarding commenters’ requests for
expansion of the locations for surgery
when we would provide the incentive
payment for major surgical procedures
furnished by general surgeons, we do
not believe that we have the authority
to expand the care settings beyond the
statutorily prescribed location, that is,
‘‘major surgical procedures * * * by a
general surgeon in an area that is
designated (under section 332(a)(1)(A)
of the Public Health Service Act) as a
health professional shortage area.’’
Section 1833(y) of the Act (as added by
section 5501(b) of the ACA) relies solely
on section 332(a)(1)(A) of the Public
Health Service Act to identify qualifying
HPSAs and expressly notes that the
HPSA must be identified by the
Secretary prior to the beginning of the
HSIP payment year.
Comment: One commenter requested
that CMS extend HSIP payment to
physician assistants who are trained as
first assistants at surgery. The
commenter encouraged CMS to provide
the 10 percent incentive payment to
physician assistants, trained in surgical
specialties, who ensure both that
beneficiaries in rural areas have access
to appropriate surgical care and that
general surgeons furnishing surgical
procedures in these locations are
appropriately supported by physician
assistants trained in surgical specialties.
PO 00000
Frm 00273
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73441
Response: Section 1833(y)(2) of the
Act (as added by section 5501(b) of the
ACA) specifically limits HSIP eligibility
to those physicians (a doctor of
medicine or osteopathy legally
authorized to practice medicine and
surgery by the State in which he
performs such function or action
according to the definition in section
1861(r)(1)) of the Act who have
designated 02-general surgery as their
primary specialty code in Medicare’s
physician enrollment. On the other
hand, physician assistants are not
doctors of medicine or osteopathy and
these practitioners are identified in
Medicare enrollment with the specialty
code 97-physician assistant. Therefore,
we do not believe we have the statutory
authority to extend HSIP payment to
physician assistants who provide
surgical support for major surgeries
furnished by general surgeons in
recognized HPSAs.
After consideration of the public
comments we received, we are
finalizing our CY 2011 HSIP proposal,
with modification regarding the
proposal to create a new HCPCS code
modifier to identify circumstances when
general surgeons furnish services in
areas that are designated as HPSAs as of
December 31 of the prior year, but that
are not on the list of zip codes eligible
for automatic payment. Under our final
policy, under these circumstances
practitioners would report the existing
modifier-AQ (Physician providing a
service in a HPSA) that is used for the
established Medicare HPSA physician
bonus program because we would make
incentive payments under the HSIP for
surgical procedures furnished by
general surgeons in the same HPSAs
that are recognized for the Medicare
HPSA physician bonus program.
In summary, the HSIP provides a 10
percent incentive payment quarterly to
qualifying physicians enrolled as
general surgeons in Medicare (or to the
CAHs to which they have reassigned
their benefits) for qualifying 10-day and
90-day global surgical procedures
furnished on or after January 1, 2011
and before January 1, 2016 by those
general surgeons in recognized
geographic HPSAs. CMS will make
automatic payments when the zip code
for the location of service is found in the
applicable file for the payment year on
the CMS web site for the HPSA
physician bonus program at: https://
www.cms.gov/
hpsapsaphysicianbonuses/
01_overview.asp. Existing HCPCS
modifier-AQ should be appended to the
major surgical procedure on claims
submitted for payment to identify
circumstances when general surgeons
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73442
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
furnish services in areas that are
designated as HPSAs as of December 31
of the prior year, but that are not on the
list of zip codes eligible for automatic
payment.
We are also finalizing our proposed
revisions to the Code of Federal
regulations related to the HSIP, with
minor modification. We are revising
§ 414.2 as we proposed to add the
definitions of ‘‘HPSA’’ and ‘‘major
surgical procedure.’’ We also are
revising § 414.67 as we proposed to
move the existing provisions to
paragraph (a) to be grouped as the
‘‘Health Professional Shortage Area
(HPSA) physician bonus program’’ and
adding new paragraph (b) for the ‘‘HPSA
surgical incentive payment program’’
provisions. We are finalizing our
proposal for § 414.67(b) to state that
general surgeons who furnish identified
10-day and 90-day global period
surgical procedures in an area
designated by the Secretary as of
December 31 of the prior year as a
geographic HPSA that is recognized by
Medicare for the HPSA physician bonus
program as specified under renumbered
§ 414.67(a)(1) would receive a 10
percent incentive payment in addition
to the amount that would otherwise be
paid for their professional services
under Part B. We are modifying the
proposal to specify in § 414.67(b)(3) that
physicians furnishing services in areas
that are designated as geographic HPSAs
prior to the beginning of the year but not
included on the published list of zip
codes for which automated HPSA
surgical incentive payments are made
would report HCPCS modifier-AQ to
receive the HSIP payment and to change
the term ‘‘bonus’’ to ‘‘incentive’’ when
referring to the HSIP. Quarterly
incentive payments will be made to
physicians or to CAHs paid under the
optional method when billing on behalf
of physicians for their professional
services.
3. Sections 5501(a) and (b) of the ACA
and Payment for Critical Access
Hospital Professional Services Under
the Optional Method
Section 1834(g) of the Act established
the payment rules for outpatient
services furnished by a CAH. In 1999,
section 403(d) of the Balanced Budget
Refinement Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 106–
113) (BBRA) amended section 1834(g) of
the Act to provide for two methods of
payment for outpatient services
furnished by a CAH. Specifically,
section 1834(g)(1) of the Act, as
amended by the BBRA, specifies that
the amount of payment for outpatient
services furnished by a CAH is equal to
the reasonable costs of the CAH in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
furnishing such services. (The physician
or other practitioner furnishing the
professional service receives payment
under the PFS.) In the alternative, the
CAH may make an election, under
section 1834(g)(2) of the Act, to receive
amounts that are equal to ‘‘the
reasonable costs’’ of the CAH for facility
services plus, with respect to the
professional services, the amount
otherwise paid for professional services
under Medicare, less the applicable
Medicare deductible and coinsurance
amount. The election made under
section 1834(g)(2) of the Act is
sometimes referred to as ‘‘method II’’ or
‘‘the optional method.’’ Throughout this
section we refer to this election as ‘‘the
optional method.’’
In 2000, section 202 of the Medicare,
Medicaid and SCHIP Benefits
Improvement and Protection Act of
2000 (Pub. L. 106–554) (BIPA) amended
section 1834(g)(2)(B) of the Act to
increase the payment for professional
services under the optional method to
115 percent of the amount otherwise
paid for professional services under
Medicare. In addition, in 2003 section
405(a)(1) of the MMA amended section
1834(g)(1) of the Act by inserting the
phrase ‘‘equal to 101 percent of’’ before
the phrase ‘‘the reasonable costs.’’
However, section 405 of the MMA did
not make a corresponding change to
section 1834(g)(2)(A) of the Act
regarding the amount of payment for
facility services under the optional
method. In 2010, section 3128 of the
ACA amended section 1834(g)(2)(A) of
the Act by inserting the phrase ‘‘101
percent of’’ before ‘‘the reasonable costs.’’
Section 5501(a) of the ACA amends
section 1833 of the Act by adding a new
paragraph (x), ‘‘Incentive Payments for
Primary Care Services,’’ that authorizes
additional Part B payments to primary
care practitioners for primary care
services. Section 5501(b) of the ACA
further amends section 1833 of the Act
by adding new paragraph (y), ‘‘Incentive
Payments for Major Surgical Procedures
Furnished in Health Professional
Shortage Areas,’’ that authorizes
additional Part B payments for major
surgical procedures furnished by
general surgeons in HPSAs. Sections
5501(a)(3) and 5501(b)(3) of the ACA
make conforming amendments to
section 1834(g)(2)(B) of the Act, which
refers to payment to the CAH for
professional services under the optional
method, by adding at the end of section
1834(g)(2)(B) of the Act the following
phrase, ‘‘Subsections (x) and (y) of 1833
of the Act shall not be taken into
account in determining the amounts
that would otherwise be paid pursuant
to the preceding sentence.’’ As such,
PO 00000
Frm 00274
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
section 1834(g)(2)(B) of the Act (as
amended by sections 5501(a)(2) and
5501(b)(2) of the ACA) requires that
under the optional method, the 115
percent adjustment payment to the CAH
for professional services is calculated
without considering the incentive
payments for primary care services
furnished by primary care practitioners
and major surgical procedures furnished
by general surgeons in HPSAs as these
terms are defined under sections
1833(x) and (y) of the Act.
The regulations implementing section
1834(g)(2)(B) of the Act, payment to the
CAH for professional services under the
optional method, are in
§ 413.70(b)(3)(ii)(B). In order to
implement the amendments to section
1834(g)(2)(B) of the Act as specified by
sections 5501(a)(2) and 5501(b)(2) of the
ACA, we are proposing to amend the
regulations in § 413.70(b)(3)(ii)(B) to
state that, effective for primary care
services furnished by primary care
practitioners and major surgical
procedures furnished by general
surgeons in HPSAs on or after January
1, 2011 and before January 1, 2016, the
additional incentive payment amounts
as specified in § 414.67 and § 414.80 are
not included in the determination of the
payment for professional services made
to the CAH under the optional method.
Accordingly, we are proposing that
payment for professional services to the
CAH at 115 percent of the PFS amount
under the optional method would not
take into account the additional Part B
incentive payments for primary services
furnished by primary care practitioners
and major surgical procedures furnished
by general surgeons in HPSAs as
provided in § 414.67 and § 414.80.
Comment: Several commenters
supported CMS’ proposal to make HSIP
and PCIP payments to CAHs paid under
the optional method for qualifying
services furnished by eligible
practitioners who have reassigned their
billing rights to the CAHs. No
commenters addressed CMS’ proposal
to calculate the 115 percent adjustment
payment to the CAH for professional
services without considering the
incentive payments for primary care
services furnished by primary care
practitioners and major surgical
procedures furnished by general
surgeons in HPSAs.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ support for our proposal to
include qualifying professional services
billed by CAHs paid under the optional
method furnished by eligible
practitioners in the PCIP and HSIP.
After considering the public
comments we received, we are
finalizing our CY 2011 proposal to
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
include CAHs paid under the optional
method in the PCIP and HSIP. Payment
to a CAH paid under the optional
method, will be made quarterly, for
eligible professional services furnished
by qualifying physicians and
nonphysician practitioners who have
reassigned their billing rights to the
CAH. Furthermore, we are finalizing our
CY 2011 proposal to specify that
payment for professional services to the
CAH at 115 percent of the PFS amount
under the optional method would not
take into account the additional Part B
incentive payments for primary services
furnished by primary care practitioners
and major surgical procedures furnished
by general surgeons in HPSAs. We are
amending § 413.70(b)(3)(ii)(B) as we
proposed to reflect this final policy.
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
T. Section 6003: Disclosure
Requirements for In-Office Ancillary
Services Exception to the Prohibition on
Physician Self-Referral for Certain
Imaging Services
1. Background
Section 1877 of the Act (also known
as the physician self-referral law): (1)
Prohibits a physician from making
referrals for certain ‘‘designated health
services’’ (DHS) payable by Medicare to
an entity with which he or she (or an
immediate family member) has a
financial relationship (ownership or
compensation), unless an exception
applies; and (2) prohibits the entity from
submitting claims to Medicare (or
billing another individual, entity, or
third party payer) for those DHS
rendered as a result of a prohibited
referral. The statute establishes a
number of exceptions and grants the
Secretary the authority to create
regulatory exceptions that pose no risk
of program or patient abuse.
Section 1877(b)(2) of the Act, entitled
‘‘In-office Ancillary Services’’ sets forth
the exception that permits a physician
in a solo or group practice to order and
provide designated health services
(DHS), other than most durable medical
equipment and parenteral and enteral
nutrients, in the office of the physician
or group practice, provided that certain
criteria are met. The requirements of the
in-office ancillary services exception are
described at § 411.355(b).
Section 6003 of the ACA amended
section 1877(b)(2) of the Act by creating
a new disclosure requirement for the inoffice ancillary services exception to the
prohibition on physician self-referral.
Specifically, section 6003 of the ACA
provided that, with respect to referrals
for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI),
computed tomography (CT), positron
emission tomography (PET), and any
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
other DHS specified under section
1877(h)(6)(D) of the Act that the
Secretary determines appropriate, the
referring physician inform a patient in
writing at the time of the referral that
the patient may obtain the service from
a person other than the referring
physician or someone in the physician’s
group practice and provide the patient
with a list of suppliers who furnish the
service in the area in which the patient
resides.
In the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule, we
proposed regulations related to section
6003 of the ACA. We are finalizing that
proposal with modification. We
received approximately 45 comments
related to this section. Most commenters
offered support for the proposed rule
and some stated that it was consistent
with the intent of the legislation, which
was to provide choice for patients, as
well as a degree of protection against
conflicts of interest. Others stated that
disclosure might be a first step towards
ending abuses in self referral, but
questioned the overall effectiveness of
the disclosure requirement in reducing
overutilization. These commenters were
nonetheless supportive of the
reasonable mechanisms used to
implement the requirement.
We are finalizing some elements of
the proposal without modification.
Elements that remain unchanged from
the proposed rule include: application
of the disclosure requirement to
advanced imaging services only; the
general disclosure requirements that the
notice should be written in a manner
sufficient to be reasonably understood
by all patients and be given to the
patient at the time of the referral; the list
must include the requisite number of
suppliers; the information about these
suppliers must include name, address,
and phone number; these suppliers are
to be located within a 25-mile radius of
the physician’s office location at the
time of the referral; and the effective
date of January 1, 2011.
Elements that we are finalizing with
changes include: reducing the number
of suppliers that must be included from
10 to 5; removing the requirement that
the supplier’s distance from the
physician’s office be listed on the
disclosure; clarifying that as long as the
requisite number of suppliers are
included in the alternate list, the
physician may also list providers on the
notice; and removing the requirement
that the physician obtain the patient’s
signature on the notice and retain a
copy of the disclosure in the patient’s
medical record.
PO 00000
Frm 00275
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73443
2. Disclosure Requirement
Based upon the comments received,
we have finalized § 411.355(b)(7) in a
manner that addresses concerns of the
industry while also maintaining the
intended purpose of the provision. The
comments received during the public
comment period are discussed more
fully below.
a. Services That Trigger the Disclosure
Requirement
We proposed that the disclosure
requirement should apply to only the
advanced imaging services listed in
section 6003 of the ACA (MRI, CT, and
PET). We solicited comments regarding
whether other radiology or imaging
services under section 1877(h)(6)(D) of
the Act should be included in the
requirement. We are finalizing this
element as proposed.
Comment: Most commenters were
supportive of our proposal to apply the
disclosure requirement only to those
advanced imaging services listed in
section 6003 of the ACA. A commenter
stated that expanding application of the
provision beyond the named services
would add to confusion and increase
negative effects on physician practices.
The commenter noted that creating lists
of alternate suppliers for the named
services will be less burdensome than
adding any other radiology services.
Multiple commenters who were
opposed to expanding the disclosure
requirement stated that a disclosure
requirement for diagnostic services such
as x-rays or ultrasound services would
place significant burden on physician
groups and could interrupt continuity of
care for patients, as these tests are often
performed in the office immediately
after the physician has ordered the test.
Only one commenter urged CMS to
fully exercise the authority granted by
the Affordable Care Act and apply the
disclosure requirement to all radiology
services covered by section
1877(h)(6)(D) of the Act. The commenter
stated that the disclosure requirement
benefits Medicare beneficiaries through
greater transparency regarding their
freedom to choose a supplier of medical
services and that there is no reason to
draw a distinction between MRI, CT,
and PET referrals and referrals for other
radiology services. This commenter also
did not believe that the burden on the
referring physicians would be materially
different if the list of affected imaging
services is expanded to cover all
radiology services, as it would only
entail expanding the list that will serve
as the notice to patients.
Response: We are finalizing this
requirement as proposed and applying
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73444
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
the disclosure requirement to only the
advanced imaging services specified in
section 6003 of the ACA, which are
MRI, CT, and PET services. We decline
to expand the disclosure requirement to
any of the other radiology or imaging
services that fall under section
1877(h)(6)(D) of the Act. X-ray and
ultrasound services in particular are
much more likely to be performed on
the same day as the original visit
compared to many advanced imaging
services. Therefore, disclosures related
to these additional services would not
be as useful to the patient. We do not
find that the benefit of expanding this
disclosure requirement to other
radiology services would outweigh the
additional burden that would be placed
on physicians.
Comment: One commenter requested
that CMS clarify that any CT imaging
service that is furnished integral to a
procedure defined as a radiation therapy
service for purposes of the physician
self-referral law is exempt from this
disclosure requirement. The commenter
provided the example of CT guidance
used to localize tumors and focus the
beam during the delivery of external
beam radiation therapy treatments. Such
imaging, although involving CT, is
integral to the performance of radiation
therapy treatments that are included in
the DHS category of radiation therapy
services and supplies.
Response: The disclosure requirement
applies to all in-office referrals for CT
imaging services that are categorized as
‘‘radiology and certain other imaging
services’’ by the list of CPT/HCPCS
Codes (as defined in § 411.351). We
note, however, that the request by a
radiation oncologist for radiation
therapy or ancillary services necessary
for, and integral to, the provision of
radiation therapy does not constitute a
‘‘referral,’’ as defined in § 411.351, if
certain criteria are satisfied. The
disclosure requirement would not apply
to any request that is not a ‘‘referral’’ as
defined in § 411.351.
Comment: A commenter requested
that CMS remove CPT code 77014
(computed tomography guidance for
placement of radiation therapy fields)
from the DHS category of ‘‘radiology and
certain other imaging services,’’ and add
it to the category of ‘‘radiation therapy
services and supplies,’’ as such
categories are set forth in the list of
CPT/HCPCS Codes. The commenter
asserts that this would be appropriate
because while the code is for a service
that involves imaging, the service is
distinct from the other radiology codes
and integral to the delivery of radiation
therapy. The commenter noted that
when a radiation oncologist performs
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
radiation therapy services, it is not
considered a referral under the law.
However, if CPT code 77014 is included
in the list of radiology services, it could
be considered a referral and therefore
radiation oncologists could be required
to fulfill the disclosure requirements for
this service if it remains on the list of
radiology services codes subject to the
new disclosure requirements. According
to the commenter, because CPT code
77014 is so integral to the delivery of
certain radiation therapy treatments, it
would be completely impractical, if not
impossible, for a radiation oncologist to
fulfill the disclosure requirements for
this service.
Response: As noted in section X.B.3
of this preamble, we are removing CPT
code 77014 from the list of CPT/HCPCS
Codes because the service is always
integral to, and performed during, a
nonradiological medical procedure.
Therefore, under § 411.351, this service
is excluded from the definition of
‘‘radiology and certain other imaging
services’’ and is not subject to the
disclosure requirement. We are not
adding this code to the radiation
therapy services category on the list of
CPT/HCPCS Codes because it does not
satisfy the definition of ‘‘radiation
therapy services and supplies’’ as set
forth in § 411.351. As a practical matter,
in many cases the service would not
constitute a ‘‘referral’’ (as defined in
§ 411.351) if requested by a radiation
oncologist pursuant to a consultation.
Comment: A commenter requested
that CMS stipulate that CPT code 77011,
currently defined as ‘‘computed
tomography guidance for stereotactic
localization,’’ is not subject to this
disclosure requirement whenever it is
furnished as part of a therapeutic or
palliative radiation therapy service. This
commenter stated that this clarification
is essential since CPT code 77011 is not
listed in Addendum I to the 2010 PFS
final rule with comment period either as
a radiology service or as a radiation
therapy service.
Response: This code is for a service
that is integral to the performance of a
nonradiological medical procedure and
is performed either during the
nonradiological procedure or
immediately after the procedure to
confirm placement of an item.
Therefore, the service is excluded from
the DHS category of ‘‘radiology and
certain other imaging services’’ and is
not subject to the disclosure
requirement. The disclosure
requirement applies only to MRI, CT,
and PET services identified as
‘‘radiology and certain other imaging
services’’ on the list of CPT/HCPCS
Codes; MRI, CT, and PET services not
PO 00000
Frm 00276
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
identified as such on that list are not
subject to the disclosure requirement.
Comment: Other commenters urged
CMS to expand the disclosure
requirement to other DHS that they
perceive to be subject to abuse under the
in-office ancillary services exception.
These DHS included: physical therapy,
anatomic pathology and radiation
therapy services.
Response: Section 6003 of the ACA
does not grant the Secretary the
authority to expand application of this
disclosure requirement to DHS other
than those in section 1877(h)(6)(D) of
the Act. We did not propose expansion
beyond these services and did not
solicit comments regarding other DHS
categories that should have this
requirement. The requested expansion
to other DHS is beyond the Secretary’s
authority under this provision and
cannot be accomplished in this
rulemaking.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that CMS expand the disclosure
requirement to radiology practices and
IDTFs so that they are also required to
provide a list of alternate suppliers
when self-referring for imaging studies
in order to offer a more level playing
field. Two commenters suggested that
we require the same disclosure for
hospitals to avoid the perception of
conflict of interest in all settings.
Response: The first comment appears
to incorrectly assume that section 6003
of the ACA would never apply to
radiology practices and IDTFs. Section
6003 of the ACA applies to physicians
who make a ‘‘referral’’ (as defined in
section 1877(h)(5) of the Act and
§ 411.351 of our regulations) for certain
advanced imaging services and rely on
the in-office ancillary services exception
to ensure their compliance with the
physician self-referral prohibition.
While many requests by radiologists for
diagnostic imaging services will not
constitute a ‘‘referral’’ as defined in the
statute and our regulations, some
requests by radiologists for advanced
imaging services could implicate the
self-referral prohibition, and such
referrals would be subject to the
disclosure requirement if the referring
physician relies on the in-office
ancillary services exception to ensure
compliance with the physician selfreferral prohibition. Similarly, the
disclosure requirement would also
apply when a physician relies on the inoffice ancillary services exception to
protect referrals for advanced imaging
services furnished and billed by an
IDTF that is wholly owned by the
physician or his or her group practice.
We have no statutory authority to
make the disclosure requirement apply
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
to requests for advanced imaging
services that are not ‘‘referrals.’’
Mandating a similar disclosure
requirement for hospitals would have to
be accomplished under separate
rulemaking and authority.
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
b. General Disclosure Requirements
We proposed that the disclosure
notice should be written in a manner
sufficient to be reasonably understood
by all patients and must, as the ACA
requires, be given to the patient at the
time of the referral. The notice must
indicate to the patient that the services
may be obtained from a person other
than the referring physician or his or her
group practice and include a list of
other suppliers who provide the service
being referred (MRI, CT, or PET). We are
finalizing this proposal without
modification.
Comment: One commenter requested
CMS to clarify how often the disclosure
notice needs to be provided. The
commenter asked if a physician can
meet the requirement by giving patients
the list of suppliers upon initiation of
the physician-patient relationship and
annually thereafter to ensure updated
information is given, or if the
information must be disclosed each time
a patient is referred for MRI, CT or PET.
Another commenter expressed concern
regarding informing a patient in person
at the time of the referral. This
commenter described the situation
where diagnostic tests are ordered after
the patient has a previous abnormal
diagnostic test; often they communicate
this to the patient via phone call and do
not want to require the patient to come
into the office to receive the disclosure.
The commenter asked if the disclosure
could be mailed to the patient after the
verbal notification via phone call.
Response: The statute requires the
disclosure to be made ‘‘in writing at the
time of the referral.’’ In order to satisfy
this element of the statute, we believe
the disclosure must be presented to the
patient each time one of the listed
advanced imaging services is referred.
Patients should receive the disclosure
each time these services are needed, not
just for the initial service. The patient
should be made aware that he or she
may obtain the services from another
supplier any time advanced imaging is
ordered. For subsequent referrals made
via phone call, the written disclosure
must still be provided to the patient and
adequately documented as further
described in the Documentation of
Disclosure subsection below. Mailing or
e-mailing the disclosure to the patient
would be acceptable if verbal
notification has also occurred.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
Comment: Some commenters
requested that CMS post a draft
disclosure document that physicians
can use as a model to ensure that all
notices are drafted in a neutral,
comprehensive, and consistent manner.
Response: We do not plan to post
standard disclosure language to be used
for this requirement. Each physician
office will be responsible for drafting
the language employed in the notice.
Because we are not setting out specific
language that must be included in the
disclosure, physicians will have more
flexibility in drafting the notice.
Comment: Several commenters
requested that CMS allow physicians to
make it clear on the disclosure that
there is no intended endorsement or
recommendation of the facilities named
on the list furnished by the referring
physician.
Response: If the physician chooses to
include language informing patients that
inclusion of other suppliers is not
intended as an endorsement or
recommendation of those suppliers,
there is nothing in section 6003 of the
ACA or this final rule with comment
that would preclude him or her from
doing so.
c. List of Alternate Suppliers
We proposed that the notice list 10
alternate suppliers (as defined in section
1861(d) of the Act) located within a 25mile radius of the physician’s office at
the time of the referral, unless there are
fewer than 10 suppliers in the 25-mile
radius, in which case the physician
must list all suppliers up to ten in that
area. In the proposed rule, we required
the notice to include the name, address,
phone number, and distance from the
physician’s office at the time of the
referral. In this final rule with comment,
we are decreasing the number of
suppliers that must be listed to 5; and
removing the distance from the
physician’s office from the information
about the suppliers that must be listed
in the disclosure notice. The final rule
does not expand the list of alternate
suppliers to include providers as part of
the 5 required suppliers but is discussed
further below. We are finalizing our
proposal that the suppliers be located
within a 25-mile radius of the
physician’s location at the time of the
referral.
We solicited comments related to
whether there are procedures or
circumstances in which it may be
difficult or impractical to provide the
written disclosure prior to the provision
of advanced imaging services. We are
finalizing this rule without creating
such an exception.
PO 00000
Frm 00277
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73445
We also solicited comments regarding
an alternative notice that includes a
‘‘reasonable’’ list of other suppliers with
general requirements for the disclosure
to patients, while providing that if the
physician meets the more specific
requirements set forth in the proposed
rule he or she will be deemed to have
a ‘‘reasonable’’ disclosure. We are not
finalizing this in the final rule as we did
not receive comments in support of this
alternative.
Comment: A number of commenters
asked that the list of alternate suppliers
include hospitals. Two commenters
stated CMS has taken an overly literal
interpretation of ‘‘suppliers’’ and has
incorrectly excluded hospitals from the
list of alternate sites. The commenters
also noted that in many areas, especially
rural, the community hospital is the
largest or only remaining independent
provider of imaging services. Another
pair of commenters stated that
providing a partial list of options is
inconsistent with transparency,
inconsistent with collaborative
alignment between providers and
suppliers, and that including both
providers and suppliers would be more
consistent with ‘‘informing a patient’s
decision-making regarding his or her
own care.’’
Several commenters urged CMS to
allow, and even to require, that
physicians include hospitals and CAHs
in the written list of alternate suppliers
who provide imaging services. The
commenters stated that hospitals are
often the only provider of this service
within the 25-mile radius of the
physician’s office and allowing
physicians to include hospitals and
CAHs would provide patients with more
options.
Finally, one commenter pointed out
that including hospitals in the list of
alternate suppliers would be consistent
with the integrated and coordinated care
models that are of interest to the Federal
government, health plans, members of
Congress and healthcare delivery
reformers. The commenter also believes
that this would increase convenience for
its patients while preserving their
ability to make decisions about their
care.
One commenter supported CMS’
proposal to limit the required disclosure
list to suppliers of services. The
commenter stated that this would
protect the Medicare program from the
higher imaging costs and Part B co-pays
for beneficiaries associated with
imaging services provided by hospital
outpatient departments. The commenter
encouraged CMS to finalize the
proposed supplier only list.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73446
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Response: Section 6003 of the ACA
requires physicians to provide patients
with a written list of alternate
‘‘suppliers’’ (as defined in section
1861(d) of the Act). The ACA does not
afford the flexibility requested by
commenters to allow physicians to
satisfy the disclosure requirement by
furnishing a list that includes hospitals
and other providers. However,
physicians are not precluded from
listing hospitals in the disclosure notice
as long as the required number of
suppliers is also included. For example,
in rural areas where no other suppliers
exist in the 25-mile radius, we
encourage physicians to list a hospital
on the disclosure notice as an alternate
location for the patient to receive the
referred imaging service if the hospital
is the closest option.
Comment: Many of the commenters
supported our proposal that the
disclosure notice include suppliers
located within a 25-mile radius of the
physician’s location at the time of the
referral, rather than in the area in which
the patient resides.
Two commenters suggested that CMS
set different radii requirements for rural
versus urban areas. One of the two
commenters stated that in an urban
setting, there could be many more than
10 suppliers within a 25-mile setting
placing making it difficult for the
referring physician to make a decision
regarding which providers to include in
the written notification. The commenter
noted that in a rural setting with fewer
than 10 suppliers, the burden of
identifying and providing all of the
suppliers in the 25-mile radius is
excessive for the physician.
Finally, a commenter objected to our
concern in the proposed rule preamble
that ‘‘physicians located in large
metropolitan areas will draft a list that
includes suppliers located mostly at the
edges of the 25-mile radius, thereby
increasing the chances that the patient
will choose to receive imaging services
from the referring physician’s practice.’’
The commenter asserted that physicians
will strive to create lists that include the
highest quality suppliers in the area.
Response: We are finalizing this
requirement as proposed. We believe a
list of suppliers located within a 25-mile
radius of the physician’s office is
reasonable and large enough to generate
a list that will be useful for patients.
This same distance has also been used
in other physician self-referral
exceptions including the intra-family
rural referrals exception (§ 411.355(j))
and the physician recruitment exception
(§ 411.357(e)). In addition, we are
reducing the number of required
suppliers on the disclosure notice and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
believe this will help address the issue
in some rural area settings where there
may only be a few suppliers within a
25-mile radius.
Comment: One commenter indicated
that requiring a list of 10 suppliers was
excessive. Several commenters
requested that we decrease the required
number of alternate suppliers from 10 to
5 and one commenter suggested we
reduce it to 3 in order to meet patient
choice and reduce the compliance
burden for medical groups and smaller
practices. The commenters stated that
listing 10 suppliers would be too
burdensome on physicians and might be
confusing for beneficiaries if too many
choices are presented.
Response: We agree with the
commenters and are decreasing the
required number of alternate suppliers
from 10 to 5. We believe a list of 5
suppliers is reasonable, not
burdensome, and supports patient
choice.
Comment: A commenter supported
the inclusion of the proposed
information of the disclosure notice
because it is easily understood and
contains useful information. One
commenter recommended that the
referring physician provide the name
and telephone number for the alternate
suppliers and that other information,
such as the address and distance,
should be included at the referring
physician’s discretion. A different
commenter stated that the distance from
the referring physician’s office location
at the time of the referral should not be
included in the notice because it can be
measured in a variety of ways and may
vary greatly depending on the route
taken between the listed supplier and
the physician’s offices. The commenter
believes patients may get upset if the
distance noted on the supplier list is
different from what they actually
encountered and recommends that the
list simply state that all of the suppliers
are within a 25-mile radius of the
referring physician’s office.
Response: We are modifying the
proposal in the final rule to remove the
requirement that the distance from the
referring physician’s office at the time of
the referral be included on the list
provided to the patient. All alternate
suppliers listed must be located within
the 25-mile radius of the physician’s
office location at the time of the referral.
Any reasonable method for measuring
distance will be acceptable.
We are finalizing the other
information required in the notice as
proposed so that it must include the
name, address and phone number of
each supplier. This provides patients
with the most useful information in
PO 00000
Frm 00278
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
making a decision about receiving the
service from the referring physician or
from another supplier.
Comment: Two commenters requested
that CMS provide an exception to
providing the disclosure notice to the
patient at the time of referral, especially
for services furnished on an emergency
or time-sensitive basis as the
commenters believe it is impractical to
think that the list will be given and
signed by the patient in an emergency
or other time-sensitive case.
Response: We do not believe it is
necessary to grant an exception to the
disclosure requirement in cases of an
emergency or time-sensitive nature. In
those situations, physicians should
make a reasonable attempt to provide
the notice to the patient and document
that the attempt was made. We believe
the occurrence of emergencies in
physician offices that require a referral
for advanced imaging under the inoffice ancillary services exception is
rare enough that it does not warrant
granting an exception. We believe
having the physician make a reasonable
attempt would not prevent or impede
beneficiaries from receiving the
necessary services. In most emergencies
that arise in a physician’s office,
patients will be transferred to the
emergency department of the nearest
hospital rather than referred for imaging
at the physician’s office.
Comment: A commenter asked about
compilation of the list of alternate
suppliers and how physicians should go
about this task. The commenter asked if
a search of the internet or a telephone
directory would be adequate. Also the
commenter asked if Medicare
contractors will have a list of entities
providing such services. Another
commenter recommended that CMS
create a publicly available database of
providers of the specified services and
maintain this information online and in
the Medicare provider directory that is
published annually because, according
to the commenter, it should be less work
for CMS to create this list than it is for
practices, since much of this
information can be gleaned from
information already furnished by
practitioners to Medicare.
Response: We are not prescribing any
one method for physicians to craft the
list of alternate suppliers. A physician is
able to use any reasonable means that he
or she chooses in order to compile the
list of five alternate suppliers. We do
not plan to create a standard form or a
publicly available database for this
disclosure requirement nor will we
require Medicare contractors to furnish
lists of all entities providing such
services. Some physicians may choose
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
to compile the list of suppliers from an
internet search, others may know
suppliers in the 25-mile radius who
provide quality imaging and list these.
We are not limiting a physician’s
methods of creating the list so long as
the other requirements of this disclosure
requirement are satisfied.
Comment: A commenter requested
that CMS emphasize that the list of
alternate suppliers must provide the
same service for which the patient has
been referred, for example a 64-slice CT
as opposed to a 16-slice CT.
Response: The disclosure is meant to
inform patients that they ‘‘may obtain
the services for which the individual is
being referred’’ from another supplier
who furnishes such services in the area.
The referring physician should list
suppliers that are able to perform the
services for which the patient is being
referred. Listing suppliers that are
unable to perform the needed test does
not provide the patient with meaningful
choices about his or her care.
Comment: Several commenters
suggested that the quality of alternate
suppliers should be indicated on the
information provided to patients. Other
commenters recommended that only
credentialed facilities are listed on the
notice, or that credentialed facilities be
given special designation on the
disclosure notice.
Response: We are not requiring any
quality indication on the list of alternate
suppliers at this time. Because the
referring physician will most likely be
reviewing the results of the advanced
imaging service that the patient
receives, it is reasonable to think that
the physician will include quality
suppliers on the list. We are not
convinced to limit the list of suppliers
to those who receive accreditation.
Nothing in the statute or this final rule
with comment prevents physicians from
furnishing a list that designates a
supplier’s credentialing status.
Comment: Two commenters requested
that CMS provide clarification on the
frequency with which the physician
must review and update the list of
suppliers. For example, commenters
asked if the notice should be reviewed
for accuracy if a supplier relocates or
any contact information changes. In
addition, one of the commenters asked
about the obligation of the referring
physician to ensure that the suppliers
listed are accepting new Medicare
patients.
Response: We suggest that the list of
suppliers should be reviewed annually
for accuracy and updated at that time,
if necessary. We do not believe an
annual update would be overly
burdensome for physicians. We believe
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
73447
an inaccurate list of alternate facilities
would lead to beneficiary confusion and
that annually reviewing and modifying
the notice as needed would ensure that
patients receive complete and accurate
information in accordance with this
disclosure requirement.
In addition, referring physicians are
not obligated to list only suppliers that
are accepting new Medicare patients;
however, as the disclosure notice is
intended to allow patients to make
informed choices, referring physicians
should make a reasonable effort to
ensure that the suppliers listed in the
disclosure are viable options for all of
their patients for the services being
referred.
disclosure in the patient’s medical
record.
Response: We acknowledge that
obtaining the patient’s signature and
maintaining a copy of such in the
medical record may be burdensome. In
this final rule with comment we are
removing the requirement to obtain the
patient’s signature on the disclosure and
to maintain this documentation in the
medical record. Nevertheless, as a
matter of prudent business practices,
physicians should be able to document
or otherwise establish that they have
complied with the disclosure
requirement. For example, the physician
could document in the patient’s chart
that the notice was given to the patient.
d. Documentation of Disclosure
We proposed that, in order to
document that this disclosure notice
was satisfied, a record of the patient’s
signature on the disclosure notification
must be maintained as an element of the
patient’s medical record. We are
modifying this proposal in this final
rule with comment to remove the
patient signature requirement.
Comment: Many commenters stated
that the burden of obtaining and
retaining the patient’s signature in the
medical record is burdensome. Other
commenters noted that, as suppliers
move toward maintaining electronic
health records, an additional paperwork
requirement seems counter to these
goals and recommended that CMS
include an electronic alternative to the
maintenance of a signed copy of the
disclosure notice in patients’ medical
records. Another commenter noted that
because the notification of alternate
suppliers is not a clinical document, it
might not belong in a patient’s medical
record. A commenter asked if the
disclosure document must be
maintained in the patient’s main
medical record or if it could be
maintained instead with the patient’s
radiological documentation, which can
be maintained electronically in a PACS
system with the physician’s orders for
the study.
A commenter recommended that CMS
accept as sufficient documentation, a
note in the patient’s chart that a member
of the staff provided the letter and
explained it to the patient. Another
suggestion from a commenter was that
physicians maintain a dated notification
log at the front desk that patients will
sign once they have received and
reviewed their disclosure lists. These
logs will then be retained and filed by
the office for potential review by
regulators or accreditors.
One commenter supported the
requirement to maintain a copy of the
e. Effective Date
PO 00000
Frm 00279
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
We proposed that the new disclosure
requirement shall apply only to services
furnished on or after the effective date
of these final regulations, January 1,
2011. We did not receive any comments
suggesting any alternate effective date.
We are finalizing the effective date as
proposed.
f. Other Comments
Comment: Some commenters
submitted comments addressing topics
beyond the scope of this proposal.
These comments included detailed
discussions of the in-office ancillary
services exception, services that should
be excluded from that exception,
MedPAC’s analysis on the issue, as well
as questions about the anti-markup
payment limitation (§ 414.50) and a
request that we respond to comments
we requested regarding incentive
payment or shared savings
arrangements.
Response: These comments are
beyond the scope of this rulemaking and
are not addressed in this final rule with
comment. If these issues are addressed
in the future, we will publish a notice
of proposed rulemaking that will be
open to public comment at that time.
U. Section 6404: Maximum Period for
Submission of Medicare Claims
Reduced to Not More Than 12 Months
1. Background
Sections 1814(a)(1), 1835(a), and
1842(b)(3)(B) of the Act establish time
limits for filing Medicare Part A and B
claims. Prior to the enactment of the
ACA, under sections 1814(a)(1) and
1835(a) of the Act, providers could file
for Part A and Part B claims,
respectively, ‘‘* * * no later than the
close of the period of 3 calendar years
following the year in which such
services are furnished (deeming any
services furnished in the last 3 calendar
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73448
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
months of any calendar year to have
been furnished in the succeeding
calendar year) except that, where the
Secretary deems that efficient
administration so requires, such period
may be reduced to not less than 1
calendar year* * *’’. Prior to the
enactment of the ACA, CMS was
authorized to establish a minimum time
limit for provider-submitted Part A and
Part B claims of at least 1 calendar year
from the date of service, and a
maximum time limit not to exceed 4
years and 3 months after the date of
service.
Additionally, prior to the enactment
of the ACA, under section 1842(b)(3)(B)
of the Act, Part B claims for physician
and other supplier services could be
filed with Medicare ‘‘* * * no later than
the close of the calendar year following
the year in which such service is
furnished (deeming any service
furnished in the last 3 months of any
calendar year to have been furnished in
the succeeding calendar year) * * *’’.
Therefore, prior to the enactment of the
ACA, we were authorized to establish a
minimum time limit for filing Part B
claims of 15 months and a potential
maximum of 27 months after the service
was furnished, depending on what
month of the year the service was
furnished.
Section 424.44 of the regulations
implements sections 1814(a)(1), 1835(a),
and 1842(b)(3)(B) of the Act. In order to
effectively administer the Medicare
Program, we, through regulations,
modified the potential minimum and
maximum time periods for filing Part A
claims. At § 424.44(a), we adopted the
minimum time limit of 15 months and
potential maximum of 27 months after
the service was furnished that was
permitted under section 1842(b)(3)(B) of
the Act for Part B claims and uniformly
applied that 15 to 27 month time limit
to both Part A and B claims. Also, under
§ 424.44(b), we allowed providers and
suppliers the opportunity to file claims
after the 15 to 27 month deadline for
filing claims expired when the failure to
file ‘‘ * * * was caused by error or
misrepresentation of an employee,
intermediary, carrier, or agent of the
Department that was performing
Medicare functions and acting within
the scope of its authority.’’
2. Provisions of the ACA
Section 6404 of the ACA amended
sections 1814(a)(1), 1835(a), and
1842(b)(3)(B) of the Act regarding
Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) claims for
services furnished on or after January 1,
2010. Under section 6404(b)(1) of the
ACA, all claims for services furnished
on or after January 1, 2010 must be filed
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
within 1 calendar year after the date of
service. Section 6404 of the ACA did
not amend sections 1814(a)(1), 1835(a),
and 1842(b)(3)(B) of the Act for services
furnished before January 1, 2010.
However, section 6404(b)(2) of the ACA
created a new requirement that claims
for services furnished before January 1,
2010 must be filed on or before
December 31, 2010. Thus, the statutory
provisions prior to the enactment of the
ACA remain in effect for pre-2010
services, subject to this new
requirement. The practical effect of this
change is that any claims for services
furnished before October 1, 2009 will
follow the existing regulations. But for
services furnished during the last 3
months of 2009, providers and suppliers
must file claims no later than December
31, 2010. For services furnished
between October 1, 2009 and December
31, 2009, providers and suppliers will
only have 12 to 15 months to file a
claim, whereas before the ACA
amendments, they would have had an
additional year to file their claims, or 24
to 27 months.
The majority of the comments that we
received for the proposed rule were
supportive of our proposed exceptions
at § 424.44(b)(2) and (3) concerning
retroactive entitlement situations and
dual-eligible beneficiary situations.
However, some commenters encouraged
us to either expand those proposed
exceptions or suggested other new
exceptions.
Comment: One commenter stated that
CMS should instruct Medicare
Intermediaries to process claims where
provider representatives are submitting
retroactive claims within 6 months from
the Social Security Administration’s
(SSA) notification date due to SSA’s
delay in processing beneficiaries’
retroactive Medicare entitlement.
Moreover, the commenter cited to an
OIG evaluation report dated January
2006 (A–13–05–15028), which stated
that the average number of years where
beneficiaries are awarded retroactive
Medicare benefits is about 8 years.
Therefore, the commenter asserted that
when SSA corrects the error and sends
a notification letter to beneficiaries,
providers should be allowed to submit
claims to Medicare Intermediaries as
long as the claims are submitted within
6 months from the notification letter
from SSA and as long as supporting
documentation is attached to the claims.
Response: As stated in the CY 2011
PFS proposed rule, if CMS or one of its
contractors determines that one of the
exceptions to the time limits for filing
claims applies, then the time to file a
claim will be extended. We will update
its internet only manual instructions to
PO 00000
Frm 00280
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
its contractors so that Medicare’s
contractors are aware of the new timely
filing requirements, the exceptions to
those requirements, and process claims
in accordance with these new
requirements.
Comment: Two commenters disagreed
that services furnished between October
1, 2009 through December 31, 2009
must be billed by December 31, 2010
and asserted that our proposed language
at § 424.44(a) is in contravention of
explicit statutory language.
Response: We disagree with the
commenter because section 6404(b)(2)
of the ACA clearly states that—‘‘In the
case of services furnished before January
1, 2010, a bill or request for payment
under section 1814(a)(1), 1842(b)(3)(B),
or 1835(a) of the Act shall be filed not
later than December 31, 2010’’.
Therefore, because the statute
specifically addresses this issue, we
must require that services furnished
between October 1, 2009 through
December 31, 2009 be filed by December
31, 2010.
Comment: Two commenters suggested
that CMS create an additional exception
to the timely filing rules to permit
providers to submit claims for services
at the request of a Medicaid State
Agency or its agent under the terms of
the regulation prior to these current
revisions; that is, by the end of the
calendar year following the year in
which the services were delivered (with
services delivered in the last quarter of
a calendar year being treated as though
they were delivered in the next calendar
year). The commenters believe that this
type of additional exception would
permit Medicaid State Agencies to
assure proper billing of services to
Medicare, as an appropriate third party
payer, without overtaxing providers or
Medicare contractors by requiring them
to submit multiple claims at varying
times. Additionally, a third commenter
stated that the third condition of the
exception at § 424.44(b)(3) could be
interpreted to mean that the Medicaid
agency must recover their payment from
a provider or supplier prior to the
provider or supplier billing Medicare.
The commenter believes that it would
be a better practice to notify providers
of the Medicaid agency’s intention to
recover prior to performing the actual
recovery.
Response: We were not persuaded to
modify the rule in order to create an
additional exception to permit providers
and suppliers to submit claims for
services at the request of a Medicaid
State Agency prior to the State Medicaid
Agency actually recovering the
payment. Providers and suppliers do
not necessarily have to wait for
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Medicaid to recover its payment (see
§ 424.44(b)(3)) in order to utilize an
exception to the timely filing rules in
retroactive entitlement situations
because the proposed exception at
§ 424.44(b)(2) may be used by providers
and suppliers in order to file claims
prior to a State Medicaid Agency
recovering its payments. As we stated in
§ 424.44(b)(2), if CMS or one of its
contractors determines that at the time
the service was furnished the
beneficiary was not entitled to Medicare
and the beneficiary subsequently
received notification of Medicare
entitlement effective retroactively to the
date of the furnished service, then the
time limit to file a claim may be
extended.
Comment: Three commenters
suggested that an exception to the
timely filing rules should be created for
Medicare beneficiaries who are
retroactively disenrolled from a
Medicare Advantage plan so that all
claims for services provided to the
beneficiary while enrolled in the
Medicare Advantage plan (upon
retroactive disenrollment) can be
submitted for coverage and payment to
original Medicare. The commenters
stated that a beneficiary may be
retroactively disenrolled from that plan
under a variety of circumstances.
Moreover the commenters asserted that
if a retroactively disenrolled beneficiary
is unable to have claims for services
submitted to original Medicare because
some of those services were delivered
more than a year prior to the date of
actual disenrollment, then the
beneficiary will be unable to be made
whole and the ability to disenroll from
a Medicare Advantage plan will be
rendered pyrrhic at best.
Response: We modified the final rule
based on these comments and created
an additional exception for retroactive
disenrollment from Medicare Advantage
plans at § 424.44(b)(4). Although we did
not receive a comment requesting an
exception for retroactive disenrollment
from Program of All-inclusive Care for
the Elderly (PACE) provider
organizations, we included retroactive
disenrollment from PACE in the
exception at § 424.44(b)(4) because
beneficiaries, providers, and suppliers
could also be disadvantaged in
retroactive disenrollment PACE
situations.
Comment: Two commenters suggested
that an exception to the timely filing
rules should be created when a private
payer recovers its payment from the
provider 11 months or more after the
date of service. The commenters stated
that hospitals routinely experience
payment retractions from private payers
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
that are outside the hospitals’ control
and that may prevent a Medicare claim
from being filed within one year of the
date of service.
Response: We were not persuaded to
modify the rule by these comments
because providers are already required
‘‘to maintain a system that, during the
admission process, identifies any
primary payers other than Medicare, so
that incorrect billing and Medicare
overpayments can be prevented’’. See
§ 489.20(f). Also, section 1862(b)(6) of
the Act states—‘‘* * * no payment may
be made for any item or service
furnished under part B unless the entity
furnishing such item or service
completes (to the best of its knowledge
and on the basis of information obtained
from the individual to whom the item
or service is furnished) the portion of
the claim form relating to the
availability of other health benefit
plans’’. Therefore, we are not modifying
the rule based on this comment because
creating an exception to the timely filing
limitations for these situations would
allow providers and suppliers to
circumvent the statutory and regulatory
requirements stated above.
Comment: Two commenters suggested
that CMS create an exception to the
timely filing rules for Medicare
Secondary Payer (MSP) claims when the
initial payment determination by the
primary payer is not received by the
hospital in sufficient time to permit
timely filing of the MSP claim. A third
commenter recommended that in cases
where Medicare is not the primary
payer, the filing deadline be extended to
12 months from the date the payment is
made for the products or services by the
payer immediately primary to Medicare
(that is, the primary payer when
Medicare is the secondary payer, and
the secondary payer when Medicare is
tertiary).
Response: We were not persuaded to
modify the rule by these comments
because Medicare may make conditional
payments for services when a payer that
is primary to Medicare does not pay
promptly. ‘‘Prompt’’ or ‘‘promptly’’,
when used in connection with primary
payments, except as provided in
§ 411.50, for payments by liability
insurers, means payment within 120
days after receipt of the claim. See 42
CFR part 411 subparts B through H and
411.21 and 411.24 for the definitions of
conditional payment and promptly.
Moreover, because providers are already
required ‘‘to maintain a system that,
during the admission process, identifies
any primary payers other than
Medicare, so that incorrect billing and
Medicare overpayments can be
prevented’’ (See § 489.20(f)) we do not
PO 00000
Frm 00281
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73449
believe a provider’s ability to meet the
new 1 calendar year timely filing
requirement will be compromised by
the commenter’s concerns.
Comment: Three commenters
suggested that CMS create an exception
to the timely filing rules so that
hospitals are permitted to file inpatient
Part B only claims for any inpatient
cases that are retrospectively reviewed
by a Medicare Recovery Audit
Contractor (RAC) or other review entity
and determined not to be medically
necessary in an inpatient setting. The
commenters pointed out that with the
reduction of the timely filing period to
one year from the date of service,
legitimate rebilling opportunities are
limited since Medicare RAC’s may audit
Medicare claims that were paid up to 3
years ago.
Response: We were not persuaded to
modify the rule by these comments
because Medicare’s billing guidelines
instruct providers regarding what types
of inpatient services may be billed to
Part A and to Part B. Therefore, it is the
responsibility of a provider to correctly
submit claims to Medicare by coding the
services appropriately.
Comment: In the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule, CMS solicited comments
regarding whether CMS should provide
a regulatory definition of ‘‘date of
service’’ and, if so, how should it define
this term. One commenter suggests that
the ‘‘date of service’’ be defined through
administrative instructions as the
‘‘through date’’ on the Medicare claim
(UB–04 form locator 6, statement covers
period). A second commenter stated that
CMS should adopt as a final rule the
guidance on ‘‘Date of Service’’ provided
in MLN Matters Number 7080 and
Transmittal 734, Change Request 7080.
CMS Manual System, Pub 100–20 OneTime Notification, July 30, 2010. This
guidance provides that for institutional
claims that include span dates, the
‘‘Through’’ date on the claim will be
used to determine the date of service for
claims filing timeliness; for professional
claims (CMS–1500 Form and 837P)
submitted by physicians and other
suppliers that include span dates of
service, the guidance states that the line
item ‘‘From’’ date will be used to
determine the date of service and filing.
Response: We decided not to define
‘‘date of service’’ in the final rule
because, as we stated in the CY 2011
PFS proposed rule, we recognize that for
many Part A and B services it is difficult
to craft a uniform rule that will apply a
consistent date of service standard.
Therefore, we decided to address the
‘‘date of service’’ issue via sub-regulatory
guidance. We issued sub regulatory
guidance on what constitutes the ‘‘date
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73450
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
of service’’ for some items and services
on May 7, 2010 via Change Request
6960 and on July 30, 2010 via Change
Request 7080 to our Medicare
contractors and it is our intention to
provide additional sub-regulatory
guidance as the need arises for different
Part A and B services.
Comment: One commenter believed
an exception should be created for
claims for consumers who retroactively
enroll in original Medicare Part B, such
as consumers who successfully apply
for equitable relief. For example, a
person may choose to take Part A
(because it is premium free) but may
mistakenly choose not to enroll in
Medicare Part B due to cost or because
they believe that other insurance for
which they already pay a premium,
such as retiree coverage or coverage
through a group health plan provided by
a small employer, will pay medical
costs. As a result, insurance that is
supposed to pay secondary to Medicare
incorrectly pays primary. The
commenter goes on to assert that if the
insurance plan discovers that a person
was eligible for Medicare Part B but did
not enroll and therefore the plan was
supposed to pay secondary, the insurer
can recoup payments made back to the
date the enrollee became Medicare Part
B eligible. In some instances, a person
may obtain a retroactive Medicare Part
B start date back to the original date of
Medicare eligibility. This retroactive
start date can be a few months to a few
years and is not limited by statute. As
a result, providers from which
secondary insurer’s recouped payment
would need the ability to submit claims
to Medicare for services provided over
one year in the past. In these cases,
because the consumer is already
enrolled in Medicare Part A and not Part
B, the commenter is concerned that
claims would not fall under the
language of § 424.44(2)(ii) as the
consumer is already entitled to
Medicare.
Response: Although this comment
was unclear, we believe the commenter
wants CMS to create an exception to the
time limits for filing claims specifically
for Part B services. We were not
persuaded to modify the rule by these
comments because if a beneficiary is
granted equitable relief under section
1837(h) of Act, the beneficiary may still
be able to use the exception at
§ 424.44(b)(2). Of course, all of the
conditions for § 424.44(b)(2) will need
to be satisfied in order for an exception
to be granted in a particular case. It is
important to note that all of the
exceptions in § 424.44(b) (including the
exception for § 424.44(b)(2)) are not
limited to just Part A services; the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
exceptions may also be granted for Part
B services when applicable.
Comment: One commenter asked
whether the 4 years from date of service
limitation specified in § 424.44(b)(1)
applies when the SSA makes an
administrative error in determining a
beneficiary’s retroactive entitlement
decision since the SSA is not
considered an agent or contractor to
CMS. Or, would this be covered under
§ 424.44(b)(2) or § 424.44(b)(3) without
the 4 year limitation? The commenter
recommended that CMS clarify in the
final rule that the 4 year limitation does
not apply when the result of a
retroactive Medicare decision was due
to SSA’s administrative error in
incorrectly and untimely processing of
beneficiaries eligibility determinations.
Response: Section 424.44(b)(1) only
applies to errors or misrepresentations
that are made by an employee, Medicare
contractor (including Medicare
Administrative Contractor,
intermediary, or carrier), or agent of the
Department that was performing
Medicare functions and acting within
the scope of its authority. It does not
apply to errors or misrepresentations
made by the SSA; therefore, the 4 year
restriction for § 424.44(b)(1) would not
apply because § 424.44(b)(2) and (3)
could be used in situations where the
SSA makes an error. However, it is
important to note that errors or
misrepresentations by the SSA are not
one of the conditions that must be met
in order for an extension of time to be
granted under § 424.44(b)(2) and (3).
Comment: Two commenters
recommended that if the SSA cannot
locate a copy of the original retroactive
notification letter that was sent to the
beneficiary, then CMS should allow
providers or beneficiaries to submit the
notification letter that they received
from SSA that clearly indicates the
beneficiary’s retroactive entitlement
date and the date in which the
notification of SSA’s retroactive
decision was made. Therefore, the
regulations and guidelines should
address alternate proof of coverage in
the event a copy of the actual Notice of
Award is unavailable.
Response: We were not persuaded to
modify the rule by these comments
because we believe these types of
documentation or proof of retroactive
entitlement issues should be addressed
via sub-regulatory guidance. Therefore,
we will consider these comments when
we update our internet only manual
instructions to our contractors.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that there should be an exception to
account for claims filed for beneficiaries
granted Medicare entitlement
PO 00000
Frm 00282
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
retroactively because of the 30+ years of
systemic errors of SSA’s Special
Disability Workload (SDW). The
commenter stated that this issue is
currently in bill form before both houses
of Congress and that failing a legislative
solution this proposed rule would bar
States from perfecting rightful claims for
services provided over the years under
Medicaid that should have been
provided by Medicare. The commenter
goes on to state that States will have
great difficulty in reaching out to
providers over 30 years of services to
recoup third party liability from
Medicare. Despite such difficulty, States
should retain the right to file claims and
they should not be barred by this
proposed rule. The proposed rule states
that ‘‘we believe that limiting this
exception to 4 years after the dates of
service strikes an appropriate balance
between fairness and equity for
providers, suppliers, and beneficiaries
and administrative finality for the
Medicare program’’. The commenter
asserts that the proposed rule does not
show any consideration of States’
interests in pursuing third party liability
against Medicare based on systemic
failures by SSA, the agency responsible
for determining Medicare eligibility.
Response: The commenter’s statement
that States should retain the right to file
claims is outside the scope of this rule;
therefore, we will not address that
particular comment. We were not
persuaded to modify the rule by the
other comments because § 424.44(b)(1)
only applies to errors or
misrepresentations that are made by an
employee, Medicare contractor
(including Medicare Administrative
Contractor, intermediary, or carrier), or
agent of the Department that was
performing Medicare functions and
acting within the scope of its authority.
It does not apply to errors or
misrepresentations made by the SSA;
therefore, the 4 year restriction for
§ 424.44(b)(1) would not apply in the
situation described by the commenter,
but § 424.44(b)(2) and (3) could be used
in situations where the SSA makes an
error. However, it is important to note
that errors or misrepresentations by the
SSA are not one of the conditions that
must be met in order for an extension
of time to be granted under
§ 424.44(b)(2) and (3).
Comment: One commenter suggested
that CMS consider allowing the
exception for dually-eligible
beneficiaries at § 424.44(b)(3) to apply if
any one of the three conditions are met
as opposed to all of the conditions.
Response: We were not persuaded to
modify the rule by this comment
because it would make the dual-eligible
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
exception meaningless. The first
condition of § 424.44(b)(3) states—‘‘At
the time the service was furnished the
beneficiary was not entitled to
Medicare’’. That first condition could
apply to every service a person has ever
received during his or her lifetime prior
to becoming a Medicare beneficiary.
Therefore, under the commenter’s
suggestion the exception would be
meaningless.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that the first condition of the exception
at § 424.44(b)(3) include cases in which
Medicare coverage is unknown to the
Medicaid agency at the time of service
instead of using the condition that at the
time the service was furnished the
beneficiary was not entitled to
Medicare.
Response: We were not persuaded to
modify the rule by this comment
because if the beneficiary was already
entitled to Medicare at the time the
service was furnished, then the provider
or supplier could have taken the
necessary actions to find out that the
individual was a Medicare beneficiary.
For example, the provider could have
asked the beneficiary prior to
admission, checked with CMS, etc.
Comment: One commenter stated that
the second condition of the exception at
§ 424.44(b)(3) assumes that because the
beneficiary is notified about retroactive
Medicare coverage that the provider of
service and the State Medicaid Agency
is concurrently notified, which may not
always be the case. Because this is a
direct communication between the
Medicare program and its beneficiary,
CMS should address how providers and
the Medicaid agency will evidence dual
eligibility to Medicare’s contractors in
an effort to meet this condition.
Response: We were not persuaded to
modify the rule by these comments even
though we agree that it is possible that
providers, suppliers, and State Medicaid
Agencies may not be notified
concurrently about a beneficiary’s
retroactive Medicare entitlement.
However, the exception at § 424.44(b)(3)
does not prevent providers and
suppliers from requesting an exception
to the time limits for filing a claim
because the provider or supplier will
always be notified about a beneficiary’s
retroactive entitlement whenever a State
Medicaid Agency recovers its payment.
Pursuant to § 424.44(b)(5)(iii), the date
when the State Medicaid Agency
actually recovers its payment from the
provider or supplier is when the
extension of time to file the claim
through the last day of the 6th calendar
month is triggered. In other words,
assuming that all three of the conditions
for § 424.44(b)(3) are met, providers and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
suppliers will possess the ability to file
a claim through the last day of the 6th
calendar month after the date the State
Medicaid Agency recovers its payment.
Unlike the 4 year restriction
(§ 424.44(b)(5)(i)) placed on the
exception at § 424.44(b)(1), which is
commonly referred to as the exception
for ‘‘administrative error,’’ there is no
similar time restriction regarding when
a provider or supplier may request an
exception under § 424.44(b)(3).
Therefore, providers and suppliers
should note that once the State
Medicaid Agency recovers its payment
for the services, providers and suppliers
will only have through the last day of
the 6th calendar month after that
recovery date to file a claim (assuming
that all three of the conditions for
§ 424.44(b)(3) are met).
Comment: One commenter
recommends that CMS define
‘‘retroactive Medicare’’ for the purpose
of these proposed exceptions. The
commenter stated that they understand
retroactive Medicare to be the extension
of benefits to a date in the past but
believe that confirmation or clarification
of this definition should be issued by
CMS.
Response: Although this comment
was unclear, we believe the commenter
wants CMS to clarify what Medicare
entitlement effective retroactively to or
before the date of the furnished service
means. We were not persuaded to
modify the rule by this comment
because we did not use the term
‘‘retroactive Medicare’’ in the regulation
text. Instead, the regulation text used
the following language—‘‘the beneficiary
subsequently received notification of
Medicare entitlement effective
retroactively to or before the date of the
furnished service’’— which we believe
makes it clear that a beneficiary is
receiving his or her Medicare
entitlement beginning at some date in
the past.
Comment: One commenter
recommends that in States which have
a contract with the SSA to determine
eligibility for Medicaid at the same time
a determination is made for receipt of
Social Security Income (SSI) benefits
(see section 1634(a) of the Act), that
CMS should clarify if Medicare
retroactivity will include requests for
prior month premium payments.
Response: Although this comment
was unclear, we believe the commenter
wants to know whether the exceptions
to the time limits for filing claims is
limited to just Part A services. Because
the commenter refers to requests for
prior month premium payments, we
believe that the commenter is concerned
about what happens when State
PO 00000
Frm 00283
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73451
Medicaid Agencies pay Part B
premiums on behalf of dual-eligible
beneficiaries. If a beneficiary receives
notification of Medicare entitlement
(Part A) effective retroactively to or
before the date of a furnished service
and a State Medicaid Agency (or the
beneficiary or anyone else) pays for that
beneficiary’s Part B monthly premium
retroactively to or before the date of a
Part B furnished service, then those
‘‘old’’ Part B services for that beneficiary
may be granted an extension to the time
limits for filing as long as the other
conditions for that particular exception
are also met. In other words, the
exceptions for § 424.44(b)(2) and (3) are
not limited to just Part A services; the
exceptions may also be granted for Part
B services when applicable.
Comment: One commenter stated that
the ACA provision essentially provides
providers with a 12 month period in
which to file claims for services for
which they have reason to believe
Medicare may be responsible. However,
in the exceptions proposed by CMS, a
provider only has 6 months to file a
claim. Consistency with the ACA would
suggest that the time to file a claim
under each exception should be
extended through the last day of the
12th month following the month in
which the exception applies. The
commenter also stated that with regard
to the proposed exceptions, the time
limit should be based on the month in
which the error or misrepresentation is
corrected and the provider is notified of
that fact. There may be some time
between when the error or
misrepresentation is corrected and
when the provider is notified of that fact
and the extended time limit should
begin when the provider becomes aware
of the correction. A second commenter
stated that the timeframe for filing
claims applicable to services provided
to beneficiaries who become
retroactively entitled to Medicare
(regardless of whether they are dualeligible beneficiaries) should be
extended to the later of: (1) The date
that is 12 months after the date that the
beneficiary is notified of retroactive
Medicare entitlement, or (2) the date
that is 12 months after the provider or
supplier becomes aware of retroactive
Medicare entitlement.
Response: We are modifying
§ 424.44(b)(5)(ii) based on these
comments because we agree that in
retroactive entitlement situations there
could be situations where a provider or
supplier may not be notified of a
beneficiary’s retroactive entitlement in
order to utilize the exception at
§ 424.44(b)(2). Therefore, we are
modifying § 424.44(b)(5)(ii) so that
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73452
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
notification to either party (that is, the
beneficiary or the provider/supplier) for
the first time about a beneficiary’s
retroactive entitlement will trigger when
the extension of time to file the claim
through the last day of the 6th calendar
month begins. We understand that this
rule may result in two extension of time
triggers if the beneficiary and the
provider/supplier are not notified on the
same day (one for when the beneficiary
is first notified and one for when the
provider or supplier is first notified);
however, we agree with the commenter
that it would be unfair to providers and
suppliers to limit the exception based
only on when the beneficiary receives
notification.
We are also modifying
§ 424.44(b)(5)(i) based on these
comments because we agree that there
may be situations where a provider or
supplier may be able to utilize the
exception under § 424.44(b)(1)
commonly referred to as the
‘‘administrative error’’ exception, but the
provider or supplier is not notified
about the correction until it is too late
to utilize the exception. Therefore, we
are modifying § 424.44(b)(5)(i) so that
notification to either party (that is, the
beneficiary or the provider/supplier) for
the first time about the administrative
error correction will trigger when the
extension of time to file the claim
through the last day of the 6th calendar
month begins. We understand that this
rule may result in two extension of time
triggers if the beneficiary and the
provider/supplier are not notified on the
same day (one for when the beneficiary
is first notified and one for when the
provider or supplier is first notified);
however, we agree with the commenter
that it would be unfair to providers and
suppliers to limit the exception based
only on when the ‘‘administrative error’’
is actually corrected.
However, we were not persuaded to
modify the rule for dual-eligible
situations (see § 424.44(b)(3)) because
the extension of time to file a claim
through the last day of the 6th calendar
month is triggered in dual-eligible
situations when the State Medicaid
Agency recovers its payment from the
provider or supplier. Therefore,
providers and suppliers will always
receive sufficient notification in dualeligible situations because the date that
the State Medicaid Agency recovers its
payment will be the provider’s or
supplier’s notice that they have through
the last day of the 6th calendar month
in order to file a claim (assuming of
course that CMS or its contractors
determines that all the conditions in
§ 424.44(b)(3) are met and grants an
extension).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
Also, we were not persuaded to
modify the rule based on the comment
that the time to file a claim under each
exception should be extended through
the last day of the 12th month following
the month in which the exception
applies. Because the triggering events
for the exceptions at § 424.44(b)(1), (2),
and (3) cannot occur without the
provider or supplier actually being
notified, we believe that an extension of
time to file a claim through the last day
of the 6th calendar month after those
triggering events gives providers and
suppliers sufficient time to submit their
claims.
Comment: Two commenters requested
that CMS create an additional exception
for those instances where the issuance
of new Medicare provider numbers are
delayed due to no fault of the provider.
The commenter stated that numerous
Medicare contractors are taking 60 to
120 days or longer to process and
finalize CMS enrollment applications.
Additionally, and more importantly,
many State survey agencies are
extremely behind on initial Medicare
State surveys. In some cases, it is taking
2 years for the State to conduct the
required survey for the providers. These
delays significantly restrict a provider’s
ability to submit claims for services
furnished prior to the effective date of
the Medicare billing privileges and the
commenter hopes that CMS would work
with the provider community to process
claims under these circumstances.
Another commenter recommended that
CMS should provide an exception for
provider enrollment delays caused by
the MAC or CMS Regional Office that
are outside the control of the provider.
The commenter recommended that CMS
should extend the time to file a claim
through the last day of the 6th calendar
month following the month in which
provider enrollment was completed
with an additional 30 days allowed for
each full or partial month between the
effective date of the provider enrollment
and the approval date of the provider
enrollment. This additional time is
necessary to accommodate Medicare’s
sequential billing requirement.
Response: We were not persuaded to
modify the rule based on these
comments because regulations at
§ 424.520, § 424.521, and § 489.13
already establish an effective billing
date for providers and suppliers and
those regulations have already
established limitations on retroactive
billing for providers and suppliers.
Comment: Two commenters stated
that the Medicare Secondary Payer rules
do allow a provider to file with
Medicare if the otherwise primary payer
is going to take awhile to pay.
PO 00000
Frm 00284
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Notwithstanding, there have been
situations which would warrant
enumeration in an exceptions
regulation. Providers have experienced
situations where an insurance company
has executed a retroactive denial of a
previously paid claim after a year. When
this happens, the timely filing clock
should start with the denial date. Thus,
the commenter recommends that:
• CMS should continue to allow for
payment when a primary payer may
take a substantial amount of time to pay;
• CMS should allow for a claim to be
considered timely if it is filed within 1
year from the date that the primary
payer has made its payment
determination; and
• CMS should allow for a claim to be
considered timely if it is filed within 1
year from the date that the primary
payer retroactively denied a prior
previously paid claim.
Response: We were not persuaded to
modify the rule by these comments
because Medicare may make conditional
payments for services when a payer that
is primary to Medicare does not pay
promptly. ‘‘Prompt’’ or ‘‘promptly’’,
when used in connection with primary
payments, except as provided in
§ 411.50, for payments by liability
insurers, means payment within 120
days after receipt of the claim. See 42
CFR part 411 subparts B through H and
411.21 for the definitions of conditional
payment and promptly.
Also, section 1862(b)(6) of the Act
states—‘‘* * * no payment may be
made for any item or service furnished
under part B unless the entity
furnishing such item or service
completes (to the best of its knowledge
and on the basis of information obtained
from the individual to whom the item
or service is furnished) the portion of
the claim form relating to the
availability of other health benefit
plans’’. Moreover, because providers are
already required ‘‘to maintain a system
that, during the admission process,
identifies any primary payers other than
Medicare, so that incorrect billing and
Medicare overpayments can be
prevented’’ (See 489.20(f)) we do not
believe a provider’s ability to meet the
new 1 calendar year timely filing
requirement will be compromised by
the commenter’s concerns.
Comment: One commenter stated that
providers have reported that they are
experiencing a need to cancel
previously processed Part B claims in
order to submit benefits exhaust claims.
Depending on the time frame for this,
providers may be unable to resubmit the
Part B charges. Providers need either a
mechanism for submitting benefits
exhaust claims for older dates of service
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
that does not require the cancelling of
previously processed claims or they
need an exception granted for
resubmitting claims that had been
processed timely but needed to be
cancelled to submit benefits exhaust
claims. The commenter recommends
that CMS should provide a mechanism
for submitting benefits exhaust claims
for older dates of service that does not
require the cancelling of previously
processed claim.
Response: We are not aware of the
specific scenario described by the
commenter; however, we will monitor
this issue and determine whether any
additional sub-regulatory guidance is
needed in this area.
Comment: One commenter stated that
there have been cases in which a facility
has been under a payment ban and the
lifting of the remedy was not
communicated to the facility in a timely
manner, thus prohibiting the timely
filing of claims. The commenter
recommended that CMS should start the
timely filing clock with the date that the
lifting of a payment ban is
communicated to the provider.
Response: We were not persuaded to
modify the rule by this comment
because if the failure to file a claim
timely was the result of an error or
misrepresentation that was made by an
employee, Medicare contractor
(including Medicare Administrative
Contractor, intermediary, or carrier), or
agent of the Department that was
performing Medicare functions and
acting within the scope of its authority,
then the provider may be able to utilize
the exception under § 424.44(b)(1)
commonly referred to as the
‘‘administrative error’’ exception in
order to file a claim.
Comment: One commenter stated that
when a provider is trying to adjust a
claim for the purpose of returning
money to the Medicare program, timely
filing should not apply. Conversely,
when a provider finds an error that had
caused an underpayment, the provider
should be allowed to file an amended
claim and receive the increased
compensation. Therefore, the
commenter recommends that CMS
should provide that timely filing under
amended § 424.44 not apply when a
provider is trying to adjust a claim for
the purpose of returning money to the
Medicare program, or, conversely, when
a provider finds an error that had
caused an underpayment.
Response: We were not persuaded to
modify the rule by these comments
because the timely filing provision of
section 6404 of the ACA and subsequent
final rule amending § 424.44 is not
intended to address requests for re-
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
determinations of initial determinations
by Medicare contractors such as those
described by the commenter. The
regulations for such requests are
detailed in 42 CFR part 405, subparts G,
H, and I.
Comment: One commenter stated that
they regularly file claims within 1
calendar year after the date of service
that are either rejected or denied and
that are subsequently approved after
being re-filed. In certain instances, the
date of re-filing, because of the time
period before the rejection or denial, is
more than one year after the date of
service. The commenter recommends
that the timely filing rule should be and
is satisfied when an original claim is
timely filed within 1 calendar year after
the date of service, regardless of the date
of any resubmission.
Response: We were not persuaded to
modify the rule by this comment
because, for example, if a provider or
supplier fails to include a particular
item or service on its initial claim, fails
to include all the necessary information
in order for an initial determination to
be made on that claim or fails to file the
claim on a form prescribed by us, then
a provider or supplier cannot attempt to
re-file that claim more than 1 calendar
year after the date that the service was
furnished. An incomplete or rejected
claim cannot act as a placeholder for a
claim that has yet to be filed because
that would clearly be a way for
providers and suppliers to avoid the 1
calendar year requirement stated in
section 6404 of the ACA. Moreover, it
would create a multitude of problems
for CMS to deal with operationally or
administratively because CMS would
need to have the ability to track all
rejected claims or all claims that failed
to receive an initial determination and
be able to match those rejected or
incomplete claims up with all of the
complete or valid claims that would
eventually be filed months or years later
so that an initial determination could be
made.
Comment: One commenter stated that
it is unnecessary to impose an
additional restriction to the exception
for claims filed for services provided to
dual-eligible individuals. The third
condition for the exception at
§ 424.44(b)(3) that a State Medicaid
Agency recovers the Medicaid payment
for the furnished service from a provider
or supplier 11 months or more after the
date of service is too restrictive and
CMS should have used a different time
period.
Response: We agreed with the
commenter that the 11 months or more
after the date of service requirement in
§ 424.44(b)(3)(iii) was too restrictive and
PO 00000
Frm 00285
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73453
therefore we modified the final rule
based on these comments by changing
the time period from 11 months to 6
months or more after the service was
furnished.
Comment: One commenter suggests
that CMS amend the third condition of
§ 424.44(b)(3) to read as follows— ‘‘A
State Medicaid agency or Provider
recovered the Medicaid payment for the
furnished service from the provider or
supplier 11 months or more after the
date of service.’’ The commenter stated
that occasionally providers identify
retroactive Medicare coverage after
Medicaid has paid without receiving
notification from the State Medicaid
agency. The provider needs to have the
ability to correct the payer order when
necessary before their existing payment
is recouped.
Response: We were not persuaded to
modify the rule by these comments
because when a provider refunds a
payment that is made to it by a State
Medicaid Agency, the provider is not
recovering a State Medicaid payment.
Instead, when the State Medicaid
Agency accepts that refunded payment
from the provider, we consider the State
Medicaid Agency to actually be
recovering that Medicaid payment.
Therefore, when a State Medicaid
Agency accepts a provider’s refunded
payment 6 months or more after the
service was furnished, then the third
condition of § 424.44(b)(3) will be met.
Of course, the first two conditions of
§ 424.44(b)(3) will also need to be met
in order for an extension to be granted
under § 424.44(b)(3).
Comment: One commenter stated that
due to the limited home infusion benefit
under Medicare Part B, home infusion
suppliers often bill Medicare for the
purpose of obtaining Medicare denial
billing remittance advices, which are
required by other payers. It would be
unreasonably costly and confusing for
home infusion suppliers to receive
timely filing limit denials for services
provided to individuals for whom the
supplier is unaware of retroactive
Medicare entitlement during the
allowable filing period. The commenter
urged CMS to ensure that infusion
suppliers do not have to face this
situation.
Response: Although this comment
was unclear, we believe the commenter
is concerned that home infusion
suppliers will be disadvantaged by the
exception at § 424.44(b)(2). If the
conditions for § 424.44(b)(2) are met,
then home infusion suppliers will be
able to utilize that exception the same
as any other provider or supplier and
therefore will not be adversely impacted
by this rule.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73454
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Comment: One commenter urges CMS
to make communication about this new
deadline a priority for the Agency. This
should include a prominent banner on
the CMS Web site home page as well as
clear and concise written
communications with Medicare
providers. It is important that providers
not have claims rejected due to lack of
awareness of new claims submission
deadlines.
Response: Although this comment is
outside the scope of this rule, we issued
sub-regulatory guidance regarding
section 6404 of the ACA on May 7, 2010
via Change Request 6960 and on July 30,
2010 via Change Request 7080. As a
result of issuing that sub-regulatory
guidance, two provider education
articles were posted to CMS’s Medlearn
Matters Web site educating providers
and suppliers about the new 1 calendar
year timely filing requirement.
In order to effectuate the changes
made by the ACA, we are finalizing our
proposed changes to § 424.44, with four
modifications. First, we are including
another exception at § 424.44(b) by redesignating § 424.44(b)(4) of the
proposed rule to § 424.44(b)(5) and
designating the new exception for
retroactive disenrollment from Medicare
Advantage plans or Program of Allinclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE)
provider organizations as § 424.44(b)(4).
We are adding this new exception so
that beneficiaries, providers, and
suppliers may be granted an extension
to file claims in Medicare Advantage
situations when the following
conditions are met:
• At the time the service was
furnished the beneficiary was enrolled
in a Medicare Advantage plan or PACE
provider organization.
• The beneficiary was subsequently
disenrolled from the Medicare
Advantage plan or Program of Allinclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE)
provider organization effective
retroactively to or before the date of the
furnished service.
• The Medicare Advantage plan or
Program of All-inclusive Care for the
Elderly (PACE) provider organization
recovered its payment for the furnished
service from a provider or supplier 6
months or more after the service was
furnished.
In these situations, if we or one of our
contractors determines that all of the
conditions are met, then the time to file
a claim will be extended through the
last day of the 6th calendar month
following the month in which the
Medicare Advantage plan or Program of
All-inclusive Care for the Elderly
(PACE) provider organization recovered
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
its payment for the furnished service
from the provider or supplier.
The second modification changes
§ 424.44(b)(5)(ii) because in retroactive
entitlement situations there could be
situations where a provider or supplier
may not be notified of a beneficiary’s
retroactive entitlement in order to
utilize the exception at § 424.44(b)(2).
Therefore, we are modifying
§ 424.44(b)(5)(ii) so that notification to
either party (that is, the beneficiary or
the provider/supplier) for the first time
about a beneficiary’s retroactive
entitlement will trigger when the
extension of time to file the claim
through the last day of the 6th calendar
month begins.
The third modification changes
§ 424.44(b)(5)(i) because there may be
situations where a provider or supplier
may be able to utilize the exception
under § 424.44(b)(1) commonly referred
to as the ‘‘administrative error’’
exception, but the provider or supplier
is not notified about the correction until
it is too late to utilize the exception.
Therefore, we are modifying
§ 424.44(b)(5)(i) so that notification to
either party (that is, the beneficiary or
the provider/supplier) for the first time
about the administrative error correction
will trigger the beginning of the
extension of time to file the claim
through the last day of the 6th calendar
month.
The fourth modification changes the
11 months or more after the date of
service requirement in § 424.44(b)(3)(iii)
to 6 months or more after the date of
service because the 11 months or more
requirement was too restrictive.
V. Section 6410 of the Affordable Care
Act and Section 154 of MIPPA:
Adjustments to the Metropolitan
Statistical Areas (MSA) for Medicare
Durable Medical Equipment,
Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies
Competitive Acquisition Program
In the July 13, 2010 proposed rule we
proposed a number of revisions to the
DMEPOS CBP as a result of changes to
the statute made by both the Medicare
Improvements for Patients and Provider
Act of 2008 (MIPPA) and the ACA of
2010. Since both MIPPA and the ACA
specify requirements for Metropolitan
Statistical Area (MSA) selection for
Round 2 and subsequent rounds, we
outlined our proposals for
implementing the statutory
requirements related to MSA selection
and the phase in of competitive bidding
areas under the DMEPOS CBP. First, we
proposed to use the authority provided
by the statute at section 1847(a)(1)(D)(ii)
of the Act, as amended by MIPPA, to
subdivide MSAs with populations of
PO 00000
Frm 00286
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
greater than 8,000,000 under Round 2 of
the DMEPOS CBP. Second, we proposed
to exclude certain areas from
competitive bidding after Round 2 as
mandated by section 1847(a)(1)(D)(iii) of
the Act, as amended by MIPPA. Third,
we proposed to implement the
requirement of section 6410 of the ACA
to expand Round 2 of the program by
adding 21 of the largest MSAs based on
total population to the original 70
already selected for Round 2.
1. Background
Section VII.H of this final rule
provides background on the DMEPOS
CBP, including a description of many of
the changes made to the program by
section 154 of the MIPPA. In this
section, we provide additional
information regarding changes made by
both section 154(a) of the MIPPA and
section 6410 of the ACA. In addition to
the changes discussed previously in this
final rule, MIPPA also added
subparagraph (D) to section 1847(a)(1) of
the Act. Section 1847(a)(1)(D)(ii) of the
Act, as added by MIPPA, addresses
Round 2 of the DMEPOS CBP, and
section 1847(a)(1)(D)(iii) of the Act
addresses subsequent rounds of the
Program.
Section 1847(a)(1)(D)(ii)(II) of the Act
specifies that the Secretary shall
implement DMEPOS competitive
bidding in the areas previously selected
for Round 2 of the program and also
allows the Secretary, in implementing
Round 2 of the program, to subdivide
MSAs with populations of greater than
8,000,000 into separate CBAs. Section
1847(a)(1)(D)(iii) of the Act imposes
new requirements on the Secretary for
competitions occurring before 2015 in
subsequent rounds of the program. For
such competitions (other than national
mail order), the following areas are to be
excluded from the program: (I) rural
areas; (II) MSAs not selected under
Round 1 or 2 with a population of less
than 250,000; and (III) certain areas with
low population density within a
selected MSA. These requirements do
not apply to a national mail order
program.
Finally, MIPPA required that we
implement Round 2 of the DMEPOS
CBP in the same MSAs that were
designated as of June 1, 2008. In 2010,
section 6410(a) of the ACA amended
sections 1847(a)(1)(B)(i)(II) and (D)(ii) of
the Act to expand Round 2 of the
program from 70 MSAs to 91 MSAs by
adding the next 21 largest MSAs by total
population not already selected for
Rounds 1 or 2.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
2. Subdividing Large MSAs Under
Round 2
We have selected MSAs for Round 1
and for Round 2 consistent with
MIPPA’s requirement. For Round 1,
CBAs generally were comparable to
MSAs, however, for Round 2 we
proposed to subdivide MSAs of
8,000,000 or more in population. The
authority to subdivide MSAs into
separate areas for competitive bidding
purposes is set forth in section
1847(a)(1)(D)(ii)(II) of the Act which
states, ‘‘[t]he Secretary may subdivide
metropolitan statistical areas with
populations (based upon the most
recent data from the Census Bureau) of
at least 8,000,000 into separate areas for
competitive acquisition purposes.’’ We
have identified three MSAs which,
based on the 2009 estimate from the
Census Bureau data, we subdivided
under section 1847(a)(1)(D)(ii)(II) of the
Act: (1) Chicago-Naperville-Joliet,
Illinois-Indiana-Wisconsin (IL–IN–WI)
MSA with a population of 9,569,624; (2)
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana,
California (CA) MSA with a population
of 12,872,808; and (3) New YorkNorthern New Jersey-Long Island, New
York-New Jersey-Pennsylvania (NY–NJ–
PA) MSA with a population of
19,006,798. We proposed to divide these
MSAs into separate CBAs because we
believe this approach would create more
manageable CBAs for contract suppliers
to serve and allow more small suppliers
to be considered for participation in the
program.
We considered certain factors when
deciding whether to subdivide the
MSAs with populations of at least
8,000,000. We considered the
geographic, social, and economic
integration of each of the MSAs. We
applied all of these factors when
grouping counties into CBAs and we
believe it is also appropriate to use these
factors to determine: (1) Whether or not
to subdivide an MSA into separate
CBAs, and (2) if the decision is made to
subdivide the MSA, how to subdivide
the MSA. We considered the following
factors, generally in the order in which
they are listed:
• Geographic size of the MSA and the
location of the counties within each
MSA compared to neighboring counties.
• The driving distances from north to
south and east to west within each MSA
and county.
• The total population and the
population of FFS Medicare
beneficiaries using DMEPOS items
subject to competitive bidding.
• The DMEPOS allowed charges for
items subject to competitive bidding.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
• Comparably sized Round 1 and
Round 2 MSAs based on beneficiary
counts and allowed charges for
competitive bid items.
• The interstate highway
infrastructures of the MSAs.
• The current service patterns of
suppliers in each county of the MSA.
We used each of the factors to the
extent practical to develop initial
proposals for reasonable and workable
subdivisions of these highly and
densely populated MSAs. We believe
consideration of these factors will help
us meet our goal of subdividing large
and densely populated MSAs and
creating CBAs that are attractive to
suppliers and incentivize them to bid
competitively for a contract. With this
goal in mind, we proposed to establish
CBAs that provide for a good volume of
DMEPOS business for winning bidders,
avoid obvious geographic obstacles,
mimic existing supplier service
patterns, and, to the extent possible, do
not cross State lines. We stated that we
believed the factors we have selected
will achieve those objectives.
We found that counties clearly
delineate areas within a MSA, and as we
have done for Round 1 by identifying
CBAs by counties and zip codes, we
proposed to subdivide the MSAs at a
county level. Since the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) defines
the MSAs by counties and county-based
subdivisions are stable, we use counties
to subdivide CBAs. When subdividing
an MSA into counties, we consider
counties that share social, economic,
and geographic integration. We have
first summarized the proposed
subdivisions, then summarized the
comments and finalized the CBAs.
The Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL–IN–
WI MSA comprises 14 counties within
3 States: Illinois, Indiana, and
Wisconsin. This MSA has 207,106
beneficiaries and $218,161,562 of
DMEPOS allowed charges subject to the
DMEPOS CBP. Using the factors that we
indentified, we proposed to subdivide
the Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL–IN–WI
MSA into four separate CBAs: IndianaChicago Metro CBA; South-WestChicago-Metro CBA; Central-Chicago
Metro CBA; and Northern-Chicago
Metro CBA.
The Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa
Ana, CA MSA comprises two counties:
Los Angeles County and Orange County.
The MSA has 173,631 fee-for-service
beneficiaries receiving DMEPOS subject
to competitive bidding and
$244,523,957 in DMEPOS allowed
charges subject to the DMEPOS CBP. As
mentioned previously, we proposed to
subdivide MSAs using counties, and
since the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa
PO 00000
Frm 00287
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73455
Ana, CA MSA only has two counties, it
offers only one subdivision along the
county lines. Hence, we proposed to
divide the MSA by the two counties
creating two CBAs: Los Angeles County
CBA and Orange County CBA. We also
proposed to use the authority in section
1847(a)(3)(A) of the Act to exclude
certain areas within the Los AngelesLong Beach-Santa Ana, CA MSA. We
believe these areas meet the requirement
of section 1847(a)(3)(A) of the Act; they
are rural areas with a low population
density within an urban area that are
not competitive. In the April 10, 2007
DMEPOS CBP final rule (72 FR 17992),
we finalized our regulations at
§ 414.410(c) that defined the factors we
consider when determining an area is
considered a low population density
area or an area that would not be
competitive. Based on our review of the
County Subdivision Population from the
2000 Census from the U.S. Census
Bureau, and using the factors set forth
in the April 10, 2007 final rule, we
proposed to exclude the area of Los
Angeles County north of the San Gabriel
Mountains. This large geographic area
has a population of about 357,000,
which is only 4 percent of the total
population of Los Angeles County, and
is separated from the rest of the county
by the San Gabriel Mountains. The area
north of the San Gabriel Mountains has
one major road and many terrains which
make this area remote. The majority of
the population in Los Angeles County
lives south of the San Gabriel
Mountains. We believe that excluding
this area will create a more manageable
CBA that still provides sufficient
volume of DMEPOS items while
avoiding the geographic obstacle of the
mountains. We believe including this
area in the DMEPOS CBP would result
in fewer small suppliers being
considered for participation under the
program, because we would not expect
small suppliers to have the resources to
serve these more remote areas. As a
result, we expect that it will increase the
number of bids submitted for the CBAs
within the Los Angeles-Long BeachSanta Ana, CA MSA.
The Los Angeles County includes the
two islands of Santa Catalina and San
Clemente off the west coast. We
proposed that the two islands be
included as a part of the Los Angeles
County CBA in order to ensure that
beneficiaries presently residing on these
islands or who move to these islands in
the future are ensured access to
competitively bid items by contract
suppliers. San Clemente Island is a
military base with a current population
of zero; and therefore, the inclusion of
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73456
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
this area in the CBA would not result in
this island being a part of the supplier
service area at this time.
The New York-Northern New JerseyLong Island, NY–NJ–PA MSA comprises
23 counties in three States: New York,
New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The MSA
has 344,879 FFS beneficiaries receiving
DMEPOS subject to the DMEPOS CBP
and $350,449,795 in allowed charges for
DMEPOS items subject to competitive
bidding. We proposed to subdivide the
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long
Island, NY–NJ–PA MSA into five CBAs.
The proposed Nassau-Brooklyn-Queens
CBA would be contiguous to Suffolk
County and would consist of the
western part of Long Island and extend
to the eastern part of New York City.
The proposed Suffolk County CBA
would consist of the eastern part of
Long Island and would encompass most
of Long Island. The proposed BronxManhattan NY CBA would include the
entire area of Manhattan and the Bronx.
The proposed North-West NY Metro
CBA would be situated north and west
of New York City and would extend into
New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The
proposed Southern NY Metro CBA
included Staten Island and would
extend south to Ocean County, New
Jersey.
At the March 17, 2010 meeting of the
Program Advisory and Oversight
Committee (PAOC), we presented these
proposals for subdividing these three
large MSAs. Various members of the
PAOC had the following suggestions for
subdividing these MSAs:
• Draw the boundaries of CBAs using
the interstate highways rather than the
divisions by County.
• Determine the current servicing
areas of suppliers by MSA and product
category by using a scatter plot.
• Use the Hudson River to divide the
CBAs for the New York MSA.
• Carve out Pike and Putnam
Counties from the New York MSA due
to their location and their low
population density.
• Include Manhattan as a separate
CBA, due to its unique nature as a self
contained area.
• Consider State licensure
requirements when we divide the MSAs
into CBAs.
• In the LA County CBA, exclude the
area north of the San Gabriel Mountains
from the CBA.
• Consider traffic patterns when
dividing the Los Angeles MSAs into
CBAs.
In the July 13, 2010 proposed rule, we
stated that we would consider the
PAOC’s advice and recommendations
and further invited comments on the
proposed subdivision of the three
MSAs.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that CMS use main travel arteries to
subdivide MSAs. The commenter
further explained that using zip codes or
county boundaries may be unworkable
across a large MSA if the travel arteries
do not correspond to the physical
boundary lines for counties and zip
codes.
Response: We examined travel
arteries used by suppliers and supplier
service and traffic patterns closely in
developing the proposed CBAs. The
commenter provided no rationale for
use of travel arteries alone to establish
CBA boundaries, nor did the commenter
provide a specific methodology or
information to use in making selections
regarding which of the various
highways to use as boundaries. We
believe it is appropriate to consider
travel arteries as one factor when
designing CBAs. However, using this
factor alone would result in unworkable
CBAs. For example, if the interstate
highway system in the ChicagoNaperville-Joliet, IL–IN–WI MSA,
consisting of 11 different interstate
highways (I–55, I–57, I–65, I–80, I–88, I–
90, I–94, I–190, I–290, I–294, and I–
355), were used as boundaries for CBAs,
this would result in approximately 30
different, very small CBAs. As noted
above, the numerous highway systems
that cut through the MSAs were
considered in determining which
counties to include in each proposed
CBA; therefore, travel arteries were
considered and used to develop the
CBAs.
In phasing in the competitive bidding
program, we adopted the definition of
the term ‘‘Metropolitan Statistical Area’’
consistent with that issued by the OMB.
The MSA comprises the central county
or counties containing the core, plus
adjacent outlying counties having a high
degree of social and economic
integration with the central county as
measured through commuting. Using
OMB’s standards for MSAs, we have
found that counties clearly delineate
areas within a MSA. Therefore, as we
have done for Round 1, we will
continue to identify CBAs by counties
and zip codes. For the large MSAs,
although we used the counties as the
basis for determining the CBAs, we
considered various factors when
determining how to subdivide and
group each county within the MSA,
including which major travel arteries
serve which counties or group of
counties in a geographic location.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that CMS should not finalize regulations
expanding the DMEPOS CBP to
implement Round 2 until the impact of
implementation of Round 1 of the
program on Medicare beneficiaries,
suppliers and providers is fully
evaluated and understood.
Response: Section 1847(a)(1)(B)(i)(II)
of the Act mandates that competitions
occur in 2011 for Round 2 of the CBP.
We did not receive comments on the
specific CBAs proposed for the ChicagoNaperville-Joliet, IL–IN–WI MSA and
are finalizing the CBAs in that MSA as
proposed. The counties that comprise
each of the final CBAs for this MSA are
shown in Table 68. The DMEPOS
allowed amount, beneficiary count
subject to competitive bidding, and the
general population that comprise these
four final CBAs are shown in this table.
TABLE 68—CHICAGO-NAPERVILLE-JOLIET, IL–IN–WI
DMEPOS
allowed
Charles *
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
CBA name/county
Indiana-Chicago Metro CBA:
Lake, IN ....................................................................................................................
Jasper, IN .................................................................................................................
Newton, IN ................................................................................................................
Porter, IN ..................................................................................................................
CBA Total ..........................................................................................................
South-West-Chicago-Metro CBA:
Will, IL .......................................................................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00288
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
DMEPOS
beneficiary
count subject
to competitive
bidding *
General
population **
$18,600,917
1,238,119
580,842
4,856,838
16,637
1,191
393
4,526
493,800
32,544
13,933
162,181
25,276,716
22,747
702,458
13,523,185
12,522
681,097
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
73457
TABLE 68—CHICAGO-NAPERVILLE-JOLIET, IL–IN–WI—Continued
DMEPOS
allowed
Charles *
CBA name/county
DMEPOS
beneficiary
count subject
to competitive
bidding *
General
population **
Grundy, IL .................................................................................................................
Kendall, IL .................................................................................................................
DeKalb, IL .................................................................................................................
Kane, IL ....................................................................................................................
1,417,511
978,215
2,358,319
9,273,504
1,405
1,052
2,323
9,082
47,958
103,460
106,321
507,579
CBA Total ..........................................................................................................
Central-Chicago Metro CBA:
Cook, IL ....................................................................................................................
DuPage, IL ................................................................................................................
27,550,734
26,384
1,446,415
124,854,279
16,945,135
116,360
18,492
5,294,664
930,528
CBA Total ..........................................................................................................
Northern-Chicago Metro CBA:
Lake, IL .....................................................................................................................
McHenry, IL ..............................................................................................................
Kenosha, WI .............................................................................................................
141,799,414
134,852
6,225,192
12,352,802
7,020,768
4,161,128
12,482
6,852
3,789
712,453
318,641
164,465
CBA Total ..........................................................................................................
MSA Total ..................................................................................................
23,534,698
218,161,562
23,123
207,106
1,195,559
9,569,624
* Source:
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
** Source
Medicare claims from 10/1/08 to 9/30/09 for items subject to competitive bidding.
U.S. Census Bureau 2009 population estimates.
We did not receive comments on the
specific CBAs proposed for the Los
Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA
MSA and are finalizing the CBAs in that
MSA as proposed, with one exception,
based on further consideration of issues
raised by the PAOC. We will not
include Santa Catalina Island and San
Clemente Island in the Los Angeles
County CBA as initially proposed. We
discussed the factors to consider when
excluding low population density areas
from a CBA in the April 10, 2007
DMEPOS CBP final rule (72 FR 17992).
Exclusion of low population density
areas results in smaller CBAs that may
reduce supplier costs in servicing the
CBAs. Lower supplier costs may result
in lower bids, which would increase
savings under the program. Although an
area may be a low population density
area, in accordance with existing
regulations at § 414.410(c), it cannot be
excluded from a CBA unless a
determination is made that the area is
non-competitive based on one or more
of the following factors: Low utilization
of DMEPOS items by Medicare
beneficiaries receiving fee-for-service
benefits relative to similar geographic
areas; low number of DMEPOS
suppliers relative to similar geographic
areas; or low number of Medicare feefor-service beneficiaries relative to
similar geographic areas. The island of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
San Clemente has a population of zero
and including the island in the program
would therefore result in no savings.
Approximately 70 Medicare
beneficiaries receiving $57,000 in
DMEPOS items and services reside on
the island of Santa Catalina. This area
can therefore be considered a noncompetitive area given the low number
of Medicare beneficiaries and low level
of DMEPOS utilization, especially
considering that the total allowed
charges for DMEPOS for Los Angeles
County as a whole is over $200 million.
We took into consideration, when
deciding whether to finalize this
proposal, comments from the March 17,
2010, meeting of the PAOC, during
which a supplier of DMEPOS
highlighted the high costs of furnishing
items to Santa Catalina Island, 20 miles
off the coast of mainland California and
accessible only by boat, helicopter, or
amphibious aircraft. Contract suppliers,
and in particular small suppliers, that
do not have a location near the ferry
ports for this island would be burdened
by having to serve this area in
accordance with their contract, and we
expect that this may have an impact on
the bids submitted for this CBA.
Medicare beneficiaries who are
residents of Santa Catalina Island and
require delivery of DMEPOS items must
currently make special arrangement
PO 00000
Frm 00289
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
with suppliers for delivery of those
DMEPOS items. Suppliers are not
currently obligated to serve this island,
so it is the beneficiary and not the
supplier that bears the cost of any
additional expense associated with
delivery of items. Under the DEMPOS
CBP, the supplier would be obligated to
serve this island, if it were included in
the CBA, and the additional expense of
delivering items to this remote island
are therefore transferred from the
beneficiary to the supplier. Although we
originally proposed to include Santa
Catalina Island in the Los Angeles CBA
to ensure access to DMEPOS items for
these beneficiaries, we have further
examined this issue and believe that
beneficiaries will continue to have the
ability to make special arrangements for
delivery of these items if this area is not
included in the CBA. We therefore
believe that excluding the islands of San
Clemente and Santa Catalina from the
Los Angeles CBA is consistent with
existing regulations at § 414.410(c).
The counties that comprise each of
the final CBAs for this MSA are shown
in Table 69. The DMEPOS allowed
amount, beneficiary count subject to
competitive bidding, and the general
population that comprise these two final
CBAs are shown in this table.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73458
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 69—LOS ANGELES-LONG BEACH-SANTA ANA, CA
DMEPOS
allowed
amount *
CBA name
DMEPOS
beneficiary
count *
General
population **
Los Angeles County CBA *** ............................................................................................
$201,244,121
137,408
9,862,049
CBA Total .................................................................................................................
Orange County CBA ........................................................................................................
201,244,121
43,279,836
137,408
36,223
9,862,049 *
3,010,759
CBA Total .................................................................................................................
43,279,836
36,223
3,010,759
MSA Total ..........................................................................................................
244,523,957
173,631
12,872,808
* Source:
Medicare claims from 10/1/08 to 9/30/09 for items subject to competitive bidding.
** Source U.S. Census Bureau 2009 population estimates.
*** The counts and amounts are not adjusted for the area excluded north of the San Gabriel Mountains.
We did not receive comments on the
specific CBAs proposed for the New
York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island,
NY–NJ–PA MSA. However, we have
decided to make three changes based on
further consideration of issues raised by
the PAOC. We carefully considered the
PAOC suggestion noted in the proposed
rule to exclude Pike and Putnam
counties from the New York-Northern
New Jersey-Long Island, NY–NJ–PA
MSA in order to result in a smaller and
more manageable CBA than the
proposed North-West NY Metro CBA.
This proposed North-West NY Metro
CBA is a large area situated north and
west of New York City and covering the
three states of New York, New Jersey,
and Pennsylvania. Pike County,
Pennsylvania is a low population
density area and makes up only 0.3
percent of the total DMEPOS utilization
for the New York-Northern New JerseyLong Island, NY–NJ–PA MSA.
Therefore, we believe that excluding
Pike County from the North-West NY
Metro CBA is consistent with existing
regulations at § 414.410(c). In addition,
the PAOC pointed out that excluding
Pike County, PA, would help reduce the
burden of suppliers having to comply
with different state licensure
requirements. As noted in the proposed
rule, the PAOC also suggested that CMS
consider state licensure requirements
when dividing the MSAs into CBAs. To
eliminate the complexity of complying
with different state licensure
requirements, we have decided to split
the proposed North-West NY Metro
CBA into two CBAs: One containing the
New Jersey counties of Bergen, Essex,
Hudson, Morris, Passaic, and Sussex;
and one containing the New York
counties of Putnam, Rockland, and
Westchester. To summarize, with regard
to the proposed North-West NY Metro
CBA, the PAOC suggested excluding
Pike and Putnam counties to reduce the
size of this large CBA we proposed for
the area in the north and west of the
MSA. It was noted by the PAOC that
removing Pike County would also
reduce complications of multi-state
licensing as Pennsylvania licensing
rules and requirements would no longer
be an issue. Based on the advice to
reduce the size of the proposed NorthWest NY Metro CBA and reduce multistate licensure complexities, we are
removing Pike County from the CBA
and are splitting the CBA into two new
CBAs: A fairly large CBA containing the
New Jersey counties from the proposed
North-West NY Metro CBA; and a
smaller CBA containing the New York
counties from the proposed North-West
NY Metro CBA. As a result of this
change, there is now no need to remove
Putnam County from the CBA as the
three county area of Putnam, Rockland,
and Westchester counties in New York
will be served by suppliers contracted to
furnish items in this area, which is now
significantly smaller than the proposed
North-West NY Metro CBA.
In further response to the PAOC’s
advice to consider State licensure
requirements when subdividing the
MSAs into separate CBAs, we have
decided to remove Richmond County,
NY from the proposed South New York
Metro, leaving this CBA to be comprised
of six counties in New Jersey. We are
therefore moving Richmond County, NY
to the Nassau-Brooklyn-Queens-County
Metro CBA and have changed the name
of the CBA to Nassau-Brooklyn-QueensRichmond County Metro CBA. We note
that Hudson River is in between
Richmond County and the other
counties in the Nassau-BrooklynQueens-Richmond County Metro CBA
but we took into consideration the
social integration of this area in that
there is a major bridge/highway
connecting Richmond County to Long
Island. Also, we believe that for each
final CBA set forth in this rule, the
supplier servicing patterns supports our
decision. We determined that both large
and small suppliers in the MSA
generally furnish items within the CBAs
we proposed. The counties, DMEPOS
allowed amount and beneficiary count
subject to competitive bidding and the
general populations that comprise each
CBAs based on our final provisions are
shown in Table 70.
TABLE 70—NEW YORK-NORTHERN NEW JERSEY-LONG ISLAND, NY–NJ–PA
DMEPOS
allowed
amount *
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
CBA name/county
DMEPOS
beneficiary
count *
General
population **
Nassau-Brooklyn-Queens-Richmond County Metro CBA:
Nassau, NY ..............................................................................................................
Kings, NY ..................................................................................................................
Queens, NY ..............................................................................................................
Richmond, NY ..........................................................................................................
$30,888,889
47,044,915
33,406,236
7,054,863
29,857
44,893
32,798
6,626
1,351,625
2,556,598
2,293,007
487,407
CBA Total ..........................................................................................................
Suffolk County CBA:
118,394,903
114,174
6,688,637
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00290
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
73459
TABLE 70—NEW YORK-NORTHERN NEW JERSEY-LONG ISLAND, NY–NJ–PA—Continued
DMEPOS
allowed
amount *
CBA name/county
DMEPOS
beneficiary
count *
General
population **
Suffolk, NY ................................................................................................................
31,950,806
31,476
1,512,224
CBA Total ..........................................................................................................
Bronx-Manhattan NY CBA:
Bronx, NY .................................................................................................................
New York, NY ...........................................................................................................
31,950,806
31,476
1,512,224
19,791,646
26,483,792
17,002
26,414
1,391,903
1,634,795
46,275,438
43,416
3,026,698
13,622,910
19,948,837
10,266,137
9,911,767
9,094,758
2,905,240
12,644
20,278
10,233
10,735
9,830
2,819
595,419
894,840
490,948
770,675
487,548
150,909
65,749,650
66,540
3,390,339
1,997,668
6,421,317
16,971,210
1,876
6,265
17,220
99,244
298,545
953,943
CBA Total ..........................................................................................................
Northern NJ Metro CBA:
Hudson, NJ ...............................................................................................................
Bergen, NJ ................................................................................................................
Passaic, NJ ...............................................................................................................
Essex, NJ .................................................................................................................
Morris, NJ .................................................................................................................
Sussex, NJ ...............................................................................................................
CBA Total ..........................................................................................................
North East NY CBA Metro:
Putnam, NY ..............................................................................................................
Rockland, NY ............................................................................................................
Westchester, NY .......................................................................................................
CBA Total ..........................................................................................................
Southern NY Metro CBA:
Hunterdon, NJ ..........................................................................................................
Union, NJ ..................................................................................................................
Middlesex, NJ ...........................................................................................................
Monmouth, NJ ..........................................................................................................
Ocean, NJ .................................................................................................................
Somerset, NJ ............................................................................................................
25,390,195
25,361
1,351,732
2,709,880
10,466,838
15,803,473
14,979,747
20,913,022
4,941,838
2,356
10,654
16,649
15,110
21,600
5,425
129,031
523,249
789,102
642,448
569,111
324,563
CBA Total ..........................................................................................................
MSA Total ..........................................................................................................
69,814,798
358,968,794
71,794
354,235
2,977,504
19,006,798
In summary, we are finalizing our
proposal to divide the ChicagoNaperville-Joliet, IL–IN–WI MSA into
four CBAs. We are finalizing, with the
modification discussed above, two
CBAs in the Los Angeles-Long BeachSanta Ana, CA MSA. Lastly, we are
finalizing, with modifications discussed
above, six CBAs in the New YorkNorthern New Jersey-Long Island, NY–
NJ–PA MSA.
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
3. Exclusions of Certain Areas after
Round 2 and Prior to 2015
Section 154(a) of MIPPA amended the
statute by requiring that competition
under Round 2 takes place in 2011 and
by adding section 1847(a)(1)(D)(iii) of
the Act that requires us to exclude the
following areas from the competitive bid
program for competitions after Round 2
of the program and before 2015:
• Rural Areas.
• Metropolitan Statistical Areas not
selected under Round 1 or Round 2 with
a population of less than 250,000.
• Areas with a low population
density within a MSA that is otherwise
selected consistent with section
1847(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
We proposed to incorporate these
requirements and timeframes in
proposed § 414.410(c).
We received no comments on this
proposal and therefore are finalizing
this provision without modification.
4. Expansion of Round 2
Section 6410(a) of the ACA expanded
the areas to be included in Round 2 of
the program. As amended by section
6410(a) of the ACA, section
1847(a)(1)(B)(i)(II) of the Act requires
that the competition for Round 2 of the
program occur in 91 of the largest MSAs
in 2011. Prior to this change, Round 2
was to include 70 MSAs. Section
1847(a)(1)(D)(ii)(II) of the Act, as added
by section 6410(a) of the ACA, specifies
that the additional 21 MSAs to be
included in Round 2 ‘‘include the next
21 largest metropolitan statistical areas
by total population’’ (after those already
selected Round 2). The 2009 annual
population estimates from the U.S.
Census Bureau are the most recent
estimates of population that will be
available prior to the Round 2
competition mandated to take place in
2011. Therefore, we proposed to use
these estimates to determine the
additional 21 MSAs to be included in
Round 2 of the program. Table 71 is a
list of the additional 21 MSAs added to
Round 2.
TABLE 71—ADDITIONAL 21 MSAS ADDED TO ROUND 2
2009 Total
population
21 Additional MSAs
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA–NJ–DE–MD ................................................................................................................................
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC–VA–MD–WV ...............................................................................................................................
Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA–NH ........................................................................................................................................................
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ .................................................................................................................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00291
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
5,968,252
5,476,241
4,588,680
4,364,094
73460
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 71—ADDITIONAL 21 MSAS ADDED TO ROUND 2—Continued
2009 Total
population
21 Additional MSAs
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA .................................................................................................................................................................
St. Louis, MO–IL ......................................................................................................................................................................................
Baltimore-Towson, MD ............................................................................................................................................................................
Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR–WA ................................................................................................................................................
Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI–MA ...........................................................................................................................................
Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY ........................................................................................................................................................................
Rochester, NY .........................................................................................................................................................................................
Tucson, AZ ..............................................................................................................................................................................................
Honolulu, HI .............................................................................................................................................................................................
Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY ................................................................................................................................................................
Worcester, MA .........................................................................................................................................................................................
Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA .....................................................................................................................................................
Springfield, MA ........................................................................................................................................................................................
Bradenton-Sarasota-Venice, FL ..............................................................................................................................................................
Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY ..............................................................................................................................................
Stockton, CA ............................................................................................................................................................................................
Boise City-Nampa, ID ..............................................................................................................................................................................
We received no comments on this
proposal and therefore are finalizing
this provision without modification.
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
W. Section 10501(i)(3): Collection of
HCPCS Data for Development and
Implementation of a Prospective
Payment System for the Medicare
Federally Qualified Health Center
Program
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Act (OBRA) of 1989 amended the Act by
creating new FQHC benefit programs
under both Medicare and Medicaid. The
Medicare FQHC benefit provides
coverage for a full range of primary care
services, including physician and
certain nonphysician services (PAs,
NPs), clinical social worker,
psychologist services, and preventive
services. FQHCs are ‘‘safety net’’
providers (for example, community
health centers and programs serving
migrants, the homeless, public housing
centers, and tribal groups). The main
purpose of the FQHC program is to
enhance the provision of primary care
services in underserved urban and rural
communities. FQHCs typically enhance
the availability of care to vulnerable
populations, including Medicare,
Medicaid, SCHIP, and the uninsured.
Most of these health centers receive
HRSA grants for services to the
uninsured.
Medicare pays FQHCs on the basis of
reasonable cost, subject to an upper
payment limit on the reasonableness of
incurred cost. Actual Medicare
reasonable cost is determined based
upon a Medicare cost report filed by the
FQHC after the end of its fiscal year.
Prior to the start of the year, an interim
all-inclusive per-visit payment amount,
based upon an estimate of Medicare
reasonable costs, is calculated for each
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
Medicare FQHC. During the year, this
interim all-inclusive per-visit payment
amount is paid for each covered visit
between a Medicare beneficiary and an
FQHC health professional. After the end
of the Medicare FQHC’s cost reporting
year, interim per-visit payments are
reconciled to actual Medicare
reasonable costs based upon the
Medicare cost report filed by the FQHC.
Section 10501(i)(3) of the ACA now
amends this current Medicare FQHC
payment policy with an entirely
different payment system, effective with
cost reporting periods beginning on or
after October 1, 2014.
Section 10501(i)(3)(A) of the ACA
amended section 1834 of the Act by
adding a new subsection (o),
Development and Implementation of
Prospective Payment System. This
subsection provides the statutory
framework for development and
implementation of a prospective
payment system for Medicare FQHCs.
Section 1834(o)(1)(B) of the Act, as
established by the ACA, addresses
collection of data necessary to develop
and implement the new Medicare FQHC
prospective payment system.
Specifically, section 1834(o)(1)(B) of the
Act, Collection of Data and Evaluation,
grants the Secretary of HHS the
authority to require FQHCs to submit
such information as may be required in
order to develop and implement the
Medicare FQHC prospective payment
system, including the reporting of
services using HCPCS codes. Section
1834(o)(1)(B) of the Act requires that the
Secretary impose this data collection
submission requirement no later than
January 1, 2011. Accordingly, we
proposed to add a new paragraph (d) to
§ 405.2470 to require Medicare FQHCs
to begin reporting all services furnished
PO 00000
Frm 00292
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3,407,848
2,828,990
2,690,886
2,241,841
1,600,642
1,123,804
1,035,566
1,020,200
907,574
857,592
803,701
802,983
698,903
688,126
677,094
674,860
606,376
using HCPCS codes for these services
starting January 1, 2011. Beginning
January 1, 2011, we proposed that the
Medicare FQHC would be required to
report on Medicare FQHC claims all
pertinent service(s) provided for each
Medicare FQHC visit (defined in
§ 405.2463). This additional reporting
would include the information needed
to develop and implement a PPS for
FQHCs. For example, corresponding
HCPCS code(s) would be required to be
reported along with the presently
required Medicare revenue code(s) for
the Medicare FQHC visit(s). We noted in
our proposal that our Medicare FQHC
claims processing system would be
revised to accept the addition of the
new reporting requirements effective
January 1, 2011. In our proposal, we
also noted that the proposed new data
collection effort would be for
informational and data gathering
purposes only, and would not be
utilized to determine Medicare payment
to the FQHC. Until the FQHC
prospective payment system is
implemented in 2014 and the Medicare
claims processing system is revised to
reflect such a system, we noted that
Medicare FQHC payment would
continue in the current manner
(utilizing revenue codes and the interim
per-visit payment rate methodology).
In our proposed rule, we further noted
that Medicare FQHCs would be required
to adhere to the information collection
requirements in accordance with the
content and terms of their Medicare
agreement as stipulated at § 405.2434.
We indicated in the proposed rule that
failure to do so could result in the
termination of the FQHC’s Medicare
agreement in accordance with
§ 405.2436 of the Medicare FQHC
regulations.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
At the time of publication of the
proposed rule, we noted that we did not
foresee additional claims or other
information collection needs beyond
collection of HCPCS codes.
Accordingly, we did not propose
additional information collection
requirements at that time. However, we
solicited public comment on any
additional information FQHCs believe
may be necessary in order to develop
and implement a prospective payment
system for Medicare FQHCs.
We received a number of comments
on the proposed information collection
requirements. We address these
comments as follows:
Comment: One commenter requested
that CMS ensure that its systems are
appropriately updated to be able to
accept HCPCS codes from Medicare
FQHCs.
Response: CMS will work to assure
that its contracts are provided with
adequate notice allowing for claims
processing systems to accept these new
reporting requirements.
Comment: One commenter requested
that health centers be given adequate
time to learn the new reporting
requirements, and to work with health
centers that might need additional
assistance.
Response: CMS, through its
Contractors, presently works to assist
and train all providers in Medicare
reporting requirements, particularly
new requirements such as the collection
of HCPCS information from Medicare
FQHCs. Medicare contractors have a
variety of assistance measures at their
disposal to train Medicare FQHCs in
HCPCS coding. Assistance measures
include seminars, web learning portals,
and telephone information lines. We
note that there are numerous private
sector training and educational
opportunities in HCPCS coding as well.
With the specific language regarding
HCPCS data collection from Medicare
FQHCs included in the ACA itself, and
the resultant lead time prior to January
1, 2011 implementation of the reporting
requirements, we believe health centers
have had sufficient time to prepare
themselves to meet these requirements.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that data collection begin with a
representative sample of health centers,
and that it generally be phased in across
the nation, in order to ensure that CMS
not penalize health centers that might
need additional assistance.
Response: With the tight ACA
implementation time frames for
implementation of a Medicare FQHC
prospective payment system, as well as
the limited total number of FQHCs, we
believe both provider sampling and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
phase-in approaches to information
collection requirements would
jeopardize CMS’ ability to meet
statutory requirements for the Medicare
FQHC PPS. Accordingly, we cannot
accept comments to delay or limit
collection of Medicare FQHC data we
believe necessary to meet the statutory
requirements.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that HHS estimate the additional
administrative burden placed on FQHCs
and, if that is significant, increase
reimbursement proportionately during
the proposed collection period.
Response: Medicare FQHCs are paid
on the basis of reasonable cost.
Administrative costs attributable to
added information collection
requirements that might be incurred by
Medicare FQHCs are already to be
reported by the Medicare FQHC on its
Medicare costs report and included as
part of its Medicare FQHC all-inclusive
rate.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that HHS use the quality measures
reported to CMS as part of its
meaningful use of electronic health
record requirements, instead of coding
additional information into the claims.
Response: We do not believe that
quality measures reported to CMS as
part of meaningful use requirements
would be sufficient in scope or
representative in breadth in order to
establish a National Medicare PPS
sample which would be representative
of the entire population of Medicare
FQHCs. Accordingly, we cannot accept
this comment.
As a result of these comments, we are
making no changes to our proposal to
require FQHCs to begin the reporting of
services using HCPCS codes.
Accordingly, we are finalizing this
provision without modification. We will
add a new paragraph (d) to § 405.2470
to require Medicare FQHCs to begin
reporting all services furnished using
HCPCS codes for these services starting
January 1, 2011.
We received no public comment
suggesting collection of additional
information collection requirements
beyond HCPCS codes. Therefore we add
no additional Medicare FQHC
information collection requirements,
beyond the collection of the
aforementioned HCPCS data
requirements, in this final rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00293
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73461
VII. Other Provisions of the Proposed
Regulation
A. Part B Drug Payment: Average Sales
Price (ASP) Issues
1. ‘‘Carry Over’’ ASP
The average sales price (ASP)
payment methodology is authorized
under section 303(c) of the MMA, which
amends Title XVIII of the Act by adding
section 1847A. This section establishes
the use of the ASP methodology for
payment for Medicare Part B drugs and
biologicals described in section
1842(o)(1)(C) of the Act furnished on or
after January 1, 2005. For purposes of
this part, unless otherwise specified, the
term ‘‘drugs’’ will hereafter refer to both
drugs and biologicals. The ASP
methodology applies to most drugs
furnished incident to a physician’s
service, drugs furnished under the DME
benefit, certain oral anti-cancer drugs,
and oral immunosuppressive drugs.
Sections 1847A and 1927(b) of the Act
specify quarterly ASP data reporting
requirements for manufacturers.
Specific ASP reporting requirements are
set forth in section 1927(b) of the Act.
Although delays in reporting have been
uncommon, they create a risk that: (1)
Could result in the publication of
payment limits that do not reflect prices
for drug products, and (2) could result
in inaccurate payments, the need for
correction of files and unintentional
ASP payment limit variability.
As a result of these concerns, we
sought to establish a process for
addressing situations where
manufacturers fail to report
manufacturer ASP data in a timely
fashion, that is within 30 days after the
end of a quarter. The proposal in CY
2011 PFS proposed rule was intended to
allow us to calculate and report ASP
payment limits for a given quarter
within the existing timelines and would
not affect CMS or the OIG’s authority to
assess civil monetary penalties
associated with untimely or false ASP
reporting. Manufacturers who
misrepresent or fail to report
manufacturer ASP data will remain
subject to civil monetary penalties, as
applicable and described in sections
1847A and 1927(b) of the Act.
For the purposes of reporting under
section 1847A of the Act, the term
‘‘manufacturer’’ is defined in section
1927(k)(5) of the Act and means any
entity engaged in the following:
production, preparation, propagation,
compounding, conversion, or processing
of prescription drug product, either
directly or indirectly by extraction from
substances of natural origin, or
independently by means of chemical
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73462
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
synthesis, or by a combination of
extraction and chemical synthesis; or
packaging, repackaging, labeling,
relabeling, or distribution of
prescription drug products. The term
manufacturer does not include a
wholesale distributor of drugs or a retail
pharmacy licensed under State law.
However, manufacturers that also
engage in certain wholesaler activities
are required to report ASP data for those
drugs that they manufacture. Note that
the definition of manufacturers for the
purposes of ASP data reporting includes
repackagers.
In accordance with section 1847A of
the Act, manufacturers are required to
report data on the National Drug Code
(NDC) level, which include the
following elements: the manufacturer
ASP for drugs; the Wholesale
Acquisition Cost (WAC) in effect on the
last day of the reporting period; the
number of units sold; and the NDC.
Currently, when manufacturer ASP data
or specific data elements are not
available, we calculate an ASP price for
a billing code based on other applicable
and available pricing data from
manufacturers for that drug. This
alternative method used when
manufacturer data are not available for
a billing code includes WAC prices from
compendia. WAC prices tend to be
higher than manufacturer ASP prices.
Although problems with reporting
have been uncommon, we have recently
encountered situations where delays in
manufacturer ASP reporting could have
led to significant ASP payment limit
fluctuations for highly used HCPCS
codes. The greatest potential impact
occurs when data for high volume drug
products within a HCPCS code that is
represented by a limited number of
NDCs have not been reported and
cannot be included in the ASP volume
weighted calculations described in
section 1847A(b) of the Act. For
multisource drugs, such a situation is
likely to artificially increase or decrease
Medicare ASP payment limits, which in
turn would affect beneficiary cost
sharing amounts. Such artificial
fluctuations of the ASP payment limit
could provide the appearance of
instability unrelated to market forces
and could also create access issues for
providers and beneficiaries and
confusion that could ultimately affect
product demand in the marketplace.
In order to minimize the possibility of
ASP payment limit fluctuations due to
missing data, we proposed a process,
consistent with our authority in section
1847A(c)(5)(B) of the Act, to update
ASPs based on the manufacturer’s ASP
calculated for the most recent quarter
for which data is available. Specifically,
we proposed to carry over the
previously reported manufacturer ASP
for an NDC(s) when missing
manufacturer ASP and/or WAC data
could cause significant changes or
fluctuations in ASP payment limits for
a billing code, and efforts by CMS to
obtain manufacturer-reported ASP
before Medicare ASP payment limits
publication deadlines are not
successful. For example, the most
recently reported manufacturer ASP
prices for products on the market would
be carried over to the next quarter if a
manufacturer’s entire submission were
not received, manufacturer ASP price
data for specific NDCs have not been
reported, or when only WAC data has
been reported; however, NDCs that have
zero sales or are no longer being
manufactured will not be subjected to
this process. Also, we proposed to apply
the carryover process only in cases
where missing data results in a 10
percent or greater change in the ASP
payment limit compared to the previous
quarter. Based on experience with ASP
methodology since 2004, we believe that
this percentage threshold constitutes
significant change. We specifically
sought comments on our use of 10
percent as the threshold amount. In
order to better represent actual market
trends, that is, actual increases or
decreases in manufacturer reported ASP
for the group of NDCs that represent the
HCPCS code, we also proposed that the
manufacturer ASP payment amounts for
the individual NDCs that are carried
over will be adjusted by the weighted
average of the change in the
manufacturer ASP for the NDCs that
were reported during both the most
recently available quarter and the
current quarter. We requested comments
about whether other methods to account
for marketplace price trends could be a
better substitute for applying the
weighted average change. The previous
quarter’s sales volumes will be carried
over. An example of the proposed
process appears in Table 72.
We proposed to apply this process to
both single source drugs and multiple
source drugs. However, we are
concerned that including single source
drugs in the carry over process could
create an incentive for nonreporting in
situations where ASPs for a single
source drug are falling and the
manufacturer stops reporting ASPs in an
effort to preserve a higher payment
amount despite the risk of significant
statutory penalties for such an action.
Therefore, we specifically requested
comments on this option and the effect
of limiting this proposal to multiple
source drugs only. We noted that we
would consider these comments
carefully before including both single
source and multisource drugs in the
process.
TABLE 72—ASP CARRYOVER EXAMPLE FOR NDCS IN A SPECIFIC HCPCS CODE
Previous
quarter
reported NDCs
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
12345–6789–10
12345–6789–11
12345–6789–12
45678–1234–90
45678–1234–99
Previous
quarter
reported
volume
2000
3000
5000
9000
27000
Current
quarter
reported
NDCs
Previous
quarter
ASP
$1.000
1.000
1.000
1.100
1.100
Current
quarter
reported
volume
12345–6789–10
12345–6789–11
12345–6789–12
(2)
(2)
2500
1700
5500
(2)
(2)
Current
quarter
ASP
$0.980
0.980
0.980
(2)
(2)
Current
quarter
NDCs for
calculation
12345–6789–10
12345–6789–11
12345–6789–12
45678–1234–90
45678–1234–99
Current
quarter
volume for
calculation
2500
1700
5500
9000
27000
Current
quarter
price for
calculation
$0.980
0.980
0.980
1 1.078
1 1.078
1 This result is obtained by calculating the weighted average price change in NDCs available (that is, 12345–6789–10 thru 12345–6789–12) in
both the previous and current quarters, which is ¥2% [(0.98–1.00)*100], and applying that change to the previous quarter’s manufacturer ASP
for the missing NDCs (that is, 45678–1234–90 and 45678–1234–99). The last two columns on the right would be used to calculate the weighted
ASP and payment limits for the 5 NDCs as a HCPCS code and accounts for missing prices for two high volume NDCs that represent most of the
units sold within the HCPCS code and therefore heavily influence the price calculation for the HCPCS code.
2 Missing.
Our proposed approach was intended
to establish a straightforward and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
transparent solution that minimizes the
effect of missing manufacturer ASP data
PO 00000
Frm 00294
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
on Medicare ASP payment limits. We
believe that the availability of a
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mechanism to minimize non-marketrelated price fluctuations is desirable
when efforts to obtain manufacturer’s
ASP data by deadlines have not been
successful. Our proposed mechanism
was not intended to alter or adjust
reported prices and will not be used to
do so, but instead is intended to more
accurately represent prices in the
marketplace in the rare circumstance
where manufacturer ASP data for
particular drug product(s) is missing.
Based on our experience with ASP
reporting since 2004, we do not believe
that this process will be used frequently.
However, as we stated previously,
recent concerns about delays in
reporting of manufacturer ASP data
have led to this proposal.
We also remind manufacturers that
significant civil monetary penalties
(CMP) for not reporting or
misrepresenting manufacturer ASP data
are authorized under sections
1847A(d)(4) and 1927(b)(3)(C) of the Act
and codified in regulations at § 414.806.
This proposal should not be interpreted
to mean that CMS and the OIG will
refrain from collecting such penalties
for ASP reporting violations. Late or
missing reports will not be tolerated.
This proposed policy would be
implemented regardless of any efforts by
the OIG to impose CMPs for
nonreporting.
We would also like to remind
manufacturers that additional specific
information about reporting ASP data to
us is available. (For examples, see the
following: 69 FR 17936, 69 FR 66299, 70
FR 70215, 71 FR 69665, 72 FR 66256,
73 FR 69751, and 74 FR 61904.) Also,
Frequently Asked Questions are posted
in the related links inside CMS section
of the ASP Overview Web page at https://
www.cms.hhs.gov/
McrPartBDrugAvgSalesPrice/01_
overview.asp#TopOfPage, and the
downloads section of the same Web
page contains a link to the ASP Data
Form (Addendum A), which includes
examples of how ASP data must be
reported and formatted for submission.
In particular, we would like to remind
manufacturers to report sales volume in
quantities of NDC units sold (not vials
or other units of sale), and to use a zero
(that is, the character ‘‘0’’) instead of a
blank when reporting items that did not
have any sales in a particular quarter. In
addition, manufacturers should report
both the ASP and the WAC for each
NDC, the expiration date for the last lot
sold, if applicable, and the date of first
sale for an NDC.
We received several comments about
our proposals. In general, comments
supported our proposal, including the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
use of a weighted average when
calculating the carry over amounts, but
the comments also requested
clarification about certain details. We
did not receive any comments that
would lead us to reconsider the 10
percent threshold that we proposed.
Comment: Several commenters
specifically requested that CMS clarify
what will be done to obtain a
manufacturer’s ASP information before
carrying over previous manufacturer
ASP information. The comments
recommended that CMS establish
contact with manufacturers using
contact information from the
manufacturer’s submission before
applying the carryover policy.
Response: We follow a routine
internal quality check process that
prompts communication with contacts
listed on manufacturers’ ASP
submissions when we believe that ASP
data may be late, missing, or
incomplete. The process includes
contacting the manufacturer as
recommended above. Our experience
with using the reported contact
information to reach the manufacturer
generally has been satisfactory, and we
plan to continue using it to manage and
track submissions and to coordinate
follow-up action by CMS or other
agencies. However, we also believe that
the carryover policy will serve as a
backup in the event information cannot
be obtained in a timely manner. Again,
we reiterate that sections 1847A and
1927 of the Act require manufacturers to
report ASP quarterly, and that that
section 1847A(d)(5) of the Act provides
for significant CMPs in situations when
misreporting of ASP data occurs.
Comment: A few commenters
requested that we clarify how we
determine whether products are no
longer being sold. The comments agreed
with our approach to exclude from the
carryover process products with no
sales or those products that are no
longer manufactured.
Response: In most cases, the
manufacturers’ ASP reports clearly
establish whether a product is still being
sold because manufacturers are required
to report NDCs with zero sales. As noted
above, CMS also contacts the
manufacturers, as needed, in order to
clarify information. If a situation arises
where the product’s sales status is not
clear and we are unable to get
clarification from the manufacturer, we
use multiple sources of information,
including but not limited to internal
quality checks, compendia data, and
public information about drug products
to determine the product’s status. Our
experience has shown that this
approach is effective, and we would use
PO 00000
Frm 00295
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73463
this approach to determine whether to
apply the carryover policy if
information supplied by the
manufacturer was not available or not
clear. Based on our experience, we
believe that this approach will be
sufficient to prevent the use of carryover
data from products that are not sold
during a quarter. We also would like to
reiterate that manufacturers have a
reporting obligation for NDCs with zero
sales (71 FR 69676). In other words, the
reporting obligation for an NDC ends
only after the expiration date of the last
lot sold. As mentioned above, a zero
(the character ‘‘0’’) should be used to
report the number of units of a drug
product sold if that product had no
reportable sales for a quarter.
Comment: A commenter requested
that CMS announce the exact deadline
for the application of the carryover
policy each quarter.
Response: The ASP reporting
deadline is specified in regulation text
at § 414.804, which states that data must
be submitted to CMS within 30 days
after the close of a quarter. We decline
to provide an additional ‘‘grace period’’
beyond the stated statutory and
regulatory deadline—not only have we
not proposed such a grace period, but
also we believe such a policy could be
misconstrued as permitting late
submission of manufacturer data. As we
stated earlier, our proposal was not
intended (nor should it be construed) to
affect manufacturers’ obligations to
submit ASP data timely, and penalties
for noncompliance with the timely
reporting requirement continue to
apply. For these reasons, we decline to
adopt the commenter’s suggestion.
Comment: A commenter
recommended that the carryover policy
not be used for more than one quarter
due to a concern about the accuracy of
payment amounts based on data that is
more than 2 quarters old.
Response: We will not specify the
duration for the carryover policy at this
time in order to prevent a situation
where prolonged nonreporting of ASP
data could influence ASP payment limit
calculations. Based on our experience,
reporting problems and delays with a
duration of 2 or more quarters would be
unlikely.
Comment: Commenters recommended
that CMS carry over prices only if there
is a manufacturer rebate agreement in
place and a ‘‘track record’’ of four or
more quarters of data have been
reported.
Response: We disagree with these
comments. First of all, the carryover
process is unrelated to the
manufacturer’s reporting obligations
under sections 1847A and 1927 and the
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73464
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
ASP regulations—in other words, our
proposal does not serve to relieve
manufacturers of any reporting
obligations. Rather, our proposal is
intended to solve the problem of how to
accurately calculate ASP in instances
where we do not have complete
information. Thus, applying the
carryover process only to certain
manufacturers as the commenter
suggests is not only unnecessary, but
also, in our view, not appropriate. In
addition, although we appreciate the
commenter’s desire to establish a
baseline, for the reasons stated above,
we do not believe that implementing a
standard whereby we apply the
carryover process only after a
manufacturer has submitted four or
more quarters of data is advisable. Such
a policy would be contrary to our intent
in making this proposal, which is to
provide us with a standard procedure
for addressing missing data. Further, we
have no information indicating that
manufacturers with four or more
quarters of reporting are any more or
less likely to fail to submit data for a
particular product in future reporting
periods. Therefore, we will not be
modifying our policy based on these
comments.
Comment: One commenter agreed
with carrying over a weighted average
price, but suggested that the carryover
weighting calculation be based on the
manufacturer’s own NDCs within the
given HCPCS code rather than the NDCs
for all manufacturers within a given
HCPCS code instead of weighting based
on all manufacturers NDCs in the
HCPCS code. The commenter believes
that price changes for the
manufacturer’s own NDCs in the same
HCPCS code will better represent price
changes for the manufacturer’s missing
NDCs.
The commenter also recommended
that CMS only use all other
manufacturers’ NDCs in the carryover
weighting calculation as proposed if a
manufacturer has not reported any data
for any NDCs in the code.
Response: We disagree with these
comments. We believe that basing
weighting calculations on all of the
reported NDCs in the code is the best
approach because it permits us to
maintain ASP stability without
potentially providing manufacturers
with an incentive not to report their
ASP data. We are concerned that basing
the carryover weighting calculation
solely on the manufacturer’s own NDCs
in the applicable code could incentivize
manufacturer non-reporting,
particularly in situations where a
manufacturer has multiple NDCs that
comprise a large share of sales for a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
HCPCS code. Indeed, we are aware of
situations where a very wide variety of
price changes have been reported for a
single manufacturer’s multisource
products for a single code. If we were to
calculate the weight for the carryover
data using only the NDCs that the
manufacturer reported, then a
manufacturer might decide to risk
sanction and purposefully report only a
subset of NDCs for the quarter in order
to increase the ASP payment limit for
the HCPCS code, and this would result
in inaccurate payment limits. For
example, if a manufacturer omitted data
for a single NDC in a code that had a
price decrease and only reported one or
two NDCs in that code that had price
increases, the carryover weighting
calculations could be skewed toward
overpayment if only the manufacturer’s
own price changes were used in the
carryover calculation. Again, we
reiterate that that Section 1847A of the
statute requires manufacturers to report
ASP quarterly, and that that section
1847A(d)(5) of the Act provides for
significant CMPs in situations when
misreporting of ASP data occurs.
Comment: Two commenters
recommended that CMS expand our
proposed regulation text at § 414.904(i)
to include more detail such as the 10
percent threshold, a requirement that
we make contact with a manufacturer
before applying the carryover policy,
and that the policy not be applied to
products with zero sales or products
that are no longer being manufactured.
Response: Based on these comments,
we will update the regulation text at
§ 414.904(i) to state that the carryover
policy will apply only if the ASP
payment limit change due to missing
data is significant. Our threshold for a
‘‘significant’’ change is 10 percent up or
down. We do not believe that adding
further detail to the regulation text is
necessary at this time because the
preamble language and the clarifications
sufficiently detail our approach.
Comment: In the proposed rule, we
specifically requested comments about
the applicability of our proposals to
single source and multiple source drugs.
One commenter agreed with our
concerns that despite the potential for
civil monetary penalties, single source
drug manufacturers still could perceive
an incentive not to report ASPs in order
to maximize the margin between the
ASP payment and the actual price for
which providers acquire drugs. The
commenter stated that the carryover
process, if applied to single source
drugs, could provide purchasers with an
incentive to buy increased quantities of
the product because of the widening gap
between their purchase price and
PO 00000
Frm 00296
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Medicare payments. Further, because of
the potential for increased sales volume,
manufacturers of single source drugs
may determine that the gains in volume
outweigh the statutory penalties. The
commenter recommended applying the
carryover policy only to multiple source
drugs because the absence of data for
one product within a multiple source
code could result in payment rate
instability from quarter to quarter
unrelated to market forces.
Response: We are persuaded by the
comment to finalize our proposal with
limitation that the carryover policy
applies to multiple source drugs only
because we agree that including single
source drugs in the policy could result
in inappropriate ASP payment limits for
a HCPCS code and may unintentionally
provide an incentive for nonreporting of
single source drugs despite the
likelihood of CMPs. In contrast, we
believe that for multiple source drugs
the carryover process can improve
payment stability and keep the payment
calculation more in line with market
forces. Moreover, multiple source drugs
present less risk for nonreporting
because data from more than one
manufacturer is used in pricing
calculations and thus, the impact of one
manufacturer’s missing data is
decreased. For these reasons and based
on the comment we received, we will
limit our carryover policy to
multisource drugs. However, we will
continue to monitor manufacturers’
reporting practices for single source
drugs, biologicals, and multiple source
drugs.
In summary, we are finalizing our
proposal as follows: When a
manufacturer’s reported data for a
multiple source drug product with sales
during a quarter is missing, and efforts
by us to obtain manufacturer reported
ASP data before Medicare ASP payment
limits publication deadlines have not
been successful, we will use the
following process to calculate the
payment limit for that drug product’s
billing code: First, we will determine
whether calculating the payment limit
without accounting for the missing data
would result in a 10 percent or greater
change in the ASP payment limit
compared to the previous quarter. In
that event, we will use (that is, carry
forward) the most recent data available
for that multiple source drug product(s)
(that is, the individual NDCs), adjusted
by the weighted average of the change
in the manufacturer ASP for the NDCs
that were reported during both the most
recently available quarter and the
current quarter. The previous quarter’s
sales volumes also will be carried over
for the NDCs with missing data. The
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
carryover process as described above
applies, for example, if a manufacturer’s
entire submission was not received,
manufacturer ASP price data for specific
multiple source NDCs has not been
reported, or when WAC data only has
been reported. However, single source
drugs and biologicals, and multiple
source drug NDCs that have zero sales
or that have been permanently
discontinued by the manufacturer will
not be subject to this process. We are
also finalizing § 414.804(i) with minor
modifications as described elsewhere in
this section.
Our process is intended to more
accurately represent prices in the
marketplace if manufacturer ASP data
for particular drug product(s) is missing.
Based on our experience with ASP
reporting since 2004, we do not believe
that this process will be used frequently.
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
2. Partial Quarter ASP Data
Section 1847A(c)(4) of the Act states
that, ‘‘In the case of a drug or biological
during an initial period (not to exceed
a full calendar quarter) in which data on
the prices for sales for the drug or
biological is not sufficiently available
from the manufacturer to compute an
average sales price for the drug or
biological, the Secretary may determine
the amount payable under this section
for the drug or biological based on—(A)
the wholesale acquisition cost; or (B) the
methodologies in effect under this part
on November 1, 2003, to determine
payment amounts for drugs or
biologicals.’’
When a new drug product enters the
market, the first date of sale rarely
coincides with the beginning of a
calendar quarter. Therefore, the ASP
data for many new drug products falls
into partial quarter status during the
first quarter of sales. We are taking this
opportunity to describe our policy
regarding how we use data from the first
quarter of sales in the calculation of
ASP payment limits.
In accordance with section
1847A(c)(4)(A) of the Act, our policy
has been to price new single source
drugs and biologicals at WAC for the
first quarter (unless the date of first sale
is on the first day of the quarter), and
to add new NDCs for multisource drugs
and product line expansions of single
source drugs and biologicals to the ASP
calculation for a quarter as soon as these
products are reported.
We believe that the approaches for
single source drugs, biologicals, and
multisource drugs are consistent with
the statute, particularly section
1847A(c)(4) of the Act, and we intend to
continue this policy.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
Although this section of the rule did
not contain any proposals, we received
several comments about our description
of current policy.
Comment: Several commenters asked
that CMS clarify how our policy
coincides with previously published
preamble language from the CY 2005
PFS rule (69 FR 66302) that states that
the initial period ‘‘start[s] on the date
that sales of the drug begin and end[s]
at the beginning of the quarter after we
receive information from the
manufacturer regarding ASP for the first
full quarter of sales.’’
Response: We believe our clarification
is consistent with previously published
materials referenced by the commenters,
and we appreciate the opportunity to
better explain our approach. The CY
2011 PFS proposed rule discussion
pertains to our determination of the
ASP-based payment limits under
section 1847A of the Act using data
from the drug’s first quarter of sales—in
other words, how we calculate payment
once we have received ASP data from
the manufacturer for a drug. These
payment limits become effective two
quarters after the drug’s first quarter of
sales. In contrast, our preamble
discussion in the CY2005 PFS rule
pertained to payment under section
1847A of the Act in quarters before
sufficient ASP data that is needed to
calculate payment limits has been
reported to CMS—that is, the CY2005
preamble discusses payment for drugs
that are administered on dates of service
during their first or second quarter of
sales.
The ASP reporting and publishing
time table has a two quarter lag, so
payment limits calculated using data
reported from the first quarter of sales
become effective two quarters later. By
way of example only, a manufacturer’s
prices for a new single source drug first
sold on January 10 would be reflected
in the ASP data that a manufacturer
reports to CMS no later than April 30,
and that data would be considered
partial quarter data because sales began
after the first day of the quarter. If CMS
determines that the drug should be
added to the national price files (that is,
the drug is not priced by a contractor/
MAC), payment limits using the data
from January 10 to March 31 would then
be calculated and become effective for
the first quarter of sales from July 1 to
September 30 of that year. In this
example, the first full quarter of sales of
the new drug would take place between
April 1 and June 30. ASP data from the
new drug’s first full quarter of sales
would be reported to CMS no later than
July 30, and payment limits calculated
using this data would become effective
PO 00000
Frm 00297
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73465
for the period October 1 to December 31.
Our approach is consistent with the
initial period for ASP based payment
limit calculations described in the CY
2005 PFS final rule (69 FR 66302),
which states that the ‘‘time period will
start on the date that sales of the drug
begin and end at the beginning of the
quarter after we receive information
from the manufacturer regarding ASP
for the first full quarter of sales.’’
Comment: Commenters also requested
that CMS clarify whether we use 100
percent or 106 percent of WAC to set
payment limits after new drugs are
introduced.
Response: As we mentioned above,
our discussion of partial quarter data in
the 2011 PFS proposed rule is limited
to situations where national payment
limit determinations under section
1847A of the Act are being made using
reported data from the first quarter of a
drug’s sales.
The national payment limits for single
source drugs that are calculated from
partial quarter data and are published in
CMS’s quarterly ASP price files use 106
percent of WAC. This percentage is
consistent with sections 1847A(c)(4)(A)
and 1847A(b) of the Act and is also
described in Chapter 17 Section 20.1.3
of the Medicare Claims Processing
Manual.
Comment: Commenters requested that
CMS make regulation text changes to
clarify that 106 percent of WAC is
applied as a payment limit for the
period that starts on the date that sales
of the drug begin and ends at the
beginning of the quarter after we receive
information from the manufacturer
regarding ASP for the first full quarter
of sales.
Response: Our policy is consistent
with existing regulation text language at
§ 414.904, the manual, and preamble
language. Therefore, we are not making
any regulation text changes.
Comment: One commenter asked that
CMS clarify what ‘‘product line
expansions of single source drugs’’
means.
Response: For the purpose of the
discussion of partial quarter ASP data
above, the term ‘‘line expansion’’ refers
to an additional package size or sizes of
a single source drug or biological; by
way of example only, a new larger vial
size of a new antibiotic that is
introduced for sale nine months after
the drug’s initial sales begin would
represent a line expansion. Sales data
for such new, additional NDCs is
incorporated into the weighted ASP
payment limit calculation for single
source drugs beginning with the first
quarter of sales that is reported to CMS.
In other words, data for NDCs added to
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73466
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
a single source drug code that is already
priced using the weighted average
calculations is not considered partial
quarter data.
Comment: CMS received several
comments that request other changes to
the regulations in connection with the
first quarter of sales. These comments
included recommendations that CMS—
• Develop regulation text changes
that describes an apparent expansion of
the initial period described in section
1847A(c)(4)(A) of the Act;
• Define when invoice pricing may be
used if payments are made under
section 1847A;
• Discuss the determination of
payment amounts made under section
1847A for dates of service during the
first or second quarter of a drug’s sales;
• Add additional information
requirements to ASP reporting
templates used by manufacturers; and
• Clarify how payments are
calculated when a drug leaves the
market.
Response: As noted previously, our
discussion of partial quarter data is
limited to and pertains to the use of less
than a full quarter’s worth of data to
calculate an ASP-based payment limit,
not to other issues such as the payment
limit for drugs administered during the
first quarter of sales, or reporting
procedures. Thus, these comments are
outside the scope of this rule.
We will continue to apply the policy
as previously clarified in this section
and described in the proposed rule.
3. Determining the Payment Amount for
Drugs and Biologicals Which Include
Intentional Overfill
The methodology for developing
Medicare drug payment allowances
based on the manufacturers’ submitted
ASP data is specified in 42 CFR part
414, subpart K. We initially established
this regulatory text in the CY 2005 PFS
final rule with comment period (69 FR
66424). We further described the
formula used to calculate the payment
amount for each HCPCS billing code in
the CY 2006 PFS proposed rule (70 FR
45844) and final rule with comment
period (70 FR 70217). With enactment
of the Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP
Extension Act (MMSEA) (Pub. L. 110–
173), the formula we use changed
beginning April 1, 2008. Section 112(a)
of the MMSEA amended section
1847A(b) of the Act to require CMS to
calculate payment amounts using a
specified volume-weighting
methodology. In addition, section 112(b)
of the MMSEA sets forth a special rule
for determining the payment amount for
certain drugs and biologicals. We
addressed these changes in the CY 2009
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PFS proposed and final rules (73 FR
38520 and 69571, respectively).
For each billing code, we calculate a
volume weighted, ASP based payment
amount using the ASP data submitted
by manufacturers. Manufacturers submit
ASP data to CMS at the 11-digit
National Drug Code (NDC) level,
including the number of units of the 11digit NDC sold and the manufacturer’s
ASP for those units. We determine the
number of billing units in an NDC based
on the amount of drug in the package.
For example: A manufacturer sells a box
of 4 vials of a drug. Each vial contains
20 milligrams (mg); the billing code is
per 10 MG. The number of billing units
in this NDC for this billing code is (4
vials × 20mg)/10mg = 8 billable units.
Beginning April 1, 2008, we use a two
step formula to calculate the payment
amount for each billing code. We sum
the product of the manufacturer’s ASP
and the number of units of the 11 digit
NDC sold for each NDC assigned to the
billing and payment code, and then
divide this total by the sum of the
product of the number of units of the 11
digit NDC sold and the number of
billing units in that NDC for each NDC
assigned to the billing and payment
code. This process is discussed further
in the CY2009 Physician Fee Schedule
rule at 73 FR 69752.
The provisions in section 112 of the
MMSEA were self implementing for
services on and after April 1, 2008.
Because of the limited time between
enactment and the implementation date,
it was not feasible to undertake and
complete rulemaking on this issue prior
to implementing the required changes.
As a result of the legislation, we revised
§ 414.904 to codify the changes to the
determination of payment amounts
consistent with section 112 of the
MMSEA.
Since that time, we have become
aware of situations where
manufacturers, by design, include a
small amount of ‘‘intentional overfill’’ in
containers of drugs. We understand that
this ‘‘intentional overfill’’ is intended to
compensate for loss of product when a
dose is prepared and administered
properly. For instance, a hypothetical
drug is intended to be delivered at a 0.5
mg dose that must be drawn into a
syringe from a vial labeled for single use
only. The vial is labeled to contain 0.5
mg of product but actually contains
1.5mg of product. The additional 1.0 mg
of product is included, by design, and
is intended to be available to the
provider so as to ensure a full 0.5 mg
dose is administered to the patient.
Our ASP payment calculations are
based on data reported to us by
manufacturers. This data includes the
PO 00000
Frm 00298
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
‘‘volume per item’’. In our ‘‘Appendix
A—Average Sales Price Reporting Data
Elements’’ available on our Web site at
https://www.cms.gov/
McrPartBDrugAvgSalesPrice/, we define
‘‘volume per item’’ as, ‘‘The amount in
one item (ex., 10 ml in one vial, or 500
tablets in one bottle). Enter ‘‘1’’ for
certain forms of drugs (for example,
powders and sheets) when ‘‘Strength of
the Product’’ indicates the amount of the
product per item.’’ In order to accurately
calculate Medicare ASP payment limits
under section 1847A of the Act, we
interpret ‘‘the amount in one item’’ to be
the amount of product in the vial or
other container as indicated on the FDA
approved label.
It has been longstanding Medicare
policy that in order to meet the general
requirements for coverage under the
‘‘incident to’’ provision, services or
supplies should represent an expense
incurred by the physician or entity
billing for the services or supplies (See
Medicare Benefit Policy Manual
(Publication # 100–02), Chapter 15,
Sections 50.3, 60.1.A). Such physicians’
services and supplies include drugs and
biologicals under section 1861(s)(2)(A)
of the Act. In accordance with this
policy, providers may only bill for the
amount of drug product actually
purchased and that the cost of the
product must represent an expense to
the physician.
We further understand that when a
provider purchases a vial or container of
product, the provider is purchasing an
amount of drug defined by the product
packaging or label. Any excess product
(that is, overfill) is provided without
charge to the provider. In accordance
with our current policy as explained
above, providers may not bill Medicare
for overfill harvested from single use
containers, including overfill amounts
pooled from more than one container,
because that overfill does not represent
a cost to the provider. Claims for drugs
and biologicals that do not represent a
cost to the provider are not
reimbursable, and providers who submit
such claims may be subject to scrutiny
and follow up action by CMS, its
contractors, and OIG.
Because such overfill is currently not
included in the calculation of payment
limits under the methodology in section
1847A of the Act and does not represent
an incurred cost to a provider, we
proposed to update our regulations at 42
CFR part 414 Subpart K to clearly state
that Medicare ASP payment limits are
based on the amount of product in the
vial or container as reflected on the
FDA-approved label. We also proposed
to update our regulations at Subpart J to
clearly state that payment for amounts
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
of free product, or product in excess of
the amount reflected on the FDAapproved label, will not be made under
Medicare.
We received several comments
supporting our proposal. Several other
comments raised concerns about
whether our proposal attempts to
regulate or even prohibit the use of
overfill. Our policy is not intended to
limit the use of intentional overfill
during the care of beneficiaries or in
medical practice; such measures are
beyond CMS’ authority. Rather, we are
clarifying our ASP pricing and payment
policies, describing how we utilize
manufacturer reported data, and
updating our regulations at 42 CFR part
414. The following is a summary of the
comments we received and our
responses.
Comments: Several commenters
supported our proposal, agreeing that a
provider does not incur a cost in
obtaining the intentional overfill
amount. One commenter noted that
statute, regulations, and policies
effective since CY 1965 regarding the
‘‘incident to’’ provision have required
the provider to incur costs in order to
receive Medicare payment. Another
commenter supported the proposal
because it protects the Medicare Trust
Fund and the taxpayer, reduces fraud
and abuse, and ensures quality patient
care by reducing the influence of profit
rather than clinical efficacy on medical
decisions for the patient. One
commenter agreed with the CMS
proposal because of the variations in the
amount of overfill that could be found
in each vial or packaging. This
commenter also noted previous OIG
reports that expressly excluded
intentional overfill in the calculation of
acquisition costs because of variability
in the amount of and different practices
for the use of overfill. Some
commenters, in support of the proposal,
mentioned ongoing litigation which
alleges that some manufacturers
provided kickbacks to providers by
marketing and furnishing intentional
overfill and encouraging providers to
bill federal health care programs to
increase the providers’ profits and sales
volumes for the drugs.
Response: We appreciate the
comments in support of our proposal.
We believe these comments help to
illustrate the variety of perspectives
regarding overfill.
Comments: Several commenters
expressed concern that our proposed
regulation changes are, in effect, a
restriction on providers’ ability to use
intentional overfill. Comments
emphasized that intentional overfill is
provided to account for loss of drug
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
during dosage preparation, and some
comments noted that the FDA allows for
intentional overfill to be included in the
packaging to account for this loss of
drug. Similarly, comments noted that
current United States Pharmacopeia
(USP) 797 standards for compounding
sterile injections also allow for the use
of overfill during drug preparation.
Some comments suggested we work
closely with the FDA and the USP to
address the issue of intentional overfill
in the manufacturing and packaging of
the drugs. One comment suggested that
we require providers to comply with
USP 797 standards regarding the use of
overfill. Commenters asserted that any
regulation of intentional overfill should
be imposed upon manufacturers rather
than providers.
Response: We disagree with the
commenters that believe our proposal
would restrict the clinical use of
intentional overfill. The comments that
suggest that we impose requirements or
implement standards regarding the
amount or clinical use of overfill are
beyond the scope of this rulemaking. In
response to the commenters’ concerns,
however, we believe it is necessary to
reiterate the distinction between the
amount of drug product that is
contained in a vial or other packaging
for use in the care of a beneficiary and
the amount of drug product that
manufacturers report to CMS for pricing
purposes and used to calculate payment
limits under section 1847A of the Act.
Our policy discussion is limited to the
latter issue. Our policy is not intended
to allow, prohibit, or otherwise regulate
the amount of overfill that
manufacturers include in a container, or
how that overfill is used in clinical
practice. Indeed, we do not have the
authority to regulate the manufacturing
of drugs or biologicals or the practice of
medicine. The appropriate use of drug
products, including sterile products,
depends on numerous factors,
including, but not limited to: approved
labeling, State law, the setting in which
the product is prepared and used, how
the product is stored, sterility, and
chemical stability. For many drugs,
overfill quantities are small and are not
completely used. In many settings,
harvesting small amounts of overfill,
when appropriate, can make up for
doses that are lost or are discarded
because of an error, short stability, or
accidental contamination, for example.
Our proposal does not pertain to, or
apply to, any of these issues. The intent
of this proposal is merely to clarify that
the Medicare ASP payment limit is
based on the amount of drug
conspicuously indicated on the FDA
PO 00000
Frm 00299
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73467
label, and that no payment will be made
for any intentional overfill included as
free drug for the proper preparation of
a single therapeutic dose.
Comments: Some commenters
estimated significant increases in
Medicare costs if the proposal is
finalized. These estimates were based
on concerns that our policy would
prohibit the use of overfill. These
commenters emphasized that providers
would be required to use additional
vials and drugs if the use of intentional
overfill were prohibited. They stated
that the proposal will not reduce
Medicare costs, but will transfer the
costs associated with intentional overfill
from the pharmaceutical companies to
the providers and, in turn, to the
Medicare and its beneficiaries. Several
commenters stated that providers
minimize wastage and cost through the
use of intentional overfill and efforts to
schedule patients efficiently.
Response: Because we disagree that
our proposal limits utilization of
overfill, we accordingly disagree that
our proposal will increase costs. We are
not prohibiting the use of overfill, thus
we do not anticipate providers or other
entities buying additional amounts of
drug as a result of this policy. Further,
we do not believe that our policy will
require significant changes in
procedures or practices for most
providers and suppliers because most
providers and suppliers use overfill in
clinically appropriate circumstances,
and we therefore do not believe that our
policy will cause them to incur
significant costs on that basis.
However, as we stated in our
proposal, we believe it is inappropriate
for a provider or supplier to bill
Medicare for any amount of intentional
overfill beyond the labeled amount in a
single-use vial or package, and we agree
with the commenters that such
inappropriate billing does not occur
routinely.
Comments: Several commenters
expressed concern that the proposed
intentional overfill policy may cause
lower reimbursement rates for overhead
costs relating to procurement,
preparation, and dispensing of affected
drugs. Several comments expressed
concern about the burden of tracking
doses that are prepared as a service for
providers who bill under Medicare Part
B. Some commenters stated that the
intentional overfill proposal is
impossible to apply to multi-dose vials
or packages, and will cause unnecessary
administrative burden to maintain
accurate inventory and medical records
regarding overfill and drug wastage from
single-dose vials.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73468
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Response: We disagree with these
comments. As we stated previously, our
policy on intentional overfill pertains to
payment under section 1847A of the
Act—it is not an attempt to mandate or
direct how the contents of a drug
product package are used. Our policy
relates to the providers and suppliers
who furnish drugs or biologicals under
Part B and who bill for such services.
We have no authority under section
1847A of the Act to dictate how entities
that prepare and sell doses of drugs for
use in various clinical settings set their
rates. We would expect that providers
and suppliers who purchase prepared
doses from these entities have incurred
a cost for them. For these reasons, we do
not anticipate that our policy will affect
entities that do not bill separately for
Part B drugs, such as entities that
prepare doses of sterile products for sale
to providers or suppliers who bill
Medicare for the drug.
This proposal also is not intended to
affect the current cost or waste-saving
batch processes in place when using
multiple-dose vials or packages. Instead,
the intent of this proposal is to clarify
that the ASP payment limit is currently
based on the amount of drug indicated
on the FDA label, and that no payment
will be made for any intentional overfill.
We expect that providers will
continue to maintain accurate medical
records for all beneficiaries as well as
accurate inventory records of all drugs
that were actually purchased and
appropriately billed to Medicare.
Comment: One commenter noted an
increased burden upon CMS to examine
the beneficiaries’ records to verify that
no intentional overfill was billed to
Medicare.
Response: For the reasons stated
above, we do not believe that our
proposal will significantly affect
procedures used in most clinical
settings. We therefore do not expect an
additional burden for the agency to
track and monitor this policy beyond
the procedures that are in place right
now.
Comment: One commenter noted that
the proposal is contrary to our current
policy regarding discarded drugs and
specifically stated that billing Medicare
for discarded drug is only appropriate
for single-use vials, and that the
provider must make good faith efforts to
schedule patients to efficiently deliver
the drugs to patients in a clinically
appropriate manner, and that any
discarded drug amount billed to
Medicare must not be used on any other
patient.
Response: We disagree with this
comment. Although our policy on
discarded drugs may appear to be
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
similar to our proposed policy for
overfill (in that they both pertain to how
providers and suppliers deal with drug
product that remains in a package after
a dose has been administered), there is
a key distinction. Our policy on
discarded drugs acknowledges that
providers and suppliers acting in good
faith to minimize wastage should not be
financially burdened when, for clinical
reasons, it is not possible or advisable
to use the full labeled amount of drug
product in a single-use vial—in other
words, we permit, in limited
circumstances, billing for drugs for
which the provider or supplier incurred
a cost, but that the provider or supplier
did not administer. In contrast, our
policy on intentional overfill applies to
drug product for which the provider or
supplier did not incur a cost, that is,
amounts of drug that are beyond the
labeled amount. Thus, in addition to
complying with the overfill policy, we
expect providers to continue to make
good faith efforts to efficiently minimize
the amount of discarded drug by
facilitating clinically appropriate
methods of administering the required
dose to each beneficiary and is
consistent with the discarded drug
policy in Chapter 17 Section 40 of the
Medicare Claims Processing Manual
(https://www.cms.gov/manuals/
downloads/clm104c17.pdf).
Comments: Several commenters
agreed with our position that intentional
overfill is considered free product for
which the provider did not incur a cost.
However, other commenters stated that
the purchase of a drug includes not only
the amount of drug identified on the
FDA label, but also encompasses the
entire package including accompanying
items such as syringes, diluents, and
intentional overfill that is required to
assure the drug is prepared and
administered properly. One commenter
suggested that it is more appropriate to
see any excessive overfill as an in-kind
discount that reduces the per-unit price
of a drug. This commenter believes that
manufacturers have factored overfill
into the pricing of their products and
that providers indirectly pay for overfill
regardless of its use. Some commenters
also that intentional overfill is within
the Discount Exception and Safe Harbor
under the Anti-Kickback statute. These
commenters believe that CMS should
similarly interpret intentional overfill as
a discount and require accurate
reporting of the price of the item (taking
into consideration the discount) by the
manufacturer, but not should not
require the provider to reduce the
amount billed or refrain from billing for
the overfill.
PO 00000
Frm 00300
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Response: We acknowledge that drugs
and biologicals are supplied in various
containers or kits that include
accessories and diluents, as well as a
variable amount of intentional overfill
to ensure that the single dose is
prepared and administered
appropriately. Sections 1847A(b)(2) and
(b)(5) of the Act require that payment
limit calculations be carried out without
regard to any diluents or special
packaging for the drug. We believe these
statutory provisions support our
position that overfill is not an in-kind
discount. Further, we have authority
under section 1847A(c)(3) of the Act to
identify price concessions that must be
included in the ASP calculation.
However, we have a practical reason for
declining to consider overfill to be a
discount for purposes of the ASP
calculation—namely, operational
feasibility. The amount of overfill in
vials varies from drug to drug and often
is not easily or consistently quantifiable
because actual fill amounts may also
vary slightly due to the manufacturing
process. In contrast, manufacturer sales
data, ASP calculations, and ASP
payment limits use exact quantities of
drug that are represented by exact
monetary values. Payment limits are
currently calculated using the amount of
drug that is reported by manufacturers
to CMS each quarter. We base our price,
in part, on the quantity indicated on the
drug package, which does not indicate
an overfill amount. The calculation of
the Medicare payment limit is based on
the reported data from the
manufacturer. We do not have access to
information that would permit us to
account for overfill in the ASP
calculation. Further, we are concerned
that attempting to account for a variable
amount of overfill could result in price
instability or inaccuracy.
The application of safe harbor
provisions to this proposal is outside
the scope of this rule.
Comments: Some commenters
suggested the issue of intentional
overfill should be addressed in the ASP
calculations. One commenter
specifically suggested that the ASP
calculation methodology be changed to
consider intentional overfill when
defining the units relevant to the
calculation of the Medicare payment
limit per billing code.
Response: Manufacturers are
currently reporting ASP and sales data
based on the labeled amount of the drug
product. The intent of this proposal is
to clarify that the ASP payment limit is
based on the amount of drug clearly
identified as the amount on the FDA
label and packaging. We do not intend
to change the ASP calculation
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
methodology to include intentional
overfill because of the operational
difficulty in accurately identifying the
amount of overfill.
Comments: Many commenters
suggested CMS clarify the applicability
of the proposal to specific providers.
Other commenters suggested that the
proposal be applied and enforced
prospectively only in the physician
office setting and not in hospitals or
other provider settings. Another
commenter noted that drugs furnished
in the outpatient department are
reimbursed based on ASP when
separately payable, and requests
clarification regarding whether this
proposal must be required of hospital
outpatient clinics paid under the
Hospital Outpatient Prospective
Payment System (OPPS). This
commenter also requested that CMS
clarify whether this proposal applies to
acute care hospitals, skilled nursing
facilities, dialysis facilities and other
providers or suppliers of services under
bundled payment methodologies.
Another commenter requested the
proposal not be applied to dialysis
facilities. The commenter stated that
intentional overfill is included in their
costs reports, that the ‘‘incident-to’’
provision does not apply to dialysis
facilities, and that the policy may cause
confusion during the transition into the
new End Stage Renal Disease payment
bundle.
Response: Section 1847A(a)(1) of the
Act specifies that the ASP methodology
applies to drugs or biologicals described
in section 1842(o)(1)(C) of the Act,
which indicates that the ASP-based
payment limit in 1847A of the Act
affects a physician, supplier or any
other person that bills for Part B covered
drugs that are not paid under a cost or
prospective payment system. We did
not propose to change the manner in
which we calculate ASP-based payment
limits to reflect the setting in which the
drug was provided, and we believe that
not only would such a policy be unduly
complicated, but also would likely be
beyond our authority under the ASP
statute. We note that regardless of the
benefit category for a drug or biological,
if it is paid under section 1847A of the
Act, we calculate the payment limit
without regard to overfill—thus, the fact
that certain providers or suppliers do
not furnish drugs on an ‘‘incident to’’
basis is irrelevant to our policy for the
ASP calculation. This rule’s scope is
limited to the payment of overfill under
section 1847A of the Act.
Comment: One comment suggested
that we encourage providers to the use
intentional overfill and bill Medicare
only for the amount administered to the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
patient, but not the wasted amount. The
commenter also suggested that drug
billing code increments be reduced for
those drugs that are dosed in smaller
amounts than what is currently on the
billing code. For example, if a patient
dose is 710mg but the billing increment
is 100mg, then the provider must bill
Medicare for 800mg and waste the left
over 90mg.
Response: We are continuing to work
closely to review all billing codes to
assure that such codes describe drugs at
the most clinically appropriate dosage
descriptors. As stated in the discarded
drug policy (Chapter 17 Section 40 of
the Medicare Claims Processing Manual;
https://www.cms.gov/manuals/
downloads/clm104c17.pdf), Medicare
will continue to make payment for the
administered amount of drug plus any
appropriately discarded drug that sums
to the labeled amount on a single-use
vial or package.
Comments: Some commenters
disagree that Medicare has a
longstanding policy that an expense
must be incurred by the provider in
order for payment to be made by
Medicare. One commenter stated that
there is no existing law or regulation
that prohibits a provider from billing for
intentional overfill or for any free
product. This commenter further
discussed previous OIG reports that
identified providers were using
intentional overfill which would alter
their costs, and added that CMS did not
express any concerns about these
overfill utilization practices. Another
commenter recommended that CMS
determine overfill amounts for all
injectable drugs and validate whether
excess product pooled from more than
one container and billed to Medicare
does not represent a cost to the
provider.
Response: We believe our preamble
adequately describes the longstanding
Medicare policy based upon section
1861(s)(2)(A) of the Act. We maintain
that services or supplies reimbursed by
Medicare under the ‘‘incident-to’’
provision should represent an expense
incurred by the physician or entity
billing for the drugs, services or
supplies. Our policy clarifies that we
will not pay for intentional overfill. For
reasons described elsewhere in this
preamble, we do not intend to track
overfill amounts for injectable drugs.
Comments: Some commenters
requested that CMS define what is
meant by ‘‘intentional’’ overfill since
many injectable drugs include a variable
amount of overfill to allow the labeled
dose to be appropriately prepared and
administered to the patient. One
comment cited that the USP
PO 00000
Frm 00301
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73469
recommends a 10 percent overfill by
volume for liquid medicines, and stated
that the example in the proposal
describing a 100 percent overfill is
inconsistent with USP guidelines.
Response: We described ‘‘intentional’’
overfill in the proposed rule (75 FR
40155) and we agree that the amount of
intentional overfill may vary from
product to product; however, we are not
aware of an absolute limit on the
amount of overfill. In summary, the
preamble describes intentional overfill
as any amount of drug greater than the
amount identified on the conspicuous
FDA approved label on the outside of
the package, and characterizes overfill
as excess or free product that does not
represent a cost to the provider.
After reviewing the public comments,
we are finalizing our proposal to update
our regulations at 42 CFR part 414
Subpart J to clearly state that Medicare
ASP payment limits are based on the
amount of product in the vial or
container as reflected on the FDAapproved label, and Subpart K to clearly
state that payment for amounts of
product in excess of the amount
reflected on the FDA-approved label,
will not be made under Medicare. We
are finalizing the regulations as
proposed. These provisions will be
effective January 1, 2011.
4. Widely Available Market Price
(WAMP)/Average Manufacturer Price
(AMP)
Section 1847A(d)(1) of the Act states
that ‘‘The Inspector General of HHS
shall conduct studies, which may
include surveys to determine the widely
available market prices (WAMP) of
drugs and biologicals to which this
section applies, as the Inspector
General, in consultation with the
Secretary, determines to be
appropriate.’’ Section 1847A (d)(2) of the
Act states, ‘‘Based upon such studies
and other data for drugs and biologicals,
the Inspector General shall compare the
ASP under this section for drugs and
biologicals with—
• The widely available market price
(WAMP) for these drugs and biologicals
(if any); and
• The average manufacturer price
(AMP) (as determined under section
1927(k) (1) of the Act) for such drugs
and biologicals.’’
Section 1847A(d)(3)(A) of The Act
states, ‘‘The Secretary may disregard the
ASP for a drug or biological that exceeds
the WAMP or the AMP for such drug or
biological by the applicable threshold
percentage (as defined in subparagraph
(B)).’’ Section 1847A(d)(3)(C) of the Act
states that if the Inspector General (OIG)
finds that the ASP for a drug or
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73470
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
biological is found to have exceeded the
WAMP or AMP by this threshold
percentage, the OIG ‘‘shall inform the
Secretary (at such times as the Secretary
may specify to carry out this
subparagraph) and the Secretary shall,
effective as of the next quarter,
substitute for the amount of payment
otherwise determined under this section
for such drug or biological, the lesser
of—(i) the widely available market price
for the drug or biological (if any); or (ii)
103 percent of the average manufacturer
price.* * *’’
The applicable threshold percentage
is specified in section 1847A(d)(3)(B)(i)
of the Act as 5 percent for CY 2005. For
CY 2006 and subsequent years, section
1847A(d)(3)(B)(ii) of the Act establishes
that the applicable threshold percentage
is ‘‘the percentage applied under this
subparagraph subject to such
adjustment as the Secretary may specify
for the WAMP or the AMP, or both.’’ In
the CY 2006 (70 FR 70222), CY 2007 (71
FR 69680), CY 2008 (72 FR 66258), CY
2009 (73 FR 69752), and CY 2010 (74 FR
61904) PFS final rules with comment
period, we specified an applicable
threshold percentage of 5 percent for
both the WAMP and AMP. We based
this decision on the fact that data was
too limited to support an adjustment to
the current applicable threshold
percentage.
For CY 2011, we proposed to specify
two separate adjustments to the
applicable threshold percentages. When
making comparisons to the WAMP, we
proposed the applicable threshold
percentage to remain at 5 percent. The
applicable threshold percentage for the
AMP is addressed below in this section
of the preamble. Although the latest
WAMP comparison was published in
2008, the OIG is continuing to perform
studies comparing ASP to WAMP.
Based on available OIG reports that have
been published comparing WAMP to
ASP, we do not have sufficient
information to determine that the 5
percent threshold percentage is
inappropriate. As a result, we believe
that continuing the 5 percent applicable
threshold percentage for the WAMP is
appropriate for CY 2011. Therefore, we
proposed to revise § 414.904(d)(3) to
include the CY 2011 date.
As we noted in the CY 2010 PFS final
rule with comment period (74 FR
61904), we understand that there are
complicated operational issues
associated with this policy. We continue
to proceed cautiously in this area. We
remain committed to providing
stakeholders, including providers and
manufacturers of drugs impacted by
potential price substitutions with
adequate notice of our intentions
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
regarding such, including the
opportunity to provide input with
regard to the processes for substituting
the WAMP for the ASP.
We solicited comments on our
proposal to continue the applicable
threshold percentage at 5 percent for the
WAMP for 2011.
The following is a summary of the
comments we received and our
responses:
Comment: Several commenters
supported maintaining the threshold at
5 percent. Other commenters
commended CMS for the cautious
approach toward determining price
substitutions based on WAMP to ASP
comparisons, and supported the
exclusion of WAMP from the price
substitution proposal discussed
elsewhere in this rule. One comment
suggested the AMP threshold be
increased to reflect recent changes to the
definition of AMP but did not provide
a specific percentage. One commenter
suggested that OIG also review whether
existing discrepancies in the various
reporting rules for bundled
arrangements and price concessions
have impacted the reported pricing for
the same products under AMP and ASP.
Response: We appreciate the
comments supporting the continuation
of the 5 percent threshold. As we noted
in the CY 2010 PFS rule (74 FR 61904),
we understand there are complex
operational issues associated with
potential payment substitutions. We
will continue to proceed cautiously in
this area and provide stakeholders,
particularly manufacturers of drugs
impacted by potential price
substitutions, with adequate notice of
our intentions regarding such, include
the opportunity to provide input with
regard to the processes for substituting
the WAMP or the AMP for the ASP. As
part of our approach we intend to
continue to work closely with the OIG
to develop a better understanding of the
issues that may be related to certain
drugs for which the WAMP and AMP
may be lower than the ASP over time.
After reviewing the public comments,
we are finalizing our proposal to
continue the 5 percent WAMP threshold
for CY2011.
5. AMP Threshold and Price
Substitutions
As mentioned elsewhere in this final
rule with comment period, when
making comparisons of ASP to AMP,
the applicable threshold percentage for
CY 2005 was specified in statute as 5
percent. Section 1847A(d)(3) of the Act
allows the Secretary to specify
adjustments to this threshold percentage
for years subsequent to 2005, and to
PO 00000
Frm 00302
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
specify the timing for any price
substitution. For CY 2006 (70 FR 70222)
CY 2007 (71 FR 69680), CY 2008 (72 FR
66258), CY 2009 (73 FR 69752), and CY
2010 (74 FR 61904), the Secretary made
no adjustments to the threshold
percentage; it remained at 5 percent.
For CY 2011, we proposed with
respect to AMP substitution to apply the
applicable percentage subject to certain
adjustment such that comparisons of
ASP to AMP will only be made when
the ASP exceeds the AMP by 5 percent
in two consecutive quarters
immediately prior to the current pricing
quarter, or three of the previous four
quarters immediately prior to the
current quarter. We further proposed to
apply the applicable AMP threshold
percentage only for those situations
where AMP and ASP comparisons are
based on the same set of NDCs for a
billing code (that is, ‘‘complete’’ AMP
data).
Furthermore, we proposed a price
substitution policy to substitute 103
percent of AMP for 106 percent of ASP
for both multiple and single source
drugs and biologicals as defined
respectively at section 1847(A)(c)(6)(C)
and (D) of the Act. Specifically, we
proposed that this substitution:
• Would occur when the applicable
percentage has been satisfied for a
number of calendar quarters as
discussed elsewhere in this rule (that is,
for two consecutive quarters
immediately prior to the current pricing
quarter, or three of the previous four
quarters immediately prior to the
current quarter);
• Would permit for a final
comparison between the OIG’s volumeweighted 103 percent of AMP for a
billing code (calculated from the prior
quarter’s data) and the billing code’s
volume weighted 106 percent ASP, as
calculated by CMS, for the current
quarter to avoid a situation in which the
Secretary would inadvertently raise the
Medicare payment limit through this
price substitution policy; and
• That the duration of the price
substitution would last for only one
quarter.
We also sought comment on other
issues related to the comparison
between ASP and AMP, such as:
• Any effect of definitional
differences between AMP and ASP,
particularly in light of the revised
definition of AMP per the ACA;
• The impact of any differences in
AMP and ASP reporting by
manufacturers on price substitution
comparisons; and,
• Whether and/or how general
differences and similarities between
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
AMP and manufacturer’s ASP would
affect comparisons between these two.
Comment: CMS received a number of
comments pertaining to its proposals
regarding the AMP threshold. Some
commenters generally agreed that any
proposal should be transparent,
cautious, and should account for interquarter price fluctuations. Some
commenters also supported our
proposal to limit the price substitution
to those HCPCS codes for which ASP
and AMP comparisons are based on the
same set of NDCs. One commenter
requested that CMS specifically note
that the volume used to calculate the
volume-weighted AMP is identical to
that used in the calculation of the
volume-weighted ASP. Other
commenters supported maintaining the
applicable threshold at 5 percent for CY
2011.
Response: We appreciate the
comments regarding our proposed AMP
threshold policies. Since the publication
of the PFS proposed rule, the
preliminary injunction issued by the
United States District Court for the
District of Columbia in National
Association of Chain Drug Stores et al.
v. Health and Human Services, Civil
Action No. 1:07-cv-02017 (RCL) is still
in effect. Additionally, CMS continues
to expect to develop regulations that
will implement the provisions of section
2503 of the ACA, which amended the
definition of AMP. Moreover, section
202 of the Federal Aviation
Administration Air Transportation
Modernization and Safety Improvement
Act (Pub. L. 111–226), (enacted on
August 10, 2010) has further amended
section 1927(k) of the Act. Finally, on
September 3, 2010, we proposed to
withdraw certain provisions of the AMP
final rule published on July 17, 2007 (75
FR 54073).
In light of these factors and comments
received, we are finalizing our proposal
that the AMP applicable threshold be 5
percent for CY 2011. However, we are
not finalizing our proposed adjustments
to the 5 percent AMP threshold that
would specifically apply the applicable
percentage such that comparisons of
ASP to AMP will only be made when—
• The ASP exceeds the AMP by 5
percent in two consecutive quarters
immediately prior to the current pricing
quarter, or three of the previous four
quarters immediately prior to the
current quarter; and
• For those situations where AMP
and ASP comparisons are based on the
same set of NDCs for a billing code (that
is, ‘‘complete’’ AMP data).
We appreciate the submitted
comments and will take them into
account when we revisit the price
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
substitution and AMP threshold issues
in future rulemaking.
Comment: We received a number of
comments regarding our price
substitution proposed policies. Some
commenters supported our proposal
that any substitution would last only for
a single quarter. The majority of
commenters requested that any proposal
should not be implemented until after
CMS published regulations on the
revised definition of AMP. A few
commenters also recommended that
CMS provide adequate notice to
manufacturers prior to making a price
substitution. One commenter suggested
that additional OIG comparison studies
are needed to examine the impact of the
new definition of AMP. Several
commenters requested clarification on
and suggested changes to our proposed
regulatory language. Another
commenter requested clarification on
the timing of price substitutions and
suggested that any price substitution
policies should not be implemented
until the lag time between when the
comparison is made and when the
substitution would be implemented was
decreased. One commenter noted that
the OIG studies are not a reliable
indicator of predicted savings since the
substitution timeframes within the
studies differed from that in our
proposal. All commenters agreed that
any price substitution policy should not
be implemented until after the
preliminary injunction is vacated.
Moreover, several commenters
provided additional information related
to the comparison between ASP and
AMP, including:
• How ASP and AMP each
encompass different sales and rebate
data and are calculated based on
differing statutory definitions;
• The impact of restated AMP data on
comparisons; and
• The effect of price substitutions on
physician acquisition of drugs.
Response: We appreciate the
comments submitted regarding our price
substitution proposal. As discussed
above, recent legislative and regulatory
changes have further affected this issue.
After careful review and
consideration of the comments received,
we will not be finalizing our price
substitution proposal at this time and
thus we will not be finalizing the
proposed regulation text at section
414.904(d). Specifically, we are not
finalizing our proposal for a policy to
substitute 103 percent of AMP for 106
percent of ASP for both multiple and
single source drugs and biologicals as
defined respectively at section
1847(A)(c)(6)(C) and (D) of the Act. This
proposal specifically would have—
PO 00000
Frm 00303
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73471
• Occurred when the applicable
percentage had been satisfied for a
number of calendar quarters as
discussed elsewhere in this rule;
• Permitted for a final comparison
between the OIG’s volume-weighted 103
percent of AMP for a billing code
(calculated from the prior quarter’s data)
and the billing code’s volume weighted
106 percent ASP, as calculated by CMS,
for the current quarter to avoid a
situation in which the Secretary would
inadvertently raise the Medicare
payment limit through this price
substitution policy; and
• Had the duration of the price
substitution lasting for only one quarter.
We are finalizing the portion of our
proposal that sets the AMP threshold at
5 percent CY2011 and have revised the
regulations text accordingly. We remain
committed to proceeding cautiously as
we continue to evaluate the impact of
any future policy developments in this
area.
6. Out of Scope Comments
We received comments pertaining to:
(1) Part B payment for insulin; (2) bona
fide service fees; (3) price concessions
and bundled arrangements in the
calculation of manufacturer ASP data;
(4) updating supplying and dispensing
fees for Part B drugs; (5) developing
standards for manufacturers to not
submit related ASP data; (6) low
reimbursement in a HCPCS-based
claims systems for pharmacies; (7)
claims processing, claims rejection, and
payment delays in Medicare Part B as
compared to Part D; and (8) publishing
reimbursement rates for
radiopharmaceuticals on contractor Web
sites. These comments are outside the
scope of this rule, and therefore are not
addressed in this final rule with
comment period.
B. Ambulance Fee Schedule Issue:
Policy for Reporting Units When Billing
for Ambulance Fractional Mileage
Under the ambulance fee schedule,
the Medicare program pays for
transportation services for Medicare
beneficiaries when other means of
transportation are contraindicated and
all other applicable medical necessity
requirements are met. Ambulance
services are classified into different
levels of ground (including water) and
air ambulance services based on the
medically necessary treatment provided
during transport. These services include
the following levels of service:
• For Ground—
++ Basic Life Support (BLS)
(emergency and nonemergency).
++ Advanced Life Support, Level 1
(ALS1) (emergency and nonemergency).
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73472
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
++ Advanced Life Support, Level 2
(ALS2).
++ Specialty Care Transport (SCT).
++ Paramedic ALS Intercept (PI).
• For Air—
++ Fixed Wing Air Ambulance (FW).
++ Rotary Wing Air Ambulance
(RW).
1. History of Medicare Ambulance
Services
a. Statutory Coverage of Ambulance
Services
Under sections 1834(l) and 1861(s)(7)
of the Act, Medicare Part B
(Supplementary Medical Insurance)
covers and pays for ambulance services,
to the extent prescribed in regulations,
when the use of other methods of
transportation would be contraindicated
by the beneficiary’s medical condition.
The House Ways and Means Committee
and Senate Finance Committee Reports
that accompanied the 1965 Social
Security Amendments suggest that the
Congress intended that—
• The ambulance benefit cover
transportation services only if other
means of transportation are
contraindicated by the beneficiary’s
medical condition; and
• Only ambulance service to local
facilities be covered unless necessary
services are not available locally, in
which case, transportation to the nearest
facility furnishing those services is
covered (H.R. Rep. No. 213, 89th Cong.,
1st Sess. 37 and Rep. No. 404, 89th
Cong., 1st Sess. Pt 1, 43 (1965)).
The reports indicate that
transportation may also be provided
from one hospital to another, to the
beneficiary’s home, or to an extended
care facility.
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
b. Medicare Regulations for Ambulance
Services
Our regulations relating to ambulance
services are set forth at 42 CFR part 410,
subpart B, and 42 CFR part 414, subpart
H. Section 410.10(i) lists ambulance
services as one of the covered medical
and other health services under
Medicare Part B. Therefore, ambulance
services are subject to basic conditions
and limitations set forth at § 410.12 and
to specific conditions and limitations as
specified in § 410.40 and § 410.41. Part
414, subpart H, describes how payment
is made for ambulance services covered
by Medicare.
2. Mileage Reporting—Provisions of the
CY 2011 Proposed Rule
In the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule (75
FR 40159–40161, issued July 13, 2010),
we proposed that, effective for claims
with dates of service on and after
January 1, 2011, ambulance providers
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
and suppliers would be required to
report mileage rounded up to the
nearest tenth of a mile on all claims for
mileage totaling up to 100 covered
miles, as further discussed below. We
stated that we would revise the
instructions set forth in our Claims
Processing Manual to reflect the revised
billing procedures. In this section, we
describe our proposals in the CY 2011
PFS proposed rule, including the
background and current process for
reporting ambulance mileage, the
proposed fractional mileage billing
policy, and our reasons for proposing
revisions to the current mileage
reporting policy.
a. Background and Current Process for
Reporting Ambulance Mileage
Historically, the Medicare FFS claims
processing system lacked the capability
to accept and process fractional unit
amounts reported in any claim format.
Therefore, the standard for reporting
units for ambulance mileage was to bill
in whole number increments. Thus, if
the total units of service for ambulance
mileage included a fractional amount,
providers and suppliers of ambulance
services (hereafter referred to
collectively as ‘‘providers and
suppliers’’) were instructed to round the
fraction up to the next whole number.
Claims billed with fractional units of
service were, at that time, returned as
unprocessable as CMS’ claims
processing systems could not accept nor
adjudicate fractional unit amounts
properly.
Consequently, in Change Request (CR)
1281 (Transmittal AB–00–88, issued on
September 18, 2000), we instituted an
operational procedure requiring wholeunit reporting of mileage on ambulance
claims. Specifically, we instructed
providers and suppliers that ‘‘If mileage
is billed, the miles must be whole
numbers. If a trip has a fraction of a
mile, round up to the nearest whole
number.’’ Our instructions also stated
that ‘‘1’’ should be reported for trips
totaling less than a single mile. This was
an operational instruction based on
Medicare’s FFS system limitations and
capabilities at the time, as our claims
processing systems were not capable of
accepting and processing claims
submitted with fractional units of
service. Since then, our claims
processing system functionality has
evolved to the point where this
rounding process is no longer necessary
for ambulance transports, as it is now
possible for our FFS systems to capture
and accurately process fractional units
on both paper and electronic forms.
Based on our prior instructions,
providers and suppliers continue to
PO 00000
Frm 00304
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
report loaded mileage as whole-number
units on both paper and electronic
claims. Providers and suppliers utilize
the appropriate HCPCS code for
ambulance mileage to report the number
of miles traveled during a Medicarecovered trip rounded up to the nearest
whole mile at a minimum of 1 unit for
the purpose of determining payment for
mileage. Transmittal AB–00–88
established a list of HCPCS codes
accepted by Medicare for the purpose of
billing mileage. Providers and suppliers
were instructed to use these specific
HCPCS codes and enter the total
number of covered miles in the ‘‘units’’
field of the claim form. For example, if
a covered trip from the point of pickup
(POP) to the Medicare-approved
destination (see § 414.40 for a list of
approved destinations) totaled 9.1
miles, the provider would enter the
appropriate HCPCS code for covered
mileage and a ‘‘10’’ in the units field.
Providers and suppliers billing for trips
totaling, for example, 0.5 covered miles,
would enter ‘‘1’’ in the units field along
with the appropriate HCPCS code for
mileage.
b. Concerns Regarding the Potential for
Inaccuracies in Reporting Units and
Associated Considerations
Often an ambulance provider will
transport a distance that is either not an
exact whole number of miles or less
than one whole mile during a covered
trip. Based on our current instructions,
providers and suppliers billing for
ambulance services must round up the
total billable mileage to the nearest
whole mile for trips that include a
fraction of a mile or less than one whole
mile. Because of those instructions, a
provider or supplier is required to bill
as much as 0.9 of a mile more than what
was actually traveled.
We have been contacted by suppliers
on several occasions with concerns
regarding our current instructions for
reporting ambulance mileage. Certain
suppliers believe that our instructions
require them to bill inaccurately. One
company in particular stated that they
routinely need to bill for trips totaling
less than 1 mile. The beneficiaries that
are being transported by this company
live in the immediate vicinity of the
facility to which they are being
transported, and therefore, the number
of loaded miles for each trip totals
approximately one half of a mile. The
company was concerned that since
Medicare requires that they enter a ‘‘1’’
in the units field of their claims for
mileage, they are being overpaid by
Medicare for mileage based on the
service they actually provided.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
However, the company’s main
concern revolved around the risk of
creating an appearance of impropriety.
Although our instructions clearly state
that providers and suppliers should, as
a matter of procedure, round up
fractional mileage amounts to the
nearest whole mile, some providers and
suppliers indicated that they wanted to
bill as accurately as possible and that
they only wanted to be paid for the
service they actually provided. We
thoroughly considered these concerns
while reevaluating the procedure for
reporting units for fractional mileage
amounts.
As we stated in the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule (75 FR 40160), our first
priority in considering the issues raised
by ambulance providers and suppliers
was to ascertain the basis for the current
mileage reporting instructions. As
previously discussed, the original
instructions for reporting fractional
mileage were published in Transmittal
AB–00–88, issued on September 18,
2000. We instructed providers and
suppliers to round fractional mileage
amounts ‘‘up to the nearest whole mile’’
and to enter ‘‘1’’ for fractional mileage
totaling less than one mile. This
particular process had also been in
place prior to issuance of the
transmittal. The reason for the
procedure was that our claims
processing systems were not capable of
accepting and processing claims
submitted with fractional units of
service—even if the service was
commonly measured in fractional
amounts, as with ambulance mileage.
In the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule (75
FR 40160), we then explored whether a
change in our procedure would be: (1)
Appropriate; (2) possible considering
our current system capabilities and
industry standards of measurement; and
(3) applicable to any service other than
ambulance mileage. As to the
appropriateness of changing the
procedure for reporting units of service
on provider claims for fractional
ambulance mileage, we stated in the
proposed rule (75 FR 40160) that we
believe that we should make every effort
to create and implement policies and
processes that create the best
opportunity for accuracy in billing. It is
not our intention to put providers and
suppliers in a position where they are
required to bill inaccurately for the
service they provide. We continue to
strive toward ensuring that providers
and suppliers bill and are paid only for
services actually provided. In the CY
2011 PFS proposed rule (75 FR 40160),
we stated that we believe that changing
our current procedure for reporting
units of service to require reporting of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
fractional mileage will help to ensure
that providers and suppliers can submit
claims that more precisely reflect actual
mileage, and are reimbursed more
accurately for the services they actually
provided. We originally instituted a
policy of accepting and processing only
whole units because at that time system
limitations prevented us from accepting
and processing fractional ambulance
mileage.
Second, we considered in the CY
2011 PFS proposed rule (75 FR 40160)
whether it is currently possible for our
claims processing systems to accept and
process fractional unit amounts on both
paper and electronic claims. Upon
reevaluating our system capabilities, we
found that technological advancements
in Optical Character Recognition (OCR)
and electronic claim submission have
made it possible for our FFS systems to
capture and accurately process
fractional units on both paper and
electronic claims. We note that our
systems currently have the capability to
accept fractional units with accuracy up
to as much as one thousandth of a unit
(that is, to 3 decimal places).
We also considered in the CY 2011
PFS proposed rule (75 FR 40160)
whether ambulance providers and
suppliers have the capability to measure
fractional mileage. This was an
important point because if providers
and suppliers are not able to measure
mileage with any more specificity than
the nearest whole number mile, then
there would be no need to modify the
current procedure for billing fractional
mileage. In that case, providers and
suppliers would continue to report
mileage as whole numbers since they
could measure no more accurately than
that. We stated in the proposed rule that
both analog and digital motor vehicle
odometers are designed to measure
mileage accurately to within a minimum
of a tenth of a mile. While we found that
some vehicle odometers measure
mileage more accurately than a tenth of
a mile, most odometers are accurate to
the nearest tenth of a mile. Additionally,
aircraft geographic positioning system
(GPS) technology provides the means to
accurately determine billable mileage to
the tenth of a mile.
Third, we considered whether a
policy of billing fractional units would
be applicable to any other service
besides ambulance mileage. The units of
service field on both the electronic and
paper claim is used to report the
quantity of services or supplies
provided to Medicare beneficiaries and
is used to report a wide range of services
and supplies including, but not limited
to: number of office visits; anesthesia
minutes; quantity of drugs
PO 00000
Frm 00305
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73473
administered; covered miles. Although
Medicare currently makes payment
based on fractional units for some
services (for example, calculation of
payment after conversion of anesthesia
time reported in minutes to time units),
there is currently no requirement that
providers bill fractional units on the
claim. We stated that if we were to
implement a policy of requiring
reporting of fractional units for other
types of services or supplies, we would
first need to evaluate whether it is
possible to do so considering industry
standards of measurement. As discussed
in the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule (75
FR 40160), we found that providers and
suppliers of ambulance services have
the capability to determine fractional
mileage using standard onboard
equipment, that is, an odometer, GPS,
and/or other similar equipment used to
measure distance traveled. We stated
that this would enable us to readily
implement a fractional unit billing
policy for ambulance mileage; whereas
applicability to other areas (such as
anesthesia, drugs, etc.) would require
more analysis to determine whether a
fractional unit billing policy is feasible,
efficacious, and cost effective.
Additionally, this issue was first raised
by ambulance suppliers who were
concerned about overbilling and being
overpaid by Medicare. Therefore, we
stated in the proposed rule (75 FR
40160) that we believe it is most
reasonable to first address the area
where concerns have been raised (that
is, ambulance mileage) and consider
applicability of this procedure to other
types of services and items in the future.
Finally, and perhaps most
importantly, we considered that our
claims processing system should be
configured to process claims as
accurately as possible so as to provide
for more accurate payments and to
safeguard Medicare dollars. As
previously discussed, we found that
ambulance providers and suppliers
currently have the capability to measure
mileage accurately to within a minimum
of a tenth of a mile using devices (for
example, odometers, and GPS
technology, etc.) already equipped
onboard their vehicles. We stated in the
CY 2011 PFS proposed rule (75 FR
40160) that we believe that requiring
ambulance providers and suppliers to
round (and report) fractional ambulance
mileage up to the next tenth of a mile
strikes a proper balance between
ensuring that the claims processing
system adjudicates a claim as accurately
as the system will permit without
unduly burdening the ambulance
community.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73474
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Based on all of the considerations
noted previously, we proposed that our
claims processing instructions for
submission of claims for ambulance
mileage should be revised to reflect the
current functionality of our claims
processing systems so as to maximize
the accuracy of claims payment, as
further discussed in this section (75 FR
40160).
c. Billing of Fractional Units for Mileage
It is both reasonable and prudent that,
in order to ensure accuracy of payment,
we facilitate and allow submission of
the most accurate information on all
Medicare ambulance claims.
Furthermore, since our claims
processing systems are currently
capable of accepting and processing
fractional units of service, we believe
that ambulance mileage should be billed
to and paid by Medicare in fractional
amounts to enhance payment accuracy.
Based on all the considerations
discussed previously, in the CY 2011
PFS proposed rule (75 FR 40161), we
proposed to require that claims for
mileage submitted by ambulance
providers and suppliers for an
ambulance transport (ground and air) be
billed in fractional units, by rounding
up to the nearest tenth of a mile (with
the exception discussed below). As
previously discussed, we believe that
requiring ambulance providers and
suppliers to round (and report)
fractional mileage up to the next tenth
of a mile would allow us to provide for
more accurate claims payment without
unduly burdening the ambulance
community.
Therefore, in the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule (75 FR 40161), we
proposed that, effective for claims with
dates of service on and after January 1,
2011, ambulance providers and
suppliers would be required to report
mileage rounded up to the nearest tenth
of a mile for all claims for mileage
totaling up to 100 covered miles.
Providers and suppliers would submit
fractional mileage using a decimal in the
appropriate place (for example, 99.9).
Since standard vehicle mileage (analog,
digital, and GPS) is or can be calculated
accurately to the nearest tenth of a mile,
we proposed that the mileage billed to
Medicare by ambulance providers and
suppliers be reported by rounding up to
the next tenth of a mile.
We also stated in the proposed rule
(75 FR 40161) that although the
electronic claim formats can
accommodate fractional mileage when
mileage is equal to or greater than 100
covered miles (for example, 100.0), the
paper claim cannot. Because the Form
CMS–1500 paper claim currently only
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
supports four characters (including the
decimal point) in the units field (Item
24G), we also proposed that mileage
equal to or greater than 100 covered
miles continue to be reported in whole
number miles on both paper and
electronic claims. We proposed that
providers and suppliers would round
up fractional mileage to the next whole
number for mileage that exceeds 100
covered miles and report the resulting
whole number in the units’ field. We
stated that we would revise the
instructions set forth in our Claims
Processing Manual to reflect the revised
procedures for submitting and paying
claims for fractional ambulance mileage.
3. Analysis of and Responses to Public
Comments
We received approximately 131
comments in response to the proposed
rule. We received comments from,
among others, public and private
ambulance companies, national
ambulance organizations, local fire and
EMS departments as well as other
interested parties such as attorneys and
consultants. The responses we received
pertained primarily to the proposed
rule’s financial and administrative
impact, the impact on patient care, and
the overall impact on the ambulance
services industry. A summary of the
comments and our responses are
included below.
a. Basis for Reconsideration of the
Ambulance Mileage Reporting
Requirements
Comment: A few commenters
believed that the concerns discussed in
the proposed rule regarding certain
suppliers’ belief that the current mileage
reporting requirement forced them to
bill inaccurately, were an attempt by
CMS to achieve budgetary savings by
using the concerns of a few companies
as justification. These commenters
stated that CMS should have addressed
the suppliers’ concerns by educating
providers and suppliers about its
current policy of rounding up to the
next whole mile so that they would be
aware that this billing practice is
appropriate, and suggested that CMS
include the current whole mile billing
policy in the regulations to further
reinforce this, rather than implement
the new fractional mileage policy. They
stated that any change to the ambulance
mileage reporting requirement would be
unreasonable and unfounded. The
commenters believed that if accuracy
was a priority, then CMS should have
implemented the fractional mileage
billing policy in Transmittal AB–00–88,
issued September 18, 2000.
PO 00000
Frm 00306
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Response: While the impetus for
reconsidering our policy on ambulance
mileage billing was the concerns raised
by ambulance suppliers wishing to bill
accurately, our basis for moving forward
with the proposed policy was that the
conditions that dictated the original
mileage billing policy have now
changed. As we stated in the proposed
rule (75 FR 40160), technological
advancements in our system capabilities
enabled us to reconsider our policy for
reporting ambulance mileage. We were
originally not capable of receiving or
processing fractional unit amounts on
electronic or paper claims, and thus,
initially, it was necessary to implement
a policy that required providers and
suppliers to round mileage up to the
nearest whole mile—even though that
amount exceeded the miles actually
traveled. As discussed in the CY 2011
PFS proposed rule (75 FR 40159), under
the current policy, the result could be
overpayment for mileage of up to 0.9 of
a mile.
Therefore, this change to our policy
regarding ambulance mileage billing
represents a reasonable and appropriate
change to improve payment accuracy.
The fact that we did not implement
such a policy in the Transmittal cited by
commenters does not negate the fact
that the change is both needed and
appropriate. Again, the original policy
for rounding mileage up to the nearest
whole number mile was based on the
fact that we could not capture and
process fractional mileage on a
Medicare claim. To ignore the current
systems’ capability to more accurately
process claims than what was possible
10 years ago would unnecessarily
perpetuate a less accurate method of
processing claims and would result in
less accurate payments than is possible
with current system capabilities.
For the reasons discussed previously
and in the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule,
we continue to believe that it is
reasonable and appropriate to revise our
claims processing instructions as
discussed in the proposed rule to
require that ambulance mileage be
reported in fractional amounts by
rounding up to the next tenth of a mile.
b. Appropriateness of Fractional
Mileage Reporting Policy
As we discussed in the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule (75 FR 40160), we believe
that reporting of and payment based on
fractional ambulance mileage is
appropriate because it permits
ambulance providers and suppliers to
submit claims that more precisely
reflect actual mileage and to be
reimbursed more accurately for the
services they provide. Although many
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
commenters agreed that billing and
payment accuracy are important,
commenters cited various concerns
regarding the appropriateness of the
policy.
(1) Statutory Compliance and Financial
Impact of Fractional Mileage Policy
Comment: Many commenters believed
that the fractional mileage reporting
policy does not adhere to the ‘‘budget
neutrality principles’’ set forth in 42
U.S.C. 1395m(l)(3)(B). These
commenters interpreted 42
U.S.C.1395m(l)(3)(B) as requiring that
CMS pay the same amount for
ambulance services after
implementation of the fee schedule as it
did prior to the fee schedule with an
inflation adjustment, and stated that in
order to comply with this statute, the
fractional mileage policy must be
implemented in a manner such that any
savings generated by this policy are
reinvested in the ambulance fee
schedule.
Furthermore, commenters asked that
CMS comply with the ‘‘requirement and
commitment made during negotiated
rulemaking to ensure that no money is
taken out of the system.’’ Commenters
cited to the February 27, 2002 final rule
implementing the ambulance fee
schedule, in which we stated that we
would monitor payment data and make
adjustments to the conversion factor
(CF) if the actual experience under the
fee schedule is significantly different
from the assumptions used to establish
the original CF. (67 FR 9102 and 9102).
Several commenters stated that the
fractional mileage policy alters the fee
schedule and therefore requires
reconsideration of the conversion factor
(CF) used to set the ambulance fee
schedule payment amounts so that no
money is removed from the system.
Some commenters believed that the
policy will have a greater effect on
ground ambulance services and
recommended a greater proportional
increase to the CF for ground ambulance
transports versus air ambulance rates.
Response: Section 1834(l)(3)(B) of the
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m(l)(3)(B)) does not
require that we pay the same aggregate
amount for ambulance services after
implementation of the fee schedule as
we did before implementation of the
ambulance fee schedule, or that we
ensure that any savings generated by the
fractional mileage policy be put back
into the ambulance fee schedule. Rather,
this statutory section sets forth the
ambulance inflation factor to be used to
update the ambulance fee schedule rates
each year. Section 1834(l)(3)(B) of the
Act requires that we set the ambulance
fee schedule rates each year at the same
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
level as the previous year increased by
the percentage increase in the CPI–U
(U.S. city average) for the 12-month
period ending in June of the previous
year (as discussed in section VI.P. of
this final rule with comment period,
effective January 1, 2011, the annual
update to the fee schedule rates is
subject to a productivity adjustment).
We have interpreted this provision at
§ 414.610(f) as requiring that the CF, the
air ambulance rates and the mileage
rates be updated annually by the
ambulance inflation factor set forth in
the statute. The fractional mileage
billing policy does not alter the payment
rates set under the ambulance fee
schedule; rather, it is a change to our
operational instructions for reporting
ambulance mileage intended to improve
billing and payment accuracy. After
implementation of the fractional
mileage billing policy, we will continue
to update the rates each year as required
by section 1834(l)(3)(B) of the Act, and
thus we believe this policy is consistent
with section 1834(l)(3)(B) of the Act.
Furthermore, we note that while section
1834(l)(3)(A) of the Act required the
Secretary to ensure that the aggregate
amount of payments made for
ambulance services during 2000
(originally expected to be the first year
of the ambulance fee schedule) did not
exceed the aggregate amount of
payments that would have been made
for such services during such year
absent the fee schedule, it did not set
forth a budget neutrality requirement for
subsequent years.
While some commenters stated that
the fractional mileage billing policy
alters the fee schedule and therefore
requires reconsideration of the
conversion factor (CF) used to set the
ambulance fee schedule payment
amounts so that no money is removed
from the system (citing to the February
27, 2002 final rule implementing the
ambulance fee schedule), we believe
that commenters have misunderstood
our statements in the February 27, 2002
final rule. In the February 27, 2002 final
rule, we stated that we would monitor
payment data and make adjustments to
the conversion factor (CF) if the actual
experience under the fee schedule is
significantly different from the
assumptions used to establish the
original CF as discussed in the February
27, 2002 final rule (67 FR 9102 and
9103).
As stated previously, the fractional
ambulance mileage billing policy does
not change the rates under the
ambulance fee schedule. Rather, it is a
change to our operational procedures for
reporting ambulance mileage intended
to improve billing and payment
PO 00000
Frm 00307
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73475
accuracy. We do not believe that it is
appropriate to adjust the CF or air
ambulance rates as a result of this
policy, as further discussed below.
In the February 27, 2002 final rule
implementing the ambulance fee
schedule (67 FR 9102–9103, 9127,
9134), we stated that we would monitor
the payment data and adjust the CF and
the air ambulance rates if actual
experience under the fee schedule
proved to be significantly different from
the assumptions used to determine the
initial CF and air ambulance rates (for
example, the relative volumes of the
different levels of service (service mix)
and the extent to which providers and
suppliers charge below the fee schedule
(low billers)). Thus, in the February 27,
2002 final rule, we finalized
§ 414.610(g), which at that time stated,
in part, that the ‘‘Secretary will annually
review rates and will adjust the CF and
air ambulance rates if actual experience
under the fee schedule is significantly
different from the assumptions used to
determine the initial CF and air
ambulance rates.’’
In each of the 4 years following
implementation of the ambulance fee
schedule, we reevaluated the effects of
the relative volume of different levels of
ambulance service (service mix) and the
extent to which ambulance providers
and suppliers bill less than the
ambulance fee schedule (low billers) to
determine whether the assumptions
used to set the CF were accurate when
compared to actual billing data. We
found only insignificant differences in
the observed data versus our
assumptions. The differences observed
in any single year were not significant
enough to warrant a change to the CF in
any of the years we monitored. (See 71
FR 69624, 69717, and 69718).
Consequently, in the December 1, 2006
final rule (71 FR 69717–69718), we
discontinued our annual review of the
original CF assumptions and the air
ambulance rates, and revised
§ 410.610(g) to state, in part, that the
‘‘Secretary monitors payment and billing
data on an ongoing basis and adjusts the
CF and air ambulance rates as
appropriate to reflect actual practices
under the fee schedule.’’
We do not believe that adjustments to
the CF or the air ambulance rates are
appropriate as a result of the fractional
mileage billing policy. First, as
discussed previously, the fractional
mileage billing policy has no effect on
the fee schedule rates; rather, it is an
operational procedure for reporting
ambulance mileage. Second, the
purpose of this policy is to improve
billing and payment accuracy for
ambulance mileage. As discussed
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73476
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
previously, under the current whole
mile reporting policy, ambulance
providers and suppliers are billing as
much as 0.9 of a mile more than what
is actually traveled. Commenters suggest
that adjustments to the CF and the air
ambulance rates are necessary to make
up for the fact that ambulance providers
and suppliers will be permitted to
round up only to the nearest tenth of a
mile rather than the nearest whole mile,
resulting in lower mileage
reimbursement on some claims
compared to under the current policy.
The purpose of the fractional mileage
billing policy is to provide for more
accurate billing and payment for
ambulance transports, which we do not
believe can be achieved if we were to
make the adjustments suggested by
commenters. Furthermore, we note that
the current regulation at § 410.610(g)
requires us to monitor billing and
payment data and adjust the CF and air
ambulance rates ‘‘as appropriate’’ to
reflect actual practices under the fee
schedule. This regulation does not
require that we adjust the fee schedule
rates prospectively each time we adopt
operational procedures that differ from
those in place prior to implementation
of the fee schedule.
Furthermore, we believe that the
policy does not have a significant
bearing on the original CF assumptions
that were discussed in the February 27,
2002 final rule (67 FR 9102–03, 9115–
16), and for this reason too, we do not
believe that adjustments to the CF and
air ambulance rates would be
appropriate. Having reevaluated the CF
during the 4 years after implementation
of the ambulance fee schedule and
finding no significant differences in the
observed data versus our original
assumptions, we believe that we will
continue to find insignificant
differences, if any at all, after
implementation of the fractional
mileage billing policy, such that
changing the CF or air ambulance rates
would be unnecessary.
However, as required by § 410.610(g),
we will continue to monitor the billing
and payment data on an ongoing basis,
and will consider adjusting the CF and
air ambulance rates in the future if (and
to the extent) we determine appropriate
to reflect actual experience under the
fee schedule after the policy is
implemented.
Comment: The commenters believed
that the proposed rule would lower
ambulance reimbursement that is
already too low and noted that the fee
schedule rates have not been increased
in the last 2 years. Most of the same
commenters cited a May 2007
Government Accountability Office
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
(GAO) report detailing GAO’s research
findings which indicated that
Medicare’s reimbursement for
ambulance services averages between 6
percent and 17 percent less than the
cost to ambulance companies for the
services they provide.
Response: We reiterate that the
fractional ambulance mileage billing
policy does not change the ambulance
fee schedule rates. The base payment
rate and mileage reimbursement rate
will not be changed by the fractional
mileage billing policy. The fractional
mileage billing policy is strictly an effort
to improve billing and payment
accuracy, and as such, we believe that
it is both reasonable and appropriate to
implement this policy.
In response to the comment that the
fee schedule rates have not been
increased in the past 2 years, we note
that the ambulance inflation factor for
CY 2008 was 2.7 percent and in CY
2009 it was increased to 5 percent, and
thus the CF, air ambulance rates and
mileage rates were increased by 2.3
percent over the previous calendar year
in accordance with the section
1834(l)(3)(B) of the Act. However, we
recognize that the fee schedule rates
were not increased in CY 2010 because
the CPI–U for the 12 month period
ending with June 2009 was negative,
resulting in no increase to the rates
under the statutory formula set forth in
section 1834(l)(3)(B) of the Act.
The 2007 GAO report cited by
commenters estimated that between 39
percent and 56 percent of ambulance
providers and suppliers will realize a
profit under the ambulance fee schedule
after expiration of the temporary
payment provisions in the MMA. The
GAO also noted in the same report that
providers’ expected Medicare margins
will vary greatly depending on their
ability to keep their operating cost low,
and because of that variance, they were
not able to conclude with any certainty
whether providers and suppliers would
see a decrease, increase, or no change in
their profitability as it relates to the
Medicare reimbursement rates after
expiration of the temporary payment
provisions in the MMA.
We seriously considered the findings
in the May 2007 GAO report and,
although we were not bound to the GAO
findings, we agreed with their
recommendation that CMS monitor
utilization of ambulance transports to
ensure that Medicare payments are
adequate to provide for beneficiary
access to ambulance services,
particularly in ‘‘super rural’’ areas. We
note that in the years since the May
2007 GAO report, certain temporary
payment provisions originally set forth
PO 00000
Frm 00308
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
in § 414 of the MMA have been
increased and extended in subsequent
legislation to address these issues.
Specifically, § 414(d) of the MMA added
section 1834(l)(13) of the Act which set
forth payment increases of 1 percent
and 2 percent for urban and rural
ground transports, respectively. Section
146(a) of the MIPPA modified section
1834(l)(13) of the Act to increase these
percentages to 2 percent and 3 percent
for urban and rural transports,
respectively, and to extend these
increases through December 31, 2009.
Subsequently, sections 3105(a) and
10311(a) of the ACA extended these
increases through December 31, 2010.
Furthermore, section 414(c) of the MMA
added section 1834(l)(12) of the Act
which provided a ‘‘super rural’’ bonus
for certain ground transports that
originate in qualified rural areas
effective through December 31, 2009.
Sections 3105(c) and 10311(c) of the
ACA extended this super rural bonus
through December 31, 2010. Finally, we
note that section 146(b)(1) of the
MIPPA, as amended by sections 3105(b)
and 10311(b) of the ACA, provides that
any area that was designated as a rural
area for purposes of making payment for
air ambulance services furnished on
December 31, 2006, shall continue to be
treated as a rural area for purposes of
making payment for air ambulance
services furnished during the period
July 1, 2008 through December 31, 2010.
We have implemented these payment
add-ons in § 414.610(c)(1), (c)(5)(ii) and
(h), respectively.
Comment: Several commenters stated
that cutting already low reimbursement
rates for ambulance providers and
suppliers would result in cutbacks that
would make it difficult to stay in
business and would, therefore, have a
negative impact on patient care. Many
commenters also noted that smaller
companies would be impacted the most
by lowered reimbursement rates, stating
that small companies need the extra
revenue to stay in business. Some
commenters suggested that mileage
charges are the only means ambulance
providers and suppliers have of
recovering increasing, variable costs for
ancillaries—such as oxygen supplies,
disposable supplies, etc.—that are not
separately payable under the fee
schedule. Other commenters believed
that reporting mileage more accurately
will be too costly and would increase
the cost of doing business. Another
commenter responded that the payment
made for mileage represents payment
for the variable cost of transporting
patients and that even short trips have
a cost associated with them. The same
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
commenter pointed out that lowering
the mileage reimbursement would not
adequately reimburse ambulance
providers and suppliers for the cost of
transporting their patients.
Response: As previously stated, the
fractional mileage billing policy is an
effort to improve billing and payment
accuracy. The policy does not modify
the reimbursement rates under the
ambulance fee schedule. While we
remain cognizant of the need for
ambulance providers and suppliers to
remain financially solvent, we must also
ensure that providers and suppliers bill
accurately and that we pay accurately.
We believe the payment implications of
the fractional mileage billing policy are
modest when considering the difference
in reimbursement on a claim by claim
basis, and should not have a significant
impact on the overall financial viability
of individual ambulance providers and
suppliers or on patient care. We
recognize that there is a cost of doing
business. However, as discussed
previously, we believe that it is both
reasonable and appropriate to
implement the policy to provide for
more accurate billing and payment for
ambulance mileage under Medicare. We
do not believe that it is appropriate to
continue the current whole mileage
reporting procedure, which results in
less accurate billing and payment, in
order to provide extra revenue for
providers and suppliers.
Comment: One commenter responded
that the lower reimbursement would
‘‘trickle down’’ to other payers. In other
words, the commenter believes that
other payers would follow CMS’ lead by
adopting similar mileage reporting
requirements, thereby potentially
lowering reimbursement from other
payers as well.
Response: While other payers may
choose to adopt similar requirements for
reporting ambulance mileage, we would
not have any involvement in that
decision. As previously discussed, we
believe that it is reasonable and
appropriate to implement the fractional
mileage billing policy under Medicare
to provide for more accurate billing and
payment for Medicare ambulance
services.
c. Administrative Impact
Comment: Many commenters stated
that the fractional mileage policy would
be administratively burdensome for
medical and billing staff and would
distract their medical staff from their
first priority which is caring for the
patient. The same commenters also
suggested that the policy would be
particularly burdensome for small
ambulance companies. One commenter
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
stated that imposing a requirement to
capture fractional mileage would
complicate the already overwhelming
documentation requirements that they
face. Another commenter believed that
the fractional mileage billing policy
creates undue hardship on an
ambulance industry which is already
overburdened and underfunded.
Response: We believe that capturing
fractional mileage amounts in trip
documentation and on claims will not
create any undue burden on the
ambulance industry. Proper
documentation of trip details, including
mileage traveled, is already a
longstanding Medicare requirement that
remains unchanged and, we believe,
uncompromised by the requirement to
capture the additional digit beyond the
decimal point. As we stated in the
proposed rule, we believe that
implementation of the policy is a
reasonable and appropriate measure to
ensure that claims are adjudicated and
paid as accurately as possible.
Comment: Many commenters
responded that the fractional mileage
billing policy would make it difficult for
ambulance providers and suppliers to
comply with State and local laws which
prohibit billing fractional mileage.
Several commenters cited the City of
Los Angeles as an example of a locality
requiring that mileage be rounded to a
whole number.
Response: We are not aware of any
State or local law(s) that regulate how
claims must be submitted to Medicare.
We did not find any language in the City
of Los Angeles or the Los Angeles
County ordinances that governs claims
submission to other payers, including
Medicare. Further, even if there were a
State or local law that specified a billing
requirement that differed from
Medicare’s requirement, the Medicare
requirement would, nevertheless, be
controlling for claims submitted for
Medicare payment. We note that the
fractional mileage billing policy applies
only to claims submitted to Medicare
and does not dictate how a provider or
supplier reports mileage to other payers.
Thus, while we recognize the possibility
that the requirements for billing
ambulance mileage to State-funded or
other payers may differ, we believe that
the fractional mileage billing policy is
reasonable and appropriate to ensure
that claims submitted to Medicare more
accurately reflect the service(s) rendered
and that our payments to providers and
suppliers are as accurate as possible.
Comment: Several commenters stated
that, if the fractional mileage billing
policy is implemented, the requirements
for billing ambulance mileage to
Medicare will be different than for other
PO 00000
Frm 00309
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73477
payers, and it would make it difficult for
ambulance providers and suppliers to
maintain compliance with the differing
billing requirements. One commenter
stated that since other payers allow
whole number reporting of mileage,
their ambulance company would be
forced to manually change claims in
order to submit fractional mileage to
Medicare.
Response: We understand that payer
requirements may, and often do, vary,
and that providers and suppliers may
need to comply with different payer
billing requirements. Each payer sets its
own requirements for billing and
payment. We believe that most billing
systems are capable of accommodating
the reality of varying billing
requirements amongst different payers.
While additional changes to billing
systems or procedures may be necessary
in some cases to enable mileage to be
reported differently for different payers,
as we stated previously, we continue to
believe that implementation of the
fractional mileage billing policy is
reasonable and appropriate to ensure
more accurate reporting and payment of
ambulance mileage under Medicare.
After considering the comments, for
the reasons discussed previously and in
the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule, we
continue to believe that it is reasonable
and appropriate to revise our claims
processing instructions to require
reporting of and payment based on
fractional mileage, as further discussed
below.
(2) Technical and Other Considerations
(A) Ability To Measure Fractional Miles
Comment: Many commenters
responded that most ambulance
companies do not have the ability to
measure fractional mileage because their
odometer does not show tenths of a
mile. These commenters stated that 67
percent of all new ambulances are Ford
models which do not have a tenths
display on the odometer. One
commenter stated that digital
odometers, in particular, only show
whole miles. Another commenter asked
that CMS prove its assertion that most
vehicle odometers display tenths of a
mile. Yet another commenter suggested
that we provide guidance for
ambulances that do not display tenths of
a mile on the odometer. We also
received a response from a commenter
who believed that GPS can sometimes
be unreliable.
Response: Based on the statement
from many commenters that most new
ambulances are Ford models, we
reviewed owner’s manuals for the Ford
E250, E350, E450 as well as the F350
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73478
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
and F450 vehicles. Our research
revealed that Ford E series and F series
vehicle (typically trucks or vans) chassis
typically provide the base for the Ford
ambulance prep package. We reviewed
Ford’s gauge specifications for model
years 1996 through 2010. In model years
prior to 2004, the standard analog
odometer reflected tenths of a mile.
Model years 2004 and later include
standard digital odometers that show
fractional miles as well as a separate trip
odometer that also displays mileage to
the tenth of a mile. Additionally, the
ambulance prep package includes an
optional onboard trip computer and
navigation system.
We also researched other vehicle
chassis models that may provide the
base for other ambulance prep packages
and may currently be in use by some
providers or suppliers. We reviewed
owner’s manuals for the Dodge Ram
3500 and 4500 for model years 2008 and
2009 and we also researched GM/
Chevrolet G4500 and 3500 for model
years 2009 and 2010. We found that
both Dodge and Chevrolet model
vehicle gauges include odometers and/
or trip odometers that display fractional
mileage. Chevrolet models also include
a retroactive reset feature on the trip
odometer that will calculate the
distance traveled since the engine was
last started in the event the trip
odometer is not reset at the beginning of
the trip.
We found through our research that in
many cases, trip odometers are
mentioned as separate devices from the
basic odometer, particularly in newer
model cars that utilize both digital
gauges. We also found that in some
cases, the basic digital odometer does
not, in fact, have a tenths display. In
those cases, we found that the tenths
display appears only on the trip
odometer. In the proposed rule, we did
not specify the types of odometers that
that may be used to measure fractional
mileage, and thus we are clarifying in
this final rule with comment period that
mileage may be measured using a
separate trip odometer as well.
In light of our review of Ford vehicle
chassis and the assertion that most new
ambulances are Ford vehicles as well as
our review of the other vehicle chassis
models as discussed above, we believe
that most ambulance companies have
the ability to measure fractional mileage
to the tenth of a mile. However, we
recognize that there may be some
ambulance companies that have a small
number of vehicles wherein the gauges
are damaged, missing, or otherwise
unusable, or that may be using nonstandard vehicles that do not have a
fractional mileage display on the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
odometer, trip odometer, GPS
navigation, trip computer, or other
onboard device that measures distance
traveled. We believe that tools used to
measure distance traveled (such as GPS
navigation equipment) are readily
available to the average consumer at a
low cost. As such, ambulance providers
and suppliers are responsible for
ensuring that they have the necessary
equipment to measure fractional
mileage to the tenth of a mile, and
ensuring that onboard vehicle gauges
measuring trip mileage are in working
order. If they are not able to repair said
gauges, they are responsible for ensuring
that they have the necessary equipment
to measure mileage accurately to the
tenth of a mile. Additionally, for those
ambulance providers and suppliers who
have vehicles that include a separate
trip odometer, ambulance providers and
suppliers are still responsible for
ensuring that trip mileage is measured
and reported accurately—even if they
fail to reset the trip odometer at the
beginning of a trip. For example, if the
driver fails to reset the trip odometer at
the beginning of the trip, he or she
would simply document the mileage at
the end of the trip and subtract the
mileage for the previous trip from the
total which would leave a remaining
balance that should correspond to the
distance of the current trip.
With regard to the statement that GPS
can sometimes be unreliable, CMS is not
aware of data that confirms or refutes
this statement. However, in order to
continue to provide ambulance
providers and suppliers with flexibility
in how they can measure fractional
mileage, use of GPS devices will
continue to be acceptable for the
purpose of measuring fractional
mileage.
(B) Ambulance Provider Versus
Supplier Billing
Comment: We received responses
from several commenters who believe
that the fractional mileage billing policy
establishes different requirements for
Part A versus Part B ambulance
providers and suppliers. These
commenters stated that neither
electronic nor paper institutional claims
can accommodate fractional unit
amounts. They cited 42 U.S.C.
1395m(l)(1) which requires that all
ambulance services be paid under the
same fee schedule. Many commenters
believed that Part A providers and Part
B suppliers, respectively, will be treated
differently under the fractional mileage
billing policy and will, therefore, be
paid differently.
Response: Per the version 4010A1
Implementation Guide and the version
PO 00000
Frm 00310
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
5010 TR3 specifications, the ANSI 837I
(institutional) electronic claim format
has the capability to accept fractional
unit amounts up to 3 decimal places,
and thus both ambulance providers and
suppliers will be able to bill fractional
mileage on electronic claims. The
commenters are correct that the Form
UB–04 paper institutional claim does
not currently support fractional unit
amounts. However, the National
Uniform Billing Committee (NUBC) has
recently approved a change to the Form
UB–04 that will allow fractional unit
billing, and this change is scheduled to
take effect in July 2011. Currently, less
than 0.5 percent of all institutional
providers bill Medicare using the paper
Form UB–04. Based on the low number
of providers billing ambulance services
on the Form UB–04 and the fact that the
form is expected to be capable of
accepting fractional unit amounts in
July 2011, we are delaying the
implementation date for ambulance
providers billing on the paper Form
UB–04. If the Form UB–04 is capable of
accepting fractional mileage unit
amounts by the end of July 2011 as
scheduled, ambulance providers billing
on the paper Form UB–04 will be
required to submit fractional mileage in
accordance with this final rule with
comment period for dates of service on
and after August 1, 2011. If paper Form
UB–04 is not capable of accepting
fractional mileage by July 31, 2011, then
implementation of the fractional
mileage policy for these ambulance
providers will be further delayed until
January 1, 2012 to allow ample time for
any changes to the UB–04 to be
implemented. As with other claim
types, ambulance providers billing on
the paper Form UB–04 will report
fractional mileage on all claims for
mileage totaling up to 100 miles.
We note that delayed implementation
of the fractional mileage billing policy
for the small number of providers using
Form UB–04 does not result in suppliers
and providers receiving different rates
under the ambulance fee schedule. As
discussed previously, the fractional
mileage billing policy does not change
the rates under the ambulance fee
schedule for providers or suppliers. It is
strictly a change to our operational
instructions for reporting ambulance
mileage intended to improve billing and
payment accuracy. Thus, after
implementation of the fractional
mileage billing policy, providers and
suppliers will continue to be paid under
the same fee schedule and there will be
no differentiation in rates between
providers and suppliers.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
(C) Billing Software
Comment: We received a few
comments stating that billing systems
will need to be modified to
accommodate the fractional mileage
billing policy. Three commenters stated
that modification of billing software
would be too costly, with one
commenter further stating that the
change would create a hardship for the
billing software developer. Another
commenter believed that changing their
billing system would mean that they
would have to report fractional mileage
to all payers, not just Medicare.
Response: While minor changes to
billing software may be required, any
billing software that is compliant with
ANSI 837 electronic claim standards
should have the capability to accept and
submit fractional unit amounts in the
appropriate field. For providers and
suppliers using paper claim forms to
submit claims to Medicare, again, we
believe that only minor changes to the
units field will be required in order to
submit fractional mileage amounts.
As discussed previously, we
understand that payer requirements
may—and often do—vary, and that
providers and suppliers may need to
comply with different payer billing
requirements. However, the requirement
to bill fractional mileage to Medicare
does not necessarily mean that
providers and suppliers will have to
also submit fractional mileage to other
payers. Each payer sets its own
requirements for billing and payment.
We believe that most billing systems are
capable of accommodating the reality of
varying billing requirements amongst
different payers. While additional
changes to billing systems or procedures
may be necessary in some cases to
enable mileage to be reported differently
for different payers, as we stated
previously, we continue to believe that
implementation of the fractional
mileage billing policy is reasonable and
appropriate to ensure more accurate
reporting of and payment for ambulance
mileage under Medicare.
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
(D) Enforcement and Compliance
Comment: One commenter stated that
the fractional mileage billing policy
would be impossible to verify and/or
enforce.
Response: Upon implementation of
the fractional mileage billing policy,
ambulance providers and suppliers will
still be subject to the same statutory and
regulatory requirements regarding
documentation, fraudulent billing, and
pre- and post-payment review.
Comment: One commenter requested
guidance for providers and suppliers
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
who cannot comply with the fractional
mileage billing policy.
Response: We believe that providers
and suppliers are capable of complying
with the new policy. As discussed
above, we believe that most ambulance
companies have the ability to measure
fractional mileage using standard
onboard devices. Furthermore, we
believe that tools used to measure
distance traveled (such as GPS
navigation) are readily available to the
average consumer at a low cost. Thus,
in those instances where gauges are
damaged, missing or otherwise
unusable, or where companies are using
non-standard vehicles that do not
include a device to measure fractional
mileage, ambulance providers and
suppliers are responsible for ensuring
that they have the necessary equipment
to measure fractional mileage to the
tenth of a mile. Furthermore, billing
software that is compliant with the
ANSI 837 electronic claim format is
capable of capturing and submitting
fractional unit amounts, and fractional
mileage units can be captured on paper
claims (with the exception of paper
Form UB04 claims as discussed
previously). We believe that
implementing the fractional mileage
policy is a reasonable and appropriate
measure to ensure more accurate billing
and payment of Medicare ambulance
transports and thus, ambulance
providers and suppliers (except for
providers billing on Form UB–04 as
discussed previously) are expected to
comply effective January 1, 2011 with
the fractional mileage billing policy
finalized in this final rule with
comment period.
(E) Air Ambulance
Comment: One commenter responded
that the air ambulance segment of the
ambulance industry is overpaid by
Medicare and suggested that we look to
generate savings by changing the
reimbursement for air ambulance
mileage to be based on nautical miles
instead of statutory miles.
Response: As we stated in the
proposed rule, our claims processing
system should be configured to process
claims as accurately as possible so as to
provide more accurate Medicare
payments. Thus, we believe that the
fractional mileage billing policy is a
reasonable and appropriate measure to
enhance billing and payment accuracy
for both air and ground transports. The
issue of basing air ambulance
reimbursement on nautical miles versus
statutory miles was not discussed or
proposed in the CY 2011 PFS proposed
rule, and thus we are not addressing this
PO 00000
Frm 00311
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73479
issue in this final rule with comment
period.
Comment: A few commenters
suggested that the fractional mileage
billing policy will affect ground
ambulance transports but not air
ambulance transports.
Response: The fractional mileage
billing policy will be applied in the
same manner to, and will affect, both
ground and air ambulance transports.
However, since the fractional mileage
billing policy does not apply to mileage
exceeding 100 miles, we recognize that
it may impact a greater percentage of
ground transports than air transports, as
a larger percentage of air transports may
exceed 100 miles. We analyzed claim
payment data for all Part B ambulance
claims paid in 2008. If the fractional
mileage billing policy had been
implemented in 2008, approximately 92
percent of all claims for air ambulance
mileage would have been impacted
versus 99 percent of all claims for
ground ambulance mileage. However,
since air ambulance companies receive
higher mileage reimbursement rates, we
found that the average financial impact
per claim would have been greater for
air ambulance versus ground ambulance
transports. Thus, when we consider
both factors together, it is not clear
whether the overall impact will be
greater for ground ambulance
companies than for air ambulance
companies. Regardless of any potential
differential impact, we believe that
implementation of the fractional
mileage billing policy is a reasonable
and appropriate measure to ensure more
accurate reporting of mileage and more
accurate payments under Medicare for
both ground and air transports.
(F) Miscellaneous Comments
Comment: One commenter questioned
whether the new rounding rule would
create no reimbursement for 0.49 miles.
Response: No. The correct rounding,
based on the fractional mileage billing
policy, would be to always round up the
hundredths place. Therefore, the
provider or supplier in the commenter’s
example would bill 0.5 miles. Likewise,
if the provider or supplier traveled 0.43
miles, they would bill 0.5 miles on their
claim. CMS would apply the normal
calculations for determining the
payment amount using the fractional
mileage units reported.
4. Applicability of the Fractional Billing
Policy to Other Services
We received no comments regarding
the applicability of the fractional unit
billing policy to other services.
Therefore, for the reasons discussed in
the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule (75 FR
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73480
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
40160), we are applying the fractional
unit billing policy only to ambulance
mileage.
5. Final Fractional Mileage Billing
Policy
For the reasons discussed above and
in the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule (75
FR 40159), we believe that it is
reasonable and appropriate to
implement the fractional mileage billing
policy as proposed in the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule effective for claims with
dates of service on and after January 1,
2011 (with the exception discussed
below relating to providers billing on
paper Form UB–04).
Therefore, effective for claims with
dates of service on and after January 1,
2011, ambulance providers and
suppliers (except for providers billing
on paper Form UB–04) are required to
report mileage rounded up to the
nearest tenth of a mile on all claims for
mileage totaling up to 100 covered
miles. Providers and suppliers must
submit fractional mileage using a
decimal in the appropriate place (for
example, 99.9). For example, if the total
miles traveled equals 1.59 miles, then
the provider or supplier must report
‘‘1.6’’ on the claim for mileage. Likewise,
if the total mileage equals 1.53 miles,
the provider or supplier must report
‘‘1.6’’ on the claim.
Although the electronic claim formats
can accommodate fractional mileage
when mileage is equal to or greater than
100 covered miles (for example, 100.0),
as discussed in the proposed rule, the
paper claim cannot. The Form CMS–
1500 paper claim currently only
supports four characters (including the
decimal point) in the units field (Item
24G). Therefore, we are finalizing our
proposal that mileage equal to or greater
than 100 covered miles must continue
to be reported in whole number miles
on both paper and electronic claims.
Providers and suppliers must round up
fractional mileage to the next whole
number for mileage that exceeds 100
covered miles and report the resulting
whole number in the unit field. The
instructions set forth in our Claims
Processing Manual will be updated to
reflect the revised procedures for
submitting and paying claims for
fractional ambulance mileage.
Because the changes to the paper
Form UB–04 necessary to accommodate
fractional units are scheduled to be
completed in July 2011, implementation
of this policy for ambulance providers
that are permitted to bill using the Form
UB–04 is delayed until August 1, 2011
(that is, ambulance providers permitted
to bill on paper form UB–04 will be
required to report fractional mileage in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
accordance with this final rule with
comment period for dates of service on
and after August 1, 2011). If the paper
Form UB–04 is not capable of accepting
fractional mileage by July 31, 2011, then
implementation of this policy for these
ambulance providers will be further
delayed until January 1, 2012. As with
other claim types, upon implementation
of the fractional mileage policy for
providers billing on the paper Form
UB–04, these providers will report
fractional mileage on all claims for
mileage totaling up to 100 miles.
As discussed previously, providers
and suppliers are responsible for
ensuring that they have the necessary
equipment to measure fractional
mileage to the tenth of a mile, and
ensuring that onboard vehicle gauges
measuring trip mileage are in working
order. If they are not able to repair said
gauges, they are responsible for ensuring
that they have the necessary equipment
to measure mileage accurate to the tenth
of a mile. Tools that may be used to
measure trip mileage include, but are
not limited to: Digital or analog
odometers, trip odometers, GPS
navigation, onboard trip computers or
navigation systems.
C. Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule:
Signature on Requisition
In the March 10, 2000 Federal
Register, we published the ‘‘Medicare
Program; Negotiated Rulemaking:
Coverage and Administrative Policies
for Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory
Services’’ proposed rule (65 FR 13082)
announcing and soliciting comments on
the results of our negotiated rulemaking
committee tasked to establish national
coverage and administrative policies for
clinical diagnostic laboratory tests
under Part B of Medicare. In our final
rule published in the November 23,
2001 Federal Register (66 FR 58788), we
explained our policy on ordering
clinical diagnostic laboratory services
and amended § 410.32 to make our
policy more explicit. Our regulation at
§ 410.32(a) states the requirement that
‘‘[a]ll diagnostic x-ray tests, diagnostic
laboratory tests, and other diagnostic
tests must be ordered by the physician
who is treating the beneficiary.’’ In the
November 23, 2001 final rule, we added
paragraph (d)(2) to § 410.32 to require
that the physician or qualified
nonphysician practitioner (NPP) (that is,
clinical nurse specialists, clinical
psychologists, clinical social workers,
nurse-midwives, nurse practitioners
(NPs), and physician assistants (PAs))
who order the service must maintain
documentation of medical necessity in
the beneficiary’s medical record (66 FR
58809). In the preamble discussions to
PO 00000
Frm 00312
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the March 10, 2000 proposed rule and
November 23, 2001 final rule (65 FR
13089 and 66 FR 58802, respectively),
we noted that ‘‘[w]hile the signature of
a physician on a requisition is one way
of documenting that the treating
physician ordered the test, it is not the
only permissible way of documenting
that the test has been ordered.’’ In those
preambles, we described the policy of
not requiring physician signatures on
requisitions for clinical diagnostic
laboratory tests, but implicitly left in
place the existing requirements for a
written order to be signed by the
ordering physician or NPP for clinical
diagnostic laboratory tests, as well as
other types of diagnostic tests. We
further stated in the preambles of the
proposed and final rules that we would
publish an instruction to Medicare
contractors clarifying that the signature
of the ordering physician is not required
for Medicare purposes on a requisition
for a clinical diagnostic laboratory test
(65 FR 13089 and 66 FR 58802).
On March 5, 2002, we published a
program transmittal implementing the
administrative policies set forth in the
final rule, including the following
instruction: ‘‘Medicare does not require
the signature of the ordering physician
on a laboratory service requisition.
While the signature of a physician on a
requisition is one way of documenting
that the treating physician ordered the
service, it is not the only permissible
way of documenting that the service has
been ordered. For example, the
physician may document the ordering of
specific services in the patient’s medical
record.’’ (Transmittal AB–02–030,
Change Request 1998, dated March 5,
2002).
On January 24, 2003, we published a
program transmittal in order to
manualize the March 5, 2002
Transmittal. (Transmittal 1787, Change
Request 2410, dated January 24, 2003).
The cover note to the transmittal states,
‘‘Section 15021, Ordering Diagnostic
Tests, manualizes Transmittal AB–02–
030, dated March 5, 2002. In accordance
with negotiated rulemaking for
outpatient clinical diagnostic laboratory
services, no signature is required for the
ordering of such services or for
physician pathology services.’’ In the
manual instructions in that transmittal
in a note, we stated: ‘‘No signature is
required on orders for clinical
diagnostic services paid on the basis of
the physician fee schedule or for
physician pathology services.’’ The
manual instructions did not explicitly
reference clinical diagnostic laboratory
tests as the cover note did. Rather, the
transmittal seemed to extend the policy
set forth in the Federal Register (that no
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
signature is required on requisitions for
clinical diagnostic laboratory tests paid
under the CLFS) to also apply to clinical
diagnostic tests paid on the basis of the
PFS and physician pathology services.
In addition, the manual instructions
used the term ‘‘order’’ instead of
‘‘requisition,’’ which some members of
the industry have asserted caused
confusion.
When we transitioned from paper
manuals to the current electronic
Internet Only Manual system, these
manual instructions were inadvertently
omitted from the new Benefit Policy
Manual (BPM).
In August 2008, we issued a program
transmittal (Transmittal 94, Change
Request 6100, dated August 29, 2008) to
update the BPM to incorporate language
that was previously contained in section
15021 of the Medicare Carriers Manual.
The reissued language states, ‘‘No
signature is required on orders for
clinical diagnostic tests paid on the
basis of the CLFS, the physician fee
schedule, or for physician pathology
services.’’ Based on further review, we
determined that there are no clinical
diagnostic laboratory tests paid under
the PFS. After Transmittal 94 was
published, we received numerous
inquiries from laboratory, diagnostic
testing, and hospital representatives
who had questions about whether the
provision applied to all diagnostic
services, including x-rays, MRIs, and
other nonclinical laboratory fee
schedule diagnostic services.
To resolve any existing confusion
surrounding the implementation of the
policy in 2001 and subsequent
transmittals, we restated and solicited
public comments on our policy in the
CY 2010 PFS proposed rule (74 FR
33641). Our current policy is that a
physician’s signature is not required on
a requisition for clinical diagnostic
laboratory tests paid on the basis of the
CLFS. However, it must be evident, in
accordance with our regulations at
§ 410.32(d)(2) and (3), that the physician
ordered the services.
We note that we solicited and
received comments on this signature
requirement during the notice and
comment period for the March 10, 2000
proposed rule in the context of our
proposal to add paragraph (d)(2)(i) to
§ 410.32 to require that the practitioner
who orders a diagnostic laboratory test
must maintain documentation of
medical necessity in the beneficiary’s
medical record. The majority of
comments supported the adoption of a
policy that the signature of the
practitioner on a requisition for a
clinical diagnostic laboratory test paid
under the CLFS is not the only way of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
documenting that the test has been
ordered and, thus, should not be
required provided such documentation
exists in an alternate form.
This policy regarding requisitions for
clinical diagnostic laboratory tests does
not supersede other applicable Medicare
requirements (such as those related to
hospital Conditions of Participation
(CoPs)) which require the medical
record to include an order signed by the
physician who is treating the
beneficiary. Nor do we believe that
anything in our policy regarding
signatures on requisitions for clinical
diagnostic laboratory tests supersedes
other requirements mandated by
professional standards of practice or
obligations regarding orders and
medical records promulgated by
Medicare, the Joint Commission (TJC),
or State law; nor do we believe the
policy would require providers to
change their business practices.
We also restated and solicited public
comment on our longstanding policy
consistent with the principle in
§ 410.32(a) that a written order for
diagnostic tests including those paid
under the CLFS and those that are not
paid under the CLFS (for example, that
are paid under the PFS or under the
OPPS), such as X-rays, MRIs, and the TC
of physician pathology services, must be
signed by the ordering physician or
NPP. That is, the policy that signatures
are not required on requisitions for
clinical diagnostic laboratory tests paid
based on the CLFS applies only to
requisitions (as opposed to written
orders) (74 FR 33642).
Additionally, we solicited public
comments about the distinction between
an order and a requisition (74 FR
33642). We note that an ‘‘order’’ as
defined in our IOM, 100–02, Chapter 15,
Section 80.6.1, is a communication from
the treating physician/practitioner
requesting that a diagnostic test be
performed for a beneficiary. The order
may conditionally request an additional
diagnostic test for a particular
beneficiary if the result of the initial
diagnostic test ordered yields to a
certain value determined by the treating
physician/practitioner (for example, if
test X is negative, then perform test Y).
As set forth in the CY 2010 PFS final
rule (FR 74 61930), an order may be
delivered via any of the following forms
of communication:
• A written document signed by the
treating physician/practitioner, which is
hand-delivered, mailed, or faxed to the
testing facility.
• A telephone call by the treating
physician/practitioner or his or her
office to the testing facility.
PO 00000
Frm 00313
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73481
• An electronic mail, or other
electronic means, by the treating
physician/practitioner or his or her
office to the testing facility.
If the order is communicated via
telephone, both the treating physician/
practitioner, or his or her office, and the
testing facility must document the
telephone call in their respective copies
of the beneficiary’s medical records.
In the CY 2010 PFS proposed rule (74
FR 33642), we defined a ‘‘requisition’’ as
the actual paperwork, such as a form,
which is provided to a clinical
diagnostic laboratory that identifies the
test or tests to be performed for a
patient. It may contain patient
information, ordering physician
information, referring institution
information, information about where to
send reports, billing information,
specimen information, shipping
addresses for specimens or tissue
samples, and checkboxes for test
selection. We believe it is ministerial in
nature, assisting laboratories with
billing and handling of results, and
serves as an administrative convenience
to providers and patients. We believe
that a written order, which may be part
of the medical record, and the
requisition, are two different
documents, although a requisition that
is signed may serve as an order. We
welcomed comments from the public
about the distinction between
requisitions and orders.
During the proposed and final
rulemaking process for CY 2010, we
received numerous comments on these
issues, including, among others:
Expressions of continued confusion
over the difference between an ‘‘order’’
and a ‘‘requisition’’; requests that we
develop a single policy for all outpatient
laboratory services, without the
distinction for those paid under the
CLFS or the PFS; and concerns about
reference laboratory technicians who
believed compelled to perform a test in
order to protect the viability of the
specimen although they did not have
the proper documentation. (See 74 FR
61929 through 61931 for a complete
discussion of the comments received
and responses to these issues.) In the CY
2010 PFS final rule with comment
period (74 FR 61931), we stated that, in
light of the issues and concerns raised
during the comment period, and our
desire to create policy that will address
the concerns in a meaningful, clear and
thoughtful way, we would continue to
carefully consider the issues of
physician signatures on requisitions and
orders and that we plan to revisit these
issues in the future paying particular
attention to the definitions of order and
requisition.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73482
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Since the publication of the CY 2010
PFS final rule with comment period, we
have considered an approach that
would address the concerns raised.
Therefore, in the CY 2011 PFS proposed
rule (75 FR 40162), we proposed to
require a physician’s or NPP’s signature
on requisitions for clinical diagnostic
laboratory tests paid on the basis of the
CLFS. We stated that we believe that
this policy would result in a less
confusing process because a physician’s
signature would then be required for all
requisitions and orders, eliminating
uncertainty over whether the
documentation is a requisition or an
order, whether the type of test being
ordered requires a signature, or which
payment system does or does not
require a physician or NPP signature.
We also stated that we believe that it
would not increase the burden on
physicians because it is our
understanding that, in most instances,
physicians are annotating the patient’s
medical record with either a signature
or an initial (the ‘‘order’’), as well as
providing a signature on the paperwork
that is provided to the clinical
diagnostic laboratory that identifies the
test or tests to be performed for a patient
(the ‘‘requisition’’) as a matter of course.
Further, we stated that this policy
would make it easier for the reference
laboratory technicians to know whether
a test is appropriately requested, and
potential compliance problems would
be minimized for laboratories during the
course of a subsequent Medicare audit
because a signature would be
consistently required. We stated in the
CY 2011 OPPS/ASC proposed rule that
this minimizes confusion and provides
a straightforward directive for
laboratories to meet.
Comment: Some commenters stated
that physicians continue to be
unfamiliar with when a signature is
required and when it is not required on
requisitions for physician pathology
services, x-ray services, and services
other than clinical diagnostic laboratory
tests paid under the CLFS. The
commenters also asked for consistency
in signature requirements between
services required under the CLFS and
the Physician Fee Schedule (PFS).
Response: We proposed to require a
physician’s or NPP’s signature on
requisitions for clinical diagnostic
laboratory tests paid under the CLFS.
We did not propose to change, and we
are not changing, the signature
requirements for other services. One of
the reasons we made this proposal is
because we believed that it would be
less confusing for a physician’s
signature to be required for all
requisitions and orders, eliminating
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
uncertainty over whether the
documentation is a requisition or an
order, whether the type of test being
ordered requires a signature, or which
payment system does or does not
require a physician or NPP signature.
Comment: Some commenters were
supportive of our proposal.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ support of our proposed
policy, which we are finalizing in this
rule.
Comment: The commenters seemed to
interpret the proposed policy to mean
that clinical diagnostic laboratory tests
requested by telephone or electronic
means would not be acceptable because
they would not contain a signature. The
commenters stated that there must be a
way to validate electronic requests for
services by the physician or NPP and
that, as the medical world moves toward
electronic records, everything must be
annotated (that is, ‘‘signed’’) in some
way to authenticate that the service is
ordered by the physician.
Response: Our proposed policy does
not concern electronic or telephonic
requests, because we do not consider
these types of requests to be
requisitions. As we discussed
previously, a requisition is the actual
paperwork, such as a form, that is
provided to a clinical diagnostic
laboratory that identifies the test or tests
to be performed for a patient. It may
contain patient information, ordering
physician information, referring
institution information, information
about where to send reports, billing
information, specimen information,
shipping addresses for specimens or
tissue samples, and checkboxes for test
selection. We believe it is ministerial in
nature, assisting laboratories with the
billing and handling of results, and
serves as an administrative convenience
to providers and patients. When a
physician or NPP chooses to use a
requisition to request a clinical
diagnostic laboratory test paid under the
CLFS, under the policy we are adopting
in this rule, the physician or NPP must
sign the requisition.
Comment: The commenters pointed
out that it should be evident from the
medical record that the physician
actually ordered the service.
Response: We did not propose to
change any requirements with respect to
orders. As discussed above, a
requisition is the actual paperwork,
such as a form, which is provided to a
clinical diagnostic laboratory that
identifies the test or tests to be
performed for a patient. Our proposal
only applies to signatures on
requisitions for clinical diagnostic
laboratory tests paid under the CLFS. A
PO 00000
Frm 00314
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
signature on a requisition should be
sufficient for a clinical diagnostic
laboratory to verify that a physician or
NPP is requesting a clinical diagnostic
laboratory test.
Comment: The commenters stated
that the patient rarely takes the
requisition to the laboratory himself/
herself because the patient does not go
to the laboratory. These commenters
seemed to believe that, in those cases,
a paper request for clinical diagnostic
laboratory services would have to be
created where there may not have been
a need for one to exist. The commenters
suggested that only the medical record,
and not any other paper materials,
should be signed or initialed by the
physician.
Response: As stated previously, a
requisition is the actual paperwork,
such as a form, which is provided to a
clinical diagnostic laboratory that
identifies the test or tests to be
performed for a patient. Under our
proposed policy, which we are
finalizing in this rule, if a physician or
NPP chooses to use a requisition to
request a clinical diagnostic laboratory
test paid under the CLFS, the physician
or NPP must sign the form. However,
this policy does not require a physician
or NPP to use a requisition to request a
clinical diagnostic laboratory test paid
under the CLFS. Many physicians and
NPPs currently request clinical
diagnostic laboratory tests using an
order, such as an annotated medical
record or documented telephonic
request, and they may continue to do so
without being impacted by our new
policy for requisitions.
Comment: The commenters suggested
that physicians would need to be
educated about the new signature
requirement on requisitions for clinical
diagnostic laboratory tests paid under
the CLFS to alleviate problems such as
physician non-compliance with this
policy because they are unaware of it or
do not understand it. Some commenters
stated that they firmly believe that the
physician will neglect to sign any
document that directs the clinical
diagnostic laboratory to perform a
service. In order to incentivize
physicians to provide a signature, some
commenters suggested tying the
physician’s ability to bill for a service to
the requirement to provide a signature.
Response: We understand the need to
educate physicians and NPPs. As such,
in addition to updating our manuals, we
will direct the Medicare contractors to
educate physicians and NPPs
concerning this issue. We did not
propose to adopt a policy linking the
physician’s ability to bill for a service to
the requirement to provide a signature
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
and we are not adopting such policy in
this final rule.
Comment: The commenters believe
that medical personnel are already
required to provide an extensive amount
of identifying information on the
requisition. The commenters stated that
either the physician or NPP is
completing the paperwork but then, in
most cases, not signing it or initialing it
to confirm that the required service was
documented by a medical practitioner.
Response: If physicians and NPPs are
completing extensive written
documentation concerning each
beneficiary on requisitions, the addition
of a signature should not be an issue.
Comment: The commenters expressed
continued confusion over the terms
‘‘requisition’’ and ‘‘order.’’ The
commenters stated that CMS should
define ‘‘requisition’’ and ‘‘order’’ in the
CMS Internet Only Manual (IOM)
system.
Response: We recognize that there is
confusion around the definition of these
terms. However, as we stated above, we
define an ‘‘order’’ (IOM, 100–02, Chapter
15, Section 80.6.1) as a communication
from the treating physician/practitioner
requesting that a diagnostic test be
performed for a beneficiary. We further
provided that an order may be delivered
via any of the following forms of
communication: (1) A written document
signed by the treating physician/
practitioner, which is hand-delivered,
mailed, or faxed to the testing facility;
(2) a telephone call by the treating
physician/practitioner or his or her
office to the testing facility; or (3) an
electronic mail, or other electronic
means, by the treating physician/
practitioner or his or her office to the
testing facility. If the order is
communicated via telephone, both the
treating physician/practitioner, or his or
her office, and the testing facility must
document the telephone call in their
respective copies of the beneficiary’s
medical records. We define a
‘‘requisition’’ as the actual paperwork,
such as a form, which is provided to a
clinical diagnostic laboratory that
identifies the test or tests to be
performed for a patient. It may contain
patient information, ordering physician
information, referring institution
information, information about where to
send reports, billing information,
specimen information, shipping
addresses for specimens or tissue
samples, and checkboxes for test
selection. We believe it is ministerial in
nature, assisting laboratories with
billing and handling of results, and
serves as an administrative convenience
to providers and patients. We believe
that a written order, which may be part
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
of the medical record, and the
requisition, are two different
documents, although a requisition that
is signed may serve as an order. We are
revising our manuals to reflect our new
requirement for physicians’ and NPPs’
signatures on requisitions for clinical
diagnostic laboratory tests paid under
the CLFS.
Comment: The commenters note that
there is no corresponding suggested
change in the language of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) concerning
the physician signature issue.
Response: We have determined that a
change to § 410.32(d)(2) is not necessary
with respect to this issue because this
provision involves orders not
requisitions. We articulated our policy
regarding requisitions for clinical
diagnostic laboratory tests in our
manuals and in preamble language.
Therefore, we are changing our manuals
to reflect our new policy.
Comment: The commenters suggested
that the requirement to provide some
type of signature represents an undue
burden on the clinical diagnostic
laboratory, especially in the long term
care world where standing orders in the
form of a ‘‘plan of care’’ are maintained
in the beneficiary’s records onsite and
tests are ordered by the long term care
staff as required based on directions
provided by the physician. The
commenters asserted that the physician
rarely appears onsite at the facility to
sign requests for medical services and,
as a result, an exception for these types
of facilities is warranted. However,
commenters also pointed to a Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA)
requirement for long term care facilities
which states that, ‘‘The facility must
provide or obtain laboratory services
only when ordered by the attending
physician.’’
Response: Again, the change in policy
discussed in this final rule only affects
requisitions and does not affect orders.
The policy that we proposed and are
adopting as final in this rule is that a
physician’s or NPP’s signature is
required on requisitions for clinical
diagnostic laboratory tests paid under
the CLFS.
Comment: The commenters suggested
that the following language was clear
and should stand as the entire policy
here: ‘‘A physician’s signature is not
required on a requisition for clinical
diagnostic laboratory tests paid on the
basis of the Clinical Laboratory Fee
Schedule (CLFS); however, it must be
evident, in accordance with regulations
at § 410.32(d)(2) and (3), that the
physician ordered the services.’’
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ viewpoint. However, for
PO 00000
Frm 00315
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73483
the reasons discussed previously, we are
finalizing our proposal, without
modification, to require a physician’s or
NPP’s signature on requisitions for
clinical diagnostic laboratory tests paid
under the CLFS.
Comment: The commenters suggested
that a pre-printed physician signature or
letterhead showing the physician’s
name should serve in the place of a
‘‘signature.’’
Response: A pre-printed signature or
letterhead cannot be construed as a
document, the contents of which a
physician or NPP has affirmed. In order
to discourage fraud and abuse, and to
affirm that a medical service was
ordered by a medical practitioner who
currently works in the practice, a
signature is required.
Comment: The commenters stated
that the services are transcribed from
the medical record onto the requisition
by office staff, not written and signed by
the physician. The commenters seemed
to indicate that the medical record that
would be maintained in the physician’s
office, but not necessarily the
requisition, would be signed or
annotated in some way.
Response: It seems that the
commenters believe that a physician or
his/her representative has no problem
providing a signature or annotation for
the medical record. In addition, some
commenters consider the ‘‘requisition’’
to be the medical record and use it for
a dual purpose—as the beneficiary’s file
and as the request for services.
After careful consideration of all the
comments received, we are finalizing
our proposed policy without
modification to require a physician’s or
NPP’s signature on requisitions for
clinical diagnostic laboratory tests paid
under the CLFS. This policy does not
affect physicians or NPPs who choose
not to use requisitions to request
clinical diagnostic laboratory tests paid
under the CLFS. Such physicians or
NPPs can continue to request such tests
by other means, such as by using the
annotated medical records, documented
telephonic requests, or electronically.
We will make changes to our manuals
to reflect this final policy.
D. Discussion of Budget Neutrality for
the Chiropractic Services Demonstration
Section 651 of MMA requires the
Secretary to conduct a demonstration
for up to 2-years to evaluate the
feasibility and advisability of expanding
coverage for chiropractic services under
Medicare. Current Medicare coverage
for chiropractic services is limited to
manual manipulation of the spine to
correct a subluxation described in
section 1861(r)(5) of the Act. The
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73484
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
demonstration expanded Medicare
coverage to include ‘‘A) care for
neuromusculoskeletal conditions
typical among eligible beneficiaries;
B) and diagnostic and other services that
a chiropractor is legally authorized to
perform by the State or jurisdiction in
which such treatment is provided’’ and
was conducted in four geographically
diverse sites, two rural and two urban
regions, with each type including a
Health Professional Shortage Area
(HPSA). The two urban sites were 26
counties in Illinois and Scott County,
Iowa, and 17 counties in Virginia. The
two rural sites were the States of Maine
and New Mexico. The demonstration,
which ended on March 31, 2007, was
required to be budget neutral as section
651(f)(1)(B) of MMA mandates the
Secretary to ensure that ‘‘the aggregate
payments made by the Secretary under
the Medicare program do not exceed the
amount which the Secretary would have
paid under the Medicare program if the
demonstration projects under this
section were not implemented.’’
In the CY 2006, 2007, and 2008 PFS
final rules with comment period (70 FR
70266, 71 FR 69707, 72 FR 66325,
respectively), we included a discussion
of the strategy that would be used to
assess budget neutrality (BN) and the
method for adjusting chiropractor fees
in the event the demonstration resulted
in costs higher than those that would
occur in the absence of the
demonstration. We stated BN would be
assessed by determining the change in
costs based on a pre-post comparison of
total Medicare costs for beneficiaries in
the demonstration and their
counterparts in the control groups and
the rate of change for specific diagnoses
that are treated by chiropractors and
physicians in the demonstration sites
and control sites. We also stated that our
analysis would not be limited to only
review of chiropractor claims because
the costs of the expanded chiropractor
services may have an impact on other
Medicare costs for other services.
In the CY 2010 PFS final rule with
comment period (74 FR 61926), we
discussed the evaluation of this
demonstration conducted by Brandeis
University and the two sets of analyses
used to evaluate budget neutrality. In
the ‘‘All Neuromusculoskeletal
Analysis,’’ which compared the total
Medicare costs of all beneficiaries who
received services for a
neuromusculoskeletal condition in the
demonstration areas with those of
beneficiaries with similar characteristics
from similar geographic areas that did
not participate in the demonstration, the
total effect of the demonstration to
Medicare was a $114 million increase in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
costs. In the ‘‘Chiropractic User
Analysis,’’ which compared the
Medicare costs of beneficiaries who
used expanded chiropractic services to
treat a neuromusculoskeletal condition
in the demonstration areas, with those
of beneficiaries with similar
characteristics who used chiropractic
services as currently covered by
Medicare to treat a
neuromusculoskeletal condition from
similar geographic areas that did not
participate in the demonstration, the
total effect of the demonstration to
Medicare was a $50 million increase in
costs.
As explained in the CY 2010 PFS final
rule, we based the BN estimate on the
‘‘Chiropractic User Analysis’’ because of
its focus on users of chiropractic
services rather than all Medicare
beneficiaries with neuromusculoskeletal
conditions, including those who did not
use chiropractic services and who may
not have become users of chiropractic
services even with expanded coverage
for them (74 FR 61926 through 61927).
Users of chiropractic services are most
likely to have been affected bythe
expanded coverage provided by this
demonstration. Cost increases and
offsets, such as reductions in
hospitalizations or other types of
ambulatory care, are more likely to be
observed in this group.
As explained in the CY 2010 PFS final
rule (74 FR 61927), because the costs of
this demonstration were higher than
expected and we did not anticipate a
reduction to the PFS of greater than 2
percent per year, we finalized a policy
to recoup $50 million in expenditures
from this demonstration over a 5-year
period, from CYs 2010 through 2014
(74 FR 61927). Specifically, we are
recouping $10 million for each such
year through adjustments to the
chiropractic CPT codes. Payment under
the PFS for these codes will be reduced
by approximately 2 percent. We believe
that spreading this adjustment over a
longer period of time will minimize its
potential negative impact on
chiropractic practices.
We are continuing the
implementation of the required budget
neutrality adjustment by recouping
$10 million in CY 2011. Our Office of
the Actuary estimates chiropractic
expenditures in CY 2011 to be
approximately $524 million based on
actual Medicare spending for
chiropractic services for the most recent
available year. To recoup $10 million in
CY 2011, the payment amount under the
PFS for the chiropractic CPT codes (that
is, CPT codes 98940, 98941, and 98942)
will be reduced by approximately 2
percent. We are reflecting this reduction
PO 00000
Frm 00316
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
only in the payment files used by the
Medicare contractors to process
Medicare claims rather than through
adjusting the relative value units
(RVUs). Avoiding an adjustment to the
RVUs would preserve the integrity of
the PFS, particularly since many private
payers also base payment on the RVUs.
We received no comments on this
policy and we will continue the
implementation of the required budget
neutrality adjustment in CY 2011 by
reducing the payment amount under the
PFS for chiropractic codes (that is, CPT
codes 98940, 98941, and 98942) by
approximately 2 percent resulting in a
$10 million recoupment. This is the
second year of an adjustment which is
required in order to satisfy the budget
neutrality requirement in section 651 of
MMA and that is being made over a
5-year period to recoup the costs of a
demonstration that expanded Medicare
coverage for chiropractic services. This
reduction will only be reflected in the
payment files used by Medicare
contractors to process Medicare claims
and not through an adjustment to the
RVUs.
E. Provisions Related to Payment for
Renal Dialysis Services Furnished by
End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD)
Facilities
Subsequent to the July 13, 2010
publication of the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule (75 FR 40040) we
published in the Federal Register, on
August 12, 2010 a final rule entitled
‘‘End-Stage Renal Disease Prospective
Payment System’’ (75 FR 49030). In that
rule, we established a case-mix adjusted
bundled PPS for renal dialysis services
furnished beginning January 1, 2011, in
accordance with the statutory
provisions set forth in section 153(b) of
MIPPA. The ESRD PPS is mandated to
replace the current basic case-mix
adjusted composite payment system and
the methodologies for the
reimbursement of separately billable
outpatient ESRD services.
As explained in the ESRD PPS final
rule (75 FR 49162), section
1881(b)(14)(E)(i) of the Act requires a 4year transition (phase-in) from the
current composite payment system to
the ESRD PPS, and section
1881(b)(14)(E)(ii) of the Act allows
ESRD facilities to make a one-time
election to be excluded from the
transition. Electing to be excluded from
the 4-year transition means that the
ESRD facility receives payment for renal
dialysis services based on 100 percent of
the payment rate established under the
ESRD PPS, rather than a blended rate for
each year of the transition based in part
on the payment rate under the current
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
payment system and in part on the
payment rate under the ESRD PPS.
For renal dialysis services furnished
during CY 2011, ESRD facilities that
elect to go through the ESRD PPS the
transition would be paid a blended
amount that will consist of 75 percent
of the basic case-mix adjusted
composite payment system and the
remaining 25 percent would be based on
the ESRD PPS payment. Thus, we must
continue to update the basic case-mix
adjusted composite payment system
during the ESRD PPS 4-year transition
(CYs 2011 through 2013).
For a historical perspective of the
basic case-mix adjusted composite rate
payment system for ESRD facilities that
furnish outpatient dialysis services, see
the following PFS final rules with
comment period:
• CY 2005 (69 FR 66319 through
66334).
• CY 2006 (70 FR 70161 through
70171).
• CY 2007 (71 FR 69681 through
69688).
• CY 2008 (72 FR 66280 through
66285).
• CY 2009 (73 FR 69754 through
69761).
• CY 2010 (74 FR 61921 through
61926).
In the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule (75
FR 40165 through 40168), we outlined
the proposed updates to the basic casemix adjusted composite payment system
established under section 1881(b)(12) of
the Act, which included updates to the
drug add-on, as well as the wage index
values used to adjust the labor
component of the composite rate.
Specifically, as described in more detail
below in this section, we proposed the
following:
• A zero growth update to the drug
add-on, resulting in a proposed 14.7
percent add-on adjustment to the
composite rate for 2011 required by
section 1881(b)(12)(F) of the Act to
maintain a $20.33 per treatment drug
add-on amount.
• An update to the wage index
adjustment to reflect the latest available
wage data, including a revised budget
neutrality (BN) adjustment factor of
1.056929.
• A reduction to the ESRD wage
index floor from 0.6500 to 0.6000.
We received very few comments on
our proposals. The ESRD payment
related comments are discussed below
in this section.
1. Update to the Drug Add-on
Adjustment to the Composite Rate
In the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule (75
FR 40165), we described the drug
payment methodology used to update
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
the drug add-on adjustment to the
composite rate. Since we now have 4
years of drug expenditure data based on
ASP pricing, we proposed to continue
estimating growth in drug expenditures
based on the trends in available data.
We did not receive any comments
objecting to the drug add-on update
methodology, and therefore, we used
the proposed update methodology to
compute the drug add-on adjustment for
CY 2011. We used trend analysis from
drug expenditure data to update the per
treatment drug add-on adjustment. We
then removed growth in enrollment for
the same time period from the
expenditure growth, so that the residual
reflects per patient expenditure growth
(which includes price and utilization
combined).
To estimate drug expenditure growth
using trend analysis, we looked at the
average annual growth in total drug
expenditures between 2006 and 2009.
First, we estimated the total drug
expenditures for all ESRD facilities in
CY 2009. For this final rule, we used the
final CY 2006 through CY 2009 ESRD
claims data with dates of service for the
same timeframe updated through June
30, 2010 (that is, claims with dates of
service from January 1 through
December 31, 2009, that were received,
processed, paid, and passed to the
National Claims History File as of June
30, 2010).
Using the full-year 2009 drug
expenditure figure, we calculated the
average annual change in drug
expenditures from 2006 through 2009.
This average annual change showed an
increase of 1.9 percent for this
timeframe. We used this 1.9 percent
increase to project drug expenditures for
both CY 2010 and CY 2011.
2. Estimating Per Patient Growth
Once we had the projected growth in
drug expenditures from 2010 to 2011
(1.9 percent), to calculate the per patient
expenditure growth between CYs 2010
and 2011, we removed the enrollment
component by using the estimated
growth in enrollment data between CY
2010 and CY 2011, which was
approximately 3.6 percent. Specifically,
we divided the total drug expenditure
factor between 2010 and 2011 (1.019) by
enrollment growth of 3.6 percent (1.036)
for the same timeframe. The result is a
per patient growth factor equal to 0.984
(1.019/1.036=0.984). Thus, we are
projecting a 1.6 percent decrease in per
patient growth in drug expenditures
between 2010 and 2011.
PO 00000
Frm 00317
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73485
3. Update to the Drug Add-on
Adjustment
As previously discussed, we estimate
a 1.9 percent increase in drug
expenditures between CY 2010 and CY
2011. Combining this reduction with a
3.6 percent increase in enrollment, as
described above, we are projecting a 1.6
percent decrease in per patient growth
of drug expenditures between CY 2010
and CY 2011. A 1.6 percent decrease in
the per patient drug add-on of $20.33
would result in a decrease of 33 cents
(.016*20.33=.33). Hence a decrease of 33
cents in the drug add-on would result in
negative update equal to 0.2 percent
(.33/138.53, 138.53 is the 2011 base
composite rate). Therefore, we are
projecting that the combined growth in
per patient utilization and pricing for
CY 2011 would result in a negative
update equal to 0.2 percent. However, as
we have done previously, we proposed
a zero update to the drug add-on
adjustment. We believe this approach is
consistent with the language under
section 1881(b)(12)(F) of the Act which
states in part that ‘‘the Secretary shall
annually increase’’ the drug add-on
amount based on the growth in
expenditures for separately billed ESRD
drugs. Our understanding of the statute
contemplates ‘‘annually increase’’ to
mean a positive or zero update to the
drug add-on.
Also, as required by section
1881(b)(14)(F), as amended by section
3401(h) of the Affordable Care Act, a 2.5
percent ESRD market basket increase, as
established in the ESRD PPS final rule
(75 FR 49161), is applied to the current
basic case-mix adjusted composite rate
portion of the blended payment amount,
resulting in a CY 2011 composite rate of
$138.53 ($135.15*1.025). This 2.5
percent market basket increase does not
apply to the drug add-on adjustment to
the composite rate. Since the drug addon is calculated as a percentage of the
composite rate, we note that the drug
add-on percentage would be reduced
from 15.0 to 14.7 as a result of the
increase to the composite rate in CY
2011.
Comment: Several commenters agreed
with CMS’ decision to apply a zero
update to the drug add-on adjustment.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ support that we continue
with a zero update to the drug add-on
adjustment.
Accordingly, after a review of the
public comments, we are finalizing the
proposed policy decisions to apply a
zero update to the drug add-on,
maintain a $20.33 per treatment drug
add-on amount, as well as apply a 14.7
percent add-on adjustment to the
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73486
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
composite rate for CY 2011. Also, as
previously discussed a 2.5 percent
ESRD market basket increase is applied
to the current basic case-mix adjusted
composite rate portion of the blended
payment amount, resulting in a CY 2011
composite rate of $138.53
($135.15*1.025).
Comment: One commenter agreed
with our decision to continue to use the
ASP+6 percent methodology for
separately billable drugs.
Response: This comment is out of the
scope of the proposed ESRD provisions,
however, we appreciate the
commenters’ support of our use of the
ASP+6 percent methodology.
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
4. Update to the Geographic
Adjustments to the Composite Rate
In the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule (75
FR 40165), we proposed to update the
wage index adjustment to reflect the
latest available wage data. The purpose
of the wage index is to adjust the
composite rates for differing wage levels
covering the areas in which ESRD
facilities are located. The wage indexes
are calculated for each urban and rural
area. In addition, we generally have
followed wage index policies used
under the inpatient hospital prospective
payment system (IPPS), but without
regard to any approved geographic
reclassification authorized under
sections 1886(d)(8) and (d)(10) of the
Act or other provisions that only apply
to hospitals paid under the IPPS (70 FR
70167). Therefore, for purposes of the
ESRD wage index methodology, the
hospital wage data we use is preclassified, pre-floor hospital data and
unadjusted for occupational mix.
5. Updates to Core-Based Statistical
Area (CBSA) Definitions
In the CY 2006 PFS final rule with
comment period (70 FR 70167), we
announced our adoption of the OMB’s
CBSA-based geographic area
designations to develop revised urban/
rural definitions and corresponding
wage index values for purposes of
calculating ESRD composite rates. The
CBSA-based geographic area
designations are described in OMB
Bulletin 03–04, originally issued June 6,
2003, and is available online at https://
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/bulletins/
b03-04.html. In addition, OMB has
published subsequent bulletins
regarding CBSA changes, including
changes in CBSA numbers and titles.
We note that this and all subsequent
ESRD rules and notices are considered
to incorporate the CBSA changes
published in the most recent OMB
bulletin that applies to the hospital
wage index used to determine the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
current ESRD wage index. The OMB
bulletins may be accessed online at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
bulletins/.
6. Updated Wage Index Values
In the CY 2007 PFS proposed rule (71
FR 69685), we proposed to update the
ESRD wage index values annually. The
ESRD wage index values for CY 2011
were developed from FY 2007 wage and
employment data obtained from the
Medicare hospital cost reports. As we
indicated, the ESRD wage index values
are calculated without regard to
geographic classifications authorized
under sections 1886(d)(8) and (d)(10) of
the Act and utilize pre-floor hospital
data that is unadjusted for occupational
mix.
Comment: One commenter wanted
CMS to consider the wage index
policies that are adopted under the IPPS
and that similar wage index policies
should be developed for ESRD facilities.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters concern as to how ESRD
are geographically classified and
although we did not propose a change
in the geographic reclassification for
ESRD facilities at this time, we will take
the commenters suggestions into
consideration in future rulemaking.
Comment: MedPAC commented that
the statutory update to the composite
rate for CY 2011 will benefit both rural
and urban facilities, and they urge CMS
to monitor access to dialysis care
especially in rural areas.
Response: We agree with MedPAC’s
recommendation and we plan to
continue to monitor access to dialysis
care in rural areas and the impact or
influence these effects may have for the
ESRD basic case-mix adjusted
composite payment rate system wage
index.
7. Wage Index Values for Areas With No
Hospital Data
In the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule (75
FR 40167), we proposed to use the
methodology established in CY 2006 for
wage index values for areas with no
hospital data. While adopting the CBSA
designations, we identified a small
number of ESRD facilities in both urban
and rural geographic areas where there
are no hospital wage data from which to
calculate ESRD wage index values. The
affected areas were rural Puerto Rico,
rural Massachusetts (Barnstable Town,
MA (CBSA 12700), and Providence-New
Bedford-Fall River, RI–MA (CBSA
39300)), and the urban area of
Hinesville, GA (CBSA 25980). As with
prior years, for CY 2011, we calculated
the ESRD wage index values for those
areas as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00318
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
• For the urban area of HinesvilleFort Stewart, GA (CBSA 25980), which
is an urban area without specific
hospital wage data, we applied the same
methodology used to impute a wage
index value that we used in CY 2010.
Specifically, we used the average wage
index value for all urban areas within
the State of Georgia.
• For rural Massachusetts, we
adopted an alternative methodology we
used for CY’s 2008, 2009 and 2010,
which we proposed to use to determine
the wage index value for rural
Massachusetts for CY 2011. Specifically,
for rural areas without hospital wage
data, we proposed to use the average
wage index values from all contiguous
CBSAs as a reasonable proxy for that
rural area. In determining the imputed
rural wage index, we interpreted the
term ‘‘contiguous’’ to mean sharing a
border. In the case of Massachusetts, the
entire rural area consists of Dukes and
Nantucket Counties. We determined
that the borders of Dukes and Nantucket
counties are contiguous with CBSA
12700, Barnstable Town, MA, and
Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI–
MA. For purposes of rural
Massachusetts, we proposed to use the
same methodology for CY 2011.
• For rural Puerto Rico, because all
geographic areas in Puerto Rico were
subject to the wage index floor in CY
2011, we proposed to apply the ESRD
wage index floor to rural Puerto Rico as
well. For CY 2011, the ESRD wage index
floor is 0.60. Therefore, we proposed to
apply the ESRD wage index floor to 0.60
to facilities that are located in rural
Puerto Rico. We note, however, that
there are currently no ESRD facilities
located in rural Puerto Rico.
We received no comments on our
proposals for the wage areas as
previously discussed with no hospital
data. Therefore, we are finalizing our
policies for wage areas with no hospital
data. Also, we will continue to evaluate
existing hospital wage data and possibly
wage data from other sources such as
the Bureau of Labor Statistics, to
determine if other methodologies might
be appropriate for imputing wage index
values for areas without hospital wage
data for CY 2010 and subsequent years.
To date, no data from other sources,
superior to that currently used in
connection with the IPPS wage index
has emerged. Therefore, for ESRD
purposes, we continue to believe this is
an appropriate policy. Also, the wage
index values associated with these areas
are located in the addenda section of
this final rule.
Also, in the CY 2011 PFS proposed
rule (75 FR 40167), we reported an
additional urban area—Anderson, SC
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
(CBSA 11340)—with no hospital data.
For this urban area, we proposed to use
the same methodology we have used for
the other urban area with no hospital
data, that is, Hinesville-Fort Stewart, GA
(CBSA 25980). However, since the
publication of the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule, we have received
hospital wage data for this area, and
therefore, the methodology we proposed
no longer applies.
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
8. Reduction to the ESRD Wage Index
Floor
In the PFS proposed rule (75 FR
40167), we proposed to continue to
reduce the wage index floor to the
composite rate portion of the blend
during the transition. For CY 2011, we
proposed that the ESRD wage index
floor would be reduced from 0.65 to
0.60. We believe maintaining the wage
index floor provides some relief for
ESRD facilities going through the
transition that have low wage index
values.
For CY 2011, all urban areas in Puerto
Rico that have a wage index are eligible
for the ESRD wage index floor of 0.60.
Currently there are no ESRD facilities
located in rural Puerto Rico, however,
should any facilities open in rural
Puerto Rico, as previously discussed, we
intend to apply the CY 2011 wage index
floor of 0.60 to these rural facilities.
We received no comments on our
proposal regarding the reduction to the
ESRD wage index floor with regard to
the composite rate portion of the blend
during the transition. Therefore, we are
finalizing our policy to reduce the wage
index floor as proposed.
9. Budget Neutrality Adjustment
We have previously interpreted the
statute as requiring that the geographic
adjustment be made in a budget neutral
manner. Given our application of the
ESRD wage index, this means that
aggregate payments to ESRD facilities in
CY 2011 would be the same as aggregate
payments that would have been made if
we had not made any changes to the
geographic adjustments. We note that
this BN adjustment only addresses the
impact of changes in the geographic
adjustments. A separate BN adjustment
was developed for the case-mix
adjustments required by the MMA.
Since we did not propose any changes
to the case-mix measures for basic casemix adjusted payment system for CY
2011, the current case-mix BN
adjustment of 0.9116 would remain in
effect for CY 2011. Consistent with prior
rulemaking, for CY 2011, we will apply
the wage-index BN adjustment factor of
1.056929 directly to the ESRD wage
index values to the composite rate
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
portion of the blend. Because the ESRD
wage index is only applied to the laborrelated portion of the composite rate, we
computed the BN adjustment factor
based on that proportion (53.711
percent).
To compute the CY 2011 wage index
BN adjustment factor, we used the FY
2007 pre-floor, pre-reclassified, nonoccupational mix-adjusted hospital data
to compute the wage index values, 2009
outpatient claims (paid and processed
as of June 30, 2010), and geographic
location information for each facility
which may be found through Dialysis
Facility Compare Web page on the CMS
Web site at https://www.cms.hhs.gov/
DialysisFacilityCompare/. The FY 2011
hospital wage index data for each urban
and rural locale by CBSA may also be
accessed on the CMS Web site at https://
www.cms.hhs.gov/AcuteInpatientPPS/
WIFN/list.asp. The wage index data are
located in the section entitled, ‘‘FY 2011
Occupational Mix Adjusted and
Unadjusted Average Hourly Wage and
Pre-Reclassified Wage Index by CBSA.’’
Using treatment counts from the 2009
claims and facility-specific CY 2010
composite rates, we computed the
estimated total dollar amount each
ESRD provider would have received in
CY 2010. The total of these payments
became the target amount of
expenditures for all ESRD facilities for
CY 2011. Next, we computed the
estimated dollar amount that would
have been paid for the same ESRD
facilities using the ESRD wage index for
CY 2011. The total of these payments
becomes the new CY 2011 amount of
wage-adjusted composite rate
expenditures for all ESRD facilities.
After comparing these two dollar
amounts (target amount divided by the
new CY 2011 amount), we calculated an
adjustment factor that, when multiplied
by the applicable CY 2011 ESRD wage
index value, would result in aggregate
payments to ESRD facilities that would
remain within the target amount of
composite rate expenditures. When
making this calculation, the ESRD wage
index floor value of 0.60 is applied
whenever appropriate. The wage BN
adjustment factor for CY 2011 is
1.056929.
To ensure BN, we also must apply the
BN adjustment factor to the wage index
floor 0.60, which results in an adjusted
wage index floor of 0.6342 (0.6000 x
1.056929) for CY 2011. This budget
neutrality factor is not applied to the
wage index values for the ESRD PPS
portion of the blend.
10. ESRD Wage Index Tables
The CY 2011 ESRD final wage index
tables are located in Addenda K and L
PO 00000
Frm 00319
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73487
of this final rule with comment period.
Also, we indicated in the ESRD PPS
final rule (75 FR 49117), we would
finalize the CY 2011 ESRD PPS wage
index tables in this final rule. The wage
index tables lists two separate columns
of wage index values. The first column
lists the wage index values will be
applied under the composite rate
portion and includes the budget
neutrality adjustment of 1.056929. The
second column lists the wage index
values that will be applied under the
ESRD PPS beginning January 1, 2011.
F. Issues Related to the Medicare
Improvements for Patients and
Providers Act of 2008 (MIPPA)
1. Section 131: Physician Payment,
Efficiency, and Quality Improvements—
Physician Quality Reporting System
a. Program Background and Statutory
Authority
Section 101 of Division B of the Tax
Relief and Health Care Act of 2006—the
Medicare Improvements and Extension
Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109–432) (MIEA–
TRHCA), which was enacted on
December 20, 2006, required us to
implement a physician quality reporting
system in 2007, which we named the
Physician Quality Reporting Initiative
(PQRI). The Physician Quality Reporting
System is a quality reporting program
that provides an incentive payment to
identified eligible professionals who
satisfactorily report data on quality
measures for covered professional
services furnished during a specified
reporting period. Under section
1848(k)(3)(B) of the Act, the term
‘‘eligible professional’’ means any of the
following: (1) A physician; (2) a
practitioner described in section
1842(b)(18)(C); (3) a physical or
occupational therapist or a qualified
speech-language pathologist; or (4) a
qualified audiologist.
The PQRI was extended and further
enhanced as a result of the MMSEA,
which was enacted on December 29,
2007, and the MIPPA, which was
enacted on July 15, 2008. Changes to the
PQRI as a result of these laws, as well
as information about the PQRI in 2007,
2008, 2009, and 2010, are discussed in
detail in the CY 2008 PFS proposed and
final rules (72 FR 38196 through 38204
and 72 FR 66336 through 66353,
respectively), CY 2009 PFS proposed
and final rules (73 FR 38558 through
38575 and 73 FR 69817 through 69847,
respectively), and CY 2010 PFS
proposed and final rules (74 FR 33559
through 33600 and 74 FR 61788 through
61861, respectively). Further detailed
information, about the PQRI program,
related laws, and help desk resources, is
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73488
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
available on the CMS Web site at
https://www.cms.gov/PQRI.
The ACA makes a number of changes
to the PQRI, including the following:
Authorizing incentive payments
through 2014; requiring a payment
adjustment beginning in 2015 for
eligible professionals who do not
satisfactorily report data on quality
measures in the applicable reporting
period for the year; requiring timely
feedback to participating eligible
professionals; requiring the
establishment of an informal appeals
process whereby eligible professionals
may seek a review of the determination
that an eligible professional did not
satisfactorily submit data on quality
measures for purposes of qualifying for
a PQRI incentive payment; making
available an additional incentive
payment for those eligible professionals
satisfactorily reporting data on quality
measures for a year and having such
data submitted on their behalf through
a Maintenance of Certification Program
and participating in a Maintenance of
Certification Program practice
assessment more frequently than is
required to qualify for or maintain board
certification status; requiring the
establishment of a Physician Compare
Web site; and requiring the
development of a plan to integrate
reporting on quality measures relating to
the meaningful use of electronic health
records (EHRs). Whereas in the past we
only had the authority to continue the
PQRI incentive payments for a specified
period of time, we believe the changes
authorized by the ACA (particularly the
fact that the payment adjustments are
authorized for 2015 and each
subsequent year) lend permanency to
the PQRI. To reflect this transition from
the PQRI being a temporary initiative to
a permanent quality reporting program,
we are hereafter referring to the PQRI as
the ‘‘Physician Quality Reporting
System.’’ We will be updating our
documents and the relevant Web sites to
reflect this name change over time.
In the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule (75
FR 40162) we proposed to add § 414.90
to title 42 of the Code of Federal
Regulations to implement the provisions
of the Physician Quality Reporting
System.
We received several comments from
the public on the CY 2011 PFS proposed
rule related to the Physician Quality
Reporting System. General comments
about the Physician Quality Reporting
System are addressed as follows.
Comment: We received positive
feedback supporting the Physician
Quality Reporting System program as a
whole, particularly efforts that
encourage eligible professional
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
reporting through registries,
Maintenance of Certification Programs,
and EHRs. We also received positive
feedback regarding our proposals for
providing timely feedback and the
establishment of an informal appeals
process.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ positive feedback. We
believe that these options provide
eligible professionals with greater
flexibility.
Comment: We received one comment
expressing dissatisfaction with the
Physician Quality Reporting System
program as a whole. The commenter
stated that while they have been
reporting Physician Quality Reporting
System data for the past few years, they
have not received the incentive
payment. As a result, the commenter
feels that their clinical professionalism
and patient service is not improved by
the program and that it diminishes the
time they spend on direct patient care.
Response: We are sorry that the
commenter has not received a Physician
Quality Reporting System incentive. We
are hopeful that the improvements that
we are making to the Physician Quality
Reporting System will make it easier for
eligible professionals to participate
satisfactorily. We recommend that all
participating eligible professionals
review their Physician Quality
Reporting System feedback report. In
addition to providing performance
information, eligible professionals who
are not incentive eligible will be able to
use their feedback report to determine
why they did not qualify for an
incentive payment. We encourage any
eligible professional who has questions
about the information contained in their
feedback report to contact the
QualityNet Help Desk at 866–288–8912
or qnetsupport@sdps.org. The Help Desk
is available from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Central
Time to answer a variety of questions
about the Physician Quality Reporting
System from general program questions
to feedback report availability and
access. The help desk can provide
detailed information about the reasons
that an eligible professional failed to
earn an incentive as well.
Comment: Some commenters urged us
to aggressively provide additional
Physician Quality Reporting System
education and training opportunities.
One commenter requested we provide
more ‘‘hands-on’’ Physician Quality
Reporting System education and
training opportunities at the local level
by the state/regional contractors.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ valuable input. We will
continue to work with national and
regional stakeholder organizations to
PO 00000
Frm 00320
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
educate their members on Physician
Quality Reporting System program
requirements. We also expect to
continue to host monthly national
provider calls in which we would
provide guidance on specific topics and
provide updated educational materials
and resources. To augment our portfolio
of educational materials and resources,
we also anticipate providing a series of
educational videos to help educate
eligible professionals on Physician
Quality Reporting System program
requirements.
Comment: One commenter expressed
disappointment with the exclusion of
eligible professionals in institutional
settings. Other commenters urged us to
identify and adopt a Physician Quality
Reporting System reporting mechanism
that could apply to all eligible
professionals in all settings, including
eligible therapists providing services in
CORFs, SNFs Part B, and outpatient
departments of a hospital.
Response: As we stated in the CY
2010 PFS final rule with comment
period (74 FR 61791), for professionals
who practice in an institutional setting
where the provider of service is an
institution and not a physician or other
professional paid under the PFS or
where claims submission does not
identify the professional by his or her
NPI, we are unable to make the
determination of satisfactory reporting
and calculate earned incentive payment
amounts at the individual eligible
professional level without extensive
modifications to the claims processing
systems of CMS and providers, which
would represent a material
administrative burden to us and to
providers. It would also require
modifications to the industry standard
claims formats, which would require
substantial time to effect through
established processes and structures
that we do not maintain or control. We
have also found that most institutions
that employ eligible professionals do
not tie the individual professional to the
service rendered to an individual
patient. In this case, there are no
individual provider identifiers available
to use in processing these claims.
Comment: One commenter was
concerned that one of the analytical
changes that was made to facilitate
satisfactory Physician Quality Reporting
System reporting may have had an
unintended consequence on radiologists
by overly inflating their eligible cases,
or reporting denominator. Specifically,
the commenter is requesting that, for
radiology, we look at the CPT/ICD–9
combinations only for the specific line
item in which the CPT/ICD–9
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
combination is present rather than
across any dates of service.
Response: We are aware of this issue
and are currently analyzing the impact.
We believe there are only a handful of
measures where this is a concern
because the measure specifications tie a
procedure to a diagnosis. We are
working with the appropriate measure
developers/owners to analyze the
specifications for these measures to see
if they can be changed for 2011 to lessen
the impact.
Comment: One commenter
encouraged us to consider strategies to
move the Physician Quality Reporting
System toward a more robust role in
quality improvement. Individual
clinicians and smaller group practices’
self-selection of measures, the small
number of measures required to be
reported, and variations in the required
sample sizes make the measures less
meaningful than they could be if the
program was more structured and
rigorous.
Response: The commenter brings up a
number of valid points. As the program
matures and we phase out the
incentives for satisfactory reporting and
phase in payment adjustments for
failing to satisfactorily report, we
envision continuing to make further
refinements to the program to address
the commenter’s concerns. Any such
changes would be described in notice
and comment rulemaking prior to
implementation.
Comment: Another commenter urged
us to transition to rewarding
performance, not just reporting. Changes
made now should lay the groundwork
for moving towards this goal.
Response: As we noted in the CY
2011 PFS proposed rule (75 FR 40114
through 40115), section 3007 of the
ACA requires the Secretary to apply a
separate, budget-neutral payment
modifier to the FFS PFS payment
formula. The payment modifier, which
will be phased in beginning January 1,
2015 through January 1, 2017, will
provide for differential payment under
the fee schedule to a physician or
groups of physicians, and later, possibly
to other eligible professionals, based
upon the relative quality and cost of
care of their Medicare beneficiaries.
Comment: One commenter was
concerned that eligible professionals
would not decide to participate in the
Physician Quality Reporting System.
The commenter was concerned that
given the current status of the industry
in trying to meet 5010/ICD10
regulations and incentive requirements
for achieving the meaningful use of EHR
adoption, the additional reporting
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
requirements will serve as a
disincentive.
Response: We are unclear what
additional reporting requirements the
commenter is referring to nor are we
clear on how they relate to the 5010/
ICD10 regulations and the incentive
requirements for achieving the
meaningful use of EHR adoption.
However, if the commenter is concerned
that eligible professionals may not be
motivated to participate in the
Physician Quality Reporting System in
light of other quality programs and/or
requirements, we agree that this is a
valid concern.
Upon consideration of the comments,
we are finalizing our proposal to add
§ 414.90 to title 42 of the Code of
Federal Regulations to implement the
provisions of the Physician Quality
Reporting System as discussed in this
section. We made certain technical
changes to § 414.90 as appropriate to
reflect the change in the name of the
PQRI to ‘‘Physician Quality Reporting
System,’’ to eliminate the unnecessary
use of acronyms, and to add crossreferences to relevant statutory or
regulatory provisions where
appropriate, to specify the particular
program year addressed in this
rulemaking, and to make other technical
changes as noted.
b. Incentive Payments for the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System
For years 2011 through 2014, section
3002(a) of the ACA extends the
opportunity for eligible professionals to
earn a Physician Quality Reporting
System incentive payment for
satisfactorily reporting Physician
Quality Reporting System quality
measures. For the 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System, section
1848(m)(2)(B) of the Act, as amended by
section 3002(a) of the ACA, authorizes
a 1.0 percent incentive, and for 2012
through 2014, a 0.5 percent incentive,
for qualified eligible professionals who
satisfactorily submit Physician Quality
Reporting System quality measures data.
The following is a summary of the
comments we received regarding the
2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System incentive payment amount.
Comment: One commenter expressed
support for the extension of the
Physician Quality Reporting System
incentives through 2014 for eligible
professionals who satisfactorily report.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ positive feedback.
Comment: Some commenters
expressed concern that the incentive
payment is too small to motivate eligible
professionals to report Physician
Quality Reporting System measures,
PO 00000
Frm 00321
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73489
even if they are providing quality care
in their practice, or to drive quality. The
commenters stated that added
administrative cost and time should be
considered when setting the incentive
and disincentive rates, in an effort to
better reflect the financial incentive to
begin utilizing the measures and
financial disincentives to maintain such
practice. Commenters were specifically
concerned that the incentives are not
commensurate with the burden of
reporting.
Response: While we understand
commenters’ concerns with the costs
and burdens associated with satisfactory
reporting under the Physician Quality
Reporting System, we have neither the
authority to change the basis for
calculation of the incentive payment nor
the authority to change the incentive
amount. We continue to seek ways to
minimize impact on eligible
professionals, such as by continuing to
offer multiple reporting options in order
to give eligible professionals the
flexibility to choose the option that best
fits their practice. Furthermore, we note
that under section 1848(a)(8) of the Act,
beginning 2015, eligible professionals
who do not satisfactorily report
Physician Quality Reporting System
measures will be subject to a payment
adjustment. Eligible professionals who
participate in the Physician Quality
Reporting System prior to 2015 receive
the added benefit of familiarizing
themselves with the Physician Quality
Reporting System prior to the
implementation of the payment
adjustment. Moreover, beginning 2015,
eligible professionals who satisfactorily
report under the Physician Quality
Reporting System will avoid the
payment adjustment.
Comment: One commenter requested
clarification and examples on how the
incentive payment calculations are
determined and an explanation of what
is meant by ‘‘allowable.’’
Response: As stated in the CY 2011
PFS proposed rule (75 FR 40169), the
Physician Quality Reporting System
incentive payment amount is calculated
using estimated Medicare Part B PFS
allowed charges for all covered
professional services, not just those
charges associated with the reported
quality measures. ‘‘Allowed charges’’
refers to total charges, including the
beneficiary deductible and coinsurance,
and is not limited to the 80 percent paid
by Medicare or the portion covered by
Medicare where Medicare is secondary
payer. Amounts billed above the PFS
amounts for assigned and non-assigned
claims will not be included in the
calculation of the incentive payment
amount. In addition, since, by definition
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73490
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
under section 1848(k)(3)(A) of the Act,
‘‘covered professional services’’ are
limited to services for which payment is
made under, or is based on, the PFS and
which are furnished by an eligible
professional, other Part B services and
items that may be billed by eligible
professionals, but are not paid under or
based upon the Medicare Part B PFS, are
not included in the calculation of the
incentive payment amount.
Therefore, eligible professionals and
group practices that satisfactorily report
quality data under the 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System will qualify
for an incentive payment equal to 1.0
percent of their total estimated Medicare
Part B PFS allowed charges for the all
covered professional services furnished
by the eligible professional during the
applicable 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System reporting period. For
satisfactory reporting at the individual
level in 2011, 1.0 percent of allowed
charges will be paid at the TIN/NPI
level. For satisfactory reporting at the
group practice level in 2011, 1.0 percent
of allowed charges will be paid at the
TIN level.
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
c. 2011 Reporting Periods for Individual
Eligible Professionals
Under section 1848(m)(6)(C) of the
Act, the ‘‘reporting period’’ for the 2008
Physician Quality Reporting System and
subsequent years is defined to be the
entire year, but the Secretary is
authorized to revise the reporting period
for years after 2009 if the Secretary
determines such revision is appropriate,
produces valid results on measures
reported, and is consistent with the
goals of maximizing scientific validity
and reducing administrative burden. For
the 2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System, we proposed the following
reporting periods: (1) 12-Month
reporting period for claims-based
reporting and registry-based reporting
(that is, January 1, 2011 through
December 31, 2011); (2) 12-month
reporting period for EHR-based
reporting (that is, January 1, 2011
through December 31, 2011; and (3) 6month reporting period for claims-based
reporting and registry-based reporting
(that is, July 1, 2011 through December
31, 2011). Additionally, we proposed
the 12-month reporting period for the
group practice reporting option (GPRO)
for both the Physician Quality Reporting
System and the Electronic Prescribing
(eRx) Incentive Program Prescribing
Incentive Program (January 1, 2011
through December 31, 2011).
The following is a summary of the
comments we received regarding the
proposed reporting periods.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
Comment: We received comments
generally supporting the proposed
reporting periods as well as comments
specifically supporting the 6-month
reporting period for registry-based
reporting.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ positive feedback. As these
comments support our proposed
reporting periods and for the reasons
discussed, we are finalizing the
reporting periods, as proposed.
Comment: One commenter was
opposed to the elimination of the 6month reporting period for claims-based
reporting as this would create an
unnecessary obstacle for the reporting
mechanism that is available to nearly all
eligible professionals.
Response: We agree with the
commenter’s urging of the preservation
of the 6-month reporting period for
2011, and, as such, we did not propose
to eliminate the 6-month reporting
period for claims-based reporting. In an
effort to encourage participation by
eligible professionals who may not be
ready to do so at the beginning of the
year, for the 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System, there will continue to
be both a 12-month and 6-month
reporting period for all reporting
options except for EHR reporting and
the group practice reporting option.
Comment: Another commenter
requested that we consider a 6-month
reporting period for registry-based
reporting.
Response: We proposed a 6-month
reporting period for registry-based
reporting in the CY 2011 PFS proposed
rule (75 FR 40169). As previously
stated, for the 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System, there will continue to
be a 12-month and 6-month reporting
period for all reporting options except
for EHR reporting and the group
practice reporting option.
Comment: One commenter requested
that we consider providing both 6month and 12-month EHR-based
reporting options, consistent with the 6month reporting period options
available for the claims-based and
registry-based reporting mechanisms.
Response: As we stated in the CY
2010 PFS final rule with comment
period (74 FR 61794), we may consider
including a 6-month reporting period
for EHR reporting in future years once
we have additional experience with
EHR reporting in the Physician Quality
Reporting System. At this time, no data
has yet been collected from EHRs for the
Physician Quality Reporting System.
EHR data submission for the 2010
Physician Quality Reporting System
will not occur until early 2011.
Therefore, we are not adding a 6-month
PO 00000
Frm 00322
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
reporting period for EHR-based
reporting at this time.
Comment: One commenter opposed
tying the incentive amount to the
reporting period in which the eligible
professional satisfactorily reports.
Response: Section 1848(m)(1)(A) of
the Act specifies that the incentive
payment is based on the covered
professional services furnished during
the reporting period for which the
eligible professional or group practice
satisfactorily reports. Therefore, we are
obligated to tie the incentive amount to
the reporting period in which the
eligible professional satisfactorily
reports. We note, however, the incentive
is not limited to the charges for the
services associated with the measures
being reported. Rather the incentive is
calculated based on all of covered
professional services furnished during
the applicable reporting period.
Upon consideration of the comments
received, we will finalize the 2011
reporting periods as proposed. As
discussed previously, if an eligible
professional only satisfactorily reports
for the 6-month reporting period, then
the professional’s incentive payment
will be calculated based on the eligible
professional’s charges for covered
professional services furnished between
July 1, 2011 and December 31, 2011
only. Services furnished prior to July 1,
2011 would not be included in the
professional’s incentive payment
calculation.
We are also deleting the definition for
the term ‘‘quality reporting period’’
proposed at § 414.90(b) since the
reporting period is defined at
§ 414.90(g)(1).
d. 2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System Reporting Mechanisms for
Individual Eligible Professionals
For the 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System, we proposed to retain
the claims-based, registry-based, and
EHR-based reporting mechanism from
2010 and invited comments on other
options that could be included in the
2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System. We also discussed in the CY
2011 PFS proposed rule that we
continue to consider significantly
limiting the claims-based mechanism of
reporting clinical quality measures in
future program years (75 FR 40170).
The following is a summary of the
comments received with regard to the
proposed 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System reporting mechanisms
and our intent to lessen reliance on the
claims-based reporting mechanism
beyond 2011.
Comment: Several commenters
supported the proposed reporting
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mechanisms for the 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System, including
strong support for the continuation of
claims-based reporting and continued
availability of multiple reporting
mechanisms. Many commenters noted
that claims-based reporting is the only
reporting mechanism available to all
eligible professionals. One commenter
believes claims-based reporting may be
a more accurate reporting method
overall and that it would be unduly
burdensome and costly to force
practitioners into changing their
established reporting methods. Another
commenter thought CMS should not
totally discontinue claims-based
reporting as some practitioners, such as
radiologists, work at several different
locations where they may not
consistently have access to a registry or
EHR. One commenter noted that many
small practices may not yet be linked to
EHR systems. Commenters also noted
that registry reporting frequently
requires additional costs, which adds
another burden on eligible professionals
who wish to participate in the Physician
Quality Reporting System. Another
commenter stated that in the transition
to payment adjustments beginning in
2015, where it is crucial to encourage
greater participation, it would be
premature to eliminate claims-based
reporting. Other commenters urged us to
delay eliminating or lessening our
reliance on claims-based reporting until
eligible professionals can demonstrate
that they understand how to use and
capture quality data via EHRs or
registers and can consistently and
successfully do so. Finally, another
commenter encouraged us to provide a
one or two year transition period if we
want to proceed with eliminating
claims-based reporting in future years.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ positive feedback. We
agree with some of the reasons cited by
commenters for retaining claims-based
reporting and/or retaining multiple
reporting mechanisms. For these
reasons and in the discussion that
follows, we are retaining, for 2011, the
three 2010 Physician Quality Reporting
System reporting mechanisms for
individual eligible professionals,
including claims-based reporting.
Comment: While a majority of
commenters requested that we delay or
reconsider lessening our reliance on
claims-based reporting after 2011, some
commenters recommended that the
claims-based reporting option be phased
out with the expectation that registrybased and EHR-based reporting will
become the mainstay of the program,
especially as EHR adoption increases.
Commenters noted that claims-based
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
reporting has been problematic for
eligible professionals and that
transitioning the Physician Quality
Reporting System away from claimsbased reporting would maximize the
potential of registries and EHRs for
quality measurement reporting. One
commenter requested clarification
around the timing for phasing out
claims-based reporting in order to assist
eligible professionals’ decision-making
around how and when to implement
various parts of an EHR or registry.
Response: In addition to the reasons
offered by commenters, our ability to
lessen our reliance on the claims-based
reporting mechanism is dependent on
there being an adequate number and
variety of registries available and/or
EHR reporting options. We believe that
it would be premature to eliminate the
claims-based reporting mechanism for
2011 and doing so would create a
barrier to participation. For 2009,
approximately 75 percent of eligible
professionals used claims-based
reporting. We do not anticipate phasing
out claims-based reporting while it
continues to be actively used by eligible
professionals.
Comment: One commenter requested
that we allow certified registered nurse
anesthetists (CRNAs) to submit
Physician Quality Reporting System
data through an EHR-based reporting
mechanism.
Response: CRNAs are not precluded
from reporting via a qualified Physician
Quality Reporting System EHR.
However, CRNAs may find the current
measures available for Physician
Quality Reporting System EHR reporting
to be beyond their scope of practice.
Additionally, CRNAs tend to collect the
majority of their data in operating rooms
and may require specific EHR products
which, due to their specialization, may
have Physician Quality Reporting
System qualification later on their
timeline.
Comment: One commenter expressed
support for the use of registries as a
recognized instrument to leverage
existing clinical data collection efforts.
Response: We appreciate the
supportive comment and agree that
registries may be able to augment data
collection efforts, particularly for
measures that are more difficult to
collect and require longer time horizons
to get complete data information.
Comment: One commenter expressed
concern about the discrepancy between
claims-based reporting and registry
reporting. Physician Quality Reporting
System analysis for 2007 and 2008
showed that providers who did registry
reporting had a 90 percent success rate
for earning a Physician Quality
PO 00000
Frm 00323
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73491
Reporting System bonus and claimsbased reporting had a 50 percent
success rate. Due to this large
discrepancy, the commenter believed
that it will be very important to know
which reporting method results in
actual performance improvement based
on patient outcomes and whether
methods are subject to manipulation.
The commenter encouraged us to ensure
the processes and resulting data of the
reporting methods are reliable and not
susceptible to manipulation.
Response: We understand the
commenter’s concerns about the
differences in the registry results
compared to the claims results. We are
continually assessing the accuracy and
reliability of all data submitted under
the Physician Quality Reporting System.
We compare the data that is submitted
to us from registries against claims data
and are exploring reasons for any
discrepancies found.
Comment: Some commenters, in the
spirit of harmonization, noted that
several aspects of the Physician Quality
Reporting System are different from the
Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting
Program, formerly known as the
Reporting Hospital Quality Data Annual
Payment Update Program (RHQDAPU).
One commenter stated that while we are
moving away from claims-based quality
measures for eligible professionals, they
are moving toward claims-based quality
measures for hospitals. The commenter
strongly encouraged us to harmonize
their programs and make this same
conclusion for the Hospital Inpatient
Quality Reporting Program.
Response: We understand the
commenters’ desire for harmonization of
our various quality reporting programs
and we attempt to do so when practical
and feasible. We note, however, that the
Physician Quality Reporting System and
the Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting
Program are separate and distinct
programs. The two programs apply to
two different types of providers, have
different goals, and are governed by
different laws and requirements.
Claims-based submission for the
Physician Quality Reporting System
provides a means to submit additional
data, using QDCs, beyond what is
required for billing. Claims as used for
hospital quality reporting does not
require the submission of additional
QDCs to be added to applicable patient
claims.
Based upon consideration of the
comments received and for the reasons
previously explained, we are retaining
the claims, registry, and EHR reporting
mechanisms for use by individual
eligible professionals for the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System. As
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73492
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
in previous years, depending on which
Physician Quality Reporting System
individual quality measures or measures
groups an eligible professional selects,
one or more of the 2011 reporting
mechanisms may not be available for
reporting a particular 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System individual
quality measure or measures group. In
addition, while eligible professionals
can attempt to qualify for a Physician
Quality Reporting System incentive
under multiple reporting mechanisms,
an eligible professional must satisfy the
2011 criteria for satisfactory reporting
with respect to a single reporting
mechanism to qualify for a 2011
incentive. For example, an eligible
professional who starts submitting
individual Physician Quality Reporting
System measures via claims in January
2011 and then switches to registry-based
reporting for services furnished after
April 2011 would be able to qualify for
a 2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System incentive based on a 12-month
reporting period only if he or she
satisfies the appropriate reporting
criteria for either claims-based reporting
or registry-based reporting for this
reporting period. We will not combine
data submitted via multiple reporting
mechanisms to determine incentive
eligibility.
(1) Final Requirements for Individual
Eligible Professionals Who Choose the
Claims-Based Reporting Mechanism
For eligible professionals who choose
to participate in the 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System by submitting
data on individual quality measures or
measures groups through the claimsbased reporting mechanism, we
proposed the eligible professional
would be required to submit the
appropriate Physician Quality Reporting
System quality data codes (QDCs) on the
professionals’ Medicare Part B claims.
QDCs for the eligible professional’s
selected individual Physician Quality
Reporting System quality measures or
measures group may be submitted to
CMS at any time during 2011. However,
as required by section 1848(m)(1)(A) of
the Act, all claims for services furnished
between January 1, 2011 and December
31, 2011, would need to be processed by
no later than February 28, 2012, to be
included in the 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System analysis.
We did not receive any comments
specific to the requirements for
individual eligible professionals who
choose claims-based reporting.
Therefore, we are finalizing the
requirements as proposed (75 FR 40171)
and previously discussed. Eligible
professionals should refer to the ‘‘2011
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
Physician Quality Reporting System
Implementation Guide’’ to facilitate
satisfactory reporting of QDCs for 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System
individual measures on claims and to
the ‘‘Getting Started with 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System Reporting of
Measures Groups’’ to facilitate
satisfactory reporting of QDCs for 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System
measures groups on claims. By no later
than December 31, 2010, both of these
documents will be posted on the
Physician Quality Reporting System
section of the CMS Web site at https://
www.cms.gov/pqri.
(2) Final Requirements for Individual
Eligible Professionals Who Choose the
Registry-Based Reporting Mechanism
We proposed that in order to report
quality data on the 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System individual
quality measures or measures groups
through a qualified clinical registry, an
eligible professional must enter into and
maintain an appropriate legal
arrangement with a qualified 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System
registry. Such arrangements would
provide for the registry’s receipt of
patient-specific data from the eligible
professional and the registry’s
disclosure of quality measures results
and numerator and denominator data on
Physician Quality Reporting System
quality measures or measures groups on
behalf of the eligible professional to
CMS. Thus, the registry would act as a
Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996 (Pub. L.
104–191) (HIPAA) Business Associate
and agent of the eligible professional.
Such agents are referred to as ‘‘data
submission vendors.’’ The ‘‘data
submission vendors’’ would have the
requisite legal authority to provide
clinical quality measures results and
numerator and denominator data on
individual quality measures or measures
groups on behalf of the eligible
professional for the Physician Quality
Reporting System.
We proposed that the registry, acting
as a data submission vendor, would
submit CMS-defined registry-derived
measures information to our designated
database for the Physician Quality
Reporting System, using a CMSspecified record layout, which would be
provided to the registry by CMS.
Similarly, we proposed that eligible
professionals choosing to participate in
the Physician Quality Reporting System
through the registry-based reporting
mechanism for 2011 would need to
select a qualified Physician Quality
Reporting System registry and submit
information on Physician Quality
PO 00000
Frm 00324
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Reporting System individual quality
measures or measures groups to the
selected registry in the form and manner
and by the deadline specified by the
registry.
In addition to meeting the proposed
requirements specific to registry-based
reporting, we proposed that eligible
professionals who choose to participate
in the Physician Quality Reporting
System through the registry-based
reporting mechanism would need to
meet the relevant criteria proposed for
satisfactory reporting of individual
measures or measures groups that all
eligible professionals must meet in
order to satisfactorily report for the
Physician Quality Reporting System
2011.
We did not receive any comments
specific to the requirements for
individual eligible professionals who
choose registry-based reporting.
Therefore, we are finalizing the
requirements for individual eligible
professionals who choose the registrybased reporting mechanism as proposed
(75 FR 40171 through 40173) and
previously discussed.
We will post a list of qualified
registries for the 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System on the Physician
Quality Reporting System section of the
CMS Web site at https://www.cms.gov/
pqri, which will include the registry
name, contact information, and the 2011
measures and/or measures group and
eRx reporting (if qualified) for which the
registry is qualified and intends to
report. However, we do not anticipate
making this list available prior to the
start of the 2011 program year as we had
proposed. We proposed to post the
names of the 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System qualified registries in
3 phases starting with a list of those
registries qualified for the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System
based on: (1) Being a qualified registry
for a prior Physician Quality Reporting
System program year that successfully
submitted 2008 and/or 2009 Physician
Quality Reporting System quality
measures results and numerator and
denominator data on the quality
measures; (2) having received a letter
indicating their continued interest in
being a Physician Quality Reporting
System registry for 2011 by October 31,
2010; and (3) the registry’s compliance
with the 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System registry requirements.
As discussed further in section VII.F.1.j.
of this final rule with comment period,
we proposed and are finalizing new
requirements for the 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System registries.
Since there are new requirements that
did not apply to previously qualified
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
registries, we will need to ensure that
the previously qualified registries meet
the new requirements for 2011. While
we fully expect all of the previously
qualified registries to meet the new
registry requirements for the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System, we
do not expect to be able to determine
previously qualified registries’
compliance with these new registry
requirements for 2011 until the middle
of 2011. Thus, by Summer 2011, we
expect to post a list of registries (this list
will include both registries that were
previously qualified and those that selfnominate to be newly qualified for
2011) that are conditionally qualified to
submit numerator and denominator data
on 2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System measures and measures groups
and Physician Quality Reporting System
measure results. After we receive a test
file from the registries, we will finalize
the list of 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System registries. We
anticipate finalizing the list of 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System
registries by Fall 2011.
An eligible professional’s ability to
report Physician Quality Reporting
System quality measures results and
numerator and denominator data on
Physician Quality Reporting System
quality measures or measures groups
using the registry-based reporting
mechanism should not be impacted by
the list of qualified registries for the
2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System being made available after the
start of the reporting period. First,
registries will not begin submitting
eligible professionals’ Physician Quality
Reporting System quality measures
results and numerator and denominator
data on the quality measures or
measures groups to CMS until 2012.
Second, if an eligible professional
decides that he or she is no longer
interested in submitting quality
measures results and numerator and
denominator data on Physician Quality
Reporting System individual quality
measures or measures groups through
the registry-based reporting mechanism
after the complete list of qualified
registries becomes available, this does
not preclude the eligible professional
from attempting to meet the criteria for
satisfactory reporting through another
2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System reporting mechanism.
In any event, even though a registry
is listed as ‘‘qualified,’’ we cannot
guarantee or assume responsibility for
the registry’s successful submission of
the required Physician Quality
Reporting System quality measures
results or measures group results or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
required data elements submitted on
behalf of a given eligible professional.
(3) Final Requirements for Individual
Eligible Professionals Who Choose the
EHR-Based Reporting Mechanism
For 2011, in addition to meeting the
criteria for satisfactory reporting of at
least 3 individual measures, we
proposed the following requirements
associated with EHR-based reporting: (1)
Selection of a Physician Quality
Reporting System qualified EHR
product; and (2) submission of clinical
quality data extracted from the EHR to
a CMS clinical data warehouse in the
CMS-specified manner and format (75
FR 40172). Similar to the 2010
Physician Quality Reporting System, a
test of quality data submission from
eligible professionals who wish to
report 2011 quality measure data
directly from their qualified EHR
product will be required and is
anticipated to occur in early 2012
immediately followed by the
submission of the eligible professional’s
actual 2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System data. This entire final test/
production 2011 data submission
timeframe is expected to be January
2012 through March 2012. As discussed
in the CY 2010 PFS final rule with
comment period (74 FR 61801 through
61802), we are currently vetting newly
self-nominated EHR vendor products for
possible qualification for the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System
program year. We expect to list any
additional Physician Quality Reporting
System qualified EHR products by
January 2011. It is expected that these
newly qualified products would be able
to submit 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System data in early 2012.
The following is a summary of the
comments we received regarding the
proposed requirements for individual
eligible professionals whose choose the
EHR-based reporting mechanism for the
2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that we consider
accepting measure rates from EHRs
rather than just numerator and
denominator data. Rates generated
within the system will be more readily
available for local quality improvement
purposes and timely feedback to eligible
professionals and office staff. Timely
feedback has been and will continue to
be a problem for this program. System
characteristics that promote and
facilitate local improvement efforts
should be designed in from the outset.
Response: We agree that an EHR’s
ability to calculate measure results
locally will provide useful and timely
PO 00000
Frm 00325
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73493
information to eligible professionals
who are participating in the Physician
Quality Reporting System. However,
receiving individual data elements
allows us to ensure that measure results
are calculated in a more standardized
fashion across eligible professionals.
Individual data elements can also more
readily be combined with other data
from other sources. Additionally, if
measure specifications change, there
would be no need to recode the EHR to
account for these specification changes.
Rather we can make one change to the
measures engine to obviate the need for
a change to the EHR itself.
Comment: One commenter finds
problematic the definition of a qualified
EHR as one incorporating eRx
functionality. Such functionality is
unnecessary and costly for eligible
professionals who do not prescribe. As
a result, the current proposed definition
of EHR could disenfranchise
practitioners lacking prescriptive
authority by automatically denying
them the opportunity to use EHRs for
reporting performance measures.
Another commenter requested
clarification on whether the electronic
prescription function is E-Prescribing,
which requires the patient’s pharmacy
benefits information, or E-Prescription
Writing, which does not.
Response: We believe the commenters
are referring to the eRx functionality
required of a certified EHR for the EHR
Incentive Program, which is beyond the
scope of this final rule with comment
period. This final rule is limited to the
use of EHRs in the Physician Quality
Reporting System and eRx Incentive
Programs as one of multiple reporting
mechanisms available to eligible
professionals to report on Physician
Quality Reporting System measures
and/or the electronic prescribing quality
measure.
Upon consideration of the comments
and for the reasons we highlighted
based on our experience thus far with
EHR-based reporting, eligible
professionals who choose the EHRbased reporting mechanism for the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System
will be required to (in addition to
meeting the appropriate criteria for
satisfactory reporting of individual
measures):
• Have a Physician Quality Reporting
System qualified EHR product;
• Have access to the identity
management system specified by CMS
(such as, but not limited to, the
Individuals Authorized Access to CMS
Computer Systems, or IACS) to submit
clinical quality data extracted from the
EHR to a CMS clinical data warehouse;
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73494
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
• Submit a test file containing real or
dummy clinical quality data extracted
from the EHR to a CMS clinical data
warehouse via an identity management
system specified by CMS during a
timeframe specified by CMS;
• Submit a file containing the eligible
professional’s 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System clinical quality data
extracted from the EHR for the entire
reporting period (that is, January 1, 2011
through December 31, 2011) via the
CMS-specified identify management
system during the timeframe specified
by CMS in early 2012.
Measures groups reporting continues
to not be an option for EHR-based
reporting of quality measures for the
2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System.
We also cannot assume responsibility
for the successful submission of data
from eligible professionals’ EHRs. Any
eligible professional who chooses to
submit Physician Quality Reporting
System data extracted from an EHR
should contact the EHR product’s
vendor to determine if the product is
qualified and has been updated to
facilitate 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System quality measures data
submission. Such professionals also
should begin attempting submission
soon after the opening of the clinical
data warehouse in order to assure the
professional has a reasonable period of
time to work with his or her EHR and/
or its vendors to correct any problems
that may complicate or preclude
successful quality measures data
submission through that EHR.
The specifications for the electronic
transmission of the 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System measures
identified in Tables 81 and 82 of this
final rule with comment period as being
available for EHR-based reporting in
2011 are posted in the Alternative
Reporting Mechanisms page of the
Physician Quality Reporting System
section of the CMS Web site. The
requirements that an EHR vendor must
meet in order for one or more of its
products to be considered qualified for
purposes of an eligible professional
submitting 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System data extracted from
the EHR product(s) were described in
the CY 2010 PFS final rule with
comment period (74 FR 61800 through
61802) and are posted on the
Alternative Reporting Mechanisms page
of the Physician Quality Reporting
System section of the CMS Web site. We
expect to post the names of the EHR
vendors and the specific product(s) and
version(s) that are qualified for the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System on
the Alternative Reporting Mechanisms
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
page of the Physician Quality Reporting
System section of the CMS Web site by
January 2011.
(4) Final Qualification Requirements for
Registries
For the 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System, we proposed to
require a self-nomination process for
registries wishing to submit 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System
quality measures or measures groups on
behalf of eligible professionals for
services furnished during the applicable
reporting periods in 2011 (75 FR 40173).
To be considered a qualified registry for
purposes of submitting individual
quality measures and measures groups
on behalf of eligible professionals who
choose this reporting mechanism, we
proposed that both registries new to the
Physician Quality Reporting System and
those previously qualified must:
• Be in existence as of January 1,
2011;
• Have at least 25 participants by
January 1, 2011;
• Provide at least 1 feedback report
per year to participating eligible
professionals;
• Not be owned and managed by an
individual locally-owned singlespecialty group (in other words, singlespecialty practices with only 1 practice
location or solo practitioner practices
would be prohibited from selfnominating to become a qualified
Physician Quality Reporting System
registry);
• Participate in ongoing 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System
mandatory support conference calls
hosted by CMS (approximately 1 call
per month), including an in-person
registry kick-off meeting to be held at
CMS headquarters in Baltimore, MD.
Registries that miss more than one
meeting will be precluded from
submitting Physician Quality Reporting
System data for the reporting year
(2011);
• Be able to collect all needed data
elements and transmit to CMS the data
at the TIN/NPI level for at least 3
measures in the 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System (according to the
posted 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System Measure
Specifications);
• Be able to calculate and submit
measure-level reporting rates or the data
elements needed to calculate the
reporting rates by TIN/NPI;
• Be able to calculate and submit, by
TIN/NPI, a performance rate (that is, the
percentage of a defined population who
receive a particular process of care or
achieve a particular outcome) for each
measure on which the TIN/NPI reports
PO 00000
Frm 00326
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
or the data elements needed to calculate
the reporting rates;
• Be able to separate out and report
on Medicare Part B FFS patients;
• Provide the name of the registry;
• Provide the reporting period start
date the registry will cover;
• Provide the reporting period end
date the registry will cover;
• Provide the measure numbers for
the Physician Quality Reporting System
quality measures on which the registry
is reporting;
• Provide the measure title for the
Physician Quality Reporting System
quality measures on which the registry
is reporting;
• Report the number of eligible
instances (reporting denominator);
• Report the number of instances of
quality service performed (numerator);
• Report the number of performance
exclusions;
• Report the number of reported
instances, performance not met (eligible
professional receives credit for
reporting, not for performance);
• Be able to transmit this data in a
CMS-approved XML format.
• Comply with a CMS-specified
secure method for data submission,
such as submitting the registry’s data in
an XML file through an identity
management system specified by CMS
or another approved method such as
over the NHIN (national health
information network) if technically
feasible;
• Submit an acceptable ‘‘validation
strategy’’ to CMS by March 31, 2011. A
validation strategy ascertains whether
eligible professionals have submitted
accurately and on at least the minimum
number (80 percent) of their eligible
patients, visits, procedures, or episodes
for a given measure. Acceptable
validation strategies often include such
provisions as the registry being able to
conduct random sampling of their
participant’s data, but may also be based
on other credible means of verifying the
accuracy of data content and
completeness of reporting or adherence
to a required sampling method;
• Perform the validation outlined in
the strategy and send the results to CMS
by June 30, 2012 for the 2011 reporting
year’s data;
• Enter into and maintain with its
participating professionals an
appropriate Business Associate
agreement that provides for the
registry’s receipt of patient-specific data
from the eligible professionals, as well
as the registry’s disclosure of quality
measure results and numerator and
denominator data on behalf of eligible
professionals who wish to participate in
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
the Physician Quality Reporting System
program;
• Obtain and keep on file signed
documentation that each holder of an
NPI whose data are submitted to the
registry has authorized the registry to
submit quality measures and numerator
and denominator data to CMS for the
purpose of Physician Quality Reporting
System participation. This
documentation must be obtained at the
time the eligible professional signs up
with the registry to submit Physician
Quality Reporting System quality
measures data to the registry and must
meet any applicable laws, regulations,
and contractual business associate
agreements;
• Provide CMS access (if requested
for validation purposes) to review the
Medicare beneficiary data on which
2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System registry-based submissions are
founded or provide to CMS a copy of
the actual data (if requested);
• Provide the reporting option
(reporting period and reporting criteria)
that the eligible professional has
satisfied or chosen; and
• Provide CMS a signed, written
attestation statement via mail or e-mail
which states that the quality measure
results and any and all data including
numerator and denominator data
provided to CMS are accurate and
complete.
For registries that intend to report on
2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System measures groups, we proposed
that both registries new to the Physician
Quality Reporting System and those
previously qualified must:
• Indicate the reporting period
chosen for each eligible professional
who chooses to submit data on
measures groups;
• Base reported information on
measures groups only on patients to
whom services were furnished during
the 12-month reporting period of
January through December 2011 or the
6-month reporting period of July 1, 2011
through December 31, 2011;
• Agree that the registry’s data may be
inspected or a copy requested by CMS
and provided to CMS under our
oversight authority;
• Be able to report data on all
applicable measures in a given measures
group on either 30 or more Medicare
Part B FFS patients from January 1, 2011
through December 31, 2011, or on 80
percent of applicable Medicare Part B
FFS patients for each eligible
professional (with a minimum of 15
patients during the January 1, 2011,
through December 31, 2011, reporting
period or a minimum of 8 patients
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
during the July 1, 2011, through
December 31, 2011, reporting period).
Although these proposed qualification
requirements for 2011 registries are
similar to those in previous years, we
noted that registries would no longer be
permitted to include non-Medicare
patients for measures group reporting.
Additionally, in an effort to reduce the
variation in measures results across
registries and better allow eligible
professional comparisons, we also
proposed that all current and future
registries would have to meet the
following new requirements:
• Use Physician Quality Reporting
System measure specifications and the
CMS provided measure calculation
algorithm, or logic, to calculate
reporting rates or performance rates
unless otherwise stated. CMS will
provide registries a standard set of logic
to calculate each measure and/or
measures group they intend to report in
2011.
• Provide a calculated result using
the CMS supplied measure calculation
logic and XML file for each measure that
the registry intends to calculate. The
registries will be required to show that
they can calculate the proper measure
results (that is, reporting and
performance rates) using the CMSsupplied logic and send the calculated
data back to CMS in the specified
format.
• Provide us the individual data
elements used to calculate the measures
if so requested by CMS for validation
purposes, if aggregated data submission
is still the selected method of data
collection. Registries that are subject to
validation will be asked to send discrete
data elements for a measure (determined
by CMS) in the required data format for
us to recalculate the registries’ reported
results. Validation will be conducted for
several measures at a randomly selected
sample of registries in order to validate
their data submissions.
We also invited comments on an
alternative considered in which
registries would be required to send
CMS beneficiary-level data provided to
the registry by the eligible professional
and CMS would use the data to
calculate the eligible professional’s
measure results (that is, reporting and
performance rates).
The following is a summary of the
comments we received regarding the
proposed qualification requirements
and self-nomination process for
registries for the 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System.
Comment: One commenter supported
the CMS proposal to limit registries
based on size and sophistication. The
intent of allowing registry reporting was
PO 00000
Frm 00327
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73495
to allow physicians to benefit from an
infrastructure that could enable real
time reporting and comparison with
other groups. A registry from a single
physician practice does not meet the
intent of why registry reporting was
allowed and should not be allowed for
registry reporting.
Response: We believe that the costs
(time and money) associated with
creating and testing a registry for
Physician Quality Reporting System
qualification are not insignificant. This
and the increased potential for
individual practices to ‘‘game’’ Physician
Quality Reporting System has
influenced our decision to require
registries to report on larger numbers of
eligible professionals or be third party
vendors.
Comment: One commenter indicated
that it is not clear if reporting needs to
be at both the TIN and NPI level or the
TIN or NPI level and recommended that
all quality reporting be required to
include NPI information and feedback at
that level.
Response: Reporting from registries is
to be submitted at the individual TIN/
NPI level. Feedback is available at the
individual NPI level as well as a TIN’s
rolled-up NPI report, that is, all NPIs
under a particular TIN. For reporting
2011 measures groups via a registry, we
will no longer accept data from nonMedicare beneficiaries. This will allow
a better comparison of registrysubmitted data and measure
calculations to ensure accurate reporting
and meaningful feedback reports to
eligible professionals.
Comment: Some commenters
supported the proposal that registries
would no longer use their own measure
calculation logic or measure flows to
calculate measure results but instead
use a CMS-specified standard set of
logic for calculating measures. Some
commenters supported the proposal
based on the fact that registry data
results have been inconsistent in the
past, and the results do not yield
reliable information for eligible
professionals to analyze their
performance results for practice
improvement.
Response: We agree with the
commenter and plan to provide
registries with a calculation flow
diagram for each measure they intend to
report and also provide the registry with
a use case. As part of their qualification
process, registries will need to calculate
the measure reporting and performance
rates and send this information to CMS
or our contractor in the specified XML
format.
Comment: One commenter, while
supporting the use of a CMS-specified
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73496
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
measure calculation logic, suggested
that at least three months be provided
to account for the development time
necessary to convert measures to use
CMS’s algorithms. The actual
development effort for a registry,
however, would be proportionate to the
quantity of measures supported by a
registry.
Response: We respect and appreciate
the time requirements of registries as
they attempt qualification. We try to
balance the needs of the registries with
the importance of letting eligible
professionals know which registries are
qualified so they can begin selecting and
reporting to their registry of choice.
Comment: Another commenter who
supported the use of a CMS-specified
measure calculation logic, suggested
that we make the logic public prior to
implementation in order to determine
the best logic and calculations for
measure results.
Response: We do not believe that
public input for measure logic
calculation beyond what is already
allowed for measure development and
endorsement is prudent. We attempt to
use the measures as the developer
intended and only make changes when
necessary for implementation purposes
or as required by Medicare policy.
Comment: Some commenters opposed
the proposal for registries to use a CMSspecified logic to calculate measures
results. One commenter stated they do
not believe requiring registries to use a
CMS-specified measure calculation
logic will lessen the observed variation
in measure results. The commenter
believes the rate calculation from the
numerator and denominator data
involves simple arithmetic and is
unlikely to be the cause of the observed
variation. The more likely cause is a
variation in how the data is collected or
defined within the system. Another
commenter was concerned that a CMSdeveloped logic might not accurately
calculate measure reporting or
performance rates in all instances for all
eligible professionals since it will likely
be based on claims and may not be
appropriate to examine the data that is
submitted to registries.
Response: We appreciate these
comments and agree that a CMSspecified logic may not eliminate all of
the data variations or inconsistencies
but believe providing a specific logic
calculation will help reduce these data
differences.
Comment: One commenter believes
that registries should have reasonable
latitude in interpreting the measure
flows or logic provided by us to account
for variability in the ways that data are
collected by the registries.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
Response: While this may seem like a
good idea on the surface, this proposal
would allow too much data variation
and prevent us and outside stakeholders
from comparing an eligible
professional’s performance. This is
contrary to our desire to increase
standardization in the way registries
calculate measure reporting and
performance rates.
Comment: A few commenters did not
support the alternative approach in
which registries would be required to
send us discrete data elements and we
would calculate the results for eligible
professionals.
Response: We do not intend to adopt
this method of registry data submission
for the 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System.
Comment: One commenter requested
that we publish the list of registries and
EHR products qualified for purposes of
submitting Physician Quality Reporting
System data prior to the beginning of
the reporting year.
Response: We strive to qualify
registries and EHRs in as timely a
manner as is possible, however while
we do not guarantee successful
submission of data by an EHR or a given
registry, we want to be as thorough as
possible in vetting these systems to
increase the likelihood of successful
data submission. To date, we have not
had any qualified registries who have
not successfully reported data to us. We
do try to post a partial list of qualified
registries (based on successful
participation in a prior year) prior to the
start of the next reporting period.
Comment: One commenter urged us
to include additional information
related to the registries such as the
physician participants’ success rate, the
number of participants and the cost.
Response: We agree that providing
cost information may be helpful to
eligible professionals as they choose a
qualified registry. There has been
considerable objection by the registries
to listing this information on our Web
site as the registries report that
comparison of their fees is misleading
since some of the registries solely report
Physician Quality Reporting System
information on behalf of eligible
professionals to us while others provide
additional information and tools to their
participants.
Upon considering the comments
received, we are finalizing the 2011
qualification requirements as proposed
(75 FR 40173 through 40175), including
the new requirements for registries to:
• Use Physician Quality Reporting
System measure specifications and a
standard set of measure calculation
logic provided by CMS to calculate
PO 00000
Frm 00328
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
reporting rates or performance rates
unless otherwise stated;
• Provide a calculated result using
the CMS-supplied logic and XML file
for each measure that the registry
intends to calculate; and
• Provide us the individual data
elements used to calculate the measures
if so requested by CMS for validation
purposes.
We intend to post the final 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System
registry requirements on the Physician
Quality Reporting System section of the
CMS Web site at https://www.cms.gov/
PQRI by November 15, 2010 or shortly
thereafter. We anticipate that new
registries that wish to self-nominate for
2011 would be required to do so by
January 31, 2011.
Similar to the 2010 Physician Quality
Reporting System, registries that were
‘‘qualified’’ for 2010 and wish to
continue to participate in 2011 will not
need to be ‘‘re-qualified’’ for 2011 but
instead demonstrate that they can meet
the new 2011 data submission
requirements. For technical reasons,
however, we do not expect to be able to
complete this vetting process for the
new 2011 data submission requirements
until mid-2011. Therefore, we will not
be able to post the names of registries
that are qualified for the 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System until we have
determined the previously qualified
registries that wish to be qualified for
the 2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System are in compliance with the new
registry requirements.
Nevertheless, registries ‘‘qualified’’ for
2010, who were successful in
submitting 2010 Physician Quality
Reporting System data, and wish to
continue to participate in 2011 will
need to indicate their desire to continue
participation for 2011 by submitting a
letter to CMS indicating their continued
interest in being a Physician Quality
Reporting System registry for 2011 and
their compliance with the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System
registry requirements by no later than
October 31, 2010. Additionally,
registries that are unsuccessful
submitting 2010 Physician Quality
Reporting System data (that is, fail to
submit 2010 Physician Quality
Reporting System data per the 2010
Physician Quality Reporting System
registry requirements) will need to go
through a full self-nomination vetting
process for 2011.
Similar to the 2010 Physician Quality
Reporting System, if a qualified 2010
Physician Quality Reporting System
registry fails to submit 2010 Physician
Quality Reporting System data per the
2010 Physician Quality Reporting
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
System registry requirements, the
registry will be considered unsuccessful
at submitting 2010 Physician Quality
Reporting System data and will need to
go through the full self-nomination
process again to participate in the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System. By
March 31, 2011, registries that are
unsuccessful at submitting quality
measures results and numerator and
denominator data for 2010 will need to
be able to meet the 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System registry
requirements and go through the full
vetting process again. This would
include CMS receiving the registry’s
self-nomination by March 31, 2011. As
discussed in another section of this final
rule with comment period, the
aforementioned registry requirements
will also apply for the purpose of a
registry qualifying to submit the
electronic prescribing measure for the
2011 Electronic Prescribing Incentive
Program.
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
(5) Final Qualification Requirements for
EHR Vendors and Their Products
The EHR vendor qualification process
for the 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System was finalized in the
2010 PFS final rule with comment
period (74 FR 61800 through 61802) and
is currently underway. We anticipate
the 2011 EHR vendor vetting process
will be complete in early 2011, at which
point those EHR products meeting all of
the 2011 vendor requirements will be
listed on the Physician Quality
Reporting System section of the CMS
Web site as a ‘‘qualified’’ Physician
Quality Reporting System EHR product.
During 2011, we proposed to use the
same self-nomination process described
in the ‘‘Requirements for Electronic
Health Record (EHR) Vendors to
Participate in the 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System EHR Testing
Program’’ posted on the Physician
Quality Reporting System section of the
CMS Web site at https://www.cms.gov/
PQRI/20_AlternativeReporting
Mechanisms.asp#TopOfPage, to qualify
additional EHR vendors and their EHR
products to submit quality data
extracted from their EHR products to the
CMS clinical quality data warehouse for
the 2012 Physician Quality Reporting
System. Specifically, we proposed that
the 2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System EHR test vendors, who, if their
testing is successful, may report 2012
Physician Quality Reporting System
data to CMS, must meet the following
requirements:
• Be able to collect and transmit all
required data elements according to the
2012 EHR Specifications.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
• Be able to separate out and report
on Medicare Part B FFS patients only.
• Be able to include TIN/NPI
information submitted with an eligible
professional’s quality data.
• Be able to transmit this data in the
CMS-approved format.
• Comply with a secure method for
data submission.
• Not be in a beta test form.
• Have at least 25 active users.
Additionally, we proposed that
previously qualified Physician Quality
Reporting System EHR vendors and
2012 EHR test vendors must participate
in ongoing Physician Quality Reporting
System mandatory support conference
calls hosted by CMS (approximately one
call per month). These requirements
would apply not only for the purpose of
a vendor’s EHR product being qualified
so that the product’s users may submit
data extracted from the EHR for the
2012 Physician Quality Reporting
System in 2013, but also for the purpose
of a vendor’s EHR product being
qualified so that the product’s users may
electronically submit data extracted
from the EHR for the electronic
prescribing measure for the 2012 eRx
Incentive Program in 2013. We
proposed that if a vendor misses more
than one mandatory support call or
meeting, the vendor and their product
would be disqualified for the Physician
Quality Reporting System reporting
year, which is covered by the call.
We proposed that previously qualified
vendors and new vendors will need to
incorporate any new EHR measures
(that is, electronically-specified
measures) added to the Physician
Quality Reporting System for the
reporting year they wish to maintain
their Physician Quality Reporting
System qualification, as well as update
their electronic measure specifications
and data transmission schema should
either or both change.
The following is a summary of the
comments received regarding the
proposed 2012 EHR vendor
qualification requirements and/or
process.
Comment: We received a comment
disagreeing that an EHR should be
required to support all new measures.
The commenter noted that an EHR
might not collect all the necessary data
points for all measures and that this is
not required for the EHR Incentive
Program.
Response: While the commenter
makes a valid point, selecting an
appropriate EHR can be challenging for
eligible professionals. As such, we are
requiring qualified EHRs to be able to
report all Physician Quality Reporting
System measures with electronic
PO 00000
Frm 00329
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73497
specifications. We believe that this will
lessen the burden on eligible
professionals in deciding which system
to purchase. That is, either the EHR is
qualified for the Physician Quality
Reporting System (completely) or not at
all.
Upon consideration of these
comments, we are finalizing the 2012
EHR vendor qualification requirements
that will be used to vet EHR vendors in
2011 for 2012 Physician Quality
Reporting System data submission in
2013 as proposed in the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule (75 FR 40175 through
40176). Any EHR vendor interested in
having one or more of their EHR
products ‘‘qualified’’ to submit quality
data extracted from their EHR products
to the CMS clinical quality data
warehouse for the 2012 Physician
Quality Reporting System will be
required to submit their self-nomination
letter by January 31, 2011. Instructions
for submitting the self-nomination letter
will be provided in the 2012 EHR
vendor requirements, which we expect
to post in the 4th quarter of CY 2010.
Specifically, for the 2012 Physician
Quality Reporting System, only EHR
vendors that self-nominate to participate
in the 2012 EHR Test Program will be
considered qualified EHR vendors for
the 2012 Physician Quality Reporting
System.
e. Criteria for Satisfactory Reporting of
Individual Quality Measures for
Individual Eligible Professionals
Section 1848(m)(3)(A) of the Act
established the criteria for satisfactorily
submitting data on individual quality
measures as at least 3 measures in at
least 80 percent of the cases in which
the measure is applicable. If fewer than
3 measures are applicable to the services
of the professional, the professional may
meet the criteria by submitting data on
1 or 2 measures for at least 80 percent
of applicable cases where the measures
are reportable. For years after 2009,
section 1848(m)(3)(D) of the Act
provides additional authority to the
Secretary, in consultation with
stakeholders and experts, to revise the
criteria for satisfactorily reporting data
on quality measures. Based on this
authority and the input we have
previously received from stakeholders,
we proposed (75 FR 40176), for 2011,
the following 2 criteria for claims-based
reporting of individual measures by
individual eligible professionals:
• Report on at least 3 measures that
apply to the services furnished by the
professional; and
• Report each measure for at least 50
percent of the eligible professional’s
Medicare Part B FFS patients for whom
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
73498
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
services were furnished during the
reporting period to which the measure
applies.
To the extent that an eligible
professional has fewer than 3 Physician
Quality Reporting System measures that
apply to the eligible professional’s
services, we proposed the eligible
professional would be able to meet the
criteria for satisfactorily reporting data
on individual quality measures by
meeting the following 2 criteria:
• Report on all measures that apply to
the services furnished by the
professional (that is 1 to 2 measures);
and
• Report each measure for at least 50
percent of the eligible professional’s
Medicare Part B FFS patients for whom
services were furnished during the
reporting period to which the measure
applies.
We also proposed for 2011 the
requirement that an eligible professional
who reports on fewer than 3 measures
through the claims-based reporting
mechanism may be subject to the
Measure Applicability Validation
(MAV) process, which would allow us
to determine whether an eligible
professional should have reported
quality data codes for additional
measures. This process was applied in
prior years. Under the proposed MAV
process, when an eligible professional
reports on fewer than 3 measures, we
propose to review whether there are
other closely related measures (such as
those that share a common diagnosis or
those that are representative of services
typically provided by a particular type
of eligible professional). We further
proposed that if an eligible professional
who reports on fewer than 3 measures
in 2011 reports on a measure that is part
of an identified cluster of closely related
measures and did not report on any
other measure that is part of that
identified cluster of closely related
measures, then the eligible professional
would not qualify as a satisfactory
reporter in the 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System or earn an incentive
payment. In 2011, we proposed that
these criteria for satisfactorily reporting
data on fewer than 3 individual quality
measures would apply for the claimsbased reporting mechanism only.
For the 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System, we proposed the
following 2 criteria for satisfactory
reporting of data on individual
Physician Quality Reporting System
quality measures for registry-based and
EHR-based reporting:
• Report on at least 3 measures that
apply to the services furnished by the
professional; and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
• Report each measure for at least 80
percent of the eligible professional’s
Medicare Part B FFS patients for whom
services were furnished during the
reporting period to which the measure
applies.
We also proposed, in 2011, not to
count measures that are reported
through a registry or EHR that have a
zero percent performance rate. That is,
if the recommended clinical quality
action is not performed on at least 1
patient for a particular measure or
measures group reported by the eligible
professional via a registry or EHR, we
will not count the measure (or measures
groups) as a measure (or measures
group) reported by an eligible
professional. We proposed to disregard
measures (or measures groups) that are
reported through a registry or EHR that
have a zero percent performance rate in
the 2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System because we are assuming that
the measure was not applicable to the
eligible professional and was likely
reported from EHR-derived data (or
from data mining) and was
unintentionally submitted from the
registry or EHR to CMS. We also seek to
avoid the possibility of intentional
submission of spurious data solely for
the purpose of receiving an incentive
payment for reporting.
The following is a summary of the
comments received regarding the
criteria for satisfactory reporting of
individual quality measures for
individual eligible professionals.
Comment: We received several
comments in support of the proposal to
decrease the reporting sample from 80
percent to 50 percent of applicable cases
where the measures are reportable as
this would encourage greater Physician
Quality Reporting System participation.
One commenter expressed support for
the lower percentage due to the errors
and complexity seen to date with
claims-based reporting in the Physician
Quality Reporting System. Other
commenters noted that a less restrictive
requirement is a step forward in
decreasing the costs and burdens
associated with Physician Quality
Reporting System participation.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ positive feedback. In
lowering the reporting threshold for
claims-based reporting from 80 percent
to 50 percent, we are, as indicated by a
commenter, acknowledging the
complexity of claims-based reporting.
As stated in the CY 2011 PFS proposed
rule (75 FR 40176), a major reason that
eligible professionals who participate in
the Physician Quality Reporting System
via claims-based reporting fail to do so
satisfactorily is that they fail to report at
PO 00000
Frm 00330
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the required 80 percent. As shown in
the quarterly QDC Error Reports that we
post on the CMS Physician Quality
Reporting System Web site at https://
www.cms.gov/PQRI, eligible
professionals often do not report QDCs
on claims that are eligible for inclusion
in a measure’s denominator or report
QDCs on claims that are not eligible for
inclusion in a measure’s denominator.
When an eligible professional fails to
report QDCs on eligible cases, it
negatively impacts their reporting rate
for that measure or measures group.
When an eligible professional reports
QDCs on ineligible cases, it neither
improves nor negatively impacts their
reporting rate for that measure or
measures group. Thus, while lowering
the reporting threshold may decrease
the number of cases on which an
eligible professional is required to
report, it is still crucial that eligible
professionals carefully review and
understand the measure specifications
for each measure or measures group
they intend to report in order to be able
to properly identify eligible cases.
Comment: A few commenters
supportive of the proposal to reduce the
reporting sample requirement from 80
percent to 50 percent recommended we
also use our existing authority to apply
the new 50 percent threshold
retrospectively to the 2010 Physician
Quality Reporting System.
Response: We finalized the 2010
Physician Quality Reporting System
criteria for satisfactory reporting by
individual eligible professionals in the
CY 2010 PFS final rule with comment
(74 FR 61802 through 61807). Therefore,
we are not applying the 50 percent
threshold retrospectively to the 2010
Physician Quality Reporting System.
Any eligible professional who would
have participated in the 2010 Physician
Quality Reporting System had they
known that we were lowering the
reporting threshold for claims-based
reporting to 50 percent would be
disadvantaged. Such eligible
professionals are not likely to be able to
start participating in the 2010 Physician
Quality Reporting System and meet the
2010 criteria for satisfactory reporting in
the time between publication of this
final rule with comment period and
December 31, 2010.
Comment: A couple of commenters
requested that the threshold for registrybased and EHR-based reporting also be
reduced to 50 percent in order to
facilitate overall participation via an
EHR or registry.
Response: As we stated in the CY
2011 PFS proposed rule (75 FR 40177),
we do not believe that reducing the
reporting sample to 50 percent for
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
registry-based reporting and EHR-based
reporting would substantially impact
the portion of participating eligible
professionals who qualify for the
Physician Quality Reporting System
incentive. Over 90 percent of eligible
professionals submitting data through
registries were incentive eligible. The
level of effort for EHR-reporting should
be the same regardless of whether the
reporting threshold is 50 percent, 80
percent, or 100 percent since the EHR
could theoretically be programmed to
submit data on all eligible cases to CMS.
Comment: A few commenters
opposed the proposal to weaken the
standard for claims-based reporting
from 80 percent to 50 percent. The
commenters stated it was unclear why
we would suggest that we want to move
toward more meaningful reporting
mechanisms such as registries and
EHRs, while at the same time lowering
the bar for claims-based reporting.
Another commenter suggested that we
strengthen the reporting requirements.
Response: In light of the Physician
Quality Reporting System payment
adjustments that are required by section
1848(a)(8) of the Act beginning in 2015
for eligible professionals who do not
satisfactorily report and the fact that
claims-based reporting still remains the
only reporting mechanism that is
available to all eligible professionals, we
believe that it is important to take steps
to facilitate Physician Quality Reporting
System reporting where feasible. As we
have seen from Physician Quality
Reporting System results from prior
years, meeting the 80 percent reporting
threshold for claims-based reporting is
challenging because of the multiple
billing codes as specified by the
measure developer, that can place
patients in the denominator of a
measure combined with the inability to
resubmit claims solely for the purpose
of adding a QDC. Thus far, we have not
experienced the same issues with other
reporting mechanisms. As we stated in
the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule (75 FR
40176), we believe that lowering the
reporting threshold for claims-based
reporting will encourage greater
participation in the Physician Quality
Reporting System without increasing
the likelihood that professionals will
selectively report based on whether the
performance expectation of a measure is
met for that particular patient. Once a
substantial proportion of eligible
professionals begin participating in the
Physician Quality Reporting System, we
envision that we will gradually
strengthen the reporting requirements.
Comment: A few commenters
recommended we remove the restriction
on registry reporting for those eligible
professionals that cannot report 3
measures, especially given that our
results show that those who report via
a registry are roughly twice as
successful as those who report via
claims.
Response: We have received similar
comments to this effect in the past. We
continue to maintain that permitting an
eligible professional to report fewer than
3 measures through the registry-based
reporting mechanism (if fewer than 3
measures apply to him or her) would be
inefficient. It would be analytically
difficult in that if an eligible
professional submits fewer than 3
measures via registries, we would not
know whether the eligible professional
did so because only 2 measures applied
to him or her or because the registry
only accepts data for 2 of the
professional’s measures and he or she is
reporting the third measure via claims.
We also look for the most favorable
method of reporting (that is, did the
eligible professional report via a
different method for a longer reporting
period as well as whether an eligible
professional satisfactorily reported
under a different reporting option if he
or she did not satisfactorily report for a
particular reporting period. Accepting
fewer than 3 measures from registries
would increase the amount of crosschecking already required, which would
impact the timeline for paying
incentives.
73499
Comment: Some commenters
recommended we change the reporting
requirements for individual eligible
professionals with respect to increasing
the number of required measures and/or
requiring reporting on a standard cluster
of measures. One commenter
recommended that we create a standard
risk-adjusted list of Physician Quality
Reporting System quality measures for
all eligible professionals that we would
update annually. Similarly, another
commenter suggested that we assign a
core set of measures that applies across
eligible professions. The commenter
also suggested that we assign sets of
measures for individual and small group
practice participants for high-volume
conditions, based on services provided
to their patient population. Additional
recommendations for strengthening the
reporting requirements include,
requiring eligible professionals to
stratify measures by patient race,
ethnicity, preferred language and
gender, constructing composites for the
current measures groups, using a
reliability threshold of 0.70 in lieu of, or
in conjunction with, a minimum sample
size, increasing the sample size for
larger group practices, and maintaining
the reporting threshold of 80 percent for
claims-based reporting.
Response: We appreciate the
constructive feedback and agree with
the potential benefit of core measures,
moving to more sets or groups of
measures, and being more specific as to
which measures eligible professionals
should report in order to achieve more
consistency of reporting across eligible
professionals in the future.
After consideration of the comments
and for the reasons we previously
explained, the final 2011 criteria for
satisfactory reporting of data on
individual Physician Quality Reporting
System quality measures for individual
eligible professionals are summarized in
Table 73 and are arranged by reporting
mechanism and reporting period.
TABLE 73—2011 CRITERIA FOR SATISFACTORY REPORTING OF DATA ON INDIVIDUAL PHYSICIAN QUALITY REPORTING
SYSTEM QUALITY MEASURES, BY REPORTING MECHANISM AND REPORTING PERIOD
Reporting criteria
Claims-based reporting ...........
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Reporting mechanism
• Report at least 3 PQRI measures, or 1–2 measures if less
than 3 measures apply to the eligible professional; and
• Report each measure for at least 50% of the eligible professional’s Medicare Part B FFS patients seen during the
reporting period to which the measure applies.
• Report at least 3 PQRI measures, or 1–2 measures if less
than 3 measures apply to the eligible professional; and
• Report each measure for at least 50% of the eligible professional’s Medicare Part B FFS patients seen during the
reporting period to which the measure applies.
Claims-based reporting ...........
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00331
Fmt 4701
Reporting period
Sfmt 4700
January 1, 2011–December 31, 2011.
July 1, 2011–December 31, 2011.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73500
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 73—2011 CRITERIA FOR SATISFACTORY REPORTING OF DATA ON INDIVIDUAL PHYSICIAN QUALITY REPORTING
SYSTEM QUALITY MEASURES, BY REPORTING MECHANISM AND REPORTING PERIOD—Continued
Reporting mechanism
Reporting criteria
Registry-based reporting .........
• Report at least 3 PQRI measures (measures with a 0%
performance rate will not be counted); and
• Report each measure for at least 80% of the eligible professional’s Medicare Part B FFS patients seen during the
reporting period to which the measure applies.
• Report at least 3 PQRI measures (measures with a 0%
performance rate will not be counted); and
• Report each measure for at least 80% of the eligible professional’s Medicare Part B FFS patients seen during the
reporting period to which the measure applies.
• Report at least 3 PQRI measures (measures with a 0%
performance rate will not be counted); and
• Report each measure for at least 80% of the eligible professional’s Medicare Part B FFS patients seen during the
reporting period to which the measure applies.
Registry-based reporting .........
EHR-based reporting ...............
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
For the 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System, we are finalizing a
total of 5 reporting options, or ways, in
which an eligible professional may meet
the criteria for satisfactory reporting on
individual measures. Each reporting
option consists of the criteria for
satisfactory reporting such data and
results on individual quality measures
relevant to a given reporting mechanism
and reporting period. Eligible
professionals must meet the
requirements for at least 1 of these 5
reporting options using a single
reporting mechanism in order to qualify
for a 2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System incentive for satisfactorily
reporting individual measures. CMS
will not combine data received via
different reporting mechanisms to
determine whether the reporting criteria
are met. It is possible, however, for
eligible professionals to potentially
qualify as satisfactorily reporting
individual quality measures under more
than one of the reporting criteria,
reporting mechanisms, and/or for more
than one reporting period. In this case,
only one incentive payment will be
made to an eligible professional based
on the longest reporting period for
which the eligible professional
satisfactorily reports.
f. Criteria for Satisfactory Reporting
Measures Groups for Individual Eligible
Professionals
For the 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System, we proposed that
individual eligible professionals have
the option to report measures groups
instead of individual quality measures
to qualify for the 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System incentive, using
claims or registries. The criteria that we
proposed for 2011 for satisfactory
reporting of measures groups through
claims-based or registry-based reporting
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
Reporting period
for either the 12-month or 6-month
reporting period are as follows: (1) For
claims-based reporting, the reporting of
at least 1 measures group for at least 50
percent of patients to whom the
measures group applies, during the
reporting period; or (2) for registrybased reporting, the reporting of at least
1 measures group for at least 80 percent
of patients to whom the measures group
applies during the reporting period.
Eligible professionals, for both claimsbased and registry-based reporting
under these criteria, would be required
to submit data on a minimum of 15
unique Medicare Part B FFS patients for
the 12-month reporting period and a
minimum of 8 Medicare Part B FFS
patients for the 6-month reporting
period.
Additionally for 2011, we proposed to
retain the criteria, available only for the
12-month reporting period, based on
reporting on at least 1 measures group
for at least 30 unique patients for whom
services were furnished between
January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2011,
to whom the measures group applies. As
in previous years, we proposed that for
2011, the patients, for claims-based
reporting, would be limited to Medicare
Part B FFS patients. Finally, for registrybased reporting in 2011, in contrast to
prior program years, we proposed to
require that the minimum patient
numbers or percentages must be met by
Medicare Part B FFS patients
exclusively and not non-Medicare Part
B FFS patients.
The following is a summary of the
comments received regarding the
proposed criteria for reporting measures
groups for individual eligible
professionals.
Comment: One commenter strongly
supported the proposed Physician
Quality Reporting System measures
group reporting option for claims-based
PO 00000
Frm 00332
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
January 1, 2011–December 31, 2011.
July 1, 2011–December 31, 2011.
January 1, 2011–December 31, 2011.
and registry reporting, especially the
change in the reporting threshold for
claims-based reporting from 80 percent
to 50 percent .
Response: We appreciate the
commenter’s positive feedback.
Comment: A few commenters
supported the proposal that for registry
reporting of measures groups for 2011
that the minimum patient numbers or
percentages must be met by Medicare
Part B FFS patients exclusively and
exclude data on non-Medicare Part B
FFS patients. It is thought that this will
reduce the difficulty of analyzing the
data we received from registries where
patients other than Medicare Part B FFS
patients are included. Another
commenter was concerned that this
change eliminates any benefit that
eligible professionals had for using the
registry more broadly than just for
Medicare patients. The commenter also
noted that registries are most useful for
improved patient care when all patients
in the practice with a particular
condition are included in the system.
Response: We appreciate the
supportive comment. We believe that
limiting the reporting sample for
registry-based reporting of measures
groups to Medicare Part B FFS patients
will facilitate validation of registrysubmitted data against the Medicare
claims data.
Comment: One commenter supported
our proposal to eliminate the
requirement for reporting on
consecutive patients for registry-based
reporting of measures groups.
Response: We appreciate the
commenter’s support. We assume that
the commenter is referring to a
requirement in the 2008 and 2009
Physician Quality Reporting System
where eligible professionals were
required to report on patients seen
consecutively by date of service. We
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
note that we removed the requirement
for reporting on consecutive patients for
registry-based reporting of measures
groups for the 2010 Physician Quality
Reporting System. We did not propose
nor are we requiring eligible
professionals to report on consecutive
patients when reporting measures
groups for the 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System.
Based on the comments, the final
2011 criteria for satisfactory reporting of
73501
data on measures groups are
summarized in Table 74 and are
arranged by reporting mechanism and
reporting period.
TABLE 74—2011 CRITERIA FOR SATISFACTORY REPORTING ON MEASURES GROUPS, BY REPORTING MECHANISM AND
REPORTING PERIOD
Reporting mechanism
Reporting criteria
Reporting period
Claims-based reporting ............................
• Report at least 1 PQRI measures group;
• Report each measures group for at least 30 Medicare
Part B FFS patients.
• Report at least 1 PQRI measures group;
• Report each measures group for at least 50% of the eligible professional’s Medicare Part B FFS patients seen during the reporting period to whom the measures group applies; and
• Report each measures group on at least 15 Medicare
Part B FFS patients seen during the reporting period to
which the measures group applies.
• Report at least 1 PQRI measures group;
• Report each measures group for at least 50% of the eligible professional’s Medicare Part B FFS patients seen during the reporting period to whom the measures group applies; and
• Report each measures group on at least 8 Medicare Part
B FFS patients seen during the reporting period to which
the measures group applies.
• Report at least 1 PQRI measures group (measures
groups with a 0% performance rate will not be counted);
• Report each measures group for at least 30 Medicare
Part B FFS patients.
• Report at least 1 PQRI measures group (measures
groups with a 0% performance rate will not be counted);
• Report each measures group for at least 80% of the eligible professional’s Medicare Part B FFS patients seen during the reporting period to whom the measures group applies; and
• Report each measures group on at least 15 Medicare
Part B FFS patients seen during the reporting period to
which the measures group applies.
• Report at least 1 PQRI measures group (measures
groups with a 0% performance rate will not be counted);
• Report each measures group for at least 80% of the EP’s
Medicare Part B FFS patients seen during the reporting
period to whom the measures group applies; and
• Report each measures group on at least 8 Medicare Part
B FFS patients seen during the reporting period to which
the measures group applies.
January 1, 2011–December 31, 2011.
Claims-based reporting ............................
Claims-based reporting ............................
Registry-based reporting .........................
Registry-based reporting .........................
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Registry-based reporting .........................
As illustrated in Table 74, there are a
total of 6 reporting options, or ways in
which eligible professionals may meet
the criteria for satisfactory reporting of
measures groups for the 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System. As we stated
previously, eligible professionals may
potentially qualify as satisfactorily
reporting for the 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System on measures groups
under more than one of the reporting
criteria, reporting mechanisms, and/or
for more than one reporting period;
however, only one incentive payment
will be made to an eligible professional
based on the longest reporting period for
which the eligible professional
satisfactorily reports. In addition,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
although an eligible professional could
submit data under multiple reporting
mechanisms, CMS will not combine
data received from different reporting
mechanisms to determine whether the
eligible professional satisfactorily
reported. Similarly, an eligible
professional could also potentially
qualify for the Physician Quality
Reporting System incentive payment by
satisfactorily reporting both individual
measures and measures groups.
However, only one incentive payment
will be made to the eligible professional
based on the longest reporting period for
which the eligible professional
satisfactorily reports.
PO 00000
Frm 00333
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
January 1, 2011–December 31, 2011.
July 1, 2011–December 31, 2011.
January 1, 2011–December 31, 2011.
January 1, 2011–December 31, 2011.
July 1, 2011–December 31, 2011.
g. Reporting Option for Satisfactory
Reporting on Quality Measures by
Group Practices
(1) Background and Authority
Section 1848(m)(3)(C)(i) of the Act
required the Secretary to establish and
have in place a process by January 1,
2010 under which eligible professionals
in a group practice (as defined by the
Secretary) shall be treated as
satisfactorily submitting data on quality
measures under the Physician Quality
Reporting System if, in lieu of reporting
measures under the Physician Quality
Reporting System, the group practice
reports measures determined
appropriate by the Secretary, such as
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
73502
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
measures that target high-cost chronic
conditions and preventive care, in a
form and manner, and at a time
specified by the Secretary. Section
1848(m)(3)(C)(ii) of the Act requires that
this process provide for the use of a
statistical sampling model to submit
data on measures, such as the model
used under the Medicare Physician
Group Practice (PGP) demonstration
project under section 1866A of the Act.
A group practice reporting option
(GPRO) was established for the 2010
Physician Quality Reporting System in
the CY 2010 PFS final rule with
comment period (74 FR 61807 through
61811).
For the 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System, we proposed to
continue to allow a group practice, as a
whole (that is, for the TIN(s)), to
participate in the 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System and to submit
Physician Quality Reporting System
quality measures for 2011 and qualify to
earn an incentive (75 FR 40178–40183).
If, however, an individual eligible
professional is affiliated with a group
practice participating in the GPRO and
the group practice satisfactorily reports
under the GPRO, the eligible
professional will be considered as
satisfactorily reporting Physician
Quality Reporting System quality
measures data at the individual level
under that same TIN (that is, for the
same TIN/NPI combination).
(2) Definition of ‘‘Group Practice’’
As stated previously, section
1848(m)(3)(C)(i) of the Act authorized
the Secretary to define ‘‘group practice.’’
For purposes of determining whether a
group practice satisfactorily submits
Physician Quality Reporting System
quality measures data, we proposed that
for the 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System a ‘‘group practice’’
would consist of a physician group
practice, as defined by a TIN, with 2 or
more individual eligible professionals
(or, as identified by NPIs) who have
reassigned their billing rights to the TIN.
This proposed definition for group
practice is different from the 2010
Physician Quality Reporting System
definition of group practice in that we
proposed to change the minimum group
size from 200 to 2 to enable more group
practices to participate in the Physician
Quality Reporting System GPRO in
2011.
As our intent is to build on an
existing quality reporting program with
which group practices may already be
familiar, we proposed to be consistent
with the PGP demonstration and use
one GPRO process, which we refer to as
‘‘GPRO I’’ that would be available only
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:28 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
to similar large group practices. For
group practices that have fewer than 200
members, we proposed, if technically
feasible, an alternative GPRO process
which we refer to as ‘‘GPRO II’’.
In order to participate in the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System
through the GPRO, we proposed to
require group practices to complete a
self-nomination process and to meet
certain technical and other
requirements. For 2011, we proposed
that group practices must participate in
the Physician Quality Reporting System
group practice reporting option in order
to be eligible to participate in the eRx
group practice reporting option for the
2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System. As this is the current
requirement under the 2010 Physician
Quality Reporting System and eRx
Incentive Program, we proposed that a
group practice wishing to participate in
both the Physician Quality Reporting
System group practice reporting option
and the electronic prescribing group
practice reporting option must notify
CMS of its desire to do so at the time
that it self-nominates to participate in
the Physician Quality Reporting System
group practice reporting option.
In addition, we proposed that group
practices that are participating in
Medicare demonstration projects, as
approved by the Secretary, would also
be considered group practices for
purposes of the 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System GPRO. Specifically,
for the 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System we proposed to deem
group practices participating in the PGP,
Medicare Care Management
Performance (MCMP), and EHR
demonstrations to be participating in
the Physician Quality Reporting System
GPRO since many of the measures being
reported under these demonstration
programs are similar to Physician
Quality Reporting System measures. As
a result, such practices do not need to
separately self-nominate to participate
in the Physician Quality Reporting
System GPRO, although it would be
necessary for such groups to meet the
requirements for incentive qualification
under their respective approved
demonstration project. For example, the
MCMP demonstration sites would be
required to meet the requirements for
earning a Physician Quality Reporting
System incentive specified under the
MCMP demonstration.
For purposes of the 2011 eRx
Incentive Program, however, we
proposed that group practices
participating in CMS-approved
demonstration projects previously
discussed would be required to meet the
proposed 2011 eRx Incentive Program
PO 00000
Frm 00334
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
GPRO requirements or the proposed
2011 eRx Incentive Program
requirements for individual eligible
professionals in order to qualify for a
2011 eRx incentive. Such group
practices would not be able to qualify
for a 2011 eRx incentive via
participation in an approved
demonstration project since there is no
eRx requirement under these
demonstrations.
We also sought comment on
alternatives for expanding GPRO in
2011. One option that we considered
was to expand GPRO I to include
smaller group practices. Specifically, we
considered allowing groups of 100 or
more eligible professionals to
participate in the Physician Quality
Reporting System under GPRO using the
same reporting mechanism and
reporting criteria required under the
2010 Physician Quality Reporting
System GPRO and proposed for the
2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System GPRO I. We also considered
modifying the definition of ‘‘group
practice’’ to include groups that have
and use multiple TINs.
The following is a summary of the
comments received regarding the
proposed definition of ‘‘group practice’’
and the alternatives that were
considered.
Comment: Several commenters
expressed support for the proposed
2011 definition of a group practice as 2
or more individual eligible professionals
who have reassigned their billing rights
to the appropriate TIN, as opposed to a
group practice with 200 or more
individual eligible professionals as was
the case in 2010. Commenters believed
that this will greatly expand the
opportunities for participation in the
group practice reporting option and
aligns with the current environment.
Response: We agree that our proposed
definition of ‘‘group practice’’ will
expand opportunities to participate in
the group practice reporting option. To
allow for expanded use of the group
practice reporting option, we are
finalizing our proposal to define ‘‘group
practice’’ as 2 or more individual
eligible professionals. However, as
noted in the discussed that follows, we
are modifying the definition of ‘‘group
practice’’ with respect to group practices
participating in Medicare demonstration
projects approved by the Secretary.’’
Rather than including such group
practices in the definition of ‘‘group
practice’’ at § 414.90(b), we are
indicating that such practices are
deemed to be participating in the
Physician Quality Reporting System at
§ 414.90(g)(1).
E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM
29NOR2
Monday,
November 29, 2010
Book 2 of 2 Books
Pages 73503–73934
Part II—Continued
Department of
Health and Human
Services
Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
42 CFR Parts 405, 409, 410 et al.
Medicare Program; Payment Policies
Under the Physician Fee Schedule and
Other Revisions to Part B for CY 2011;
Final Rule
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:48 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73504
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Comment: One commenter believes
that the GPRO requirement that
physicians reassign their billing rights
to the taxpayer identification number
(TIN) could be problematic for some
practices where individual physicians
continue billing Medicare on their
behalf rather than reassigning to the
group practice. Yet, these practices still
function as a group and use the same
data systems. It was recommended that
we reconsider the reassignment
requirement, as well as continue to add
more specialty-specific measures groups
in an effort to make the GPRO a more
viable and attractive option.
Response: We understand that there
are various scenarios that may occur
that would result in an individual
eligible professional not reassigning his
or her billing rights to a group TIN as
required for inclusion in the GPRO I
group. However, Physician Quality
Reporting System GPRO I patient
assignment, sample selection and
incentive calculations are based at the
TIN/NPI level. We believe it would be
burdensome on the GPRO as well as the
individual eligible professionals to track
all individual NPIs who may practice
periodically with their group while
accounting for the instances when the
NPI is not providing services to
beneficiaries assigned to the group.
Comment: One commenter requested
that we expand the definition of ‘‘group
practice’’ to include non-physician
providers.
Response: We are finalizing our
proposal to define ‘‘group practice’’ as a
single TIN with 2 or more eligible
professionals, as identified by their
individual NPI, who have reassigned
their billing rights to the TIN, but as
noted in the following discussion, we
are modifying our definition with
respect to group practices participating
in Medicare demonstration projects
approved by the Secretary. Therefore,
although the term ‘‘physician group’’
may sometimes be used when referring
to group practices, it is not intended to
infer that group practices are only
physicians.
Comment: A couple of commenters
commended us for taking positive steps
to reduce the reporting burden for
eligible professionals. The commenters
were specifically referring to our
proposal to deem group practices
participating in the PGP, MCMP, and
EHR demonstrations to be participating
in the Physician Quality Reporting
System such that all eligible
professionals participating in these
demonstrations automatically will
receive Physician Quality Reporting
VerDate Mar<15>2010
00:48 Nov 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
System bonus payments. The
commenters requested that we extend
this same waiver to all types of
providers who participate in
demonstrations. One commenter noted
that the majority of participants in the
PGP demonstration are hospitals and,
like the Physician Quality Reporting
System program, many of the measures
that hospitals report to the RHQDAPU
program overlap with the measures
required for participation in the
demonstration.
Response: We agree with trying to
lessen the burden on eligible
professionals who are participating in
demonstrations when practical and
feasible. We specifically focused on
these three demonstrations because
their participants are required to report
on measures that are very similar to the
Physician Quality Reporting System
GPRO I measures and to do so using a
process very similar to the Physician
Quality Reporting System GPRO I
process for their demonstrations. At this
time, we are not aware of other
demonstrations that require the same
measures and reporting processes.
Therefore, we are not granting waivers
with regard to the group practice
reporting option to providers who are
participating in demonstrations other
than the PGP, MCMP, and EHR
demonstrations. In addition, this waiver
does not apply to any quality reporting
program other than the Physician
Quality Reporting System. We also
further note that demonstration
participants will not automatically
receive Physician Quality Reporting
System incentive payments. Rather,
they must meet the requirements for
Physician Quality Reporting System
incentive qualification under their
respective approved demonstration
project.
Comment: One commenter noted that
practices participating in either the
MCMP or EHR demonstrations could
consist of solo practitioner practices. In
addition, practices participating in the
PGP, MCMP, or EHR demonstrations
could consist of multiple TINs. The
commenter requested clarification on
whether such practices would still be
considered a ‘‘group practice’’ for
purposes of the Physician Quality
Reporting System GPRO.
Response: Our intent, in proposing to
include practices that are participating
in these demonstrations in the
definition of ‘‘group practice’’ was to
reduce the burden on eligible
professionals who are already reporting
using a process similar to the Physician
Quality Reporting System GPRO I
method and on similar measures,
regardless of the composition of the
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
actual group. Therefore, we are
modifying the definition of ‘‘group
practice’’ with respect to group practices
participating in Medicare demonstration
projects approved by the Secretary.’’
Rather than including such group
practices in the definition of ‘‘group
practice’’ at § 414.90(b), we are
indicating that such practices are
deemed to be participating in the
Physician Quality Reporting System at
§ 414.90(g)(1). In addition, we are
clarifying at § 414.90(g)(1) that such
practices are ‘‘group practices of any size
(including solo practitioners) or
comprised of multiple TINs
participating in a Medicare
demonstration project approved by the
Secretary.’’
Based on these comments, we are
finalizing the proposed definition of
‘‘group practice’’ with the changes
discussed previously for purposes of the
2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System group practice reporting option.
We recognize that a group’s size can
fluctuate throughout the year as
professionals move from practice to
practice. Therefore, a group practice’s
size, for purposes of determining which
reporting criteria the group must satisfy,
will be the size of the group at the time
the group’s participation in one of the
2011 GPRO options is approved by
CMS.
We also recognize that, for various
reasons, there potentially could be a
discrepancy between the number of
eligible professionals (that is, NPIs)
submitted by the practice during the
self-nomination process and the number
of eligible professionals billing
Medicare under the practice’s TIN.
Therefore, if we find more NPIs in the
Medicare claims than the number of
NPIs submitted by the practice during
the self-nomination process and this
would result in the practice being
subject to different criteria for
satisfactory reporting, then we will
notify the practice of this finding as part
of the self-nomination process. At this
point, the practice will have the option
of either agreeing to being subject to the
different criteria for satisfactory
reporting, justifying why they should
not be subject to the different criteria for
satisfactory reporting, or opting out of
participation in the Physician Quality
Reporting System as a group practice.
For example, if we determine that a
group practice that self-nominates for
GPRO II has more than 199 eligible
professionals billing Medicare under the
practice’s TIN, the practice would have
the option of agreeing to participate in
the Physician Quality Reporting System
under GPRO I, explaining why the
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
practice actually has fewer than 200
eligible professionals (for example,
some of the eligible professionals who
billed Medicare have since retired), or
opting out of participation in the
Physician Quality Reporting System
GPRO for 2011. If a group practice that
self-nominates for GPRO I has fewer
than 200 NPIs billing Medicare under
the practice’s TIN, then we will give the
practice the opportunity to participate
in GPRO II.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
(3) Process for Physician Group
Practices To Participate as Group
Practices and Criteria for Satisfactory
Reporting
(A) Group Practice Reporting Option for
Physician Group Practices With 200 or
More NPIs—GPRO I
As stated previously, we proposed
that group practices interested in
participating in GPRO I must selfnominate to do so. For group practices
selected to participate in the Physician
Quality Reporting System GPRO I for
2011, we proposed to retain the existing
12-month reporting period beginning
January 1, 2011. We proposed that
group practices participating in GPRO I
submit information on a proposed
common set of 26 NQF-endorsed quality
measures using a data collection tool
based on the GPRO Tool used in the
2010 Physician Quality Reporting
System GPRO by 36 participating group
practices to report quality measures
under the Physician Quality Reporting
System. As part of the data submission
process for 2011 GPRO I, we proposed
that during 2012, each group practice
would be required to report quality
measures with respect to services
furnished during the 2011 reporting
period (that is, January 1, 2011, through
December 31, 2011) on an assigned
sample of Medicare beneficiaries.
Once the beneficiary assignment has
been made for each group practice,
which we anticipate will be done during
the fourth quarter of 2011, we proposed
to provide each group practice selected
to participate in the Physician Quality
Reporting System GPRO I with access to
a database (that is, a data collection tool)
that will include the group’s assigned
beneficiary samples and the final GPRO
I quality measures. We proposed to prepopulate the data collection tool with
the assigned beneficiaries’ demographic
and utilization information based on all
of their Medicare claims data. The group
practice will be required to populate the
remaining data fields necessary for
capturing quality measure information
on each of the assigned beneficiaries.
Identical to the sampling method used
in the PGP demonstration, we proposed
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
that the random sample must consist of
at least 411 assigned beneficiaries. If the
pool of eligible assigned beneficiaries is
less than 411, then the group practice
must report on 100 percent, or all, of the
assigned beneficiaries to satisfactorily
participate in the group practice
reporting option. For each disease
module or preventive care measure, the
group practice would be required to
report information on the assigned
patients in the order in which they
appear in the group’s sample (that is,
consecutively). These proposed
reporting criteria are identical to the
reporting criteria used in the PGP
demonstration and in the 2010
Physician Quality Reporting System
GPRO.
For 2011, we proposed an exclusive
reporting mechanism for eligible
professionals identified as part of the
group practice with respect to the group
as identified by the TIN. However,
eligible professionals who are part of the
group practice, and who separately
practice with respect to another TIN to
which the eligible professional has
reassigned benefits, could separately
qualify as individual eligible
professionals with respect to the other
practice (TIN).
We invited comments on our proposal
for 2011 to retain 200 as the number of
NPIs for a TIN required for each group
practice under the GPRO I. We also
invited comment on our proposal to
allow those ‘‘qualified’’ for 2010 GPRO
to be rolled over for automatic
qualification for 2011 GPRO I.
The following is a summary of the
comments received regarding the
proposed process for physician group
practices with 200 or more NPIs (that is,
GPRO I).
Comment: A commenter expressed
support for continuation of GPRO I.
Response: We appreciate the
commenter’s support. We are finalizing
the GPRO I as proposed. We believe that
this process provides an effective means
of collecting quality data from large
group practices.
Comment: A commenter expressed
support for our proposal that 2010
GPRO participants would not need to go
through the self-nomination process to
participate in 2011.
Response: We appreciate the time and
effort taken by the commenter to state
support of our proposal to not have
2010 GPRO participants go through self
nomination process for GPRO I
participation for 2011. We will not
require 2010 GPRO participants to go
through the self-nomination process for
2011 but they will need to inform us of
their desire to participate in the 2011
GPRO I.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73505
Comment: To encourage group
reporting for large practices, and to
reduce the risk to individual eligible
professionals if the practices do not
qualify for an incentive, one commenter
requested that we allow the individual
eligible professionals within GPRO I to
continue reporting through traditional
methods. Thus, those participants might
be eligible for incentives if the group
practice does not satisfactorily submit
data.
Response: We considered the
feasibility of analyzing Physician
Quality Report System data submissions
for GPRO I participants at the individual
NPI level, but we decided against this
option. Analyzing Physician Quality
Reporting System data submissions for
GPRO I participants at the individual
NPI level would require individual
eligible professionals who are part of a
group practice participating in GPRO I
to collect and report quality data in
multiple ways, which would be
inefficient. In addition, doing so would
require additional CMS resources and
potentially delay availability of the
incentive payments for all participants.
Furthermore, we believe that a group
practice should have little difficulty in
satisfactorily reporting under GPRO I
since they will receive feedback prior to
submission of the data to CMS.
Comment: We received a few
comments on the proposed reporting
criteria for GPRO I. One commenter
suggested that the GPRO reporting
requirements be limited to 411 patients
in total, rather than 411 patients per
measure, in order to reduce the
associated resource burdens to
participation. Another commenter was
concerned with the considerable
resources required to complete the data
collection tool for this sample in such
a short time frame. Given the
methodology used, the commenter
believes a smaller sample size would
provide an accurate representation of a
group’s performance and urges us to
reevaluate the sample sizes required.
Response: The sample size for GPRO
I is based on research done through the
PGP demonstration. Since 2010 is the
first year that GPRO was used for the
Physician Quality Reporting System,
there is insufficient data to warrant
changing the sample size at this time.
We note, however, that the GPRO I is for
group practices with 200 or more
eligible professionals. On average, these
group practices typically have 20,000
patients assigned to each group practice.
Thus, the number of measures and the
required sample size is considered to be
equitable for practices with this volume
of patients and eligible professionals.
We will continue to evaluate the
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73506
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
number and types of measures and
modules for future program years.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that group practices with
50 or more eligible professionals be
eligible to participate in GPRO I.
Response: The GPRO I is based on the
methodology researched through the
PGP demonstration project. We would
like to further explore the impact of a
smaller patient sample size before
implementing GPRO I for group
practices less than 200 NPI’s. We are,
however, finalizing a group practice
option for groups with less than 200
eligible professionals (GPRO II) that
group practices with 2–199 eligible
professionals can participate in for
2011. With the implementation of GPRO
II for 2011 it would be a potential drain
on resources to also implement GPRO I
for smaller practice at the same time.
For the reasons discussed previously
and after taking into consideration the
comments, we are finalizing the process
group practices will be required to use
to report data on quality measures for
the 2011 as a group practice under
GPRO I and the associated criteria for
satisfactory reporting of data on quality
measures by GPRO I practices, which
are summarized in Table 75. Group
practices participating in the Physician
Quality Reporting System GPRO I as a
group practice will be required to report
on all of the measures listed in Table 75
of this final rule with comment period.
These quality measures are grouped into
preventive care measures and four
disease modules: heart failure, diabetes,
coronary artery disease, and
hypertension.
TABLE 75—2011 PROCESS FOR PHYSICIAN GROUP PRACTICES TO PARTICIPATE AS GROUP PRACTICES AND CRITERIA
FOR SATISFACTORY REPORTING OF DATA ON QUALITY MEASURES BY GROUP PRACTICES FOR GPRO I
Reporting criteria
Reporting period
A pre-populated data collection tool provided by CMS.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Reporting mechanism
• Report on all measures included in the data collection
tool (26 measures); and.
• Complete the tool for the first 411 consecutively ranked
and assigned beneficiaries in the order in which they appear in the group’s sample for each disease module or
preventive care measure. If the pool of eligible assigned
beneficiaries is less than 411, then report on 100% of assigned beneficiaries.
January 1, 2011–December 31, 2011.
As stated in the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule (75 FR 40179), group
practices interested in participating in
GPRO I must submit a self-nomination
letter accompanied by an electronic file
submitted in a format specified by CMS
(such as, a Microsoft Excel file) that
includes the group practice’s TIN(s) and
name of the group practice, the name
and e-mail address of a single point of
contact for handling administrative
issues, as well as the name and e-mail
address of a single point of contact for
technical support purposes. We will
validate that the group practice consists
of a minimum of 200 NPIs and will
supply group practices with this list.
The self-nomination letter must also
indicate the group practice’s compliance
with the following requirements:
• Agree to attend and participate in
all mandatory GPRO training sessions;
and
• Have billed Medicare Part B on or
after January 1, 2010 and prior to
October 29, 2010.
We are not finalizing our proposal
requiring group practices to indicate in
their self-nomination letter that they
have an active IACS user account. This
was a requirement that we proposed to
retain from the 2010 Physician Quality
Reporting System GPRO selfnomination process. However, since an
active IACS user account will not be
needed to submit 2010 Physician
Quality Reporting System GPRO data to
us, we have decided not to require an
IACS user account for the 2011
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
Physician Quality Reporting System
GPRO I. Although access to a CMS
identity management system will not be
required for submitting 2011 PQRI
GPRO I data to us, a group practice will
need to have access to a CMS identity
management system in order to access
their 2011 PQRI feedback report.
We intend to post the final 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System
GPRO I participation requirements for
group practices, including instructions
for submitting the self-nomination letter
and other requested information, on the
Physician Quality Reporting System
section of the CMS Web site at https://
www.cms.gov/PQRI by November 15,
2010 or shortly thereafter. Group
practices that wish to self-nominate for
2011 will be required to do so by
January 31, 2011. Upon receipt of the
self-nomination letters we will assess
whether the participation requirements
were met by each self-nominated group
practice using 2010 Medicare claims
data. We will not preclude a group
practice from participating in the GPRO
I if we discover, from analysis of the
2010 Medicare claims data, that there
are some eligible professionals
(identified by NPIs) that are not
established Medicare providers (that is,
have not billed Medicare Part B on or
after January 1, 2010 and prior to or on
October 29, 2010) as long as the group
has at least 200 established Medicare
providers. NPIs who are not established
Medicare providers, however, would
not be included in our incentive
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
payment calculations. Group practices
that were selected to participate in the
2010 Physician Quality Reporting
System GPRO will automatically be
qualified to participate in the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System
GPRO I and will not need to complete
the 2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System GPRO I self-nomination process.
The 2010 Physician Quality Reporting
System GPRO Tool will be updated as
needed to include the 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System GPRO I
measures. We believe that use of the
GPRO data collection tool allows group
practices the opportunity to calculate
their own performance rates for
reporting quality measures.
As stated in the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule (75 FR 40180 through
40181), we intend to provide the
selected physician groups with access to
this pre-populated database by no later
than the first quarter of 2012. For
purposes of pre-populating this GPRO I
tool, we will assign beneficiaries to each
group practice using a patient
assessment methodology modeled after
the patient assignment methodology
used in the PGP demonstration. Based
on our desire to model the Physician
Quality Reporting System GPRO I after
the PGP demonstration, we will also
consider applying any refinements
made to the methodology used in the
PGP demonstration prior to January 1,
2011 to the 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System. We anticipate using
Medicare claims data for dates of service
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
on or after January 1, 2011 and
submitted and processed by
approximately October 31, 2011 (that is,
the last business day of October 2011)
to assign Medicare beneficiaries to each
group practice. Assigned beneficiaries
will be limited to those Medicare Part B
FFs beneficiaries with Medicare Parts A
and B for whom Medicare is the primary
payer. Assigned beneficiaries will not
include Medicare Advantage enrollees.
A beneficiary will be assigned to the
group practice that provides the
plurality of a beneficiary’s office or
other outpatient office evaluation and
management allowed charges.
Beneficiaries with only 1 office visit to
the group practice will be eliminated
from the group practice’s assigned
patient sample for purposes of the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System
GPRO I. We will pre-populate the GPRO
I tool with the assigned beneficiaries’
demographic and utilization
information based on their Medicare
claims data.
Upon receipt of the pre-populated
data collection tool, the group practice
will need to populate the remaining
data fields necessary for capturing
quality measure information on each of
the assigned beneficiaries up to 411
beneficiaries for each disease module
and preventive care measure. If the pool
of eligible assigned beneficiaries for any
disease module or preventive care
measure is less than 411, then the group
practice must populate the remaining
data files for 100 percent of eligible
assigned beneficiaries for that disease
module or preventive care measure. For
each disease module or preventive care
measure, the group practice must report
information on the assigned patients in
the order in which they appear in the
group’s sample (that is, consecutively).
(B) Group Practice Reporting Option for
Group Practices of 2–199 NPIs—GPRO–
II
As discussed previously, section
1848(m)(3)(C) of the Act authorized us
to define the term ‘‘group practice’’ and
required us to establish a process under
which eligible professionals in group
practices shall be treated as
satisfactorily submitting data on
Physician Quality Reporting System
quality measures, but was not
prescriptive with regard to the
characteristics of this process. Although
for 2010 we did not provide a process
for groups of less than 200 NPIs to
report under the GPRO, we believe that
there are significant potential benefits to
allowing reporting at the group level
generally. Thus, based on this authority
we proposed a new group practice
reporting option (GPRO II) for groups of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
2–199 NPIs in a TIN for 2011 (75 FR
40181). For GPRO II in 2011, we
proposed to require groups of eligible
professionals who decide to report as a
group to self-nominate. We did not
propose to preclude a group practice
from participating in the GPRO II if we
discover, from analysis of the 2010
Medicare claims data, that there are
some eligible professionals (identified
by NPIs) that are not established
Medicare providers (that is, have not
billed Medicare Part B on or after
January 1, 2010 and prior to or on) as
long as the group has at least 2
established Medicare providers. October
29, 2010 NPIs who are not established
Medicare providers, however, would
not be included in our incentive
payment calculations.
We also proposed that selfnominating groups would need to
indicate in this letter if the group
intends to report as a group for the eRx
Incentive Program and the reporting
mechanism the group intends to use to
report as a group for the eRx Incentive
Program.
Since GPRO II would be a new
process available to groups in 2011, we
proposed to initially pilot the GPRO II
process with a limited number of
groups. We proposed to select the first
500 groups that meet the proposed
eligibility requirements to participate in
the 2011 GPRO II. We proposed to use
the postmark to determine the order in
which groups self-nominated for GPRO
II. We proposed to consider only selfnomination letters postmarked between
January 3, 2011 and January 31, 2011.
We did not propose to consider letters
postmarked prior to January 3, 2011 to
prevent groups from self-nominating
before the GPRO II requirements are
finalized and to discourage groups from
self-nominating for GPRO II prior to
reviewing the final GPRO II
requirements.
For purposes of quality data
submission, we proposed, for the GPRO
II, to allow eligible professionals to
submit their data through claims or
through a qualified GPRO registry to the
extent registries are technically capable
of collecting, calculating and
transmitting the required data to CMS
and that we are able to accept such data
from registries.
For GPRO II, we proposed that in
addition to reporting a specific number
of individual measures, the group
would have to report one or more
proposed 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System measures groups
depending on the size of the group
practice.
For purposes of satisfying the
requirements under section
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73507
1848(m)(3)(C)(i) of the Act for groups of
2–199 NPIs, we proposed that in order
to be treated as satisfactorily reporting
under GPRO II, the group practice
would be required to report on 50
percent or more (if submitting through
claims) of all Medicare Part B patients
who fit into the measures group
denominator or 80 percent or more of
Medicare patients if using a registry to
report.
Additionally, to earn a Physician
Quality Reporting System incentive
payment for all allowed Medicare Part
B services that are provided by the TIN,
we proposed that a group practice must
report on three to six individual 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System
measures, depending on the size of the
group. We proposed that the group
practice may select from among any of
the 2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System measures on which to submit
data, provided the measures selected are
not duplicated in the measures group(s)
reported.
We proposed that, to satisfactorily
report individual Physician Quality
Reporting System measures, a group
must report each measure at the same
rate (percentage) as determined by the
method of submission as individual
eligible professionals. For example, if
reporting via claims, to satisfactorily
report individual measures, each
measure would need to be reported on
at least 50 percent of eligible Medicare
Part B FFS patients.
An alternative which we considered
and sought comment on was to require
that the individual measures be selected
from a more limited set of measures,
such as measures closely linked to
improved population health, or other
measures perceived to address the
greatest potential benefit from improved
performance. A second alternative that
we considered and sought comment on
was to require group practices, as part
of the self-nomination process, to
designate whether they were a
multispecialty group with primary care,
a multispecialty group without primary
care, or a single specialty group, and if
so, the specialty. Depending on what
type of specialty the group is, we would
identify a set of Physician Quality
Reporting System measures pertaining
to the group’s specialty and require the
group practice to report on the
identified set of specialty-specific
Physician Quality Reporting System
measures.
If a group practice participating in the
2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System GPRO II wants to also
participate in the 2011 eRx Incentive
Program as a small group, we proposed
that the group would need to indicate
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73508
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
that preference in their self-nomination
letter and would need to report on a
specified number of unique encounters
based on their group size. For GPRO II
reporting in the 2011 eRx Incentive
Program, we proposed the following
reporting mechanisms: claims, a GPRO
eRx qualified registry or a GPRO
qualified EHR. As with the 2011 eRx
Incentive Program for individual
eligible professionals and the 2011 eRx
Incentive Program GPRO I, at least 10
percent of a GPRO II group’s charges
would need to be comprised of codes in
the denominator of the electronic
prescribing measure and the group
would need to use an electronic
prescribing system that meets the
requirements of the 2011 electronic
prescribing measure. Similar to
proposed GPRO I, if a GPRO II group
self-nominates to report the electronic
prescribing measure as a group, we
proposed that all members of the group
practicing under the group’s TIN would
be ineligible to report as an individual
electronic prescriber.
The following is a summary of the
comments received regarding our
proposal on the GPRO II option and
process for group practices to report
Physician Quality Reporting System
quality data measures.
Comment: We received favorable
support for the proposed addition of
GPRO II as a group reporting option,
including the requirement to selfnominate and report a measures group
along with 3 individual relevant
performance measures. One commenter
stated that GPRO II will help spur more
eligible professionals, specifically those
with 2–199 member practices, to
participate in the Physician Quality
Reporting System.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ support and are finalizing
our proposal to add GPRO II as a group
reporting option. We note, however, that
the number of measures groups and
individual measures on which a group
practice will be required to report will
vary by the group practice’s sizes. The
specific requirements are described in
Table 76 of this final rule with comment
period.
Comment: Some commenters opposed
the proposed cap of the first 500 groups
that self-nominate for GPRO II.
Commenters were primarily concerned
that this would be too limiting. Another
commenter noted that this reporting
option has the advantage of mid-year
interim feedback reports to assist
participating groups in determining
whether their Physician Quality
Reporting System data is being captured
appropriately. One commenter
recommended that all self-nominations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
postmarked in the month of January
2011 be accepted for this reporting
option. Another commenter urged us to
expand GPRO II quickly beyond the
initial cap of 500 practices.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ enthusiasm for this new
reporting option and would like to be
able to make it available to as many
groups as possible, but will need to
initially limit the number of groups
participating in GPRO II for operational
reasons. We will accept at least 500
groups, but could potentially accept
more depending on our ability to handle
a higher volume of groups participating
in this option. We expect that we will
be able to expand this option further in
future years to make it available to more
groups. In addition, we would like to
clarify that we did not propose to
provide interim feedback reports for
group practices participating in GPRO
II. Rather, we proposed to provide
interim feedback reports for individual
eligible professionals who submitted
measures group data via claims during
the first 2 months of 2011. However, as
noted in this section, we are not
finalizing this proposal.
Comment: Since we proposed to limit
participation in GPRO II to 500 groups
in 2011, it was recommended that we
strive for diversity of specialty
representation rather than just a firstcome, first-served approach.
Response: We appreciate the
commenter’s suggestions. As stated
previously, we will accept as many
groups as resources allow and select a
minimum of 500 GPRO II practices for
2011.
Comment: One commenter requested
that GPRO II be made available to
groups of any size. The commenter
believed this would allow group
practices to decide whether to
participate in GPRO I or GPRO II
depending on which option works best
for their practice.
Response: We appreciate the
commenter’s valuable input. As we
explore ways to further expand the
GPRO II in future years we may
consider making it available to groups of
any size.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that we reduce the number of individual
and group measures required to report
for GPRO II. Other commenters stated
that the requirement to report at least 1
measures group would disadvantage
those group practices for which none of
the existing measures groups applies or
there are a limited number of applicable
measures groups.
Response: We understand the
commenters’ concerns and are revising
the criteria for satisfactory reporting.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Whereas we proposed to require group
practices to report on a specified
percentage of patients for both
individual measures and measures
groups, we are requiring, for 2011, that
group practices report on a specified
percentage of patients for the individual
measures only. For measures groups,
group practices will need to report on
only the specified minimum number of
patients (see Table 76 of this final rule
with comment period). In addition, we
believe that, on average, the total
reporting burden per eligible
professional in a group practice is less
than the reporting burden for eligible
professionals reporting individually. For
example, for a group of 5 eligible
professionals that is required to report
on 1 measures group and 3 individual
measures, this means that the group is
required to report on less than 2
measures per eligible professionals
compared to 3 measures or 1 measures
group per individual eligible
professional.
With respect to the commenter’s
concerns that groups with a limited
number of applicable measures groups
could be disadvantaged, we believe that
as we increase the numbers of measures
groups available, this would be less of
a concern over time. In the meantime,
eligible professionals in group practices
that do not have any applicable
measures groups are still able to report
individual measures as individual
eligible professionals and meet the
criteria for satisfactory reporting
individually.
Comment: One commenter requested
that we not restrict the selection of
Physician Quality Reporting System
measures (for example, only population
health measures) for GPRO II, given that
multi-specialty groups with primary
care, multi-specialty groups without
primary care, and single specialty
groups will be participating in this
reporting option. Restrictions to select
Physician Quality Reporting System
measures may limit the diversity of
practices that elect to report through
this option. Similarly, another
commenter was concerned that
requiring so many primary care
measures will make it difficult for
specialists, such as psychiatrists, to
participate in large numbers.
Response: The commenters appear to
be suggesting that we are placing
restrictions on the selection of measures
for the GPRO II, which is not correct.
While GPRO I groups are required to
report on a standard set of 26 measures,
the GPRO II groups can select any 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System
individual measures and measures
groups that are relevant to their practice
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
as long as they report the required
number of individual measures and
measures groups for their group size
(see Table 76 of this final rule with
comment period). However, in future
years and in future rulemaking we
expect to reconsider alternative
reporting requirements, including the
alternatives of identifying a core set of
measures for which broad reporting may
be required.
Comment: One commenter requested
that we clearly indicate how we derived
the performance results for each
individual professional if we post
performance information derived from
the GPRO II on the Physician Compare
Web site. The commenter was
concerned that the reported
performance that will be attributed to an
individual eligible professional through
GPRO II will not necessarily reflect
individual performance.
Response: We appreciate the
commenter’s feedback. To date, we have
not made any Physician Quality
Reporting System performance rates
publicly available. We value input from
external stakeholders. Opinions and
alternatives that are provided will assist
us in future policy decisions as we
develop our plans for the Physician
Compare Web site. With respect to the
commenter’s concern that performance
information derived from GPRO II will
be attributed to an individual eligible
professional, group practice reporting is
attributed to the entire group, not to the
individual. Additionally, we do not
intend to publicly report Physician
Quality Reporting System performance
results for 2011.
Upon consideration of the comments
received, group practices that wish to
participate in the GPRO II will need to
self-nominate. The self-nomination
process will consist of sending a letter
with the name of the group, the TIN, an
e-mail address of the contact person,
and the names and NPIs of all of the
eligible professionals practicing under
that group’s TIN. The self-nomination
letter must also be accompanied by an
electronic file submitted in a format
specified by CMS (such as Microsoft
Excel) with the group practice’s TIN and
NPIs. Self-nomination letters should be
sent to: GPRO II, c/o CMS, 7500
Security Blvd., Mail Stop S3–02–01,
Baltimore, MD 21244, and must be
postmarked by January 31, 2011, for
consideration in the program. We are
also finalizing our proposal to initially
limit the number of groups participating
in GPRO II. We seek to make this option
available to as many groups as possible
but have limited resources. Therefore, as
stated previously, we will accept at least
500 groups, but could potentially accept
more depending on our ability to handle
a higher volume of groups participating
in this option. We expect that we will
be able to expand this option further in
future years to make it available to more
groups.
Table 76 sets forth the final criteria for
satisfactory reporting under the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System
GPRO II and requirements for each
group based on their respective group
size (number of eligible professionals).
73509
As stated previously, GPRO II groups
will be required to report on a specified
percentage of patients for reporting the
individual measures only. To
satisfactorily report measures groups for
the 2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System GPRO II, the group practice
need only report on the minimum
number of patients specified in Table 76
for their group size. In addition, since
we will not have the ability to
determine whether the registries can
ensure that only unique patients are
counted, GPRO II groups must report
the 2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System data via claims unless the only
measures groups that apply to the
practice are one of the four registry-only
measures groups listed in section
VII.F.2.(i).(5). of this final rule with
comment period. Group practices that
must report on one of the four registryonly measures groups in order to meet
the criteria for satisfactory reporting will
be able to use the registry-reporting
mechanism to submit their 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System
data and must submit all of their 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System
GPRO II data via the registry reporting
mechanism. However, we anticipate
that the list of registries qualified to
submit 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System GPRO II data will not
be available until summer 2011. Group
practices will need to indicate the
reporting mechanism they intend to use
for the 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System GPRO II in their selfnomination letter.
TABLE 76—2011 PROCESS FOR PHYSICIAN GROUP PRACTICES TO PARTICIPATE AS GROUP PRACTICES AND CRITERIA
FOR SATISFACTORY REPORTING OF DATA ON QUALITY MEASURES BY GROUP PRACTICES FOR GPRO II
Group size (number of eligible
professionals)
Number of
measures
groups
required to be
reported
Minimum
number of
medicare part
b
patients in
denominator
for satisfactory
reporting of
measures
groups
1
1
2
3
4
35
50
50
60
100
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
2–10 ...................................................
11–25 .................................................
26–50 .................................................
51–100 ...............................................
101–199 .............................................
We are not finalizing our proposal to
analyze the individual professional’s
data to see if they satisfactorily reported
at the individual TIN/NPI level if the
group does not satisfactorily report as a
GPRO II group. We have determined
that this is neither practical nor feasible
for us. This should have no impact on
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
Number of
individual
measures required to be
reported
Percent of
medicare part
b patients in
denominator
for satisfactory
reporting of
individual
measures via
claims
(%)
Percent of
medicare part
b patients in
denominator
for satisfactory
reporting of
individual
measures via
registries
(%)
Required number
of unique visits
where an
e-prescription was
generated to be a
successful
electronic prescriber
50
50
50
50
50
80
80
80
80
80
75
225
475
925
1875
3
3
4
5
6
how groups will report Physician
Quality Reporting System data under
GPRO since claims will identify both
the TIN and the individual eligible
professional rendering the service
regardless of whether we analyze the
claims at the group or individual level.
Although there will be some risk to
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
eligible professionals who are part of a
GPRO II group if the group fails to
satisfactorily report, we believe this risk
is outweighed by the additional
resources that would be required to
process a group’s data at both the group
and individual levels and the fact that
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73510
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
development of quality measures and
the scope and utility of measures that
may be considered for endorsement as
voluntary consensus standards.
all participants’ incentive payments
could potentially be delayed.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
h. Statutory Requirements and Other
Considerations for 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System Measures
(1) Statutory Requirements for 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System
Measures
Under section 1848(k)(2)(C)(i) of the
Act, the Physician Quality Reporting
System quality measures shall be such
measures selected by the Secretary from
measures that have been endorsed by
the entity with a contract with the
Secretary under subsection 1890(a) of
the Act (currently, that is the National
Quality Forum, or NQF). However, in
the case of a specified area or medical
topic determined appropriate by the
Secretary for which a feasible and
practical measure has not been endorsed
by the NQF, section 1848(k)(2)(C)(ii) of
the Act authorizes the Secretary to
specify a measure that is not so
endorsed as long as due consideration is
given to measures that have been
endorsed or adopted by a consensus
organization identified by the Secretary,
such as the AQA alliance. In light of
these statutory requirements, we believe
that, except in the circumstances
specified in the statute, each proposed
2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System quality measure would need to
be endorsed by the NQF. Additionally,
section 1848(k)(2)(D) of the Act requires
that for each 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System quality measure, ‘‘the
Secretary shall ensure that eligible
professionals have the opportunity to
provide input during the development,
endorsement, or selection of measures
applicable to services they furnish.’’
The statutory requirements under
section 1848(k)(2)(C) of the Act, subject
to the exception noted previously,
require only that the measures be
selected from measures that have been
endorsed by the entity with a contract
with the Secretary under section 1890(a)
(that is, the NQF) and are silent with
respect to how the measures that are
submitted to the NQF for endorsement
were developed. The basic steps for
developing measures applicable to
physicians and other eligible
professionals prior to submission of the
measures for endorsement may be
carried out by a variety of different
organizations. We do not believe there
needs to be any special restrictions on
the type or make up of the organizations
carrying out this basic development of
physician measures, such as restricting
the initial development to physiciancontrolled organizations. Any such
restriction would unduly limit the basic
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
(2) Other Considerations for 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System
Measures
As stated previously, in addition to
reviewing the 2010 Physician Quality
Reporting System measures for purposes
of developing the proposed 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System
measures, we reviewed and considered
measure suggestions including
comments received in response to the
CY 2010 PFS proposed and final rules
with comment period. Additionally,
suggestions and input received through
other venues, such as an invitation for
measures suggestions via the Listening
Session held February 2, 2010, were
also reviewed and considered for
purposes of our development of the list
of proposed 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System quality measures.
With respect to the selection of new
measures, we applied the following
considerations, which include many of
the same considerations applied to the
selection of 2009 and 2010 Physician
Quality Reporting System quality
measures for inclusion in the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System
quality measure set previously
described:
• High Impact on Healthcare.
++ Measures that are high impact and
support CMS and HHS priorities for
improved quality and efficiency of care
for Medicare beneficiaries. These
current and long term priority topics
include the following: Prevention;
chronic conditions; high cost and high
volume conditions; elimination of
health disparities; healthcare-associated
infections and other conditions;
improved care coordination; improved
outcomes; improved efficiency;
improved patient and family experience
of care; improved end-of-life/palliative
care; effective management of acute and
chronic episodes of care; reduced
unwarranted geographic variation in
quality and efficiency; and adoption and
use of interoperable HIT.
• Measures that are included in, or
facilitate alignment with, other
Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP programs
in furtherance of overarching healthcare
goals.
• NQF Endorsement.
++ Measures must be NQF-endorsed
by June 1, 2010, in order to be
considered for inclusion in the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System
quality measure set except as provided
under section 1848(k)(2)(C)(ii) of the
Act.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
++ Section 1848(k)(2)(C)(ii) of the Act
provides an exception to the
requirement that the Secretary select
measures that have been endorsed by
the entity with a contract under section
1890(a) of the Act (that is, the NQF).
++ The statutory requirements under
section 1848(k)(2)(C) of the Act, subject
to the exception noted previously,
require only that the measures be
selected from measures that have been
endorsed by the entity with a contract
with the Secretary under section 1890(a)
(that is, the NQF) and are silent with
respect to how the measures that are
submitted to the NQF for endorsement
are developed. The basic steps for
developing measures applicable to
physicians and other eligible
professionals prior to submission of the
measures for endorsement may be
carried out by a variety of different
organizations. We do not believe there
needs to be any special restrictions on
the type or make up of the organizations
carrying out this basic development of
physician measures, such as restricting
the initial development to physiciancontrolled organizations. Any such
restriction would unduly limit the basic
development of quality measures and
the scope and utility of measures that
may be considered for endorsement as
voluntary consensus standards. The
requirements under section
1848(k)(2)(C) of the Act pertain only to
the selection of measures and not to the
development of measures.
• Address Gaps in the Physician
Quality Reporting System Measure Set.
++ Measures that increase the scope
of applicability of the Physician Quality
Reporting System measures to services
furnished to Medicare beneficiaries and
expand opportunities for eligible
professionals to participate in the
Physician Quality Reporting System.
• Measures of various aspects of
clinical quality including outcome
measures, where appropriate and
feasible, process measures, structural
measures, efficiency measures, and
measures of patient experience of care.
Other considerations that we applied
to the selection of measures for 2011,
regardless of whether the measure was
a 2010 Physician Quality Reporting
System measure or not, were—
• Measures that are functional, which
is to say measures that can be
technically implemented within the
capacity of the CMS infrastructure for
data collection, analysis, and
calculation of reporting and
performance rates. For example, we
proposed to replace existing 2010
Physician Quality Reporting System
measures #114 and #115 with updated
and improved measure #TBD
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
(Preventive Care and Screening:
Tobacco Use: Screening and Cessation
Intervention), which is less technically
challenging to report.
• In the 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System, as in the 2010
Physician Quality Reporting System, for
some measures that are useful, but
where data submission is not feasible
through all otherwise available
Physician Quality Reporting System
reporting mechanisms, a measure may
be included for reporting solely through
specific reporting mechanism(s) in
which its submission is feasible.
In the proposed rule, we invited
comments on the implication of
including or excluding any given
measure or measures for our proposed
2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System quality measure set, as well as
feedback relative to our proposed
approach in selecting measures (75 FR
40185). We indicated that while we
welcome all constructive comments and
suggestions, and may consider such
recommended measures for inclusion in
future measure sets for the Physician
Quality Reporting System and other
programs to which such measures may
be relevant, we were not able to
consider such additional measures for
inclusion in the final 2011 measure set.
As discussed previously, section
1848(k)(2)(D) of the Act requires that the
public have the opportunity to provide
input during the selection of measures.
We also are required by other applicable
statutes to provide opportunity for
public comment on provisions of policy
or regulation that are established via
notice and comment rulemaking.
Measures that were not included in the
proposed rule for inclusion in the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System that
are recommended to CMS via comments
on the proposed rule have not been
placed before the public to comment on
the selection of those measures within
the rulemaking process. Even when
measures have been published in the
Federal Register, but in other contexts
and not specifically proposed as
Physician Quality Reporting System
measures, such publication does not
provide true opportunity for public
comment on those measures’ potential
inclusion in the Physician Quality
Reporting System. Thus, such
additional measures recommended for
selection for the 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System via comments on the
CY 2011 PFS proposed rule cannot be
included in the 2011 measure set.
However, as discussed previously, we
will consider comments and
recommendations for measures, which
may not be applicable to the final set of
2011 Physician Quality Reporting
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
System measures, for purposes of
identifying measures for possible use in
the Physician Quality Reporting System
in future years or other initiatives to
which those measures may be pertinent.
In addition, as in prior years, we again
note that we do not use notice and
comment rulemaking as a means to
update or modify measure
specifications. Quality measures that
have completed the consensus process
have a designated party (usually, the
measure developer/owner) who has
accepted responsibility for maintaining
the measure. In general, it is the role of
the measure owner, developer, or
maintainer to make changes to a
measure. Therefore, comments
requesting changes to a specific
proposed Physician Quality Reporting
System measure’s title, definition, and
detailed specifications or coding should
be directed to the measure developer
identified in Tables 78 through 96.
Contact information for the 2010
Physician Quality Reporting System
measure developers is listed in the
‘‘2010 PQRI Quality Measures List,’’
which is available on the Physician
Quality Reporting System section of the
CMS Web site at https://www.cms.gov/
PQRI.
However, we stress that inclusion of
measures that are not NQF endorsed or
AQA adopted is an exception to the
requirement under section
1848(k)(2)(C)(i) of the Act that measures
be endorsed by the NQF. We may
exercise this exception authority in a
specified area or medical topic for
which a feasible and practical measure
has not been endorsed by NQF, so long
as due consideration is given to
measures that have been endorsed by
the NQF.
(3) Summary of Comments and
Responses
The following is summary of the
comments we received regarding the
statutory requirements and other
considerations for the selection of 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System
measures.
Comment: Some commenters strongly
support the adoption of NQF-endorsed
measures only. One commenter stated
that the AQA is no longer doing
measure evaluation work and should
not be allowed to approve measures for
the Physician Quality Reporting System
as a way to sidestep the well-designed
and well-executed process of the NQF.
Response: We agree that endorsement
of measures by the NQF is an important
criteria for inclusion in the Physician
Quality Reporting System. However,
section 1848(k)(2)(C)(i) of the Act
provides an exception to the
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73511
requirement that measures be endorsed
by the NQF. We may exercise this
exception authority in a specified area
or medical topic for which a feasible
and practical measure has not been
endorsed by NQF, so long as due
consideration is given to measures that
have been endorsed by the NQF. For
this reason, we retain the ability to
include non-NQF endorsed measures in
the Physician Quality Reporting System.
Once those measures work through the
NQF process, we may remove those that
were not endorsed by the NQF from the
program.
Comment: A few commenters
opposed our conclusion that any
organization can develop quality
measures. The AMA-specialty society
quality consortium, the PCPI, should be
recognized by us to specify the quality
measures and adequately test them for
inclusion in the Meaningful Use
program.
Response: We do not believe there
needs to be any special restrictions on
the type or make up of the organizations
carrying out the basic development of
measures for physicians and other
eligible professionals, such as restricting
the initial development to physiciancontrolled organizations. While we
agree that expertise in measure
development is important in the
measure development and consensus
processes, any such restriction would
unduly limit the basic development of
quality measures and the scope and
utility of measures that may be
considered for endorsement as
voluntary consensus standards. In
addition, physicians are not the only
types of professionals eligible to
participate in the Physician Quality
Reporting System.
Comment: Another commenter
encouraged us to allow for other means
for measure endorsement due to NQF’s
lack of timeliness and consistency
issues.
Response: As stated previously,
section 1848(k)(2)(C)(i) of the Act
provides an exception to the
requirement that measures be endorsed
by the NQF. We may exercise this
exception authority in a specified area
or medical topic for which a feasible
and practical measure has not been
endorsed by NQF, so long as due
consideration is given to measures that
have been endorsed by the NQF. In
certain circumstance, we have exercised
this exception authority to include
measures that have not yet gone through
the NQF endorsement process to
address measure gaps.
Comment: Many commenters
requested that we encourage the
development and use of measures in
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73512
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
specific areas or topics. The specific
areas or topics that commenters
recommended as priorities included
sub-specialty specific measures,
measures that reflect the day-to-day
treatment of cancer patients, riskadjusted outcome measures (as opposed
to process measures), measures that
better reflect patient preferences, patient
experience, functional status, and care
coordination, measures that capture
demographic data in ways that enable
measures to be stratified and used to
identify and address health disparities,
measures that address high-burden
disease areas especially prevalent in the
Medicare beneficiary population,
broader measures to enhance accurate
identification and treatment of atrial
fibrillation, measures that will be
retooled for future use in EHR reporting,
measures that must be retooled for the
impending ICD–10–CM/PCS
compliance date, and measures to
capture whether patients have received
preventive vaccinations.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ recommendations for
expanding criteria for measure selection
and prioritization. We note, however,
that we largely depend on the
development of measures by
professional organizations and other
measure developers and encourage
professional organizations and other
measure developers to fund and develop
measures that address the priority areas
identified by the commenters. In
addition, if there are specific measures
that commenters would like us to
consider for future years to address
these areas, we urge them to submit the
specific measure suggestions via the
2012 Call for Measures. Information on
the 2012 Call for Measures will be
posted on the Physician Quality
Reporting System section of the CMS
Web site when it becomes available. We
anticipate conducting the 2012 Call for
Measures in late 2010 or early 2011.
Comment: One commenter suggested
the proposed addition of Physician
Quality Reporting System measures for
2011 be re-visited in context with the
August 2010 publication of 69 NQFendorsed® ambulatory performance
measures.
Response: We appreciate the
commenter’s valuable input. As stated
previously and in the proposed rule (75
FR 40185), we are not able to consider
additional measures for inclusion in the
final 2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System measure set beyond what we
proposed. However, we may consider
them for inclusion in future measure
sets for the Physician Quality Reporting
System.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
Comment: A few commenters
recommended that we implement more
meaningful and impactful measures.
Some of the actions specifically
recommended by the commenters
include:
• Require the collection of patient
experience surveys, if there is an NQFendorsed survey available for that
professional;
• Remove measures that ‘‘document’’
the presence of evaluation, assessment,
and counseling as there is no
relationship between such measures and
patient outcome;
• Consider adding measures from
NQF’s Ambulatory Care Measures Using
Clinically Enriched Administrative Data
that are appropriate for the Medicare
population; and
• Develop measures that will fill gaps
in the Physician Quality Reporting
System measure set and that adhere to
key criteria for robust measures.
Response: We appreciate the
commenter’s feedback regarding the use
of more meaningful and impactful
measures in the Physician Quality
Reporting System. We appreciate the
time and effort taken in providing your
recommendation and, as stated
previously, we urge the commenter to
work with professional organizations
and other measure developers to fund
and develop measures that address the
priority areas identified by the
commenter and/or submit
recommendations for specific measures
that the commenter would like us to
consider for future years via the 2012
Call for Measures.
Comment: One commenter urged us
to be mindful of the resources required
to translate quality data into improved
provider performance. Therefore, we
should ensure appropriate phasing-in of
new measures into our current quality
reporting programs.
Response: We appreciate the
commenter’s valuable input. While we
strive to identify gaps of care and ensure
that specialties have measures to report,
we also recognize that there is a level of
effort associated with translating the
quality data reported into better care. As
such, we are adding a limited set of new
measures that focuses on identified gaps
and ensures specialties have measures
to report.
Comment: One commenter requested
that we further explore and discuss the
phase-in dates in context with the ICD–
10–CM/PCS transition date.
Response: We are planning for
implementation of ICD–10 and are
working in collaboration with the
Physician Quality Reporting System
measure developers/owners towards the
coding transition. More information on
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the phase-in dates for this transition
will be provided once it becomes
available.
i. The Final 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System Quality Measures for
Individual Eligible Professionals
For 2011, we proposed to include a
total of 200 measures (this includes both
individual measures and measures that
are part of a proposed 2011 measures
group) on which individual eligible
professionals can report for the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System (75
FR 40185 through 40198).
The following is a summary of the
comments received on the proposed
2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System measures in general and
comments on the measures from the
2010 Physician Quality Reporting
System not proposed for inclusion in
the 2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that we consider publishing a list of
reportable measures for each eligible
profession. This would make the
reporting process more clear and
accessible to professionals trying to
participate in the program by helping
them quickly determine which
measures are relevant to their practices.
Response: In August 2010, we posted
on the Analysis and Payment page of
the Physician Quality Reporting System
section of the CMS Web site https://www.
cms.gov/pqri, a 1st quarter 2010
aggregate QDC error report by specialty.
For each 2010 Physician Quality
Reporting System measure, this report
lists the specialties that submitted valid
QDCs for the measure during the 1st
quarter of 2010. Thus, an eligible
professional could use this report to
ascertain whether a measure is
reportable by his or her profession.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that it would be useful for participating
eligible professionals, as well as other
stakeholders, if we developed a table
that clearly summarizes the status of a
measure’s NQF endorsement, AQA
endorsement, owner, and how the
measure aligns with meaningful use
clinical quality measure requirements.
Response: Tables 78 through 97 of
this final rule with comment period
includes the status of each measure’s
NQF endorsement, as well as AQA
endorsement if applicable and the
measure is not NQF endorsed. In
addition, Tables 55 and 56 of the CY
2011 PFS proposed rule (75 FR 40193),
which lists the measures available for
EHR reporting in 2011, includes
information as to whether a measure is
included in the EHR Incentive Program
for program years 2011 and 2012. We
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
note, however, that the electronic
specifications for measures that are
included in the Physician Quality
Reporting System and Electronic Health
Record Incentive Program may be
different. Eligible professionals should
refer to the measure specifications for
the appropriate program.
Comment: We received numerous
comments in support of the 2010
Physician Quality Reporting System
quality measures proposed for inclusion
in the 2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System. Specific measures or measures
topics on which we received favorable
support include the measures on
osteoporosis, audiology, speechlanguage pathology, and measures 9,
106, 107, 124, 126, 127, 128, 130, 131,
134, 148, 149, 150, 151, 154, 155, 173,
181, 188, 189, 190, and 200.
Commenters often cited the
applicability of a specific measure to
their specialty and/or profession.
Response: We appreciate the feedback
and are finalizing our proposals to
include these measures in the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System
measure set. These measures address
one or more of the considerations for
measures selected for inclusion in the
2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System previously discussed.
Comment: A couple of commenters
asked us to reconsider the proposal to
retire Measure #135, Chronic Kidney
Disease (CKD): Influenza Immunization.
Although the measure was considered
for endorsement by NQF but was
ultimately not endorsed, the measure is
adopted by the AQA.
Response: On August 26, 2010, we
published a correction notice in the
Federal Register (75 FR 52487)
indicating we inadvertently included
this measure in the table that lists the
2010 Physician Quality Reporting
System measures not proposed to be
included in the 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System. As such, we are
including Measure #135 in the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System
individual measures set only. We are
not, however, finalizing our proposal to
include Measure #135 from the CKD
Measures Group. The reporting
requirements for Measure #135 are
different from the other measures in the
CKD measures group.
Comment: A couple of commenters
recommended keeping Measure #136,
Melanoma: Follow-Up Aspects of Care,
for purposes of reporting to the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System.
The commenters believe that although
the measure is no longer endorsed by
the National Quality Forum, it is still a
valuable tool in clinician quality
improvement. The commenters also
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
noted that this measure is most effective
as part of a set with Measures #137:
Melanoma: Continuity of Care—Recall
System and #138: Melanoma:
Coordination of Care, which are
maintained in the list of measures
available for 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System.
Response: We are finalizing our
proposal to not include Measure #136 in
the 2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System measure set. As stated in the
proposed rule, (75 FR 40186) and by the
commenter, Measure #136 was
considered by NQF for possible
endorsement but ultimately was not
NQF-endorsed. We note, also, that we
proposed and are finalizing a new
melanoma measure, Melanoma:
Overutilization of Imaging Studies in
Stage 0–1A Melanoma, for the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System.
This measure meets one or more of the
considerations for measures selected for
inclusion in the 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System.
Comment: We received one comment
in support of our proposal to retire
Measure #139 Cataracts: Comprehensive
Preoperative Assessment for Cataract
Surgery with Intraocular Lens (IOL)
Placement. Another commenter,
however, requested that this measure be
retained because it evaluates safe and
appropriate use of cataract surgery.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ feedback. Based on the fact
that the measure was reviewed for
endorsement by the NQF and ultimately
not endorsed, we are finalizing our
proposal to not include this measure in
the 2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System measure set.
Comment: In addition to the quality
measures and measures groups for
individual eligible professionals we had
proposed in Tables 52 through 54 of the
CY 2011 PFS proposed rule (75 FR
40186 through 40192), several
commenters suggested quality measures,
measures groups, and/or topics for
which additional measures or measures
groups should be added for the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System.
Specifically, commenters recommended
that we adopt—
• A measure for AAA ultrasound
screening;
• A COPD measures group;
• A stroke measures group comprised
of the following 5 measures: (1) Deep
vein thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis; (2)
Discharged on antithrombotic therapy;
(3) Patients with atrial fibrillation/flutter
receiving anticoagulant therapy; (4)
Thrombolytic therapy; and (5)
Discharged on statin medication;
• A measures group that focuses on
quality measures common to every long-
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73513
term care resident, which could include
Physician Quality Reporting System
measures #47, 110, 111, 130, 154, and
155;
• Appropriate Follow-Up Interval for
Normal Colonoscopy in Average Risk
Patients; and
• Comprehensive Colonoscopy
Documentation.
Response: As stated previously, we
have not included in this final rule with
comment period for the 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System any
individual and measures groups that
were not identified in the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule as proposed 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System
measures. We are obligated by section
1848(k)(2)(D) of the Act to give eligible
professionals an opportunity to provide
input on measures recommended for
selection, which we do via the proposed
rule. Thus, such additional measures
recommended via comments on the
proposed rule cannot be included in the
2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System quality measure set. However,
we have captured these
recommendations and will have them
available for consideration in
identifying measure sets/groups for the
Physician Quality Reporting System for
future years and other initiatives to
which those measures or measures
groups may apply.
Comment: Some commenters asked
that we reconsider measures or
measures groups that had been
previously submitted to us as
suggestions for 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System measures but were
not proposed for inclusion in the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System
measure set. Specifically, commenters
requested that we reconsider inclusion
of the Parkinson’s disease and epilepsy
measurement sets in the Physician
Quality Reporting System program, a
diabetic retinopathy measures group
with 2 measures, and a cataracts
measures group with 2 measures.
Response: All measures or measures
groups that were previously submitted
to us as suggestions for 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System measures
were reviewed for possible inclusion in
the 2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System measure set. Upon review,
however, some measures either failed to
meet the threshold criteria for inclusion
in the 2011 Physician Quality Reporting
system measure set (as described
previously) or did not meet the
definition of ‘‘measures group’’ proposed
and finalized at 42 CFR 414.90. These
measures that did not pass the review
process were not proposed for inclusion
in the 2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System measure set.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73514
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Comment: Several commenters
recommended changes to the detailed
specifications or coding for one or more
of the proposed measures or measures
groups. Many of the requests were
specifically concerned that measures be
expanded to include additional
professionals to whom the measure(s)
may apply.
Specifically, one commenter
requested that any measure used by
primary care physicians be expanded to
include not just the office, but home and
domiciliary codes as well. One
commenter requested that the
denominator codes for the CAP
measures group be expanded to include
other infectious pneumonia ICD–9–CM
diagnostic codes than ‘‘acute’’
pneumonia diagnosis codes so
pulmonologists can have sufficient
numbers of patients to report this
measures group. A few commenters
requested that the age range for the
proposed asthma measures group be
expanded, instead of being restricted to
5 to 50 years of age. One commenter
requested that the Initial Hospital Admit
Evaluation and Management codes
(99221, 99222, and 99223) be removed
from the denominators of measures #32,
#33 and #36 and added to measures
#56–59 for 2011. The commenter also
requested that an exemption be given to
eligible professionals penalized for not
reaching an 80 percent reporting
threshold on measures #32, #33, and
#36 because of the unintended effect of
substituting the 99221, 99222, and
99223 series codes for the consultation
99251–99255 series that had been
eliminated from the Medicare program.
Lastly, another commenter requested
that allowable performance exclusion
codes be created for measures #201 and
#202.
Response: Although the Secretary is
required to provide opportunities for
public comment on selected measures
and do so through notice and comment
rulemaking, we do not use notice and
comment rulemaking as a means to
update or modify measure
specifications. In general, it is the role
of the measure owner, developer, or
maintainer to make substantive changes
to the measures, such as the changes
suggested by the commenters. The
measure maintainer and/or the
developer/owner of a measure included
in the final set of 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System measures is
identified in the ‘‘Measure developer’’
column of Tables M6 through M24. In
addition, for those measures which are
NQF-endorsed, the NQF has an
established maintenance process that
could be accessed to recommend the
changes suggested by the commenters.
Comment: One commenter supported
our proposal to replace Physician
Quality Reporting System Measures
#114 and #115 with the Preventive Care
and Screening: Tobacco Use: Screening
and Cessation Intervention measure
(NQF Measure Number 0028). Another
commenter, however, requested that
Physician Quality Reporting System
Measures #114 and #115 be included in
the 2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System as these measures are included
in the EHR Incentive Program clinical
quality measures and thus will be of
great interest for eligible professionals to
report on.
Response: Although Physician
Quality Reporting System Measures
#114 and #115 are included as clinical
quality measures under the EHR
Incentive Program, we have decided, for
the Physician Quality Reporting System,
to replace Physician Quality Reporting
System Measures #114 Preventive Care
and Screening: Inquiry Regarding
Tobacco Use and #115 Preventive Care
and Screening: Advising Smokers and
Tobacco Users to Quit with an NQFendorsed measure, Preventive Care and
Screening: Tobacco Use: Screening and
Cessation Intervention. We believe this
measure is more comprehensive and
less technically challenging than
Physician Quality Reporting System
Measures #114 and #115. We may
consider aligning the preventive care
and screening measures related to
tobacco use and smoking under these 2
programs in future years.
Comment: One commenter stressed
the importance of publishing the
detailed Physician Quality Reporting
System specifications for individual
measures and measures groups by
November 15, 2010.
Response: We will make every
attempt to post the detailed
specifications and specific instruction
for reporting 2011 individual and
measures groups on the Physician
Quality Reporting System section of the
CMS Web site at https://www.cms.hhs.
gov/PQRI as close to November 15, 2010
as possible. In any event, the detailed
specifications will be posted by no later
than December 31, 2010.
Based on the criteria previously
discussed and our review of these
comments, we are including the
individual measures listed in Tables M6
through M10 in the final 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System individual
quality measure set. We are also
including 14 measures groups in the
final 2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System quality measure set, which are
listed in Tables M11 through M24. The
individual measures selected for the
2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System can be categorized as follows:
• 2011 Individual Quality Measures
Selected From the 2010 Physician
Quality Reporting System Quality
Measures Set Available for Claims-based
Reporting and Registry-based Reporting;
• 2011 Individual Quality Measures
Selected From the 2010 Physician
Quality Reporting System Quality
Measures Set Available for Registrybased Reporting Only;
• New Individual Quality Measures
for 2011; and
• 2011 Measures Available for EHRbased Reporting.
In addition, we are retiring the 5
measures in Table 77 because they did
not meet one or more of the
considerations for selection of 2011
measures. Specifically, we retired
Physician Quality Reporting System
Measures #136, #139, and #174 for 2011
because they were considered by NQF
for possible endorsement but ultimately
were not NQF-endorsed. In addition, we
are replacing 2010 Physician Quality
Reporting System Measures #114 and
#115 with an updated and improved
measure (#TBD ‘‘Preventive Care and
Screening: Tobacco Use: Screening and
Cessation Intervention’’), which is less
technically challenging to report.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
TABLE 77—2011 PHYSICIAN QUALITY REPORTING SYSTEM QUALITY MEASURES NOT INCLUDED IN THE 2011 PHYSICIAN
QUALITY REPORTING SYSTEM
Physician Quality
Reporting System
Measure No.
114
115
136
139
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Measure title
Preventive Care and Screening: Inquiry Regarding Tobacco Use.
Preventive Care and Screening: Advising Smokers and Tobacco Users to Quit.
Melanoma: Follow-Up Aspects of Care.
Cataracts: Comprehensive Preoperative Assessment for Cataract Surgery with Intraocular Lens (IOL) Placement.
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
73515
TABLE 77—2011 PHYSICIAN QUALITY REPORTING SYSTEM QUALITY MEASURES NOT INCLUDED IN THE 2011 PHYSICIAN
QUALITY REPORTING SYSTEM—Continued
Physician Quality
Reporting System
Measure No.
174 .......................................
Measure title
Pediatric End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD): Plan of Care for Inadequate Hemodialysis.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
(1) 2011 Individual Quality Measures
Selected From the 2010 Physician
Quality Reporting System Quality
Measures Set Available for ClaimsBased Reporting and Registry-Based
Reporting
For 2011, we proposed to retain 171
measures currently used in the 2010
Physician Quality Reporting System.
These 171 proposed measures include
45 registry-only measures currently
used in the 2010 Physician Quality
Reporting System, and 126 individual
quality measures for either claims-based
reporting or registry-based reporting (75
FR 40186 through 40190 and 52489
through 52490). These 171 proposed
measures did not include any measures
that are proposed to be included as part
of the 2011 Back Pain measures group.
Similar to the 2010 Physician Quality
Reporting System, for 2011, we
proposed that any 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System measures that
are included in the Back Pain measures
group would not be reportable as
individual measures through claimsbased reporting or registry-based
reporting.
Although they were ultimately not
NQF-endorsed, we proposed to exercise
our exception authority under section
1848(k)(2)(C)(ii) of the Act and include
measures #188, #189, and #190, since
we are not aware of any other NQFendorsed measures that are available to
audiologists.
The following is a summary of the
comments received on the proposed
2011 individual quality measures
selected from the 2010 Physician
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
Quality Reporting System quality
measures set available for claims-based
reporting and registry-based reporting.
Comment: A commenter urged us to
continue to allow reporting of measure
#175, Plan of Care for Inadequate
Hemodialysis in 2011, regardless of
NQF endorsement since this was
approved by the AQA in 2008.
Response: We are unclear whether the
commenter is referring to measure #174,
which is the Pediatric ESRD: Plan of
Care for Inadequate Hemodialysis
measure or measure #175, which is the
Pediatric ESRD: Influenza Immunization
measure since both of these are AQA
adopted measures. For the reasons
described previously, we are not
retaining measure #174 for the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System. We
are, however, retaining measure #175
for the 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System.
Comment: A commenter supported
the 2011 proposed measures selected
from the 2010 Physician Quality
Reporting System measure set available
for either claims-based reporting or
registry-based reporting but noted there
have been inquiries about how the
process component of Measure #193:
Perioperative Temperature Management
is defined. As a result, the commenter
pointed out that this measure is
undergoing revision.
Response: We appreciate the
commenter’s valuable input and will
continue to monitor the status of this
measure.
For the reasons discussed previously
and based on the comments received,
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
we are finalizing in the 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System quality
measure set the 171 2010 Physician
Quality Reporting System measures that
were proposed to be available in the
2010 Physician Quality Reporting
System for claims and registry reporting
identified in Table 78. The 171
individual 2010 Physician Quality
Reporting System measures selected for
inclusion in the 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System quality measure set as
individual quality measures for either
claims-based reporting or registry-based
reporting are listed by their Physician
Quality Reporting System Measure
Number and Title in Table 78, along
with the name of the measure’s
developer/owner and NQF measure
number, if applicable. The Physician
Quality Reporting System Measure
Number is a unique identifier assigned
by CMS to all measures in the Physician
Quality Reporting System measure set.
Once a Physician Quality Reporting
System Measure Number is assigned to
a measure, it will not be used again to
identify a different measure, even if the
original measure to which the number
was assigned is subsequently retired
from the Physician Quality Reporting
System measure set. A description of
the measures listed in Table 78 can be
found in the ‘‘2010 PQRI Quality
Measures List,’’ which is available on
the Measures and Codes page of the
Physician Quality Reporting System
section of the CMS Web site at https://
www.cms.hhs.gov/PQRI.
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.295
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73516
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73517
ER29NO10.296
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.297
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73518
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73519
ER29NO10.298
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.299
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73520
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73521
ER29NO10.300
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
BILLING CODE 4120–01–C
Please note that detailed measure
specifications, including the measure’s
title, for 2010 individual Physician
Quality Reporting System quality
measures may have been updated or
modified during the NQF endorsement
process or for other reasons prior to
2011. The 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System quality measure
specifications for any given individual
quality measure may, therefore, be
different from specifications for the
same quality measure used in prior
years. Specifications for all 2011
individual Physician Quality Reporting
System quality measures, whether or
not included in the 2010 Physician
Quality Reporting System program,
must be obtained from the specifications
document for 2011 individual Physician
Quality Reporting System quality
measures, which will be available on
the Physician Quality Reporting System
section of the CMS Web site on or before
December 31, 2010.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
(2) 2011 Individual Quality Measures
Selected From the 2010 Physician
Quality Reporting System Quality
Measures Set Available for RegistryBased Reporting Only
We proposed to include 45 registryonly individual measures from the 2010
Physician Quality Reporting System (75
FR 40191). As in the 2010 Physician
Quality Reporting System, we proposed
to designate these measures as registryonly measures for 2011 to relieve
ongoing analytical difficulties
encountered with claims-based
reporting of these measures in prior
program years. The following is a
summary of the comments received on
the proposed registry-only measures.
Comment: One commenter expressed
concern over our proposal to limit
measure #174, Pediatric End-Stage
Renal Disease (ESRD): Plan of Care for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
Inadequate Hemodialysis, to registrybased reporting for 2011. The
commenter stated that since there are
only two pediatric ESRD measures
included in the Physician Quality
Reporting System for 2010 and we
require eligible professionals who report
via a registry to report 3 measures, it is
difficult for pediatric nephrologists to
participate in this valuable program.
Further, the commenter indicated that
even if participation could be based on
the reporting of two measures, the
registry process itself is not available to
the vast majority of pediatric
nephrologists who practice in small,
academic departments, none of whose
other members care for Medicare
beneficiaries. Thus, the commenter
suggested that similar to the provision
that allows one of the pediatric ESRD
measures (influenza immunization) to
be reported in this individual manner,
a mechanism be made available
allowing pediatric dialysis centers to
report adequacy results separately. In
the absence of changes in the
requirement to report at least three
measures, separate reporting of
individual measures would allow more
pediatric nephrologists to participate in
the Physician Quality Reporting System
and advance the ultimate goal of quality
improvement.
Response: We appreciate the
comment and interest expressed on
behalf of the pediatric nephrology
community. For the 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System, we have
decided not to include Physician
Quality Reporting System Measure
#174, since this measure was recently
reviewed by NQF but not endorsed. As
a result, only 1 of the 2 individual
measures identified by the commenter
as being relevant to pediatric
nephrologists, #175, Pediatric End-Stage
Renal Disease (ESRD): Influenza
Immunization, is included in the final
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System measure set. This measure is
available for claims-based reporting.
Eligible professionals who have fewer
than 3 applicable measures can still
participate in the 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System via claims.
Such eligible professionals would need
to report on the applicable measure
available for claims-based reporting via
claims and meet the appropriate criteria
for satisfactory reporting of individual
measures in order to qualify for a 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System
incentive payment.
For the reasons discussed previously
and based on the comments received,
we are finalizing in the 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System quality
measure set 44 of the 45 proposed 2010
Physician Quality Reporting System
measures identified in Table 78 of the
proposed rule for registry reporting
only. As stated previously, we are not
finalizing Physician Quality Reporting
System Measure #174 because the
measure was reviewed for endorsement
by NQF but not ultimately endorsed.
The 44 2010 Physician Quality
Reporting System measures selected for
the 2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System that are available for registry
reporting only are listed in Table 79 of
this final rule with comment period.
These measures are listed by their
Physician Quality Reporting System
Measure Number and Title, along with
the name of the measure’s developer/
owner and NQF endorsement status, if
applicable. A description of the
measures listed in Table 79 can be
found in the ‘‘2010 PQRI Quality
Measures List,’’ which is available on
the Measures and Codes page of the
Physician Quality Reporting System
section of the CMS Web site at https://
www.cms.hhs.gov/PQRI.
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.301
73522
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73523
ER29NO10.302
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
BILLING CODE 4120–01–C
Although we are designating certain
measures as registry-only measures, we
cannot guarantee that there will be a
registry qualified to submit each
registry-only measure for 2011. We rely
on registries to self-nominate and
identify the measures for which they
would like to be qualified to submit
quality measures results and numerator
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
and denominator data on quality
measures. If no registry self-nominates
to submit measure results and
numerator and denominator data on a
particular measure for 2011, then an
eligible professional would not be able
to report that particular measure.
We note also that detailed measure
specifications, including a measure’s
title, for 2010 Physician Quality
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Reporting System quality measures may
have been updated or modified during
the NQF endorsement process or for
other reasons prior to 2011. Therefore,
the 2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System quality measure specifications
for any given quality measure may be
different from specifications for the
same quality measure used for 2010.
Specifications for all 2011 individual
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.303
73524
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Physician Quality Reporting System
quality measures, whether or not
included in the 2010 Physician Quality
Reporting System, must be obtained
from the specifications document for
2011 individual Physician Quality
Reporting System quality measures,
which will be available on the Physician
Quality Reporting System section of the
CMS Web site on or before December
31, 2010.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
(3) New Individual Quality Measures for
2011
We proposed to include in the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System
quality measure set 20 measures that
were not included in the 2010 Physician
Quality Reporting System quality
measures set provided that each
measure obtains NQF endorsement by
June 1, 2010 and its detailed
specifications are completed and ready
for implementation in the Physician
Quality Reporting System by August 15,
2010 (75 FR 40192). Besides having
NQF endorsement, we proposed that the
development of a measure is considered
complete for the purposes of the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System if
by August 15, 2010: (1) The final,
detailed specifications for use in data
collection for the Physician Quality
Reporting System have been completed
and are ready for implementation, and
(2) all of the Category II Current
Procedural Terminology (CPT II) codes
required for the measure have been
established and will be effective for
CMS claims data submission on or
before January 1, 2011.
Due to the complexity of their
measure specifications, we proposed
that 8 of these 20 measures would be
available as registry-only measures for
the 2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System. The remaining 15 measures
were proposed to be available for
reporting through either claims-based
reporting or registry-based reporting.
The following is a summary of the
comments received on the 20 new
individual quality measures proposed
for 2011.
Comment: We received numerous
comments in support of the proposed
additional quality measures for the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System.
One commenter stated that the new
Physician Quality Reporting System
measures will help to spur additional
eligible professional participation in the
Physician Quality Reporting System.
Several comments were received
specifically in support of the following
‘Change in Risk-Adjusted Functional
Status’ measures, developed by FOTO:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
• Change in Risk-Adjusted Functional
Status for Patients with Knee
Impairments
• Change in Risk-Adjusted Functional
Status for Patients with Hip
Impairments
• Change in Risk-Adjusted Functional
Status for Patients with Lower Leg, Foot
or Ankle Impairments
• Change in Risk-Adjusted Functional
Status for Patients with Lumbar Spine
Impairments
• Change in Risk-Adjusted Functional
Status for Patients with Shoulder
Impairments
• Change in Risk-Adjusted Functional
Status for Patients with Elbow, Wrist or
Hand Impairments
• Change in Risk-Adjusted Functional
Status for Patients with a Functional
Deficit of the Neck, Cranium, Mandible,
Thoracic Spine, Ribs or other General
Orthopedic Impairment
Commenters stated these measures
support ‘‘improved quality and
efficiency of care for Medicare
beneficiaries including: High cost and
high volume conditions; improved
outcomes; improved efficiency;
improved patient and family experience
of care; reduced unwarranted variation
in quality and efficiency.’’ We also
received support for the inclusion of the
following measures:
• Hypertension (HTN): Plan of Care;
• Heart Failure (HF): Left Ventricular
Function (LVF) Testing;
• Reminder System for Mammograms
measure;
• Preventive Care and Screening:
Tobacco Use: Screening and Cessation
Intervention;
• Recording of Performance Status
Prior to Lung or Esophageal Cancer
Resection; and
• Pulmonary Function Tests Before
Major Anatomic Lung Resection.
Response: We appreciated the
commenters’ support of the proposed
measures and agree with the reasons
stated by the commenters. We are
finalizing all of the proposed new
measures supported by the commenters.
The new individual quality measures
for the 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System are identified in Table
80 of this final rule with comment
period.
Comment: Several commenters
expressed support for the inclusion of
the new care transitions measures
developed by the AMA–PCPI as these
measures are based on evidence-based
processes that have been shown to
reduce readmissions, limit medication
errors, and improve the patient
perspective of their care. The measures’
developer, however, commented that
the measures were not designed for
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73525
individual physician level
measurement. The measures are
specified at the facility (hospital) level,
using the UB04 administrative data to
identify the denominator population.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ support for the new care
transitions measures. Based on the
measure developer’s comments,
however, we are not finalizing our
proposal to include the following
measures in the final 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System measure set:
• Care Transitions: Reconciled
Medication List Received by Discharged
Patients (Inpatient Discharges to Home/
Self Care or Any Other Site of Care);
• Care Transitions: Transition Record
with Specified Elements Received by
Discharged Patients (Inpatient
Discharges to Home/Self Care or Any
Other Site of Care);
• Care Transitions: Timely
Transmission of Transition Record
(Inpatient Discharges to Home/Self Care
or Any Other Site of Care); and
• Care Transitions: Transition Record
with Specified Elements Received by
Discharged Patients (Emergency
Department Discharges to Ambulatory
Care [Home/Self Care] or Home Health
Care.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the proposed
Hypertension (HTN): Plan of Care
measure not be included in the final set
of 2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System measures, claiming that this
measure was developed as a ‘‘test
measure’’ and was not designed for
individual physician accountability, but
rather internal quality improvement.
Response: We appreciate the
commenter’s input but are finalizing our
proposal to include this measure in the
2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System measure set. This measure meets
the considerations for the selection of
2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System measures and is also a clinical
quality measure under the EHR
Incentive Program.
Based on the reasons discussed
previously and upon consideration of
the comments received, we are
finalizing in the 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System quality measure set 16
of the 20 proposed 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System measures
identified in Table 80 of the proposed
rule. In addition to not finalizing our
proposal to include the 4 new care
transitions measures previously listed,
we note that 3 measures—Thoracic
Surgery: Recording of Performance
Status Prior to Lung or Esophageal
Cancer Resection; Thoracic Surgery:
Pulmonary Function Test Before Major
Anatomic Lung Resection
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73526
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
(Pneumonectomy, Lobectomy, or
Formal Segmentectomy); and
Melanoma: Overutilization of Imaging
Studies in Stage 0–1A Melanoma—that
were proposed to be available for either
registry or claims reporting will be made
available for registry reporting only for
the 2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System. Upon further analysis of these
measures, we have determined that
these measures would be analytically
challenging to collect via claims and,
therefore, are not finalizing such
measures for the claims-based reporting
option for the 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System.
The titles of the 16 additional, or new,
Physician Quality Reporting System
measures for 2011 are listed in Table 80
along with the name of the measure
developer, the reporting mechanism(s)
available (that is, whether the measure
will be reportable using claims,
registries, or both), and the NQF
Measure Number, if applicable.
TABLE 80—NEW INDIVIDUAL QUALITY MEASURES FOR 2011
NQF measure
number
Measure title
Functional Deficit: Change in Risk-Adjusted Functional Status for Patients with Knee
Impairments.
Functional Deficit: Change in Risk-Adjusted Functional Status for Patients with Hip Impairments.
Functional Deficit: Change in Risk-Adjusted Functional Status for Patients with Lower
Leg, Foot or Ankle Impairments.
Functional Deficit: Change in Risk-Adjusted Functional Status for Patients with Lumbar
Spine Impairments.
Functional Deficit: Change in Risk-Adjusted Functional Status for Patients with Shoulder Impairments.
Functional Deficit: Change in Risk-Adjusted Functional Status for Patients with Elbow,
Wrist or Hand Impairments.
Functional Deficit: Change in Risk-Adjusted Functional Status for Patients with Neck,
Cranium, Mandible, Thoracic Spine, Ribs, or Other General Orthopedic Impairment.
Hypertension (HTN): Plan of Care .....................................................................................
Heart Failure (HF): Left Ventricular Function (LVF) Testing ..............................................
Melanoma: Overutilization of Imaging Studies in Stage 0–IA Melanoma ..........................
Radiology: Reminder System for Mammograms ...............................................................
Asthma: Tobacco Use: Screening—Ambulatory Care Setting ...........................................
Asthma: Tobacco Use: Intervention—Ambulatory Care Screening ...................................
Preventive Care and Screening: Tobacco Use: Screening and Cessation Intervention ...
Thoracic Surgery: Recording of Performance Status Prior to Lung or Esophageal Cancer Resection.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
For 2011, we proposed to again accept
Physician Quality Reporting System
data from EHRs for a limited subset (22)
of the proposed 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System quality measures,
contingent upon the successful
completion of our 2010 EHR data
submission process and a determination
that accepting data from EHRs on
quality measures for the 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System continues to
be practical and feasible. The 22
measures we proposed to be available
for EHR-based reporting in the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System
include the 10 measures available for
EHR-based reporting in the 2010
Physician Quality Reporting System and
12 additional measures that overlap
with the clinical quality measures used
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
FOTO
Registry.
0423
FOTO
Registry.
0424
FOTO
Registry.
0425
FOTO
Registry.
0426
FOTO
Registry.
0427
FOTO
Registry.
0428
FOTO
Registry.
AMA–PCPI
CMS
AMA–PCPI
AMA–PCPI
AMA–PCPI
AMA–PCPI
AMA–PCPI
Society of
Thoracic
Surgery
(STS)
Society of
Thoracic
Surgery
(STS)
Claims, Registry.
Registry.
Registry.
Claims, Registry.
Claims, Registry.
Claims, Registry.
Claims, Registry.
Registry.
0017
0079
0562
0509
Not applicable
Not applicable
0028
0457
in the EHR incentive program
established by the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) (75 FR
40193).
The following is a summary of the
comments received on the proposed
electronic submission of these 22
measures.
Comment: Commenters were pleased
that we proposed the addition of new
measures for EHR-based reporting as
this will permit additional physician
specialties to participate using this
reporting mechanism. We specifically
received support for the following
proposed measures for EHR-based
reporting:
• Measure #1: Diabetes Mellitus:
Hemoglobin A1c Poor Control in
Diabetes Mellitus;
• Measure #2: Diabetes Mellitus: Low
Density Lipoprotein (LDL–C) Control in
Diabetes Mellitus;
PO 00000
Reporting
mechanism(s)
0422
Thoracic Surgery: Pulmonary Function Tests Before Major Anatomic Lung Resection ...
(4) 2011 Measures Available for EHRBased Reporting
Measure
developer
0458
Registry.
• Measure #3: Diabetes Mellitus: High
Blood Pressure Control in Diabetes
Mellitus;
• Measure #5: Heart Failure:
Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme (ACE)
Inhibitor or Angiotensin Receptor
Blocker (ARB) Therapy for Left
Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction
(LVSD);
• Measure #7: Coronary Artery
Disease (CAD): Beta-Blocker Therapy for
CAD Patients with Prior Myocardial
Infarction (MI);
• Measure #110: Preventive Care and
Screening: Influenza Immunization for
Patients ≥50 Years Old;
• Measure #111: Preventive Care and
Screening: Pneumonia Vaccination for
Patients 65 Years and Older;
• Measure #128: Preventive Care and
Screening: Body Mass Index (BMI)
Screening and Follow-Up;
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73527
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
• Measure #173: Preventive Care &
Screening: Unhealthy Alcohol Use—
Screening;
• Measure #TBD: Hypertension
(HTN): Blood Pressure Measurement;
• Measure #TBD: Preventive Care and
Screening: Tobacco Use: Screening and
Cessation Intervention;
• Measure #TBD: Body Mass Index
(BMI) 2 Through 18 Years of Age.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ support of our proposal to
expand the number of measures
available for EHR reporting and for the
measures previously listed. We are
finalizing our proposal to have all of the
measures previously listed available for
2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System EHR reporting.
Comment: One commenter was
concerned by the limited number of
quality measures available for EHR
reporting. The commenter stated that
the current list of quality measures for
reporting via EHR does not facilitate
widespread participation because the 22
measures proposed for EHR reporting
will restrict the number and type of
eligible professionals able to report with
their EHR system. This commenter
believed the future requirements to
align the Physician Quality Reporting
System and EHR incentive programs
highlight the importance of expanding
this list.
Response: We agree with the
commenter and are working to expand
the list of electronically specified
measures for future years. However,
EHR-derived measures data will be
accepted for the Physician Quality
Reporting System directly from a
qualified EHR for the first time in early
2011 (with 2010 Physician Quality
Reporting System data). For this reason,
we believe that a limited set of measures
this early in the process will increase
the program’s chance of being
successful in accepting this quality data.
Comment: A few commenters noted
that many current measures are not
specified for electronic reporting and
that additional resources are needed to
work with measure developers to respecify or ‘‘retool’’ measures to be
effectively collected via EHRs. One
commenter noted that a hybrid
approach of data collected via EHR and
manual abstraction may potentially be
needed.
Response: As noted previously, we
are planning to continue to
electronically specify measures to add
to the list of those measures that are
currently electronically specified for
future years.
Comment: Because the following
measures were not included in the Final
Rule for Stage 1 of the EHR Incentive
Program, one commenter suggested that
they be removed from the list of 2011
EHR-based measures in favor of
measures that are included in the EHR
Incentive Program: Measures #39, 41,
47, 48, 142, 173, and Drugs to Be
Avoided in the Elderly.
Response: While we are required to
develop a plan to integrate the reporting
of quality measures under the Physician
Quality Reporting System with
reporting under the EHR Incentive
Program, they are two distinct programs.
Therefore, we believe that it may be
appropriate to have different measures
in each of them and are retaining such
measures in the Physician Quality
Reporting System for 2011. However,
we note that we are not finalizing our
proposal to have Physician Quality
Reporting System Measures #41 and
#142 available for 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System EHR
reporting. The electronic specifications
and Quality Reporting Document
Architecture (QRDA) for submitting
these measures electronically were not
fully developed.
Based on the reasons discussed
previously and upon consideration of
the comments received, we are
finalizing the option of accepting
clinical quality data extracted from
qualified EHRs on 20 of the 22 proposed
2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System quality measures identified in
Tables 81 and 82 of the proposed rule.
We are not finalizing our proposal to
have Physician Quality Reporting
System Measures #41 and #142
available for 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System EHR reporting
because the specifications for
submitting these measures
electronically are not ready. The final
2011 measures available for EHR-based
reporting are identified in Tables 81 and
82 of this final rule with comment
period.
TABLE 81—2011 MEASURES AVAILABLE FOR EHR-BASED REPORTING FROM 2010 PHYSICIAN QUALITY REPORTING
SYSTEM
Physician Quality
Reporting System
1 ..........................
2 ..........................
3 ..........................
5 ..........................
7 ..........................
110 ......................
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
111 ......................
112 ......................
113 ......................
124 ......................
NQF Measure
No.
Measure title
Measure developer
Mellitus: Hemoglobin A1c Poor Control in Diabetes
Mellitus.
*** Diabetes Mellitus: Low Density Lipoprotein (LDL–C) Control in Diabetes Mellitus.
*** Diabetes Mellitus: High Blood Pressure Control in Diabetes Mellitus
*** Heart Failure: Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme (ACE) Inhibitor or
Angiotensin Receptor Blocker (ARB) Therapy for Left Ventricular
Systolic Dysfunction (LVSD).
*** Coronary Artery Disease (CAD): Beta-Blocker Therapy for CAD
Patients with Prior Myocardial Infarction (MI).
** Preventive Care and Screening: Influenza Immunization for Patients
≥ 50 Years Old.
*** Preventive Care and Screening: Pneumonia Vaccination for Patients 65 Years and Older.
*** Preventive Care and Screening: Screening Mammography .............
*** Preventive Care and Screening: Colorectal Cancer Screening ........
Health Information Technology (HIT): Adoption/Use of Electronic
Health Records (EHR).
NCQA .............................................
0059
NCQA .............................................
0064
NCQA .............................................
AMA–PCPI .....................................
0061
0081
AMA–PCPI .....................................
0070
AMA–PCPI .....................................
0041
NCQA .............................................
0043
NCQA .............................................
NCQA .............................................
CMS/QIP ........................................
0031
0034
0488
*** Diabetes
* This measure is a Core clinical quality measure for the Electronic Health Record Incentive Program under the ARRA HITECH regulation for
program years 2011–2012. The electronic specifications for measures that are included in the PQRI and Electronic Health Record Incentive Program may be different. Eligible professionals should refer to the measure specifications for the appropriate program.
** This measure is an Alternate Core clinical quality measure for the Electronic Health Record Incentive Program under the ARRA HITECH regulation for program years 2011–2012. The electronic specifications for measures that are included in the PQRI and Electronic Health Record Incentive Program may be different. Eligible professionals should refer to the measure specifications for the appropriate program.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73528
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
*** This measure is included in the Electronic Health Record Incentive Program under the ARRA HITECH regulation for program years 2011–
2012. The electronic specifications for measures that are included in the PQRI and Electronic Health Record Incentive Program may be different.
Eligible professionals should refer to the measure specifications for the appropriate program.
TABLE 82—ADDITIONAL MEASURES AVAILABLE FOR EHR-BASED REPORTING IN 2011
Physician Quality
Reporting System
Measure title
Measure developer
39 ........................
Screening or Therapy for Osteoporosis for Women Aged 65 Years
and Older.
Advance Care Plan ................................................................................
Urinary Incontinence: Assessment of Presence or Absence of Urinary
Incontinence in Women Aged 65 Years and Older.
* Preventive Care and Screening: Body Mass Index (BMI) Screening
and Follow-up.
Preventive Care and Screening: Unhealthy Alcohol Use—Screening ..
* Hypertension (HTN): Blood Pressure Measurement ...........................
Drugs to be Avoided in the Elderly ........................................................
** Weight Assessment and Counseling for Children and Adolescents ..
* Preventive Care and Screening: Tobacco Use: Screening and Cessation Intervention.
** Childhood Immunization Status ..........................................................
AMA–PCPI/NCQA ..........................
0046
AMA–PCPI/NCQA ..........................
AMA–PCPI/NCQA ..........................
0326
0098
CMS/Quality Insights of Pennsylvania.
AMA–PCPI .....................................
AMA–PCPI .....................................
NCQA .............................................
NCQA .............................................
AMA–PCPI .....................................
0421
AQA Adopted
0013
0022
0024
0028
NCQA .............................................
0038
47 ........................
48 ........................
128 ......................
173 ......................
TBD ....................
TBD ....................
TBD ....................
TBD ....................
TBD ....................
NQF Measure
No.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
* This measure is a Core clinical quality measure for the Electronic Health Record Incentive Program under the ARRA HITECH regulation for
program years 2011–2012. The electronic specifications for measures that are included in the PQRI and Electronic Health Record Incentive Program may be different. Eligible professionals should refer to the measure specifications for the appropriate program.
** This measure is an Alternate Core clinical quality measure for the Electronic Health Record Incentive Program under the ARRA HITECH
regulation for program years 2011–2012. The electronic specifications for measures that are included in the PQRI and Electronic Health Record
Incentive Program may be different. Eligible professionals should refer to the measure specifications for the appropriate program.
*** This measure is included in the Electronic Health Record Incentive Program under the ARRA HITECH regulation for program years 2011–
2012. The electronic specifications for measures that are included in the PQRI and Electronic Health Record Incentive Program may be different.
Eligible professionals should refer to the measure specifications for the appropriate program.
(5) Measures Proposed for Inclusion in
2011 Measures Groups
We proposed to retain the following
13 2010 Physician Quality Reporting
System measures groups for the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System: (1)
Diabetes Mellitus; (2) CKD; (3)
Preventive Care; (4) CABG; (5)
Rheumatoid Arthritis; (6) Perioperative
Care; (7) Back Pain; (8) CAD; (9) Heart
Failure; (10) IVD; (11) Hepatitis C; (12)
HIV/AIDS; and (13) CAP. For 2011, we
proposed that the CABG, CAD, Heart
Failure, and HIV/AIDS measures groups
continue to be reportable through the
registry-based reporting mechanism
only, while the remaining Diabetes
Mellitus, CKD, Preventive Care,
Rheumatoid Arthritis, Perioperative
Care, Back Pain, IVD, Hepatitis C, and
CAP measures groups will continue to
be reportable through either claimsbased reporting or registry-based
reporting for the 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System (75 FR 40193).
In addition to the 13 measures groups
that we proposed to retain from the
2010 Physician Quality Reporting
System, we proposed 1 new Asthma
Measures Group, which could be
reported through either claims-based
reporting or registry-based reporting.
Finally, as in previous program years,
for 2011, we proposed that the measures
included in any proposed 2011
measures group be reportable either as
individual measures or as part of a
measures group, except for the Back
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
Pain measures group, which will
continue to be reportable only as part of
a measures group and not as individual
measures in 2011 (75 FR 40193 through
40197).
As with measures group reporting in
the 2008, 2009, and 2010 Physician
Quality Reporting System, we proposed
that each eligible professional electing
to report a group of measures for 2011
must report all measures in the group
that are applicable to each patient or
encounter to which the measures group
applies at least up to the minimum
number of patients required by the
applicable reporting criteria. The
following is a summary of the comments
received on the proposed 2011 measures
groups.
Comment: One commenter expressed
support for the movement to greater use
of measures groups as a method of
Physician Quality Reporting System
participation, as they are easier to
manage and monitor.
Response: We appreciate the
commenter’s positive feedback and
continue to encourage eligible
professionals to report on measures
groups. As we have stated in prior years,
we believe that measures groups can
present a more complete picture of the
quality of care provided clinical
condition or clinical focus than
individual measures reporting.
Comment: We received favorable
support for the proposed inclusion of
the following measures groups:
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
• Asthma.
• Back Pain.
• CAD.
• CAP.
• CABG.
• Diabetes Mellitus.
• Heart failure.
Some of the reasons stated by
commenters include that these are
important chronic conditions and
collecting information on the treatment
of these conditions could lead to
improved care and treatment, which
would result in reduced costs.
Response: We agree. For these
reasons, we are finalizing our proposal
to include all of these measures groups
in the 2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System.
Comment: One commenter proposed
the removal of Measure #135, Chronic
Kidney Disease (CKD): Influenza
Immunization, from the CKD Measures
Group to ensure maximum satisfactory
reporting. The commenter noted that
Measure #135 differs from other
measures in the CKD Measures Group in
its method of reporting. Whereas
measures in the CKD Measures Group
are Patient Process (where the measures
are reported once per reporting period),
Measure #135 is now Patient Periodic
(where the measure is reported during
certain periods of time). The commenter
is concerned that this difference in
reporting methods may be too confusing
for satisfactory reporting.
Response: We agree with the
commenter’s recommendation and are
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
removing Measure #135, Influenza, from
the CKD Measures Group for the reasons
cited by the commenter. However, the
CKD Influenza Measure #135 will still
be reportable as an individual measure.
Comment: One commenter supported
the proposed retention of the 2010 HIV/
AIDS Physician Quality Reporting
System measures group for the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System, but
encouraged, to the extent feasible, HIV/
AIDS quality measures that can be
reported through the claims-based
method in addition to the registry-based
method.
Response: We are pleased with the
commenter’s support for the HIV/AIDS
measures group. Based on the current
processing of claims data, it was
determined that the claims system will
not accurately capture these measures.
Registry reporting provides an intricate
process to capture these measures
accurately.
Comment: For the 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System measures
group on preventive care, the addition
of a process measure for HIV screening
of ‘‘high-risk’’ patients, as endorsed by
the National Quality Forum and
USPSTF previously (level ‘‘A’’
recommendation), be added. The
commenter urged that this measure be
modified if and when coverage is
expanded to include routine HIV
screening, consistent with the
recommendations of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
Response: We appreciate the
commenter’s suggestion to add HIV
screening of ‘‘high risk’’ patients into the
Preventive Care Measures Group.
Measure groups are created based on
measures with a particular clinical
condition or focus. The current
Preventive Care Measures Group is
intended for a more general patient
population and would not be
appropriate for the addition of the HIV
measure(s) suggested by the commenter.
The commenter should consider
utilizing the 2012 Call for Measures as
an avenue for submitting suggestions for
possibly creating a new measure group
for screening ‘‘high risk’’ patients. We
also urge the commenter to direct such
suggestions to the appropriate measure
developer/owner(s) for consideration.
Based on the reasons discussed
previously and upon consideration of
the comments received, we are
finalizing the following proposed 2011
measures groups: (1) Diabetes Mellitus;
(2) Preventive Care; (3) CABG; (4)
Rheumatoid Arthritis; (5) Perioperative
Care; (6) Back Pain; (7) CAD; (8) Heart
Failure; (9) IVD; (10) Hepatitis C; (11)
HIV/AIDS; (12) CAP; and (13) Asthma.
We are also finalizing the proposed CKD
measures group for 2011 with one
modification. As stated previously, we
are removing Measure #135: Chronic
Kidney Disease (CKD): Influenza
Immunization from the CKD measures
group for 2011 because the reporting
requirements for this measure are
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73529
different from the reporting
requirements for the other measures in
this measures group. The following 4
measures groups are reportable through
the registry-based reporting mechanism
only: (1) CABG; (2) CAD; (3) Heart
Failure; and (4) HIV/AIDS.
The measures selected for inclusion
in each of the 2011 measures groups are
identified in Tables 83 through 96 of
this final rule with comment period.
Some measures selected for inclusion in
these 14 measures groups are current
2010 individual Physician Quality
Reporting System measures. The title of
each such measure is preceded with its
Physician Quality Reporting System
Measure Number in Tables 83 through
96. As stated previously, the Physician
Quality Reporting System Measure
Number is a unique identifier assigned
by CMS to all measures in the Physician
Quality Reporting System measure set.
Once a Physician Quality Reporting
System Measure Number is assigned to
a measure, it will not be used again,
even if the measure is subsequently
retired from the Physician Quality
Reporting System measure set. Measures
that are not preceded by a number (in
other words, those preceded by ‘‘TBD’’)
in Tables 83 through 96 were never part
of a Physician Quality Reporting System
measure set prior to 2011. A number
will be assigned to such measures for
2011.
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.304
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73530
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73531
ER29NO10.305
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.306
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73532
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73533
ER29NO10.307
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.308
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73534
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
BILLING CODE 4120–01–C
As with measures group reporting in
the 2008, 2009, and 2010 Physician
Quality Reporting System, each eligible
professional electing to report a group of
measures for 2011 must report all
measures in the group that are
applicable to each patient or encounter
to which the measures group applies at
least up to the minimum number of
patients required by the applicable
reporting criteria. The measures selected
for the Back Pain Measures Group
continue to be reportable only as part of
a measures group and not as individual
measures for the 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System. Measures selected for
inclusion in all other 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System measures
groups are reportable either as
individual measures or as part of a
measures group.
We note that the specifications for
measures groups do not necessarily
contain all the specification elements of
each individual measure making up the
measures group. This is based on the
need for a common set of denominator
specifications for all the measures
making up a measures group in order to
define the applicability of the measures
group. Therefore, the specifications and
instructions for measures groups will be
provided separately from the
specifications and instructions for the
individual 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System measures. We will
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
post the detailed specifications and
specific instructions for reporting
measures groups on the Physician
Quality Reporting System section of the
CMS Web site at https://
www.cms.hhs.gov/PQRI by no later than
December 31, 2010.
Additionally, the detailed measure
specifications and instructions for
submitting data on those 2011 measures
groups that were also included as 2010
Physician Quality Reporting System
measures groups may be updated or
modified prior to 2011.
Therefore, the 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System measure
specifications for any given measures
group could be different from
specifications and submission
instructions for the same measures
group used for 2010. These measure
specification changes do not materially
impact the intended meaning of the
measures or the strength of the
measures.
j. 2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System Quality Measures for Group
Practices Selected To Participate in the
Group Practice Reporting Option
(GPRO I)
For 2011, we proposed that group
practices selected to participate in the
2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System GPRO I would be required to
report on 26 proposed measures listed
in Table 97 of the proposed rule (75 FR
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73535
40197 through 40198). We proposed
these measures because they are NQFendorsed measures currently collected
as part of the PGP and/or MCMP
demonstrations and in the 2010
Physician Quality Reporting System
GPRO.
The following is a summary of the
comments received on the proposed
2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System quality measures for group
practices selected to participate in the
group practice reporting option
(GPRO I).
Comment: We received a comment
noting general support for the 26
proposed GPRO I measures. Another
commenter expressed specific support
for the diabetes measures proposed for
the Group Practice Reporting Option
(GPRO), ‘‘Diabetes Mellitus: Hemoglobin
A1c Testing’’ and ‘‘Diabetes Mellitus:
Lipid Profile.’’
Response: We appreciate the positive
feedback and are finalizing the 26 GPRO
I measures as proposed. We believe
these measures target high-cost chronic
conditions and preventive care.
Comment: A couple of commenters
encouraged us to expand the list of
GPRO I measures and/or develop
different measure sets to address the
care delivered in different group
practices. One commenter encouraged
us to adopt additional diabetes
measures into the GPRO to ensure the
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.309
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
73536
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
most comprehensive evidence-based
assessment of diabetes care.
Response: We agree that in order to
make GPRO I more broadly applicable
we would need to expand the list of
GPRO I measures and/or develop
different measures to address the care
delivered in different group practices.
As we stated in the proposed rule (75
FR 40180), we hosted a listening session
on February 2, 2010, to solicit input on
a number of aspects of the Physician
Quality Reporting System, including the
measures for the 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System GPRO. We did not,
however, receive any suggestions for
additional disease modules for GPRO I.
Therefore, we encourage commenters to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
use the 2012 Call for Measures as an
avenue to submit specific measures for
us to consider for future expansion of
the GPRO I measure set. As stated
previously, additional measures
recommended for selection for the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System via
comments to the proposed rule cannot
be included in the 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System measure set.
Comment: With regard to the 26
GPRO measures, one commenter asked
us to consider whether some of the
testing and patient education measures
are sufficiently proximate to the desired
clinical outcome to justify the effort of
data collection, analysis, and
comparative reporting.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Response: We value the commenter’s
thoughtful input and agree that as we
expand the Physician Quality Reporting
System measure set, including the
GPRO I measure set, in future years we
may want to consider whether the
measures lead to the desired outcomes.
Based on the reasons discussed
previously and after considering the
comments, for the 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System, group
practices selected to participate in the
Physician Quality Reporting System
GPRO I will be required to report on all
measures listed in Table 97.
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73537
ER29NO10.310
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
BILLING CODE 4120–01–C
A separate measures specifications
manual and other supporting
documents will be available for group
practices participating in the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System
GPRO I. We anticipate that the group
practice measures specifications manual
will be available by November 15, 2010
or shortly thereafter on the Physician
Quality Reporting System section of the
CMS Web site at https://
www.cms.hhs.gov/PQRI.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
k. Public Reporting of Physician Quality
Reporting System Data
Section 1848(m)(5)(G) of the Act
requires the Secretary to post on the
CMS Web site, in an easily
understandable format, a list of the
names of eligible professionals (or group
practices) who satisfactorily submitted
data on quality measures for the
Physician Quality Reporting System and
the names of the eligible professionals
(or group practices) who are successful
electronic prescribers. In addition,
section 10331(a)(1) of the ACA, requires
the Secretary to develop a Physician
Compare Internet Web site by January 1,
2011, on which information on
physicians enrolled in the Medicare
program and other eligible professionals
who participate in the Physician Quality
Reporting System would be posted.
In accordance with section
1848(m)(5)(G) of the Act, we proposed
to continue to make public the names of
eligible professionals and group
practices that satisfactorily submit
quality data for the 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System. Previously,
we intended to post such information
on the Healthcare Provider Directory. To
meet the ACA deadline of January 1,
2011, we proposed to use the current
Healthcare Provider Directory
(previously known as the Physician and
Other Health Care Professional
Directory) as a foundation for the
Physician Compare Web site. Therefore,
we proposed to post the names of the
2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System satisfactory reporters on the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
Physician Compare Web site that must
be developed by January 1, 2011.
Specifically, we proposed to post the
names of eligible professionals who: (1)
Submit data on the 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System quality
measures through one of the reporting
mechanisms available for the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System; (2)
meet one of the proposed satisfactory
reporting criteria of individual measures
or measures groups for the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System as
previously described; and (3) qualify to
earn a Physician Quality Reporting
System incentive payment for covered
professional services furnished during
the applicable 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System reporting period, for
purposes of satisfying the requirements
under section 1848(m)(5)(G)(i) of the
Act, on the Physician Compare Web site
(75 FR 40198). Similarly, for purposes of
publicly reporting the names of group
practices, on the Physician Compare
Web site, for 2011, we proposed to post
the names of group practices that: (1)
Submit data on the 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System quality
measures through one of the proposed
group practice reporting options; (2)
meet the proposed criteria for
satisfactory reporting under the
respective group practice reporting
option; and (3) qualify to earn a
Physician Quality Reporting System
incentive payment for covered
professional services furnished during
the applicable 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System reporting period for
purposes of satisfying the requirements
under section 1848(m)(5)(G)(i) of the
Act.
We did not propose to make
performance information publicly
available at either the group practice or
individual level for 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System. However, we
note that section 10331 of the ACA
requires that not later than January 1,
2013, and with respect to reporting
periods that begin no earlier than
January 1, 2012, we implement a plan
for making publicly available through
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Physician Compare, information on
physician performance, including
measures collected under the Physician
Quality Reporting System. Consistent
with section 10331 of the ACA, we
expect, in the future, to publicly report
performance information based on the
Physician Quality Reporting System.
The following is a summary of the
comments we received regarding the
public reporting of Physician Quality
Reporting System data required under
section 1848(m)(5)(G)(i) of the Act and
Physician Compare Web site required
under section 10331 of the ACA.
Comment: Many commenters
supported the development of a
Physician Compare Web site. Some
commenters supported public reporting
of the names of eligible professionals
who satisfactorily report Physician
Quality Reporting System measures
and/or who are successful e-prescribers,
noting that this is an appropriate first
step in CMS’ efforts to further
transparency. Another commenter
supported public reporting of the names
of eligible professionals who participate
in the Physician Quality Reporting
System or Maintenance of Certification
Programs as a way to enhance informed
consumer choice based on quality and
outcomes.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ support. We note,
however, that we did not propose to
publicly report the names of eligible
professionals who participate in the
Physician Quality Reporting System or
Maintenance of Certification Programs.
Instead, we proposed to publicly report
the names of eligible professionals who
satisfactorily report 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System measures and
are finalizing our proposal to post the
names of eligible professionals who
satisfactorily report 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System measures on
the Physician Compare Web site.
Comment: Some commenters agreed
with CMS’ decision to not publicly
report individual or group level
Physician Quality Reporting System
performance results at this time. Many
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.311
73538
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
of the commenters believe that it would
be premature to do so. One commenter
believed that CMS’ decision to not post
2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System performance data will allow
eligible professionals to analyze their
2010 data and resolve any identified
concerns with the GPRO reporting and
analysis process. Another commenter
noted that a different level of scrutiny
is required to report performance rates.
A commenter generally opposes the use
of quality data for the purpose of
physician profiling because it could
exacerbate gaps in quality and access
through risk avoidance and by
inhibiting collaborative efforts by the
profession to improve care for all
patients.
Response: Although we are not
planning to post 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System performance results,
we note that section 10331 of the ACA
requires that not later than January 1,
2013, and with respect to reporting
periods that begin no earlier than
January 1, 2012, we implement a plan
for making publicly available through
Physician Compare, information on
physician performance, including
measures collected under the Physician
Quality Reporting System. Therefore,
consistent with section 10331 of the
ACA, we expect, in the future, to
publicly report performance information
based on the Physician Quality
Reporting System. It is conceivable that
we could begin publicly reporting
performance information based on the
Physician Quality Reporting System
starting with 2012 Physician Quality
Reporting System performance results.
If and when we move towards public
reporting of physician performance
information, as contemplated under
section 10331 of the ACA, we will need
to consider and address the
commenters’ concerns.
Comment: As we move towards
posting performance information, one
commenter urged us to start with
posting measure results on group
practices only until there is sufficient
experience and data to determine
which, if any, measures can be reported
at the individual practitioner level with
relative certainty that the information
portrayed is accurate. Specifically, we
should monitor the group practice level
reporting for unintended consequences
before reporting performance
information at the individual
practitioner level.
Response: We appreciate the
commenter’s valuable input. We are
committed to taking steps to ensure that
the information portrayed is accurate.
As we develop our plans for posting
performance information on the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
Physician Compare Web site, we may
consider initially limiting the
performance information to measure
results at the group practice level as
suggested by the commenter. As stated
previously, we will discuss our plans
for posting performance information in
more detail in future notice and
comment rulemaking.
Comment: Some commenters
suggested that we work with
stakeholders to—
• Identify how best to relay this
information in a user-friendly manner to
the public;
• Develop reliable, comparable
benchmarks, with a sufficient sample
size to ensure validity;
• Ensure that specific reporting and
performance results are indeed quality
indicators;
• Ensure that the site accurately
represents physician performance and
facilitates consumer decision-making;
• Provide an opportunity for
physicians, other eligible professionals,
and group practices to review their data
before it is made public. As with
Hospital Compare, eligible professionals
should have the right to suppress any
data that are inaccurate; and
• Establish a method for ensuring that
any publicly reported information is—
++ Correctly attributed to those
involved in the care;
++ Appropriately risk-adjusted; and
++ Accurate, user-friendly, relevant
and helpful to the consumer/patient.
CMS must educate consumers/patients
about the publicly reported performance
measures and corresponding
benchmarks.
Response: We agree with commenters
on the importance of receiving
stakeholder input on the Physician
Compare Web site. We are required, by
section 10331(d) of the ACA to take into
consideration input provided by multistakeholder groups, consistent with
section 1890(b)(7) and 1890(A) of the
Act, as added by section 3014 of the
ACA, in selecting quality measures for
the Physician Compare Web site. In
addition, on October 27, 2010, we held
a Town Hall Meeting to solicit input
from stakeholders on the further
expansion of the Physician Compare
Web site (75 FR 58411 and 58412).
Finally, as we stated in the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule, we will be working on a
plan to expand the information that is
publicly reported on the Physician
Compare in future years, which will be
described in future rulemaking.
Stakeholders would have an
opportunity to comment on any plans
described in future rulemaking as well.
Comment: One commenter voiced
concerns about various issues and
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73539
challenges that need to be resolved
before any performance information is
made public. Specific issues include
measure gaps, challenges associated
with risk adjustment and attribution,
accuracy of the data, and eligible
professionals’ ability to control the
factors that influence their performance.
Response: We agree that these issues
will need to be addressed as we move
towards public reporting of performance
information on individual eligible
professionals. We look forward to
receiving input from stakeholders on
these and other important
methodological considerations as we
develop our plans for the expansion of
the Physician Compare Web site to
include performance information.
Comment: A few commenters
suggested that physicians be given an
opportunity to review and appeal any
data that will be made public prior to
the data being made public.
Commenters stated that physicians also
should be given an opportunity to
comment and make changes to the data
on the Physician Compare Web site
should the information be incorrect.
Response: With respect to the
development and implementation of a
plan for making physician performance
information publicly available on the
Physician Compare Web site, section
10331(b) of the ACA specifically
requires the Secretary, to the extent
practicable, to include processes by
which a physician or other eligible
professional whose performance
measures is being publicly reported has
a reasonable opportunity, as determined
by the Secretary, to review his or her
individual results before they are made
public. Thus, as we describe our plans
for making physician performance
information publicly available on the
Physician Compare Web site in future
notice and comment rulemaking, we
anticipate addressing the commenter’s
suggestions in further detail.
Comment: Some commenters had
concerns about the posting of the names
of eligible professionals and group
practices who satisfactorily report
Physician Quality Reporting System
measures. Some commenters requested
that CMS delay posting this information
until problems with the Physician
Quality Reporting System are addressed
and both success rates and participation
rates improve significantly. Commenters
were concerned that this information
could be misinterpreted or misperceived
by the public. Some commenters noted
that successful reporting of the mostly
process measures that comprise the
Physician Quality Reporting System
would not be a valid surrogate for
patients to evaluate the actual quality of
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73540
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
care or quality of service provided by an
individual practitioner. Furthermore,
consumers already face a challenge
when attempting to evaluate providers.
The commenter thinks it will be even
more confusing for consumers to
understand the difference between
claims-based or registry reporting and
which is more accurate or reflects actual
quality of care. Commenters stressed the
importance of educating consumers
about why eligible professionals may
choose not to participate in the
Physician Quality Reporting System.
Another commenter noted that
consumers must be made aware that
non-participation in the Physician
Quality Reporting System is not an
indication that an eligible professional
or group practice provides low quality
care. Finally, a commenter also
suggested that this information be
accompanied with explanatory language
regarding the limitations of posting this
data.
Response: While we understand the
commenters’ concerns, section
1848(m)(5)(G)(i) of the Act requires us to
post on a CMS Web site the names of
eligible professionals and group
practices that satisfactorily submit data
on quality measures under the
Physician Quality Reporting System. We
intend to provide explanatory language
on the Web site that would address
many of the commenters’ concerns,
including information about the
intended uses and/or limitations of the
information being presented in the form
of a disclaimer.
Comment: One commenter urged
CMS to consider how the appeals
process will be connected to the
Physician Compare Web site. The
commenter questioned whether the Web
site would be updated if professionals
are successful during the appeals
process.
Response: We are assuming that the
commenter is referring to the informal
appeals process required under section
1848(m)(5)(I) of the Act and discussed
in section VII.F.1.e. of this final rule
with comment period. To the extent that
an eligible professional seeks a review
of our determination that he or she did
not satisfactorily report and our review
results in a determination that the
professional did satisfactorily report, we
anticipate that we would update the
Physician Compare Web site to indicate
that the professional satisfactorily
reported Physician Quality Reporting
System quality measures.
Comment: We received a few
comments related to public reporting
and maintenance of certification. One
commenter offered to work with us to
provide information on Maintenance of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
Certification Program status for posting
on the Physician Compare Web site and
the value as it relates to quality, safety,
efficiency, and patient experiences of
physician care. The commenter would
also like the Physician Compare Web
site to include a link to ABMS. Another
commenter urged us to make available
information on whether a physician
received an additional bonus for
successfully meeting Maintenance of
Certification Program requirements. A
third commenter was concerned that
public reporting of physicians who
satisfy the Physician Quality Reporting
System requirements through the
Maintenance of Certification Program
Part IV pathway could inadvertently
lead to confusion about whether those
same physicians have satisfied all of the
requirements of the Boards’
Maintenance of Certification Program
programs.
Response: We agree that it may be
valuable to consumers to have
information on an eligible professional’s
Maintenance of Certification Program
status and would be interested in
exploring the feasibility of posting this
information on the Physician Compare
Web site in the future. We could also
explore posting information on whether
a physician or other eligible
professional received the additional 0.5
percent incentive associated with
participation in a Maintenance of
Certification Program. However, as
noted by one of the commenters, we feel
that this information could be
misinterpreted and would not be as
valuable as information on an eligible
professional’s Maintenance of
Certification Program status. As we
describe in section VII.F.1.l.(1) of this
final rule with comment period, in order
for an eligible professional to qualify for
this additional 0.5 percent incentive,
not only does he or she have to
satisfactorily participate in the
Physician Quality Reporting System,
participate in a qualified Maintenance
of Certification Program, and
successfully complete a Maintenance of
Certification Program practice
assessment, but he or she must
participate in the qualified Maintenance
of Certification Program and
successfully complete a Maintenance of
Certification Program practice
assessment more frequently than is
required to qualify for or maintain board
certification status.
After considering the comments, we
intend to post the names of eligible
professionals who: (1) Submit data on
the 2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System quality measures through one of
the reporting mechanisms available for
the 2011 Physician Quality Reporting
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
System; (2) meet one of the satisfactory
reporting criteria of individual measures
or measures groups for the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System;
and (3) qualify to earn a Physician
Quality Reporting System incentive
payment for covered professional
services furnished during the applicable
2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System reporting period for purposes of
satisfying the requirements under
section 1848(m)(5)(G)(i) of the Act, on
the Physician Compare Web site that
will be developed by January 1, 2011.
Similarly, for purposes of satisfying
the requirements under section
1848(m)(5)(G)(i) of the Act with respect
to group practices, on the Physician
Compare Web site, we intend to post the
names of group practices that: (1)
Submit data on the 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System quality
measures through GPRO I or GPRO II;
(2) meet the criteria for satisfactory
reporting under the GPRO I or GPRO II;
and (3) qualify to earn a Physician
Quality Reporting System incentive
payment for covered professional
services furnished during the applicable
2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System reporting period for group
practices.
We will discuss our plans for further
expansion of the Physician Compare
Web site in future notice and comment
rulemaking.
l. Other Relevant ACA Provisions
(1) Section 3002(b)—Incentive Payment
Adjustment for Quality Reporting
Beginning 2015, a payment
adjustment will apply under the
Physician Quality Reporting System.
Specifically, under section 1848(a)(8) of
the Act, as added by section 3002(b) of
the ACA, with respect to covered
professional services furnished by an
eligible professional during 2015 or any
subsequent year, if the eligible
professional does not satisfactorily
submit data on quality measures for
covered professional services for the
quality reporting period for the year, the
fee schedule amount for services
furnished by such professionals during
the year shall be equal to the applicable
percent of the fee schedule amount that
would otherwise apply to such services.
The applicable percent for 2015 is 98.5
percent and for 2016 and each
subsequent year it is 98.0 percent. In the
proposed rule, we stated that we will
address this provision of the ACA in
future notice and comment rulemaking
(75 FR 40199).
The following is a summary of
comments received regarding the
incentive payment adjustment for
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
quality reporting required under section
3002(b) of the ACA.
Comment: Some commenters
expressed opposition to the use of
payment adjustments under the
Physician Quality Reporting System
program. One commenter believes
participation should remain voluntary
as the Physician Quality Reporting
System has not yet been shown to
improve patient outcomes and therefore
does not warrant penalties for
nonparticipating eligible professionals.
Other commenters stated that, to be
successful, performance measurement
should be nonpunitive and transparent.
Response: While we acknowledge the
commenters’ concerns, we note that
section 1848(a)(8) of the Act, as added
by the ACA, requires us to implement
a payment adjustment for eligible
professionals who do not satisfactorily
report Physician Quality Reporting
System measures beginning in 2015. In
the meantime, we will continue to
assess whether we can make additional
improvements to the Physician Quality
Reporting System to facilitate
satisfactory reporting and to encourage
greater participation prior to
implementation of the payment
adjustments required under section
1848(a)(8) of the Act beginning for 2015.
We will address our plans for
implementing the payment adjustment
that begins in 2015 in future notice and
comment rulemaking.
(2) Section 3002(c)—Maintenance of
Certification Programs and Section
10327 Improvements to the Physician
Quality Reporting System
Section 3002(c) of the ACA amends
section 1848(k)(4) of the Act to require
a mechanism whereby an eligible
professional may provide data on
quality measures through a maintenance
of certification program (Maintenance of
Certification Program) operated by a
specialty body of the American Board of
Medical Specialties (ABMS). In
addition, section 1848(m)(7) of the Act
(‘‘Additional Incentive Payment’’), as
added by section 10327(a) of the ACA,
provides for an additional 0.5 percent
incentive payment for years 2011
through 2014 if certain requirements are
met. In accordance with section
1848(m)(7)(B) of the Act, in order to
qualify for the additional incentive
payment, an eligible professional
must—
• Satisfactorily submit data on quality
measures under the Physician Quality
Reporting System for a year and have
such data submitted—
++ On their behalf through a
Maintenance of Certification Program
that meets the criteria for a registry
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
under the Physician Quality Reporting
System; or
++ In an alternative form and manner
determined appropriate by the
Secretary; and
• More frequently than is required to
qualify for or maintain board
certification status:
++ Participate in such a Maintenance
of Certification Program for a year and
++ Successfully completes a qualified
Maintenance of Certification Program
practice assessment for such year.
Section 1848(m)(7)(C)(i) of the Act
defines ‘‘Maintenance of Certification
Program’’ as a continuous assessment
program, such as a qualified ABMS
Maintenance of Certification Program,
or an equivalent program (as determined
by the Secretary), that advances quality
and the lifelong learning and selfassessment of board certified specialty
physicians by focusing on the
competencies of patient care, medical
knowledge, practice-based learning,
interpersonal and communications
skills and professionalism. Such a
program shall require a physician to do
the following:
(1) Maintain a valid, unrestricted
medical license in the United States;
(2) Participate in educational and selfassessment programs that require an
assessment of what was learned;
(3) Demonstrate, through a
formalized, secure examination, that the
physician has the fundamental
diagnostic skills, medical knowledge,
and clinical judgment to provide quality
care in their respective specialty;
(4) Successful completion of a
qualified Maintenance of Certification
Program practice assessment.
As defined in section
1848(m)(7)(C)(ii) of the Act, a ‘‘qualified
Maintenance of Certification Program
practice assessment’’ means an
assessment of a physician’s practice
that—
(1) Includes an initial assessment of
an eligible professional’s practice that is
designed to demonstrate the physician’s
use of evidence-based medicine;
(2) Includes a survey of patient
experience with care; and
(3) Requires a physician to implement
a quality improvement intervention to
address a practice weakness identified
in the initial assessment and then to
remeasure to assess performance after
such intervention.
To qualify for the additional incentive
payment, section 1848(m)(7)(B)(iii) of
the Act also requires the Maintenance of
Certification Program to submit to CMS,
on behalf of the eligible professional,
information:
(1) In a form and manner specified by
the Secretary, that the eligible
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73541
professional more frequently than is
required to qualify for or maintain board
certification status, participates in the
Maintenance of Certification Program
for a year and successfully completes a
qualified Maintenance of Certification
Program practice assessment for such
year;
(2) If requested by the Secretary,
information on the survey of patient
experience with care; and
(3) As the Secretary may require, on
the methods, measures, and data used
under the Maintenance of Certification
Program and the qualified Maintenance
of Certification Program practice
assessment.
Section 1848(m)(7) of the Act
(‘‘Additional Incentive Payment’’)
further specifies that the additional 0.5
percent incentive payment is available
only for years 2011, 2012, 2013, and
2014. For years after 2014, if the
Secretary determines it to be
appropriate, the Secretary may
incorporate participation in a
Maintenance of Certification Program
and successful completion of a qualified
Maintenance of Certification Program
practice assessment into the composite
of measures of quality for care furnished
pursuant to the physician fee schedule
payment modifier.
To implement the provisions under
sections 1848(k)(4) and 1848(m)(7) of
the Act (‘‘Additional Incentive
Payment’’), we proposed for 2011 to
require the following (75 FR 40199 and
40200):
• An eligible professional wishing to
be eligible for the additional Physician
Quality Reporting System incentive
payment of 0.5 percent must meet the
proposed requirements for satisfactory
Physician Quality Reporting System
reporting, for program year 2011, based
on the 12-month reporting period, due
to the statutory language that the
eligible professional must satisfactorily
report ‘‘for a year.’’ For purposes of
satisfactory reporting under the
Physician Quality Reporting System, we
proposed that the eligible professional
may participate as an individual eligible
professional using either individual
Physician Quality Reporting System
measures or measures groups and
submitting the Physician Quality
Reporting System data via claims, a
registry, or an EHR or participate under
one of the GPRO options (I or II).
Alternatively, eligible professionals may
satisfactorily report under the Physician
Quality Reporting System based on
submission of Physician Quality
Reporting System data by a
Maintenance of Certification Program,
provided that the Maintenance of
Certification Program has qualified as a
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73542
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Physician Quality Reporting System
registry for 2011. As indicated
previously, an eligible professional
would not necessarily have to qualify
for the Physician Quality Reporting
System through a Maintenance of
Certification Program serving as a
registry. Rather, we proposed that an
eligible professional may qualify for the
additional incentive, without regard to
the method by which the eligible
professional has met the basic
requirement of satisfactory reporting
under the Physician Quality Reporting
System.
• In addition to meeting the proposed
requirements for satisfactory reporting
for the Physician Quality Reporting
System for program year 2011, the
eligible professional must have data
submitted on his or her behalf through
a Maintenance of Certification Program,
for the Maintenance of Certification
Program in which the eligible
professional participates. Although the
Maintenance of Certification Program
need not become a qualified registry for
data submission for Physician Quality
Reporting System purposes, the
Maintenance of Certification Program
must meet the criteria for a registry for
submission of the Maintenance of
Certification Program data as specified
below.
• An eligible professional must, more
frequently than is required to qualify for
or maintain board certification,
participate in a Maintenance of
Certification Program for a year and
successfully complete a qualified
Maintenance of Certification Program
practice assessment for such year. We
believe that the ‘‘more frequently’’
requirement applies both to the
elements of the Maintenance of
Certification Program itself and the
requirement to successfully complete a
qualified Maintenance of Certification
Program practice assessment. With
regard to the elements other than
completing a qualified Maintenance of
Certification Program practice
assessment, we proposed to require that
the Maintenance of Certification
Program certify that the eligible
professional has ‘‘more frequently’’ than
is required to qualify for or maintain
board certification ‘‘participated in a
Maintenance of Certification Program
for a year’’ as required by section 10327
of the ACA. We did not propose to
specify with respect to participation
how an eligible professional must meet
the ‘‘more frequently’’ requirement, but
rather that the Maintenance of
Certification Program so certify that the
eligible professional has met this
requirement. We noted that we did not
believe that the ‘‘more frequently’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
requirement is applicable to the
licensure requirement, given that one
cannot be licensed ‘‘more frequently’’
than is required. However, we stated
that the eligible professional must ‘‘more
frequently’’ than is required to qualify
for or maintain board certification,
participate in educational and selfassessment programs that require an
assessment of what was learned;
demonstrate, through a formalized,
secure examination, that the physician
has the fundamental diagnostic skills,
medical knowledge, and clinical
judgment to provide quality care in their
respective specialty; and successfully
complete a qualified Maintenance of
Certification Program practice
assessment.
With respect to the Maintenance of
Certification Program practice
assessment, which is specifically
delineated in section 1848(m)(7)(B)(ii)
of the Act as being required more often
than is necessary to qualify for or
maintain board certification, we stated
that we believe we needed to be more
specific regarding our interpretation of
the phrase ‘‘more frequently’’ (75 FR
40200). Additionally, we stated that we
were aware that some specialty boards
have varying Maintenance of
Certification Program requirements for
physicians to maintain board
certification, based on the date of
original certification. Some, we believe,
may not be required to participate in a
Maintenance of Certification Program at
all in order to maintain board
certification. Accordingly, we recognize
that ‘‘more often’’ may vary among
physicians certified by the same
specialty board. We interpreted the
statutory provisions as requiring
participation in and successful
completion of at least one Maintenance
of Certification Program practice
assessment. Therefore, we proposed, as
a basic requirement, participation in
and successful completion in at least
one Maintenance of Certification
Program practice assessment. For
physicians who are not required to
participate in a Maintenance of
Certification Program to maintain board
certification, ‘‘more often’’ would be
more than 0, and therefore only once.
For physicians, however, who are
otherwise required by the specialty
board to participate in a Maintenance of
Certification Program to maintain board
certification status, these physicians
would need to complete the
Maintenance of Certification Program
practice assessment a second time in
order to qualify for the additional
incentive payment. If a Maintenance of
Certification Program practice
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
assessment were required more than
once during a particular cycle, the
eligible professional would be required
to complete the Maintenance of
Certification Program practice
assessment a third time in order to
qualify for the additional incentive.
We are also aware that ABMS boards
are at various stages in implementing
the practice assessment modules, and
some may not have such assessment
modules in place. However, inasmuch
as we interpret the statute to require a
Maintenance of Certification Program
practice assessment at least once as part
of the Maintenance of Certification
Program, eligible professionals who do
not have available, through their boards
or otherwise, a Maintenance of
Certification Program practice
assessment are not eligible for the 0.5
percent incentive.
We believe that the experience of care
survey provides particularly valuable
information and proposed that a
qualified Maintenance of Certification
Program practice assessment must
include a survey of patient experience
with care. The Secretary may request
information on the survey of patient
experience with care, under section
1848(m)(7)(B)(iii) of the Act. In view of
the importance of this information, and
the lack of readily available alternative
sources, we proposed to require that
Maintenance of Certification Programs
submit information as to the survey of
patient experience with care for the
eligible professional regarding whom
information is being submitted by the
Maintenance of Certification Program.
We proposed that Maintenance of
Certification Programs wishing to enable
their members to be eligible for an
additional Physician Quality Reporting
System incentive payment for the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System
will need to go through a selfnomination process by January 31, 2011.
We proposed the board will need to
include all of the following information
in their self-nomination letter to CMS:
• Provide detailed information
regarding the Maintenance of
Certification Program with reference to
the statutory requirements for such
program.
• Indicate the organization
sponsoring the Maintenance of
Certification Program, and whether the
Maintenance of Certification Program is
sponsored by an ABMS board. If not an
ABMS board, indicate whether the
program is substantially equivalent to
the ABMS Maintenance of Certification
Program process.
• The frequency of a cycle of
Maintenance of Certification Program
for the specific Maintenance of
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Certification Program of the sponsoring
organization; including what constitutes
‘‘more frequently’’ for the Maintenance
of Certification Program practice
assessment for the specific Maintenance
of Certification Program of the
sponsoring organization.
• What was, is, or will be the first
year of availability of the Maintenance
of Certification Program practice
assessment for completion by an eligible
professional.
• What data is collected under the
patient experience of care survey and
how this information would be
provided to CMS.
• How the Maintenance of
Certification Program monitors that an
eligible professional has implemented a
quality improvement process for their
practice.
• Describe the methods, and data
used under the Maintenance of
Certification Program, and provide a list
of all measures used in the Maintenance
of Certification Program for 2010 and to
be used for 2011, including the title and
descriptions of each measure, the owner
of the measure, whether the measure is
NQF endorsed, and a link to a Web site
containing the detailed specifications of
the measures, or an electronic file
containing the detailed specifications of
the measures.
We proposed that sponsoring
organizations who desire to participate
as a Maintenance of Certification
Program will need to be able to provide
CMS the following information in a
CMS-specified file format by no later
than the end of the first quarter of 2012:
• The name, NPI and applicable
TIN(s) of the eligible professional who
would like to participate in this process;
• Attestation from the board that the
information provided to CMS is
accurate and complete;
• The board has signed
documentation from the eligible
professional that the eligible
professional wishes to have the
information released to CMS;
• Information from the experience of
care survey;
• Information certifying that the
eligible professional has participated in
a Maintenance of Certification Program
for a year, more frequently than is
required to qualify for or maintain board
certification status, including the year
that the physician met the board
certification requirements for the
Maintenance of Certification Program,
and the year the eligible professional
participated in a Maintenance of
Certification Program ‘‘more frequently’’
than is required to maintain or qualify
for board certification; and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
• Information certifying that the
eligible professional has completed the
Maintenance of Certification Program
practice assessment one additional time
more than is required to qualify for or
maintain board certification, including
the year of the original Maintenance of
Certification Program practice
assessment or that a Maintenance of
Certification Program practice
assessment is not required for the
eligible professional, and the year of the
additional Maintenance of Certification
Program practice assessment
completion.
We proposed that specialty boards
that also desire to send Physician
Quality Reporting System information
to CMS on behalf of eligible
professionals should be able to meet the
proposed requirements for registry data
submission and should follow the
directions for self-nomination to become
a qualified registry. Boards may also
participate as registries for Physician
Quality Reporting System data provided
that they meet the registry requirements.
As an alternative to requiring boards to
either operate a qualified Physician
Quality Reporting System registry or to
self-nominate to submit Maintenance of
Certification Program data to CMS on
behalf of their members, we also
considered having the various boards
submit the Maintenance of Certification
Program data to the ABMS and having
ABMS channel the information from the
various boards to CMS (75 FR 40200).
The following is a summary of the
comments received on the proposed
requirements for qualifying for the
additional 0.5 percent incentive for
2011, the proposed mechanism for
receiving Maintenance of Certification
Program data from the specialty boards,
as well as on the alternative mechanism
that we considered.
Comment: Commenters raised
concerns as to whether the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule uses the term
‘‘Maintenance of Certification Program’’
in a manner that may be confusing to
the public and unnecessarily raises
trademark concerns. Specifically, the
commenter recommended changes
related to the use of the acronym
‘‘MOCP,’’ such as referring to
‘‘maintenance of certification program’’
(all lower-case letters) or using different
letters for the acronym.
Response: We appreciate the
commenter’s input. We will not use any
acronym, including ‘‘MOCP.’’ Instead,
we will spell out the term ‘‘Maintenance
of Certification Program’’ using capital
letters as it is done in section 1848(m)(7)
of the Act (‘‘Additional Incentive
Payment’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73543
Comment: Several commenters
provided positive feedback regarding
the availability of an additional 0.5
percent incentive payment for meeting
specific maintenance of certification
requirements, including support for the
inclusion of patient experience of care
surveys as a required element of the
Maintenance of Certification Program
practice assessment component.
Response: We appreciate the
commenter’s support of the additional
Maintenance of Certification Program
incentive for eligible professionals
participating in the 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System, authorized
by the ACA.
Comment: One commenter believes
that the ‘‘maintenance of certification’’
reporting option is premature. The
commenter noted that the state of New
Jersey may not currently have
operational and tested ‘‘practice
assessment’’ capability and funding for
this program may not be available.
Response: While we recognize that
this option may not be a feasible option
for all eligible professionals, we are
required to have this option available
for the 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System under section
1848(m)(7) of the Act (‘‘Additional
Incentive Payment’’). We note that
participation in this option is voluntary
and is not required to participate in the
Physician Quality Reporting System or
earn the Physician Quality Reporting
System incentive. Therefore, eligible
professionals who do not have the
ability to participate in a maintenance of
certification program can still
participate in the Physician Quality
Reporting System for 2011 and
potentially qualify for a 1 percent
incentive payment by satisfactorily
reporting 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System measures.
Participation in a maintenance of
certification program provides eligible
professionals an opportunity to earn an
additional 0.5 percent incentive above
and beyond what they could earn by
satisfactorily reporting Physician
Quality Reporting System measures.
Comment: One commenter urged us
to implement regulations that would
ensure that all eligible professionals
have access to the additional 0.5 percent
incentive.
Response: While we appreciate the
commenter’s support for the additional
0.5 percent incentive, we note that
section 1848(m)(7) of the Act
(‘‘Additional Incentive Payment’’)
explicitly ties the additional 0.5 percent
incentive to participation in a
Maintenance of Certification Program.
Section 1848(m)(7)(C)(i) of the Act
specifies that the term ‘‘Maintenance of
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73544
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Certification Program’’ means ‘‘a
continuous assessment program * * *
that advances quality and the lifelong
learning and self-assessment of board
certified specialty physicians * * *.’’
This suggests that Maintenance of
Certification Programs apply only to
physicians and only physicians can
participate in a Maintenance of
Certification Program and qualify for
this additional 0.5 percent incentive
payment. We do not believe we have the
authority to broaden the applicability of
this additional 0.5 percent incentive
payment.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that we allow eligible
professionals who complete a Part IV
Maintenance of Certification practice
assessment be eligible for an additional
0.5 percent bonus if they are also
satisfactorily report Physician Quality
Reporting System measures, regardless
of whether they satisfactorily reported
through claims or another registry
method. In contrast, other commenters
believe the requirements for receiving a
Maintenance of Certification Program
payment are too onerous for both
eligible professionals and Maintenance
of Certification Program boards and
should not be tied to satisfactorily
reporting Physician Quality Reporting
System measures.
Response: Section 1848(m)(7)(B)(i)(I)
of the Act specifically requires that
‘‘* * * in order to qualify for the
additional incentive payment* * *, an
eligible professional
shall* * *satisfactorily submit data on
quality measures for [the Physician
Quality Reporting System] for a year.’’
As stated in the proposed rule (75 FR
40199), we proposed that an eligible
professional ‘‘* * * may participate as
an individual eligible professional using
either individual Physician Quality
Reporting System measures or measures
groups and submitting the Physician
Quality Reporting System data via
claims, a registry, or an EHR or
participate under one of the GPRO
options (I or II).’’ We also proposed that
an eligible professional ‘‘may qualify for
the additional incentive, without regard
to the method by which the [eligible
professional] has met the basic
requirement of satisfactorily reporting
under the PQRI [that is, the Physician
Quality Reporting System].’’ Therefore,
eligible professionals wishing to qualify
for the additional 0.5 percent incentive
payment can satisfactorily report
Physician Quality Reporting System
measures using any available Physician
Quality Reporting System method and
are not limited to a specific one.
Comment: Although the ABMS has
issued guidelines for Maintenance of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
Certification Program, one commenter
believes that the individual boards have
a fair amount of latitude in how they
implement those guidelines. As a result,
the commenter favors the plan to have
individual specialty boards meet the
CMS criteria if they wish to be deemed
to verify individual eligible professional
qualification for Physician Quality
Reporting System incentives.
Response: We recognize the
variability in the boards’ maintenance of
certification program requirements and
appreciate the commenter’s support of
our proposal to allow individual boards
to verify that their eligible professionals
have met the appropriate maintenance
of certification program requirements
for the additional 0.5 percent incentive.
Accordingly, we are finalizing the
requirement to have the various boards
submit information to us on eligible
professionals’ behalf attesting that an
eligible professional has more
frequently than is required to qualify for
or maintain board certification status,
participated in a maintenance of
certification program for a year and
successfully completed a qualified
Maintenance of Certification Program
practice assessment for such year.
Comment: Some commenters
requested additional clarification on the
requirements for qualifying for the
additional 0.5 percent incentive so that
eligible professionals can understand
the necessary processes needed to
qualify. One commenter requested more
information on how Maintenance of
Certification Program would work for
specialty boards, such as the American
Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM), that
oversee the maintenance of certification
processes for multiple subspecialties.
Response: As discussed previously,
we recognize that there is variability in
the boards’ maintenance of certification
program requirements. Therefore,
eligible professionals will need to work
with their specific Maintenance of
Certification Program for information as
to the processes of that program as it
relates to qualifying for the additional
0.5 percent incentive.
We did not propose any requirements
for self-nomination of each subspecialty
of a board. Rather the board would have
to provide information to CMS on each
Maintenance of Certification Program
that the board sponsors, where it
sponsors more than one.
Comment: In response to the request
in the proposed rule for input on an
alternative to requiring Boards to either
operate a qualified Physician Quality
Reporting System registry or to selfnominate to submit Maintenance of
Certification Program data to CMS on
behalf of their members (75 FR 40201),
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
one commenter noted that many of the
ABMS member boards do not have the
capacity to develop and implement
CMS-approved registries to support
their diplomates’ participation in the
Maintenance of Certification Program
pathway for Physician Quality
Reporting System reporting. The
commenter suggested that developing a
registry that can be shared across
multiple Boards will allow for an
efficient and cost-effective approach to
facilitate participation in Physician
Quality Reporting System reporting for
their diplomates. Such a registry could
collect and submit physician quality
improvement data, provide attestation
that the quality improvement data was
collected as part of a qualified ABMS
MOC® Part IV activity, and also serve as
an intermediary in transmitting
successful maintenance of certification
participation in the Physician Quality
Reporting System to CMS. Depending
upon the vendor(s) identified to support
the registry function, the commenter felt
that this may also provide a mechanism
for submission of patient experience of
care surveys.
Response: We note that we did not
propose to require boards to implement
Physician Quality Reporting System
qualified registries to support their
diplomates’ participation in the
Maintenance of Certification Program
pathway for Physician Quality
Reporting System reporting. We merely
highlighted that boards may wish to
self-nominate to become a qualified
Physician Quality Reporting System
registry to facilitate eligible
professionals’ reporting of Physician
Quality Reporting System data, as well
as participation in the Maintenance of
Certification Pathway. To the extent that
a board or other entity wishes to become
a qualified registry for the purposes of
Physician Quality Reporting System
data submission, the board or other
entity must self-nominate to do so and
meet all of the registry qualification
requirements described in section
VII.F.1.(4). of this final rule with
comment period. In addition, to the
extent an entity wishes to submit
Physician Quality Reporting System
data and/or data regarding participation
in Maintenance of Certification
Program(s) on behalf multiple boards,
the entity will need to comply with the
appropriate registry and/or Maintenance
of Certification Program qualification
requirements. More specifically, in
order to submit data on participation in
the Maintenance of Certification
Pathway for multiple boards, the entity,
must include the following information
for each Maintenance of Certification
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Program that it wishes to submit data on
in their self-nomination letter to CMS:
• Provide detailed information
regarding the Maintenance of
Certification Program with reference to
the statutory requirements for such
program.
• Indicate the organization
sponsoring the Maintenance of
Certification Program, and whether the
Maintenance of Certification Program is
sponsored by an ABMS board. If not an
ABMS board, indicate whether the
program is substantially equivalent to
the ABMS Maintenance of Certification
Program process.
• The frequency and cycle of
Maintenance of Certification for the
specific Maintenance of Certification
Program of the sponsoring organization;
including what constitutes ‘‘more
frequently’’ for the Maintenance of
Certification Program practice
assessment for the specific Maintenance
of Certification Program of the
organization.
• What was, is, or will be the first
year of availability of the Maintenance
of Certification Program practice
assessment for completion by an eligible
professional.
• What data is collected under the
patient experience of care survey and
how information on the survey would
be provided to CMS.
• How the Maintenance of
Certification Program monitors that an
eligible professional has implemented a
quality improvement process for their
practice.
• Describe the methods, and data
used under the Maintenance of
Certification Program, and provide a list
of all measures used in the Maintenance
of Certification Program for 2010 and to
be used in 2011, including the title and
descriptions of each measure, the owner
of the measure, whether the measure is
NQF-endorsed, and a link to a Web site
containing the detailed specifications of
the measures, or an electronic file
containing the detailed specifications of
the measures.
With respect to submitting data on
Maintenance of Certification Program
participation, the qualified entity must
submit:
• The name, NPI, and applicable
TIN(s) of the eligible professional who
would like to participate in this process;
• Attestation from each board that the
information provided to CMS is
accurate and complete;
• Signed documentation from the
eligible professional that the eligible
professional wishes to have their
information released to CMS;
• Information on the patient
experience of care survey;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
• Information from the appropriate
board attesting that the eligible
professional has participated in a
Maintenance of Certification Program
for a year, more frequently than is
required to qualify for or maintain board
certification status, including the year
that the physician met the board
certification requirements for the
Maintenance of Certification Program
and the year the eligible professional
participated in a Maintenance of
Certification Program ‘‘more frequently’’
than is required to qualify for board
certification; and
• Information from the appropriate
board certifying that the eligible
professional has completed the
Maintenance of Certification Program
practice assessment one additional time
more than is required to qualify or
maintain board certification, including
the year of the original Maintenance of
Certification Program practice
assessment or that a Maintenance of
Certification Program practice
assessment is not required for the
eligible professional, and the year of the
additional Maintenance of Certification
Program practice assessment
completion.
Comment: Several comments
indicated that we misinterpreted the
intent of the ‘‘more frequently’’
requirement under section
1848(m)(7)(B)(ii) of the Act.
Specifically, some commenters believe
the intent of the ‘‘more frequently’’
requirement applies specifically to the
Maintenance of Certification Program
Part IV, practice assessment,
requirement only and not to Parts II or
III of the Maintenance of Certification
Program (that is, the educational and
self-assessment programs and the
formalized, secure examination portion
of the Maintenance of Certification
Program). To that end, commenters
requested the final rule provide
additional clarification regarding the
implementation of the ‘‘more frequently’’
requirement. One commenter also
requested that we work closely with the
ABMS to determine a means for
implementing this provision which
would be the least disruptive to existing
maintenance of certification programs.
One commenter noted that adding a
requirement to participate in a
maintenance of certification program
‘‘more frequently’’ than is required by
the specialty board undermines the
boards’ standards and their expertise.
Response: As discussed in the
proposed rule (75 FR 40199 through
40201), we believe that, as constructed,
sections 1848(m)(7)(C)(i)(II) and
1848(m)(7)(C)(i)(III) of the Act applies
the ‘‘more frequently’’ requirement to
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73545
both the Maintenance of Certification
Program itself and the successful
completion of a Maintenance of
Certification Program practice
assessment. While we understand the
commenter’s question of this
interpretation, we do not interpret the
legislation as applying the ‘‘more
frequently’’ requirement simply to the
practice assessment activity. Rather we
interpret the legislation as providing an
additional incentive for eligible
professionals who are actively pursuing
activities involved in a continuous
assessment program, such as a qualified
ABMS Maintenance of Certification
Program or an equivalent program.
However, with respect to the ‘‘more
frequently’’ requirement as it relates to
the Maintenance of Certification
Program itself, as opposed to the ‘‘more
frequently’’ requirement for the practice
assessment, we do not specify how an
eligible professional must meet the more
frequently requirement. Rather, we
require only that the Maintenance of
Certification Program indicate that the
eligible professional has met the
requirement.
Comment: A few comments opposed
linking payers to the Maintenance of
Certification Program.
Response: We are unclear what the
commenters mean with respect to
linking Medicare to the Maintenance of
Certification Program. As we noted
previously, participation in a
Maintenance of Certification Program is
not required for an eligible professional
to earn a Physician Quality Reporting
System incentive. Rather, participation
in a Maintenance of Certification
Program provides eligible professionals
an opportunity to earn an additional 0.5
percent incentive above and beyond
what they could earn under the
Physician Quality Reporting System.
Comment: Several commenters
suggested the ‘‘more frequently’’
requirement be based on the March
2009 ABMS MOC® Standards adopted
by the ABMS, which applies to the 24
ABMS member boards. Under these
standards, ‘‘more frequently’’ would
mean that a Part IV activity must be
completed every 1 to 4 years, by
physicians who voluntarily decide to
participate in the Maintenance of
Certification Program Physician Quality
Reporting System pathway. One of the
commenters believes that diplomates
should not be expected to participate
more frequently than once a year in a
process of collecting and reporting
performance data and then acting on
those results.
Response: With regard to the
commenters’ suggestion to adopt the
standards adopted by ABMS in 2009,
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73546
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
we believe that by requiring the
Maintenance of Certification Program to
confirm that their eligible professionals
meet the requirements ‘‘more
frequently’’ than required will allow
flexibility for the Maintenance of
Certification Programs that have
differing cycles of completion. Since we
are looking to see that both the
Maintenance of Certification Program
itself and the practice assessment
completed once more than required, we
feel that a broader interpretation rather
than an exact instance provides a greater
opportunity for participation. For
example, if an eligible professional’s
cycle states that they must complete one
practice assessment activity every two
to five years, more frequently would be
completion of an additional activity
within that cycle. If an eligible
professional’s cycle states they must
complete two practice assessment
activities during a cycle (for example,
every two to five years), they would
have to complete an additional activity
(total of three) within their cycle.
Comment: Although several
commenters favor measuring patients’
experience with care, some suggested
that we waive the requirement for
reporting patient experience until 2012,
once a definitive ABMS standard has
been adopted. One commenter
suggested that we work with the Boards
to monitor the adoption of accurate and
applicable patient experience
methodologies. Another commenter
requested clarification on why the
patient experience is required for the
Physician Quality Reporting System
Maintenance of Certification Program
practice assessment when many
specialty boards do not require a survey
of patient experience to satisfy practice
assessment or maintenance of
certification requirements.
Response: We agree that the survey of
patient experience is an important
mechanism for improving quality of
care. While we appreciate the intent of
the comments of ensuring a standard is
available under ABMS Maintenance of
Certification Programs, this additional
0.5 percent incentive is also available to
non-ABMS boards as long as the process
is substantially similar to the ABMS
Maintenance of Certification Program
process. The survey of patient
experience with care is a required part
of the practice assessment as defined
under section 1848(m)(7)(B)(iii) of the
Act. Therefore, we will finalize this
requirement of a survey of patient
experience with care as a required
element of the practice assessment.
Comment: One commenter requested
that we provide CRNAs with the
opportunity to report quality measures
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
through a nursing maintenance of
certification program mechanism.
Conversely, other commenters
expressed that the rule should clearly
state that physicians who are not
participating in the ABMS MOC® are
not eligible for the additional 0.5
percent incentive via the Maintenance
of Certification pathway. One
commenter specifically objected to the
proposed rule language that, if not an
ABMS Board, a program that is
‘‘substantially equivalent’’ to the ABMS
Maintenance of Certification Program
process may participate. The commenter
noted that to be ‘‘substantially
equivalent’’ to the ABMS Maintenance
of Certification Program, any other
program would have to first assure that
its physicians had (1) successfully
completed an Accreditation Council for
Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)approved training in their specialty, (2)
successfully completed all the
requirements of the ABMS Member
Board to be certified, and (3) engaged in
the ABMS Maintenance of
Certification® program that is sponsored
by the relevant Member Board. Items
one and two are essential and should be
included in any reference to the concept
of ‘‘substantially equivalent.’’
Response: Under section
1848(m)(7)(C)(i) of the Act, a
Maintenance of Certification Program is
‘‘a continuous assessment program such
as a qualified American Board of
Medical Specialties Maintenance of
Certification Program or an equivalent
program (as determined by the
Secretary).’’ Therefore, eligible
professionals participating in an
equivalent program (that is, one that
satisfies the definition of ‘‘Maintenance
of Certification Program’’ under section
1848(m)(7)(C)(i) of the Act and
§ 414.90(b), that has a ‘‘qualified
Maintenance of Certification Program
practice assessment’’ as defined under
section 1848(m)(7)(ii) of the Act and
§ 414.90(b), and meets the selfnomination process as proposed and
previously described) will be able to
submit Maintenance of Certification
Program data on behalf of eligible
professionals for purposes of the eligible
professional qualifying for the
additional 0.5 percent incentive. This
additional 0.5 percent incentive
payment is not limited to only those
eligible professionals who participate in
an ABMS MOC®. However, as
previously stated, we believe that the
definition of the term ‘‘Maintenance of
Certification Program’’ under section
1848(m)(7)(C)(i) of the Act limits
applicability of Maintenance of
Certification Programs to physicians.
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Therefore, this additional 0.5 percent
incentive would not apply to other
eligible professionals, such as CRNAs.
Comment: One commenter supports
creation of a mechanism whereby an
eligible professional may provide data
on quality measures through a
Maintenance of Certification Program
operated by a member specialty body of
the American Board of Medical
Specialties or American Osteopathic
Association. Specifically, the
commenter expressed support for the
American Board of Radiology (ABR) and
American Osteopathic Board of
Radiology (AOBR) Maintenance of
Certification Programs.
Response: We appreciate the
commenter’s support of the additional
0.5 incentive for eligible professionals
participating in the 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System, authorized
by the ACA. With respect to the specific
Maintenance of Certification Programs
that the commenter is in support of,
these entities must follow the selfnomination process finalized in this
final rule with comment period.
After considering the comments
received and for the reasons we
previously articulated, we are
implementing the requirements that an
eligible professional must meet to
qualify for the additional 0.5 percent
incentive authorized by section
1848(m)(7) of the Act (‘‘Additional
Incentive Payment’’), previously
described. We are also implementing
the requirements for entities to selfnominate to submit Maintenance of
Certification Program data on behalf of
eligible professionals as proposed and
previously described. We do not
anticipate completing the qualification
process until mid-2011. We will
conditionally qualify entities until we
complete testing of the entities’ ability
to submit Maintenance of Certification
Program data to us in the specified
manner. We anticipate posting the
names of these conditionally qualified
entities on the Physician Quality
Reporting System section of the CMS
Web site in Spring 2011 and we will
update this list with the entities
qualified for 2011 as soon as we finish
testing the entities’ ability to submit
Maintenance of Certification Program
data to us in the specified manner.
To the extent an eligible professional
participates in multiple Maintenance of
Certification Programs and meets the
requirements under section 1848(m)(7)
of the Act (Additional Incentive
Payment) under multiple programs, the
eligible professional can qualify for only
one additional 0.5 percent incentive per
year.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
(3) Section 3002(d)—Integration of
Physician Quality Reporting and EHR
Reporting
Section 1848(m)(7) of the Act
(‘‘Integration of Physician Quality
Reporting and EHR Reporting’’), as
added by section 3002(d) of the ACA
requires us to move towards the
integration of EHR measures with
respect to the Physician Quality
Reporting System. Section 1848(m)(7) of
the Act specifies that by no later than
January 1, 2012, the Secretary shall
develop a plan to integrate reporting on
quality measures under the Physician
Quality Reporting System with
reporting requirements under
subsection (o) relating to the meaningful
use of EHRs. Such integration shall
consist of the following:
(A) The selection of measures, the
reporting of which would both
demonstrate—
(i) Meaningful use of an EHR for
purposes of the EHR incentive program;
and
(ii) Quality of care furnished to an
individual; and
(B) Such other activities as specified
by the Secretary.
In an effort to align the Physician
Quality Reporting System with the EHR
Incentive Program, we proposed and
finalized many ARRA core clinical
quality measures for inclusion in the
2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System (see section VII.F.1.i.(4)) of this
final rule with comment period), to
demonstrate meaningful use of EHR and
quality of care furnished to individuals.
We are working towards a plan to
integrate reporting on quality measures
to make available by January 1, 2012.
The following is a summary of
comments received regarding the
integration of Physician Quality
Reporting System and EHR reporting.
Comment: With respect to the
integration of the Physician Quality
Reporting System and the EHR
Incentive Program, one commenter
requested clarification on how we will
deal with eligible professionals
excluded from one program or the other
in the alignment process. The
commenter noted that we have not
provided a feasible way for physicians
excluded from the EHR Incentive
Program to be able to participate in a
program that combines these two
initiatives. For example, pathologists
employed at independent laboratories
may be eligible for the EHR incentive
but cannot participate in the Physician
Quality Reporting System because of the
billing mechanism they use.
Response: While we appreciate the
commenter’s interest in participating in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
both the Physician Quality Reporting
System and the EHR Incentive Program,
we note that these are two different,
distinct programs. In addition, the term
‘‘eligible professional’’ is defined
differently under these programs. We
understand that, as a consequence,
professionals may be eligible for one
program but not the other. While we
encourage participation in both the
Physician Quality Reporting System and
the EHR Incentive Program, we are not
able to change the criteria for
participation eligibility in each program
in order to accommodate professionals
who would like to participate in both
programs, but do not meet the eligibility
requirements for both.
Regarding the specific concern that
pathologists who bill through
independent laboratories are unable to
participate in the Physician Quality
Reporting System, independent
laboratories are suppliers and do not fit
into the Physician Quality Reporting
System definition of ‘‘eligible
professional’’ under section
1848(k)(3)(B) of the Act. Pathologists
who bill directly to Medicare, however,
are eligible to participate in the
Physician Quality Reporting System.
Comment: Many commenters
expressed support for linking the
Physician Quality Reporting System
with the EHR Incentive Program as it
will reduce the burden and variability of
reporting and streamline administrative
processes for health care providers and
for CMS and offered suggestions for us
to consider as we develop our plan to
integrate quality measures reporting
under the two programs. One
commenter, while favoring alignment of
measures between the Physician Quality
Reporting System and EHR Incentive
Program, points out that the purpose of
each is different, which will make it
difficult to achieve this integration. The
commenter stated that quality reporting
is only one of the meaningful use
features, so Physician Quality Reporting
System measures should qualify for that
objective. Commenters stated that
Physician Quality Reporting System
incentives should not require
participation in meaningful use, and
meaningful use incentives should not
specifically require participation in the
Physician Quality Reporting System.
Commenters particularly supported
alignment of the quality measures,
noting that the degree to which any of
the measures could share a dual
purpose would be an added advantage
for those who are trying to implement
these programs. Another commenter
suggested that we consult with specialty
societies on a phased-in approach for
integrating Physician Quality Reporting
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73547
System and meaningful use measures
that allow attestation in 2012 followed
by incremental targeted percentage
requirements would promote a smooth
transition to full integration of
Physician Quality Reporting System and
meaningful use measures. Another
commenter requested that we make it
clear how we plan to update the
outpatient measures required for
meaningful use based on any changes
implemented in the Physician Quality
Reporting System.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ valuable input and will
take the opinion offered by the
commenters into consideration as we
work towards making a plan to integrate
reporting on quality measures available
by January 1, 2012.
Comment: One commenter expressed
concern that if we use the same
proposed methodology for excluding
measures with a zero percent
performance rate in the Physician
Quality Reporting System program that
it does for assessing compliance with
HITECH Meaningful Use measures then
many physicians will be deemed ‘‘not
capable’’ when attempting to
demonstrate reporting capability of
quality data. This is because eligible
professionals are allowed the flexibility
to demonstrate compliance with
meaningful use capability when
reporting clinical quality measures by
reporting a zero denominator.
Response: A zero percent performance
rate indicates that the eligible
professional is reporting on a measure
that is not clinically relevant to their
practice. We do not preclude practices
from doing this. However, since the
Physician Quality Reporting System
does not mandate a certain core set of
measures and eligible professionals can
select which measures apply to them,
eligible professionals should be able to
find 3 measures which pertain to their
practice. We do recognize that eligible
professionals may be somewhat limited
for 2011 as there are only 20 measures
available for Physician Quality
Reporting System EHR reporting and
those eligible professionals who wish to
report measures without electronic
specifications for the Physician Quality
Reporting System will need to do so
using a qualified registry or through
claims (if claims-based reporting is
permitted for the selected measure). We
intend to discuss our plan to integrate
reporting on quality measures under the
Physician Quality Reporting System
with reporting requirements under the
EHR Incentive Program in future notice
and comment rulemaking prior to
implementation of the plan.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73548
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
(4) Section 3002(e)—Feedback
Section 3002(e) of the ACA amends
section 1848(m)(5) of the Act by adding
subparagraph (H), which requires the
Secretary to provide timely feedback to
eligible professionals on the
performance of the eligible professional
with respect to satisfactorily submitting
data on quality measures. Since the
inception of the program in 2007, the
Physician Quality Reporting System has
provided eligible professionals who
have reported Physician Quality
Reporting System data on quality
measures feedback reports at the TIN/
NPI level detailing participation in the
Physician Quality Reporting System,
including reporting rate and
performance rate information. For 2008,
we improved the format and content of
feedback reports based on stakeholder
input. We also developed an alternate
report distribution method whereby
each eligible professional can directly
request and receive a feedback report.
We will continue to provide feedback
reports to individuals and group
practices that satisfactorily submit
Physician Quality Reporting System
quality measure and thus qualify to earn
a Physician Quality Reporting System
incentive.
We believe that the requirements
under section 1848(m)(5)(H) of the Act,
as added by section 3002(e) of the ACA,
for ‘‘timely’’ feedback reports is met by
providing the feedback reports on or
about the time of issuance of the
incentive payments. Thus, we proposed
to provide 2011 feedback reports on or
about the time of issuance of the 2011
incentive payments in 2012, consistent
with our current practice. In addition,
we proposed to provide interim
feedback reports for eligible
professionals reporting 2011 measures
groups through the claims-based
reporting mechanism. These reports
would be similar in content and format
to the reports that we currently provide
for such eligible professionals using
claims for dates of service between
January 1, 2011 and February 28, 2011.
We indicated that we expected that we
would be able to make these interim
feedback reports available to eligible
professionals in June 2011. We stated
that we believe interim feedback reports
would be particularly valuable to
eligible professionals reporting
measures groups, because it would let
an eligible professional know how many
more cases he or she needs to report to
satisfy the criteria for satisfactory
reporting for claims-based reporting of
measures groups. We also indicated that
we intend to continue to explore
methods to facilitate Physician Quality
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
Reporting System feedback report
distribution, as discussed in the
proposed rule (75 FR 40201).
The following is a summary of
comments received regarding our
proposal to provide timely feedback
reports for the Physician Quality
Reporting System.
Comment: We received some positive
comments regarding our proposal to
provide timely feedback. One
commenter stated that eligible
professionals will benefit from timely
feedback reports on whether they are
satisfactorily submitting data on quality
measures. While some commenters
supported our proposal to provide
interim feedback reports for those who
are reporting measures groups via
claims, other commenters urged us to
focus our efforts on providing other
options for interim feedback. One
commenter stated that the timeframe for
feedback should be revised to a point
during the reporting period so that
eligible providers can act on the
information they receive and that this
was the legislation’s intention.
Commenters indicated that providing
feedback after the close of the reporting
period or just ahead of incentive
payments is of minimal value since
eligible professionals are not able to
assess their reporting status and revise
their reporting practices as needed.
Commenters specifically recommended
receiving quarterly or monthly feedback
reports or upon request.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ suggestions to provide
more interim feedback reports in a
timely manner. Although section
1848(m)(5) of the Act requires us to
provide ‘‘timely feedback’’ to eligible
professionals on satisfactorily
submitting data on quality measures, it
is not a requirement to distribute
‘‘interim’’ feedback reports. While we
agree that eligible professionals would
benefit from timely, interim feedback,
we have determined that we will not be
able to complete the programming and
development work necessary to provide
the proposed interim feedback reports
for eligible professionals who report
2011 measures groups using the claimsbased reporting mechanism in the time
frame that we proposed for the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System. If
we were to provide these interim
feedback reports for 2011, they would
more than likely not be available until
late 2011. Since receiving interim
feedback this late in the reporting
period would be of little utility to
eligible professionals, we are not
finalizing our proposal to provide
eligible professionals who report
measures groups using the claims-based
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
reporting mechanism with interim
feedback reports for 2011. We intend,
instead, to provide these interim
feedback reports for 2012. In addition,
as discussed further in section VII.F.2 of
this final rule, we plan to provide an
interim eRx report in the fall of 2011,
which will include 2012 eRx payment
adjustment information. We also will
continue to provide timely annual
feedback reports and anticipate
providing additional interim reports for
2012. Furthermore, we are working
internally to improve eligible
professionals’ electronic access to
Physician Quality Reporting System and
eRx reports by report type, program, and
year for 2011.
Comment: Several commenters were
disappointed by our proposal and
suggested that it does not meet the
statutory requirements and requested
that we revise our proposal to increase
the timeliness and frequency of the
reports. One commenter suggested we
revise the feedback report proposal to
expedite the reports and ensure that the
process improves successful
participation in the Physician Quality
Reporting System. Several comments
specifically recommended that interim
feedback reports be provided to all
Physician Quality Reporting System
participants, regardless of reporting
mechanism used, rather than only to
those reporting measures groups via
claims-based reporting, as proposed.
Other commenters specifically
requested that interim feedback reports
be provided to those reporting
individual quality measures. Other
commenters recommended we provide
more frequent, or real-time, feedback
reports to ensure that this process
improves successful participation in the
Physician Quality Reporting System.
One commenter specifically encouraged
CMS to provide feedback reports
throughout the process, so that
participants are aware of their progress
in the program. Another commenter
recommended that the system be
redesigned to automatically generate a
report as soon as the requirements for an
individual eligible professional have
been satisfied, much like what most of
the registry systems do and why they
have such a high level of successful
completion. Another commenter
suggested including the most recent
Physician Quality Reporting System
data available in the confidential
feedback reports. Issuing the reports at
the time of the incentive payment, as
proposed, may discourage many from
participating in the program the
following year given that they are not
certain whether or not they were
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
successful the previous year and renders
the reports not useful for quality
improvement. The commenters believe
the lack of timeliness of feedback
reports is one of the major reasons for
dissatisfaction with the Physician
Quality Reporting System.
Response: Section 1848(m)(5)(HH) of
the Act requires that we provide timely
feedback to eligible professionals on the
performance of the eligible professional
with respect to satisfactorily submitting
data on Physician Quality Reporting
System measures but does not define
the term ‘‘timely’’ or specify a deadline
for providing feedback. As we stated in
the proposed rule (75 FR 40201), we
believe that this requirement is met by
providing a timely, annual feedback
report at or about the time of issuance
of the incentive payments. In addition
to providing an annual feedback report,
we also proposed to provide an interim
feedback report for eligible professionals
who submit measures groups via claims.
Although, for the reasons discussed
previously, we are not finalizing our
proposal to provide this interim
feedback report for 2011, we intend to
do so for 2012. The processing of claims
data from the NCH file, along with the
necessary programming required to
produce reports and subsequently
distribute to eligible professionals is
time intensive. We are actively working
to facilitate this process so that the
interim feedback reports for claimsbased reporting of measures groups and
other interim feedback reports can be
available for the 2012 Physician Quality
Reporting System. We are continuing to
work on ways to provide eligible
professionals with timely and accurate
feedback reports while working with the
limitations of the claims-based reporting
method. We also intend to work with
registries and EHR vendors to explore
ways in which we can leverage these
alternative reporting mechanisms to
provide interim feedback reports.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that the interim feedback reports be
provided for the first quarter of data
instead of 2 months of data as proposed.
Response: While we agree that interim
feedback reports for the first quarter of
data would be valuable, we do not, for
the reasons stated previously, have the
technical ability to make interim
feedback reports based on just the first
2 months of data available before July 1,
2011. We agree with commenters that
interim feedback reports need to be
issued at a point during the reporting
period that eligible professionals can act
upon the information to increase their
chances of reporting satisfactorily,
especially when they are required to
report on percentage of applicable cases
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
or patients. As stated previously, since
the utility of receiving feedback reports
in late 2011, (at the earliest) is minimal,
we are not finalizing our proposal to
provide eligible professionals who
report measures groups using the
claims-based reporting mechanism with
interim feedback reports for 2011.
Comment: While we received
favorable comments regarding our
efforts to streamline and simplify
distribution of Physician Quality
Reporting System feedback reports,
some commenters suggested that we
continue to improve access to the
feedback reports. Commenters noted
that many individual eligible
professionals and small practices still
have difficulty obtaining their feedback
reports. Commenters noted the
numerous problems and issues using
the Physician Quality Reporting System
portal to download these reports. One
commenter suggested that the feedback
reports should be published for all
eligible professionals without requiring
them to submit a request.
Response: We are preparing, in the
near future, to launch tools to provide
eligible professionals access to all
reporting years and report types via the
CMS portal. We anticipate this level of
access to be ready in mid- to late 2011.
CMS security system access
requirements are mandated by the
information systems and security
component of CMS and unfortunately
cannot be changed by the Physician
Quality Reporting System or eRx
program requirements. A quick
reference guide on IACS accounts,
which is the current identity
management system required for
accessing feedback reports, is currently
under development to assist eligible
professionals with accessing their
feedback reports.
Comment: One commenter
recommended providing aggregate data
to specialty societies so that they can
assist in educating members on the
program and potential issues. Another
commenter suggested that we improve
upon the aggregate quality data error
reports by individual measures,
currently distributed 4 times per year,
by increasing their frequency to
monthly.
Response: We appreciate the
commenter’s valuable input. As we
explore ways to provide more timely
feedback, we will also evaluate
commenter’s suggestion and explore its
feasibility.
Comment: One commenter requested
clarification as to whether eligible
professionals could utilize the informal
appeals process to dispute data
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73549
contained in the interim feedback
reports.
Response: We would expect that
initial questions arising from the interim
reports would be addressed by the
QualityNet Help Desk, as is done today
with the annual feedback reports. As
discussed below, the main difference
between the current inquiry process via
the QualityNet Help Desk and the
informal appeals process is that we have
established timeframes around when
requests for an informal review must be
submitted and when a response must be
provided.
Upon consideration of the comments
and for the reasons we discussed
previously, we are finalizing our
proposal to provide feedback reports to
all Physician Quality Reporting System
participants on or about the time of
issuance of the incentive payments. We
also finalize our proposal to provide
interim feedback reports for eligible
professionals reporting measures groups
through the claims-based reporting
mechanism. For the 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System, however, we
do not believe that we will have the
technical capability needed to issue
these interim feedback reports until the
second half of the year. Since we do not
believe that these interim feedback
reports would be of much value at that
point, we do not anticipate generating
interim feedback reports for eligible
professionals reporting measures groups
until the 2012 Physician Quality
Reporting System. For 2012, we also
anticipate being able to provide
additional interim feedback reports.
(5) Section 3002(f)—Appeals
Section 1848(m)(5)(I) of the Act, as
amended and added by section
3002(f)(2) of the ACA, requires that the
Secretary establish and have in place,
no later than January 1, 2011, an
informal process for eligible
professionals to seek a review of the
determination that an eligible
professional did not satisfactorily
submit data on quality measures under
the Physician Quality Reporting System.
We note that except as provided under
the informal process under section
1848(m)(5)(I) of the Act, section
1848(m)(5)(E) of the Act, as amended by
section 3002(f) of the ACA, specifies
that, with respect to the Physician
Quality Reporting System, there shall be
no administrative or judicial review
under section 1869, section 1878, or
otherwise, of—
(1) The determination of measures
applicable to services furnished by
eligible professionals under the
Physician Quality Reporting System;
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73550
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
(2) The determination of satisfactory
reporting under the Physician Quality
Reporting System; and
(3) The determination of any
Physician Quality Reporting System
incentive payment and Physician
Quality Reporting System payment
adjustment.
We proposed to base the informal
process on our current inquiry process
whereby an eligible professional can
contact the Quality Net Help Desk (via
phone or e-mail) for general Physician
Quality Reporting System and eRx
Incentive Program information,
information on Physician Quality
Reporting System feedback report
availability and access, and/or
information on Physician Quality
Reporting System Portal password
issues (75 FR 40201). For purposes of
the informal process required under
section 1848(m)(5)(E) of the Act, we
proposed the following inquiry process:
• An eligible professional electing to
utilize the informal process must
request an informal review within 90
days of the release of his or her feedback
report.
• An eligible professional can request
the informal review by notifying the
Quality Net Help Desk via e-mail at
qnetsupport@sdps.org. The e-mail
requesting the initiation of the informal
review process should summarize the
concern(s) of the eligible professional
and the reason(s) for requesting an
informal review.
• We proposed to provide the eligible
professional with a response to his or
her request for an informal review
within 60 days of receiving the original
request.
• As this process is informal and the
statute does not require a formal appeals
process, we will not include a hearing
or evidence submission process,
although the eligible professional may
submit information to assist in the
review.
• Based on our informal review, we
will provide a written response. Where
we find that the eligible professional did
satisfactorily report, we proposed to
provide the applicable incentive
payment.
• Given that this is an informal
review process and given the limitations
on review under section 1848(m)(5)(E)
of the Act, decisions based on the
informal review will be final, and there
will be no further review or appeal.
The following is a summary of
comments received on the proposed
informal appeals process and our
responses.
Comment: Several comments
expressed support for the establishment
of an informal appeals process,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
believing that eligible professionals’
ability to challenge the results of the
program is a necessary step to
encouraging participation in the
program and in promoting transparency.
One commenter specifically indicated
that having 90 days to electronically file
an ‘‘informal appeal’’ is a sufficient
amount of time and that having the
ability to electronically submit these
requests will help to ensure a timely,
streamlined process. Another
commented that the current lack of
recourse for eligible professionals has
contributed to a lack of interest in, and
even skepticism, about the Physician
Quality Reporting System.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ support of the informal
appeals process and are hopeful that
providing eligible professionals with an
avenue to request an informal review of
the determination that they did not
satisfactorily report will encourage
greater participation in the Physician
Quality Reporting System.
Comment: Some commenters felt the
period for requesting an informal review
should be extended. One commenter
suggested extending the timeframe to
file an appeal through the end of the
following year. Another commenter
recommended extending the timeframe
to the end of the reporting year, as those
in large practices may not see their
Physician Quality Reporting System
report for a month or two after CMS
sends it. Some commenters suggested
that any results that are successfully
appealed should be incorporated in
public reporting of physician
performance.
Response: While we understand the
commenters’ desire to extend the
timeframe for submitting a request for
an informal review, doing so could
potentially impact the timeliness of
future years’ Physician Quality
Reporting System incentive payments,
because we would not be able to start
analyzing the next year’s data until we
have completed our analysis of the
current year’s data. Therefore, we are
requiring eligible professionals to
submit their requests for an informal
review within 90 days of the feedback
reports becoming available, as proposed.
Comment: One commenter indicated
that eligible professionals who
successfully obtain an incentive
payment are unlikely to a request a
review. The commenter believes the
review for those who are unsuccessful is
unlikely to overturn the initial
adjudication, since it can only be based
on data present in the CMS system as
there is no opportunity for evidence
submission. The commenter feels that
eligible professionals submitting data
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
could easily be given feedback
immediately about whether the data set
was complete or not, both in terms of
the individual data points and the
number of eligible patients.
Response: We agree with the
commenter’s assertion that eligible
professionals who are successful in
obtaining a Physician Quality Reporting
System incentive are unlikely to request
an informal review. With respect to the
claim that the ‘‘review for those who are
unsuccessful is unlikely to overturn the
initial adjudication, since it can only be
based on data present in the CMS
system as there is no opportunity for
evidence submission,’’ we disagree.
CMS strives to ensure the accuracy of
our initial determinations. However,
recognizing errors may arise, CMS
implemented the informal review
process whereby Physician Quality
Reporting System participants may
request via the Quality Net Help Desk a
review of the determination that the
eligible professional did not
satisfactorily submit data. In prior
program years, the informal review
method has resulted in supplemental
payments for some eligible professionals
despite the restriction on submitting
additional evidence. This informal
process has proven to be successful in
finding errors in prior years, and we
believe it will continue to do so. While
we agree that it would be ideal to be
able to provide immediate feedback as
to whether the data set was complete or
not both in terms of the individual data
points and the number of eligible
patients, this would not be technically
feasible under the current claims
processing system. However, we do
intend to provide interim feedback
reports as previously described.
Comment: In support of implementing
a successful informal review process,
some commenters recommended that
the Quality Net Help Desk be expanded
with additional telephone lines and
more trained, experienced, and
qualified staff. Commenters reported
that some eligible professionals have
faced challenges getting through to a
CMS staff person and/or accessing the
information they need through the
existing Quality Net Help Desk. Another
commenter stated that they believe the
Quality Net Help Desk should be able to
help eligible professionals and their
staff immediately.
Response: We agree that in
implementing an informal review
process that utilizes the existing inquiry
support framework additional resources
will be needed and anticipate putting
additional resources towards the
Quality Net Help Desk.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Comment: Some commenters felt the
proposed process was too informal to
provide a fair and appropriate appeal.
One commenter suggested the agency
consider basing the informal process on
the current inquiry process as merely a
starting point and plan to expand the
process in the future. Similarly, other
commenters indicated that the appeals
process needs to be a structured,
transparent, and user-friendly appeals
process so that eligible professionals
have an avenue to quickly remedy
erroneous determinations.
Response: We note that section
1848(m)(5)(I) of the Act does not require
a formal appeals process; rather, it only
requires an informal process for eligible
professionals to seek a review of the
determination that an eligible
professional did not satisfactorily
submit data on quality measures under
the Physician Quality Reporting System.
We believe that the process that we
proposed and are finalizing adequately
allows an eligible professional to seek
an informal review of the determination
that the professional did not
satisfactorily report. However, we agree
that a timely response to eligible
professionals who are questioning the
outcome of their Physician Quality
Reporting System reporting rate
calculation will benefit the eligible
professional. We plan to communicate
the informal review process to eligible
professionals through education and
outreach. We also agree that the process
needs to be user friendly and are using
the lessons learned from inquiries
received related to previous program
years in determining the most timely
and user-friendly method for the
informal appeals process.
Comment: Another commenter
suggested as payment adjustments begin
to apply in 2015, we work with
Congress to implement a more formal
appeals process that includes
standardized and transparent rules for
submitting and reviewing evidence.
Response: For the 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System, we plan to
implement the informal review process
as described previously and required
under section 1848(m)(5)(I) of the act.
We plan to use any lessons learned from
this process to make further
enhancements to the process in future
years.
Upon consideration of the comments,
we are finalizing the informal review
process as proposed and previously
described. As stated in the proposed
rule, we anticipate posting, by
December 31, 2011 (75 FR 40202) on the
CMS Physician Quality Reporting
System Web site, further information
regarding the operational aspects of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
informal review process for the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System. As
we are implementing this informal
review process beginning with the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System and
our expectation that we will be unable
to generate 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System interim feedback
reports prior to the start of the July 1,
2011 reporting period, we anticipate
that eligible professionals will first have
an opportunity to avail themselves of
this informal process when the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System
feedback reports are made available in
2012.
2. Section 132: Incentives for Electronic
Prescribing (eRx)—The Electronic
Prescribing Incentive Program
a. Program Background and Statutory
Authority
As described in the CY 2011 PFS
proposed rule (75 FR 40202 through
40203), Electronic Prescribing (eRx) is
the transmission using electronic media,
of prescription or prescription-related
information between prescriber,
dispenser, pharmacy benefit manager
(PBM), or health plan, either directly or
through an intermediary, including an
eRx network. The intention of the 2011
eRx Incentive Program, which is
separate from, and in addition to,
incentive payments that eligible
professionals may earn through the
Physician Quality Reporting System, is
to continue to encourage significant
expansion of the use of electronic
prescribing by authorizing a
combination of financial incentives and
payment adjustments. Individual
eligible professionals do not have to
participate in the Physician Quality
Reporting System in order to participate
in the eRx Incentive Program (and vice
versa). We proposed to add § 414.92 to
title 42 of the Code of Federal
Regulations to implement and codify
the provisions of the eRx Incentive
Program.
For 2011, which is the third year of
the eRx Incentive Program, the Secretary
is authorized to provide eligible
professionals who are successful
electronic prescribers an incentive
payment equal to 1.0 percent of the total
estimated Medicare Part B PFS allowed
charges (based on claims submitted not
later than 2 months after the end of the
reporting period) for all covered
professional services furnished by the
eligible professional during the 2011
reporting period. The applicable
electronic prescribing percent (1.0
percent) authorized for the 2011 eRx
Incentive Program is different from that
(2.0 percent) authorized for the 2009
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73551
and 2010 eRx Incentive Program. Under
section 1848(m)(2)(C) of the Act, the
incentive payments for successful
electronic prescribers for future years
are authorized as follows:
• 1.0 percent for 2012.
• 0.5 percent for 2013.
In addition, section 1848(m)(2)(D) of
the Act, as added by section
4101(f)(2)(B) of Title IV of Division B of
the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111–
5) (ARRA–HITECH) which authorized
the Medicare EHR Incentive Program,
specifies that the eRx incentive does not
apply to an eligible professional (or
group practice), if, for the EHR reporting
period, the eligible professional (or
group practice) earns an incentive
payment under the Medicare EHR
Incentive Program beginning in 2011.
For the eRx Incentive Program, when
reporting the G-codes for purposes of
qualifying for the incentive payment for
electronic prescribing in 2011, we
proposed that the eligible professional
must have and regularly use a
‘‘qualified’’ electronic prescribing
system, as defined in the electronic
prescribing measure specifications.
In addition, under section
1848(a)(5)(A) of the Act, a PFS payment
adjustment applies beginning in 2012 to
those professionals who are not
successful electronic prescribers.
Specifically, for 2012, 2013, and 2014,
if the eligible professional is not a
successful electronic prescriber for the
reporting period for the year, the PFS
amount for covered professional
services furnished by such professionals
during the year as previously referenced
shall be less than the PFS amount that
would otherwise apply over the next
several years by—
• 1.0 percent for 2012.
• 1.5 percent for 2013.
• 2.0 percent for 2014.
We believe that the criteria for
determination of successful electronic
prescriber for the eRx incentive
payment are not required to be identical
to the criteria that will be used to
determine the applicability of the
payment adjustment that begins in 2012.
In general, we believe that an incentive
should be broadly available to
encourage the widest possible adoption
of eRx, even for low volume prescribers.
On the other hand, we believe that a
payment adjustment should be applied
primarily to assure that those who have
a large volume of prescribing do so
electronically, without penalizing those
for whom the adoption and use of an
electronic prescribing system may be
impractical given the low volume of
prescribing. Under section
1848(m)(6)(A) of the Act, the definition
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73552
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
of ‘‘eligible professional’’ for purposes of
eligibility for the eRx Incentive Program
is identical to that for the Physician
Quality Reporting System under section
1848(k)(3)(B) of the Act. Eligible
professionals include physicians, other
practitioners, physical and occupational
therapists, qualified speech-language
pathologists, and qualified audiologists.
However, as we have noted in prior
years, for purposes of the eRx Incentive
Program, eligibility is further restricted
by scope of practice to those
professionals who have prescribing
authority. Detailed information about
the types of professionals that are
eligible to participate in the eRx
Incentive Program is available on the
eRx Incentive Program section of the
CMS Web site at https://www.cms.gov/
ERXIncentive.
As in the 2010 eRx Incentive Program,
we proposed for 2011 that the eRx
Incentive Program continue to be an
incentive program in which
determination of whether an eligible
professional is a successful electronic
prescriber will be made at the
individual professional level, based on
the NPI. Inasmuch as some individuals
(identified by NPIs) may be associated
with more than one practice or TIN, the
determination of whether an eligible
professional is a successful electronic
prescriber will be made to the holder of
each unique TIN/NPI combination (75
FR 40202). Then, as in previous years,
payment will be made to the applicable
holder of the TIN. For 2011, the
determination of whether an eligible
professional is a successful electronic
prescriber will continue to be made for
each unique TIN/NPI combination.
However, section 1848(m)(3)(C) of the
Act required the Secretary by January 1,
2010 to establish and have in place a
process under which eligible
professionals in a group practice (as
defined by the Secretary) would be
treated as meeting the requirements for
submitting data on electronic
prescribing quality measures for covered
professional services for a reporting
period (or, for purposes of the payment
adjustment under section 1848(a)(5) of
the Act, for a reporting period for a year)
if, in lieu of reporting the electronic
prescribing measure, the group practice
reports measures determined
appropriate by the Secretary, such as
measures that target high-cost chronic
conditions and preventive care, in a
form and manner, and at a time
specified by the Secretary. Therefore, in
addition to making incentive payments
for 2011 to individual eligible
professionals based on separately
analyzing whether the individual
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
eligible professionals are successful
electronic prescribers, we proposed to
also make incentive payments to group
practices based on the determination
that the group practice, as a whole, is a
successful electronic prescriber in
accordance with section 1848(m)(3)(C)
of the Act (75 FR 40203).
The following is a summary of the
general comments received on the CY
2011 PFS proposed rule related to the
eRx Incentive Program and our
responses.
Comment: Some commenters
provided overall support for the eRx
Incentive Program. Specific aspects of
the program for which the commenters
voiced support include the numerator
and denominator codes, the reporting
mechanisms, what constitutes a
‘‘qualified’’ electronic prescribing
system, the criteria for being a
successful electronic prescriber for
purposes of the 2011 incentive payment,
and the 10 percent limitation under
section 1848(m)(2)(B) of the Act.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ positive feedback.
Comment: A couple of commenters
highlighted the importance of providing
eligible professionals feedback on
whether they have successfully
completed all requirements for this
program and establishing an appeals
process to allow eligible professionals to
appeal decisions that affect their
eligibility to take part in the eRx
Incentive Program or that affect their
ability to get eRx incentives.
Response: We agree with the
commenters on the importance of
feedback to eligible professionals. In
addition to providing an annual
feedback report, we anticipate making
interim feedback reports for the program
available to any eligible professional
who bills for a denominator-eligible
case during the first half of 2011. We
anticipate that interim feedback reports
will be available in the fall of 2011 and
will include information related to the
2012 eRx payment adjustment.
Although there is a required informal
review process for the Physician Quality
Reporting System, we are not
establishing such a process for the eRx
Incentive Program (nor are we required
to do so). We expect that any questions
arising from the interim feedback
reports or the eligibility for an eRx
incentive will be addressed by the
Quality Net Help Desk as is currently
done.
Comment: One commenter urged us
to make available to individual eligible
professionals the percentage of their
prior year’s Medicare charges that
resulted from the outpatient CPT codes
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
included in the electronic prescribing
measure’s specifications.
Response: Unfortunately, we do not
have resources to calculate and provide
feedback to eligible professionals
regarding the composition of their
charges. Most electronic billing systems,
however, will have this functionality
and should be able to provide eligible
professional who use such billing
systems with this information. In
addition, eligible professionals who
participate in the eRx Incentive Program
will receive feedback reports with
information on the percentage of an
eligible professional’s charges that
resulted from the denominator codes
included in the electronic prescribing’s
specifications.
Comment: One commenter sought
guidance for physicians whose patients
participate in the Medicaid PACE
program and use a contracted pharmacy
that may not be able to receive
electronic prescriptions. The commenter
asked whether these visits would be
excluded from the requirements of the
eRx Incentive Program.
Response: The eRx Incentive Program
requires that an eligible professional use
a qualified eRx system to electronically
prescribe during the office visit. Hence,
if the qualified system used by the
eligible professional meets the
requirements for a qualified eRx system,
as described below and listed on the
CMS eRx Incentive Web site at https://
www.cms.gov/erxincentive, and the
prescription is sent electronically, then
the eligible professional will be able to
report the electronic prescribing event
even if the pharmacy was not able to
receive the prescription electronically.
The use of a pharmacy that cannot
receive an electronic prescription does
not invalidate the electronic prescribing
event and the eligible professional
would still get credit for electronically
prescribing as long as he or she reports
this event for a denominator-eligible
visit.
Upon consideration of the comments,
we are finalizing our proposal to add
§ 414.92 to title 42 of the Code of
Federal Regulations to implement and
codify the provisions of the eRx
Incentive Program. Details regarding the
specific aspects of the eRx Incentive
Program that are being finalized,
including our rationale, are described
below. We have made some technical
changes to the regulations at § 414.92,
such as eliminating the unnecessary use
of acronyms and inserting or revising
cross-references as needed.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
b. The 2011 eRx Incentive
(1) The 2011 Reporting Period for the
eRx Incentive Program
Section 1848(m)(6)(C)(i)(II) of the Act
defines ‘‘reporting period’’ for the 2011
eRx Incentive Program to be the entire
year. Section 1848(m)(6)(C)(ii) of the
Act, however, authorizes the Secretary
to revise the reporting period if the
Secretary determines such revision is
appropriate, produces valid results on
measures reported, and is consistent
with the goals of maximizing scientific
validity and reducing administrative
burden. We proposed the 2011 eRx
Incentive Program reporting period for
purposes of the 2011 incentive payment
to be the entire calendar year (January
1, 2011 through December 31, 2011)
based on the definition of ‘‘reporting
period’’ specified under section
1848(m)(6)(C)(i)(II) of the Act. We
proposed that successful electronic
prescribers would be eligible to receive
an incentive payment equal to 1.0
percent of the total estimated allowed
Medicare Part B charges (based on
claims submitted by no later than
February 28, 2012) for all covered
professional services furnished January
1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.
We did not receive any comments
related to the proposed reporting period
for the 2011 eRx incentive. Therefore,
the reporting period for the 2011 eRx
incentive will be the entire 2011
calendar year, or January 1, 2011
through December 31, 2011.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
(2) Criteria for Determination of
Successful Electronic Prescriber for
Eligible Professionals
Under section 1848(m)(3)(B) of the
Act, in order to qualify for the incentive
payment, an eligible professional must
be a ‘‘successful electronic prescriber,’’
which the Secretary is authorized to
identify using 1 of 2 possible criteria.
One criterion, under section
1848(m)(3)(B)(ii) of the Act, is based on
the eligible professional’s reporting, in
at least 50 percent of the reportable
cases, on any electronic prescribing
quality measures that have been
established under the physician
reporting system, under subsection
1848(k) of the Act and are applicable to
services furnished by the eligible
professional during a reporting period.
We applied this criterion in 2009.
However, for years after 2009, section
1848(m)(3)(D) of the Act permits the
Secretary in consultation with
stakeholders and experts to revise the
criteria for submitting data on electronic
prescribing measures under section
1848(m)(3)(B)(ii) of the Act.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
The second criterion, under section
1848(m)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act, is based on
the electronic submission by the eligible
professional of a sufficient number (as
determined by the Secretary) of
prescriptions under Part D during the
reporting period. If the Secretary
decides to use the latter standard, then,
in accordance with section
1848(m)(3)(B)(iv) of the Act, the
Secretary is authorized to use Part D
drug claims data to assess whether a
‘‘sufficient’’ number of prescriptions
have been submitted by eligible
professionals. However, under section
1848(m)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, if the
standard based on a sufficient number
(as determined by the Secretary) of
electronic Part D prescriptions is
applied for a particular reporting period,
then the standard based on the reporting
on electronic prescribing measures
would no longer apply.
For 2011, we proposed to continue to
require eligible professionals to report
on the electronic prescribing measure
used in the 2009 and 2010 eRx Incentive
Program to determine whether an
eligible professional is a successful
electronic prescriber, but we also
proposed to again use modified measure
specifications and to use modified
reporting criteria based on the authority
provided under section 1848(m)(3)(D) of
Act, as discussed below (75 FR 40203).
(A) Reporting the Electronic Prescribing
Measure
We proposed, for purposes of the
2011 incentive payment and 2012 and
2013 payment adjustments, to retain the
3 reporting mechanisms available to
individual eligible professionals to
report the electronic prescribing
measure in 2010 to maintain program
stability. First, we proposed to again
retain the claims-based reporting
mechanism that is used in the 2009 and
2010 eRx Incentive Program. In
addition, similar to the Physician
Quality Reporting System, for the eRx
Incentive Program, we proposed to
continue the registry-based reporting
mechanism and, we also proposed that
the EHR-based reporting mechanism be
available for the electronic prescribing
measure for 2011 (75 FR 40203).
We proposed that only registries
qualified to submit quality measure
results and numerator and denominator
data on quality measures on behalf of
eligible professionals for the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System
would be qualified to submit measure
results and numerator and denominator
data on the electronic prescribing
measure on behalf of eligible
professionals for the 2011 eRx Incentive
Program (75 FR 40204).
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73553
We proposed that qualified registries
would need to submit the electronic
prescribing measure for the 2011 eRx
Incentive Program to CMS in two
separate transmissions. Such qualified
registries would first need to submit
2011 data on the electronic prescribing
measure between July 1, 2011 and
August 19, 2011, following the end of
the 2012 payment adjustment reporting
period (which is the first 6 months of
2011), for purposes of the eRx payment
adjustment described in section
VII.F.2.c. of this final rule with
comment period. The second
submission for purposes of the 2011
incentive would occur following the
end of the 2011 incentive payment
reporting period (which is the whole
calendar year of 2011).
Similarly, we proposed that only EHR
products ‘‘qualified’’ to potentially be
able to submit clinical quality data
extracted from the EHR to CMS for the
2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System would be considered ‘‘qualified’’
for the purpose of an eligible
professional potentially being able to
submit data on the electronic
prescribing measure for the 2011 eRx
Incentive Program (75 FR 40204). The
self-nomination process and
requirements for EHR vendors for the
Physician Quality Reporting System
would continue to apply to the EHR
vendors for the 2011 eRx Incentive
Program.
We proposed that eligible
professionals who want to use a
qualified EHR to submit the electronic
prescribing measure for the 2011 eRx
Incentive Program would be required to
transmit 2011 electronic prescribing
measure data to CMS in two separate
transmissions. Such eligible
professionals would first need to submit
2011 data on the electronic prescribing
measure between July 1, 2011 and
August 19, 2011, following the end of
the 2012 payment adjustment reporting
period, for purposes of the eRx payment
adjustment described in section
VII.F.2.c. of this final rule with
comment period. The second
submission for purposes of the 2011
incentive would occur following the
end of the 2011 incentive payment
reporting period.
The following is a summary of the
comments received regarding the
proposed mechanisms for reporting the
electronic prescribing measure in 2011
for purposes of the 2011 incentive
payment, and for purposes of the 2012
and 2013 payment adjustments
described in sections VII.F.2.c. and d. of
this final rule with comment period.
Comment: Some commenters agreed
with retaining the same reporting
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73554
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mechanisms for 2011 that were in place
for 2010, particularly our decision to
continue offering claims-based reporting
and the inclusion of an EHR-based
reporting mechanism.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ positive feedback and are
finalizing our proposal to include a
claims, registry, and EHR reporting for
the 2011 eRx incentive.
Comment: One commenter thinks the
requirement to submit electronic
prescribing measure data in two
submissions is burdensome for eligible
professionals and suggests exploring
alternatives where only one submission
is required.
Response: We proposed two data
submissions during 2011 for EHR-based
reporting and registry-based reporting
for different purposes. One was a
submission between July 1, 2011 and
August 19, 2011, that was intended to
be solely for purposes of the 2012
payment adjustment. The second
submission, which was to occur
following the end of the 2011 incentive
payment reporting period, was solely for
purposes of the 2011 incentive payment.
For purposes of the 2012 payment
adjustment, we will not be able to
finalize the registry and EHR-based
reporting mechanisms because it will
not be operationally feasible for us to
accept the data submissions from the
EHRs and registries in the timeframe
needed for us to be able to have
sufficient time to be analyze the data
and make the determination whether an
eligible professional is subject to the
2012 payment adjustment prior to
January 1, 2012. Therefore, there will
not be two submissions of electronic
prescribing measure data from registries
and EHRs during 2011.
Eligible professionals who intend to
use the EHR-based reporting mechanism
to submit data on the electronic
prescribing measure for purposes of the
2011 incentive payment will need to
submit the electronic prescribing
measure data via their EHR following
the end of the 2011 incentive payment
reporting period. Similarly, registries
that are submitting electronic
prescribing data on behalf of eligible
professionals or group practices for
purposes of the 2011 incentive payment
will need to do so following the end of
the 2011 incentive reporting period. If
an eligible professional chooses to use a
qualified registry or qualified EHR for
purposes of submitting electronic
prescribing measure data for the 2011
incentive, we will not combine data
from multiple reporting mechanisms.
Therefore, an eligible professional must
make sure that the required number of
eRx events for purposes of the 2011
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
incentive payment is reported to us via
a single reporting mechanism.
After considering the comments and
for the reasons previously explained, we
are finalizing our proposal to provide a
claims, registry, and EHR reporting
mechanism for the 2011 eRx incentive.
As in 2010, not all registries qualified to
submit quality measures on behalf of
eligible professionals for the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System
will be qualified to submit quality
measures results and numerator and
denominator data on the electronic
prescribing measure under the eRx
Incentive Program. The electronic
prescribing measure is reportable by an
eligible professional any time he or she
bills for one of the procedure codes for
Part B services included in the
measure’s denominator. Some registries
that self-nominate to become a qualified
registry for the Physician Quality
Reporting System may not choose to
self-nominate to become a qualified
registry for submitting electronic
prescribing measures that require
reporting at each eligible visit, such as
the electronic prescribing measure.
Registries need to indicate their desire
to qualify to submit measure results and
numerator and denominator data on the
electronic prescribing measure for the
2011 eRx Incentive program at the time
that they submit their self-nomination
letter for the 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System. The self-nomination
process and requirements for registries
for the Physician Quality Reporting
System, which also will apply to the
registries for the 2011 eRx Incentive
Program, are discussed in section
VII.F.1. of this final rule with comment
period. We will post a final list of
qualified registries for the 2011 eRx
Incentive Program on the eRx Incentive
Program section of the CMS Web site at
https://www.cms.gov/ERXIncentive when
we post the final list of qualified
registries for the 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System on the Physician
Quality Reporting System section of the
CMS Web site.
Similarly, EHR vendors are required
to indicate their desire to have one or
more of their EHR products qualified for
the purpose of an eligible professional
potentially being able to submit data on
the electronic prescribing measure for
the 2011 eRx Incentive Program at the
time when they submit their selfnomination letter for the 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System. A list of
qualified EHR vendors and their
products (including the version that is
qualified) for the 2011 eRx Incentive
Program will be posted on the eRx
Incentive Program section of the CMS
Web site at https://www.cms.gov/
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
ERXIncentive when we post the list of
qualified EHR products for the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System on
the Physician Quality Reporting System
section of the CMS Web site.
Although we are finalizing three
reporting mechanisms for use by eligible
professionals for the 2011 eRx incentive,
for purposes of the 2012 eRx payment
adjustment, we are finalizing only the
claims-based reporting mechanism
given that, for operational reasons, we
will not have the ability to accept
registry and EHR data in the timeframe
that we need to be able to complete our
analysis of the data and make the
determination of whether an eligible
professional is subject to the 2012
payment adjustment prior to January 1,
2012. As discussed in the proposed rule
(75 FR 40208), all claims for services
furnished between January 1, 2011 and
June 30, 2011, must be processed by no
later than one month after the reporting
period to be included in our analysis for
purposes of the 2012 payment
adjustment. Accordingly, to the extent
an eligible professional intends to use a
registry or EHR to submit electronic
prescribing measure data for purposes of
qualifying for the 2011 incentive, the
eligible professional would still need to
submit electronic prescribing measure
data on claims for services furnished
between January 1, 2011 and June 30,
2011, in order to avoid the 2012
payment adjustment.
(B) The Reporting Denominator for the
Electronic Prescribing Measure
The electronic prescribing measure,
similar to the Physician Quality
Reporting System measures, has two
basic elements, which include: (1) a
reporting denominator that defines the
circumstances when the measure is
reportable; and (2) a reporting
numerator.
The denominator for the electronic
prescribing measure consists of specific
billing codes for covered professional
services. The measure becomes
reportable when any one of these
procedure codes is billed by an eligible
professional for Part B covered
professional services. As initially
required under section 1848(k)(2)(A)(ii)
of the Act, and further established
through rulemaking and under section
1848(m)(2)(B) of the Act, we may
modify the codes making up the
denominator of the electronic
prescribing measure. As such, we
expanded the scope of the denominator
codes for 2010 to covered professional
services outside the professional office
and outpatient setting, such as
professional services furnished in
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
skilled nursing facilities or the home
care setting.
For 2011, we proposed to retain the
2010 electronic prescribing measure’s
denominator codes. The following is a
summary of the comments received
regarding the proposed denominator
codes for the 2011 electronic prescribing
measure.
Comment: A couple of commenters
supported our proposal to retain the
denominator codes from denominator of
the 2010 electronic prescribing measure
denominator. Conversely, other
commenters opposed retaining the 2010
electronic prescribing denominator
codes because they do not allow for
surgeons to effectively participate in the
eRx Incentive Program. The commenters
did not suggest additional codes for
inclusion in the electronic prescribing
measure’s denominator though.
Response: With respect to the
commenters’ suggestions to add other
denominator codes that were not
proposed, we are not able to do so since
the public would not have had an
opportunity to comment on these
additional codes. We welcome,
however, specific suggestions for
additional codes for consideration for
the 2012 electronic prescribing measure.
We believe that the existing
denominator codes are representative of
the types of services in which
prescriptions are most often generated.
Comment: Another commenter was
concerned that we have unnecessarily
restricted the electronic prescribing’s
denominator by associating a
prescription with a patient visit. The
commenter noted that a vast majority of
prescriptions in an internal medicine or
family practice office are generated
outside of a patient visit through the
prescription renewal workflow while
new prescriptions—the minority—are
often coincident with the patient visit.
The commenter believes that this sets
up a cascade of filters that may prevent
many otherwise successful providers
from meeting the denominator criteria.
The commenter stated that pharmacies
either have, or can easily acquire, the
capability to report the manner in which
the prescription was received and CMS
should consider a determined number
of pharmacy claims of electronic
prescriptions for Medicare beneficiaries,
where the prescriber and manner of
prescription delivery are clearly
defined, as acceptable minimum criteria
to determine a successful electronic
prescriber. The commenter believes that
the infrastructure to support this is laid
in the requirements that Medicare D
claims be submitted electronically to
CMS and would allow CMS to identify
successful electronic prescribers
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
independent of the office-generated
claims.
Response: As we stated in the
proposed rule (75 FR 40203), we believe
that the completeness and accuracy of
the Part D data with respect to whether
a prescription was submitted
electronically is unknown, which is
why we are continuing to require
reporting on an electronic prescribing
measure. As stated previously, we
welcome suggestions for additional
denominator codes for use in future
years but believe that the existing
denominator codes are generally
representative of the types of services in
which prescriptions are often generated.
Comment: One commenter supported
the proposal to ‘‘expand the scope of the
denominator codes for 2010 to
professional services outside the
professional office and outpatient
setting, such as professional services
furnished in skilled nursing facilities or
the home-care setting.’’
Response: We are unclear why the
commenter is providing feedback on the
2010 denominator codes as the scope of
the rule is limited to the 2011 electronic
prescribing measure. The 2010
denominator codes were finalized in the
2010 PFS final rule with comment
period (74 FR 61852). Since the 2010
denominator codes already reflected our
desire to include some professional
services outside the professional office
and outpatient setting, for 2011, we did
not propose any changes to the
denominator codes. Therefore, for 2011,
we are retaining the 2010 denominator
codes for the reasons listed by the
commenter. Accordingly, after
considering the comments, we are
finalizing the following CPT codes in
the denominator of the electronic
prescribing measure for 2011: 90801,
90802, 90804, 90805, 90806, 90807,
90808, 90809, 90862, 92002, 92004,
92012, 92014, 96150, 96151, 96152,
99201, 99202, 99203, 99204, 99205,
99211, 99212, 99213, 99214, 99215,
99304, 99305, 99306, 99307, 99308,
99309, 99310, 99315, 99316, 99324,
99325, 99326, 99327, 99328, 99334,
99335, 99336, 99337, 99341, 99342,
99343, 99344, 99345, 99347, 99348,
99349, 99350, G0101, G0108, G0109. We
believe these codes represent the types
of services for which prescriptions are
likely to be generated.
There are no diagnosis codes in the
measure’s denominator and there are no
age/gender requirements in order for a
patient to be included in the measure’s
denominator (that is, reporting of the
electronic prescribing measure is not
further limited to certain ages or a
specific gender). For purposes of both
the incentive payment and payment
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73555
adjustments discussed in sections
VII.F.2.c. and d. of this final rule with
comment period, eligible professionals
who do not bill for one of the procedure
codes for Part B covered professional
services included in the measure’s
denominator will have no occasion to
report the electronic prescribing
measure. In other words, the measure is
not applicable unless the professional
bills for one of the codes included in the
measure’s denominator. In addition, in
order to qualify for an incentive or avoid
the payment adjustment, eligible
professionals are not required to report
this measure in all cases in which the
measure is applicable. There are specific
reporting thresholds, or reported
electronic prescribing events, that an
eligible professional must meet in order
to be considered a ‘‘successful electronic
prescriber’’ for purposes of the 2011
incentive payments, which are
described in section VII.F.2.b.(2).(E). of
this final rule with comment period. In
addition, there are specific reporting
thresholds that an eligible professional
must meet in order to be considered a
‘‘successful electronic prescriber’’ for
purposes of the 2012 and 2013 payment
adjustments, which are described in
sections VII.F.2.c. and d. of this final
rule with comment period, respectively.
By no later than December 31, 2010,
we will post the final specifications of
the measure on the ‘‘eRx Measure’’ page
of the eRx Incentive Program section of
the CMS Web site at https://
www.cms.gov/ERXIncentive.
(C) Qualified Electronic Prescribing
System—Required Functionalities and
Part D eRx Standards
To report the electronic prescribing
measure in 2011, we again proposed
that the eligible professional must report
one of the measure’s numerator G-codes,
as discussed below. However, when
reporting any of the G-codes in 2011, we
proposed that the professional must
have and regularly use a ‘‘qualified’’
electronic prescribing system, as
defined in the electronic prescribing
measure specifications. If the
professional does not have general
access to an eRx system in the practice
setting, then the eligible professional
does not have any data to report for
purposes of the incentive payment. For
2011, we proposed to retain what
constitutes a ‘‘qualified’’ electronic
prescribing system as a system based
upon certain required functionalities
that the system can perform. We
proposed to retain the same
functionalities that were required in
2010.
In addition, section 1848(m)(3)(B)(v)
of the Act specifies that to the extent
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73556
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
practicable, in determining whether an
eligible professional is a successful
electronic prescriber, ‘‘the Secretary
shall ensure that eligible professionals
utilize electronic prescribing systems in
compliance with standards established
for such systems pursuant to the Part D
Electronic Prescribing Program under
section 1860D–4(e).’’ The Part D
standards for electronic prescribing
systems establish which electronic
standards Part D sponsors, providers,
and dispensers must use when they
electronically transmit prescriptions
and certain prescription related
information for Part D covered drugs
that are prescribed for Part D eligible
individuals. For 2011, we proposed that
to be a qualified electronic prescribing
system, electronic systems must convey
the information for the required
functionalities using the standards
currently in effect for the Part D
electronic prescribing program.
We did not receive any comments on
the proposed required functionalities or
Part D eRx standards. For this reason,
we are finalizing the required
functionalities and Part D eRx standards
as described below.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Required Functionalities for a
‘‘Qualified’’ Electronic Prescriber System
For 2011, a ‘‘qualified’’ electronic
prescribing system is one that can do
the following:
(a) Generate a complete active
medication list incorporating electronic
data received from applicable
pharmacies and PBMs, if available.
(b) Allow eligible professionals to
select medications, print prescriptions,
electronically transmit prescriptions,
and conduct alerts (written or acoustic
signals to warn the prescriber of
possible undesirable or unsafe
situations including potentially
inappropriate dose or route of
administration of a drug, drug-drug
interactions, allergy concerns, or
warnings and cautions). This
functionality must be enabled.
(c) Provide information related to
lower cost, therapeutically appropriate
alternatives (if any). The ability of an
electronic prescribing system to receive
tiered formulary information, if
available, would again suffice for this
requirement for 2011 and until this
function is more widely available in the
marketplace.
(d) Provide information on formulary
or tiered formulary medications, patient
eligibility, and authorization
requirements received electronically
from the patient’s drug plan (if
available).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
Part D Electronic Prescribing Standards.
To be a qualified electronic
prescribing system under the 2011 eRx
Incentive Program, electronic systems
must convey the information listed
previously under (a) through (d) using
the standards currently in effect for the
Part D electronic prescribing program.
Additional Part D electronic prescribing
standards were implemented April 1,
2009. These latest Part D electronic
prescribing standards, and those that
had previously been adopted, can be
found on the CMS Web site at https://
www.cms.gov/eprescribing.
To ensure that eligible professionals
utilize electronic prescribing systems
that meet these requirements, the
electronic prescribing measure requires
that those functionalities required for a
‘‘qualified’’ electronic prescribing system
utilize the adopted Part D electronic
prescribing standards. The Part D
electronic prescribing standards
relevant to the four functionalities for a
‘‘qualified’’ system in the electronic
prescribing measure described
previously and listed as (a), (b), (c), and
(d), currently are as follows:
(a) Generate medication list—Use the
National Council for Prescription Drug
Programs (NCPDP) Prescriber/
Pharmacist Interface SCRIPT Standard,
Implementation Guide, Version 8,
Release 1, October 2005 (hereinafter
‘‘NCPDP SCRIPT 8.1’’) Medication
History Standard;
(b) Transmit prescriptions
electronically—Use the NCPDP SCRIPT
8.1 for the transactions listed at
§ 423.160(b)(2);
(c) Provide information on lower cost
alternatives—Use the NCPDP Formulary
and Benefits Standard, Implementation
Guide, Version 1, Release 0 (Version
1.0), October 2005 (hereinafter ‘‘NCPDP
Formulary and Benefits 1.0’’);
(d) Provide information on formulary
or tiered formulary medications, patient
eligibility, and authorization
requirements received electronically
from the patient’s drug plan—use—
(1) NCPDP Formulary and Benefits 1.0
for communicating formulary and
benefits information between
prescribers and plans;
(2) Accredited Standards Committee
(ASC) X12N 270/271-Health Care
Eligibility Benefit Inquiry and Response,
Version 4010, May 2000, Washington
Publishing Company, 004010X092 and
Addenda to Health Care Eligibility
Benefit Inquiry and Response, Version
4010A1, October 2002, Washington
Publishing Company, 004010X092A1
for communicating eligibility
information between the plan and
prescribers; and
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(3) NCPDP Telecommunication
Standard Specification, Version 5,
Release 1 (Version 5.1), September 1999,
and equivalent NCPDP Batch Standard
Batch Implementation Guide, Version 1,
Release 1 (Version 1.1), January 2000 for
communicating eligibility information
between the plan and dispensers.
However, there are Part D electronic
prescribing standards that are in effect
for functionalities that are not
commonly utilized at this time. One
example is Rx Fill Notification, which is
discussed in the Part D electronic
prescribing final rule (73 FR 18926). For
purposes of the 2011 Electronic
Prescribing Program, we again are not
requiring that an electronic prescribing
system contain all functionalities for
which there are available Part D
electronic prescribing standards since
many of these functionalities are not
commonly available. For those required
functionalities previously described, a
‘‘qualified’’ system must use the adopted
Part D electronic prescribing standards
for electronic messaging.
There are other aspects of the
functionalities for a ‘‘qualified’’ system
that are not dependent on electronic
messaging and are part of the software
of the electronic prescribing system, for
which Part D standards for electronic
prescribing do not pertain and are not
required for purposes of the eRx
Incentive Program. For example, the
requirements in qualification (b) that
require the system to allow
professionals to select medications,
print prescriptions, and conduct alerts
are functions included in the particular
software, for which Part D standards for
electronic messaging do not apply.
We are aware that there are significant
numbers of eligible professionals who
are interested in participating in the eRx
Incentive Program but currently do not
have an electronic prescribing system.
The electronic prescribing measure does
not require the use of any particular
system or transmission network; only
that the system be a ‘‘qualified’’ system
having the functionalities previously
described based on Part D electronic
prescribing standards. If the
professional does not have general
access to an electronic prescribing
system in the practice setting, the
eligible professional would not be able
to report the 2011 electronic prescribing
measure. In addition to not being
eligible for a 2011 incentive payment,
an eligible professional who does not
report the electronic prescribing
measure for 2011 may be subject to the
2012 eRx payment adjustment discussed
in section VII.F.2.c. of this final rule
with comment period.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
(D) The Reporting Numerator for the
Electronic Prescribing Measure
The proposed criteria for reporting for
purposes of being a 2011 successful
electronic prescriber are designed to
reward those eligible professionals who
demonstrate that they have adopted a
qualified electronic prescribing system
and used the system in a substantial
way to electronically prescribe.
Accordingly, for the 2011 electronic
prescribing measure, we proposed to
retain the following numerator G-code
from the 2010 electronic prescribing
measure’s numerator: G8553 (At least 1
prescription created during the
encounter was generated and
transmitted electronically using a
qualified electronic prescribing system)
(75 FR 40206).
We did not receive any comments
related to the proposed electronic
prescribing measure numerator G-code
for 2011. Therefore, we are finalizing Gcode G8553 for the 2011 electronic
prescribing measure’s numerator.
We intend to post the final 2011
electronic prescribing measure
specifications on the ‘‘eRx Measure’’
page of the eRx Incentive Program
section of the CMS Web site at https://
www.cms.gov/ERXIncentive by no later
than December 31, 2010.
Because the electronic prescribing
quality measure will apply only when
an eligible professional furnishes
services indicated by one of the codes
included in the measure’s denominator,
for claims-based reporting, for example,
it will not be necessary for an eligible
professional to report G-codes for the
electronic prescribing measure on
claims not containing one of the
denominator codes. However, if
reporting a G-code, the G-code data
submission will only be considered
valid if it appears on the same Medicare
Part B claim containing one of the
electronic prescribing quality measure’s
denominator codes.
In addition, if the eligible professional
submits a Medicare Part B claim
containing one of the electronic
prescribing measure’s denominator
codes, he or she can report the
numerator G-code only when the
eligible professional furnishes services
indicated by the G-code included in the
measure’s numerator. That is, only
when at least 1 prescription created
during the encounter is generated and
transmitted electronically using a
qualified electronic prescribing system.
(E) Criteria for Successful Reporting of
the Electronic Prescribing Measure
As discussed previously, section
1848(m)(3)(D) of the Act authorizes the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
Secretary to revise the criteria for
submitting data on the electronic
prescribing measure from the criteria
specified under section 1848(m)(3)(B)(ii)
of the Act, which requires the measure
to be reported in at least 50 percent of
the cases in which the measure is
reportable. For the 2010 eRx incentive,
we revised the criteria for successful
electronic prescriber such that an
eligible professional shall be treated as
a successful electronic prescriber for a
reporting period based on the eligible
professional’s reporting of the electronic
prescribing measure which counts the
generation and reporting of one or more
prescriptions associated with a patient
visit electronically for a minimum of 25
unique visits per year of applicable
cases in the denominator of the
electronic prescribing for 2010. For
2011, we again proposed to make the
determination of whether an eligible
professional is a successful electronic
prescriber for purposes of the eRx
incentive based on a count of the
number of times (minimum threshold of
25) an eligible professional reports that
at least one prescription created during
the encounter is generated using a
qualified electronic prescribing system
(that is, reports the G8553 code).
The following is a summary of
comments received regarding the
criteria for the determination of a
successful electronic prescriber for
eligible professionals for the 2011 eRx
incentive payment.
Comment: One commenter requested
that we define and share for public
comment the actual number of Part D
prescriptions that would suffice to
document successful electronic
prescribing.
Response: We did not propose to use
Part D prescriptions as the standard to
determine whether an eligible
professional is a successful e-prescriber
for purposes of the 2011 eRx incentive
payment. As stated in the proposed rule
(75 FR 40203), we may consider doing
so in the future. At such time, we would
define the actual number of Part D
prescriptions that would be required to
be prescribed electronically via notice
and comment rulemaking.
Comment: Several commenters
supported the electronic prescribing
measure reporting threshold of 25,
while others stated that they support
our plan to reduce the electronic
prescribing measure reporting burden
from 50 percent of all applicable
services to reporting just 25 times.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ feedback regarding the
proposed electronic prescribing measure
reporting threshold for purposes of the
2011 eRx incentive payment. For 2011,
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73557
we are finalizing our proposal to require
that professionals report on 25 unique
electronic prescribing events in order to
be considered a successful e-prescriber
for the purpose of qualifying for a 2011
eRx incentive payment. We believe that
this reporting threshold simplifies the
reporting burden and encourages
participation.
Comment: Some commenters
expressed concern that the reporting
threshold of 25 unique visits is too low
a standard for incentive payments as it
is unclear how this threshold will drive
improvements for all Medicare
beneficiaries. A more robust standard
was recommended. One commenter
specifically recommended a reporting
threshold of between 250–500
prescriptions per year per eligible
professional and 25,000–50,000 per year
per GPRO I group practice. Another
commenter recommended that we
require eligible professionals to transmit
more than 40 percent of written
prescriptions electronically, which is in
line with the EHR Incentive Program.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ valuable input. We have
reviewed several eRx Incentive Program
management reports in order to
determine the feasibility of using the
‘‘25’’ visit threshold and we believe that
this threshold simplifies the eRx
reporting burden. In establishing this
threshold we also took into account the
many valid circumstances that would
prevent eligible professionals who have
adopted a qualified electronic
prescribing system from having 25
unique electronic prescribing events
during the calendar year and variations
in practice characteristics. Our goal is to
increase participation in the eRx
Incentive Program and, more
importantly, to encourage the continued
adoption and use of electronic
prescribing systems.
After considering the comments
received and for the reasons previously
explained, we are finalizing our
proposal to make the determination of
whether an eligible professional is a
successful electronic prescriber for
purposes of the CY 2011 incentive
payment based on a count of the
number of times (minimum threshold of
25) an eligible professional reports that
at least one prescription created during
the encounter is generated using a
qualified electronic prescribing system
(that is, reports the G8553 code) during
the 2011 reporting period (that is,
January 1, 2011 through December 31,
2011).
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73558
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
(3) Determination of the 2011 Incentive
Payment Amount for Individual Eligible
Professionals Who Are Successful
Electronic Prescribers
Section 1848(m)(2)(B) of the Act
imposes a limitation on the electronic
prescribing incentive payment. The
Secretary is authorized to choose 1 of 2
possible criteria for determining
whether or not the limitation applies to
a successful electronic prescriber. The
first criterion is based upon whether the
Medicare Part B allowed charges for
covered professional services to which
the electronic prescribing quality
measure applies are less than 10 percent
of the total Medicare Part B PFS allowed
charges for all covered professional
services furnished by the eligible
professional during the reporting
period. The second criterion is based on
whether the eligible professional
submits (both electronically and nonelectronically) a sufficient number (as
determined by the Secretary) of
prescriptions under Part D (which can,
again, be assessed using Part D drug
claims data). If the Secretary decides to
use the latter criterion, then, in
accordance with section 1848(m)(2)(B)
of the Act, the criterion based on the
reporting on electronic prescribing
measures would no longer apply. The
statutory limitation also applies with
regard to the application of the payment
adjustment. Based on our proposal to
make the determination of whether an
eligible professional is a ‘‘successful
electronic prescriber’’ based on
submission of the electronic prescribing
measure, we proposed to apply the
criterion under section 1848(m)(2)(B)(i)
of the Act for the limitation for both the
2011 incentive payment and the 2012
payment adjustment (the application of
the limitation with regard to the 2012
eRx payment adjustment is discussed in
section VII.F.2.c.(3). of this final rule
with comment period).
Since, as discussed previously, we
proposed for 2011 to make the
determination of whether an eligible
professional is a ‘‘successful electronic
prescriber’’ based on submission of the
electronic prescribing measure, we also
proposed to retain the requirement to
analyze the claims submitted by the
eligible professional at the TIN/NPI
level to determine whether the 10
percent threshold is met in determining
the receipt of an electronic prescribing
incentive payment for 2011 by an
eligible professional (75 FR 40206). For
purposes of the 2011 eRx incentive
payment, this calculation is expected to
take place in the first quarter of 2012
and will be performed by dividing the
eligible professional’s total 2011
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
Medicare Part B PFS allowed charges for
all such covered professional services
submitted for the measure’s
denominator codes by the eligible
professional’s total Medicare Part B PFS
allowed charges for all covered
professional services (as assessed at the
TIN/NPI level). If the result is 10
percent or more, then the statutory
limitation will not apply and a
successful electronic prescriber will
qualify to earn the electronic prescribing
incentive payment. If the result is less
than 10 percent, then the statutory
limitation will apply and the eligible
professional will not earn an electronic
prescribing incentive payment even if
he or she electronically prescribes and
reports a G-code indicating that he or
she generated and transmitted a
prescription electronically at least 25
times for those eligible cases that occur
during the 2011 reporting period.
Although an individual eligible
professional may decide to conduct his
or her own assessment of how likely
this statutory limitation is expected to
apply to him or her before deciding
whether or not to report the electronic
prescribing measure, an individual
eligible professional may report the
electronic prescribing measure without
regard to the statutory limitation for the
incentive payment.
The following is a summary of the
comments received on the
determination of the 2011 incentive
payment amount for individual eligible
professionals who are successful
electronic prescribers.
Comment: Several commenters felt we
should allow eligible professionals to
earn an incentive both for the eRx
Incentive Program as well as for the
Medicare EHR Incentive Program. The
commenters did not think these
incentives should be mutually
exclusive, claiming that the eRx
payment adjustment applies even if the
eligible professional is participating in
both programs.
Response: We do not have the
authority to allow eligible professionals
to earn an incentive under the eRx
Incentive Program and the Medicare
EHR Incentive Program. Section
1848(m)(2)(D) of the Act specifies that
the incentive under the eRx Incentive
Program shall not apply to an eligible
professional (or, in the case of a group
practice) if, for the EHR reporting period
the eligible professional (or group
practice) receives an incentive payment
under the EHR Incentive Program with
respect to a certified EHR technology
that has the capability of electronic
prescribing.
We will, however, be developing a
plan, as described under section
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1848(m)(7) of the Act (‘‘Integration of
Physician Quality Reporting and EHR
Reporting’’), to integrate measure
reporting requirements under the
Physician Quality Reporting System,
eRx Incentive Program, and the EHR
Incentive Program, with respect to
selection of measures to demonstrate
meaningful use under the EHR Incentive
Program, quality of care furnished to an
individual, and such other activities as
specified by the Secretary.
With regards to the commenters’
statement that the eRx payment
adjustment still applies even if an
eligible professional participates in both
programs, this is not accurate. The eRx
payment adjustment applies only to the
extent that the eligible professional is
not a successful electronic prescriber.
We would also like to clarify that the
limitation under section 1848(m)(2)(D)
of the Act with respect to EHR incentive
payments does not preclude the 10
percent limitation under section
1848(m)(2)(B)(i) of the Act from
applying with regard to the eRx
payment adjustment to an eligible
professional who earns an EHR
incentive.
Comment: One commenter requested
that we clarify the way in which we
intend to calculate the group eRx
incentives if individual members of the
group have received Medicare EHR
incentives.
Response: We will assess the group
practice’s data first to determine eRx
incentive eligibility. If the group
practice is eligible for an eRx incentive,
then we will filter out the allowed
charges for all NPIs who earn an EHR
incentive before calculating the group’s
incentive amount.
Comment: We also received feedback
pertaining to the eRx Incentive Program
and EHR Incentive Program having
different threshold criteria. Specifically,
the commenter was concerned that the
in order to qualify for the EHR
incentive, eligible professionals must
use a qualified EHR to generate and
transmit 40 percent of all permissible
prescriptions electronically but for the
eRx Incentive Program, the threshold is
25 successful electronic prescriptions
during the reporting period for purposes
of the incentive payment. Since eligible
professionals must still participate in
the eRx Incentive Program to avoid the
2012 payment adjustment, a commenter
stated that having different threshold
criteria for the two programs causes
confusion and recommended the
establishment of a consistent threshold
for electronic prescriptions. Another
commenter felt that different thresholds
are appropriate given that the EHR
Incentive Program is voluntary and the
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
eRx Incentive Program is mandatory to
maintain full payment.
Response: We note that the EHR
Incentive Program and the eRx Incentive
Program are two separate, distinct
programs with different purposes and
underlying statutory provisions.
Professionals eligible for the eRx
Incentive Program are encouraged to be
successful electronic prescribers using
qualified electronic prescribing systems.
The Medicare EHR Incentive Program
will provide incentive payments to
eligible professionals (EPs), eligible
hospitals, and critical access hospitals
(CAHs) that are meaningful users of
certified EHR technology. Electronic
prescribing is merely one component of
the EHR Incentive Program.
As such, we believe, at this time that
it is appropriate to have different
reporting thresholds. However, as noted
previously, we will be developing a
plan, as described under section
1848(m)(7) of the Act (‘‘Integration of
Physician Quality Reporting and EHR
Reporting’’), to integrate measure
reporting requirements under the
Physician Quality Reporting System,
eRx Incentive Program, and the EHR
Incentive Program. In the plan, we will
study potential ways to address the
commenters’ concerns.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
(4) Reporting Option for Satisfactory
Reporting of the Electronic Prescribing
Measure by Group Practices
Section 1848(m)(3)(C) of the Act
required that we establish and have in
place a process under which eligible
professionals in a group practice shall
be treated as a successful electronic
prescriber. In addition, we are
prohibited from making double
payments under section
1848(m)(3)(C)(iii) of the Act, which
requires that payments to a group
practice shall be in lieu of the payments
that would otherwise be made under the
eRx Incentive Program to eligible
professionals in the group practice for
being a successful electronic prescriber.
For 2011, we proposed to make
incentive payments to group practices
based on the determination that the
group practice, as a whole, is a
successful electronic prescriber for 2011
(75 FR 40207). An individual eligible
professional who is affiliated with a
group practice participating in the group
practice reporting option that
successfully meets the requirements for
group practices would not be eligible to
earn a separate eRx incentive payment
for 2011 on the basis of his or her
successfully reporting the electronic
prescribing measure at the individual
level.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
The following is a summary of the
comments received regarding the two
group practice options for reporting the
electronic prescribing measure in 2011.
Comment: One commenter supports
the proposed eRx GPRO II, including
the proposed reporting criteria for GPRO
II groups.
Response: We appreciate the
commenter’s positive feedback and are
finalizing the eRx GPRO II as proposed.
We believe that the eRx GPRO II will
expand opportunities for group
practices to participate in the eRx
Incentive Program.
Comment: One commenter
appreciated that we have recognized the
burden of claims-based reporting for the
Physician Quality Reporting System and
the eRx Incentive Program but the
commenter was ‘‘disappointed that a
GPRO-specific alternative for the eRx
Incentive Program was not proposed.
Most groups using [electronic
prescribing technology] can readily
obtain detailed information on
physician utilization of the system.’’ The
commenter felt that this data could be
easily reported, in detail, on the GPRO
I data collection tool and urges CMS to
consider this alternative for 2011
reporting.
Response: We assume that the ‘‘GPROspecific alternative’’ that the commenter
is referring to is the addition of the
electronic prescribing measure to the
GPRO I data collection tool so that the
groups participating in GPRO I can use
this data collection tool to submit
quality measures data for both the
Physician Quality Reporting System and
the eRx Incentive Program. Similar
suggestions have been considered in the
past but were not implemented due to
fiscal concerns and concerns about the
timing of when an updated GPRO I data
collection tool could be available. We
will continue to explore the feasibility
of adding the electronic prescribing
measure to the GPRO I data collection
tool so that practices can use the data
collection tool to submit the electronic
prescribing measure instead of claims, a
qualified registry, or a qualified EHR.
Based on these comments, we are
finalizing two group practice reporting
options for the eRx Incentive Program
for 2011—GPRO I and GPRO II. GPRO
I is the reporting option for large group
practices with 200 or more eligible
professionals and GPRO II is the
reporting option for group practices
with fewer than 200 eligible
professionals. The reporting criteria
under these 2 options differ depending
on the size of the group practice.
Eligibility and reporting requirements
for the 2011 eRx GPRO I and GPRO II
are described below. We believe that
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73559
these 2 options will encourage greater
participation in the eRx Incentive
Program by reducing overall reporting
burden for eligible professionals who
are part of a group practice.
(A) Definition of ‘‘Group Practice’’
Section 1848(m)(3)(C)(i) of the Act
authorizes the Secretary to define
‘‘group practice.’’ For purposes of
determining whether a group practice is
a successful electronic prescriber for
2011, we proposed that consistent with
the definition of group practice
proposed for the Physician Quality
Reporting System group practice
reporting option (GPRO), a ‘‘group
practice’’ would be defined as a single
Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN)
with 2 or more eligible professionals, as
identified by their individual National
Provider Identifier (NPI), who have
reassigned their Medicare billing rights
to the TIN. ‘‘Group practice’’ would also
include group practices participating in
Medicare demonstration projects
approved by the Secretary (75 FR
40207).
In addition, we proposed to restrict
participation in the 2011 eRx GPRO to
group practices participating in the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System
GPRO (either through GPRO I or GPRO
II) or group practices that are deemed to
be participating in the 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System GPRO (that is,
group practices participating in a CMSapproved Medicare demonstration) that
have indicated their desire to participate
in the 2011 eRx GPRO (75 FR 40207).
We also proposed that a group
practice that wishes to participate in the
2011 eRx Incentive Program under the
group practice reporting option will
have to indicate how the group practice
intends to report the electronic
prescribing measure. That is, the group
practice will need to indicate in its selfnomination letter which reporting
mechanism (that is, claims, registries or
EHRs) the group practice intends to use
for purposes of participating in the 2011
eRx Incentive Program group practice
reporting option.
We did not receive any comments
related to the proposed definition of
‘‘group practice’’ for purposes of the eRx
Incentive Program. For this reason, we
are finalizing our proposal as previously
described.
Unlike individual eligible
professionals who may choose not to
participate in the Physician Quality
Reporting System, to be eligible to earn
an electronic prescribing incentive in
2011, group practices that wish to
participate in the electronic prescribing
group practice reporting option will be
required to participate in the Physician
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73560
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Quality Reporting System group
practice reporting option or be deemed
to be participating in the Physician
Quality Reporting System group
practice reporting option based on the
practice’s participation in an approved
Medicare demonstration project.
Participation in the eRx Incentive
Program, including participation in the
electronic prescribing group practice
reporting option is, however, optional
for group practices that are participating
in the Physician Quality Reporting
System under the group practice
reporting option. If a group practice
wishes to participate in the 2011 eRx
Incentive Program under the group
practice reporting option, the group
practice must indicate its desire to do so
at the time that the group practice selfnominates to participate in the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System
group practice reporting option.
However, group practices are not
required to indicate their intent to
participate in the 2011 eRx Incentive
Program as individual eligible
professionals, when the group practice
self-nominates to participate in the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System
group practice reporting option.
As discussed in section VII.F.1.g. of
this final rule with comment period,
group practices interested in
participating in the 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System through the
group practice reporting option will be
required to submit a self-nomination
letter to CMS, requesting to participate
in the 2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System group practice reporting option.
Instructions for submitting the selfnomination letter will be posted on the
Physician Quality Reporting System
section of the CMS Web site by
November 15, 2010. A group practice
that had indicated their desire to
participate in the eRx Incentive Program
group practice reporting option when
they self-nominated to participate in the
2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System group practice reporting option
will be notified of the selection decision
with respect to participation in the eRx
Incentive Program at the same time that
it is notified of the selection decision for
the Physician Quality Reporting System
group practice reporting option.
(B) Process for Group Practices To
Participate as Group Practices and
Criteria for Successful Reporting of the
Electronic Prescribing Measure by
Group Practices
For group practices selected to
participate in the electronic prescribing
group practice reporting option for
purposes of the 2011 eRx incentive
payment, we proposed that the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
reporting period would be January 1,
2011 to December 31, 2011 (75 FR
40207). We proposed that group
practices selected to participate in the
2011 eRx Incentive Program and qualify
for the eRx incentive payment through
the group practice reporting option
would be able to choose to report the
electronic prescribing measure through
the claims-based, the registry-based, or,
the EHR-based reporting mechanism.
In order for a group practice
participating in the Physician Quality
Reporting System GPRO I to be
considered a successful electronic
prescriber for purposes of the 2011 eRx
incentive, we proposed that the group
practice would have to report that at
least 1 prescription during an encounter
was generated and transmitted
electronically using a qualified
electronic prescribing system in at least
2,500 instances during the reporting
period. In order for a group practice
participating in the Physician Quality
Reporting System GPRO II to be
considered a successful electronic
prescriber, we proposed that the group
practice would have to report that at
least 1 prescription during an encounter
was generated and transmitted
electronically using a qualified
electronic prescribing system for 75–
1,875 instances, based on the group’s
size (75 FR 40208).
Section 1848(m)(2)(B) of the Act
specifies that the 10 percent threshold
limitation on the applicability of the
electronic prescribing incentive applies
to group practices as well as individual
eligible professionals. Therefore, in
determining whether a group practice
will receive an electronic prescribing
incentive payment for 2011 by meeting
the proposed reporting criteria
previously described, we would
determine based on the claims, whether
10 percent of a group practice’s charges
comprised of codes in the denominator
of the electronic prescribing measure.
We did not receive any comments
related to the proposed process for
group practices to participate as group
practices and the proposed criteria for
successful reporting of the electronic
prescribing measure by group practices
for purposes of the 2011 eRx Incentive.
Therefore, for purposes of the 2011 eRx
incentive, we are finalizing our proposal
to require GPRO I practices to report the
electronic prescribing measure for 2,500
instances during the January 1, 2011
through December 31, 2011. We are also
finalizing our proposal to require GPRO
II practices to report the electronic
prescribing measure for the number of
instances specified in Table 76 (see
section VII.F.1.g.(3).(B). of this final rule
with comment period) during the
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
January 1, 2011 through December 31,
2011 reporting period. We believe these
are reasonable thresholds to
demonstrate use of electronic
prescribing technology.
In addition, we are finalizing our
proposal to allow group practices
participating in the 2011 eRx Incentive
Program under GPRO I and GPRO II to
submit data on the electronic
prescribing measure using claims, a
qualified registry, or a qualified EHR for
purposes of qualifying for the 2011 eRx
incentive payment. In addition, for
purposes of the 2011 eRx incentive, we
will not combine data on the electronic
prescribing submitted via multiple
reporting mechanisms. That is, a group
practice must meet the relevant 2011
GPRO reporting criteria for the 2011
incentive using a single reporting
mechanism. Combining data received
via multiple reporting mechanisms
would add significant complexity to our
analytics and potentially delay
incentive payments.
c. The 2012 eRx Payment Adjustment
Section 1848(a)(5) of the Act requires
that with respect to covered professional
services furnished by an eligible
professional in 2012, if the eligible
professional is not a successful
electronic prescriber for the reporting
period for the year, the fee schedule
amount for such services furnished by
such professional during 2012 shall be
equal to 99 percent of the fee schedule
amount that would otherwise apply to
such PFS services.
The following is a summary of general
comments received regarding the eRx
payment adjustment and our responses.
Comment: Some commenters were
opposed to implementation of the eRx
payment adjustment because of the eRx
Incentive Program is relatively new.
Commenters noted that we have not
released any summary results regarding
how many eligible professionals are
reporting and how many are earning
incentives, eligible professionals have
not received feedback reports on their
progress for 2009 or 2010, and there is
no evidence that the program is
working. As a result, commenters
suggested that CMS should ensure that
eligible professionals who attempt to
report but are unsuccessful due to the
data submission process are not
penalized.
Response: Section 1848(a)(5) of the
Act requires us to implement a payment
adjustment beginning with covered
professional services furnished by an
eligible professional during 2012, if the
eligible professional is not a successful
electronic prescriber. We do not have
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
the authority to delay implementation of
this payment adjustment.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that we exercise additional flexibility in
assigning payment adjustments
carefully by reviewing each eligible
professional’s circumstances prior to
assigning any payment adjustments.
Response: Although we value the
commenter’s input, this suggestion is
not technically feasible. Given the short
period of time between the end of the
data submission period for the 2012 eRx
payment adjustment and when we
would have to begin adjusting eligible
professional’s 2012 payments, it would
not be feasible for us to review every
eligible professional’s circumstances
individually. In addition, section
1848(a)(5) (A)(i) of the Act requires us
to apply the payment adjustment ‘‘if the
eligible professional is not a successful
electronic prescriber.’’ We believe that
the criteria for becoming a successful
electronic prescriber for purposes of the
payment adjustment that we have
proposed and are finalizing below are
reasonable in that we have limited the
number of electronic prescribing events
required to avoid the payment
adjustment. Furthermore, as discussed
further in section VII.F.2.c.(4). of this
final rule with comment period we have
provided a process whereby eligible
professionals can request a significant
hardship exception on a case-by-case
basis under section 1848(a)(5)(B) of the
Act.
Comment: Several commenters urged
us to synchronize the eRx Incentive
Program and EHR Incentive Program so
that eligible professionals who receive
Medicare EHR incentives will be
exempt from the eRx payment
adjustments. Commenters stated that the
EHR Incentive Program provides an
opportunity and payment adjustment
that did not exist when the original eRx
Incentive Program regulations were put
in place, and adjustments should be
made due to the amount of overlap
between programs. As it is, the eRx
Incentive Program and the EHR
Incentive Program represent a form of
‘‘double jeopardy’’ for physicians. For
instance, a physician who gets the first
year ‘‘meaningful use’’ subsidy via
Medicaid could also be penalized for
not using electronic prescribing. Also,
commenters claimed that in some cases,
in order to avoid the eRx payment
adjustment, a physician would have to
purchase a stand-alone electronic
prescribing program and then transition
to a full EHR once the certification
standards are determined. Furthermore,
the list of ‘‘certified’’ EHRs for the EHR
Incentive Program will not be available
until January 2011. Another commenter
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
stated that it is unfair to penalize
eligible professionals who are working
in good faith to adopt a comprehensive
EHR under the EHR Incentive Program.
Another commenter suggested that
every effort be made to align the EHR
Incentive Program and the eRx payment
adjustment to remove the burden from
eligible professionals of having to
submit electronic prescribing measure
data more than once.
Response: We agree with the desire to
align the EHR Incentive Program and
the eRx payment adjustment and
understand the commenters’ concerns.
The EHR Incentive Program and the eRx
Incentive Program are governed by
different laws, and have different
reporting requirements. While section
1848(m)(2)(D) explicitly limits eligible
professionals or group practices that
receive an EHR incentive from
qualifying for an eRx incentive payment
in the same year, there is not a similar
statutory provision that explicitly limits
an eligible professional or group
practice that receives an EHR incentive
from being subject to the eRx payment
adjustment. At this time an eligible
professional who wishes to participate
in the EHR Incentive Program would
also have to participate in the eRx
Incentive Program during 2011 to avoid
an eRx payment adjustment in 2012
since the two programs have different
requirements with respect to electronic
prescribing. Eligible professionals,
however, are not penalized for
participating in both programs. Rather,
an eligible professional who qualifies
for an eRx incentive and a Medicare
EHR incentive cannot earn an eRx
incentive for the same year. However,
we are making the effort to study
possible methods of aligning the two
programs by developing a plan, as
described under section 1848(m)(7) of
the Act (‘‘Integration of Physician
Quality Reporting and EHR Reporting’’),
to integrate measure reporting
requirements under Physician Quality
Reporting System, eRx Incentive
Program and the EHR Incentive
Program.
We note that although section
1848(m)(2) precludes an eligible
professional who has earned an
incentive payment under the EHR
Incentive Program from also earning an
eRx incentive payment, the statute does
not preclude the eligible professional
from being subject to the eRx payment
adjustment. In order to avoid the eRx
payment adjustment, an eligible
professional participating in the
Medicare EHR Incentive Program still
must meet the relevant eRx payment
adjustment criteria for being a
successful electronic prescriber.
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73561
(1) The eRx Payment Adjustment
Reporting Period
For purposes of the 2012 eRx payment
adjustment, we proposed to make a
determination of whether an eligible
professional or a group practice is a
successful electronic prescriber based
on the January 1, 2011 through June 30,
2011 reporting period (75 FR 40208).
For eligible professionals and group
practices using the claims-based
reporting mechanism, we proposed that
all claims for services furnished
between January 1, 2011 and June 30,
2011 must be processed by no later than
one month after the reporting period, for
the claim to be included in our data
analysis.
The following is a summary of
comments received on the proposed
reporting period for the 2012 eRx
payment adjustment and our proposal to
require claims to be submitted by no
later than 1 month after the reporting
period.
Comment: Several commenters
expressed a desire for us to revise or
delay the 2012 eRx payment adjustment
reporting period, asserting that basing
the 2012 eRx payment adjustment on
electronic prescribing activity in 2011
conflicts with the law. Although some
commenters acknowledged the need for
time to complete a data analysis to
determine if an eligible professional was
a successful electronic prescriber prior
to 2012, these commenters expressed
opposition to the shorter reporting
period. Other commenters believed that
payment adjustments for 2012 should be
based on a reporting period in 2012
rather than a reporting period in 2011.
Commenters preferred that the reporting
period for the 2012 and 2013 payment
adjustments be the full 2012 and 2013
calendar years, respectively. One
commenter requested an April 1
through September 30, 2011 for the
2012 payment adjustment. One
commenter noted that some
organizations might have planned an
implementation of a qualified electronic
prescribing system prior to January 1,
2012, to avoid the 2012 eRx payment
adjustment. Such organizations would
now have to complete that
implementation more than six months
in advance, potentially causing a
significant financial burden for the
organization. Another commenter stated
that the 2012 eRx payment adjustment
may cause some practices to reduce
their Medicare patient roster (or refuse
to accept new Medicare patients) in
order to reduce the size of the payment
adjustment, because they claim they
would not have adequate time to meet
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73562
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
the proposed 2011 requirements to
avoid the payment adjustment in 2012.
Response: With respect to
commenters’ claims that the proposed
reporting period for purposes of
applying the 2012 eRx payment
adjustment conflicts with the law,
section 1848(a)(5) of the Act requires
that the PFS amount for covered
professional services furnished by an
eligible professional during 2012, be
reduced by 1 percent during 2012, if the
eligible professional is not a successful
electronic prescriber for the reporting
period for the year. Under section
1848(a)(5)(D) of the Act, we have the
discretion to define the ‘‘reporting
period’’ for purposes of the payment
adjustment with respect to a year.
While we appreciate the commenters’
suggestions to use data from the entire
2011 calendar year, a later part of 2011,
or from 2012 for such an assessment for
purposes of applying the 2012 eRx
payment adjustment for services
furnished in 2012, we believe it is
necessary to reduce the PFS amount
concurrently with claims submissions
in 2012. The alternatives to reducing the
PFS amount concurrently with claims
submissions in 2012 would be having to
recoup payments after the
determination is made about whether
the payment adjustment applies,
providing added payments if the claims
are paid at the reduced amount before
the determination is made about
whether the payment adjustment
applies, or holding claims until the
determination is made about whether
the payment adjustment applies. As a
result, we need to determine whether
eligible professionals are successful
electronic prescribers prior to 2012,
based on a reporting period that also
takes place prior to 2012. We believe
that the proposed reporting period of
the first six months of 2011 will allow
sufficient time for eligible professionals
to report the electronic prescribing
measure, allow us to collect and analyze
the data submitted by eligible
professionals, and avoid retroactive
adjustments of payments in 2012.
Avoiding retroactive adjustments would
not be possible if the determination of
a successful electronic prescriber for
purposes of the 2012 payment
adjustment was based on reporting for
the entire 2011 calendar year or a later
portion of the 2011 calendar year. After
the end of the reporting period, we must
allow some time for claims for services
furnished during the reporting period to
be submitted and processed before it is
available for analysis. Once we have
completed our analysis we also need
time to make the necessary system
changes to begin applying the payment
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
adjustments to the appropriate
individuals. All of this must occur prior
to January 1, 2012.
Comment: One commenter suggested
we be consistent with EHR Incentive
Program submission guidelines by
allowing electronic prescribing measure
data to be submitted for up to two
months after the close of the reporting
period, rather than the proposed one
month.
Response: As we explained
previously, we need sufficient time
following the close of the 6-month
reporting period to determine whether
an eligible professional is a successful
electronic prescriber and must do so
prior to 2012, when the eRx payment
adjustment would be assessed (if
applicable). Accordingly, we cannot
allow claims to be submitted for up to
two months after the close of the
reporting period.
After considering the comments and
for the reasons we explained previously,
we are finalizing a 6-month reporting
period, from January 1, 2011 through
June 30, 2011, for the 2012 eRx payment
adjustment.
(2) Criteria for Determining
Applicability of the 2012 eRx Payment
Adjustment to Individual Eligible
Professionals
As we explained previously, section
1848(a)(5) of the Act requires a payment
adjustment be applied with respect to
covered professional services furnished
by an eligible professional in 2012, if
the eligible professional is not a
successful electronic prescriber for the
reporting period for the year. Section
1848(m)(3)(B) of the Act sets forth the
requirements for being a successful
electronic prescriber. As we discussed
in section VII.F.2.b.(2). of this final rule
with comment period, for the 2011 eRx
Incentive Program, we decided to
continue to require eligible
professionals to report on the electronic
prescribing measure to determine
whether an eligible professional is a
successful electronic prescriber. Details
about the electronic prescribing quality
measure are discussed in section
VII.F.2.b.(2).(C) and (D) of this final rule
with comment period.
In addition, based on the authority
under section 1848(m)(3)(D) of the Act
to revise the criteria for submitting data
on the electronic prescribing quality
measure, we proposed that the 2012 eRx
payment adjustment would not apply to
the following:
(1) An eligible professional who is not
a physician (includes MDs, DOs, and
podiatrists), nurse practitioner, or
physician assistant as of June 30, 2011.
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(2) An eligible professional who does
not have at least 100 cases (that is,
claims for patient services) containing
an encounter code that falls within the
denominator of the electronic
prescribing measure for dates of service
between January 1, 2011 through June
30, 2011.
(3) An eligible professional who is a
successful electronic prescriber for the
January 1, 2011 through June 30, 2011
reporting period. Specifically, we
proposed that to be a successful
electronic prescriber for purposes of
avoiding the 2012 eRx payment
adjustment, the eligible professional
must report that at least 1 prescription
for Medicare Part B FFS patients created
during an encounter that is represented
by 1 of the codes in the denominator of
the 2011 electronic prescribing measure
was generated and transmitted
electronically using a qualified eRx
system at least 10 times during the 2012
eRx payment adjustment reporting
period (that is, January 1, 2011 through
June 30, 2011). (75 FR 40208).
The limitation with respect to the
electronic prescribing measures
required under section 1848(m)(2)(B)(i)
of the Act also applies to the eRx
payment adjustment. Therefore, we
proposed that if less than 10 percent of
the eligible professional’s estimated
total allowed charges for the January 1,
2011 through June 30, 2011 reporting
period are comprised of services which
appear in the denominator of the 2011
electronic prescribing measure, then the
eligible professional would not be
subject to the 2012 eRx payment
adjustment (75 FR 40209). As with the
2011 eRx incentive payment, we
proposed that the determination of
whether an eligible professional is
subject to the payment adjustment will
be made at the individual professional
level, based on the NPI and for each
unique TIN/NPI combination.
The following is a summary of the
comments received on the proposed
criteria for determining the applicability
of the 2012 eRx payment adjustment to
individual eligible professionals and our
responses.
Comment: A couple of commenters
suggested that regardless of the payment
adjustment exemption criteria, any
eligible professional who qualifies for
the incentive payment should be
exempt from the payment adjustment.
The commenters specifically requested
an exemption for eligible professionals
who are successful electronic
prescribers for the 2011 eRx incentive.
Response: As discussed previously,
section 1848(a)(5) of the Act requires
that the PFS amount for covered
professional services furnished by an
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
eligible professional, who is not a
successful electronic prescriber, must be
reduced by 1 percent for services
furnished during 2012. With regard to
applying the required 2012 eRx
payment adjustment, we believe it is
necessary to reduce the PFS amount
concurrently with claims submissions
in 2012, and so we need to determine
if the 2012 eRx payment adjustment is
applicable to eligible professionals prior
to 2012. This assessment would not be
possible if the successful electronic
prescriber determination was based on
eRx incentive payment eligibility
criteria for 2011, given that we cannot
determine successful electronic
prescribers for purposes of the 2011 eRx
incentive until 2012.
After considering the comments
received, we are finalizing the criteria
for determining applicability of the 2012
eRx payment adjustment to individual
eligible professionals as proposed and
previously described. As stated in the
proposed rule (75 FR 40208 and 40209),
we believe that that limiting the
application of the payment adjustment
to those professionals who generally
have prescribing privileges and who
have a sufficient number of
denominator-eligible cases is
appropriate. We also believe that the
reporting threshold of 10 unique
electronic prescribing events between
January 1, 2011 and June 30, 2011 is
achievable. As stated previously,
although we proposed to allow
reporting of the electronic prescribing
measure via claims, a qualified registry,
or a qualified EHR, we are finalizing
only the claims-based reporting
mechanism for purposes of the 2012
payment adjustment. It is not
operationally feasible for us to accept
the data submissions from the EHRs and
registries in the timeframe needed for us
to be able to have sufficient time to be
analyze the data and make the
determination whether an eligible
professional is subject to the 2012
payment adjustment prior to January 1,
2012.
For purposes of determining whether
an eligible professional is a physician
(includes MDs, DOs, and podiatrists),
nurse practitioner, or physician
assistant we will use National Plan &
Provider Enumeration System (NPPES)
data. It is an eligible professional’s
responsibility to ensure that his or her
primary taxonomy code in NPPES is
accurate. Since there are concerns about
the reliability of the specialty
information contained in NPPES, we are
also establishing a G-code that eligible
professionals can use to report to us that
they do not have prescribing privileges.
Eligible professionals who do not have
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
prescribing privileges must report this
G-code on at least one claim with dates
of service between January 1, 2011 and
June 30, 2011, and processed by no later
than one month after the reporting
period.
(3) Criteria for Determining
Applicability of the 2012 eRx Payment
Adjustment to Group Practices
As required by section 1848(m)(3)(C)
of the Act, we are also required to
establish and have in place a process
under which eligible professionals in a
group practice shall be treated as a
successful electronic prescriber for
purposes of the eRx payment
adjustment. Thus, we proposed that for
purposes of the 2012 eRx payment
adjustment, a payment adjustment
would not be applied to a group practice
participating in the 2011 eRx GPRO if
the group practice is participating in
either the 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System GPRO I or the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System
GPRO II and meets the proposed 2011
criteria for successful electronic
prescribing for the 2011 eRx incentive
(75 FR 40209). For purposes of the 2012
eRx payment adjustment, however, we
proposed that the 2011 eRx incentive
criteria for successful electronic
prescribing would need to be satisfied
during the 2012 eRx payment
adjustment reporting period of January
1, 2011 through June 30, 2011, for the
same operational reasons that we
proposed a 6-month reporting period for
the payment adjustment for individual
eligible professionals.
For purposes of determining whether
the eRx payment adjustment applies to
a group practice, we proposed to
analyze each unique TIN/NPI
combination so as not to disadvantage
eligible professionals who may have
joined the group practice after January
1, 2011 (75 FR 40209).
In addition, in accordance with the
limitation under section
1848(m)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, we proposed
that the 2012 eRx payment adjustment
would not apply to an eRx GPRO in
which less than 10 percent of the group
practice’s estimated total allowed
charges for the January 1, 2011 through
June 30, 2011 reporting period are
comprised of services which appear in
the denominator of the 2011 electronic
prescribing measure. To be consistent
with how this limitation is applied to
group practices for purposes of the
incentive, we proposed to determine
whether this limitation applies to a
group practice for the payment
adjustment at the TIN level.
For the same reasons that we
proposed a 6-month reporting period for
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73563
the 2012 eRx payment adjustment for
group practices, we also proposed to use
only claims processed by no later than
1 month after the reporting period in
our analysis, consistent with our
proposed approach for analyzing
individual eligible professional claims.
Similarly, we proposed that registries
would need to submit eRx data for
services furnished January 1, 2011
through June 30, 2011 to CMS between
July 1, 2011 and August 19, 2011, so
that we may include registry data in our
analysis. We also proposed that group
practices participating in the eRx group
practice reporting option via EHR-based
reporting would be required to submit
eRx data for services furnished January
1, 2011 through June 30, 2011 to CMS
between July 1, 2011 and August 19,
2011 (75 FR 40209).
The following is a summary of the
comments received on the proposed
criteria for determining applicability of
the 2012 eRx payment adjustment to
group practices, including the proposed
criteria for successful reporting of the
electronic prescribing measure for group
practices, and our proposed analytical
approach.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that we lower the reporting criteria for
group practices if we finalize our
proposal to use the 6-month reporting
period beginning January 1, 2011 to
determine whether a group practice is
subject to the 2012 payment adjustment.
The commenter noted that in
determining the volume for the group
incentive payment, we assume that not
all eligible professionals in the practice
would be electronically prescribing. The
commenter believes that the same
assumption should be applied for
purposes of the payment adjustment
determination.
Response: As we stated in the
proposed rule (75 FR 40209), we do not
believe that group practices would be
disadvantaged by having to satisfy the
criteria for being a successful eprescriber for the 2011 eRx incentive in
6 months to avoid the 2012 eRx
payment adjustment. When compared to
the criteria for individual eligible
professionals reporting the electronic
prescribing measure for purposes of the
payment adjustment, the criteria for
being a successful electronic prescriber
for the 2011 eRx payment adjustment
for group practices enable group
practices, on average, to avoid the
incentive by electronically prescribing a
fewer number of prescriptions per
eligible professionals than what
individual eligible professionals are
required to do. Therefore, we are not
lowering the reporting criteria for
successful electronic prescribers for
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73564
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
purposes of determining applicability of
the 2012 eRx payment adjustment to
group practices. By having the same
reporting criteria for purposes of both
the payment adjustment and incentive
payment, group practices have the
added advantage of knowing that they
have successfully electronically
prescribed for purposes of the 2011
incentive payment once they have
successfully electronically prescribed
for purposes of the 2012 payment
adjustment, since the reporting periods
for the 2011 incentive and 2012
payment adjustment overlap.
After consideration of the comments
received and for the reasons we
discussed previously, we are finalizing
the criteria for determining applicability
of the 2012 eRx payment adjustment to
group practices. However, for the
reasons discussed previously with
regard to the reporting mechanisms for
submitting data on the electronic
prescribing measure during 2011 for
purposes of the 2012 payment
adjustment, we are finalizing only the
claims-based reporting mechanism.
Thus, for the 2012 eRx payment
adjustment, we are not finalizing eRx
data submission by group practices via
a qualified registry or qualified EHR.
In addition, while we had proposed to
analyze each unique TIN/NPI
combination to see whether the
payment adjustment applies on an
individual basis if the group practice
fails to satisfy the criteria that would
exempt the group practice from being
subject to the 2012 eRx payment
adjustment, we are unable to finalize
this proposal as this would add
significant time to our data analyses and
could delay our ability to determine
applicability of the 2012 payment
adjustment in a timely fashion.
(4) Significant Hardship Exemption
Section 1848(a)(5)(B) of the Act
provides that the Secretary may, on a
case-by-case basis, exempt an eligible
professional from the application of the
payment adjustment, if the Secretary
determines, subject to annual renewal,
that compliance with the requirement
for being a successful electronic
prescriber would result in a significant
hardship, such in the case of an eligible
professional who practices in a rural
area without sufficient Internet access.
Therefore, we proposed that in addition
to meeting the criteria for a successful
electronic prescriber, an eligible
professional or group practice may also
be exempt from application of the 2012
eRx payment adjustment, if, during the
2012 eRx payment adjustment reporting
period (that is, January 1, 2011 through
June 30, 2011), one of the following
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
circumstances applies to the eligible
professional or group practice:
• The eligible professional or group
practice practices in a rural area with
limited high speed internet access; or
• The eligible professional or group
practice practices in an area with
limited available pharmacies for
electronic prescribing.
We proposed to add two additional
‘‘G’’ codes to the 2011 electronic
prescribing measure’s specifications
describing these 2 circumstances.
Eligible professionals or group practices
to whom one or more of these
circumstances apply would be required
to report the appropriate G-code at least
once between January 1, 2011 and June
30, 2011 using their selected 2011 eRx
reporting mechanism. Reporting of one
of these two G-codes prior to June 30,
2011 will indicate to us that the eligible
professional or group practice would
like to be considered for an exemption
from the 2012 payment adjustment
under the significant hardship
exception (75 FR 40209).
The following is a summary on the
comments we received regarding our
proposal for the significant hardship
exemption and our responses.
Comment: One commenter supported
the proposed process for the significant
hardship exemption and did not offer
any other circumstances that should
also be considered a significant
hardship.
Response: We appreciate the
commenter’s supportive comments.
Comment: While our
acknowledgement of hardship
circumstances was appreciated, several
commenters suggested we add more
hardship exemption categories, or
offered additional hardship
circumstances for our consideration.
Specifically, commenters requested that
the following hardship circumstances be
added to the payment adjustment
exemption list: (1) Physicians who are
nearing the end of their careers, (2)
physicians who are currently eligible for
Social Security benefits or will be
eligible for Social Security benefits by
2014, (3) physicians who plan on
participating in the EHR incentive
program beginning in 2012, 2013, or
2014, (4) DEA e-prescribers, (5) small
practices (that is, 1 to 2 physicians), (6)
practices located in Health Professional
Shortage Areas (HPSAs), (7) physicians
who cannot meet the requirements due
to patient preference, and (8) hospitalbased eligible professionals.
Commenters stated that physicians
nearing retirement age or in small
practices may find it difficult to justify
the cost of implementing these systems.
Several commenters noted that many
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
physicians have postponed purchasing
electronic prescribing software in order
to take advantage of the EHR incentives.
Finally, commenters argued that
physicians who electronically prescribe
controlled substances should have
additional time to comply with the eRx
Incentive Program requirements as the
DEA compliant electronic prescribing
applications are not yet available.
Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ feedback and are actively
working on G-codes for eligible
professionals to report the significant
hardship categories we proposed for the
2012 eRx payment adjustment. We do
not believe, however, that any of the
suggested additional hardship categories
constitute a circumstance that limits an
eligible professional’s access to
electronic prescribing in the way that
the two hardship exemptions we
proposed do. We also believe that
eligible professionals who are nearing
retirement or are eligible for Social
Security benefits still have the
opportunity to purchase and use
electronic prescribing technology even
though they may not have a business
case for doing so. With respect to the
other hardship exemptions specifically
requested by commenters (such as,
hospital-based eligible professionals,
DEA e-prescribers and physicians who
cannot meet the requirements due to
patient preferences), we believe that we
have already taken these circumstances
into account when we established the
reporting threshold for the electronic
prescribing and the other criteria that
would subject an eligible professional to
the eRx payment adjustment. Therefore,
we are finalizing the two hardship
exemption G-codes that we proposed.
Comment: A couple of commenters
requested that we further define terms
such as ‘‘rural areas,’’ areas with ‘‘limited
high speed internet access,’’ and
‘‘limited availability of pharmacies.’’
Response: We are actively working to
develop G-codes for eligible
professionals to report the eRx hardship.
Once we finalize the G-codes, we will
provide additional guidance with
regards to the hardship exemptions
categories associated with the eRx
payment adjustment along with
education and outreach with regard to
the 2012 payment adjustment under the
eRx Incentive Program.
After considering the comments
received, we are finalizing the following
hardship exemptions for purposes of the
2012 eRx payment adjustment:
• Eligible professionals who practice
in a rural area without sufficient high
speed internet access; and
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
• Eligible professionals who practice
in an area without sufficient available
pharmacies for electronic prescribing.
We are creating G-codes to address
these 2 situations. Since the hardship
exception must be renewed on an
annual basis, we have deleted the
proposed language at § 414.92(c)(2)(ii)
that listed specific circumstances that
constitute a ‘‘significant hardship.’’ For
future years and in future rulemaking,
we will address the circumstances that
will constitute a significant hardship for
each year.
Eligible professionals for whom one
or more of these circumstances apply
must report the appropriate G-code at
least once between January 1, 2011 and
June 30, 2011 using claims. Group
practices who wish to participate in the
2011 eRx GPRO and for whom one or
more of these circumstances apply must
request a hardship exemption at the
time they self-nominate by indicating
the appropriate G-code in their selfnomination letter to CMS. Reporting of
one of these G-codes prior to June 30,
2011 will indicate to us that the eligible
professional or group practice would
like to be considered for an exemption
from the eRx 2012 payment adjustment
under the significant hardship
exception.
d. The 2013 eRx Payment Adjustment
Section 1848(a)(5) of the Act also
requires that with respect to covered
professional services furnished by an
eligible professional in 2013, if the
eligible professional is not a successful
electronic prescriber for the reporting
period for the year, the fee schedule
amount for such services furnished by
such professional during 2013 shall be
equal to 98.5 percent of the fee schedule
amount that would otherwise apply to
such PFS services. Under section
1848(m)(3)(C) of the Act, we are also
required to establish and have in place
a process under which eligible
professionals in a group practice shall
be treated as a successful electronic
prescriber for purposes of the eRx
payment adjustment.
For purposes of the 2013 eRx payment
adjustment, we proposed to use the
proposed criteria for successful
electronic prescriber for the proposed
2011 eRx incentive payment to
determine whether an eligible
professional or a group practice is a
successful electronic prescriber for
purposes of the 2013 eRx payment
adjustment. In addition, we proposed
that the reporting period for the 2013
eRx payment adjustment would be
January 1, 2011 through December 31,
2011 (75 FR 40210). We believe that
matching the criteria that will be
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
applied for the 2013 eRx payment
adjustment with the criteria that will be
applied for the 2011 eRx incentive
payment in an earlier year would be the
most effective means of encouraging
eligible professionals and group
practices to adopt and use electronic
prescribing systems since anyone who
does not qualify for an incentive in 2011
would be subject to a payment
adjustment in 2013.
The following is a summary of the
comments received on our proposal for
the 2013 eRx payment adjustment.
Comment: We received comments
similar to the ones opposing the
proposed 2012 eRx payment adjustment
reporting period, with regard to the
proposed 2013 eRx payment adjustment
reporting period. One commenter
suggested that the proposed reporting
period for purposes of the 2013 eRx
payment adjustment be changed so the
2012 and 2013 eRx payment
adjustments do not overlap. Another
commenter suggested that the 2013
payment adjustment be based on claims
reported during the first half of 2012 to
better reflect expected increases in eRx
adoption, including increases due to the
EHR Incentive Program.
Response: We understand the
commenters’ concerns that the reporting
periods for purposes of the 2012 and
2013 eRx payment adjustments overlap.
We note that section 1848(a)(5)(C)(D)
gives us the authority to specify the
reporting period with respect to a year.
As such, we may consider revisiting in
the 2012 PFS rulemaking process
additional reporting periods in 2012 for
purposes of the 2013 eRx payment
adjustment since having multiple
reporting periods for purposes of the
payment adjustment will maximize
opportunities for eligible professionals
to avoid the 2013 payment adjustment.
After considering the comments
received and for the reasons we
previously explained, we are finalizing
our proposal to use the 2011 eRx
incentive payment criteria for successful
electronic prescriber as described in
section VII.F.2.b. of this final rule with
comment period to determine whether
an eligible professional or a group
practice is a successful electronic
prescriber for purposes of the 2013 eRx
payment adjustment based on the
January 1, 2011 through December 31,
2011 reporting period. However, we
may consider revisiting the criteria for
the 2013 payment adjustment in the
context of 2012 reporting periods in the
2012 PFS proposed and final rules.
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73565
e. Public Reporting of Names of
Successful Electronic Prescribers
Section 1848(m)(5)(G) of the Act
requires the Secretary to post on the
CMS Web site, in an easily
understandable format, a list of the
names of eligible professionals (or group
practices) who satisfactorily submit data
on quality measures for the Physician
Quality Reporting System and the
names of the eligible professionals (or
group practices) who are successful
electronic prescribers. As required by
section 1848(m)(5)(G) of the Act, we
proposed to make public the names of
eligible professionals and group
practices who are successful electronic
prescribers for the 2011 eRx Incentive
Program on the Physician Compare Web
site that we are required to establish by
January 1, 2011 under section 10331 of
the ACA.
The following is a summary of the
comments received regarding public
reporting of successful electronic
prescribers.
Comment: A few commenters
expressed concerns about posting the
names of successful e-prescribers. One
commenter was concerned that the
public would not be able to correctly
identify a successful e-prescriber as a
professional who has met the reporting
requirements for the eRx Incentive
Program. One commenter was
concerned that individuals using this
information to make health care
decisions may do so without fully
understanding the methodology and the
program requirements. The commenters
suggested that CMS take appropriate
measures to ensure the accuracy of the
list of successful e-prescribers and to
provide the appropriate disclaimers for
the Web site listing.
Response: We will make every effort
to ensure that the list of successful eprescribers that we will post on the
Physician Compare Web site is accurate.
We also intend to include explanatory
language with information on the
intended uses and/or limitations of this
data.
Based on the comments received, we
are finalizing our proposal to post the
names of eligible professionals and
group practices who are successful
electronic prescribers for purposes of
the 2011 eRx incentive on the Physician
Compare Web site. We anticipate that
the names of individual eligible
professionals and group practices who
are successful electronic prescribers for
the 2011 eRx Incentive Program will be
available in 2012 after the 2011
incentive payments are paid.
To comply with section 1848(m)(5)(G)
of the Act, we specifically intend to post
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73566
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
the names of individual eligible
professionals who report the electronic
prescribing measure at least 25 times
during the 2011 reporting period for
patient encounters included in the
measure’s denominator, without regard
to whether the limitation under section
1848(m)(2)(B) of the Act applies to the
eligible professional and without regard
to whether the eligible professional
actually qualifies to earn an incentive
payment. In addition, since the
Physician Quality Reporting System and
the eRx Incentive Program are two
separate programs and individual
eligible professionals are not required to
participate in both programs to earn an
incentive under either program, we
point out that it is possible for an
eligible professional who participates in
both incentive programs to be listed
both as an individual eligible
professional who satisfactorily submits
data on quality measures for the
Physician Quality Reporting System and
is a successful electronic prescriber
under the eRx Incentive Program.
Likewise, if an eligible professional
participated in both incentive programs
but did not meet the respective
requirements for both programs, he or
she may be listed as an individual
eligible professional who satisfactorily
submits data on quality measures for the
Physician Quality Reporting System
only or as a successful electronic
prescriber under the eRx Incentive
Program only.
Similarly, for purposes of publicly
reporting the names of group practices,
on the Physician Compare Web site, we
intend to post the names of group
practices that report the electronic
prescribing measure the required
number of times during the 2011
reporting period for patient encounters
included in the measure’s denominator
without regard to whether the limitation
under section 1848(m)(2)(B) of the Act
applies to the group practice or whether
the group practice actually qualifies to
earn an incentive payment. Although
any group practice participating in the
eRx Incentive Program under the group
practice reporting option would also
have to participate in a Physician
Quality Reporting System group
practice reporting option, the criteria for
satisfactory reporting of Physician
Quality Reporting System measures for
group practices are different from the
criteria for successful reporting of the
electronic prescribing measure by group
practices. Therefore, it is possible for a
group practice to be listed as a group
practice that satisfactorily submits data
on quality measures for the Physician
Quality Reporting System but not as a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
successful electronic prescriber under
the eRx Incentive Program, or vice
versa.
G. DMEPOS Provisions
1. Medicare Durable Medical
Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and
Supplies (DMEPOS) Competitive
Bidding Program (CBP)
a. Legislative and Regulatory History of
DMEPOS CBP
Medicare pays for most DMEPOS
furnished after January 1, 1989 pursuant
to fee schedule methodologies set forth
in section 1834 of the Act, as added by
section 4062 of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1987 (OBRA ’87)
(Pub. L. 100–203). Specifically, sections
1834(a)(1)(A) and (B), and 1834 (h)(1)(A)
of the Act provide that Medicare
payment for these items is equal to 80
percent of the lesser of the actual charge
for the item or the fee schedule amount
for the item. We implemented this
payment methodology at 42 CFR Part
414, Subpart D of our regulations.
Sections 1834(a)(2) through (a)(5) and
1834(a)(7) of the Act, and implementing
regulations at § 414.200 through
§ 414.232 (with the exception of
§ 414.228), set forth separate payment
categories of durable medical equipment
(DME) and describe how the fee
schedule for each of the following
categories is established:
• Inexpensive or other routinely
purchased items (section 1834(a)(2) of
the Act and § 414.220 of the
regulations);
• Items requiring frequent and
substantial servicing (sections 1834(a)(3)
of the Act and § 414.222 of the
regulations);
• Customized items (section
1834(a)(4) of the Act and § 414.224 of
the regulations);
• Oxygen and oxygen equipment
(section 1834(a)(5) of the Act and
§ 414.226 of the regulations);
• Other items of DME (section
1834(a)(7) of the Act and § 414.229 of
the regulations).
For a detailed discussion of payment
for DMEPOS under fee schedules, see
the final rule published in the April 10,
2007 Federal Register (72 FR 17992).
Blood glucose testing strips or
diabetic testing strips are covered under
the Medicare DME benefit in accordance
with section 1861(n) of the Act. Other
supplies that are necessary for the
effective use of DME are also covered
under the Medicare DME benefit in
accordance with longstanding program
instructions at section 110.3 of chapter
15 of the Medicare Benefit Policy
Manual.
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Section 1847 of the Act, as amended
by section 302(b)(1) of the MMA,
requires the Secretary to establish and
implement a DMEPOS CBP. Under the
DMEPOS CBP, Medicare sets payment
amounts for selected DMEPOS items
and services furnished to beneficiaries
in competitive bidding areas (CBAs)
based on bids submitted by qualified
suppliers and accepted by Medicare. For
competitively bid items, these new
payment amounts, referred to as ‘‘single
payment amounts (SPA),’’ replace the
fee schedule payment methodology.
Section 1847(b)(5) of the Act provides
that Medicare payment for these
competitively bid items and services is
made on an assignment-related basis
equal to 80 percent of the applicable
SPA, less any unmet Part B deductible
described in section 1833(b) of the Act.
Section 1847(b)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act
prohibits the awarding of contracts to
any entity unless the total amounts to be
paid to contractors in a CBA are
expected to be less than the total
amounts that would otherwise be paid
under the fee schedule methodologies
set forth in section 1834(a) of the Act.
This requirement guarantees savings to
both the Medicare program and
beneficiaries under the program. The fee
schedule methodologies will continue
to set payment amounts for
noncompetitively bid DMEPOS items
and services. The program also includes
provisions to ensure beneficiary access
to quality DMEPOS items and services.
Section 1847(b)(2)(A) and 1847(b)(4)(B)
of the Act, respectively, limits
participation in the program to
suppliers who have met applicable
quality and financial standards and
requires the Secretary to maintain
beneficiary access to multiple suppliers.
When first enacted by the Congress,
section 1847(a)(1)(B) of the Act required
the Secretary to phase in the DMEPOS
CBP in a manner so that the competition
under the program occurred in 10 of the
largest metropolitan statistical areas
(MSAs) in 2007. The program was to be
expanded into 70 additional MSAs in
2009, and then into additional areas
after 2009.
In the May 1, 2006 Federal Register
(72 FR 25654), we issued a proposed
rule that would implement the DMEPOS
CBP for certain DMEPOS items and
services and solicited public comment
on our proposals. In the April 10, 2007
Federal Register (72 FR 17992), we
issued a final rule addressing the
comments on the proposed rule and
establishing the regulatory framework
for the DMEPOS CBP in accordance
with section 1847 of the Act.
Consistent with the requirements of
section 1847 of the Act and the
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
competitive bidding regulations, we
began implementation of the program by
conducting the first round of
competition in 10 of the largest MSAs
in 2007. We limited competition during
this first round of the program to
DMEPOS items and services included in
10 selected product categories,
including mail order diabetic supplies.
The bidding window opened on May
15, 2007 and was extended to allow
bidders adequate time to prepare and
submit their bids. We then evaluated
each submission and awarded contracts
consistent with the requirements of
section 1847(b)(2) of the Act and
§ 414.414. Following the bid evaluation
process, we awarded over 329 contracts
to qualified suppliers.
The DMEPOS CBP was effective on
July 1, 2008. Beginning on that date,
Medicare coverage for competitively bid
DMEPOS items and services furnished
in the first 10 CBAs was limited to items
and services furnished by contract
suppliers and/or grandfathered
suppliers of oxygen and oxygen
equipment and rented DME, unless an
exemption applies as stated in the
regulation. For further discussion of the
DMEPOS CBP and the bid evaluation
process, see the final rule published in
the April 10, 2007 Federal Register (72
FR 17992).
On July 15, 2008, the MIPPA was
enacted. Section 154 of the MIPPA
amended section 1847 of the Act to
make certain limited changes to the
DMEPOS CBP. Section 154(a) of the
MIPPA delayed competition under the
program and amended section
1847(a)(1)(D)(i) of the Act to terminate
the competitive bidding contracts
effective June 30, 2008 and prohibit
payment based on the contracts.
Section 154(a) of the MIPPA required
the Secretary to conduct a second
competition to select suppliers for
Round 1 in 2009 (‘‘Round 1 Rebid’’). The
Round 1 Rebid includes the ‘‘same items
and services’’ and is to be conducted in
the ‘‘same areas’’ as the 2007 Round 1
competition, with certain limited
exceptions. Specifically, we were
required to exclude the product category
of negative pressure wound therapy
(NPWT) items and services and the San
Juan, Puerto Rico CBA from the Round
1 Rebid. In addition, section 154(a) of
the MIPPA permanently excluded group
3 complex, rehabilitative wheelchairs
from the DMEPOS CBP by amending the
definition of ‘‘items and services’’ in
section 1847(a)(2) of the Act. Section
154(a) of the MIPPA delayed
competition for Round 2 of the
DMEPOS CBP from 2009 to 2011, and
subsequent competitions under the
program to after 2011. Finally, section
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
154(a) of the MIPPA specifically
addresses the phase in of a competition
for national mail order items and
services by specifying that such
competitions may be phased in after
2010.
b. Implementation of a National Mail
Order DMEPOS Competitive Bidding
Program (CBP) for Diabetic Testing
Supplies
Section 1847(a)(2)(A) of the Act
mandates competitive bidding programs
for supplies used in conjunction with
durable medical equipment, such as
blood glucose monitors used by
beneficiaries with diabetes to test their
blood glucose levels. Replacement of
supplies used with these monitors are
referred to under the DMEPOS CBP as
diabetic supplies or diabetic testing
supplies such as blood glucose test
strips and lancets. In the April 10, 2007
final rule (72 FR 17992) implementing
the DMEPOS CBP, we established
regulations to implement competitions
on a regional or national level for
certain items such as diabetic testing
supplies that are furnished on a mail
order basis. We explained our rationale
for establishing a national DMEPOS CBP
for items furnished on a mail order basis
in the May 1, 2006 proposed rule (71 FR
25669) and April 10, 2007 final rule (72
FR 18018). In the case of diabetic
supplies and other items furnished by
local neighborhood pharmacies,
establishing a competition for items
furnished on a mail order basis would
exempt local pharmacies from
competing with national mail order
suppliers while preserving the choice of
the beneficiary to go to any local
pharmacy to pick up their diabetic
supplies. Manufacturers and suppliers
have stated to CMS at different meetings
on numerous occasions that the choice
for beneficiaries to obtain diabetic
supplies from local pharmacies with
licensed pharmacists in house who can
provide instructions and guidance to
beneficiaries related to their testing
needs is important and needs to be
preserved.
In the January 16, 2009 Federal
Register (74 FR 2873), we published an
interim final rule implementing certain
changes to the DMEPOS CBP.
Specifically, the rule implemented
certain MIPPA provisions that delayed
implementation of Round 1 of the
program, required CMS to conduct a
second Round 1 competition in 2009,
and mandated certain changes for both
the Round 1 Rebid and subsequent
rounds of the program. In the January
16, 2009 interim final rule, we indicated
that we would be considering
alternatives for competition of diabetic
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73567
testing supplies in future notice and
comment rulemaking. We explained
that we believed it was consistent with
section 1847(a) to employ competitive
bidding for diabetic suppliers in both
the mail order and traditional retail
markets, in part due to concerns raised
about the bifurcation of the method of
delivery of diabetic supplies and the
difficulty in defining what constitutes
‘‘mail order’’ for purposes of
competition.
In the July 13, 2010, proposed rule (75
FR 40211), we discussed alternatives for
competition of diabetic testing supplies
and proposed the implementation of a
revised national mail order DMEPOS
CBP for diabetic testing supplies. Under
the proposed mail order DMEPOS CBP,
we would award contracts to suppliers
to furnish these items across the nation
to beneficiaries who elect to have
replacement diabetic testing supplies
delivered to their residence. Suppliers
wishing to furnish these items through
mail order to Medicare beneficiaries
would be required to submit bids to
participate in the national mail order
DMEPOS CBP for diabetic testing
supplies. In addition, we proposed to
revise the national mail order program
for diabetic testing supplies DMEPOS
CBP by implementing the following
changes:
• Revision of § 414.402 to include
definitions of: ‘‘National mail order
DMEPOS CBP,’’ ‘‘Mail order item,’’ and
‘‘Non-mail order item.’’ We proposed
these new definitions to establish a clear
distinction between mail order items
and non-mail order items. These revised
definitions would apply to all future
competitions for mail order items and
services.
• Addition of § 414.411 to implement
the special rule mandated by section
1847(b)(10)(A) of the Act for
competitions for diabetic testing strips
following the Round 1 Rebid. Section
1847(b)(10)(A) requires suppliers
bidding in competitions to furnish
diabetic testing strips after the Round 1
Rebid to demonstrate that their bid
covers at least 50 percent of all types of
diabetic testing strips furnished by
suppliers. If the supplier is not able to
satisfy this requirement, the Secretary
must reject that bid.
• Revision of § 414.422 to include an
additional term in contracts of mail
order suppliers of diabetic testing
supplies following the Round 1 Rebid.
The proposed term would prohibit
suppliers from influencing or
incentivizing beneficiaries to change
their brand of glucose monitor and test
strips.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73568
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
(1) Future Competitions for Diabetic
Testing Supplies
Section 1847(a)(1)(A) of the Act
mandates the establishment of DMEPOS
CBP for items described in section
1847(a)(2)(A) of the Act, including
diabetic testing supplies. Section
1847(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act authorizes
the phase in of items and services under
these programs beginning with the
highest cost and highest volume items
and services or those items and services
that are determined to have the largest
savings potential. Current Medicare
claims data from fiscal year 2009 shows
that over 62 percent of beneficiaries
currently receive their replacement
diabetic testing supplies from mail order
suppliers. Mail order diabetic testing
supplies account for approximately one
billion dollars in allowed charges per
year and are therefore high volume
items. We believe that a national mail
order DMEPOS CBP for diabetic testing
supplies would result in large savings as
a result of competition between entities
that would factor into their bids savings
from volume discount purchasing of
quantities of supplies needed on a
national rather than local basis.
Therefore, we believe that implementing
a national mail order DMEPOS CBP for
diabetic testing supplies is the best
option for meeting the requirements of
the statute referenced above as long as
certain refinements discussed below are
made to the program to address
concerns about the mail order/non-mail
order bifurcation.
We have heard from industry groups
and suppliers that furnish diabetic
testing supplies on a national mail order
basis of their concerns that national
chain pharmacies that furnish diabetic
testing supplies through both a national
mail order business and local retail
pharmacies will encourage beneficiaries
to obtain these items from local retail
locations by offering certain incentives
to Medicare beneficiaries for switching
from mail order to local retail. Based on
our experience from Round 1, we
believe DMEPOS CBP for mail order
diabetic testing supplies would be
subject to manipulation without a
clearer definition of what we mean by
mail order. We agree with the industry
groups and suppliers that have
indicated that this practice will harm
businesses that only furnish diabetic
testing supplies on a mail order basis. In
order to address these concerns, we are
proposing to add to § 414.402 a
definition of ‘‘National mail order
DMEPOS CBP.’’ We proposed to define
that term as a program whereby
contracts are awarded to suppliers for
the furnishing of mail order items across
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
the nation. We believe that
implementing a national competitive
bidding program for diabetic supplies
would preserve beneficiary choice to
purchase testing supplies in person
from any local pharmacy that is an
enrolled Medicare supplier that
furnishes diabetic supplies, while
clarifying the definition of mail order
will provide significant savings
potential for beneficiaries and the
program. Savings would be generated in
the near future from national SPAs for
supplies furnished on a mail order or
home delivery basis and on a long term
basis for all diabetic supplies as a result
of the requirement of section
1834(a)(1)(F) of the Act (as amended by
section 6410(b) of the ACA) to either
competitively bid in all areas or adjust
prices in all areas by January 1, 2016.
We believe that more beneficiaries will
elect to choose the mail order/home
delivery option, thereby further
increasing short term savings under the
program. Even if this is not the case, and
the percentage of beneficiaries choosing
the mail order/home delivery option
remains at the current rate of 62 percent,
savings for the remaining 38 percent
must be achieved by no later than
January 1, 2016, as a result of the
requirements of section 1834(a)(1)(F) of
the Act.
We considered other alternatives for
establishing DMEPOS CBP for diabetic
testing supplies that would eliminate
the mail order/non-mail order
bifurcation and associated concerns.
These alternatives include the
following:
• A national competition among all
types of suppliers for all replacement
diabetic supplies. Under this
alternative, all beneficiaries would
receive their replacement diabetic
supplies from contract suppliers
responsible for furnishing diabetic
supplies throughout the nation using
any method of delivery as long as the
supplies are delivered on a timely basis.
• Competitions in regional CBAs
among all types of suppliers for all
replacement diabetic supplies. Under
this alternative, all beneficiaries would
receive their replacement diabetic
supplies from contract suppliers
responsible for furnishing diabetic
supplies throughout a designated region
of the country using any method of
delivery to a beneficiary’s home as long
as the supplies are delivered on a timely
basis.
• Competitions in local CBAs among
all types of suppliers for all replacement
diabetic supplies. Under this
alternative, all beneficiaries would
receive their replacement diabetic
supplies from contract suppliers
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
responsible for furnishing diabetic
supplies throughout the local area using
any method of delivery to a
beneficiary’s home as long as the
supplies are delivered on a timely basis.
We believe that the first option to bid
on a national basis for all diabetic
supplies, would result in most
beneficiaries using mail order and might
generate more savings than a national
competition for diabetic supplies
furnished on a mail order basis only.
However, this first option would likely
eliminate the beneficiary choice to
obtain replacement diabetic supplies on
a non-mail order basis from any
enrolled supplier that is a pharmacy or
other local supplier storefront where a
licensed pharmacist is on hand to offer
guidance and consultation to the
beneficiary. We believe the other two
options would also diminish this
choice. In addition, the alternatives of
regional or local competitions are not
likely to result in savings at or above the
level that can be generated from a
national competition for mail order
supplies. Suppliers participating in a
national program may be able to obtain
volume purchasing discounts for the
quantities of supplies needed
nationwide. Therefore, we did not
propose any of these alternatives but we
solicited public comment on
alternatives for establishing DMEPOS
CBP for diabetic testing supplies.
In § 414.411, we proposed to establish
a national mail order DMEPOS CBP
with competitions taking place after
2010 for the purpose of awarding
contracts to suppliers to furnish
replacement diabetic testing supplies
across the nation, with additional
program refinements described below.
We note that the decision to proceed
with a national mail order competition
after 2010 does not prevent us from
phasing in competitions for non-mail
order diabetic supplies or from
conducting competitions for diabetic
supplies in general in the future
consistent with section 1847(a)(1) of the
Act.
Comment: We received 31 comments
in response to our proposed regulation
to implement a national mail order
DMEPOS CBP for diabetic testing
supplies. There were several
commenters that supported the proposal
made by CMS and a few commenters
that were opposed to our proposal. The
commenters in favor of our proposal
stated they wanted CMS to preserve the
local storefront option for the
beneficiary. A few commenters
specifically stated that CMS should
maintain retail pharmacies as a
necessary safety valve, ensuring that
beneficiaries will have immediate local
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
access to their specific diabetic testing
supplies. In addition, several
commenters who supported our
conducting separate auctions stated that
our proposal to conduct one
competition between mail order
companies and those with a local
storefront would not be fair because
these companies have different business
models, different overhead costs and
different operational structures.
Numerous commenters stated that
beneficiaries get better service from a
local storefront than they would get
from a mail order company because
local storefronts preserve a face-to-face
pharmacy/patient relationship.
We also received several comments
opposed to our proposal to conduct
separate competitions because they
believed that gives the local storefronts
an unfair advantage because they are
paid more than mail order companies
for the same product. They suggest that
CMS should conduct a competition for
both mail order and non mail order
under one program.
Response: We agree with those
commenters who stated that we need to
preserve beneficiary choice and access
to local storefronts to get their diabetic
testing supplies. We believe that our
proposal preserves the beneficiaries’
choice to go to their local pharmacy to
pick up their diabetic supplies or
request that they be sent through the
mail by a national mail order DMEPOS
contract supplier. Also, we believe that
both mail order suppliers and storefront
suppliers are able to provide the
necessary services and education to
their beneficiaries. Therefore, we
believe our proposal to bid diabetic
testing supplies when provided through
the mail will preserve beneficiaries’
choice while ensuring they receive
quality services. We also agree that to
bid storefronts and mail order
companies in the same auction may
make it difficult for small storefronts to
compete against large mail order
suppliers. We also believe the difference
in payment between mail order
companies and retail stores will not
harm mail order companies because we
expect that more beneficiaries will
choose to obtain their test strips from
mail order companies to lower their coinsurance payment, generating more
business for mail order suppliers. In
addition, non-mail order diabetic
supplies were not included the first
round of the competitive bidding
program and the issue with regard to
payment for these items under the
program will be addressed in the future
as additional items subject to the
program are phased in.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
Comment: One commenter stated that
CMS should phase in a regional
program, rather than moving
immediately into a national program,
since CMS and mail order suppliers are
without sufficient knowledge base or
experience with the operation of a largescale competitive bidding program and
its impact on beneficiaries’ access to
quality care.
Response: We disagree with this
comment. We believe that the option to
bid on a national basis for all mail order
diabetic supplies would result in large
savings because of the volume purchase
power of bidders providing these items
on a national basis. Currently our data
shows that over 62 percent of Medicare
beneficiaries receive their testing
supplies through the mail, we see no
real benefit of bidding on a regional
basis because most mail order suppliers
operate nationally. We also believe that
we have experience conducting the
DMEPOS CBP since we have
successfully completed the bidding and
contract offers for Round 1 Rebid and
the program will begin January 1, 2011.
We have established a process and will
evaluate and monitor contract suppliers
to ensure beneficiaries’ have access to
quality products.
Comment: One commenter stated that
diabetic testing supplies should be
excluded from DMEPOS CBP because
CMS does not have any experience with
this product category with respect to
competitive bidding, as diabetic
supplies were not included in any prior
demonstration project. Several
commenters suggested that CMS should
not initiate the bidding process for the
national mail order DMEPOS CBP until
it has had sufficient time to evaluate the
rebid of Round 1.
Response: Section 1847(a)(1)(A) of the
Act mandates the establishment of
DMEPOS CBP for items described in
section 1847(a)(2)(A) of the Act,
including diabetic testing supplies.
Section 1847(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act
authorizes the phase in of items and
services under these programs
beginning with the highest cost and
highest volume items and services or
those items and services that are
determined to have the largest savings
potential. Current Medicare claims data
identifies diabetic testing supplies as a
high cost/high volume item. Mail order
diabetic testing supplies account for
approximately one billion dollars in
allowed charges per year and the
majority of these payments are for mail
order diabetic testing supplies. In
addition, CMS does have experience
bidding these items as they were
included in both Round 1 and the
Round 1 rebid.
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73569
Comment: One commenter stated that
section 1834(a)(1)(F) of the Act does not
compel CMS to adjust prices for all
items by January 1, 2016, or any other
specific date. The commenter stated that
CMS could elect to continue to exclude
diabetic testing supplies provided
through local retail storefronts.
Response: We are required by section
1834(a)(1)(F) of the Act to either
competitively bid in all areas of the
country or adjust prices for all phased
in items in areas where competitive
bidding programs are not implemented
by January 1, 2016. We intend to
address specific issues related to
implementation of clauses (ii) and (iii)
of section 1834(a)(1)(F) of the Act as
part of separate rulemaking mandated
by section 1834(a)(1)(G) of the Act.
After consideration of the public
comments we received, we are not
making any changes to this section of
the proposed rule on the future
competitions of diabetic testing
supplies.
(2) Definition of Mail Order Item
We proposed to define ‘‘mail order
item’’ in § 414.402 to mean any item (for
example, diabetic testing supplies)
shipped or delivered to the beneficiary’s
home, regardless of the method of
delivery. We also proposed to define
‘‘non-mail order item’’ as any item (for
example, diabetic testing supplies) that
a beneficiary or caregiver purchases at a
local pharmacy or supplier storefront
rather than having the item delivered to
the beneficiary’s home. For round 1 of
the program, this means that
beneficiaries that do not obtain their
testing supplies through mail order may
purchase these items at a local
pharmacy or local storefront. Therefore,
the only items excluded from the mail
order definition and mail order
competition would be those that a
beneficiary or caregiver purchases at a
local pharmacy or local supplier
storefront and are not delivered to the
beneficiary’s home. These revised
definitions of mail order item and nonmail order item are intended to clearly
identify which items is truly mail order.
In addition, we believe this definition
will preserve the choice of the
beneficiary to obtain replacement
diabetic supplies in person from a local
pharmacy and eliminate the
circumvention of the mail order
program.
As previously discussed, for Round 1
and the Round 1 Rebid of the DMEPOS
CBP, we defined mail order contract
supplier in our regulations at § 414.402
to mean a contract supplier that
furnishes items through the mail. We
further defined mail order in program
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73570
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
instructions to mean ‘‘items ordered
remotely (that is, by telephone, e-mail,
internet or mail) and delivered to
beneficiary’s residence by common
carriers (for example, U.S. Postal
Service, Federal Express, United Parcel
Service) and does not include items
obtained by beneficiaries from local
storefronts.’’ The intent of the Round 1
definition was to distinguish between
mail order supplies (items shipped or
delivered directly to the beneficiary’s
home, regardless of the method of
delivery) and non-mail order supplies
(items that a beneficiary or caregiver
picks up in person at a local pharmacy
or storefront). Manufacturers and
suppliers of blood glucose monitors and
test strips have expressed on numerous
occasions the importance of maintaining
the patient option of obtaining diabetic
testing supplies from a local pharmacy
that provides full time access to a
licensed pharmacist who can provide
instructions and guidance to the
beneficiary or caregiver related to the
use of the diabetic supplies (the
pharmacy pickup option). This is the
‘‘non-mail order’’ option we attempted to
separate from the mail order option with
the Round 1 definition of mail order.
During implementation of Round 1 of
the program, we discovered that
suppliers that did not successfully
compete and win a contract under the
program tried to adopt certain
approaches to circumvent the mail order
definition. In the first round of
competitive bidding, suppliers that lost
their bid to be a contract supplier for
mail order diabetic testing supplies
considered ways to change their
delivery methods to circumvent the
mail order DMEPOS CBP. For example,
some mail order suppliers considered
purchasing a fleet of cars to deliver
these items to the beneficiary’s home so
as not to be considered a mail order
supplier. Other suppliers attempted to
enter into special ‘‘private’’
arrangements with well known delivery
services and claimed that because of
such arrangements they should not be
considered mail order suppliers. These
alternative home delivery methods do
not provide any benefits to the patient
beyond what the traditional mail order
home delivery method offers. They are
simply ways to continue furnishing
diabetic supplies on a home delivery
basis after submitting a bid for mail
order that does not result in the award
of a contract under the DMEPOS CBP.
Without a clear distinction between
mail order (home delivery option) and
non-mail order (pharmacy pickup
option), suppliers could continue to
attempt to make arrangements as they
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
did in the initial Round 1 competition
to circumvent the DMEPOS CBP. We
consider these practices to be
inconsistent with the DMEPOS CBP
statute and regulations currently in
effect, and our proposal is intended to
further clarify the existing definition of
mail order. Such arrangements prevent
beneficiaries and the Medicare program
from realizing savings afforded by the
mail order DMEPOS CBP and is unfair
to winning suppliers who bid in good
faith for a contract for furnishing
supplies to the home delivery market.
This proposed definition of mail order
item would not apply to the Round 1
Rebid competition because of the
specific requirement of MIPPA to rebid
Round 1 in 2009 for the same items and
services included in the initial Round 1
competition. However, for a national
competition, it is imperative that the
new definition of mail order item be in
place because of the implications such
a program would have on the entire
mail order delivery market in the United
States. In these future competitions, we
will continue to emphasize in our
educational efforts the basic distinction
between mail order (items shipped or
delivered to the beneficiary’s home,
regardless of the method of delivery)
and non-mail order (items that a
beneficiary or caregiver picks up in
person at a local pharmacy or
storefront). In addition, we will
continue to take appropriate and
necessary action against suppliers that
furnish mail order items and bill for
them as if they were non-mail order
items.
As previously mentioned, an
alternative DMEPOS CBP for
replacement diabetic supplies would be
to hold a national competition among
all types of suppliers for all replacement
diabetic supplies. One benefit to this
approach is that it would eliminate the
need to differentiate between mail order
and non-mail order supplies; however,
it would likely eliminate the pharmacy
pickup choice since most local
pharmacies would not be able to service
the entire CBA if they did not also
operate a national mail order service.
We solicited comment on our
proposed definition of ‘‘mail order’’ and
its impact on future rounds of bidding.
We received several comments
regarding the proposed definition of
mail order both in favor of and against
the definition.
Comment: Several commenters agreed
with the proposed definition because
they believe it will result in a clear
distinction between mail order and nonmail order and reduce the ability of
suppliers to game the program. A few
commenters opposed the proposed
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
change in definition stating that the
definition is too broad and therefore,
could be applied to any DMEPOS item
delivered to a patient’s home.
Response: We agree that it is
important to revise the definition of
mail order to make a clear distinction
between mail order and non mail order.
We believe we cannot make the
necessary distinction between mail
order and non-mail order under our
current definition. With the revised
definition, beneficiaries will have a
clear choice to make; they or their
caregiver can either go to a retail store
or get their items shipped or delivered
to their home by any means. If they
choose to get their items delivered to
their home they would have their
supplies delivered by a DMEPOS
contract supplier who meets our
qualifications to be a mail order
supplier of diabetic testing supplies. We
agree that the definition is broad with
respect to DMEPOS items in general.
However, for the reasons previously
stated, we believe it is necessary to have
this specific definition of mail order
item for diabetic testing supplies that
includes any item shipped or delivered
to the beneficiary’s home, regardless of
the method of delivery. However,
competitions for mail order items may
not be necessary or appropriate for
rented equipment or for items that
require the presence of the supplier in
the home for inspection, equipment set
up, and other purposes. We believe that
mail order competitions may be more
appropriate for purchased items that do
not require these in home services.
Comment: Several commenters
advocated for exemption from bidding
as a local storefront and from the
program when providing diabetic
testing supplies delivered to the
patient’s home. These commenters
believe that this service is necessary for
some beneficiaries who have difficulty
getting to a pharmacy. The commenters
stated that the proposed definition of
mail order prevents them from
continuing to service snow bird
beneficiaries. The commenter supported
the policy that independent pharmacies
do not have to bid to continue to
provide diabetic testing supplies to
beneficiaries that come into their store,
but they would also like to continue to
provide supplies to these beneficiaries
via mail when they temporarily relocate
as a snowbird. Several commenters also
stated that they would like CMS to
exempt from competitive bidding
companies that deliver diabetic testing
supplies directly to a beneficiary’s home
using their specially trained employees.
Response: We disagree. We do not
believe that such an exception is
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
warranted because contract suppliers
will be able to deliver these items to the
beneficiary’s home in these situations. If
the beneficiary or their caregiver would
normally pick up the beneficiary’s
supplies in person at a local pharmacy
they may switch for any reason or any
period of time and obtain these items
from a contract mail order supplier.
Delivery of the supplies from a local
store is no different than delivery thru
the mail or some other means from a
remote location. It would be unfair to
exempt these companies from
competitive bidding while still allowing
them to provide these items when they
deliver them to the patient’s home. We
believe that home delivery companies
should have to bid in the DMEPOS CBP
and be awarded a contract to continue
to deliver these items to the home. We
are not aware of what services are being
provided by the specially trained
employees that commenters refer to that
are different than services that a mail
order contract supplier would perform.
The contract suppliers must meet all of
the supplier and quality standards
necessary for furnishing the items. The
supplier of the glucose monitor is
responsible for ensuring that the
beneficiary is educated and trained on
the use of their monitor. Since there are
no in-home services necessary for
furnishing replacement diabetic testing
supplies, we do not understand the
point these commenters are trying to
make. We believe that mail order
suppliers are qualified and capable of
providing any education and services
related to the furnishing of the
replacement diabetic testing supplies.
Finally, it is important to note that our
current rules provide great flexibility in
arranging for the furnishing of
replacement diabetic testing supplies.
The program allows beneficiaries to
receive a 3-month supply of diabetic test
strips and beneficiaries can order and
obtain their supplies 5 days in advance
of the start of the next 3-month period.
Comment: Several commenters stated
that mail order companies provide the
same type of instruction and guidance
that local pharmacies provide by
offering hotlines, working with patients
to educate and coach them on the use
of glucose monitors, and continued
patient counseling and monitoring.
Response: As previously discussed,
we believe that mail order suppliers are
qualified and capable of providing any
necessary services related to the
furnishing of replacement diabetic
testing supplies. The same supplier
standards and quality standards that
apply to local storefronts that furnish
these items also apply to mail order
suppliers. Local home delivery
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
companies state that because they have
local presence they can offer better
service from specially trained
employees to meet the needs of the
beneficiaries. We believe that employees
of mail order companies are also well
trained and both companies train their
employees to address beneficiaries’
needs.
After consideration of the public
comments received, we are finalizing
our proposal without modification.
(3) Special Rule in Case of Competition
for Diabetic Testing Strips
Following Round 1 Rebid of the
program, any competition for diabetic
testing strips, such as a national mail
order program for diabetic testing
supplies proposed in this rule, must
include the special rule set forth in
section 1847(b)(10)(A) of the Act. Under
that section, a supplier must
demonstrate that their bid to furnish
diabetic testing strips covers the
furnishing of a sufficient number of
different types of diabetic testing strip
products that, in the aggregate and
taking into account volume for the
different products, account for at least
50 percent of all such types of products
on the market. Section 1847(a)(10)(A) of
the Act also specifies that the volume
for the different products may be
determined in accordance with data
(which may include market based data)
recognized by the Secretary. When a
beneficiary needs to obtain replacement
test strips, they must obtain the specific
brand of test strips products that work
with their brand and model of blood
glucose monitor. The test strips are not
manufactured in a way that allows use
of different brands of test strips in
different brands of monitors. Therefore,
when replacement test strips are
furnished, the supplier must ensure that
the specific brand and model of test
strips that the patient requires for use
with their purchased monitor is
furnished.
Section 1847(b)(10)(B) of the Act
mandates the DHHS OIG conduct a
study before 2011 to generate volume
data for the various products that could
be used for this purpose.
Under the DMEPOS CBP, bidding
suppliers are required to provide
information on the products they plan
to furnish if awarded a contract. We
proposed to use this information and
information on the market share
(volume) of the various diabetic testing
strip products to educate suppliers on
meeting the requirements of this special
rule. In addition, it may be necessary to
obtain additional information from
suppliers such as invoices or purchase
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73571
orders to verify that the requirements in
the statute have been met.
We proposed that suppliers be
required to demonstrate that their bids
cover the minimum 50-percent
threshold provided in the statute, but
we invited comments on whether a
higher threshold should be used. We
have proposed the 50-percent threshold
in part because we believe that all
suppliers have an inherent incentive to
furnish a wide variety of types of
diabetic testing products to generate a
wider customer referral base. The 50percent threshold would ensure that
beneficiaries have access to mail order
delivery of the top-selling diabetic test
strip products. In addition, as explained
below, we proposed an ‘‘anti-switching
provision’’ that we believe should
obviate the need to establish a threshold
of greater than 50 percent for the
purpose of implementing this special
rule because the contract suppliers
would not be able to carry a limited
variety of products and switch
beneficiaries to those products.
For purposes of implementing the
special rule in section 1847(b)(10)(A) of
the Act, we proposed to define ‘‘diabetic
testing strip product’’ as a specific brand
and model of test strip, as that is the
best way to distinguish among different
products. Therefore, we plan to use
market based data for specific brands
and models of diabetic test strips to
determine the relative market share or
volume of the various products on the
market that are available to Medicare
beneficiaries. We plan to review a
variety of data, including but not
limited to data furnished in the OIG
report, to determine the market share of
the various products. The special rule
mandated by section 1847(b)(10)(A) of
the Act applies to all competitions for
diabetic testing strips after the Round 1
Rebid of the DMEPOS CBP. Therefore,
we would apply this rule to non-mail
order competitions and local
competitions conducted for diabetic
testing strips after the Round 1 Rebid of
the DMEPOS CBP.
Comment: Several commenters
supported the requirement for suppliers
to demonstrate that their bids cover 50
percent of the diabetic testing strips on
the market. Other commenters noted
problems associated with implementing
the 50-percent rule. A few commenters
stated that this rule provides an
advantage to large manufacturers by
encouraging suppliers to carry more of
their products and disadvantages small
manufacturers with limited product
lines.
Response: This special rule is
mandated by the statute which
stipulates a supplier must demonstrate
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73572
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
that its bid to furnish diabetic testing
strips covers the furnishing of a
sufficient number of different types of
diabetic testing strip products that, in
the aggregate and taking into account
volume for the different products, to
account for at least 50 percent of all
such types of products on the market.
Suppliers are able to decide from which
manufacturers to obtain their diabetic
testing supplies from, but we are
required to ensure that suppliers are in
compliance with the special rule before
awarding a contract to them under the
DMEPOS CBP.
Comment: Several commenters are
concerned that products developed
between bidding cycles will be frozen
out of the program for up to 3 years and
suppliers could be discouraged from
offering new products until the next
bidding cycle or up to 3 years after the
product’s release.
Response: We disagree that the 50percent rule creates a disincentive for
manufacturers and innovators to
develop new and progressive
technology. This rule does not prevent
suppliers from offering new products to
their customers. In fact, suppliers may
choose to offer new products in order to
gain market share under the DMEPOS
CBP. In addition, we believe that the
anti-switching rule would create a
strong incentive for contract suppliers to
carry a wide range of products well
beyond the 50-percent threshold in
order to increase their volume of
business. Contract supplier would have
to carry the brand test strips that work
with new products that are successfully
marketed to Medicare beneficiaries.
Comment: Several commenters stated
that the minimum 50-percent threshold
required by the statute may be
insufficient to ensure that suppliers
carry a wide array of available products.
Other commenters recommended that
CMS require suppliers to carry a more
clinically diverse array of products.
Without this change they believe
suppliers could limit the range of
diabetic testing supplies by only
offering the lowest cost versions of those
supplies.
Response: We disagree. We believe
that the 50-percent threshold is
sufficient to ensure that contract
suppliers offer the products that
physicians and beneficiaries prefer
because it will be extremely difficult for
suppliers to limit the number of
products they offer to the lowest cost
versions unless those are also the top
selling products. We believe that the top
selling products are widely used
because physicians and beneficiaries
prefer them rather than because they are
the cheapest products available. We do
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
not believe that physicians and
pharmacists would continue to
recommend products to beneficiaries if
they did not meet the needs of the
specific beneficiaries. Likewise, we do
not believe that beneficiaries who
choose certain products would continue
to use those products and make them
top-selling products if they did not
adequately meet their needs. Due to
widespread manufacturer rebates, tradeins, and other discounts, beneficiaries
and other consumers are able to
purchase new glucose monitor products
at little or no cost. Therefore,
beneficiaries who are unhappy with
their choice of glucose monitor product,
can easily switch to another brand of
monitor. It would be extremely difficult
for suppliers who only elect to furnish
products that are not top-selling
products to reach the 50-percent
threshold.
Comment: One commenter stated that
the 50-percent rule is a strong
beneficiary protection and that the 50percent rule will not work without
enforcement of the anti-switching rule.
Response: We agree that the 50percent threshold would ensure that
beneficiaries have access to mail order
delivery of the top-selling diabetic test
strip brands and models. We also agree
that the 50-percent rule would be more
effective with implementation of the
anti-switching rule.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that when CMS
determines the product list they should
identify the brands and products that
have been furnished through the mail.
This is important because market share
data for mail order and retail medical
supply establishments are not the same.
Response: We agree. The DHHS OIG
is conducting a study to generate
volume data for various diabetic testing
strip products furnished on a mail order
basis. We will use this data in providing
guidance to implement this special rule
for mail order contract suppliers to
ensure that their bids cover at least 50
percent of the volume of testing strip
products currently furnished to
beneficiaries via mail order. The OIG is
required to complete their study before
2011 and will make their data available
to the public.
Comment: A few commenters believe
that the proposed rule does not indicate
how CMS will determine compliance
with the percentage standard. The
commenters urge CMS to do more than
analyze a supplier’s bid to determine
compliance. They suggest CMS develop
mechanisms to ‘‘look back’’ at a
supplier’s actual performance over a
period of time, preferably on a monthly
basis for the first year of the program’s
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
operation. Also, CMS could review
supplier’s records, such as invoices and
purchase orders, to verify compliance
with the requirement.
Response: We agree with this
comment and the need for CMS to
ensure compliance with the special rule.
Suppliers will be required to submit
information to document that their bid
covers at least 50 percent of the
products available to beneficiaries. In
addition, contract suppliers will be
required to submit quarterly reports that
include information on the items that
the contract supplier has furnished for
the quarter. These quarterly reports will
indicate the approximate number of
items furnished, manufacturer, model
and model number of the items
furnished. The quarterly reports will
enable us to monitor access to different
products under the program.
Comment: One commenter stated that
the 50-percent rule fails to meets the
non-discrimination requirement.
Response: We disagree. The nondiscrimination requirement does not
conflict with the 50-percent rule.
Contract suppliers must furnish the
same products to Medicare patients that
they furnish to their other customers
and these products must make up at
least 50 percent of the volume of items
available. Neither requirement prevents
the supplier from meeting the other
requirement. The non-discrimination
requirement will be fully enforced along
with the special 50-percent rule.
Comment: A commenter
recommended that CMS consult with
patient advocates, providers, and
industry experts to determine whether
the methodology used by CMS for
determining the different types and
amounts of products on the market is
consistent with what is actually
available to Medicare beneficiaries
today.
Response: We agree and will consider
whether or not it is necessary to consult
with patient advocates, providers, and
industry experts to determine the types
and volume products available to
Medicare beneficiaries. The statute also
mandates that the OIG conduct a study
to generate volume data for various
diabetic testing strip products that could
be used to make this determination.
Comment: A commenter suggested
that CMS should consider adopting a
generic substitution requirement for
diabetic testing supplies.
Response: This comment is outside
the scope of this rulemaking.
After consideration of the public
comments we received, we are
finalizing our proposal without
modification.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
(4) Anti-Switching Rule in Case of
Competition for Diabetic Test Strips
As previously noted, we believe that
an anti-switching requirement will help
ensure compliance with the 50-percent
rule and creates an incentive for
contract suppliers to offer a wide variety
of testing strip products. Therefore, we
proposed to prohibit suppliers awarded
contracts for diabetic testing supplies
from influencing or incentivizing the
beneficiary by persuading, pressuring,
or advising them to switch from their
current brand or for new beneficiaries
from their preferred brand of glucose
monitor and testing supplies. The
contract supplier may not furnish
information about alternative brands to
the beneficiary to influence the
beneficiary’s decision unless the
beneficiary requests such information.
We proposed that contract suppliers for
diabetic testing supplies must furnish
the brand of diabetic testing supplies
that work with the home blood glucose
monitor selected by the beneficiary. In
the case where the beneficiary is
receiving a monitor for the first time or
a replacement monitor, the contract
supplier would be subject to the
requirements of § 414.420 in order to
protect beneficiaries from feeling forced
or incentivized to use a particular type
or brand of monitor. We continue to
believe the proper role of the contract
supplier is to furnish diabetic testing
strips and other supplies to
beneficiaries, not to interfere with the
beneficiary’s selection of the type of
monitor and supplies. This requires the
supplier to furnish the brand of testing
supplies that work with the blood
glucose monitor product that the
beneficiary, and not the supplier of the
testing supplies, selects. If the
beneficiary needs a blood glucose
monitor for the first time, or needs to
replace their existing blood glucose
monitor, and neither the beneficiary nor
their physician has determined which
brand or type of monitor to obtain, the
beneficiary may continue to ask for
assistance from the supplier to select a
monitor and the supplier should show
them the full range of products.
However, if the beneficiary has already
selected a monitor and simply needs
replacement diabetic testing supplies,
the supplier must furnish the brands of
testing supplies that work with the
brand monitor that the beneficiary has
selected. We believed that our proposal
would preserve the integrity of the
clinical decision regarding choice of
glucose monitoring system and would
result in contract suppliers offering a
wide variety of diabetic testing supply
products.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
We proposed to amend § 414.422 to
add the anti-switching requirement to
the terms of the contract for a supplier
of diabetic testing supplies. A supplier
would be in breach of their contract and
subject to the sanctions set forth under
§ 414.423(g), including termination, if
they violate this term.
Comment: Numerous commenters
stated that CMS should adopt a strong
anti-switching rule and stated that this
rule is an important improvement to the
DMEPOS CBP and will protect
beneficiaries’ access to supplies.
Response: We agree that the antiswitching rule will help protect
beneficiaries from being influenced or
incentivized to use a particular type of
brand of glucose monitor.
Comment: One commenter also
recommended that the anti-switching
rule should be actively monitored to
ensure that beneficiaries are adequately
protected.
Response: We agree. The antiswitching rule will be actively
monitored by requiring contract
suppliers to submit quarterly reports
that include information of the items
that the contract supplier has furnished
for the quarter. We will be analyzing the
quarterly reports to determine changes
in the rates that various brands are
provided. We will also be monitoring
beneficiary complaints to determine if
this is an issue.
Comment: One commenter stated
suppliers should be required to submit
evidence to CMS such as copies of
agreements with manufactures to
demonstrate how they will obtain
adequate quantities of testing supplies
in order to furnish the supplies sought
by beneficiaries in a timely manner.
This is to prevent suppliers from
influencing a beneficiary’s choice of
products by not being able to fill certain
orders.
Response: We disagree. The antiswitching rule does not require the
supplier to increase their capacity for
furnishing sufficient quantities of all of
the various products available. It is
intended to prevent the supplier from
actively influencing or incentivizing the
beneficiary to switch to a different
glucose monitor product. If the contract
supplier does not stock a specific
product or is out of inventory of a
specific product they carry and which
the beneficiary needs, the beneficiary
can go to any other contract supplier to
see if they carry the product they need
in stock.
Comment: A few commenters were
concerned about the anti-switching rule
because they believe that this rule will
prevent suppliers from consulting with
beneficiaries regarding the various
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73573
features of the different products and
the selection of diabetic supplies that
best meet the patient’s needs.
Response: The anti-switching policy
impacts those beneficiaries who are
already using a specific monitor or
whose physician ordered a specific
brand. The anti-switching policy
prevents suppliers from influencing or
incentivizing beneficiaries to switch
monitors. This policy has no impact on
situations where the beneficiary has not
yet selected a monitor or initiates
discussions with the supplier about
changing to a new type of monitor.
Comment: One commenter stated that
the anti-switching rule prevents
beneficiaries from having access to
lower cost glucose monitors and test
strips, unless they specifically request
information about less costly
alternatives from their supplier. In
addition, the commenter stated that the
DMEPOS CBP should provide
incentives to use lower cost alternatives
and not prohibit their use.
Response: We disagree. The purpose
of this policy is to prevent beneficiaries
from being influenced to switch from
their current brand to a lower cost brand
to increase a supplier’s profit. The
beneficiary’s choice should not be
influenced by the supplier’s ability to
obtain the product at a lower cost, rather
than the product that the beneficiary
prefers. This policy does not prevent a
beneficiary from initiating a discussion
with suppliers or their physician to
determine the most appropriate brand.
The contract supplier can discuss the
features or how to operate the glucose
monitor selected by the beneficiary,
even if information is not requested by
the beneficiary.
Comment: One commenter stated that
CMS should enforce the anti-switching
rule by prohibiting mail order suppliers
from counseling patients on blood
glucose monitors and supplies, preapproving suppliers’ marketing
materials and establishing a hotline for
beneficiaries.
Response: We disagree. As previously
stated, the contract supplier can discuss
the features or how to operate the
glucose monitor selected by the
beneficiary even if this information is
not requested by the beneficiary. We
established a 1–800 Medicare number
which is a beneficiary dedicated hotline
that beneficiaries are to call when they
have questions or concerns related to
their Medicare needs. In addition, the
presence of local ombudsman will be
available for beneficiaries and suppliers
for their Medicare related needs when
the DMEPOS CBP is implemented.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that CMS take steps to
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73574
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
appropriately inform and educate
beneficiaries in advance about their
rights under the anti-switching
provisions. The commenter also
recommended that a special education
effort be implemented during the new
Round 1 Rebid and any future rounds of
bidding aimed at eliminating any
confusion that beneficiaries have
regarding their ability to continue
receiving their replacement supplies at
their retail pharmacies.
Response: We agree. We have
designed and will conduct an extensive
beneficiary educational campaign on the
Round 1 Rebid. In addition, for future
rounds of competition we will continue
to conduct future educational
campaigns to educate beneficiaries on
all aspects of the program, including the
anti-switching provisions and the 50percent rule.
After consideration of the public
comments we received, we are
finalizing our proposal without
modification
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
c. Off-the-Shelf (OTS) Orthotics
Exemption
In the April 10, 2007 final rule (72 FR
17992), we established § 414.404(b)(1),
which sets forth several exemptions to
the DMEPOS CBP. These exceptions are
applicable to providers, physicians, and
treating practitioners that furnish
certain DMEPOS items under Medicare
Part B. The exempted items are limited
to crutches, canes, walkers, folding
manual wheelchairs, blood glucose
monitors, and infusion pumps that are
DME. For an explanation as to why
these items were exempt see the
DMEPOS Competitive Bidding final rule
(CMS–1270–F) published April 10,
2007, (72 FR 17992). For the exemptions
to apply, the items must be furnished by
a physician or treating practitioner to
his or her own patients as part of his or
her professional service. The items are
to be billed under a billing number
assigned to the physician, the treating
practitioner (if possible), or a group
practice to which the physician or
treating practitioner has reassigned the
right to receive Medicare payment.
The April 10, 2007 final rule also
established an exemption for a physical
therapist in private practice (as defined
in § 410.60(c)) or an occupational
therapist in private practice (as defined
in § 410.59(c)) to furnish competitively
bid OTS orthotics without submitting a
bid and being awarded a contract under
the DMEPOS CBP, provided that the
items are furnished only to the
therapist’s own patients as part of a
physical or occupational therapy
service.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
Section 154(d) of MIPPA amended
section 1847(a) of the Act by adding
paragraph (7), which expands the
exemptions from the DMEPOS CBP for
certain OTS orthotics to physicians or
other practitioners (as defined by the
Secretary) if furnished to their own
patients as part of their professional
service. Section 1847(a)(7) of the Act, as
added by MIPPA, also expanded the
exemption from the program to
hospitals for certain OTS orthotics,
crutches, canes, walkers, folding manual
wheelchairs, blood glucose monitors,
and infusion pumps if these items are
furnished to the hospital’s own patients
during an admission or on the date of
discharge.
The DMEPOS CBP Round 1 Rebid
interim final rule with comment period
(IFC) included the expanded exemption
for certain DMEPOS items as provided
by MIPPA for hospitals. We noted in the
IFC that we would address the
expanded exemption of OTS orthotics
for hospitals, physicians and other
practitioners in future rulemaking.
We proposed to revise current
provisions at § 414.404(b)(1)(i) to
incorporate the provision of section
1847(a)(7)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act that
exempts from the program OTS
orthotics furnished by physicians and
other practitioners to their own patients
as part of their professional service or by
hospitals to the hospital’s own patients
during an admission or on the date of
discharge.
Comment: One commenter submitted
a question requesting clarification on
whether a supplier owned by a hospital
or provider affiliated with a hospital
would qualify for the hospital
exemption.
Response: The OTS orthotics
exemption for hospitals is limited to
hospitals that furnish OTS orthotics to
their own patients during an admission
or on the date of discharge. The
exemption for a hospital does not apply
to suppliers or providers owned by or
affiliated with a hospital. This
exemption applies only to entities that
meet the definition at section 1861(e) of
the Act.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that CMS include small independent
pharmacies in the definition of ‘‘other
practitioners’’ and exempt OTS orthotics
furnished by small independent
pharmacies from bidding and contract
requirements under the DMEPOS CBP.
Response: We disagree. There are
several factors we consider in
determining which suppliers qualify for
an exemption. As discussed in the April
10, 2007, Federal Register (72 FR
18029) we exempted physical and
occupational therapists, from bidding in
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the DMEPOS CBP and being awarded a
contract so that they could continue to
provide competitively bid OTS orthotics
to their own patients when these items
are furnished as part of their
professional service. MIPPA has
extended this exemption to include OTS
orthotics furnished by physicians,
certain other practitioners, and hospitals
to their own patients. The MIPPA
expanded exemption does not include
OTS orthotics furnished to the general
public by suppliers such as pharmacies.
Therefore, we do not agree that this
exemption should be applied to small
independent pharmacies who sell these
products to the general public and they
are not furnished as an integral part of
a treatment service furnished by the
pharmacy. Also, the term treating
practitioner is defined at § 414.402 of
the regulations and includes physician
assistants, nurse practitioners, and
clinical nurse specialists in accordance
with the definition of these terms as
defined at section 1861(aa)(5) of the Act.
We do not believe that the statutory
language that extended the OTS orthotic
exemption to physicians, certain other
practitioners, and hospitals was
intended to extend the exemption to
small independent pharmacies that
provide products to the general public.
Comment: One commenter supported
the OTS orthotics exemption for
physicians, practitioners, and hospitals.
Response: We agree.
After consideration of the public
comments we received, we are
finalizing our proposal without
modification.
d. Grandfathering Rules Resulting in
Additional Payments to Contract
Suppliers Under the DMEPOS
Competitive Bidding Program (CBP)
Section 1847(a)(4) of the Act requires
that in the case of rented DME and
oxygen and oxygen equipment, the
Secretary shall establish a
‘‘grandfathering’’ process. This
requirement was implemented through
regulations at § 414.408(j) that were
published in the April 10, 2007 Federal
Register (72 FR 17992). The
grandfathering process allows
beneficiaries who were renting DME
items or receiving oxygen and oxygen
equipment prior to the start of a
DMEPOS CBP from a supplier who did
not win a contract to continue to rent
the equipment from that noncontract
supplier if that supplier chooses to
become a grandfathered supplier. Under
§ 414.408(i)(2), when the beneficiary
decides to use a contract supplier
instead of a grandfathered supplier to
receive their oxygen equipment and
supplies, the contract supplier receives
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
a minimum of 10 monthly payments for
taking over the furnishing of oxygen and
oxygen equipment. When a beneficiary
decides to use a contract supplier to
furnish capped rental DME, section
§ 414.408(h)(2) restarts the 13-month
capped rental period. These rules were
established, in part, based on advice
from the Program Advisory and
Oversight Committee (PAOC) and are
intended to give bidding suppliers an
assurance that they would be
compensated in these situations and
would not have to factor into their bids
the cost of receiving as few as one
monthly payment for beneficiaries near
the end of the 13-month cap for capped
rental items and 36-month cap for
oxygen equipment.
At the time these rules were
developed, the supplier was mandated
by the statute to transfer title to the
equipment to the beneficiary after the
both the 13-month cap for capped rental
items and the 36-month cap for oxygen
equipment. Section 144(b) of the MIPPA
repealed the transfer of title requirement
for oxygen equipment, as established by
DRA, replacing that requirement with
the 36-month rental cap. Under the
revised oxygen payment provisions,
suppliers now get the equipment back
when the beneficiary no longer needs it.
Also, at the time these rules were
developed, the beneficiary had the
option to acquire standard power
wheelchairs on a lump sum purchase
basis, an option which greater than 95
percent of the beneficiaries selected,
based upon historic claims data.
Therefore, those items generally would
not be affected by the grandfathering
rules. However, as discussed in section
VI.V. of this final rule with comment
period, section 3136 of the Affordable
Care Act eliminates the lump sum
purchase option for standard power
wheelchairs. This new policy applies to
items furnished under the DMEPOS
CBP beginning with Round 2 of the
program. Over 200,000 beneficiaries
received standard power wheelchairs
nationwide in 2009, and the Medicare
allowed charges for these wheelchairs
was over $650 million, including both
rental and purchase options. Therefore,
this large volume of capped rental items
will be subject to the grandfathering
rules effective with Round 2 of the
DMEPOS CBP, thus increasing the
overall magnitude of the effect these
rules have on the program and
beneficiaries.
In some cases, the grandfathering
rules described above place a financial
burden on beneficiaries who are near
the end of the 13 or 36-month rental cap
periods. If a beneficiary’s existing
supplier chooses not to be a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
grandfathered supplier, the beneficiary
will be required to switch to a contract
supplier in order for Medicare to
continue to pay for the furnishing of the
rental equipment. In such cases, the
beneficiary will be responsible for
additional co-insurance amounts. Based
on experience from the initial Round 1
competition in 2008, we believe that
most suppliers will choose to
grandfather and therefore these rules
will have no impact on these situations.
However, in those limited situations in
which the beneficiary does not use a
grandfathered supplier and the
beneficiary is near the end of the 13 or
36-month rental cap period, the impact
on the beneficiary could be significant.
As mentioned above, our current
grandfathering rules will result in a
limited number of beneficiaries facing
additional co-insurance payments. To
illustrate the impact some beneficiaries
may face as a result of these rules, a
beneficiary who has already made 12
coinsurance payments for a capped
rental item could make as many as 12
additional copayments as a result of
restarting the capped rental period
when they transition from a noncontract
supplier to a contract supplier at the
beginning of a DMEPOS CBP. In another
example, a beneficiary who has already
made 35 coinsurance payments for
oxygen and oxygen equipment could
make as many as 9 additional
copayments as a result of the rule that
provides a minimum of 10 monthly
payments when they transition from a
noncontract supplier to a contract
supplier at the beginning of a DMEPOS
CBP. As stated above, we expect that
most noncontract suppliers will choose
to become grandfathered suppliers,
therefore limiting the number of
instances where these rules would
apply. However, in light of the
beneficiary impact in the those extreme
cases illustrated above, and in light of
the recent legislative changes by the
MIPPA and the Affordable Care Act as
explained above, we are reevaluating
whether or not changes to these
grandfathering rules are necessary. As
discussed above, as a result of the
MIPPA, suppliers of oxygen equipment
no longer lose title to the equipment
after receiving the 36th payment and
this may warrant reconsideration of the
minimum number of payments they
should receive as contract suppliers
when a beneficiary transitions to them
from a noncontract supplier at the
beginning of a DMEPOS CBP. In
addition, we believe it is important to
reevaluate the policy that restarts the
13-month capped rental period in
situations where a beneficiary
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73575
transitions from a noncontract supplier
to a contract supplier at the beginning
of a DMEPOS CBP.
We received nine public comments on
the grandfathering rules resulting in
additional payments to contract
suppliers under the DMEPOS CBP. In
the proposed rule we solicited public
comments on whether or not the current
rules should be changed to reduce the
number of payments the contract
supplier would receive in these
situations above the 13 and 36-month
limits set forth under the standard
payment rules in section 1834(a) of the
Act. We requested comments only and
did not propose any regulation changes.
Therefore, the comments received will
be taken into consideration in future
proposed rulemaking.
e. Appeals Process
The April 10, 2007 DMEPOS CBP
final rule finalized § 414.422(g)(1),
which states that ‘‘any deviation from
contract requirements, including a
failure to comply with governmental
agency or licensing organization
requirements, constitutes a breach of
contract.’’ In the event we determine
that a contract supplier’s actions
constitute a breach of contract,
§ 414.422(g)(2) authorizes us to take one
or more of the following actions:
• Require the contract supplier to
submit a corrective action plan.
• Suspend the contract supplier’s
contract.
• Terminate the contract.
• Preclude the contract supplier from
participating in the DMEPOS CBP.
• Revoke the supplier number of the
contract supplier, or
• Avail itself of other remedies
allowed by the statute.
We proposed to add a new § 414.423
to establish an appeals process for
contracts terminated under section
1847(a) and (b) of the Act. Proposed
§ 414.423 would set forth policies and
procedures relating to our
determinations of a breach of contract
and the appeals process for contract
suppliers that are considered to be in
breach of contract. In addition, we
proposed to add new definitions to
§ 414.402 that are used in the proposed
§ 414.423.
Given the impact that termination has
on a contract supplier, we believe it is
appropriate for contract suppliers whose
contract(s) may be terminated due to a
breach of contract to have access to an
appeals process that will reconsider that
termination. In establishing this process
we reviewed other appeals processes,
such as the appeals process under Part
D located at § 423.641 through
§ 423.668, Subpart N—Medicare
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73576
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Contract Determinations and Appeals,
to consider essential steps to ensure
suppliers have access to an appropriate
review of certain CMS decisions. We
proposed a simplified process that
would not result in disruption to the
program by having suppliers going in
and out of the program. For this reason,
we proposed a process for review and
reconsideration before the contract is
actually terminated. This proposal
would avoid the necessity to reinstate
retroactively suppliers because the
contracts would generally not be
terminated before the full review
process has occurred. This would
protect the supplier because we
generally would not terminate a
supplier until a final decision is made.
Another feature of this process that may
be beneficial to some suppliers is
allowing them to submit a corrective
action plan (CAP) depending upon the
nature of the breach. We believe our
proposal would allow most suppliers to
correct identified deficiencies.
(1) Purpose and Definitions: (§ 414.402)
We are proposed to amend § 414.402
to define the following terms:
• Affected party means a contract
supplier that has been notified that their
DMEPOS CBP contract will be
terminated for a breach of contract.
• Breach of contract means any
deviation from contract requirements,
including a failure to comply with a
governmental agency or licensing
organization requirements.
• Corrective Action Plan (CAP) means
a contract supplier’s written document
with supporting information that
describes the actions the contract
supplier would take within a specified
timeframe to remedy the breach of
contract.
• Hearing Officer (HO) means an
individual, who was not involved with
the CBIC recommendation to terminate
a DMEPOS Competitive Bidding
Program contract, who is designated by
CMS to review and make an unbiased
and independent recommendation
when there is an appeal of CMS’s initial
determination to terminate a DMEPOS
Competitive Bidding Program contract.
• Parties to the hearing means the
DMEPOS contract supplier and CMS.
• Certain agency actions taken under
§ 414.422(g)(2).
The proposed appeals process would
not apply to any other actions made by
CMS, nor would the existence of other
appeals processes preclude us from
terminating a DMEPOS CBP contract. In
other words, the proposed appeals
process would be in addition to—and
would not replace—existing CMS
regulations regarding other appeals
mechanisms. For example, a contract
may be terminated because a supplier’s
National Supplier Clearinghouse (NSC)
number has been revoked or inactivated.
In this case, the supplier would not
appeal the decision to inactivate or
revoke its number through this appeals
process. Instead, the supplier would
continue to appeal the inactivation or
revocation of its supplier number
through the NSC’s appeals process. We
would postpone the contract
termination decision until the supplier
completes the NSC appeals process
unless there are multiple findings of
breach of contract.
Under our proposal, when we issue a
termination decision, it would be final
and binding unless a postponement of
the termination decision is allowed by
proposed § 414.423.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
(2) Applicability
(3) Contract Termination
We proposed that this appeals process
applies in situations where the supplier
has received a notice that we have
determined that they are in breach of
contract and that their contract is
therefore subject to termination. A
contract may be terminated for any
violation of the terms of the contract.
Examples of violations include, but are
not limited to, situations where the
contract supplier—
• Has committed or participated in
false, fraudulent, or abusive activities
affecting the Medicare program,
including the submission of false or
fraudulent data or claims;
• Experiences financial difficulties so
that they are unable to effectively
provide the necessary services to a
Medicare beneficiary; or
• Fails to meet the nondiscrimination policy and provides
different items to beneficiaries located
in a competitive bidding area (CBA)
than it provides to its non-Medicare
beneficiaries at § 414.422(c).
The appeals process proposed in this
regulation would allow contract
suppliers the opportunity for a review of
the following:
• A CMS determination under
§ 414.422(g)(1) that the contract supplier
breached its contract entered into as
part of the DMEPOS CBP; and
(4) Notice of Termination
We proposed that the CBIC would
work with suppliers to informally
resolve performance deficiencies under
its DMEPOS CBP contract prior to
sending a recommendation to CMS that
the supplier’s contract be terminated. If
the CBIC cannot informally resolve the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
supplier’s deficiencies and recommends
that we terminate the supplier’s
contract, we will review the CBIC’s
recommendation to terminate the
supplier’s contract. If we find that a
breach occurred, we would begin the
contract termination process by sending
out a notice of termination to the
supplier.
We also proposed requirements for
the notice of termination so that
suppliers are informed of the basis for
CMS’s action as well as their options to
respond to this action. The notice would
explain all actions we plan to take in
response to the supplier’s breach, such
as the ability to submit a CAP or our
determination to preclude a supplier
from participating in future rounds of
competitive bidding if found in breach
of contract. If the supplier decides to
appeal any of these decisions the
supplier would submit an appeal in
response to the notice to terminate. If
we consider a supplier to be in breach
of its contract, either in part or in whole,
we would notify the contract supplier of
the termination by certified mail. The
notice would indicate that the contract
supplier has been found to be in breach
of contract and that the supplier’s
contract will be terminated within 45
days of the date of the notification of
termination. The notice would be sent
by the CBIC using certified mail on the
same date that the notification is signed.
The notification will be mailed on the
date that it is signed. This is the same
date as indicated on the notification.
Our proposal required the notice to
include, at a minimum, the following
information:
• The reasons for the termination in
sufficient detail to allow the contract
supplier to understand the nature of its
breach of contract;
• Depending on the nature of the
breach, whether the supplier may be
allowed to submit a CAP in lieu of
requesting a hearing by the HO;
• The right to request a hearing by the
HO;
• The address to which the written
request for a hearing must be mailed;
• The address to which the CAP must
be mailed; and
• The effective date of the
termination of the contract, if a CAP is
not submitted or if a request for a
hearing has not been filed timely.
We believe that this information will
be sufficient to provide the supplier
with the basis for CMS’s action, as well
as their options in responding to our
decision.
In addition, our proposal required the
notice to indicate any additional
penalties that may result from the
termination, such as, not being eligible
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
to bid in future rounds of competitive
bidding. An appeal of the termination
would include the appeal of any other
results from the termination that are
permissible under § 414.423, such as
preclusion from participation in future
rounds of the DMEPOS CBP. We believe
this information may help the supplier
to decide whether to appeal the notice
of termination.
(5) Corrective Action Plan
We proposed a process by which a
contract supplier may be able to submit
a CAP to address the breach of contract.
Depending on the nature of the breach
of contract, we proposed that the notice
to the supplier would indicate whether
a contract supplier would be allowed to
provide the CBIC with a written CAP
instead of submitting a request for a
hearing by a HO. For example, under
this proposal we would not allow a CAP
if the supplier has been excluded from
any federal program, debarred by any
federal agency, or convicted of a
healthcare-related crime. We may also
not allow a CAP that would result in
negative consequences to the
beneficiaries or the program caused by
delaying the termination of the contract.
We proposed the following timelines
for situations where the contract
supplier is allowed to provide a written
CAP:
• If the supplier decides to submit a
CAP, the CAP must be received by the
CBIC within 30 days from the date on
the notice of termination.
• If the supplier decides not to submit
a CAP, the supplier retains the right to
request a review by a HO within 30 days
from the date of the notice of
termination. While the CAP is being
evaluated, the termination action would
be postponed. We believe that 30 days
is a sufficient amount of time for
suppliers to prepare and submit a CAP
and this would also ensure that there
are no unnecessary delays in the
appeals process.
We proposed to require the CAP to
demonstrate that the contract supplier
has a plan to remedy all of the
deficiencies that were identified in its
notice of termination and must specify
the timeframes for correcting these
deficiencies. The CBIC would review
the CAP to ensure that the contract
supplier would be taking the
appropriate measures in a timely
manner to remedy the breach of
contract. What constitutes a timely
manner is dependent on the type of
deficiency that is being corrected. Once
the nature of the deficiency is identified
the CBIC and CMS would make a caseby-case determination concerning what
constitutes a timely manner for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
correcting the deficiency. However, we
expect most deficiencies to be corrected
within 90 days or less. Further guidance
of what constitutes a timely manner
would be communicated to the contract
supplier by the CBIC as part of the
review process.
As part of the review process, the
CBIC would provide guidance, in
accordance with CMS instructions,
regarding the type of documentation
that the CAP and the follow up report
must provide to substantiate that the
deficiencies have been corrected. To
make a determination if a CAP would be
considered acceptable, we would
discuss any deficiencies related to the
CAP with the supplier, and as a result
of these discussions, the CBIC may
allow a supplier to make revisions to its
CAP during the review process.
Suppliers will only revise their CAP
one-time during the review process. The
timeframe for the review process would
vary upon the circumstances for each
case. If the supplier does not submit an
acceptable CAP during the review
process, the supplier would receive a
new notice that their CAP is not
acceptable or has not been implemented
consistent with the supplier’s original
submission and its contract would be
terminated within 45 days. Every
supplier that submits a CAP will have
a one-time opportunity to revise their
CAP based upon deficiencies identified
by the CBIC. Failure to develop and
implement an approved CAP would
result in a new notice to the supplier of
the termination of the DMEPOS CBP
contract and provide notice that the
supplier may request a hearing on this
termination. We proposed that once an
acceptable CAP has been completed the
contract supplier must provide a followup report within 5 days of the agreed
upon date for the completion of the CAP
to verify that all of the deficiencies
identified in the CAP have been
corrected consistent with the
timeframes specified in the CAP, as
approved by the CMS. We believe that
5 days is a sufficient time for a supplier
to submit a report to the CBIC outlining
all steps that have been completed to
correct the identified deficiencies.
(6) Right To Request a Hearing by the
CBIC Hearing Officer (HO)
We proposed that a contract supplier
that has received a notice that we
consider the supplier in breach of
contract has the right to request a
hearing before a HO who was not
involved with the original breach of
contract determination. We consider
this process to be a reconsideration of
the original decision, and, consistent
with other Medicare appeals provisions,
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73577
we believe it is important that an
individual not involved in making the
initial recommendation conduct the
reconsideration of the initial decision.
As mentioned previously, the HO would
be an individual who is designated by
CMS to review and to make an unbiased
and independent recommendation of
whether to terminate the supplier’s
DMEPOS CBP contract. The notice to
the contract supplier would also
identify the location to which a request
for hearing must be sent.
We proposed that a contract supplier
may appeal the notice of termination by
submitting a written request to the CBIC
for a hearing by a HO. The written
request should include any evidence to
support its appeal. The HO is not
required to allow evidence submitted in
addition to evidence beyond the
evidence submitted along with the
written request. The hearing request
must be received by the CBIC within 30
days from the date of the termination
letter. A request for a hearing must be
sent to the address identified on the
notice. Failure to request a hearing
within the allotted 30 days would result
in a termination of the supplier’s
contract, as of the effective date of
termination identified in the notice to
the supplier. There would be no
extension to this 30-day timeframe. We
believe suppliers have sufficient time to
decide whether or not to request a
hearing and the deficiencies identified
in the notice may pose a risk to the
DMEPOS CBP. The date the request is
received by the CBIC determines if the
hearing request was timely filed.
We would require that the request for
hearing be filed by a supplier’s
authorized official, because an
authorized official of the company
signed the contract and this ensures the
validity of the request. The authorized
official must be an official of the
company who is identified on the
supplier’s CMS 855-S form as an
authorized official of the supplier. A
supplier may appoint someone other
than the authorized official to be a
representative for them at the hearing.
However, the representative may not be
an individual who has been disqualified
or suspended from acting as a
representative by the Secretary or
otherwise prohibited by law. The
request for a hearing must be filed with
the CBIC at the address identified on the
notice of termination.
(7) Scheduling of the Hearing
We proposed that within 30 days from
the receipt of a supplier’s timely hearing
request the HO would contact the
parties to schedule a hearing. The
request for a hearing would result in the
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73578
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
postponement of the date of the contract
termination. The only exception to this
rule is when a supplier has been
excluded from any federal program,
debarred by any federal agency, or
convicted of a healthcare related crime;
in that situation the supplier’s contract
would be terminated immediately. In
the hearing request the contract supplier
may ask for the hearing to be held in
person or by telephone. The HO would
send a notice to the parties to the
hearing indicating the time and place
for the hearing at least 30 days before
the date of the hearing. The HO may, on
his or her own motion, or at the request
of a party, change the time and place for
the hearing, but must give the parties to
the hearing a 30 day notice of the
change.
We proposed to require that the HO’s
notice scheduling the hearing must
provide, at a minimum, the following
information:
• Date, time, and location of the
scheduled hearing;
• Description of the hearing
procedure;
• Issues to be resolved;
• Requirement that the contract
supplier bears the burden of proof to
demonstrate that it is not in breach of
contract; and
• Provide an opportunity for the
supplier to submit additional evidence
if requested by the HO.
We believe this information provides
the supplier with sufficient information
regarding the hearing date, time, and
matters that would be addressed at that
time. We solicited comment on the
content of this notice and the
procedures for scheduling a hearing.
(8) Burden of Proof
We proposed that the contract
supplier would present to the HO the
basis for its disagreement with the
termination notice and would have the
burden of proof to demonstrate to the
HO with supporting evidence that it is
not in breach of its contract and that the
termination action is not appropriate.
The supplier’s supporting evidence
must be submitted with its request for
a hearing. The supporting evidence and
the request for a hearing must be
submitted together and received by the
HO within 30 days from the date
identified on the notice of termination.
In the absence of good cause, the HO
may not allow evidence to be submitted
in addition to the evidence submitted
along with the written request. We also
have the opportunity to submit evidence
to the HO within 30 days of receiving
the notice announcing the hearing. The
HO will share all evidence submitted,
both from the supplier and CMS, in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
preparation for the hearing with all
affected parties within 15 days prior to
the scheduled date of the hearing.
(9) Role of the Hearing Officer (HO)
Our proposal requires that the HO
conduct a thorough and independent
review. Such a review requires the
consideration of all information and
documentation relevant to the hearing
and submitted consistent with this
proposal. Consistent with this goal, we
propose that the HO is responsible for
all of the following:
• Sharing all evidence submitted,
from both the supplier and CMS, in
preparation for the hearing with all
affected parties within 15 days prior to
the scheduled date of the hearing.
• Conducting the hearing and
deciding the order in which the
evidence and the arguments of the
parties would be presented.
• Determining the rules on
admissibility of the evidence.
• Examining the witnesses, in
addition to the examinations conducted
by CMS and the contract supplier.
• Determining the rules for requesting
documents and other evidence from
other parties.
• Ensuring a complete recording of
the hearing is available and provided to
all parties to the hearing and the CBIC.
• Preparing a file of the record of the
hearing which includes all evidence
submitted as well as any relevant
documents identified by the HO and
considered as part of the hearing.
• Complying with all applicable
provisions of 42 USC Title 18 and
related provisions of the Act, the
applicable regulations issued by the
Secretary, and manual instructions
issued by CMS.
The HO would make a
recommendation based on the
information presented and submitted.
The HO would issue a written
recommendation to CMS within 30 days
of the close of the hearing, unless the
HO requests an extension from CMS and
demonstrates to CMS that he or she
needs an extension due to complexity of
the matter or heavy work load. The HO’s
recommendation would include the
rationale for his or her recommendation
regarding the termination of the
supplier’s contract and the HO would
submit this recommendation to CMS for
its determination.
(10) CMS’s Final Determination
We proposed that the HO’s
recommendation is submitted to CMS,
and the agency would make the final
determination regarding whether the
supplier’s contract would be terminated.
Our determination would be based upon
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
on the record of the hearing, evidence,
and documents considered by the HO as
part of the HO recommendation.
Information submitted after the hearing
would not be considered. Our decision
would be made within 30 days of the
receipt of the HO’s recommendation. If
our decision is to terminate the contract,
the supplier would be notified of the
effective date of termination by certified
mail. Our decision regarding the
termination of the contract is final and
binding.
(11) Effective Date of the Contract
Termination
We proposed that suppliers who
submit a CAP or request a hearing
would have the termination date
identified on the notice delayed. The
only exception to this rule is when a
supplier has been excluded from any
federal program, debarred by any federal
agency, or convicted of a healthcare
related crime; in that situation the
contract would be terminated
immediately. For terminations that do
not meet these exceptions, the effective
date of a final termination would be
determined as follows:
• The termination of a supplier’s
DMEPOS CBP contract is effective on
the date specified in the initial notice of
termination, which will be 45 days from
the date of the notice, unless the
supplier requests a hearing with the HO
or the supplier submits a CAP.
• After reviewing the HO
recommendation, if we terminate a
supplier’s contract the effective date of
the termination would be the date
specified in the post-hearing notice sent
to the supplier indicating CMS’s final
determination to terminate the contract.
(12) Effect of Contract Termination
Under our proposal, once a supplier’s
contract is terminated for breach of
contract under the DMEPOS CBP, the
contract supplier is no longer a
DMEPOS CBP contract supplier for any
DMEPOS CBP product category for
which it was awarded a contract. This
termination applies to all areas and
product categories because there is only
one contract that encompasses all CBAs
and product categories for which the
supplier was awarded a contract. We
would not make payment and would
reject claims for DMEPOS competitive
bid items and services furnished by a
supplier whose contract has been
terminated after the effective date of the
termination for the remainder of the
contract period.
We recognize that a supplier’s
termination would impact beneficiaries
within the CBA. Therefore, we proposed
that terminated suppliers must notify all
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
beneficiaries within the CBA who are
receiving rented competitively bid items
of the termination of their contract
status so that the beneficiaries can make
arrangements to receive equipment and
suppliers through other contract
suppliers. After we have made our final
determination and sent notification to
the supplier, the supplier must notify
beneficiaries within 5 days of receipt of
the contract supplier’s final notice of
termination. This notice must inform
beneficiaries that they will have to
select a new contract supplier to furnish
their DMEPOS items in order for
Medicare to pay for these items. For
beneficiary protection, we also proposed
that contract suppliers who fail to give
proper notification to beneficiaries may
be prevented from participating in
future rounds of DMEPOS CBP. We also
proposed that rental items may not be
picked up from the beneficiary’s home
until after the last day of the rental
month for which the supplier has
already received payment. We proposed
both of these policies to protect the
beneficiary and to ensure that suppliers
do not pick up equipment from a
beneficiary for a time period for which
they have already been paid to provide
the service.
Comment: A commenter supported
CMS’s appeals process for contract
suppliers whose competitive bidding
contract was terminated due to breach
of contract. The commenter stated that
‘‘including an appeals process under
DMEPOS CBP protects contract
providers from arbitrary or mistaken
decisions by CMS or its contractors and
preserves the continuity of care for the
beneficiaries they are serving.’’
Response: We agree that the appeals
process does provide protection for
contract suppliers and preserves
continuity of care for the beneficiaries
they serve.
Comment: A commenter who was
concerned with the timeline required
for communication between terminated
suppliers and beneficiaries. The
commenter suggested that CMS
lengthen the period of time to afford
providers ample opportunity to develop,
mail and disseminate this critical
information.
Response: We agree and have
increased the period of time from 5 to
15 days of receipt of contract suppliers’
final notice of termination. We believe
that 15 days would be a good balance
to ensure the beneficiaries receive
information timely and suppliers will
have enough time to notify the
beneficiaries. Therefore, a contract
supplier, whose contract was
terminated, has 15 days from the receipt
of the final notice of termination to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
notify each beneficiary currently renting
a competitive bid item. This change will
not impact any other of the timeframes
or provisions described in this
regulation. We also proposed that rental
items may not be picked up from the
beneficiary’s home until after the last
day of the rental month for which the
supplier has already received payment.
We proposed both of these policies to
protect the beneficiary and to ensure
that suppliers do not pick up equipment
from a beneficiary for a time period for
which they have already been paid to
provide the service.
Comment: A commenter opposed the
proposed appeals process because they
believed, ‘‘the proposed process is
biased and burdened with inherent CMS
conflict of interests that disadvantage
suppliers.’’ This commenter
recommended CMS adopt the appeals
process used for DMEPOS claims which
includes a hearing by an administrative
law judge (ALJ) and the Departmental
Appeals Board (DAB) or the process
used under government contracting and
FAR requirements.’’ In addition, the
commenter questioned whether the
termination occurs at the supplier
number level or the product category
level. The commenter has questioned if
a supplier has contracts for more than
one of the product categories, and is
determined to be in breach of contract
in one category, does the termination
apply to just that one product or to all?
The commenter also stated that the
process should include an appeal to a
federal court.
Response: We disagree with this
comment and feel that our process does
provide for an independent and
unbiased review by the CBIC hearing
officer who was not involved in the
original recommendation. It is not in the
best interest of the program to terminate
contracts if the supplier has not
breached their contract; therefore, this
action will not be taken lightly. This
process allows CMS contractor’s hearing
officers to conduct an independent
review of the issues. Only after
considering the HO’s recommendation
will CMS make a final determination
regarding these issues. We believe this
process provides suppliers with ample
opportunities to have their positions
reviewed and considered. Therefore, we
are not including review by the ALJ or
the DAB. Our process provides for
different levels of review of breach of
contract, one at the recommendation
level, one at the CBIC hearing officer
level, and one at the CMS Administrator
level. We believe this process does
provide for an extensive review by
allowing for reconsideration before a
contract is actually terminated, which
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73579
may include the use of a corrective
action plan. As stated in the final
regulation, these contracts are not
procurement contracts are not subject to
the FAR requirements; therefore, the
FAR is not applicable. The rule does not
address federal court review that might
otherwise exist. As we stated in the
proposed rule § 414.423(k)(4) CMS’s
decisions regarding contract
terminations are final and binding. In
response to the question regarding the
scope of the termination, if a supplier is
terminated due to a breach of contract
all locations associated with that
contract will be terminated, regardless
of the competitive bid product category
they provide. In addition, we have
added clarifying language to
§ 414.423(l)(1).
After consideration of the public
comments we received, we are revising
the time for the supplier to notify the
beneficiary once the supplier has been
notified of their contract termination.
Therefore, we have revised
§ 414.423(l)(2)(i) of the regulation to
state that the supplier whose contract
was terminated must notify the
beneficiary within 15 days of receipt of
the final notice of termination. In
addition, we are clarifying the
regulation language by adding language
to § 414.423(l)(1) to state that ‘‘all
locations of the contract supplier’’ may
no longer furnish competitive bid items
to beneficiaries within a CBA and be
reimbursed by Medicare for these items
after the effective date of the
termination.
2. Changes to Payment Rules for Oxygen
and Oxygen Equipment
a. Background
The general Medicare payment rules
for DME are set forth in section 1834(a)
of the Act and 42 CFR part 414, subpart
D of our regulations. Section 1834(a)(1)
of the Act and § 414.210(a) of our
regulations establish the Medicare
payment for a DME item as equal to 80
percent of either the lower of the actual
charge or the fee schedule amount for
the item. The beneficiary coinsurance is
equal to 20 percent of either the lower
of the actual charge or the fee schedule
amount for the item once the deductible
is met.
The specific payment rules for oxygen
and oxygen equipment under the
existing fee schedules are set forth in
section 1834(a)(5) of the Act and
§ 414.226 of our regulations. Suppliers
are paid a monthly payment amount for
furnishing medically necessary oxygen
contents (for both stationary and
portable) and stationary oxygen
equipment described under the class
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73580
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
described in § 414.226(c)(1)(i).
Equipment in the stationary class
includes stationary oxygen
concentrators, which concentrate
oxygen from room air; stationary liquid
oxygen systems, which use oxygen
stored as a very cold liquid in cylinders
and tanks; and gaseous oxygen systems,
which administer compressed oxygen
directly from cylinders.
A monthly add-on payment is also
made to suppliers furnishing medically
necessary portable oxygen equipment
falling under one of two classes
described in § 414.226(c)(1)(ii) and (iii).
Equipment in these classes includes
traditional portable equipment, that is,
portable liquid oxygen systems and
portable gaseous oxygen systems, and
oxygen generating portable equipment
(OGPE), that is, portable oxygen
concentrators and oxygen transfilling
equipment used to fill portable tanks or
cylinders in the home. Both the liquid
and gaseous oxygen systems (for
stationary and traditional portable
systems) require on-going delivery of
oxygen contents.
Section 1834(a)(5)(F) of the Act, as
amended by section 144(b) of MIPPA,
limits the monthly rental payments to
suppliers for oxygen equipment to 36
months of continuous use, although
monthly payments for furnishing
gaseous or liquid oxygen contents
continue after the 36-month equipment
rental cap is reached for gaseous or
liquid systems. In the CY 2009 PFS final
rule with comment period (73 FR 69875
through 69876), we discussed section
144(b) of MIPPA and included a
detailed discussion of how section
5101(b) of the DRA previously required
suppliers to transfer title to oxygen
equipment to the beneficiary at the end
of the 36-month rental period. Section
144(b) of the MIPPA repealed this
requirement to transfer title to the
oxygen equipment to the beneficiary
and allows suppliers to retain title to the
oxygen equipment after 36 monthly
rental payments are made for the
equipment.
Section 414.210 establishes the
requirements for the replacement of
DME, including oxygen equipment.
Section 414.210(f)(1) states that if an
item of DME, which includes oxygen
equipment, has been in continuous use
by the patient for the equipment’s
reasonable useful lifetime or if the
original equipment is lost, stolen, or
irreparably damaged, the patient may
elect to obtain a new piece of
equipment. In such circumstances,
§ 414.420(f)(2) authorizes payment for
the new oxygen equipment in
accordance with § 414.226(a). Section
414.210(f)(1) states that the reasonable
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
useful lifetime for DME, which includes
oxygen equipment, is determined
through program instructions. In the
absence of CMS program instructions,
the carrier may determine the
reasonable useful lifetime for
equipment, but in no case can it be less
than 5 years. Computation is based on
when the equipment is delivered to the
beneficiary, not the age of the
equipment. If the beneficiary elects to
obtain new oxygen equipment after the
reasonable useful lifetime, the payment
is made for a new 36-month rental
period in accordance with § 414.226(a).
We proposed to revise the payment
rule for oxygen and oxygen equipment
at § 414.226(g)(1) to address situations
where beneficiaries relocate outside the
service area of a supplier during the 36month rental payment cap period for the
oxygen equipment.
Beneficiaries are experiencing great
difficulties in finding suppliers willing
to furnish oxygen equipment in
situations where only a few months are
left in the 36-month rental payment
period at the time they relocate. For
example, if a beneficiary is in the 30th
rental month, the new supplier would
be entitled to only 6 months of rental
payments and then would have to
continue to furnish the oxygen and
oxygen equipment during any period of
medical need for the remainder of the
reasonable useful lifetime of the
equipment. This creates a financial
disincentive for oxygen suppliers to
furnish oxygen and oxygen equipment
to beneficiaries in these situations.
The proposed changes to the payment
rules for oxygen and oxygen equipment
would apply to oxygen and oxygen
equipment furnished under Part B and
would also apply to oxygen and oxygen
equipment furnished under programs
implemented in accordance with
section 1847(a) of the Act.
b. Furnishing Oxygen Equipment After
the 36-Month Rental Period (Cap)
In the CY 2010 PFS final rule with
comment period (74 FR 61887 through
61890), we finalized § 414.226(g)(1)
which, in accordance with section
1834(a)(5)(F)(ii)(I) of the Act, requires
the supplier that furnishes oxygen
equipment during the 36-month rental
period to continue furnishing the
oxygen equipment after the 36-month
rental period. The supplier is required
to continue to furnish the equipment
during any period of medical need for
the remainder of the reasonable useful
lifetime of the equipment. As we noted
when finalizing this rule, section
1834(a)(5)(F)(ii)(I) does not provide any
exceptions to this requirement. If the
beneficiary relocates outside the
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
supplier’s normal service area at some
time after the 36-month rental period
but before the end of the reasonable
useful lifetime of the equipment, the
supplier must make arrangements for
the beneficiary to continue receiving the
equipment at his or her new place of
residence. This responsibility for
furnishing the equipment does not
transfer to another supplier.
We revised § 414.226(f) to conform
our regulations to this new MIPPA
requirement. We deleted the transfer of
ownership requirement and added the
new requirement that the supplier must
continue furnishing the oxygen
equipment after the 36-month rental
period during any period of medical
need for the remainder of the reasonable
useful lifetime of the equipment. It is
important to note that § 414.226(g)(1)(ii)
does not apply this same requirement in
situations where the beneficiary
relocates outside of the supplier’s
normal service area during the
36-month rental period.
c. Furnishing Oxygen Equipment During
the 36-Month Rental Period (CAP)
Section § 414.226(g)(1) contains the
requirement that the supplier that
furnishes oxygen and oxygen equipment
for the first month of the 36th month of
the rental cap period must continue to
furnish the equipment for the entire 36month period of continuous use, with
limited exceptions. One exception at
§ 414.226(g)(1)(ii) applies when a
beneficiary permanently relocates his or
her residence during the 36-month
rental period outside of the current
supplier’s normal service area. This
exception was proposed in the ‘‘Home
Health Prospective Payment System
Rate Update for Calendar Year 2007 and
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 Changes
to Medicare Payment for Oxygen
Equipment and Capped Rental Durable
Medical Equipment; Proposed Rule’’
published in the August 3, 2006 Federal
Register (71 FR 44094) and was
intended to reduce the burden on the
supplier in these situations. This
approach is also consistent with the
regulations addressing capped rental
items described in § 414.229. We
addressed this issue in the context of
other capped rental DME, not including
oxygen and oxygen equipment, in the
July 10, 1995 Federal Register (60 FR
35494) in response to comments. The
discussion states that since the
implementation of the capped rental
payment methodology on January 1,
1989, we received no reports of
beneficiaries having difficulty obtaining
access to capped rental DME after
relocating outside the supplier’s service
area. Since enactment of the capped
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
rental DME payment category in section
4062 of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1987 (OBRA ’87)
(Pub. L. 100–203), representatives of the
DME industry indicated that suppliers
would be able to accommodate
beneficiaries in these situations, and
this has proven to be true for capped
rental items. In fact, we have found this
to be the case to this day.
For this reason, we believed that
beneficiaries would not encounter
problems obtaining access to oxygen
and oxygen equipment in similar
situations, that is, following the
36-month cap imposed by section 144(b)
of MIPPA. However, since the changes
to the payment rules for oxygen and
oxygen equipment mandated by the
DRA became effective in 2006 and the
36-month rental cap imposed by MIPPA
was reached for the first time in January
2009, we have received many reports of
beneficiaries relocating prior to the end
of the 36-month rental payment cap
period and having difficulty finding an
oxygen supplier in the new location. We
have learned that many suppliers are
unwilling to provide services in
situations where there are a few number
of months left in the 36-month rental
payment period.
We do not believe that beneficiaries
have encountered similar issues
following the 36-month rental cap,
which most likely is the result of
different statutory requirements for
these two periods (that is, during and
after the 36-month rental period).
Section 1834(a)(5)(F)(ii) of the Act
requires the supplier that furnishes the
oxygen equipment during the 36-month
rental payment period to continue
furnishing the equipment after the
36-month rental payment period.
Consistent with this requirement, we
established regulations at § 414.226(f)(1)
that require the supplier to furnish the
equipment or make arrangements for
furnishing the equipment in situations
where the beneficiary relocates outside
the supplier’s normal service area. Since
no such requirement currently applies
in situations where the beneficiary
relocates prior to the end of the 36month rental payment period, and in
fact current regulations at
§ 414.226(g)(1)(ii) absolve the supplier
of the obligation to continue furnishing
oxygen equipment in these situations,
beneficiaries are experiencing
difficulties finding suppliers of oxygen
equipment in their new locations that
are willing to accommodate them. As
noted above, we have not seen this
problem in the capped rental DME
context. The requirement at
§ 414.226(g)(1) to furnish oxygen
equipment for the entire 36-month
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
rental cap period was established in the
course of implementing section 5101(b)
of the DRA in order to safeguard the
beneficiary from situations where
suppliers might discontinue service and
pick up oxygen equipment prior to the
end of the 36-month rental cap in order
to avoid losing title to the equipment.
As mentioned earlier, the transfer of
title of oxygen and oxygen equipment
after the 36th paid rental month was
repealed. The exception to this rule at
§ 414.226(g)(1)(ii) was established based
on our experience that suppliers of
capped rental DME have accommodated
beneficiaries in these situations, which,
unfortunately, has not been our
experience in the context of oxygen
equipment.
In order to address this vulnerability
facing beneficiaries as a result of
regulations currently in effect, we
proposed to revise the exception at
§ 414.226(g)(1)(ii) to apply only to
situations where the beneficiary
relocates before the 18th paid rental
month to an area that is outside the
normal service area of the supplier that
initially furnished the equipment. We
proposed to revise the regulation to
require the supplier that furnishes the
oxygen equipment and receives
payment for month 18 or later to either
furnish the equipment for the remainder
of the 36-month rental payment period
or, in the case where the beneficiary has
relocated outside the service area of the
supplier, make arrangements for
furnishing the oxygen equipment with
another supplier for the remainder of
the 36-month rental payment period.
The supplier that is required to furnish
the equipment on the basis of this
requirement must also furnish the
equipment after the 36-month rental
payment period in accordance with the
requirements of section 1834(a)(5)(F)(ii)
and § 414.226(f).
The proposed revision would mean
that a supplier does not have to
continue to furnish the oxygen
equipment if the beneficiary relocates
outside the normal service area before
the 18th paid rental month during a
period of continuous use. Under the
current rule, a supplier does not have to
furnish the oxygen equipment if the
beneficiary relocated before the 36th
paid rental month during a period of
continuous use. The current rule was
established based on the long term,
demonstrated ability of suppliers of
capped rental DME to accommodate
beneficiaries in situations where they
relocate near the end of a capped rental
payment period.
Comment: We received a total of 8
comments on our proposal to require
oxygen suppliers to continue to furnish
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73581
medically necessary oxygen equipment
for the remainder of the reasonable
useful lifetime of the equipment to
beneficiaries who relocate on or after
the 18th rental month. All the
comments were opposed to the
proposed requirement. Some of the
commenters questioned whether the
statute gives us the authority to
establish this requirement before the
36th month rental payment. Others
objected to the financial and
coordination-of-benefits burden they
believe that this requirement would
cause for suppliers. Other objections
were that the proposed requirement did
not consider the effect on beneficiaries
who relocate on a temporary basis
during winter months (‘‘snow birds’’), or
the access problems that it might cause
in rural areas. Recommended
alternatives included starting the rental
period over at the time of relocation or
keeping the current policy that only
requires suppliers to continue
furnishing oxygen equipment to
beneficiaries who relocate outside of
their service area if 36 rental amounts
have already been paid.
Response: In addition to considering
the comments on the proposed rule, we
analyzed complaint data from
beneficiaries from January 2009 to
September 2010 which is data collected
by the regional offices. In the limited
situations where beneficiaries receiving
oxygen equipment for less than 36
months relocated during this time and
initially had trouble locating an oxygen
supplier in their new location, CMS
caseworkers in the CMS Regional
Offices and the Office of the Medicare
Beneficiary Ombudsman were able to
locate suppliers to serve each and every
beneficiary, usually within a matter of
days. This means that, although supply
arrangements and/or access to oxygen
and oxygen equipment in these
situations may have been briefly
delayed, suppliers stepped forward to
provide access to oxygen and oxygen
equipment in these situations. Based on
this information and certain comments
received, we have decided not to
finalize this proposed revision at this
time. If in the future, beneficiaries’
access to oxygen equipment becomes a
problem following the relocation of
beneficiaries, we may consider this
proposal or similar proposals.
H. Provider and Supplier Enrollment
Issue: Air Ambulance Provision
The National Transportation Safety
Board (NTSB) is an independent Federal
agency charged by the Congress with
investigating transportation accidents,
determining their probable cause, and
making recommendations to prevent
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73582
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
similar accidents from occurring. Based
on information derived from testimony
provided at the NTSB public hearing
and investigations into recent helicopter
air ambulance accidents, the NTSB
made several specific recommendations
to the Secretary on September 24, 2009.
Specifically, the NTSB recommended
that the Secretary develop minimum
safety accreditation standards for
helicopter air ambulance operators that
augment the operating standards of 14
CFR 135 by including for all flights with
medical personnel on board: (a)
Scenario-based pilot training; (b)
implementation of preflight risk
evaluation programs; and (c) the
installation of FAA-approved terrain
awareness warning systems, night
vision imaging systems, flight data
recording systems for monitoring and
autopilots if a second pilot is not used.
In response to the NTSB concerns, the
Secretary noted that the
recommendations to CMS were similar
to those being made to the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA). While
we have expertise to regulate health and
safety requirements that suppliers and
providers of healthcare should meet, we
do not have the expertise to determine
aircraft safety requirements. The
Secretary stated that, ‘‘we believe the
FAA should determine the minimum
level of safety that HEMS operators
should meet and CMS should adopt
regulations that require any HEMS
operator that enrolls in Medicare to
meet those requirements.’’ The Secretary
also added that, ‘‘while we do not
believe CMS should augment FAA
regulations, we do believe that CMS’
regulations should ensure that only
those HEMS operators that maintain the
minimum level of requirements
established by the FAA through its
regulations are enrolled or maintain
enrollment in the Medicare program.’’
The FAA proposed Federal regulations
to address the NTSB’s concerns in their
October 12, 2010 proposed rule (75 FR
62640) entitled ‘‘Air Ambulance and
Commercial Helicopter Operations, Part
91 Helicopter Operations, and Part 135
Aircraft Operations; Safety Initiatives
and Miscellaneous Amendments.’’
In the April 21, 2006 Federal
Register, we published the
‘‘Requirements for Providers and
Suppliers to Establish and Maintain
Medicare Enrollment’’ final rule. This
final rule implemented section
1866(j)(1)(A) of the Act. In this final
rule, we required that all providers and
suppliers (other than physicians or
practitioners who have elected to ‘‘optout’’ of the Medicare program) must
complete an enrollment form and
submit specific information to CMS in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
order to obtain Medicare billing
privileges. Section 424.515 required that
ambulance service providers continue to
resubmit enrollment information in
accordance with § 410.41(c)(2), which
states, ‘‘Upon a carrier’s request,
complete and return the ambulance
supplier form designated by CMS and
provide the Medicare carrier with
documentation of compliance with
emergency vehicle and staff licensure
and certification requirements in
accordance with State and local laws.’’
This final rule also established
§ 424.510(d)(2)(iii) which states,
‘‘Submission of all documentation,
including all applicable Federal and
State licensure and regulatory
requirements that apply to the specific
provider or supplier type related to
providing health care services, required
by CMS under this or other statutory or
regulatory authority, or under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, to
establish the provider or supplier’s
eligibility to furnish Medicare covered
items or services to beneficiaries in the
Medicare program.’’
While the Airline Deregulation Act
(Pub. L. 95–504) preempts a State,
political subdivision of a State, or
political authority of at least two States
from enacting or enforcing a law,
regulation, or other provision having the
force and effect of law related to a price,
route, or service of an air carrier that
may provide air transportation, air
ambulances remain subject to Federal
laws and regulations. In accordance
with § 424.516(a)(2), providers and
suppliers must adhere to all Federal
regulations and State laws and
regulations, as required, based on the
type of services or supplies the provider
or supplier type will furnish and bill
Medicare.
In § 424.510(d)(iii), we proposed to
clarify that ambulance suppliers and
other providers and suppliers include
documentation regarding all applicable
Federal and State certifications.
Accordingly we proposed to revise
§ 424.510(d)(iii) from ‘‘Submission of all
documentation, including all applicable
Federal and State licenses and
regulatory requirements that apply to
the specific provider or supplier type
that relate to providing health care
service, required by CMS under this or
other statutory or regulatory authority,
or under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, to establish the provider or
supplier’s eligibility to furnish Medicare
covered items or services to
beneficiaries in the Medicare program,’’
to ‘‘Submission of all documentation,
including all applicable Federal and
State licenses, certifications (including,
but not limited to FAA certifications),
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
and regulatory requirements that apply
to the specific provider or supplier type
that relate to providing health care
service, required by CMS under this or
other statutory or regulatory authority,
or under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, to establish the provider or
supplier’s eligibility to furnish Medicare
covered items or services to
beneficiaries in the Medicare program.’’
When revoked or suspended, we are
requiring that the specific pilot
certifications (for example,
instrumentation and medical), and the
airworthiness certifications be reported.
We proposed to add new paragraph
(e)(3) to clarify that Medicare enrolled
providers and suppliers must report a
revocation or suspension of a Federal or
State license or certification, including
but not limited to FAA certifications.
The certifications, when revoked, that
need to be reported are the specific pilot
certifications, such as instrument and
medical certified; as well as
airworthiness certificates. This revision
will clarify that fixed-wing ambulance
operators and helicopter air ambulance
operators are responsible for notifying
the designated Medicare contractor for
their State when FAA revokes or
suspends any license or certification.
Moreover, fixed-wing ambulance
operators and helicopter air ambulance
operators must maintain all
requirements as specified in 14 CFR
parts 91, 119, and 135.
We stated our belief that requiring
fixed wing ambulance and helicopter air
ambulance operators to notify their
Medicare contractor of a suspension or
revocation of a license or certification
will ensure that any action taken by the
FAA or other regulating authority will
have a direct link to the operator’s
ability to maintain their Medicare
enrollment. We also stated that such a
policy will help improve aircraft safety
for operators that are enrolled in
Medicare and providing services to
Medicare beneficiaries. We believe that
allowing providers and suppliers to selfreport licensure or certification
revocations and suspensions within a 30
day period via the Medicare enrollment
application (such as, the Internet-based
Provider Enrollment Chain and
Ownership System (PECOS) or the
paper CMS–855) promotes compliance
with the Medicare reporting
requirements found in § 424.516. In
addition, by reporting a licensure or
certification revocation or suspension
within 30 days, the provider or supplier
avoids the Medicare contractor bringing
an action to revoke its Medicare billing
privileges and establishing a Medicare
enrollment bar, see § 424.535(c). Thus,
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
by complying with the reporting
responsibilities found in § 424.516 and
voluntarily terminating from the
Medicare program, the air ambulance
supplier can submit an initial
application to enroll in the Medicare
program as soon as the licensure or
certification revocation or suspension
action is resolved with the applicable
licensing or certification organization. If
the supplier does not self-report a
licensure, certification revocation or a
suspension action, then the supplier’s
enrollment in the Medicare program
will be automatically revoked for a
period of one to three years.
In § 424.502, we proposed to define
the term, ‘‘voluntary termination’’ as it is
currently used in the Medicare program
and throughout this regulation in the
context of the provider enrollment
requirements: We proposed that the
term, ‘‘voluntary termination’’ means an
air ambulance supplier that submits
written confirmation to CMS of its
decision to discontinue enrollment in
the Medicare program.
Furthermore, we stated our belief that
an air ambulance supplier can make the
decision to voluntarily terminate their
business relationship with the Medicare
program at any time, including when
the provider or supplier makes the
decision that they will no longer furnish
services to Medicare beneficiaries. In
those situations, where an air
ambulance supplier does not meet their
reporting responsibilities and notify the
Medicare program of a Federal or State
licensure or certification revocation or
suspension within 30 days of the
reportable event, we believe that it is
appropriate that CMS or the Medicare
contractor revoke the supplier’s
Medicare billing privileges using
§ 424.535(a)(1). We believe that this
change will clarify that CMS or our
Medicare contractor may revoke
Medicare billing privileges when these
types of suppliers do not report a
revocation or suspension of a Federal or
State license or certification.
Comment: Several comments received
agreed with CMS’ enrollment
requirements and believe the FAA has
the appropriate resources to develop,
monitor, and enforce aviation or
aviation safety related standards. The
commenters believe that the sole
authority of the FAA to regulate matters
of aviation safety assures continuity in
regulations and further believe any
change to the authority would have
serious consequences for safe operations
since CMS lacks the expertise and
resources to develop and enforce such
standards.
Response: We agree with the
commenters; and therefore, are
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
finalizing the proposal without
modification.
Comment: Several commenters
believe CMS missed an opportunity
through this proposed rule to improve
system safety for Medicare beneficiaries
through an accreditation process.
Response: Currently, we do not have
the statutory authority to establish an
accreditation program for fixed-wing air
ambulance operators and air ambulance
operators.
Comment: Several commenters noted
that the preamble language might cause
confusion as stated, ‘‘fixed-wing air
ambulance operators and HEMS
operators must maintain all
requirements as specified in 14 CFR part
135.’’
Response: We are clarifying that all
fixed-wing air ambulance operators and
helicopter air ambulance operators must
adhere to all applicable FAA regulations
as specified in 14 CFR parts 91, 119 and
135 or risk having their Medicare
enrollment revoked or suspended.
I. Technical Corrections
1. Physical Therapy, Occupational
Therapy and Speech-Language
Pathology
We proposed to revise § 409.23(c) by
making a minor technical correction to
remove an extraneous cross-reference
which was initially proposed in the CY
2008 PFS proposed rule (72 FR 38122,
72 FR 38193, and 72 FR 38221). This
cross-reference refers the reader to
‘‘paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section,’’ a
paragraph also proposed in the CY 2008
PFS proposed rule, but never finalized.
In the CY 2008 PFS final rule with
comment period, we inadvertently
neglected to remove the associated
cross-reference from the regulations
text. Therefore, we proposed to rectify
that oversight by making an appropriate
correction in the regulations text, along
with other minor formatting revisions
by making the following changes:
• To make a minor clarification to the
section heading and introductory text of
§ 409.23 (along with a conforming
revision to the corresponding
regulations text at § 409.20(a)(3)) by
revising the existing phrase ‘‘speech
therapy’’ to read ‘‘speech-language
pathology services,’’ so that it more
accurately reflects the currently used
terminology for this type of therapeutic
treatment.
• To make a minor wording change in
the provision at § 409.17(d) (which is
incorporated by reference in
§ 409.23(c)(2)), in order to clarify that
the former provision’s reference to
‘‘hospital’’ policies and procedures can
alternatively refer, depending on the
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73583
particular context, to SNF policies and
procedures.
We did not receive public comment
on this proposal; and therefore, are
finalizing this proposal without
modification.
2. Scope of Benefits
Currently, § 410.3(b)(2) states that the
specific rules on payment are set forth
in subpart E of part 410. However, the
specific payment rules are actually
listed in subpart I of part 410. Therefore,
we proposed correct this referencing
error by making a technical correction to
§ 410.3(b)(2).
We did not receive public comment
on this proposal; and therefore, are
finalizing this proposal without
modification.
J. Physician Self-Referral Prohibition:
Annual Update to the List of CPT/
HCPCS Codes
1. General
Section 1877 of the Act prohibits a
physician from referring a Medicare
beneficiary for certain designated health
services (DHS) to an entity with which
the physician (or a member of the
physician’s immediate family) has a
financial relationship, unless an
exception applies. Section 1877 of the
Act also prohibits the DHS entity from
submitting claims to Medicare or billing
the beneficiary or any other entity for
Medicare DHS that are furnished as a
result of a prohibited referral.
Section 1877(h)(6) of the Act and
§ 411.351 of our regulations specify that
the following services are DHS:
• Clinical laboratory services.
• Physical therapy services.
• Occupational therapy services.
• Outpatient speech-language
pathology services.
• Radiology services.
• Radiation therapy services and
supplies.
• Durable medical equipment and
supplies.
• Parenteral and enteral nutrients,
equipment, and supplies.
• Prosthetics, orthotics, and
prosthetic devices and supplies.
• Home health services.
• Outpatient prescription drugs.
• Inpatient and outpatient hospital
services.
2. Annual Update to the Code List
a. Background
In § 411.351, we specify that the
entire scope of four DHS categories is
defined in a list of CPT/HCPCS codes
(the Code List), which is updated
annually to account for changes in the
most recent CPT and HCPCS
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73584
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
publications. The DHS categories
defined and updated in this manner are:
• Clinical laboratory services.
• Physical therapy, occupational
therapy, and outpatient speech-language
pathology services.
• Radiology and certain other imaging
services.
• Radiation therapy services and
supplies.
The Code List also identifies those
items and services that may qualify for
either of the following two exceptions to
the physician self-referral prohibition:
• Dialysis-related drugs furnished in
or by an ESRD facility (§ 411.355(g)).
• Preventive screening tests,
immunizations, or vaccines
(§ 411.355(h)).
The Code List was last updated in
Addendum I of the CY 2010 PFS final
rule with comment period (74 FR 62177
through 62188) and revised in a
subsequent correction notice (75 FR
26350).
b. Response to Comments
We received no public comments
relating to the Code List that became
effective January 1, 2010.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
c. Revisions Effective for 2011
The updated, comprehensive Code
List effective January 1, 2011 appears as
Addendum J in this final rule with
comment period and is available on our
Web site at https://www.cms.gov/
PhysicianSelfReferral/
40_List_of_Codes.asp#TopOfPage.
Additions and deletions to the Code List
conform the Code List to the most recent
publications of CPT and HCPCS and to
changes in Medicare coverage policy
and payment status.
Tables 98 and 99 identify the
additions and deletions, respectively, to
the comprehensive Code List that
became effective January 1, 2010. Tables
98 and 99 also identify the additions
and deletions to the list of codes used
to identify the items and services that
may qualify for the exception in
§ 411.355(g) (regarding dialysis-related
outpatient prescription drugs furnished
in or by an ESRD facility) and in
§ 411.355(h) (regarding preventive
screening tests, immunizations, and
vaccines).
In Table 98, we specify additions that
reflect new CPT and HCPCS codes that
become effective January 1, 2011, or that
became effective since our last update.
We also include additions that reflect
changes in Medicare coverage policy or
payment status that become effective
January l, 2011, or that became effective
since our last update.
Table 99 reflects the deletions
necessary to conform the Code List to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
the most recent publications of the CPT
and HCPCS and to changes in Medicare
coverage policy and payment status. In
addition, we are deleting CPT codes
94667 and 94668 (Chest wall
manipulation) from the category of
‘‘physical therapy, occupational therapy,
and outpatient speech-language
pathology services’’ because these
services are not generally considered to
be physical therapy services. Also, we
are deleting CPT code 77014 (CT scan
for therapy guide) from the category
‘‘radiology and certain other imaging
services.’’ This service is always integral
to the performance of, and performed
during, a non-radiological medical
procedure. Therefore, under § 411.351,
this service is excluded from the
definition of ‘‘radiology and certain
other imaging services.’’
Lastly, we are deleting the drugs
currently listed as qualifying for the
exception for ‘‘EPO and other dialysisrelated drugs’’ furnished in or by an
ESRD facility. Beginning January 1,
2011, EPO and other dialysis-related
drugs furnished by an ESRD facility
(except drugs for which there are no
injectable equivalents or other forms of
administration) will be paid under the
ESRD PPS promulgated in the final rule
published on August 12, 2010 in the
Federal Register (75 FR 49030). Drugs
for which there are no injectable
equivalents or other forms of
administration will be payable under
the ESRD PPS beginning January 1,
2014. The definition of DHS at § 411.351
excludes services that are reimbursed by
Medicare as part of a composite rate
(unless the services are specifically
identified as DHS and are themselves
payable through a composite rate, such
as home health and inpatient and
outpatient hospital services).
Accordingly, EPO and other dialysisrelated outpatient prescription drugs
furnished by an ESRD facility (except
drugs for which there are no injectable
equivalents or other forms of
administration) will not be DHS
beginning January 1, 2011. When
dialysis-related drugs for which there
are no injectable equivalents or other
forms of administration are bundled
into the ESRD PPS beginning January 1,
2014, and furnished by an ESRD facility,
they will no longer meet the definition
of DHS and, therefore, will not be
subject to the physician self-referral
prohibition. In the meantime, those
drugs remain DHS. If we determine that
any of those drugs may qualify for the
exception for dialysis-related drugs at
411.355(g), we will announce them
through the annual update to the Code
List that appears in the PFS final rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
We will consider comments regarding
the codes listed in Tables 98 and 99.
Comments will be considered if we
receive them by the date specified in the
DATES section of this final rule with
comment period. We will not consider
any comment that advocates a
substantive change to any of the DHS
defined in § 411.351.
TABLE 98 ADDITIONS TO THE PHYSICIAN
SELF-REFERRAL LIST OF
CPT 1/HCPCS CODES
CLINICAL LABORATORY SERVICES
0058T .........
0059T .........
G0432 ........
G0433 ........
G0434 ........
G0435 ........
Cryopreservation ovary tiss.
Cryopreservation oocyte.
EIA HIV–1/HIV–2 screen.
ELISA HIV–1/HIV–2 screen.
Drug screen multi drug class.
Oral HIV–1/HIV–2 screen.
PHYSICAL THERAPY, OCCUPATIONAL
THERAPY, AND OUTPATIENT SPEECHLANGUAGE PATHOLOGY SERVICES
95992 .........
Canalith repositioning proc.
RADIOLOGY AND CERTAIN OTHER
IMAGING SERVICES
72159
73225
74176
74177
74178
76881
76882
92132
92133
92134
92227
92228
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
Mr angio spine w/o&w/dye.
Mr angio upr extr w/o&w/dye.
Ct angio abd & pelvis.
Ct angio abd&pelv w/contrast.
Ct angio abd & pelv 1+ regns.
Us xtr non-vasc complete.
Us xtr non-vasc lmtd.
Cmptr ophth dx img ant segmt.
Cmptr ophth img optic nerve.
Cptr ophth dx img post segmt.
Remote dx retinal imaging.
Remote retinal imaging mgmt.
RADIATION THERAPY SERVICES AND
SUPPLIES
49327
49412
57156
A4650
.........
.........
.........
.........
Lap ins device for rt.
Ins device for rt guide open.
Ins vag brachytx device.
Implant radiation dosimeter.
DRUGS USED BY PATIENTS UNDERGOING
DIALYSIS
[No additions]
PREVENTIVE SCREENING TESTS,
IMMUNIZATIONS AND VACCINES
90662 .........
90670 .........
G0432 ........
G0433 ........
G0435 ........
Q2035 ........
Q2036 ........
Q2037 ........
Q2038 ........
Q2039 ........
Flu vacc prsv free inc antig.
Pneumococcal vacc 13 val im.
EIA HIV–1/HIV–2 screen.
ELISA HIV–1/HIV–2 screen.
Oral HIV–1/HIV–2 screen.
Afluria vacc, 3 yrs & >, im.
Flulaval vacc, 3 yrs & >, im.
Fluvirin vacc, 3 yrs & >, im.
Fluzone vacc, 3 yrs & >, im.
NOS flu vacc, 3 yrs & >, im.
1 CPT codes and descriptions only are copyright 2010 AMA. All rights are reserved and
applicable FARS/DFARS clauses apply.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 99—DELETIONS TO THE PHYSI- good cause that a notice-and-comment
CIAN
SELF-REFERRAL LIST OF procedure is impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public
CPT 1 HCPCS CODES
CLINICAL LABORATORY SERVICES
0104T ......
0140T ......
G0430 ......
At rest cardio gas rebreathe.
Exhaled breath condensate ph.
Drug screen multi class.
PHYSICAL THERAPY, OCCUPATIONAL
THERAPY, AND OUTPATIENT SPEECHLANGUAGE PATHOLOGY SERVICES
94667 .......
94668 .......
Chest wall manipulation.
Chest wall manipulation.
RADIOLOGY AND CERTAIN OTHER
IMAGING SERVICES
76150 .......
76880 .......
77014 .......
X-ray exam, dry process.
Us exam, extremity.
Ct scan for therapy guide.
RADIATION THERAPY SERVICES AND
SUPPLIES
[No deletions].
DRUGS USED BY PATIENTS UNDERGOING
DIALYSIS
J0630 .......
J0636 .......
J0882 .......
J0895 .......
J1270 .......
J1750 .......
J1756 .......
J1955 .......
J2501 .......
J2916 .......
J2993 .......
J2995 .......
J2997 .......
J3364 .......
P9041 ......
P9045 ......
P9046 ......
P9047 ......
Q0139 ......
Q4081 ......
Calcitonin salmon injection.
Inj calcitriol per 0.1 mcg.
Darbepoetin alfa, esrd use.
Deferoxamine mesylate inj.
Injection, doxercalciferol.
Inj iron dextran.
Iron sucrose injection.
Inj levocarnitine per 1 gm.
Paricalcitol.
Na ferric gluconate complex.
Reteplase injection.
Inj streptokinase/250000 IU.
Alteplase recombinant.
Urokinase 5000 IU injection.
Albumin (human), 5%, 50 ml.
Albumin (human), 5%, 250 ml.
Albumin (human), 25%, 20 ml.
Albumin (human), 25%, 50 ml.
Ferumoxytol, esrd use.
Epoetin alfa, 100 units ESRD.
PREVENTIVE SCREENING TESTS,
IMMUNIZATIONS AND VACCINES
90658 .......
Flu vaccine, 3 yrs & >, im.
1 CPT
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
codes and descriptions only are copyright 2010 AMA. All rights are reserved and
applicable FARS/DFARS clauses apply.
VIII. Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking
and Delay in Effective Date
We ordinarily publish a notice of
proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register and invite public comment on
the proposed rule. The notice of
proposed rulemaking includes a
reference to the legal authority under
which the rule is proposed, and the
terms and substance of the proposed
rule or a description of the subjects and
issues involved. This procedure can be
waived, however, if an agency finds
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
interest and incorporates a statement of
the finding and its reasons in the rule
issued.
We utilize HCPCS codes for Medicare
payment purposes. The HCPCS is a
national drug coding system comprised
of Level I (CPT) codes and Level II
(HCPCS National Codes) that are
intended to provide uniformity to
coding procedures, services, and
supplies across all types of medical
providers and suppliers. Level I (CPT)
codes are copyrighted by the AMA and
consist of several categories, including
Category I codes which are 5-digit
numeric codes, and Category III codes
which are temporary codes to track
emerging technology, services, and
procedures.
The AMA issues an annual update of
the CPT code set each Fall, with January
1 as the effective date for implementing
the updated CPT codes. The HCPCS,
including both Level I and Level II
codes, is similarly updated annually on
a CY basis. Annual coding changes are
not available to the public until the Fall
immediately preceding the annual
January update of the PFS. Because of
the timing of the release of these new
codes, it is impracticable for us to
provide prior notice and solicit
comment on these codes and the RVUs
assigned to them in advance of
publication of the final rule that
implements the PFS. Yet, it is
imperative that these coding changes be
accounted for and recognized timely
under the PFS for payment because
services represented by these codes will
be provided to Medicare beneficiaries
by physicians during the CY in which
they become effective. Moreover,
regulations implementing HIPAA (42
CFR parts 160 and 162) require that the
HCPCS be used to report health care
services, including services paid under
the PFS. We also assign interim RVUs
to any new codes based on a review of
the AMA RUC recommendations for
valuing these services. By reviewing
these AMA RUC recommendations for
the new codes, we are able to assign
RVUs to services based on input from
the medical community and to establish
payment for them, on an interim basis,
that corresponds to the relative
resources associated with furnishing the
services. We are also able to determine,
on an interim final basis, whether the
codes will be subject other payment
policies. If we did not assign RVUs to
new codes on an interim basis, the
alternative would be to either not pay
for these services during the initial CY
or have each Medicare contractor
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73585
establish a payment rate for these new
codes. We believe both of these
alternatives are contrary to the public
interest, particularly since the AMA
RUC process allows for an assessment of
the valuation of these services by the
medical community prior to our
establishing payment for these codes on
an interim basis. Therefore, we believe
it would be contrary to the public
interest to delay establishment of fee
schedule payment amounts for these
codes.
For the reasons outlined above in this
section, we find good cause to waive the
notice of proposed rulemaking for the
interim RVUs for selected procedure
codes identified in Addendum C and to
establish RVUs for these codes on an
interim final basis. We are providing a
60-day public comment period.
Section II.C. of this final rule with
comment period discusses the
identification and review of potentially
misvalued codes by the AMA RUC, as
well as our review and decisions
regarding the AMA RUC
recommendations. Similar to the AMA
RUC recommendations for new and
revised codes discussed above, due to
the timing of the AMA RUC
recommendations for the potentially
misvalued codes, it was impracticable
for CMS to solicit public comment
regarding specific proposals for revision
prior to this final rule with comment
period. We believe it is in the public
interest to implement the revised RVUs
for the codes that were identified as
misvalued, and that have been reviewed
and re-evaluated by the AMA RUC, on
an interim final basis for CY 2011. The
revisions of RVUs for these codes will
establish a more appropriate payment
that better corresponds to the relative
resources associated with furnishing
these services. A delay in implementing
revised values for these misvalued
codes would not only perpetuate the
known misvaluation for these services,
it would also perpetuate a distortion in
the payment for other services under the
PFS. Implementing the changes now
allows for a more equitable distribution
of payments across all PFS services. We
believe a delay in implementation of
these revisions would be contrary to the
public interest, particularly since the
AMA RUC process allows for an
assessment of the valuation of these
services by the medical community
prior to the AMA RUC’s
recommendation to CMS. For the
reasons described above, we find good
cause to waive notice and comment
procedures with respect to the
misvalued codes identified in Tables 53,
54, and 55, and to revise RVUs for these
codes on an interim final basis. We are
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73586
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
providing a 60-day public comment
period.
Furthermore, in this final rule with
comment period, we are making a
technical revision to § 410.64
(Additional Preventive Services) to
conform with section 1861(ddd)(1), as
amended by section 4104 of the ACA.
We are revising § 410.64(a) by removing
the words ‘‘not otherwise described in
this subpart’’ and adding the words ‘‘not
described in subparagraphs (1) or (3) of
§ 410.2 of this subpart’’ in their place.
This change reflects section
1861(ddd)(1) of the Act (as amended by
section 4104(a)(2) of the ACA). While
this change was not discussed in the CY
2011 PFS proposed rule (74 FR 40129),
we are making this change pursuant to
the ‘‘good cause’’ exception to APA
notice and comment rulemaking. Under
the good cause exception, public
participation procedures are not
required ‘‘when the agency for good
cause finds (and incorporates the
finding and a brief statement of reasons
therefore in the rules issued) that notice
and public procedure thereon are
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
to the public interest’’ (5 U.S.C. 553(b)).
Section 410.64(a) previously reflected
section 1861(ddd)(1) of the Act, which
was subsequently amended. The
revision to the regulations merely
incorporates the new statutory language
for consistency, and is not an
interpretation or clarification. Therefore,
we believe it is appropriate to waive
advanced notice and public comment
on this change for good cause, due to
the technical nature of the revision to
the regulations.
We ordinarily provide a 60-day delay
in the effective date of the provisions of
a rule in accordance with the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C. 553(d)), which requires a 30-day
delayed effective date, and the
Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C.
801(a)(3)), which requires a 60-day
delayed effective date for major rules.
However, we can waive the delay in the
effective date if the Secretary finds, for
good cause, that the delay is
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
to the public interest, and incorporates
a statement of the finding and the
reasons in the rule issued (5 U.S.C.
553(d)(3); 5 U.S.C. 808(2)).
IX. Collection of Information
Requirements
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, we are required to provide 30day 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
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.
We are soliciting public comment on
each of these issues for the following
sections of this document that contain
information collection requirements
(ICRs):
A. ICRs Regarding Diagnostic X-ray
Tests, Diagnostic Laboratory Tests, and
Other Diagnostic Tests: Conditions
(§ 410.32)
Section 410.32(d)(2)(i) requires the
physician or qualified nonphysician
practitioner (as defined in
§ 410.32(a)(2)) who orders the service
must maintain documentation of
medical necessity in the beneficiary’s
medical record. In addition, both the
medical record and the laboratory
requisition (or order) would be required
to be signed by the physician or
qualified nonphysician practitioner (as
defined in § 410.32(a)(2)) who orders the
service. The burden associated with
these requirements would be the time
and effort necessary for a physician or
qualified nonphysician practitioner to
sign the medical record or laboratory
requisition (or order). There is also a
recordkeeping requirement associated
with maintaining the documentation of
medical necessity in the beneficiary
medical record. While these
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements are subject to the PRA, we
believe the associated burden is exempt
from the PRA in accordance with 5 CFR
1320.3(b)(2). We believe that the time,
effort, and financial resources necessary
to comply with the aforementioned
information collection requirements is
incurred by persons in the normal
course of their activities and therefore
considered to be usual and customary
business practices.
B. ICRs Regarding General Exceptions to
the Referral Prohibition Related to Both
Ownership/Investment and
Compensation (§ 411.355)
Section 411.355(b)(7)(i) states that
with respect to magnetic resonance
imaging, computed tomography, and
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
positron emission tomography, the
referring physician must provide
written notice to the patient at the time
of the referral that the patient may
receive the same services from a person
other than one described in
§ 411.355(b)(1). The written notice must
include a list of other suppliers (as
defined in § 400.202 of this title) that
provide the services for which the
individual is being referred. In response
to public comments received, we are
finalizing this provision to require that
the list must include a minimum of 5
suppliers within a 25-mile radius of the
referring physician’s office location at
the time of the referral, rather than the
proposed 10 suppliers. The notice
should be written in a manner sufficient
to be reasonably understood by all
patients and should include for each
supplier on the list, at a minimum, the
supplier’s name, address, and telephone
number.
This rule finalizes section
411.355(b)(7)(ii) to state that if the
referring physician makes a referral
within an area with fewer than 5 other
suppliers within the 25-mile radius of
the physician’s office location at the
time of the referral, the physician shall
list all of the other suppliers of the
imaging service that are present within
a 25-mile radius of the referring
physician’s office location. Provision of
the written list of alternate suppliers
will not be required if no other
suppliers provide the services for which
the individual is being referred within
the 25-mile radius. These physicians
must still disclose to the patient that the
patient may receive these services from
a person other than one described in
§ 411.355(b)(1) in a manner sufficient to
reasonably be understood by all
patients.
The burden associated with the
requirements contained in this section
would be the time and effort necessary
for a physician to develop a standard
disclosure. There would also be burden
associated with the time and effort
necessary for a physician to provide the
disclosure to the patient. Based upon
public comments received, we have
removed the requirement that a
physician must obtain the patient’s
signature on the disclosure and
maintain a copy of this document in the
medical record. Physicians must retain
adequate assurance that the information
was shared with the patient so that this
information can be verified.
Our estimate that it would take 1 hour
for a physician’s office to develop a
standard disclosure remains the same in
this final rule with comment to account
for physicians drafting the disclosure
notice and listing the 5 alternate
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73587
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
suppliers. Our estimate that 71,000
physicians will be required to comply
with these requirements remains
unchanged from the proposed rule. The
total burden associated with the
development of the standard disclosure
remains 71,000 hours at a cost of
$1,042,280. Although the physician no
longer must have the patient sign the
disclosure and enter it into the medical
record, we have not changed the
estimate that it will take each physician
1 minute to provide the disclosure to
the patient. Each provider will make
approximately 106 disclosures. The
total estimated annual burden for this
requirement remains 125,433 hours at a
cost of $10,536,400.
C. ICRs Regarding Appeals Process for
Termination of Competitive Bidding
Contract (§ 414.423)
Section 414.423(c)(1)(i) states that
CMS has the option to allow a DMEPOS
supplier to provide a written CAP to
remedy the deficiencies identified in the
notice, when CMS determines that the
delay in the termination date caused by
allowing a CAP will not cause harm to
beneficiaries. As stated in
§ 414.423(c)(2)(i) a CAP must be
submitted within 30 calendar days from
the date on the notification letter. If the
supplier decides not to submit a CAP
the supplier may within 30 days of the
date on the termination letter request a
hearing by a CBIC hearing officer.
The burden associated with this
requirement is the time and effort
necessary for a supplier that has
received a termination notice to develop
and submit a CAP. We estimate that 10
suppliers will need to comply with this
requirement annually. Similarly, we
estimate that it will take a supplier an
average of 3 hours to develop a CAP.
The total estimated annual burden
associated with this requirement is 30
hours at a cost of $2,250.
Section 414.423(e)(2) requires that if
CMS accepts the CAP, including
supplier’s designated timeframe for its
completion, the supplier must provide a
follow-up report within 5 days after the
supplier has fully implemented the CAP
that verifies that all of the deficiencies
identified in the CAP have been
corrected in accordance with the
timeframes accepted by CMS. The
burden associated with this requirement
is the time and effort necessary for a
supplier to develop and submit a
follow-up report. While this
requirement is subject to the PRA, we
believe the associated burden is exempt
under 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(6). In accordance
with 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(6), a request for
facts or opinions addressed to a single
person is not defined as information
collection requirements and is therefore
exempt from the PRA.
Section 414.423(f)(1) states that a
supplier who has received a notice that
CMS considers them in breach of
contract or that their CAP is not
acceptable has the right to request a
hearing before a CBIC HO who was not
involved with the original
determination. Section 414.423(f)(2)
further specifies that a supplier who
wishes to appeal the termination notice
must submit a written request to the
CBIC. The request for a hearing must be
received by the CBIC within 30 calendar
days from the date of the notice to
terminate.
The burden associated with this
section is the time and effort necessary
for a supplier to develop and submit a
written request for a hearing by a CBIC
Hearing Officer. We estimate that it will
take a supplier 8 hours to develop and
submit a request for a hearing. We
believe 5 suppliers will be subject to
this requirement on an annual basis.
The total estimated annual burden
associated with developing and
submitting a written request for a
hearing by a CBIC Hearing Officer is 40
hours at a cost of $3,000.
Section 414.423 requires a contract
supplier whose contract has been
terminated to notify all beneficiaries
who are receiving rented competitive
bid items or competitive bid items
received on a recurring basis, of the
termination of their contract. The notice
to the beneficiary from the supplier
whose contract was terminated must be
provided within 5 days of receipt of the
notice of termination. The notification
to the beneficiaries must inform the
beneficiaries that they are going to have
to select a new contract supplier for
these items.
The burden associated with this
section is the time and effort necessary
for a supplier to develop and distribute
notification of its termination to all
beneficiaries receiving rented
competitive bid items or competitive
bid items received on a recurring basis.
We estimate that it will take a supplier
3 hours to develop and distribute a
notice announcing its termination to all
of its beneficiaries receiving rented
competitive bid items or competitive
bid items received on a recurring basis.
We believe 2 suppliers will be subject
to this requirement on an annual basis.
The total estimated annual burden
associated with this requirement is 6
hours at a cost of $450.
D. ICRs Regarding Additional Provider
and Supplier Requirements for Enrolling
and Maintaining Active Enrollment
Status in the Medicare Program
(§ 424.516)
Section 424.516(e)(2) would require a
provider or supplier to report a
revocation or suspension to the
applicable Medicare contractor within
30 days of any revocation or suspension
of a Federal or State license or
certification. Similarly, proposed
§ 424.516(e)(2) states that within 30
days of a voluntary withdrawal or
involuntary termination from the
Medicare program, the provider or
supplier must report a voluntary
withdrawal or involuntary termination
to the applicable Medicare contractor.
The burden associated with the
requirements in § 424.516(e)(2) and (3)
is the time and effort necessary for a
provider or supplier to report the
required information to the applicable
Medicare contractor. While these
requirements are subject to the PRA,
each submission will be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis.
TABLE 100—ESTIMATED ANNUAL RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING BURDEN
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Regulation section(s)
OMB control No.
§ 411.355 .................
0938–New ...............
§ 414.423 .................
0938–New ...............
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Respondents
Jkt 223001
71,000
71,000
10
5
2
PO 00000
Responses
Burden per
response
(hours)
71,000
7,454,760
10
5
2
Frm 00085
Fmt 4701
Total annual
burden
(hours)
Hourly labor
cost of
reporting (in
$)
71,000
125,433
30
40
6
14.68
83.79
75.00
75.00
75.00
1
0.0167
3
8
3
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
Total
labor
cost of
reporting
(in $)
1,042,280
*10,536,400
2,250
3000
450
29NOR3
Total capital/
maintenance
costs (in $)
0
0
0
0
0
Total cost
(in $)
1,042,280
10,536,400
2,250
3000
450
73588
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 100—ESTIMATED ANNUAL RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING BURDEN—Continued
Regulation section(s)
Total .................
OMB control No.
Respondents
.................................
71,017
Responses
Burden per
response
(hours)
Total annual
burden
(hours)
7,525,777 ......................
Hourly labor
cost of
reporting (in
$)
Total
labor
cost of
reporting
(in $)
Total capital/
maintenance
costs (in $)
196,509 ...................... ...................... ......................
Total cost
(in $)
11,584,380
* The annual cost burden for this provision was calculated by taking 106 disclosures per year per physician x $1.40 per disclosure = $148.40 a year per physician x
71,000 physicians = $10,536,400.
E. Additional Information Collection
Requirements
This final rule with comment period
imposes collection of information
requirements as outlined in the
regulation text and specified above.
However, this final rule with comment
period also makes reference to several
associated information collections that
are not discussed in the regulation text
contained in this document. The
following is a discussion of these
information collections, some of which
have already received OMB approval.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
1. Part B Drug Payment
The discussion of average sales price
(ASP) issues in section VII.A.1 of this
final rule with comment period does not
contain any new information collection
requirements with respect to payment
for Medicare Part B drugs and
biologicals under the ASP methodology.
Drug manufacturers are required to
submit ASP data to us on a quarterly
basis. The ASP reporting requirements
are set forth in section 1927(b) of the
Act. The burden associated with this
requirement is the time and effort
required by manufacturers of Medicare
Part B drugs and biologicals to calculate,
record, and submit the required data to
CMS. While the burden associated with
this requirement is subject to the PRA,
it is currently approved under OMB
control number 0938–0921 with a June
31, 2012, expiration date.
2. The Physician Quality Reporting
System (Formerly the Physician Quality
Reporting Initiative (PQRI))
Section VII.F.1. of this final rule with
comment period discusses the
background of the Physician Quality
Reporting System, provides information
about the measures and reporting
mechanisms that will be available to
eligible professionals and group
practices who choose to participate in
the 2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System, and the criteria for satisfactory
reporting in 2011.
With respect to satisfactory
submission of data on quality measures
by eligible professionals, eligible
professionals include physicians, other
practitioners as described in section
1842(b)(18)(c) of the Act, physical and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
occupational therapists, qualified
speech-language pathologists, and
qualified audiologists. Eligible
professionals may choose whether to
participate and, to the extent they
satisfactorily submit data on quality
measures for covered professional
services, they can qualify to receive an
incentive payment. To qualify to receive
an incentive payment for 2011, the
eligible professional (or group practice)
must meet one of the criteria for
satisfactory reporting described in
section VII.F.1.e. or VII.F.1.f. of this
final rule with comment period (or
section VII.F.1.g. for group practices).
Because this is a voluntary program,
it is difficult to accurately estimate how
many eligible professionals will opt to
participate in the Physician Quality
Reporting System in CY 2011.
Information from the ‘‘Physician Quality
Reporting System 2007 Reporting
Experience Report,’’ which is available
on the Physician Quality Reporting
System section of the CMS Web site at
https://www.cms.hhs.gov/pqri, indicates
that nearly 110,000 unique TIN/NPI
combinations attempted to submit
Physician Quality Reporting System
quality measures data via claims for the
2007 Physician Quality Reporting
System. Therefore, for purposes of
conducting a burden analysis for the
2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System, we will assume that all eligible
professionals who attempted to
participate in the 2007 Physician
Quality Reporting System will also
attempt to participate in the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System.
Furthermore, we believe that the burden
for eligible professionals who are
participating in the Physician Quality
Reporting System for the first time in
2011 will be considerably higher than
the burden for eligible professionals
who have participated in the Physician
Quality Reporting System in prior years.
For individual eligible professionals,
the burden associated with the
requirements of this reporting initiative
is the time and effort associated with
eligible professionals identifying
applicable Physician Quality Reporting
System quality measures for which they
can report the necessary information,
collecting the necessary information,
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
and reporting the information needed to
report the eligible professional’s or
group practice’s measures. We believe it
is difficult to accurately quantify the
burden because eligible professionals
may have different processes for
integrating the Physician Quality
Reporting System into their practice’s
work flows. Moreover, the time needed
for an eligible professional to review the
quality measures and other information,
select measures applicable to his or her
patients and the services he or she
furnishes to them, and incorporate the
use of quality data codes into the office
work flows is expected to vary along
with the number of measures that are
potentially applicable to a given
professional’s practice. Since eligible
professionals are generally required to
report on at least 3 measures to earn a
Physician Quality Reporting System
incentive, we will assume that each
eligible professional who attempts to
submit Physician Quality Reporting
System quality measures data is
attempting to earn a Physician Quality
Reporting System incentive payment
and reports on an average of 3 measures
for this burden analysis.
Because we anticipate even greater
participation in the 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System than in
previous years, including participation
by eligible professionals who are
participating in the Physician Quality
Reporting System for the first time in
2011, we will assign 5 hours as the
amount of time needed for eligible
professionals to review the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System
Measures List, review the various
reporting options, select the most
appropriate reporting option, identify
the applicable measures or measures
groups for which they can report the
necessary information, review the
measure specifications for the selected
measures or measures groups, and
incorporate reporting of the selected
measures or measures groups into the
office work flows. This estimate is based
on our assumption that an eligible
professional will need up to 2 hours to
review the 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System Measures List, review
the reporting options, and select a
reporting option and measures on which
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
to report and 3 hours to review the
measure specifications for up to 3
selected measures or up to 1 selected
measures group and to develop a
mechanism for incorporating reporting
of the selected measures or measures
group into the office work flows.
Information from the PVRP, which
was a predecessor to the Physician
Quality Reporting System, indicated an
average labor cost of $50 per hour. To
account for salary increases over time,
we will use an average practice labor
cost of $58 per hour in our estimates
based on an assumption of an average
annual increase of approximately 3
percent. Thus, we estimate the cost for
an eligible professional associated with
preparing to report Physician Quality
Reporting System quality measures
would be approximately $290 per
eligible professional ($58 per hour x 5
hours).
We continue to expect the ongoing
costs associated with Physician Quality
Reporting System participation to
decline based on an eligible
professional’s familiarity with and
understanding of the Physician Quality
Reporting System, experience with
participating in the Physician Quality
Reporting System, and increased efforts
by CMS and stakeholders to disseminate
useful educational resources and best
practices.
We believe the burden associated
with actually reporting the Physician
Quality Reporting System quality
measures will vary depending on the
reporting mechanism selected by the
eligible professional. For claims-based
reporting, eligible professionals must
gather the required information, select
the appropriate QDCs, and include the
appropriate QDCs on the claims they
submit for payment. The Physician
Quality Reporting System will collect
QDCs as additional (optional) line items
on the existing HIPAA transaction 837–
P and/or CMS Form 1500 (OCN: 0938–
0999). We do not anticipate any new
forms and no modifications to the
existing transaction or form. We also do
not anticipate changes to the 837–P or
CMS Form 1500 for CY 2011.
Based on our experience with the
PVRP, we continue to estimate that the
time needed to perform all the steps
necessary to report each measure (that
is, reporting the relevant quality data
code(s) for a measure) on claims ranges
from 15 seconds (0.25 minutes) to over
12 minutes for complicated cases and/
or measures, with the median time
being 1.75 minutes. At an average labor
cost of $58 per hour per practice, the
cost associated with this burden ranges
from $0.24 in labor to about $11.60 in
labor time for more complicated cases
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
and/or measures, with the cost for the
median practice being $1.69.
The total estimated annual burden for
this requirement will also vary along
with the volume of claims on which
quality data is reported. In previous
years, when we required reporting on 80
percent of eligible cases for claimsbased reporting, we found that on
average, the median number of reporting
instances for each of the Physician
Quality Reporting System measures was
9. Since we proposed to reduce the
required reporting rate by over one-third
to 50 percent, then for purposes of this
burden analysis we will assume that an
eligible professional will need to report
each selected measure for 6 reporting
instances. The actual number of cases
on which an eligible professional would
be required to report quality measures
data will vary, however, with the
eligible professional’s patient
population and the types of measures on
which the eligible professional chooses
to report (each measure’s specifications
includes a required reporting
frequency).
Based on the assumptions discussed
above, we estimate the total annual
reporting burden per eligible
professional associated with claimsbased reporting to range from 4.5
minutes (0.25 minutes per measure × 3
measures × 6 cases per measure) to 180
minutes (12 minutes per measure × 3
measures × 6 cases per measure), with
the burden to the median practice being
31.5 minutes (1.75 minutes per measure
× 3 measures × 6 cases). We estimate the
total annual reporting cost per eligible
professional associated with claimsbased reporting to range from $4.32
($0.24 per measure × 3 measures × 6
cases per measure) to $208.80 ($11.60
per measure × 3 measures × 6 cases per
measure), with the cost to the median
practice being $30.42 per eligible
professional ($1.69 per measure × 3
measures × 6 cases per measure).
For registry-based reporting, there
would be no additional time burden for
eligible professionals to report data to a
registry as eligible professionals opting
for registry-based reporting would more
than likely already be reporting data to
the registry for other purposes and the
registry would merely be re-packaging
the data for use in the Physician Quality
Reporting System. Little, if any,
additional data would need to be
reported to the registry for purposes of
participation in the 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System. However,
eligible professionals would need to
authorize or instruct the registry to
submit quality measures results and
numerator and denominator data on
quality measures to CMS on their
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73589
behalf. We estimate that the time and
effort associated with this would be
approximately 5 minutes per eligible
professional.
Registries interested in submitting
quality measures results and numerator
and denominator data on quality
measures to CMS on their participants’
behalf in 2011 will need to complete a
self-nomination process in order to be
considered ‘‘qualified’’ to submit on
behalf of eligible professionals unless
the registry was qualified to submit on
behalf of eligible professionals for prior
years and did so successfully. We
estimate that the self-nomination
process for qualifying additional
registries to submit on behalf of eligible
professionals for the 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System involves
approximately 1 hour per registry to
draft the letter of intent for selfnomination. It is estimated that each
self-nominated entity will also spend 2
hours for the interview with CMS
officials and 2 hours calculating
numerators, denominators, and measure
results for each measure the registry
wishes to report using a CMS-provided
measure flow. However, the time it
takes to complete the measure flow
could vary depending on the registry’s
experience and the number and type of
measures for which the registry wishes
to submit on behalf of eligible
professionals. Additionally, part of the
self-nomination process involves the
completion of an XML submission by
the registry, which is estimated to take
approximately 5 hours, but may vary
depending on the registry’s experience.
We estimate that the registry staff
involved in the registry self-nomination
process have an average labor cost of
$50 per hour. Therefore, assuming the
total burden hours per registry
associated with the registry selfnomination process is 10 hours, we
estimate the total cost to a registry
associated with the registry selfnomination process to be approximately
$500 ($50 per hour × 10 hours per
registry).
The burden associated with the
registry-based reporting requirements of
this voluntary reporting initiative is the
time and effort associated with the
registry calculating quality measures
results from the data submitted to the
registry by its participants and
submitting the quality measures results
and numerator and denominator data on
quality measures to CMS on behalf of
their participants. The time needed for
a registry to review the quality measures
and other information, calculate the
measures results, and submit the
measures results and numerator and
denominator data on the quality
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73590
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
measures on their participants’ behalf is
expected to vary along with the number
of eligible professionals reporting data
to the registry and the number of
applicable measures. However, we
believe that registries already perform
many of these activities for their
participants. The number of measures
that the registry intends to report to
CMS and how similar the registry’s
measures are to CMS’ Physician Quality
Reporting System measures will
determine the time burden to the
registry.
For EHR-based reporting, the eligible
professional must have access to a CMSspecified identity management system,
such as IACS, which we believe takes
less than 1 hour to obtain. Once an
eligible professional has an account for
this CMS-specified identity
management system, he or she must
extract the necessary clinical data from
his or her EHR, and submit the
necessary data to the CMS-designated
clinical data warehouse. With respect to
our requirement for an eligible
professional to submit a test file, we
believe that doing so would take less
than 1 hour. With respect to submitting
the actual 2011 data file in 2012, we
believe that this would take an eligible
professional no more than 2 hours,
depending on the number of patients on
which the eligible professional is
submitting. We believe that once the
EHR is programmed by the vendor to
allow data submission to CMS, the
burden to the eligible professional
associated with submission of data on
Physician Quality Reporting System
quality measures should be minimal.
Because this manner of reporting quality
data to CMS was new to the Physician
Quality Reporting System for 2010 and
no EHR data submissions have taken
place yet, it is difficult to estimate how
many eligible professionals will opt to
participate in the Physician Quality
Reporting System through the EHR
mechanism in CY 2011.
An EHR vendor interested in having
their product(s) be used by eligible
professionals to submit Physician
Quality Reporting System quality
measures data to CMS was required to
complete a self-nomination process in
order for the vendor’s product(s) to be
considered ‘‘qualified’’ for 2011. It is
difficult to accurately quantify the
burden associated with the EHR selfnomination process as there is variation
regarding the technical capabilities and
experience among vendors. For
purposes of this burden analysis,
however, we estimate that the time
required for an EHR vendor to complete
the self-nomination process will be
similar to the time required for registries
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
to self-nominate, that is approximately
10 hours at $50 per hour for a total of
$500 per EHR vendor ($50 per hour ×
10 hours per EHR vendor).
The burden associated with the EHR
vendor programming its EHR product(s)
to extract the clinical data that the
eligible professional needs to submit to
CMS for purposes of reporting 2010
Physician Quality Reporting System
quality measures will be dependent on
the EHR vendor’s familiarity with the
Physician Quality Reporting System, the
vendor’s system capabilities, as well as
the vendor’s programming capabilities.
Some vendors already have these
necessary capabilities and for such
vendors, we estimate the total burden
hours to be 40 hours at a rate of $50 per
hour for a total burden estimate of
$2,000 ($50 per hour × 40 hours per
vendor). However, given the variability
in the capabilities of the vendors, those
vendors with minimal experience
would have a burden of approximately
200 hours at $50 per hour, for a total
estimate of $10,000 per vendor ($50 per
hour × 200 hours per EHR vendor).
With respect to the process for group
practices to be treated as satisfactorily
submitting quality measures data under
the 2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System discussed in section VII.F.1. of
this final rule with comment, group
practices interested in participating in
the 2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System through one of the group
practice reporting options (GPRO I or
GPRO II) will need to complete a selfnomination process similar to the selfnomination process required of
registries and EHR vendors. Therefore,
assuming 2 hours for a group practice to
decide whether to participate as a group
or individually, approximately 2 hours
per group practice to draft the letter of
intent for self-nomination, gather the
requested information, and provide this
requested information, and an
additional 2 hours undergoing the
vetting process with CMS officials, we
estimate a total of 6 hours associated
with the self-nomination process.
Assuming that the group practice staff
involved in the group practice selfnomination process have the same
average practice labor cost as the
average practice labor cost estimates we
used for individual eligible
professionals of $58 per hour, we
estimate the total cost to a group
practice associated with the group
practice self-nomination process to be
approximately $348 ($58 per hour × 6
hours per group practice).
The burden associated with the group
practice reporting requirements of this
voluntary reporting initiative is the time
and effort associated with the group
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
practice submitting the quality measures
data. For practices participating under
the GPRO I process, this would be the
time associated with the physician
group completing the data collection
tool. The information collection
components of this data collection tool
have been reviewed by OMB and are
currently approved under OMB control
number 0938–0941, with an expiration
date of December 31, 2011, for use in
the Physician Group Practice, Medicare
Care Management Performance (MCMP),
and EHR demonstrations. Based on
burden estimates for the PGP
demonstration, which uses the same
data submission methods, we estimate
the burden associated with a physician
group completing the data collection
tool would be approximately 79 hours
per physician group. Based on an
average labor cost of $58 per physician
group, we estimate the cost of data
submission per physician group
associated with participating in the
Physician Quality Reporting System
GPRO I would be $4,582 ($58 per hour
× 79 hours per group practice).
For group practices participating
under the GPRO II process, the burden
associated with submitting the
Physician Quality Reporting System
quality measures data would be the time
associated with the group practice
submitting the required data to CMS via
claims or a registry. We would expect
that data submission under GPRO II
would take no more time than the time
it would take an individual eligible
professional to submit via claims or
registry. We believe it would be
appropriate to multiply the appropriate
burden estimates for each reporting
mechanism for individual eligible
professionals by the number of eligible
professionals in a group to obtain the
burden estimates for data submission
under GPRO II. For example, based on
our estimate of 15.75 minutes per
eligible professional under claims-based
reporting, we would expect that a 2person group would have a burden of
31.50 minutes for claims-based
submission under GPRO II.
Eligible professionals who wish to
qualify for the additional 0.5 percent
incentive payment authorized under
section 1848(m)(7) of the Act
(‘‘Additional Incentive Payments’’) for
2011 will need to more frequently than
is required to qualify for or maintain
board certification status participate in
a qualified Maintenance of Certification
Program for 2011 and successfully
complete a qualified Maintenance of
Certification Program practice
assessment for 2011. We believe that a
majority of the eligible professionals
who would attempt to qualify for this
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
additional 0.5 percent incentive
payment would be those who are
already enrolled and participating in a
Maintenance of Certification Board. The
amount of time that it would take for the
eligible professional to participate in the
Maintenance of Certification Program
more frequently than is required to
qualify for or maintain board
certification status would vary based on
what each individual board determines
constitutes ‘‘more frequently.’’ The
amount of time needed to complete a
qualified Maintenance of Certification
Program practice assessment is expected
to be spread out over time since a
quality improvement component is
often required. Information from an
informal poll of a few ABMS member
boards indicates that the time an
individual eligible professional spends
to complete the practice assessment
component of the Maintenance of
Certification ranges from 8 to 12 hours.
We invited comments on this burden
analysis, including the underlying
assumptions used in developing our
burden estimates and received no
comments.
3. Electronic Prescribing (eRx) Incentive
Program
We believe it is difficult to accurately
estimate how many eligible
professionals will opt to participate in
the eRx Incentive Program in CY 2011.
Information from the 2009 eRx Incentive
Program indicates that nearly 90,000
eligible professionals participated in the
first year of the program. We believe,
however, that the number of
participants will increase in light of the
payment adjustment that will start in
2012. Therefore, for purposes of
conducting a burden analysis for the
2011 eRx Incentive Program, we will
assume that as many eligible
professionals who attempted to
participate in the 2007 Physician
Quality Reporting System will attempt
to participate in the 2011 eRx Incentive
Program. As such, we can estimate that
nearly 110,000 unique TIN/NPI
combinations will participate in the
2011 eRx Incentive Program (see the
‘‘PQRI 2007 Reporting Experience
Report,’’ which is available on the
Physician Quality Reporting System
section of the CMS Web site at https://
www.cms.hhs.gov/pqri).
Section VII.F.2 of this final rule with
comment discusses the background of
the eRx Incentive Program. Section
VII.F.2.b.(2) of this final rule with
comment provides information on how
eligible professionals and group
practices can qualify to be considered a
successful electronic prescriber in 2011
in order to earn an incentive payment.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
For 2011, eligible professionals and
group practices may choose whether to
participate and, to the extent they
meet— (1) certain thresholds with
respect to the volume of covered
professional services furnished; and (2)
the criteria to be considered a successful
electronic prescriber described in
section VII.F.2.b.(2) of this final rule
with comment, they can qualify to
receive an incentive payment for 2011
and/or avoid being subject to the
payment adjustment that goes into effect
in 2012.
For the 2011 eRx Incentive Program,
as discussed in section VII.F.2. of this
final rule with comment, each eligible
professional will need to report the Gcode indicating that at least one
prescription generated during an
encounter was electronically submitted
at least 25 instances during the
reporting period. We expect the ongoing
costs associated with participation in
the eRx Incentive Program to decline
based on an eligible professional’s
familiarity with and understanding of
the eRx Incentive Program, experience
with participating in the eRx Incentive
Program, and increased efforts by CMS
and stakeholders to disseminate useful
educational resources and best
practices.
Similar to the Physician Quality
Reporting System, one factor in the
burden to individual eligible
professionals is the time and effort
associated with individual eligible
professionals reviewing the electronic
prescribing measure to determine
whether it is applicable to them,
reviewing the available reporting
options (for purposes of the 2011
incentive, this measure will be
reportable through claims-based
reporting, registry-based reporting, or
through EHRs) and selecting one,
gathering the required information, and
incorporating reporting of the measure
into their office work flows. Since the
eRx Incentive Program consists of only
1 measure to report, we estimate 2 hours
as the amount of time needed for
individual eligible professionals to
prepare for participation in the eRx
Incentive Program. At an average cost of
approximately $58 per hour per
practice, we estimate the total
preparation costs to individual eligible
professionals to be approximately $116
(2 hours × $58 per hour).
Another factor that influences the
burden to eligible professionals is how
they choose to report the electronic
prescribing measure. For eligible
professionals who choose to do so via
claims, we estimate that the burden
associated with the requirements of this
incentive program is the time and effort
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73591
associated with gathering the required
information, selecting the appropriate
quality data codes (QDCs), and
including the appropriate QDCs on the
claims they submit for payment. For
claims-based reporting, the QDCs will
be collected as additional (optional) line
items on the existing HIPAA transaction
837–P and/or CMS Form 1500. We do
not anticipate any new forms and no
modifications to the existing transaction
or form. We also do not anticipate
changes to the 837–P or CMS Form 1500
for CY 201.
Based on the information from the
PVRP described above for the amount of
time it takes a median practice to report
one measure one time on claims (1.75
minutes) and our requirement that
eligible professionals to report the
measure 25 times for purposes of the
incentive payment, we estimate the
burden associated with claims-based
data submission to be 43.75 minutes
(1.75 minutes per case × 1 measure × 25
cases per measure). This equates to a
cost of approximately $42.29 (1.75
minutes per case × 1 measure × 25 cases
per measure × $58 per hour) per
individual eligible professional. For
purposes of the 2012 eRx payment
adjustment, where an eligible
professional is required to report the
measure only 10 times, we estimate the
burden associated with claims-based
submission to be 17.5 minutes (1.75
minutes per case × 1 measure × 10 cases
per measure). This equates to a cost of
approximately $16.92 (1.75 minutes per
case × 1 measure × 10 cases per measure
× $58 per hour) per individual eligible
professional.
Because registry-based reporting of
the electronic prescribing measure to
CMS was added to the eRx Incentive
Program for 2010 and eligible
professionals are not required to
indicate to us how they plan to report
the electronic prescribing measure each
year, it is difficult to accurately estimate
how many eligible professionals will
opt to participate in the eRx Incentive
Program through the registry-based
reporting mechanism in CY 2011. We do
not anticipate, however, any additional
burden for eligible professionals to
report data to a registry as eligible
professionals opting for registry-based
reporting would more than likely
already be reporting data to the registry
for other purposes. Little, if any,
additional data would need to be
reported to the registry for purposes of
participation in the 2011 eRx Incentive
Program. However, eligible
professionals would need to authorize
or instruct the registry to submit quality
measures results and numerator and
denominator data on the electronic
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73592
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
prescribing measure to CMS on their
behalf. We estimate that the time and
effort associated with this would be
approximately 5 minutes for each
eligible professional that wishes to
authorize or instruct the registry to
submit quality measures results and
numerator and denominator data on the
electronic prescribing measure to CMS
on their behalf.
Based on our decision to consider
only registries qualified to submit
Physician Quality Reporting System
quality measures results and numerator
and denominator data on quality
measures to CMS on their participants’
behalf for the 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System to be qualified to
submit results and numerator and
denominator data on the electronic
prescribing measure for the 2011 eRx
Incentive Program, there would be no
need for a registry to undergo a separate
self-nomination process for the eRx
Incentive Program and therefore, no
additional burden associated with the
registry self-nomination process.
There would also be a burden to the
registry associated with the registry
calculating results for the electronic
prescribing measure from the data
submitted to the registry by its
participants and submitting the quality
measures results and numerator and
denominator data on the electronic
prescribing quality measure to CMS on
behalf of their participants. The time
needed for a registry to review the
electronic prescribing measure and
other information, calculate the
measure’s results, and submit the
measure’s results and numerator and
denominator data on the measure on
their participants behalf is expected to
vary along with the number of eligible
professionals reporting data to whom
the measure applies. However, we
believe that registries already perform
many of these activities for their
participants. Since the eRx Incentive
Program consists of only one measure,
we believe that the burden associated
with the registry reporting the measure’s
results and numerator and denominator
to CMS on behalf of their participants
would be minimal.
For EHR-based reporting, the eligible
professional must extract the necessary
clinical data from his or her EHR and
submit the necessary data to the CMSdesignated clinical data warehouse.
Because this manner of reporting quality
data to CMS was first added to the eRx
Incentive Program in 2010 and eligible
professionals are not required to
indicate to us how they intend to report
the electronic prescribing measure, it is
difficult to estimate how many eligible
professionals will opt to participate in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
the eRx Incentive Program through the
EHR-based reporting mechanism in CY
2011. We believe that once an eligible
professional’s EHR is programmed by
the vendor to allow data submission to
CMS, the burden to the eligible
professional associated with submission
of data on the electronic prescribing
measure should be minimal.
Since we are considering only EHR
products qualified for the 2010
Physician Quality Reporting System to
be qualified for the 2011 eRx Incentive
Program, there will be no need for EHR
vendors to undergo a separate selfnomination process for the 2011 eRx
Incentive Program and therefore, no
additional burden associated with the
self-nomination process.
There will also be a burden to the
EHR vendor associated with the EHR
vendor programming its EHR product(s)
to extract the clinical data that the
eligible professional needs to submit to
CMS for purposes of reporting the
proposed 2011 electronic prescribing
measure. The time needed for an EHR
vendor to review the measure and other
information and program each qualified
EHR product to enable eligible
professionals to submit data on the
measure to the CMS-designated clinical
data warehouse will be dependent on
the EHR vendor’s familiarity with the
electronic prescribing measure, the
vendor’s system capabilities, as well as
the vendor’s programming capabilities.
Since only EHR products qualified for
the 2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System will be qualified for the 2011
eRx Incentive Program and the eRx
Incentive Program consists of only one
measure, we believe that any burden
associated with the EHR vendor to
program its product(s) to enable eligible
professionals to submit data on the
electronic prescribing measure to the
CMS-designated clinical data warehouse
would be minimal.
Finally, with respect to the process for
group practices to be treated as
successful electronic prescribers under
the 2011 eRx Incentive Program
discussed in section VII.F.2. of this final
rule with comment, group practices will
have the same options as individual
eligible professionals in terms of the
form and manner for reporting the
electronic prescribing measure (that is,
group practices would have the option
of reporting the measure through claims,
a qualified registry, or a qualified EHR
product). There are only 2 differences
between the requirements for an
individual eligible professional and a
group practice: (1) The fact that a group
practice will have to self-nominate; and
(2) the number of times that a group
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
practice will be required to report the
electronic prescribing measure.
We do not anticipate any additional
burden associated with the group
practice self-nomination practice since
we are limiting the group practices to
those selected to participate in the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System
GPRO I or Physician Quality Reporting
System GPRO II. The practice only will
need to indicate their desire to
participate in the eRx GPRO at the same
time they self-nominate for either
Physician Quality Reporting System
GPRO I or Physician Quality Reporting
System GPRO II and indicate how they
intend to report the electronic
prescribing measure.
In terms of the burden to group
practices associated with submission of
the electronic prescribing measure, we
believe that this would be similar to the
burden to individual eligible
professionals for submitting the
electronic prescribing measure. In fact,
overall, there could be less burden
associated with a practice participating
as a group rather than as individual
eligible professionals because the total
number of reporting instances required
by the group could be less than the total
number of reporting instances that
would be required if each member of the
group separately reported the electronic
prescribing measure. Thus, we believe
that the burden to a group practice
associated with reporting the electronic
prescribing measure could range from
almost no burden (for groups who
choose to do so through a qualified EHR
or registry) to 72.92 hours (1.75 minutes
per measure × 1 measure × 2500 cases
per measure) for a GPRO I group who
chooses to report the electronic
prescribing measures through claims
submission. Consequently, the total
estimated cost per group practice to
report the electronic prescribing
measure could be as high as $4,225
($1.69 per measure × 1 measure × 2500
cases per measure).
As with individual eligible
professionals, we believe that group
practices that choose to participate in
the 2011 eRx GPRO through registrybased reporting of the electronic
prescribing measure would more than
likely already be reporting data to the
registry. Little, if any, additional data
would need to be reported to the
registry for purposes of participation in
the 2011 eRx Incentive Program beyond
authorizing or instructing the registry to
submit quality measures results and
numerator and denominator data on the
electronic prescribing measure to CMS
on their behalf. We estimate that the
time and effort associated with this
would be approximately 5 minutes for
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
each group practice that wishes to
authorize or instruct the registry to
submit quality measures results and
numerator and denominator data on the
electronic prescribing measure to CMS
on their behalf.
For group practices that choose to
participate in the 2011 eRx Incentive
Program through EHR-based reporting of
the electronic prescribing measure, once
the EHR is programmed by the vendor
to allow data submission to CMS, the
burden to the group practice associated
with submission of data on the
electronic prescribing measure should
be minimal.
We invited comments on this burden
analysis, including the underlying
assumptions used in developing our
burden estimates and received none.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
X. Response to Comments
Because of the large number of public
comments we normally receive on
Federal Register documents, we are not
able to acknowledge or respond to them
individually. We will consider all
comments we receive by the date and
time specified in the DATES section of
this preamble, and, when we proceed
with a subsequent document, we will
respond to the comments in the
preamble to that document.
XI. Regulatory Impact Analysis
We have examined the impacts of this
rule as required by Executive Order
12866 on Regulatory Planning and
Review (September 30, 1993), the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
(September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96–354),
section 1102(b) of the Social Security
Act, section 202 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
104–4), Executive Order 13132 on
Federalism (August 4, 1999), and the
Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C.
804(2)).
Executive Order 12866 directs
agencies to assess all costs and benefits
of available regulatory alternatives and,
if regulation is necessary, to select
regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health
and safety effects, distributive impacts,
and equity). A regulatory impact
analysis (RIA) must be prepared for
major rules with economically
significant effects ($100 million or more
in any 1 year). We estimate, as
discussed below in this section, that the
PFS provisions included in this final
rule with comment period will
redistribute more than $100 million in
1 year. Therefore, we estimate that this
rulemaking is ‘‘economically significant’’
as measured by the $100 million
threshold, and hence also a major rule
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
under the Congressional Review Act.
Accordingly, we have prepared a
Regulatory Impact Analysis that to the
best of our ability presents the costs and
benefits of the rulemaking.
The RFA requires agencies to analyze
options for regulatory relief of small
businesses, if a rule has a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. For purposes of the RFA, we
estimate that most hospitals and most
other providers are small entities as that
term is used in the RFA (including
small businesses, nonprofit
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions). The great majority of
hospitals and most other health care
providers and suppliers are small
entities, either by being nonprofit
organizations or by meeting the SBA
definition of a small business (having
revenues of less than $34.5 million in
any 1 year) (for details see the SBA’s
Web site at https://sba.gov/idc/groups/
public/documents/sba_homepage/
serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf (refer to the
620000 series). Individuals and States
are not included in the definition of a
small entity. The RFA requires that we
analyze regulatory options for small
businesses and other entities. We
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis
unless we certify that a rule would not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
The analysis must include a justification
concerning the reason action is being
taken, the kinds and number of small
entities the rule affects, and an
explanation of any meaningful options
that achieve the objectives with less
significant adverse economic impact on
the small entities.
For purposes of the RFA, physicians,
NPPs, and suppliers including IDTFs
are considered small businesses if they
generate revenues of $10 million or less
based on SBA size standards.
Approximately 95 percent of physicians
are considered to be small entities.
There are over 1 million physicians,
other practitioners, and medical
suppliers that receive Medicare
payment under the PFS.
For purposes of the RFA
approximately 85 percent of suppliers of
DMEPOS are considered small
businesses according to the SBA size
standards. Our most recent claims
information includes 47,000 entities
billing Medicare for DMEPOS each year.
Total annual estimated Medicare
expenditures for DMEPOS suppliers are
approximately $10.1 billion in CY 2009,
for which $8.1 billion was fee-forservice (FFS) and $2 billion was for
managed care.
For purposes of the RFA,
approximately 80 percent of clinical
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73593
diagnostic laboratories are considered
small businesses according to the SBA
size standards.
Ambulance providers and suppliers
for purposes of the RFA are also
considered to be small entities.
In addition, most ESRD facilities are
considered small entities for purposes of
the RFA, either based on nonprofit
status or by having revenues of $34.5
million or less in any year. We note that
a considerable number of ESRD
facilities are owned and operated by
large dialysis organizations (LDOs) or
regional chains, which would have total
revenues more than $34.5 million in any
year if revenues from all locations are
combined. However, the claims data we
use to estimate payments for this RFA
and RIA does not identify which
dialysis facilities are parts of an LDO,
regional chain, or other type of
ownership. Each individual dialysis
facility has its own provider number
and bills Medicare using this number.
Therefore, we consider each ESRD
facility to be a small entity for purposes
of the RFA. We consider a substantial
number of entities to be significantly
affected if the final rule with comment
period has an annual average impact on
small entities of 3 to 5 percent or more.
The majority of ESRD facilities will
experience impacts of approximately 2
percent of total revenues. There are 976
nonprofit ESRD facilities with a
combined increase of 2.1 percent in
overall payments relative to current
overall payments. We note that although
the overall effect of the wage index
changes is budget neutral, there are
increases and decreases based on the
location of individual facilities. The
analysis and discussion provided in this
section and elsewhere in this final rule
with comment period complies with the
RFA requirements.
Because we acknowledge that many of
the affected entities are small entities,
the analysis discussed throughout the
preamble of this final rule with
comment period constitutes our
regulatory flexibility analysis for the
remaining provisions and addresses
comments received on these issues.
In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act
requires us to prepare a regulatory
impact analysis, if a rule may have a
significant impact on the operations of
a substantial number of small rural
hospitals. Any such regulatory impact
analysis must conform to the provisions
of section 604 of the RFA. For purposes
of section 1102(b) of the Act, we define
a small rural hospital as a hospital that
is located outside of a metropolitan
statistical area and has fewer than 100
beds. We do not believe this final rule
with comment period has impact on
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73594
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
significant operations of a substantial
number of small rural hospitals because
most dialysis facilities are freestanding.
While there are 180 rural hospital-based
dialysis facilities, we do not know how
many of them are based at hospitals
with fewer than 100 beds. However,
overall, the 180 rural hospital-based
dialysis facilities will experience an
estimated 2.1 percent increase in
payments. As a result, this rule will not
have a significant impact on small rural
hospitals. Therefore, the Secretary has
determined that this final rule with
comment period will not have a
significant impact on the operations of
a substantial number of small rural
hospitals.
Section 202 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
also requires that agencies assess
anticipated costs and benefits before
issuing any rule whose mandates
require spending in any 1 year of $100
million in 1995 dollars, updated
annually for inflation. In 2010, that
threshold is approximately $135
million. This final rule with comment
period will not mandate any
requirements for State, local, or tribal
governments in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $135 million. Medicare
beneficiaries are considered to be part of
the private sector and as a result a more
detailed discussion is presented on the
Impact of Beneficiaries in section XI.G.
of this regulatory impact analysis.
Executive Order 13132 establishes
certain requirements that an agency
must meet when it promulgates a
proposed rule (and subsequent final
rule) that imposes substantial direct
requirement costs on State and local
governments, preempts State law, or
otherwise has Federalism implications.
We have examined this final rule with
comment period in accordance with
Executive Order 13132 and have
determined that this regulation would
not have any substantial direct effect on
State or local governments, preempt
States, or otherwise have a Federalism
implication.
We have prepared the following
analysis, which together with the
information provided in the rest of this
preamble, meets all assessment
requirements. The analysis explains the
rationale for and purposes of this final
rule with comment period; details the
costs and benefits of the rule; analyzes
alternatives; and presents the measures
we will use to minimize the burden on
small entities. As indicated elsewhere in
this rule, we are implementing a variety
of changes to our regulations, payments,
or payment policies to ensure that our
payment systems reflect changes in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
medical practice and the relative value
of services. We provide information for
each of the policy changes in the
relevant sections of this final rule with
comment period. We are unaware of any
relevant Federal rules that duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with this final rule
with comment period. The relevant
sections of this rule contain a
description of significant alternatives if
applicable.
A. RVU Impacts
1. Resource-Based Work, PE, and
Malpractice RVUs
Section 1848(c)(2)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act
requires that increases or decreases in
RVUs may not cause the amount of
expenditures for the year to differ by
more than $20 million from what
expenditures would have been in the
absence of these changes. If this
threshold is exceeded, we make
adjustments to preserve budget
neutrality.
Our estimates of changes in Medicare
revenues for PFS services compare
payment rates for CY 2010 with final
payment rates for CY 2011 using CY
2009 Medicare utilization for all years.
To the extent that there are year-to-year
changes in the volume and mix of
services provided by physicians, the
actual impact on total Medicare
revenues will be different than those
shown in Table 101. The payment
impacts reflect averages for each
specialty based on Medicare utilization.
The payment impact for an individual
physician would be different from the
average, based on the mix of services the
physician furnishes. The average change
in total revenues would be less than the
impact displayed here because
physicians furnish services to both
Medicare and non-Medicare patients
and specialties may receive substantial
Medicare revenues for services that are
not paid under the PFS. For instance,
independent laboratories receive
approximately 85 percent of their
Medicare revenues from clinical
laboratory services that are not paid
under the PFS.
Table 101 shows only the payment
impact on PFS services. We note that
these impacts do not include the effect
of the December 2010 and January 2011
conversion factor changes under current
law. The following is an explanation of
the information represented in Table
101:
• Column A (Specialty): The
Medicare specialty code as reflected in
our physician/supplier enrollment files.
• Column B (Allowed Charges): The
aggregate estimated PFS allowed
charges for the specialty based on CY
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
2009 utilization and CY 2010 rates. That
is, allowed charges are the PFS amounts
for covered services and include
coinsurance and deductibles (which are
the financial responsibility of the
beneficiary). These amounts have been
summed across all services furnished by
physicians, practitioners, and suppliers
within a specialty to arrive at the total
allowed charges for the specialty.
• Column C (Impact of Work and
Malpractice (MP) RVU Changes): This
column shows the estimated CY 2011
impact on total allowed charges of the
changes in the work and malpractice
RVUs, including the impact of changes
due to new, revised, and potentially
misvalued codes.
• Column D (Impact of PE RVU and
Multiple Procedure Payment Reduction
Changes—Full): This column shows the
estimated CY 2011 impact on total
allowed charges of the changes in the PE
RVUs if there were no remaining
transition to the full use of the new PPIS
data. This column also includes the
impact of the various MPPR and
imaging equipment utilization polices,
and the impact of changes due to new,
revised, and potentially misvalued
codes.
• Column E (Impact of PE RVU and
Multiple Procedure Payment Reduction
Changes—Tran): This column shows
the estimated CY 2011 impact on total
allowed charges of the changes in the PE
RVUs under the second year of the 4year transition to the full use of the new
PPIS data. This column also includes
the impact of the various MPPR and
imaging equipment utilization policies,
and the impact of changes due to new,
revised, and potentially misvalued
codes.
• Column F (Impact of MEI Rebasing):
This column shows the estimated CY
2011 impact on total allowed charges of
the CY 2011 rescaling of the RVUs so
that the proportions of total payments
based on the work, PE, and malpractice
RVUs match the proportions in the final
revised and rebased MEI for CY 2011.
• Column G (Combined Impact—
Full): This column shows the estimated
CY 2011 combined impact on total
allowed charges of all the changes in the
previous columns if there were no
remaining transition to the new PE
RVUs using the PPIS data.
• Column H (Combined Impact—
Tran): This column shows the estimated
CY 2011 combined impact on total
allowed charges of all the changes in the
previous columns under the second year
of the 4-year transition to the new PE
RVUs using the PPIS data.
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73595
ER29NO10.312
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
BILLING CODE 4120–01–C
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
2. CY 2011 PFS Impact Discussion
a. Changes in RVUs
The most widespread specialty
impacts of the RVU changes are
generally related to several factors. First,
as discussed in section II.A.2. of this
final rule with comment period, we are
currently implementing the second year
of the 4-year transition to new PE RVUs
using the new PPIS data that were
adopted in the CY 2010 PFS final rule
with comment period (74 FR 61751).
The impacts of using the new PPIS data
are generally consistent with the
impacts discussed in the CY 2010 PFS
final rule with comment period (74 FR
61983 through 61984).
The second general factor
contributing to the CY 2011 impacts
shown in Table 101 is the CY 2011
rescaling of the RVUs so that in the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
aggregate they match the work, PE, and
malpractice proportions in the revised
and rebased MEI for CY 2011. That is,
as discussed in section II.E.5. of this
final rule with comment period, the
revised and rebased MEI has a greater
proportion attributable to malpractice
and PE and, correspondingly, a lesser
proportion attributable to work.
Specialties that have a high proportion
of total RVUs attributable to work, such
as anesthesiology, are estimated to
experience a decrease in aggregate
payments as a result of this rescaling,
while specialties that have a high
proportion attributable to PE, such as
radiation oncology, are estimated to
experience an increase in aggregate
payments. Malpractice generally
represents a small proportion of total
payments and the rescaling of the
malpractice RVUs is not the primary
driver of the specialty impacts. As
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
discussed in section II.E.7. of this final
rule with comment period, the rescaling
of the RVUs to match the rebased MEI
is budget neutral overall.
Finally, another significant factor
contributing to the impacts shown in
Table 101 (but on a specialty-specific
rather than widespread level) is the final
policies regarding new, revised, and
potentially revised codes resulting from
our CY 2011 acceptance of 70 percent of
the AMA RUC work RVU
recommendations and the majority of
the direct PE input recommendations.
We have incorporated alternative RVUs
and direct PE inputs for some codes in
accordance with our recommended
policies. We note that some specialties,
such as radiation oncology,
ophthalmology, and IDTFs that
commonly furnish potentially
misvalued codes that have been
examined by the AMA RUC and newly
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.313
73596
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
valued for CY 2011, experience
decreases in aggregate payment as a
result of these changes.
Table 101 also includes the impacts
resulting from our regulatory change to
expand the current 50 percent MPPR
policy to therapy services, but at an
MPPR rate of 25 percent on the PE
component payment for therapy
services. Under the PFS, we estimate
that this change would primarily reduce
payments to the specialties of physical
therapy and occupational therapy. In
order to maintain budget neutrality, we
redistributed the PFS savings back into
other services paid under the PFS by
increasing all PE RVUs by
approximately 0.5 percent.
Because providers in settings outside
of the PFS, such as outpatient hospital
departments, are also paid using the
PFS payment rates and policies for
physical therapy services, we estimated
that this will reduce (not redistribute)
payments in those settings for therapy
services by approximately 7 percent in
CY 2011.
In addition, Table 101 includes the
impacts resulting from the regulatory
change to the scope of the current
contiguous body area MPPR policy for
imaging services from contiguous body
areas to include noncontiguous body
areas. We estimate that this change
would primarily reduce payments to the
specialties of IDTF and radiology. In
order to maintain budget neutrality, we
redistributed these savings back into
other services paid under the PFS by
increasing all PE RVUs by
approximately 0.1 percent.
Table 101 also reflects the impacts
resulting from certain ACA provisions,
including reductions in payment under
section 3135 of the ACA which amends
section 1848(b)(4) of the Act to increase
the equipment utilization rate
assumption for expensive diagnostic
imaging equipment, and, effective July
1, 2010, to increase the level of the
MPPR for contiguous body areas from
25 percent to 50 percent. The expansion
of the MPPR policy is further discussed
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
in section II.C.4. of this final rule with
comment period, while the discussions
of the provisions of section 3135 of the
ACA are found in sections VI.M. and
II.A.3.a. of this final rule with comment
period. As required by sections
1848(c)(2)(B)(v)(V) and (VI) of the Act
(as added by sections 3135(a) and (b) of
the ACA), these changes are not budget
neutral and result in program savings.
We note that in section XI.D of this
final rule with comment period, we
provide discussions of the budget
impacts of individual ACA provisions
not elsewhere discussed in this section.
Additionally, while column H in Table
101 illustrates the estimated combined
CY 2011 impact on total allowed
charges by specialty of all the final RVU
and MPPR changes and the MEI
rebasing, including several ACA
provisions that directly affect the
determination of PFS payments as
discussed previously, we note that other
ACA provisions discussed in section
XI.D. of this final rule with comment
period could also result in additional
impacts on individual practitioners or
specialties, depending on their practice
patterns. Since the effects of a number
of the ACA provisions are dependent on
the practice patterns of practitioners, we
would expect these impacts to be nonuniform among specialties. For
example, as discussed further in section
XI.D.19 of this final rule with comment
period, section 1833(x) of the Act (as
added by section 5501(a) of the ACA)
provides for a 10 percent incentive
payment for primary care services
furnished by primary care practitioners.
Accordingly, potentially eligible
primary care specialties designated
under the statute (including family
practice and geriatric medicine), are
expected to experience an estimated
aggregate increase in payment of
between 4 and 9 percent, which
includes the estimated impacts under
the PFS displayed in column H of Table
101 and the new primary care incentive
payments. We note that in general the
payment impact for an individual
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73597
physician may be different from the
average, based on the mix of services the
physician furnishes and his or her
eligibility for the primary care incentive
payment program.
b. Combined Impact
Column H of Table 101 displays the
estimated CY 2011 combined impact on
total allowed charges by specialty of all
the final RVU and MPPR changes. These
impacts range from an increase of 6
percent for portable x-ray suppliers to a
decrease of 15 percent for diagnostic
testing facilities. There is generally a
slightly positive net effect of our final
policies on primary care specialties,
such as family practice, internal
medicine, and geriatrics. Again, these
impacts are estimated prior to the
application of the negative CY 2011 CF
update applicable under the current
statute.
Comment: One commenter requested
that the specialty impact table
incorporate the impact of payment
changes for other Medicare Part B
services that are not paid under the PFS.
Response: The purpose of Table 101
is to isolate the impacts by specialty for
services paid under the PFS. To the
extent that changes in payment for other
Part B services are adopted in this final
rule with comment period and have
significant impacts upon providers,
those impacts are discussed elsewhere
in this section.
Table 102 shows the estimated impact
on total payments for selected highvolume procedures of all of the changes
discussed previously, including the
effect of the CY 2011 negative PFS CF
update. We selected these procedures
because they are the most commonly
furnished by a broad spectrum of
physician specialties. There are separate
columns that show the change in the
facility rates and the nonfacility rates.
For an explanation of facility and
nonfacility PE, we refer readers to
Addendum A of this final rule with
comment period.
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.314
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73598
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73599
ER29NO10.315
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.316
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73600
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
BILLING CODE 4120–01–C
B. Geographic Practice Cost Indices
(GPCIs)
As discussed in section II.D. of this
final rule with comment period, we are
required to update the GPCI values at
least every 3 years and phase in the
adjustment over 2 years (if there has not
been an adjustment in the past year).
For CY 2011, we are finalizing new
GPCIs for each Medicare locality. The
updated GPCIs reflect the first year of
the 2-year phase-in. The new GPCIs rely
upon the 2010 HUD data for
determining the relative cost differences
in the office rent component of the PE
GPCIs, as well as the 2006 through 2007
professional malpractice premium data
for determining the malpractice GPCIs.
The 2006 through 2008 Bureau of Labor
and Statistics (BLS) Occupational
Employment Statistics (OES) data were
used as a replacement for 2000 Census
data for determining the physician work
GPCIs and the employee compensation
component of the PE GPCIs. However,
as discussed in section II.D. of this final
rule with comment period, we are
continuing to use the current cost share
weights for determining the PE GPCI
values and locality GAFs.
Additionally, the updated GPCIs
reflect several provisions required by
changes included in the ACA. Section
1848(e)(1)(H) of the Act (as added by
section 3102(b) of the ACA) specifies
that for CYs 2010 and 2011, the
employee wage and rent portions of the
PE GPCIs reflect only one-half of the
relative cost differences for each locality
compared to the national average and
includes a ‘‘hold harmless’’ provision for
any PFS locality that would receive a
reduction to its PE GPCI resulting from
the limited recognition of cost
differences. Section 1848(e)(1)(E) of the
Act (as amended by section 3102(a) of
the ACA) extends the 1.000 work GPCI
floor only through December 31, 2010.
Therefore, the CY 2011 GPCIs reflect the
sunset of the 1.000 work GPCI floor.
Section 1848(e)(1)(G) of the Act (as
amended by section 134(b) of the
MIPPA) established a permanent 1.500
work GPCI floor in Alaska, beginning
January 1, 2009 and, therefore, the 1.500
work GPCI floor in Alaska will remain
in place for CY 2011. Moreover, section
1848(e)(1)(I) of the Act (as added by
section 10324(c) of the ACA) establishes
a 1.000 PE GPCI floor for services
furnished in frontier states effective
January 1, 2011. We estimate the
combined impact of these provisions on
a fiscal year cash basis to be $580
million for FY 2011.
As required by the statute, the
updated GPCIs would be phased in over
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
a 2-year period. Addendum D to this
final rule with comment period shows
the estimated effects of the revised
GPCIs on locality GAFs for the
transitional year (CY 2011) by State and
Medicare locality. The GAFs reflect the
use of updated underlying GPCI data
and the ACA provisions. The GAFs are
a weighted composite of each area’s
work, PE, and malpractice GPCIs using
the national GPCI cost share weights.
While we do not actually use the GAFs
in computing the PFS payment for a
specific service, they are useful in
comparing the estimated overall costs
and payments for different localities.
The actual effect on payment for any
specific service would deviate from the
estimated payment based on the GAF to
the extent that the proportions of work,
PE, and malpractice expense RVUs for
the specific service differ from those of
the GAF. The most significant changes
would occur in 12 payment localities,
where the GAF increases or decreases
by more than 2 percent. The cumulative
effects of all of the GPCI revisions,
including the updated underlying GPCI
data and provisions of the ACA, are
reflected in the CY 2012 GPCI values
that are displayed in Addendum E to
this final rule with comment period.
C. Rebasing and Revising of the MEI
As discussed in section II.E.5. of this
final rule with comment period, we
finalized the rebasing and revision of
the MEI for the CY 2011 PFS. Using the
new 2006 MEI weights in place of the
2000 weights and implementing the
revisions to the MEI results in a slightly
higher projected MEI increase for CY
2011 than would have been the case
without the rebasing and revision of the
MEI. The MEI update for CY 2011 is 0.4
percent under the 2006-based MEI,
while the MEI update for CY 2011
would have been 0.3 percent under the
2000-based MEI. After CY 2011, the
2006-based MEI updates are forecasted
to be either the same or slightly lower
(0.1 to 0.2 percentage point) than the
forecasted 2000-based MEI updates.
D. The Affordable Care Act Provisions
1. Section 3002: Improvements to the
Physician Quality Reporting System
For the impact of this provision see
section XI.E.6. of this final rule with
comment period.
2. Sections 3003 and 3007:
Improvements to the Physician
Feedback Program and Value-Based
Payment Under the Physician Fee
Schedule
As discussed in section VI.B. of this
final rule with comment period, these
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73601
provisions: (1) continue the confidential
feedback program and requires the
Secretary, beginning in 2012, to provide
reports that compare patterns of
resource use of individual physicians to
other physicians; and (2) require the
Secretary to apply a separate, budgetneutral, value-based payment modifier
to the payment calculation for PFS
services furnished by certain
practitioners beginning in CY 2015.
There is no budgetary impact associated
with these provisions for CY 2011.
3. Section 3102: Extension of the Work
Geographic Index Floor and Revisions
to the Practice Expense Geographic
Adjustment under the Medicare
Physician Fee Schedule, and Protections
for Frontier States as Amended by
Section 10324
For the impact of this provision see
section XI.B. of this final rule with
comment period.
4. Section 3103: Extension of Exceptions
Process for Medicare Therapy Caps
This provision extends the exceptions
process for therapy caps through
December 31, 2010. Therapy caps are
discussed in detail in section III.A.1. of
this final rule with comment period. We
estimate the impact on a fiscal year cash
basis to be $1.16 billion for FY 2011.
5. Section 3104: Extension of Payment
for Technical Component of Certain
Physician Pathology Services
As discussed in section VI.E. of this
final rule with comment period, this
provision continues payment to
independent laboratories for the TC of
physician pathology services for fee-forservice Medicare beneficiaries who are
inpatients or outpatients of a covered
hospital through CY 2010. We estimate
the impact on a fiscal year cash basis to
be $80 million for FY 2011.
6. Sections 3105 and 10311: Extension
of Ambulance Add-Ons
As discussed in section VI.F. of this
final rule with comment period, these
provisions require the extension of
certain add-on payments for ground
ambulance services, and the extension
of certain rural area designations for
purposes of air ambulance payment. As
further discussed in section VI.F. of this
final rule with comment period, we are
amending the Medicare program
regulations to conform the regulations to
these provisions of the ACA. These
statutory provisions are essentially
prescriptive and do not allow for
discretionary alternatives on the part of
the Secretary.
As discussed in the July 1, 2004
interim final rule (69 FR 40288), in
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73602
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
determining the super-rural bonus
amount under section 1834(l)(12) of Act,
we followed the statutory guidance of
using the data from the Comptroller
General (GAO) of the U.S. We obtained
the same data as the data that were used
in the GAO’s September 2003 Report
titled ‘‘Ambulance Services: Medicare
Payments Can Be Better Targeted to
Trips in Less Densely Populated Rural
Areas’’ (GAO report number GAO–03–
986) and used the same general
methodology in a regression analysis as
was used in that report. The result was
that the average cost per trip in the
lowest quartile of rural county
populations was 22.6 percent higher
than the average cost per trip in the
highest quartile. As required by section
1834(l)(12) of the Act, this percent
increase is applied to the base rate for
ground ambulance transports that
originate in qualified rural areas, which
were identified using the methodology
set forth in the statute. Payments for
ambulance services under Medicare are
determined by the point of pick-up (by
zip code area) where the beneficiary is
loaded on board the ambulance. We
determined that ground ambulance
transports originating in 7,842 zip code
areas (which were determined to be in
‘‘qualified rural areas’’) out of 42,879 zip
code areas, according to the July 2010
zip code file, will realize increased base
rate payments under this provision.
However, the number and level of
services that might occur in these areas
for CY 2011 is unknown at this time.
While many elements may factor into
the final impact of sections 3105(a)
through (c) and 10311(a) through (c) of
the ACA, we estimate the impact of all
these provisions to be $10 million for
FY 2011.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
7. Section 3107: Extension of Physician
Fee Schedule Mental Health Add-On
As discussed in section VI.G. of this
final rule with comment period, this
provision extends application of the five
percent increase in Medicare payment
for specified mental health services only
through CY 2010. We estimate the
impact on a fiscal year cash basis to be
$20 million for FY 2011.
8. Section 3108: Permitting Physician
Assistants to Order Post-Hospital
Extended Care Services
As discussed in section VI.H. of this
final rule with comment period, this
provision adds PAs to the list of
practitioners (that is, physicians, nurse
practitioners (NPs), and clinical nurse
specialists) that can perform the
required initial certification and
periodic recertifications under section
1814(a)(2)(B) of the Act with respect to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
the SNF level of care. There is no
budgetary impact associated with this
provision.
13. Section 3135: Modification of
Equipment Utilization Factor for
Advanced Imaging Services
9. Section 3111: Payment for Bone
Density Tests
As discussed in section VI.M. of this
final rule with comment period, for
services furnished on or after July 1,
2010, section 1848(b)(4)(D) of the Act
(as added by section 3135(b) of the
ACA) adjusts the technical component
MPPR for multiple imaging studies
provided in a single imaging session on
contiguous body parts within families of
codes from 25 percent to 50 percent as
of July 1, 2010. For services furnished
on or after January 1, 2011, section
1848(b)(4)(C) of the Act (as added by
section 3135(a) of the ACA) increases
the equipment utilization rate to 75
percent for expensive diagnostic
imaging equipment, changing the CY
2011 utilization rate adopted in the CY
2010 PFS final rule with comment
period to the 75 percent rate. We
estimate the impact on a fiscal year cash
basis to be savings to the Medicare
program of $160 million for FY 2011.
As discussed in section VI.I. of this
final rule with comment period, this
provision requires payment for dualenergy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA)
services furnished during CYs 2010 and
2011 at 70 percent of the Medicare rate
paid in CY 2006, with the applicable
geographic adjustment for CY 2011. We
estimate the impact on a fiscal year cash
basis to be $60 million for FY 2011.
10. Section 3114: Improved Access for
Certified Nurse-Midwife Services
As discussed in section VI.J. of this
final rule with comment period, this
provision increased the amount of
Medicare payment made under the PFS
for certified nurse-midwife (CNM)
services. There is no significant
budgetary impact associated with this
provision.
11. Section 3122: Extension of Medicare
Reasonable Costs Payments for Certain
Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests
Furnished to Hospital Patients in
Certain Rural Areas
As discussed in section VI.K. of this
final rule with comment period, this
provision reinstitutes reasonable cost
payment for clinical diagnostic
laboratory tests performed by hospitals
with fewer than 50 beds that are located
in qualified rural areas as part of their
outpatient services for cost reporting
periods beginning on or after July 1,
2010 through June 30, 2011. For some
hospitals with cost reports that begin as
late as June 30, 2011, this reinstitution
of reasonable cost payment could affect
services performed as late as June 29,
2012, because this is the date those cost
reports will close.
12. Section 3134: Misvalued Codes
Under the PFS
As discussed in section II.C. of this
final rule with comment period, section
1848 (c)(2)(K) of the Act (as added by
section 3134 of the ACA) requires the
Secretary to periodically review and
identify potentially misvalued codes
and make appropriate adjustments to
the relative values of those services
identified as being potentially
misvalued. The impacts of our CY 2011
policy changes under this provision are
included in the discussion of RVU
impacts in section XI.A. of this final
rule and summarized by specialty in
Table Q1 of this final rule with
comment period.
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
14. Section 3136: Revisions in Payments
for Power Wheelchairs
As discussed in section VI.N. of this
final rule with comment period, this
provision requires the Secretary to
revise the capped rental fee schedule
amounts for all power wheelchairs
effective for power wheelchairs
furnished on or after January 1, 2011.
Under the monthly capped rental
payment structure, the fee schedule will
pay 15 percent (instead of 10 percent) of
the purchase price for the first 3 months
and 6 percent (instead of 7.5 percent) for
the remaining rental months not to
exceed 13 months. In addition, the lump
sum (up front) purchase payment will
be eliminated for standard power-driven
wheelchairs. For complex rehabilitative
power-driven wheelchairs, the
provision permits payment to be made
on a lump sum purchase method or a
monthly rental method. These changes
are prescriptive in the statute and do not
allow for alternatives.
We expect the changes mandated by
section 3136 of the ACA as a whole to
achieve program savings as a result of
total payments per standard power
wheelchair being less than 100 percent
of the purchase fee schedule amount.
This decrease in expenditures is
expected for two reasons. Primarily, the
provision will eliminate the lump sum
payment method for standard powerdriven wheelchairs and instead
payment will be made under the
monthly rental method resulting in
lower aggregate payments because many
beneficiaries who use standard power
wheelchairs do not use them for as long
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
as 13 months. In addition, we note that
currently a significantly lower volume
of power-driven wheelchairs are paid
under the monthly payment method.
The payment impact of increasing
monthly rental payments in the initial 3
months will be offset both by the
savings achieved from eliminating the
lump sum payment method for standard
power-driven wheelchairs and by
decreasing payments for the remaining
months of rental from 7.5 percent to 6
percent of the purchase price for all
power-driven wheelchairs. We
compared the estimates of current
payments for power-driven wheelchairs
to estimates of payments resulting from
the changes required by section 3136 of
the ACA which showed an estimated
payment impact of a decrease in
expenditures of approximately $780
million over a 5-year period. The FY
2011 cash savings was $120 million.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
15. Section 3139: Payment for
Biosimilar Biological Products
In Section VI.O. of this rule we
discussed the provisions of the ACA
that establish the definition of
biosimilar, and reference biological
product as well as the payment
methodology for these products under
Section 1847A of the Act. We noted that
while these provisions are effective July
1, 2010, per statute, we do not expect to
make payment for biosimilar products
until after such products are approved
by the FDA. We do not expect this
provision to have any impact on
spending.
16. Section 3401: Revisions of Certain
Market Basket Updates and
Incorporation of Productivity
Adjustments
As discussed in section VI.P. of this
final rule with comment period, section
3401 of the ACA amends section
1881(b)(14)(F) of the Act so that in CY
2011, there is a full ESRD market basket
update to the composite rate component
of the blended payment amount under
the new ESRD PPS. This provision is
estimated to be a cost to the Medicare
program of $40 million (does not
include coinsurance).
Section 3401 of the ACA also
incorporates a productivity adjustment
into the update factors for certain
payment systems. Specifically, section
3401 requires that in CY 2011 (and in
subsequent years), update factors under
the ASC payment system, the AFS, the
CLFS, and the DMEPOS fee schedules
be adjusted by the productivity
adjustment. We estimate the impact to
be savings to the Medicare program of
$20 million, $30 million, $50 million,
and $60 million for the ASC payment
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
system, the AFS, the CLFS, and the
DMEPOS fee schedules respectively, for
FY 2011.
17. Section 4103: Medicare Coverage of
Annual Wellness Visit Providing a
Personalized Prevention Plan
As discussed in section VI.Q. of this
final rule with comment period, for
services furnished on or after January 1,
2011, section 1861(s)(2)(FF) of the Act
(as added by section 4103 of the ACA)
provides Medicare coverage, with no
coinsurance or deductible, for an annual
wellness visit. The annual wellness visit
entails the creation of a personalized
prevention plan for an individual that
ultimately will include a health risk
assessment and also includes other
elements, such as updating the family
history, identifying providers that
regularly provide medical care to the
individual, body mass index
measurement, development of a
screening service schedule, and
identification of risk factors. We
estimate the impact on a fiscal year cash
basis to be $110 million for FY 2011.
18. Section 4104: Removal of Barriers to
Preventive Services in Medicare
As discussed in section VI.R. of this
final rule with comment period, for
services furnished on or after January 1,
2011, sections 1833(a)(1) and 1833(b) of
the Act (as amended by section 4104 of
the ACA) waive the deductible and
coinsurance requirements for most
preventive services, and waive the
deductible for colorectal cancer
screening tests that are reported with
other codes. Services to which no
coinsurance or deductible would be
applied are the annual wellness visit,
the initial preventive physical
examination, and any covered
preventive service if it is recommended
with a grade of A or B by the United
States Preventive Services Task Force.
We estimate that this new benefit will
result in an increase in Medicare
payments. We estimate the impact on a
fiscal year cash basis to be $110 million
for FY 2011.
19. Section 5501: Expanding Access to
Primary Care Services and General
Surgery Services
As discussed in section VI.S. of this
final rule with comment period, for
services furnished on or after January 1,
2011 and before January 1, 2016,
sections 1833(x) and (y) of the Act (as
added by section 5501 of the ACA)
provides for a 10 percent incentive
payment applied to primary care
services furnished by primary care
practitioners, as well as a 10 percent
incentive payment for major surgical
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73603
procedures furnished by general
surgeons practicing in geographic health
professional shortage areas. Under the
final CY 2011 policies, we estimate the
impact on a fiscal year cash basis to be
$240 million for section 1833(x) of the
Act and $10 million for section 1833(y)
of the Act for FY 2011.
20. Section 6003: Disclosure
Requirements for In-office Ancillary
Services Exception to the Prohibition of
Physician Self-referral for Certain
Imaging Services
In section VI.T of this final rule with
comment period, we discuss our
revisions to § 411.355(b)(2) to include a
new disclosure requirement created by
section 6003 of the ACA and related to
the in-office ancillary services exception
to the physician self-referral
prohibition. We are finalizing this
provision with some modification,
including reducing the number of
required suppliers on the disclosure
from 10 to 5 and removing the
requirement that a record of the signed
disclosure notification be maintained as
a part of the patient’s medical record.
Physicians are now able to document
the disclosure without the patient’s
signature.
Comment: Two commenters disagreed
with the estimated impact in the
proposed rule related to section 6003 of
the ACA. The commenter noted that
requiring physicians to list 10 suppliers
is excessive and places an unnecessary
administrative burden on the referring
physicians. The commenters also
expressed concern that it will take
longer to create and maintain the
disclosure notice than we proposed. The
commenters did not provide alternative
values for calculating the impact of this
provision.
Response: We have addressed the
commenters’ concerns regarding the
administrative burden related to this
new disclosure requirement in the final
rule by reducing the number of
suppliers that must be listed from 10 to
5. In addition, we have removed the
requirement that the disclosure notice
be signed by the patient and a copy of
this maintained in the medical record.
We believe that our previous economic
estimates are appropriate taking into
account the public comments received
in response to the estimated values
included in the proposed rule and the
changes that have been finalized in this
rule.
We believe that the provisions in
section VI.T. of this final rule with
comment period will have a minor
economic impact on the affected
physicians who self-refer for advanced
imaging services under the in-office
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73604
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
ancillary services exception. We did not
receive any public comments addressing
the estimated number of physicians
impacted by this provision. The burden
associated for these physicians remains
de minimis as we have reduced the
number of suppliers to be listed and
have reduced the requirements for
effective disclosure by eliminating the
patient signature maintained as part of
the medical record. We still believe
physicians will incur a one-time cost
associated with developing the
disclosure notice.
21. Section 6404: Maximum Period for
Submission of Medicare Claims
Reduced to Not More Than 12 Months
As discussed in section VI.U. of this
final rule with comment period, section
6404 of the ACA reduces the maximum
time period for filing Medicare claims to
no more than 12 months after the date
of service. Under the new law, claims
for services furnished on or after
January 1, 2010, must be filed within 1
calendar year after the date of service.
In addition, section 6404 of the ACA
provides that claims for services
furnished before January 1, 2010, must
be filed no later than December 31,
2010. Section 6404 of the ACA also
permits the Secretary to make certain
exceptions to the 1-year filing deadline.
This final rule with comment period
would create three new exceptions to
the 1-year filing deadline.
The budgetary impact related to this
provision is significant as future
payment of claims for services incurred
will now be made at an earlier date,
relative to the 12-month submission
expiration. This is reflected by the Part
A and Part B payment amounts of $60
and $50 million for FY 2011. However,
for purposes of the RIA, the economic
impact of this provision is noneconomically significant, as to the
interest lost on money now required to
pay claims prior to the 12-month
submission expiration is minimal.
Providers and suppliers have
established billing practices for the
submission of claims for payment to the
Medicare program. Although this final
rule with comment period would
require providers and suppliers to
submit Medicare FFS claims within 12
months from the date of service, we
believe providers and suppliers would
easily revise their billing practices on a
one-time basis, and suffer no economic
impact. In fact, analysis of Medicare
claims data shows that more than 99
percent of Part A and Part B claims are
filed in 12 months or less. Lastly,
providers, suppliers, or the small
number of beneficiaries that
occasionally submit claims may benefit
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
from the availability of the three new
exceptions to the timely filing rule.
However, we believe the impact on
program costs would be negligible.
We did not receive any comments on
the RIA for this provision.
22. Section 6410 of Patient
Accountability and Affordable Care Act
and Section 154 of MIPPA: Adjustments
to the Metropolitan Statistical Areas
(MSA) for Medicare Durable Medical
Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and
Supplies Competitive Acquisition
Program
For the impact of this provision see
section XI.E.7.c. of this final rule with
comment period.
23. Section 10501(i)(3): Collection of
HCPCS Data for the Development and
Implementation of a Prospective
Payment System for the Medicare FQHC
Program
As discussed in section VI.W. of this
final rule with comment period, section
10501(i)(3) of the ACA establishes a
process by which we will collect claims
level data, using HCPCS codes, from
FQHCs. This data will be used to
determine the time, scope, and intensity
of services provided by FQHCs in
anticipation of the establishment of a
prospective payment system to be
implemented beginning in 2014. We
further noted that the proposed new
data collection effort would be for
informational and data gathering
purposes only, and would not be
utilized to determine Medicare payment
to the FQHC. Because this provision
does not affect payment to FQHCs, there
is no impact.
E. Other Provisions of the Final Rule
1. Part B Drug Payment: ASP Issues
Application of our policies for ‘‘Carry
Over ASP’’ and ‘‘Partial Quarter ASP
Data,’’ as discussed in section VII.A. of
this final rule with comment period, are
dependent on the status and quality of
quarterly manufacturer data
submissions, so we cannot quantify
associated savings.
Furthermore, we do not expect that
our policy for determining the payment
amount for drugs and biologicals that
include intentional overfill, as
discussed in section VII.A of this final
rule with comment period, will impact
payments made by the Medicare
program.
Finally, as discussed in section VII.A
of this final rule with comment period,
we are not finalizing our price
substitution policy at this time and as a
result there is no impact to the program
as no changes to policy are being made.
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
2. Ambulance Fee Schedule: Policy for
Reporting Units When Billing for
Ambulance Fractional Mileage
As discussed in section VII.B. of this
final rule with comment period, we are
implementing fractional mileage billing
for all providers and suppliers of
ambulance services. Effective for dates
of service on and after January 1, 2011,
ambulance providers and suppliers
(except for providers eligible to bill on
the Form UB–04) will be required to
report mileage rounded up to the
nearest tenth of a mile, rather than the
nearest whole mile, on all claims for
mileage totaling up to 100 covered
miles, and we will pay based on that
amount. Implementation of the
fractional mileage billing policy will be
delayed until August 1, 2011 for
ambulance providers submitting claims
on the Form UB–04, unless updates to
allow billing fractional units on the
Form UB–04 are not completed by July
2011. In that case, implementation of
the fractional mileage billing policy is
delayed for ambulance providers
eligible to bill on the Form UB–04 until
January 1, 2012.
By requiring that providers and
suppliers round up to the nearest tenth
of a mile rather than the nearest whole
mile, providers and suppliers will be
submitting claims for anywhere between
0.1 and 0.9 of a mile less per claim and
Medicare will pay based on that
amount. In our analysis (using 2008
claim data) for the proposed rule, we
indicated that Medicare could
potentially save at least $45 million per
year in payments for base mileage billed
by suppliers, and perhaps as much as
$80 million per year when considering
other types of ambulance mileage
payments such as those for rural
mileage and those made to institutional
providers. Further analysis has revealed
that, once adjusted for other factors such
as premium offsets and MA savings, the
potential annual savings totals
approximately $30 million for supplierbilled base mileage alone. We continue
to anticipate that the total savings will
likely increase when considering other
ambulance mileage payments such as
for rural mileage, institutional provider
payments, etc. However, we were not
able to further analyze the potential
additional savings using available data.
Although implementation of the
fractional mileage billing policy for
institutional providers billing on paper
claims is delayed in the final rule with
comment period, the volume of
institutional paper billers is
insignificant—less than 1 percent of all
institutional billers submits claims on
the Form UB–04—and therefore, will
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
not significantly impact any potential
savings.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
3. Chiropractic Services Demonstration
As discussed in section VII.D. of this
final rule with comment period, we are
continuing the recoupment of the $50
million in expenditures from this
demonstration in order to satisfy the
budget neutrality requirement in section
651(f)(1)(b) of the MMA. We initiated
this recoupment in CY 2010 and this
will be the second year. As discussed in
the CY 2010 PFS final rule with
comment period, we finalized a policy
to recoup $10 million each year through
adjustments to the PFS for all
chiropractors in CYs 2010 through 2014.
To implement this required budget
neutrality adjustment, we are recouping
$10 million in CY 2011 by reducing the
payment amount under the PFS for the
chiropractic CPT codes (that is, CPT
codes 98940, 98941, and 98942) by
approximately 2 percent.
4. Renal Dialysis Services Furnished by
ESRD Facilities
The ESRD related provisions are
discussed in sections VI.P.1. and VII.E.
of this final rule with comment period.
To understand the impact of the
changes affecting payments to different
categories of ESRD facilities, it is
necessary to compare estimated
payments under the current year (CY
2010 payments) to estimated payments
under the revisions to the composite
rate payment system (CY 2011
payments) as discussed in section VII.E.
of this final rule with comment period.
To estimate the impact among various
classes of ESRD facilities, it is
imperative that the estimates of current
payments and estimates of proposed
payments contain similar inputs.
Therefore, we simulated payments only
for those ESRD facilities for which we
are able to calculate both current CY
2010 payments and proposed CY 2011
payments.
Also, as explained in the ESRD PPS
final rule (74 FR 49162 through 49164),
section 1881(b)(14)(E)(i) of the Act
requires a 4-year transition (phase-in)
from the current composite payment
system to the ESRD PPS, and section
1881(b)(14)(E)(ii) allows ESRD facilities
to make a one-time election to be
excluded from the transition. As of
January 1, 2011, ESRD facilities that
elect to go through the transition would
be paid a blended amount that will
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
consist of 75 percent of the basic casemix adjusted composite payment system
and the remaining 25 percent would be
based on the ESRD PPS payment.
Therefore, these final rates listed in the
impact table (Table Q3) reflect only the
composite rate portion of the blended
payment amounts for facilities going
through the first year of the 4-year
transition under the new ESRD PPS.
ESRD providers were grouped into the
categories based on characteristics
provided in the Online Survey and
Certification and Reporting (OSCAR)
file and the most recent cost report data
from the Healthcare Cost Report
Information System (HCRIS). We also
used the June 2010 update of CY 2009
National Claims History file as a basis
for Medicare dialysis treatments and
separately billable drugs and
biologicals. Since the December 2009
update of the CY 2009 National Claims
History File is incomplete, we updated
the data. The description of the updates
for the separately billable drugs is
described in section VII.E. of this final
rule with comment period. To update
the treatment counts we used the ratio
of the June 2009 to the December 2008
updates of the CY 2008 National Claims
History File figure for treatments. This
was an increase of 12.4 percent. Due to
data limitations, we are unable to
estimate current and proposed
payments for 32 of the 5431 ESRD
facilities that bill for ESRD dialysis
treatments.
Table 103 shows the impact of this
year’s changes to CY 2011 payments to
hospital-based and independent ESRD
facilities. The first column of Table 103
identifies the type of ESRD provider, the
second column indicates the number of
ESRD facilities for each type, and the
third column indicates the number of
dialysis treatments. The fourth column
shows the effect of all changes to the
ESRD wage index for CY 2011 as it
affects the composite rate payments to
ESRD facilities. The fourth column
compares aggregate ESRD wage-adjusted
composite rate payments in CY 2011 to
aggregate ESRD wage-adjusted
composite rate payments in CY 2010. In
CY 2010, ESRD facilities receive 100
percent of the CBSA wage-adjusted
composite rate. The overall effect to all
ESRD providers in aggregate is zero
because the CY 2011 ESRD wage index
has been multiplied by a budget
neutrality adjustment factor to comply
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73605
with the statutory requirement that any
wage index revisions be done in a
manner that results in the same
aggregate amount of expenditures as
would have been made without any
changes in the wage index. The fifth
column shows the effect of changes to
the ESRD wage index in CY 2011 and
the effect of section 3401(h) of the ACA,
which amends section 1881(b)(14)(F) of
the Act to revise the ESRD market
basket increase factor. Effective January
1, 2011, there is a full ESRD bundled
market basket update to the composite
rate component of the blended payment
amount under the payment system. We
apply an ESRD market basket increase
factor of 2.5 percent for those facilities
electing to go through the ESRD PPS
transition. The sixth column shows the
overall effect of the changes in
composite rate payments to ESRD
providers, including the drug add-on.
The overall effect is measured as the
difference between the CY 2011
payment with all changes in this rule
and current CY 2010 payment. This
payment amount is computed by
multiplying the wage-adjusted
composite rate with the drug add-on for
each provider times the number of
dialysis treatments from the CY 2009
claims. The CY 2011 payment is the
composite rate for each provider (with
the 14.7 percent drug add-on) times
dialysis treatments from CY 2009
claims. The CY 2010 current payment is
the composite rate for each provider
(with the current 15.0 percent drug addon) times dialysis treatments from CY
2009 claims.
The overall impact to ESRD providers
in aggregate is 2.2 percent as shown in
Table 103. Most ESRD facilities will see
an increase in payments as a result of
the ACA provision. While section
3401(h) of the ACA modifies the ESRD
bundled market basket, which we will
be a 2.5 percent increase to the ESRD
composite rate portion of the blended
payment amount, this 2.5 percent
increase does not apply to the drug addon to the composite rate. For this
reason, the impact of all changes in this
final rule with comment period is a 2.2
percent increase for all ESRD providers.
Overall, payments to ineligible
professional independent ESRD
facilities will increase by 2.2 percent
and payments to hospital-based ESRD
facilities will increase by 2.1 percent.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73606
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 103—IMPACT OF CY 2011 CHANGES IN PAYMENTS TO HOSPITAL-BASED AND INDEPENDENT ESRD FACILITIES
[Percent change in composite rate payments to ESRD facilities]
1
2
4
5
6
Number of
facilities
All Providers:
Independent ..................................................................
Hospital Based ..............................................................
By Facility Size:
Less than 5000 treatments ...........................................
5000 to 9999 treatments ..............................................
Greater than 9999 treatments ......................................
Type of Ownership:
Profit ..............................................................................
Nonprofit .......................................................................
By Geographic Location:
Rural .............................................................................
Urban ............................................................................
By Region:
New England ................................................................
Middle Atlantic ..............................................................
East North Central ........................................................
West North Central .......................................................
South Atlantic ................................................................
East South Central .......................................................
West South Central ......................................................
Mountain .......................................................................
Pacific ...........................................................................
Puerto Rico & Virgin Islands ........................................
3
Number of
dialysis
treatments
(in millions)
Effect of
changes in
wage index 1
(percent)
Effect of
changes in
wage index
and of affordable Care Act
provision 2
(percent)
Overall effect
of wage index
affordable
Care Act &
Drug Add-on 3
(percent)
5,399
4,821
578
38.6
34.9
3.7
0.0
0.0
¥0.1
2.5
2.5
2.4
2.2
2.2
2.1
2105
2,049
1,245
5.9
14.8
17.9
0.1
0.1
¥0.1
2.5
2.6
2.4
2.3
2.3
2.2
4,423
976
31.8
6.7
0.0
¥0.1
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.1
1,178
4,221
6.2
32.4
0.1
0.0
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.2
165
603
885
403
1,211
422
729
323
619
39
1.3
4.8
6.0
2.1
8.8
2.9
5.6
1.8
5.0
0.4
¥0.6
¥0.4
0.2
¥0.1
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.1
¥2.4
1.8
2.1
2.7
2.4
2.5
2.7
2.9
2.7
2.6
0.0
1.6
1.8
2.4
2.2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.4
2.4
¥0.2
Notes: Payments have been adjusted to reflect budget neutrality.
2010 includes the MIPPA 1% increase and site neutral rates.
2010 & 2011 are 100 percent new CBSA wage adjusted composite rate.
1 This column shows the overall effect of wage index changes on ESRD providers. Composite rate payments are computed using the final CY
2011 wage indexes which are compared to composite rate payments using the current CY 2010 wage indexes.
2 This column shows the effect of the changes in the Wage Indexes and the ACA provision which includes an ESRD Bundled Market Basket
(2.5 percent) increase to the composite rate. This provision is effective January 1, 2011.
3 This column shows the percent change between CY 2011 and CY 2010 composite rate payments to ESRD facilities. The CY 2011 payments
include the CY 2011 wage adjusted composite rate, a 2.5% increase due to the ACA, effective January 1, 2011, and the drug add-on of 14.7%.
The CY 2010 payments include the CY 2010 wage adjusted composite rate, a 1% increase and site neutral rates effective January 1, 2009 and
the drug add-on of 15.0%. This column shows the effect of wage index, ACA, and drug add-on changes. While the ACA provision includes a
2.5% increase to the composite rate, this increase does not apply to the drug add-on to the composite rate. For this reason, the impact of all
changes in this final rule with comment period is a 2.2% increase for all ESRD providers.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
5. Section 131(b) of the MIPPA:
Physician Payment, Efficiency, and
Quality Improvements—Physician
Quality Reporting System
As discussed in section VII.F.1 of this
final rule with comment period, we are
finalizing several different reporting
options for eligible professionals who
wish to participate in the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System.
Although there may be some cost
incurred in the Physician Quality
Reporting System and their associated
code sets, and for expanding an existing
clinical data warehouse to accommodate
registry-based reporting and EHR-based
reporting for the Physician Quality
Reporting System, we do not anticipate
a significant cost impact on the
Medicare program.
Participation in the CY 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System by
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
individual eligible professionals is
voluntary and individual eligible
professionals and group practices may
have different processes for integrating
the Physician Quality Reporting System
into their practice’s work flows. Given
this variability and the multiple
reporting options that we provide, it is
difficult to accurately estimate the
impact of the Physician Quality
Reporting System on providers.
Furthermore, we believe that costs for
eligible professionals who are
participating in the Physician Quality
Reporting System for the first time in
2011 will be considerably higher than
the cost for eligible professionals who
participated in Physician Quality
Reporting System in prior years. In
addition, for many eligible
professionals, the cost of participating
in the Physician Quality Reporting
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
System is offset by the incentive
payment received.
With respect to the potential incentive
payment that will be made for the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System, we
estimate this amount to be
approximately $100 million. This
estimate is derived from looking at our
2008 incentive payment of more than
$95 million and then accounting for the
fact that the 2008 incentive payment
was 1.5 percent of an eligible
professional’s total estimated Medicare
Part B PFS allowed charges for all
covered professional services furnished
during the 2008 reporting period. For
2011, the incentive payment is 1.0
percent of an eligible professional’s total
estimated Medicare Part B PFS allowed
charges for all covered professional
services furnished during the 2011
reporting period. Although we expect
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
that the lower incentive payment
amount for 2011 would reduce the total
outlay by approximately one-third, we
also expect more eligible professionals
to participate in the 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System as there are
more methods of data submission and
additional alternative reporting periods
and that some eligible professionals
would qualify for the additional 0.5
percent incentive authorized under
section 1848(m)(7) of the Act
(‘‘Additional Incentive Payment’’).
One factor that influences the cost to
individual eligible professionals is the
time and effort associated with
individual eligible professionals
identifying applicable Physician Quality
Reporting System quality measures and
reviewing and selecting a reporting
option. This burden will vary with each
individual eligible professional by the
number of applicable measures, the
eligible professional’s familiarity, and
understanding of the Physician Quality
Reporting System I, experience with
Physician Quality Reporting System
participation, and the method(s)
selected by the eligible professional for
reporting of the measures, and
incorporating the reporting of the
measures into the office work flows.
Information obtained from the Physician
Voluntary Reporting Program (PVRP),
which was a predecessor to the
Physician Quality Reporting System and
was the first step for the reporting of
physician quality of care through certain
quality metrics, indicated an average
labor cost per practice of approximately
$50 per hour. To account for salary
increases over time, we will use an
average practice labor cost of $58 per
hour for our estimates, based on an
assumption of an average annual
increase of approximately 3 percent.
Therefore, assuming that it takes an
individual eligible professional
approximately 5 hours to review the
PQRI quality measures, review the
various reporting options, select the
most appropriate reporting option,
identify the applicable measures for
which they can report the necessary
information, and incorporate reporting
of the selected measures into their office
work flows, we estimate that the cost to
eligible professionals associated with
preparing to report Physician Quality
Reporting System quality measures
would be approximately $290 per
individual eligible professional ($58 per
hour × 5 hours).
Another factor that influences the cost
to individual eligible professionals is
how they choose to report the Physician
Quality Reporting System measures
(that is, whether they select the claimsbased, registry-based or EHR-based
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
reporting mechanism). For claims-based
reporting, estimates from the PVRP
indicate the time needed to perform all
the steps necessary to report quality
data codes (QDCs) for 1 measure on a
claim ranges from 15 seconds (0.25
minutes) to 12 minutes for complicated
cases or measures. In previous years,
when we required reporting on 80
percent of eligible cases for claimsbased reporting, we found that on
average, the median number of reporting
instances for each of the PQRI measures
was 9. Since we reduced the required
reporting rate by over one-third to 50
percent, then for purposes of this impact
analysis we will assume that an eligible
professional will need to report each
selected measure for 6 reporting
instances, or 6 cases. Assuming that an
eligible professional, on average, will
report 3 measures and that an eligible
professional reports on an average of 6
reporting instances per measure, we
estimate that the cost to an individual
eligible professional associated with
claims-based reporting of Physician
Quality Reporting System measures
would range from approximately $4.35
(0.25 minutes per reporting instance × 6
reporting instances per measure × 3
measures × $58 per hour) to $208.80
(12 minutes per reporting instance × 6
reporting instances per measure × 3
measures × $58 per hour). If an eligible
professional satisfactorily reports, these
costs will more than likely be negated
by the incentive earned. For the 2007
PQRI, which had a 1.5 percent incentive
for a 6-month reporting period, the
mean incentive amount was close to
$700 for an individual eligible
professional and the median incentive
payment amount was over $300.
For registry-based reporting,
individual eligible professionals must
generally incur a cost to submit data to
registries. Estimated fees for using a
qualified registry range from no charge,
or a nominal charge, for an individual
eligible professional to use a registry to
several thousand dollars, with a
majority of registries charging fees
ranging from $500 to $1,000. However,
our impact analysis is limited to the
incremental costs associated with
Physician Quality Reporting System
reporting, which we believe are
minimal. Many eligible professionals
who select registry-based reporting were
already utilizing the registry for other
purposes and would not need to report
additional data to the registry
specifically for Physician Quality
Reporting System. The registries also
often provide the eligible professional
services above and beyond what is
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73607
required for Physician Quality
Reporting System.
For EHR-based reporting, an
individual eligible professional
generally will incur a cost associated
with purchasing an EHR product.
Although we do not believe that the
majority of eligible professionals would
purchase an EHR solely for the purpose
of participating in Physician Quality
Reporting System, cost estimates for
EHR adoption by eligible professionals
from the EHR Incentive Program final
rule (75 FR 44549) show that an
individual eligible professional who
chooses to do so would have to spend
anywhere from $25,000 to $54,000 to
purchase and implement an EHR and up
to $18,000 annually for ongoing
maintenance.
Although we believe that the majority
of eligible professionals attempting to
qualify for the additional 0.5 percent
incentive payment authorized by
section 1848(m)(7) of the Act would be
those who are already required by their
Boards to participate in a Maintenance
of Certification Program, individual
eligible professionals who wish to
qualify for the additional 0.5 percent
incentive payment and are not currently
participating in a Maintenance of
Certification Program would also have
to incur a cost for participating in a
Maintenance of Certification Program.
The manner in which fees are charged
for participating in a Maintenance of
Certification Program vary by specialty.
Some Boards charge a single fee for
participation in the full cycle of
Maintenance of Certification Program.
Such fees appear to range anywhere
from over $1,100 to nearly $1,800 per
cycle. Some Boards have annual fees
that are paid by their diplomates. On
average, ABMS diplomates pay
approximately $200.00 per year for
participating in Maintenance of
Certification Program. Some Boards
have an additional fee for the
Maintenance of Certification Program
Part III secure examination, but most
Boards do not have additional charges
for participation in the Part IV practice/
quality improvement activities.
With respect to the process for group
practices to be treated as satisfactorily
submitting quality measures data for the
CY 2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System discussed in section VII.F.1 of
this final rule with comment period,
group practices interested in
participating in the CY 2011 Physician
Quality Reporting System through the
group practice reporting option (GPRO)
I or GPRO II may also incur a cost.
However, for groups that satisfactorily
report for 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System, we believe these
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73608
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
costs would be completely offset by the
incentive payment earned since the
group practice would be eligible for an
incentive payment equal to 1 percent of
the entire group’s total estimated
Medicare Part B PFS allowed charges for
covered professional services furnished
during the reporting period.
One factor in the cost to group
practices would be the costs associated
with the self-nomination process.
Similar to our estimates for staff
involved with the claims-based
reporting option for individual eligible
professionals, we also estimate that the
group practice staff involved in the
group practice self-nomination process
has an average labor cost of $58 per
hour. Therefore, assuming 2 hours for a
group practice to decide whether to
participate individually or as a group
and 4 hours for the self-nomination
process, we estimate the total cost to a
group practice associated with the group
practice self-nomination process to be
approximately $348 ($58 per hour × 6
hours per group practice).
For groups participating under the
GPRO I process, another factor in the
cost to the group would be the time and
effort associated with the group practice
completing and submitting the proposed
data collection tool. The information
collection components of this data
collection tool have been reviewed by
OMB and are currently approved under
OMB control number 0938–0941, with
an expiration date of December 31,
2011. Based on the Physician Group
Practice (PGP) demonstration’s estimate
that it takes approximately 79 hours for
a group practice to complete the data
collection tool, which uses the same
data submission methods as those we
have finalized, we estimate the cost
associated with a physician group
completing the data collection tool
would be approximately $4,582 ($58 per
hour × 79 hours per group practice).
For group practices participating
under the GPRO II process, the costs
associated with submitting the
Physician Quality Reporting System
quality measures data will be the time
associated with the group practice
submitting the required data to CMS via
claims or, if applicable, a registry. The
costs for a group practice reporting to a
registry is similar to the costs associated
with registry reporting for an individual
eligible professional, as the process is
the same with the exception that more
patients and more measures must be
reported in GPRO II compared to an
individual eligible professional. For
similar reasons, the costs for a group
practice reporting via claims should also
be similar to the costs associated with
claims-based reporting for an individual
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
eligible professional. Overall, there is
significantly less burden associated with
a group practice participating in
Physician Quality Reporting System via
GPRO II than doing so as individual
eligible professionals. Participation in
GPRO II requires the group practice as
a whole to report a fewer number of
measures on a fewer number of people
since eligible professionals within a
group who share patients will not be
required to separately report measures
for those shared patients. Therefore,
assuming that an average group practice
will spend 20 hours for data
submission, we estimate the cost of data
submission under GPRO II would be
approximately $1,160 (20 hours for data
submission × $58 per hour). Smaller
groups may need less time for data
submission as they would be required to
report fewer measures and presumably
have a smaller patient population while
larger groups may need more time for
data submission since they would be
required to report more measures and
presumably have a larger patient
population.
In addition to costs incurred by
eligible professionals and group
practices, registries and EHR vendors
may also incur some costs related to the
Physician Quality Reporting System.
Registries interested in becoming
‘‘qualified’’ to submit on behalf of
individual eligible professionals would
also have to incur a cost associated with
the vetting process and with calculating
quality measures results from the data
submitted to the registry by its
participants and submitting the quality
measures results and numerator and
denominator data on quality measures
to CMS on behalf of their participants.
We estimate the registry self-nomination
process will cost approximately $500
per registry ($50 per hour × 10 hours per
registry). This cost estimate includes the
cost of submitting the self-nomination
letter to CMS and completing the CMS
vetting process. Our estimate of $50 per
hour average labor cost for registries is
based on the assumption that registry
staff include IT professionals whose
average hourly rates range from $36 to
$84 per hour depending on experience,
with an average rate of nearly $50 per
hour for a mid-level programmer.
Because we are finalizing new
requirements for 2011, the 2010
qualified registries will incur similar
costs associated with the selfnomination process. We do not believe
that there are any additional costs for
registries associated with a registry
calculating quality measures results
from the data submitted to the registry
by its participants and submitting the
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
quality measures results and numerator
and denominator data on quality
measures to CMS on behalf of their
participants. We believe that the
majority of registries already perform
these functions for their participants.
An EHR vendor interested in having
its product(s) be used by individual
eligible professionals to submit
Physician Quality Reporting System
measures to CMS for 2012 will have to
complete a vetting process during 2011
and program its EHR product(s) to
extract the clinical data that the eligible
professional needs to submit to CMS for
purposes of reporting 2012 quality
measures in 2013 as well. We specified
that previously qualified vendors will
need to only update their electronic
measure specifications and data
transmission schema during 2011 to
incorporate any new EHR measures to
maintain their qualification for the 2012
Physician Quality Reporting System.
Therefore, for EHR vendors that were
not previously qualified, the cost
associated with completing the selfnomination process, including the
vetting process with CMS officials, is
estimated to be $500 ($50 per hour × 10
hours per EHR vendor). Our estimate of
a $50 per hour average labor cost for
EHR vendors is based on the
assumption that vendor staff include IT
professionals whose average hourly
rates range from $36 to $84 per hour
depending on experience, with an
average rate of nearly $50 per hour for
a mid-level programmer. We believe
that the cost associated with the time
and effort needed for an EHR vendor to
review the quality measures and other
information and program the EHR
product to enable individual eligible
professionals to submit Physician
Quality Reporting System quality
measures data to the CMS-designated
clinical warehouse will be dependent
on the EHR vendor’s familiarity with the
Physician Quality Reporting System, the
vendor’s system’s capabilities, as well as
the vendor’s programming capabilities.
Some vendors already have the
necessary capabilities and for such
vendors, we estimate the total cost to be
approximately $2,000 ($50 per hour ×
40 hours per vendor). However, given
the variability in the capabilities of the
vendors, we believe an estimate for
those vendors with minimal experience
would be approximately $10,000 per
vendor ($50 per hour × 200 hours per
EHR vendor).
6. Section 132 of the MIPPA: Incentives
for Electronic Prescribing (eRx)—The
eRx Incentive Program
Section VII.F.2. of this final rule with
comment period describes the 2011
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Electronic Prescribing (eRx) Incentive
Program. To be considered a successful
electronic prescriber in CY 2011, an
individual eligible professional will
need to meet the requirements described
in section VII.F.2. of this final rule with
comment period.
We estimate that the cost impact of
the eRx Incentive Program on the
Medicare program would be the cost
incurred for maintaining the electronic
prescribing measure and its associated
code set, and for maintaining the
existing clinical data warehouse to
accommodate registry-based reporting
and EHR-based reporting for the
electronic prescribing measure.
However, we do not believe that this
provision has a significant cost impact
on the Medicare program since much of
this infrastructure has already been
established for the Physician Quality
Reporting System program.
Individual eligible professionals and
group practices may have different
processes for integrating the eRx
Incentive Program into their practices’
work flows. Given this variability and
the multiple reporting options that we
provide, it is difficult to accurately
estimate the impact of the eRx Incentive
Program on providers. Furthermore, we
believe that costs for eligible
professionals who are participating in
the eRx Incentive Program for the first
time in 2011 will be considerably higher
than the cost for eligible professionals
who participated in the eRx Incentive
Program in prior years. In addition, for
many eligible professionals (especially
those who participated in the eRx
Incentive Program in prior years), the
cost of participating in the eRx Incentive
Program for 2011 will be offset by the
incentive payment received. As a result
of the payment adjustment that begins
in 2012, the cost of not participating in
the eRx Incentive Program for 2011
could be higher than the cost of
participating in the form of reduced
Medicare payments.
For the 2009 eRx Incentive Program,
approximately $148 million in total
incentives were paid to eligible
professionals with a median incentive
amount of about $1,600. We estimate
that the total incentive payments for the
2011 eRx Incentive Program (which will
be paid in 2012) will be similar. We
anticipate that despite a decrease in the
incentive payment amount from 2
percent in 2010 to 1 percent of total
estimated Medicare Part B allowed
charges for covered professional
services in 2011, more eligible
professionals (and groups) will choose
to participate in the 2011 eRx Incentive
Program to avoid a prospective 1
percent payment penalty in 2012 for not
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
demonstrating that they are successful
electronic prescribers. Any eligible
professional who wishes to participate
in the eRx Incentive Program must have
a qualified electronic prescribing system
in order to participate. Therefore, a onetime potential cost to some individual
eligible professionals would be the cost
of purchasing and using an eRx system,
which varies by the commercial
software package selected, the level at
which the professional currently
employs information technology in his
or her practice and the training needed.
One study indicated that a midrange
complete electronic medical record with
electronic prescribing functionality
costs $2,500 per license with an annual
fee of $90 per license for quarterly
updates of the drug database after setup
costs while standalone prescribing,
messaging, and problem list system may
cost $1,200 per physician per year after
setup costs. Hardware costs and setup
fees substantially add to the final cost of
any software package. (Corley, S.T.
(2003). ‘‘Electronic prescribing: A review
of costs and benefits.’’ Topics in Health
Information Management 24(1):29–38.).
These are the estimates that we intend
to use for our impact analysis.
Similar to the Physician Quality
Reporting System, one factor in the cost
to individual eligible professionals is
the time and effort associated with
individual eligible professionals
reviewing the electronic prescribing
measure to determine whether it is
applicable to them, reviewing the
available reporting options and selecting
one, gathering the required information,
and incorporating reporting of the
measure into their office work flows.
Since the eRx Incentive Program
consists of only 1 quality measure, we
estimate 2 hours as the amount of time
needed for individual eligible
professionals to prepare for
participation in the eRx Incentive
Program. Information obtained from the
PVRP, which was a predecessor to the
Physician Quality Reporting System and
was the first step for the reporting of
physician quality of care through certain
quality metrics, indicated an average
labor cost per practice of approximately
$50 per hour. To account for salary
increases over time, we will use an
average practice labor cost of $58 per
hour for our estimates, based on an
assumption of an average annual
increase of approximately 3 percent. At
an average cost of approximately $58
per hour, we estimate the total
preparation costs to individual eligible
professionals to be approximately $116
($58 per hour × 2 hours).
Another factor that influences the cost
to individual eligible professionals is
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73609
how they choose to report the electronic
prescribing measure (that is, whether
they select the claims-based, registrybased or EHR-based reporting
mechanism). For claims-based
reporting, there would be a cost
associated with reporting the
appropriate QDC on the claims an
individual eligible professional submits
for payment. Based on the information
from the PVRP described above for the
amount of time it takes a median
practice to report one measure one time
(1.75 minutes) and the requirement to
report 25 electronic prescribing events
during 2011, we estimate the annual
estimated cost per individual eligible
professional to report the electronic
prescribing measure via claimssubmission to be $42.29 (1.75 minutes
per case × 1 measure × 25 cases per
measure × $58 per hour). We believe
that for most successful electronic
prescribers who earn an incentive, these
costs would be negated by the incentive
payment received given that the median
incentive for eligible professionals who
qualified for a 2009 eRx incentive was
around $1,600.
For eligible professionals who select
the registry-based reporting mechanism,
we do not anticipate any additional cost
for individual eligible professionals to
report data to a registry, as individual
eligible professionals opting for registrybased reporting are more than likely
already reporting data to the registry.
Little, if any, additional data would
need to be reported to the registry for
purposes of participation in the CY 2011
eRx Incentive Program. Individual
eligible professionals using registries for
Physician Quality Reporting System
will likely experience minimal, if any,
increased costs charged by the registry
to report this 1 additional measure.
For EHR-based reporting, the eligible
professional must extract the necessary
clinical data from his or her EHR, and
submit the necessary data to the CMSdesignated clinical data warehouse.
Once the EHR is programmed by the
vendor to allow data submission to
CMS, the cost to the individual eligible
professional associated with the time
and effort to submit data on the
electronic prescribing measure should
be minimal.
With respect to the process for group
practices to be treated as successful
electronic prescribers under the CY
2011 eRx Incentive Program discussed
in section VII.F.2 of this final rule with
comment period, group practices have
the same option as individual eligible
professionals in terms of the form and
manner for reporting the eRx measure
(that is, group practices have the option
of reporting the measure through claims,
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73610
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
a qualified registry, or a qualified EHR
product). There are only 2 differences
between the requirements for an
individual eligible professional and a
group practice: (1) The fact that a group
practice would have to self-nominate;
and (2) the number of times a group
practice would be required to report the
eRx measure. Overall, there could be
less cost associated with a practice
participating in the eRx Incentive
Program as a group rather than the
individual members of the group
separately participating. We do not
believe that there are any additional
costs associated with the group practice
self-nomination process since we are
limiting the group practices to those
selected to participate in the 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System
GPRO I or Physician Quality Reporting
System GPRO II. The practices only will
need to indicate their desire to
participate in the eRx GPRO at the time
they self-nominate for either Physician
Quality Reporting System GPRO I or
Physician Quality Reporting System
GPRO II.
The costs for a group practice
reporting to an EHR or registry should
be similar to the costs associated with
registry and EHR reporting for an
individual eligible professional, as the
process is the same with the exception
that more electronic prescribing events
must be reported by the group. For
similar reasons, the costs for a group
practice reporting via claims should also
be similar to the costs associated with
claims-based reporting for an individual
eligible professional. Therefore, we
estimate that the costs for group
practices who are selected to participate
in the CY 2011 eRx Incentive Program
as a group would range from $126.88
(1.75 minutes per case × 1 measure × 75
cases per measure × $58 per hour) for
the smallest groups participating under
GPRO II to $4,229.17 (1.75 minutes per
case × 2,500 cases per measure × $58 per
hour) for the groups participating under
GPRO I.
We believe that the costs to individual
eligible professionals and group
practices associated with avoiding the
eRx payment adjustment that goes into
effect in 2012 would be similar to the
costs of an eligible professional or group
practice reporting the electronic
prescribing measure for purposes of the
2011 eRx incentive. Specifically, we
believe that the cost of reporting the eRx
measure in one instance for purposes of
the payment adjustment is identical to
the cost of reporting the eRx measure for
one instance on claims for purposes of
the incentive payment. The only
difference would be in the total costs for
an individual eligible professional.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
Group practices are required to report
the eRx measure for the same number of
eRx events for both the 2011 incentive
and the 2012 payment adjustment.
Individual eligible professionals,
however, are required to report the eRx
measure only for 10 eRx events for
purposes of the 2012 payment
adjustment as opposed to 25 eRx events
for purposes of the 2011 incentive.
Based on our decision to consider
only registries qualified to submit
quality measures results and numerator
and denominator data on quality
measures to CMS on their participants’
behalf for the 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System to be qualified to
submit results and numerator and
denominator data on the eRx measure
for the CY 2011 eRx Incentive Program,
we do not estimate any cost to the
registry associated with becoming a
registry qualified to submit the eRx
measure for CY 2011.
The cost for the registry would be the
time and effort associated with the
registry calculating results for the eRx
measure from the data submitted to the
registry by its participants and
submitting the quality measures results
and numerator and denominator data on
the eRx quality measure to CMS on
behalf of their participants. We believe
such costs will be minimal as registries
would already be required to perform
these activities for the Physician Quality
Reporting System.
Likewise, based on our decision to
consider only EHR products qualified
for the CY 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System to be qualified to
submit results and numerator and
denominator data on the electronic
prescribing measure for the CY 2011
eRx Incentive Program, there would be
no need for EHR vendors to undergo a
separate self-nomination process for the
eRx Incentive Program. Therefore, there
will be no additional cost associated
with the self-nomination process.
The cost to the EHR vendor associated
with the EHR-based reporting
requirements of this reporting initiative
is the time and effort associated with the
EHR vendor programming its EHR
product(s) to extract the clinical data
that the individual eligible professional
needs to submit to CMS for reporting
the CY 2011 eRx measure. Since we
determined that only EHR products
qualified for the 2011 Physician Quality
Reporting System will be qualified for
the CY 2011 eRx Incentive Program, and
the eRx Incentive Program consists of
only one measure, we believe that any
burden associated with the EHR vendor
to program its product(s) to enable
individual eligible professionals to
submit data on the eRx measure to the
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
CMS-designated clinical data warehouse
will be minimal.
7. Durable Medical Equipment-Related
Issues
a. Off-the-Shelf (OTS) Orthotics
Exemption
In section VII.G. of this final rule with
comment period, we are expanding the
exemptions from the CBP for certain
OTS orthotics to physicians, other
practitioners (as defined by the
Secretary), or by hospitals if furnished
to their own patients as part of their
professional service.
The exemption is a self-implementing
mandate required by section 154(d) of
MIPPA, which added section 1847(a)(7)
of the Act. Section 1847(a)(7)(A) of the
Act expanded the exemptions from the
CBP for certain OTS orthotics to
physicians, other practitioners (as
defined by the Secretary), or hospitals if
furnished to their own patients as part
of their professional service. Section
1847(a)(7)(B) of the Act, as added by
section 154(d) of MIPPA, also expanded
the exemption from CBP for certain
DME items (crutches, canes, walkers,
folding manual wheelchairs, blood
glucose monitors, and infusion pumps)
when furnished by hospitals to the
hospital’s own patients during an
admission or on the date of discharge.
We believe this exemption will have
a negligible impact on physicians, other
practitioners, and hospitals. The
exemption allows physicians, other
practitioners, and hospitals to continue
to provide these items to their own
patients without submitting a bid and
becoming a contract supplier. This
exemption also allows continued access
to these items for beneficiaries when
these items are furnished by physicians,
other practitioners, and hospitals to
their own patients.
b. Changes to Payment for Oxygen
Equipment
We are not finalizing our proposal
pertaining to oxygen and oxygen
equipment; and therefore, the impact
analysis associated with this proposal is
not being finalized.
c. Diabetic Testing Supplies
We are establishing requirements for
conducting a national competition for
furnishing diabetic testing supplies on a
mail order basis. Specifically this final
rule with comment period will establish
3 requirements: A new definition for
what constitutes mail order; a rule that
requires contract suppliers to provide at
a minimum 50 percent of all of the
different types of diabetic testing
products on the market by brand and
model name; and a prohibition against
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
influencing and incentivizing
beneficiaries to switch their brand of
monitor and testing supplies.
Currently, based on claims data from
FY 2009, over 62 percent of
beneficiaries receive their replacement
diabetic testing supplies from mail order
suppliers. The new mail order
definition will not impact these
beneficiaries because they can continue
to obtain their items through mail order.
The remaining 38 percent of
beneficiaries may continue to obtain
these items from a local pharmacy. We
do not expect this rule to have any
adverse effects on beneficiaries because
the new definition of mail order item is
reflective of the way that beneficiaries
currently get their diabetic testing
supplies. However, we believe that by
clarifying this definition, we will
protect beneficiaries from paying higher
co-payment amounts and we anticipate
program savings that would have been
eroded by suppliers circumventing our
definition to continue to provide items,
even if not awarded a contract under
competitive bidding and to obtain the
higher fee schedule payment amount.
This definition is also consistent with
the way that suppliers currently do
business by either providing items
through mail order or at a local
storefront. For these reasons we believe
this new definition will have minimal
impact.
Also, we considered the option to not
bifurcate bidding based on delivery
method and to bid for diabetic testing
supplies regardless of how the items
were obtained. We rejected this
approach because it would force
companies with different business
models to compete against each other,
by requiring local pharmacies to
compete with national mail order
suppliers in order to win a contract to
be able to furnish diabetic testing
supplies.
In order to implement a national mail
order competition for diabetic supplies,
we are also implementing the special
‘‘50 percent rule’’ mandated by MIPPA.
This final rule with comment period
requires a bidder to demonstrate that its
bid covers types of diabetic testing strip
products that, in the aggregate and
taking into account volume for the
different products, cover 50 percent (or
such higher percentage as the Secretary
may specify) of all such types of
products. The 50 percent threshold
would ensure that beneficiaries have
access to mail order delivery of the topselling diabetic test strip products from
every contract supplier. We plan to use
the information that bidding suppliers
provide on their bidding Form B where
suppliers list the products they plan to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
furnish. We believe this requirement
will have a minimal impact on suppliers
because most suppliers currently
provide a wide range of the brands and
models in order to gain market share.
The statute states that suppliers are
required to carry at least 50 percent of
all brands on the market. However, the
Secretary can establish suppliers to
carry a higher percentage of brands. We
have adopted the 50 percent criteria
because we believe this is reflective of
what suppliers are currently doing and
ensures appropriate access for
beneficiaries.
In addition to the 50 percent rule we
are establishing an anti-switching
requirement. This provision would
prevent contract suppliers from
influencing or incentivizing
beneficiaries by persuading, pressuring,
or advising them to switch from their
current brand to a brand provided by
the supplier. We believe this
requirement will protect the beneficiary
and physician choice of glucose
monitoring systems. The decision
concerning the type of monitor and
testing supplies that a beneficiary
chooses should not be made by the
supplier but rather by the beneficiary
and their physician. We believe that this
provision will have a minimal impact
on suppliers because suppliers currently
offer a variety of products and generally
do not require beneficiaries to switch
from the brands they are familiar with
and customarily use.
d. Metropolitan Statistical Areas
In section VII.V. of this final rule with
comment period, we implement section
6410 of the ACA regarding adjustments
to the DMEPOS CBP. We believe that
the provisions pertaining to subdividing
metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs)
with populations of at least 8,000,000
for the purpose of establishing
competitive bidding areas (CBAs) under
Round 2 of the DMEPOS CBP will have
a positive impact on most suppliers,
particularly small suppliers. The
authority provided by section
1847(a)(1)(D)(ii)(II) of the Act will be
used to create CBAs that are smaller
than the highly and densely populated
MSAs of: Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL–
IN–WI; Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa
Ana, CA; and New York-Northern New
Jersey-Long Island, NY–NJ–PA. This
results in more manageable service areas
for suppliers to navigate when
furnishing items. More importantly, it
ensures more timely delivery of items
and services to beneficiaries located
throughout each of the MSAs. It also
benefits small suppliers because they
will have smaller geographic areas to
cover as contract suppliers than the
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73611
large MSAs, which in some cases, might
prevent them from being considered for
participation under the program. The
larger suppliers will still have the
opportunity to bid in all of the CBAs
within each MSA. We expect that
subdividing the large MSAs of Chicago,
Los Angeles, and New York would not
have a negative impact on program
savings, as long as each CBA is large
enough to be attractive to suppliers for
bidding purposes.
Table 104 considers FY cash impact
on the entire Medicare program,
including Medicare Advantage for FYs
2011 thru 2015, of the provisions of this
final rule with comment period related
to the establishment of CBAs during
Round 2 and prior to calendar year
2015. The FY–CY distinction is an
important one when comparing savings.
For example, the savings for the
DMEPOS CBP will be for 9 months of
FY 2013, but for 12 months of CY 2013.
Table 104 considers the impact on
program expenditures, and does not
include beneficiary coinsurance.
Finally, the estimates in Table 104
incorporate spillover effects from the
competitive acquisition program onto
the Medicare Advantage program. The
expectation is that the 21 additional
MSAs added to the DMEPOS CBP
would lower prices for DME products in
FFS and would lead to lower prices in
the Medicare Advantage market. The
table below considers FY cash impact of
the above provisions on the entire
Medicare program, including Medicare
Advantage for the FY.
TABLE 104—IMPACT OF ADDING 21
MSAS TO ROUND 2 OF THE MEDICARE DMEPOS COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROGRAM
FY
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
Cost
(in $ millions)
0
0
¥40
¥70
¥110
Subdividing the large MSAs of Chicago,
Los Angeles, and New York is
considered to have little to no fiscal
impact. The exceptions to the DMEPOS
CBP involving rural areas, MSAs with
populations less than 250,000, and low
population density areas in selected
MSAs before 2015 are considered to
have little to no impact because the
baseline never considered these areas as
subject to competitive bidding prices.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73612
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
8. Air Ambulance
In section VII.H. of this final rule with
comment period, we present our
provision regarding air ambulance and
provider and supplier enrollment. We
note that this provision is an
administrative initiative that may result
in Medicare program savings but at this
time those savings are inestimable. We
believe the probable costs providers or
suppliers will incur as a result of this
rule to be negligible.
F. Alternatives Considered
This final rule with comment period
contains a range of policies, including
some provisions related to specific
MIPPA and ACA provisions. The
preceding preamble provides
descriptions of the statutory provisions
that are addressed, identifies those
policies when discretion has been
exercised, presents rationale for our
final policies and, where relevant,
alternatives that were considered.
G. Impact on Beneficiaries
There are a number of changes in this
final rule with comment period that
would have an effect on beneficiaries. In
general, we believe that many of the
proposed changes, including the
refinements of the PQRI with its focus
on measuring, submitting, and
analyzing quality data, the expansion of
the list of Medicare-approved telehealth
services, the incentive payments for
primary care services furnished by
primary care practitioners in any
location and major surgical procedures
furnished by general surgeons in
HPSAs, the waiver of beneficiary costsharing for most preventive services,
and the annual wellness visit
provisions, will have a positive impact
and improve the quality and value of
care provided to Medicare beneficiaries.
The regulatory provisions may affect
beneficiary liability in some cases. For
example, the waiver of the deductible
and coinsurance for the annual wellness
visit, the IPPE, and preventive services
with a grade of A or B from the USPSTF
would reduce beneficiary liability for
these services. Most changes in
aggregate beneficiary liability due to a
particular provision would be a function
of the coinsurance (20 percent if
applicable for the particular provision
after the beneficiary has met the
deductible). To illustrate this point, as
shown in Table 102, the CY 2010
national payment amount in the
nonfacility setting for CPT code 99203
(Office/outpatient visit, new) is $76.93
which means that in CY 2010 a
beneficiary would be responsible for 20
percent of this amount, or $15.39. Based
on this final rule with comment period,
the CY 2011 national payment amount
in the nonfacility setting for CPT code
99203, as shown in Table 102, is $77.59,
which means that, in CY 2011, the
beneficiary coinsurance for this service
would be $15.52
Additionally, beneficiary liability
would also be impacted by the effect of
the aggregate cost (savings) of the
provisions on the standard calculation
of the Medicare Part B premium rate
(generally 25 percent of the provision’s
cost or savings).
Most policies discussed in this final
rule with comment period that impact
payment rates, such as the expansion of
the MPPR to therapy services and the
increased discount on the TC of
multiple imaging procedures from 25
percent to 50 percent, would similarly
impact beneficiaries’ coinsurance.
H. Accounting Statement
As required by OMB Circular A–4
(available at https://
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/
a004/a-4.pdf), in Table 105, we have
prepared an accounting statement
showing the estimated expenditures
associated with this final rule with
comment period. This estimate includes
the estimated FY 2011 cash benefit
impact associated with certain ACA and
MIPPA provisions, and the CY 2011
incurred benefit impact associated with
the estimated CY 2011 PFS conversion
factor update based on the Mid-Session
Review of the FY 2011 President’s
Budget baseline.
TABLE 105—ACCOUNTING STATEMENT: CLASSIFICATION OF ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
Category
CY 2011 Annualized Monetized Transfers.
From Whom To Whom? ......
FY 2011 Annualized Monetized Transfers.
From Whom To Whom? ......
Transfers
Estimated decrease in expenditures of $17.6 billion for PFS conversion factor update.
Federal Government to physicians, other practitioners and providers and suppliers who receive payment under
Medicare.
Estimated increase in expenditures of $1.97 billion for Affordable Care Act provisions.
Federal Government to providers.
In accordance with the provisions of
Executive Order 12866, this final rule
with comment period was reviewed by
the Office of Management and Budget.
42 CFR Part 410
professions, Kidney diseases, Medicare,
Reporting and recordkeeping.
42 CFR Part 405
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
List of Subjects
Health facilities, Health professions,
Kidney diseases, Laboratories,
Medicare, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Rural areas, X-rays.
42 CFR Part 411
Kidney diseases, Medicare, Physician
Referral, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Health facilities, Health professions,
Medicare, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
42 CFR Part 424
Administrative practice and
procedure, Health facilities, Health
professions, Kidney diseases, Medical
devices, Medicare, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Rural
areas, X-rays.
42 CFR Part 409
Health facilities, Medicare.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
42 CFR Part 413
Health facilities, Kidney diseases,
Medicare, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
42 CFR Part 414
Administrative practice and
procedure, Health facilities, Health
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
42 CFR Part 415
Emergency medical services, Health
facilities, Health professions, Medicare,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services amends 42 CFR
chapter IV as set forth below:
■
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
PART 409—HOSPITAL INSURANCE
BENEFITS
PART 405—FEDERAL HEALTH
INSURANCE FOR THE AGED AND
DISABLED
4. The authority citation for part 409
continues to read as follows:
■
1. The authority for part 405
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: Secs. 1102, 1861, 1862(a), 1871,
1874, 1881, and 1886(k) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302, 1395x,
1395y(a), 1395hh, 1395kk, 1395rr and
1395ww(k)), and sec. 353 of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 263a).
Authority: Secs. 1102 and 1871 of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302 and
1395hh).
Subpart B—Inpatient Hospital Services
and Inpatient Critical Access Hospital
Services
§ 409.17
Subpart X—Rural Health Clinic and
Federally Qualified Health Center
Services
2. A new § 405.2449 is added to read
as follows
■
§ 405.2449
Subpart C—Posthospital SNF Care
Preventive services.
For services furnished on or after
January 1, 2011, preventive services
covered under the Medicare Federally
qualified health center benefit are those
preventive services defined in section
1861(ddd)(3) of the Act, and § 410.2 of
this chapter. Specifically, these include
the following:
(a) The specific services currently
listed in section 1861(ww)(2) of the Act,
with the explicit exclusion of
electrocardiograms.
(b) The Initial Preventive Physical
Examination (IPPE) (as specified by
section 1861(ww)(1) of the Act as added
by section 611 of the Medicare
Prescription Drug, Improvement and
Modernization Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 108–
173) and § 410.16 of this chapter); and
(c) The Personalized Prevention Plan
Services (PPPS), also known as the
‘‘Annual Wellness Visit’’ (as specified by
section 1861(hhh) of the Act as added
by section 4103 of the Affordable Care
Act (Pub. L. 111–148) and § 410.15 of
this chapter).
3. Section 405.2470 is amended by
adding a new paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
■
§ 405.2470
records.
Reports and maintenance of
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Collection of additional claims
data. Beginning January 1, 2011, a
Medicare FQHC must report on its
Medicare claims such information as the
Secretary determines is needed to
develop and implement a prospective
payment system for FQHCs including,
but not limited to all pertinent HCPCS
(Healthcare Common Procedure Coding
System) code(s) corresponding to the
service(s) provided for each Medicare
FQHC visit (as defined in § 405.2463).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
[Amended]
5. Amend § 409.17(d) by removing the
phrase ‘‘hospital policies and
procedures.’’ and adding in its place the
phrase ‘‘the provider’s policies and
procedures.’’.
■
6. Section 409.20 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as
follows:
■
§ 409.20
Coverage of services.
(a) * * *
(3) Physical therapy, occupational
therapy, and speech-language pathology
services.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 7. Section 409.23 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 409.23 Physical therapy, occupational
therapy, and speech-language pathology
services.
Medicare pays for physical therapy,
occupational therapy, or speechlanguage pathology services as
posthospital SNF care if they are
furnished—
(a) By (or under arrangements made
by) the facility and billed by (or
through) the facility;
(b) By qualified physical therapists,
physical therapist assistants,
occupational therapists, occupational
therapy assistants, or speech-language
pathologists as defined in part 484 of
this chapter; and
(c) In accordance with a plan that
meets the requirements of § 409.17(b)
through (d) of this part.
PART 410—SUPPLEMENTARY
MEDICAL INSURANCE (SMI)
BENEFITS
8. The authority citation for part 410
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: Secs. 1102, 1834, 1871, and
1893 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1302, 1395m, 1395hh, and 1395ddd).
Subpart A—General Provisions
9. Section 410.2 is amended by adding
the definition of ‘‘Preventive services’’ in
alphabetical order to read as follows:
■
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
§ 410.2
73613
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Preventive services means all of the
following:
(1) The specific services listed in
section 1861(ww)(2) of the Act, with the
explicit exclusion of electrocardiograms;
(2) The Initial Preventive Physical
Examination (IPPE) (as specified by
section 1861(ww)(1) of the Act); and
(3) Annual Wellness Visit (AWV),
providing Personalized Prevention Plan
Services (PPPS) (as specified by section
1861(hhh)(1) of the Act).
§ 410.3
[Amended]
10. Amend § 410.3(b)(2) by removing
the reference ‘‘subpart E’’ and adding in
its place the reference ‘‘subpart I.’’
■
Subpart B—Medical and Other Health
Services
11. Section 410.15 is added to read as
follows:
■
§ 410.15 Annual wellness visits providing
Personalized Prevention Plan Services:
Conditions for and limitations on coverage.
(a) Definitions. For purposes of this
section—
Detection of any cognitive impairment
means assessment of an individual’s
cognitive function by direct observation,
with due consideration of information
obtained by way of patient report,
concerns raised by family members,
friends, caretakers or others.
Eligible beneficiary means an
individual who is no longer within 12
months after the effective date of his or
her first Medicare Part B coverage
period and who has not received either
an initial preventive physical
examination or an annual wellness visit
providing a personalized prevention
plan within the past 12 months.
Establishment of, or an update to the
individual’s medical and family history
means, at minimum, the collection and
documentation of the following:
(i) Past medical and surgical history,
including experiences with illnesses,
hospital stays, operations, allergies,
injuries and treatments.
(ii) Use or exposure to medications
and supplements, including calcium
and vitamins.
(iii) Medical events in the
beneficiary’s parents and any siblings
and children, including diseases that
may be hereditary or place the
individual at increased risk.
First annual wellness visit providing
personalized prevention plan services
means the following services furnished
to an eligible beneficiary by a health
professional as those terms are defined
in this section:
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73614
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
(i) Establishment of an individual’s
medical and family history.
(ii) Establishment of a list of current
providers and suppliers that are
regularly involved in providing medical
care to the individual.
(iii) Measurement of an individual’s
height, weight, body-mass index (or
waist circumference, if appropriate),
blood pressure, and other routine
measurements as deemed appropriate,
based on the beneficiary’s medical and
family history.
(iv) Detection of any cognitive
impairment that the individual may
have, as that term is defined in this
section.
(v) Review of the individual’s
potential (risk factors) for depression,
including current or past experiences
with depression or other mood
disorders, based on the use of an
appropriate screening instrument for
persons without a current diagnosis of
depression, which the health
professional may select from various
available standardized screening tests
designed for this purpose and
recognized by national medical
professional organizations.
(vi) Review of the individual’s
functional ability and level of safety,
based on direct observation or the use
of appropriate screening questions or a
screening questionnaire, which the
health professional as defined in this
section may select from various
available screening questions or
standardized questionnaires designed
for this purpose and recognized by
national professional medical
organizations.
(vii) Establishment of the following:
(A) A written screening schedule for
the individual such as a checklist for the
next 5 to 10 years, as appropriate, based
on recommendations of the United
States Preventive Services Task Force
and the Advisory Committee on
Immunization Practices, and the
individual’s health status, screening
history, and age-appropriate preventive
services covered by Medicare.
(B) A list of risk factors and
conditions for which primary,
secondary or tertiary interventions are
recommended or are underway for the
individual, including any mental health
conditions or any such risk factors or
conditions that have been identified
through an initial preventive physical
examination (as described under
§ 410.16 of this subpart), and a list of
treatment options and their associated
risks and benefits.
(viii) Furnishing of personalized
health advice to the individual and a
referral, as appropriate, to health
education or preventive counseling
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
services or programs aimed at reducing
identified risk factors and improving
self management, or community-based
lifestyle interventions to reduce health
risks and promote self-management and
wellness, including weight loss,
physical activity, smoking cessation, fall
prevention, and nutrition.
(ix) Voluntary advance care planning
(as defined in this section) upon
agreement with the individual.
(x) Any other element determined
appropriate through the national
coverage determination process.
Health professional means—
(i) A physician who is a doctor of
medicine or osteopathy (as defined in
section 1861(r)(1) of the Act); or
(ii) A physician assistant, nurse
practitioner, or clinical nurse specialist
(as defined in section 1861(aa)(5) of the
Act); or
(iii) A medical professional (including
a health educator, a registered dietitian,
or nutrition professional, or other
licensed practitioner) or a team of such
medical professionals, working under
the direct supervision (as defined in
§ 410.32(b)(3)(ii)) of a physician as
defined in paragraph (i) of this
definition.
Review of the individual’s functional
ability and level of safety means, at
minimum, assessment of the following
topics:
(i) Hearing impairment.
(ii) Ability to successfully perform
activities of daily living.
(iii) Fall risk.
(iv) Home safety.
Subsequent annual wellness visit
providing personalized prevention plan
services means the following services
furnished to an eligible beneficiary by a
health professional as those terms are
defined in this section:
(i) An update of the individual’s
medical and family history.
(ii) An update of the list of current
providers and suppliers that are
regularly involved in providing medical
care to the individual as that list was
developed for the first annual wellness
visit providing personalized prevention
plan services.
(iii) Measurement of an individual’s
weight (or waist circumference), blood
pressure and other routine
measurements as deemed appropriate,
based on the individual’s medical and
family history.
(iv) Detection of any cognitive
impairment that the individual may
have, as that term is defined in this
section.
(v) An update to the following:
(A) The written screening schedule
for the individual as that schedule is
defined in paragraph (a) of this section
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
for the first annual wellness visit
providing personalized prevention plan
services.
(B) The list of risk factors and
conditions for which primary,
secondary or tertiary interventions are
recommended or are underway for the
individual as that list was developed at
the first annual wellness visit providing
personalized prevention plan services.
(vi) Furnishing of personalized health
advice to the individual and a referral,
as appropriate, to health education or
preventive counseling services or
programs as that advice and related
services are defined in paragraph (a) of
this section.
(vii) Voluntary advance care planning
(as defined in paragraph (a) of this
section) upon agreement with the
individual.
(viii) Any other element determined
appropriate through the national
coverage determination process.
Voluntary advance care planning
means, for purposes of this section,
verbal or written information regarding
the following areas:
(i) An individual’s ability to prepare
an advance directive in the case where
an injury or illness causes the
individual to be unable to make health
care decisions.
(ii) Whether or not the physician is
willing to follow the individual’s wishes
as expressed in an advance directive.
(b) Conditions for coverage of annual
wellness visits providing personalized
prevention plan services. Medicare Part
B pays for first and subsequent annual
wellness visits providing personalized
prevention plan services that are
furnished to an eligible beneficiary, as
described in this section, if they are
furnished by a health professional, as
defined in this section.
(c) Limitations on coverage of an
annual wellness visit providing
personalized prevention plan services.
Payment may not be made for either a
first or a subsequent annual wellness
visit providing personalized prevention
plan services that is performed for an
individual who is—
(1) Not an eligible beneficiary as
described in this section.
(2) An eligible beneficiary as
described in this section and who has
had either an initial preventive physical
examination as specified in § 410.16 of
this subpart or either a first or a
subsequent annual wellness visit
providing personalized prevention plan
services performed within the past 12
months.
(d) Effective date. Coverage for an
annual wellness visit providing
personalized prevention plan services is
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
effective for services furnished on or
after January 1, 2011.
■ 12. Section 410.32 is amended by
adding paragraph (b)(2)(vii) to read as
follows:
behavior assessment and intervention
services furnished by an interactive
telecommunications system if the
following conditions are met:
*
*
*
*
*
§ 410.32 Diagnostic x-ray tests, diagnostic
laboratory tests, and other diagnostic tests:
Conditions.
Subpart I—Payment for SMI Benefits
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(vii) Diagnostic tests performed by a
certified nurse-midwife authorized to
perform the tests under applicable State
laws.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 13. Section 410.64 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) introductory text
to read as follows:
§ 410.64
Additional Preventive Services
(a) Medicare Part B pays for
additional preventive services not
described in paragraph (1) or (3) of the
definition of ‘‘preventive services’’ under
§ 410.2, that identify medical conditions
or risk factors for individuals if the
Secretary determines through the
national coverage determination process
(as defined in section 1869(f)(1)(B) of
the Act) that these services are all of the
following:
*
*
*
*
*
■ 14. Section 410.78 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) introductory text
to read as follows:
§ 410.78
Telehealth services.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
*
*
*
*
*
(b) General rule. Medicare Part B pays
for office or other outpatient visits,
subsequent hospital care services (with
the limitation of one telehealth visit
every 3 days), subsequent nursing
facility care services (not including the
Federally-mandated periodic visits
under § 483.40(c) and with the
limitation of one telehealth visit every
30 days), professional consultations,
psychiatric diagnostic interview
examination, neurobehavioral status
exam, individual psychotherapy,
pharmacologic management, end-stage
renal disease-related services included
in the monthly capitation payment
(except for one ‘‘hands on’’ visit per
month to examine the access site),
individual and group medical nutrition
therapy services, individual and group
kidney disease education services,
individual and group diabetes selfmanagement (DSMT) training services
(except for one hour of in-person
services to be furnished in the year
following the initial DSMT service to
ensure effective injection training), and
individual and group health and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
15. Section 410.150 is amended by
adding paragraph (b)(20) to read as
follows:
■
§ 410.150
To whom payment is made.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(20) To a certified nurse-midwife for
professional services furnished by the
certified nurse-midwife in all settings
and for services and supplies furnished
incident to those services. Payment is
made only if no facility or other
provider charges or is paid any amount
for the furnishing of the professional
services of the certified nurse-midwife.
■ 16. Section 410.152 is amended by
revising paragraph (l) to read as follows:
§ 410.152
Amount of payment.
*
*
*
*
*
(l) Amount of payment: Preventive
services. Medicare Part B pays 100
percent of the Medicare payment
amount established under the
applicable payment methodology for the
service setting for providers and
suppliers for the following preventive
services:
(1) Pneumococcal (as specified in
paragraph (h) of this section), influenza,
and hepatitis B vaccine and
administration.
(2) Screening mammography.
(3) Screening pap tests and screening
pelvic exam.
(4) Prostate cancer screening tests
(excluding digital rectal examinations).
(5) Colorectal cancer screening tests
(excluding barium enemas).
(6) Bone mass measurement.
(7) Medical nutrition therapy (MNT)
services.
(8) Cardiovascular screening blood
tests.
(9) Diabetes screening tests.
(10) Ultrasound screening for
abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA).
(11) Additional preventive services
identified for coverage through the
national coverage determination (NCD)
process.
(12) Initial Preventive Physical
Examination (IPPE).
(13) Annual Wellness Visit (AWV),
providing Personalized Prevention Plan
Services (PPPS).
■ 16. Section 410.160 is amended by—
■ A. Revising paragraph (b)(2).
■ B. Adding paragraphs (b)(10) through
(13).
PO 00000
Frm 00113
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73615
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
§ 410.160
Part B annual deductible.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) Pneumococcal, influenza, and
hepatitis b vaccines and their
administration.
*
*
*
*
*
(10) Bone mass measurement.
(11) Medical nutrition therapy (MNT)
services.
(12) Annual Wellness Visit (AWV),
providing Personalized Prevention Plan
Services (PPPS).
(13) Additional preventive services
identified for coverage through the
national coverage determination (NCD)
process.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 411—EXCLUSIONS FROM
MEDICARE AND LIMITATIONS ON
MEDICARE PAYMENT
17. The authority citation for part 411
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: Secs. 1102, 1860D–1 through
1860D–42, 1871, and 1877 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302, 1395w-101
through 1395w-152, 1395hh, and 1395nn).
Subpart A—General Exclusions and
Exclusion of Particular Services
18. Section 411.15 is amended by—
A. Revising paragraph (a)(1).
B. Adding new paragraph (k)(16).
The revision and addition read as
follows:
■
■
■
§ 411.15 Particular services excluded from
coverage.
*
*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(1) Examinations performed for a
purpose other than treatment or
diagnosis of a specific illness,
symptoms, complaint, or injury, except
for screening mammography, colorectal
cancer screening tests, screening pelvic
exams, prostate cancer screening tests,
glaucoma screening exams, ultrasound
screening for abdominal aortic
aneurysms (AAA), cardiovascular
disease screening tests, diabetes
screening tests, a screening
electrocardiogram, initial preventive
physical examinations that meet the
criteria specified in paragraphs (k)(6)
through (k)(15) of this section,
additional preventive services that meet
the criteria in § 410.64 of this chapter,
or annual wellness visits providing
personalized prevention plan services.
*
*
*
*
*
(k) * * *
(16) In the case of an annual wellness
visit providing a personalized
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73616
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
prevention plan, subject to the
conditions and limitations specified in
§ 410.15 of this subpart.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart J—Financial Relationships
Between Physicians and Entities
Furnishing Designated Health Services
20. The authority citation for part 413
continues to read as follows:
■
19. Section 411.355 is amended by
adding paragraph (b)(7) to read as
follows:
■
§ 411.355 General exceptions to the
referral prohibition related to both
ownership/investment and compensation.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(7) Disclosure requirement for certain
imaging services.
(i) With respect to magnetic resonance
imaging, computed tomography, and
positron emission tomography services
identified as ‘‘radiology and certain
other imaging services’’ on the List of
CPT/HCPCS Codes, the referring
physician must provide written notice
to the patient at the time of the referral
that the patient may receive the same
services from a person other than one
described in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section. Except as set forth in paragraph
(b)(7)(ii) of this section, the written
notice must include a list of at least 5
other suppliers (as defined in § 400.202
of this chapter) that provide the services
for which the individual is being
referred and which are located within a
25-mile radius of the referring
physician’s office location at the time of
the referral. The notice should be
written in a manner sufficient to be
reasonably understood by all patients
and should include for each supplier on
the list, at a minimum, the supplier’s
name, address, and telephone number.
(ii) If there are fewer than 5 other
suppliers located within a 25-mile
radius of the physician’s office location
at the time of the referral, the physician
must list all of the other suppliers of the
imaging service that are present within
a 25-mile radius of the referring
physician’s office location. Provision of
the written list of alternate suppliers
will not be required if no other
suppliers provide the services for which
the individual is being referred within
the 25-mile radius.
*
*
*
*
*
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PART 413—PRINCIPLES OF
REASONABLE COST
REIMBURSEMENT; PAYMENT FOR
END–STAGE RENAL DISEASE
SERVICES; OPTIONAL
PROSPECTIVELY DETERMINED
PAYMENT RATES FOR SKILLED
NURSING FACILITIES
Authority: Secs. 1102, 1812(d), 1814(b),
1815, 1833(a), (i), and (n), 1861(v), 1871,
1881, 1883, and 1886 of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1302, 1395d(d), 1395f(b),
1395g, 1395l(a), (i), and (n), 1395x(v),
1395hh, 1395rr, 1395tt, and 1395ww); and
sec. 124 of Public Law 106–133 (113 Stat.
1501A–332).
Subpart E—Payments to Providers
21. Section 413.70 is amended by
adding a sentence at the end of
paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(B) to read as follows:
■
§ 413.70
Payment for services of a CAH.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) * * * Effective for primary care
services furnished by primary care
practitioners (as defined in § 414.80(a))
and major surgical procedures furnished
by general surgeons in health
professional shortage areas (as defined
in § 414.2) furnished on or after January
1, 2011 and before January 1, 2016,
incentive payments specified under
§ 414.80 and § 414.67(b), respectively, of
this title must not be included in
determining payment made under this
paragraph.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 414—PAYMENT FOR PART B
MEDICAL AND OTHER HEALTH
SERVICES
22. The authority citation for part 414
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: Secs. 1102, 1871, and 1881(b)(l)
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302,
1395hh, and 1395rr(b)(l)).
Subpart A—General Provisions
23. Section 414.2 is amended by
adding the definitions of ‘‘Health
Professional Shortage Area’’ and ‘‘Major
surgical procedure’’ in alphabetical
order to read as follows:
■
§ 414.2
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Health Professional Shortage Area
(HPSA) means an area designated under
section 332(a)(1)(A) of the Public Health
Service Act as identified by the
PO 00000
Frm 00114
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Secretary prior to the beginning of such
year.
Major surgical procedure means a
surgical procedure for which a 10-day or
90-day global period is used for
payment under the physician fee
schedule and section 1848(b) of the Act.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 24. Section 414.26 is amended by—
■ A. Redesignating paragraph (c) as
paragraph (d).
■ B. Adding a new paragraph (c).
The addition reads as follows:
§ 414.26
Determining the GAF.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Adjusting the practice expense
index to account for the Frontier State
floor.
(1) General criteria. Effective on or
after January 1, 2011, CMS will adjust
the practice expense index for
physicians’ services furnished in
qualifying States to recognize the
practice expense index floor established
for Frontier States. A qualifying State
must meet the following criteria:
(i) At least 50 percent of counties
located within the State have a
population density less than 6 persons
per square mile.
(ii) The State does not receive a nonlabor related share adjustment
determined by the Secretary to take into
account the unique circumstances of
hospitals located in Alaska and Hawaii.
(2) Amount of adjustment. The
practice expense value applied for
physicians’ services furnished in a
qualifying State will be not less than
1.00.
(3) Process for determining
adjustment. (i) CMS will use the most
recent population estimate data
published by the U.S. Census Bureau to
determine county definitions and
population density. This analysis will
be periodically revised, such as for
updates to the decennial census data.
(ii) CMS will publish annually a
listing of qualifying Frontier States
receiving a practice expense index floor
attributable to this provision.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart B—Physicians and Other
Practitioners
25. Section 414.54 is revised to read
as follows:
■
§ 414.54 Payment for certified nursemidwives’ services.
(a) For services furnished after
December 31, 1991, allowed amounts
under the fee schedule established
under section 1833(a)(1)(K) of the Act
for the payment of certified nursemidwife services may not exceed 65
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
percent of the physician fee schedule
amount for the service.
(b) For certified nurse-midwife
services furnished on or after January 1,
2011, allowed amounts may not exceed
100 percent of the physician fee
schedule amount that would be paid to
a physician for the services.
■ 26. Section 414.65 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(1) introductory
text to read as follows:
§ 414.65
Payment for telehealth services.
(a) * * *
(1) The Medicare payment amount for
office or other outpatient visits,
subsequent hospital care services (with
the limitation of one telehealth
subsequent hospital care service every 3
days), subsequent nursing facility care
services (not including the Federallymandated periodic visits under
§ 483.40(c) and with the limitation of
one telehealth nursing facility care
service every 30 days), professional
consultations, psychiatric diagnostic
interview examination, neurobehavioral
status exam, individual psychotherapy,
pharmacologic management, end-stage
renal disease-related services included
in the monthly capitation payment
(except for one ‘‘hands on’’ visit per
month to examine the access site),
individual and group medical nutrition
therapy services, individual and group
kidney disease education services,
individual and group diabetes selfmanagement training (DSMT) services
(except for 1 hour of in-person DSMT
services to be furnished in the year
following the initial DSMT service to
ensure effective injection training), and
individual and group health and
behavior assessment and intervention
furnished via an interactive
telecommunications system is equal to
the current fee schedule amount
applicable for the service of the
physician or practitioner.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 27. Section 414.67 is revised to read
as follows:
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
§ 414.67 Incentive payments for services
furnished in Health Professional Shortage
Areas.
(a) Health Professional Shortage Area
(HPSA) physician bonus program. A
HPSA physician incentive payment will
be made subject to the following:
(1) HPSA bonuses are payable for
services furnished by physicians as
defined in section 1861(r) of the Act in
areas designated as of December 31 of
the prior year as geographic primary
medical care HPSAs as defined in
section 332(a)(1)(A) of the Public Health
Service Act.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
(2) HPSA bonuses are payable for
services furnished by psychiatrists in
areas designated as of December 31 of
the prior year as geographic mental
health HPSAs if the services are not
already eligible for the bonus based on
being in a geographic primary care
HPSA.
(3) Physicians eligible for the HPSA
physician bonus are entitled to a 10
percent incentive payment above the
amount paid for their professional
services under the physician fee
schedule.
(4) Physicians furnishing services in
areas that are designated as geographic
HPSAs prior to the beginning of the year
but not included on the published list
of zip codes for which automated HPSA
bonus payments are made must use the
AQ modifier to receive the HPSA
physician bonus payment.
(b) HPSA surgical incentive payment
program. A HPSA surgical incentive
payment will be made subject to the
following:
(1) A major surgical procedure as
defined in § 414.2 of this part is
furnished by a general surgeon on or
after January 1, 2011 and before January
1, 2016 in an area recognized for the
HPSA physician bonus program under
paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(2) Payment will be made on a
quarterly basis in an amount equal to 10
percent of the Part B payment amount
for major surgical procedures furnished
as described in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section, in addition to the amount the
physician would otherwise be paid.
(3) Physicians furnishing services in
areas that are designated as geographic
HPSAs eligible for the HPSA physician
bonus program under paragraph (a)(1) of
this section prior to the beginning of the
year but not included on the published
list of zip codes for which automated
HPSA surgical incentive payments are
made should report HCPCS modifier
-AQ to receive the HPSA surgical
incentive payment.
(4) The payment described in
paragraph (b)(2) of this section is made
to the surgeon or, where the surgeon has
reassigned his or her benefits to a
critical access hospital (CAH) paid
under the optional method, to the CAH
based on an institutional claim.
■ 28. Section 414.80 is added to read as
follows:
§ 414.80 Incentive payment for primary
care services.
(a) Definitions. As defined in this
section—
Eligible primary care practitioner
means one of the following:
PO 00000
Frm 00115
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73617
(i) A physician (as defined in section
1861(r)(1) of the Act) who meets all of
the following criteria:
(A) Enrolled in Medicare with a
primary specialty designation of 08family practice, 11-internal medicine,
37-pediatrics, or 38-geriatrics.
(B) At least 60 percent of the
physician’s allowed charges under the
physician fee schedule (excluding
hospital inpatient care and emergency
department visits) during a reference
period specified by the Secretary are for
primary care services.
(ii) A nurse practitioner, clinical
nurse specialist, or physician assistant
(as defined in section 1861(aa)(5) of the
Act) who meets all of the following
criteria:
(A) Enrolled in Medicare with a
primary specialty designation of 50nurse practitioner, 89-certified clinical
nurse, or 97-physician assistant.
(B) At least 60 percent of the
practitioner’s allowed charges under the
physician fee schedule (excluding
hospital inpatient care and emergency
department visits) during a reference
period specified by the Secretary are for
primary care services.
Primary care services means—
(i) New and established patient office
or other outpatient evaluation and
management (E/M) visits;
(ii) Initial, subsequent, discharge, and
other nursing facility E/M services;
(iii) New and established patient
domiciliary, rest home (for example,
boarding home), or custodial care E/M
services;
(iv) Domiciliary, rest home (for
example, assisted living facility), or
home care plan oversight services; and
(v) New and established patient home
E/M visits.
(b) Payment.
(1) For primary care services
furnished by an eligible primary care
practitioner on or after January 1, 2011
and before January 1, 2016, payment is
made on a quarterly basis in an amount
equal to 10 percent of the payment
amount for the primary care services
under Part B, in addition to the amount
the primary care practitioner would
otherwise be paid for the primary care
services under Part B.
(2) The payment described in
paragraph (b)(1) of this section is made
to the eligible primary care practitioner
or, where the physician has reassigned
his or her benefits to a critical access
hospital (CAH) paid under the optional
method, to the CAH based on an
institutional claim.
■ 29. A new § 414.90 is added to read
as follows:
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73618
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
§ 414.90 Physician Quality Reporting
System.
(a) Basis and scope. This section
implements the following provisions of
the Act:
(1) 1848(a)—Payment Based on Fee
Schedule.
(2) 1848(k)—Quality Reporting
System.
(3) 1848(m)—Incentive Payments for
Quality Reporting.
(b) Definitions. As used in this
section, unless otherwise indicated—
Covered professional services means
services for which payment is made
under, or is based on, the Medicare
physician fee schedule as provided
under section 1848(k)(3) of the Act and
which are furnished by an eligible
professional.
Eligible professional means any of the
following:
(i) A physician.
(ii) A practitioner described in section
1842(b)(18)(C) of the Act.
(iii) A physical or occupational
therapist or a qualified speech-language
pathologist.
(iv) A qualified audiologist (as
defined in section 1861(ll)(3)(B) of the
Act).
Group practice means a single
Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN)
with two or more eligible professionals,
as identified by their individual
National Provider Identifier (NPI), who
have reassigned their Medicare billing
rights to the TIN.
Maintenance of Certification Program
means a continuous assessment
program, such as qualified American
Board of Medical Specialties
Maintenance of Certification Program or
an equivalent program (as determined
by the Secretary), that advances quality
and the lifelong learning and selfassessment of board certified specialty
physicians by focusing on the
competencies of patient care, medical
knowledge, practice-based learning,
interpersonal and communication skills,
and professionalism. Such a program
must include the following:
(i) The program requires the physician
to maintain a valid unrestricted license
in the United States.
(ii) The program requires a physician
to participate in educational and selfassessment programs that require an
assessment of what was learned.
(iii) The program requires a physician
to demonstrate, through a formalized
secure examination, that the physician
has the fundamental diagnostic skills,
medical knowledge, and clinical
judgment to provide quality care in their
respective specialty.
(iv) The program requires successful
completion of a qualified maintenance
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
of certification program practice
assessment.
Maintenance of Certification Program
Practice Assessment means an
assessment of a physician’s practice
that—
(i) Includes an initial assessment of an
eligible professional’s practice that is
designed to demonstrate the physician’s
use of evidence-based medicine;
(ii) Includes a survey of patient
experience with care; and
(iii) Requires a physician to
implement a quality improvement
intervention to address a practice
weakness identified in the initial
assessment under paragraph (h) of this
section and then to remeasure to assess
performance improvement after such
intervention.
Measures group means a subset of
four or more Physician Quality
Reporting System measures that have a
particular clinical condition or focus in
common. The denominator definition
and coding of the measures group
identifies the condition or focus that is
shared across the measures within a
particular measures group.
Physician Quality Reporting System
means the physician reporting system
under section 1848(k) of the Act for the
reporting by eligible professionals of
data on quality measures and the
incentive payment associated with this
physician reporting system.
Performance rate means the
percentage of a defined population who
receives a particular process of care or
achieve a particular outcome for a
particular quality measure.
Reporting rate means the percentage
of patients that the eligible professional
indicated a quality action was or was
not performed divided by the total
number of patients in the denominator
of the measure.
Qualified registry means a medical
registry or a maintenance of certification
program operated by a specialty body of
the American Board of Medical
Specialties that, with respect to a
particular program year, has selfnominated and successfully completed
a vetting process (as specified by CMS)
to demonstrate its compliance with the
Physician Quality Reporting System
qualification requirements specified by
CMS for that program year. The registry
may act as a data submission vendor,
which has the requisite legal authority
to provide Physician Quality Reporting
System data (as specified by CMS) on
behalf of an eligible professional to
CMS.
Qualified electronic health record
product means an electronic health
record vendor’s product and version
that, with respect to a particular
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
program year, has self-nominated and
successfully completed a vetting process
(as specified by CMS) to demonstrate
the product’s compliance with the
Physician Quality Reporting System
qualification requirements specified by
CMS for a program year. The
requirements and process for an
electronic health record product to be
qualified for the purpose of the
Physician Quality Reporting System is
separate from the standards,
implementation specifications, and
certification criteria established for the
EHR Incentive Program specified in part
495.
(c) Incentive payments. With respect
to covered professional services
furnished during a reporting period by
an eligible professional, if —
(1) There are any quality measures
that have been established under the
Physician Quality Reporting System that
are applicable to any such services
furnished by such professional (or in the
case of a group practice under paragraph
(g) of this section, such group practice)
for such reporting period; and
(2) The eligible professional (or in the
case of a group practice under paragraph
(g) of this section, the group practice)
satisfactorily submits (as determined
under paragraph (f) of this section for
eligible professionals and paragraph (g)
of this section for group practices) to the
Secretary data on such quality measures
in accordance with the Physician
Quality Reporting System for such
reporting period, in addition to the
amount otherwise paid under section
1848 of the Act, there also must be paid
to the eligible professional (or to an
employer or facility in the cases
described in section 1842(b)(6)(A) of the
Act or, in the case of a group practice)
under paragraph (g) of this section, to
the group practice, from the Federal
Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust
Fund established under section 1841 of
the Act an amount equal to the
applicable quality percent (as specified
in paragraph (c)(3) of this section) of the
eligible professional’s (or, in the case of
a group practice under paragraph (g) of
this section, the group practice’s) total
estimated allowed charges for all
covered professional services furnished
by the eligible professional (or, in the
case of a group practice under paragraph
(g) of this section, by the group practice)
during the applicable reporting period.
For purposes of this paragraph,
(i) The eligible professional’s (or, in
the case of a group practice under
paragraph (g) of this section, the group
practice’s) total estimated allowed
charges for covered professional
services furnished during a reporting
period are determined based on claims
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
processed in the National Claims
History (NCH) no later than 2 months
after the end of the applicable reporting
period;
(ii) In the case of an eligible
professional who furnishes covered
professional services in more than one
practice, incentive payments are
separately determined for each practice
based on claims submitted for the
eligible professional for each practice;
(iii) Incentive payments earned by an
eligible professional (or in the case of a
group practice under paragraph (g) of
this section, by a group practice) for a
particular program year will be paid as
a single consolidated payment to the
TIN holder of record.
(3) Applicable quality percent. The
applicable quality percent is as follows:
(i) For 2011, 1.0 percent; and
(ii) For 2012, 2013, and 2014, 0.5
percent;
(d) Additional incentive payment. (1)
Through 2014, if an eligible professional
meets the requirements described in
paragraph (d)(2) of this section, the
applicable percent for such year, as
described in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) and (ii)
of this section, must be increased by 0.5
percentage points.
(2) In order to qualify for the
additional incentive payment described
in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, an
eligible professional must meet the
following requirements:
(i) The eligible professional must—
(A) Satisfactorily submit data on
quality measures for purposes of this
section for a year; and
(B) Have such data submitted on their
behalf through a Maintenance of
Certification program (as defined in
paragraph (b) of this section) that meets:
(1) The criteria for a registry (as
specified by CMS); or
(2) An alternative form and manner
determined appropriate by the
Secretary.
(ii) The eligible professional, more
frequently than is required to qualify for
or maintain board certification status—
(A) Participates in a maintenance of
certification program (as defined in
paragraph (b) of this section) for a year;
and
(B) Successfully completes a qualified
maintenance of certification program
practice assessment (as defined in
paragraph (b) of this section) for such
year.
(iii) A Maintenance of Certification
Program submits to the Secretary, on
behalf of the eligible professional,
information—
(A) In a form and manner specified by
the Secretary, that the eligible
professional has successfully met the
requirements of paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
this section, which may be in the form
of a structural measure);
(B) If requested by the Secretary, on
the survey of patient experience with
care (as described in paragraph (b) of
this section); and
(C) As the Secretary may require, on
the methods, measures, and data used
under the Maintenance of Certification
Program and the qualified Maintenance
of Certification Program practice
assessment.
(e) Use of consensus-based quality
measures. For each program year, CMS
will publish the final list of measures
and the final detailed measure
specifications for all quality measures
selected for inclusion in the Physician
Quality Reporting System quality
measure set for a given program year on
a CMS Web site by no later than
December 31 of the prior year.
(1) General rule. Subject to paragraph
(e)(2) of this section, for purposes of
reporting data on quality measures for
covered professional services furnished
during a year, subject to paragraph (f) of
this section, the quality measures
specified under this paragraph must be
such measures selected by the Secretary
from measures that have been endorsed
by the entity with a contract with the
Secretary under section 1890(a) of the
Act.
(2) Exception. In the case of a
specified area or medical topic
determined appropriate by the Secretary
for which a feasible and practical
measure has not been endorsed by the
entity with a contract under section
1890(a) of the Act, the Secretary may
specify a measure that is not so
endorsed as long as due consideration is
given to measures that have been
endorsed or adopted by a consensus
organization identified by the Secretary,
such as the AQA alliance.
(3) Opportunity to provide input on
measures. For each quality measure
adopted by the Secretary under this
paragraph, the Secretary ensures that
eligible professionals have the
opportunity to provide input during the
development, endorsement, or selection
of quality measures applicable to
services they furnish.
(f) Requirements for individual
eligible professionals to qualify to
receive an incentive payment. In order
to qualify to earn a Physician Quality
Reporting System incentive payment for
a particular program year, an individual
eligible professional, as identified by a
unique TIN/NPI combination, must
meet the criteria for satisfactory
reporting specified by CMS for such
year by reporting on either individual
Physician Quality Reporting System
quality measures or Physician Quality
PO 00000
Frm 00117
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73619
Reporting System measures groups
identified by CMS during a reporting
period specified in paragraph (f)(1) of
this section and using one of the
reporting mechanisms specified in
paragraph (f)(2) of this section.
Although an eligible professional may
attempt to qualify for the Physician
Quality Reporting System incentive
payment by reporting on both
individual Physician Quality Reporting
System quality measures and measures
groups, using more than one reporting
mechanism (as specified in paragraph
(f)(2) of this section), or reporting for
more than one reporting period, he or
she will receive only one Physician
Quality Reporting System incentive
payment per TIN/NPI combination for a
program year.
(1) Reporting periods. For purposes of
this paragraph, the reporting period
with respect to program year 2011 is—
(i) The 12-month period from January
1 through December 31 of such program
year; or
(ii) The 6-month period from July 1
through December 31 of such program
year.
(2) Exceptions. In program year 2011,
the 6-month reporting period is not
available for EHR-based reporting of
individual Physician Quality Reporting
System quality measures or for reporting
by group practices under the process
described in paragraph (g) of this
section.
(3) Reporting mechanisms. For
program year 2011, an eligible
professional who wishes to participate
in the Physician Quality Reporting
System must report information on the
individual Physician Quality Reporting
System quality measures or Physician
Quality Reporting System measures
groups identified by CMS in the
following manner:
(i) Reporting the individual Physician
Quality Reporting System quality
measures or Physician Quality
Reporting System measures groups to
CMS, by no later than 2 months after the
end of the applicable reporting period,
on the eligible professional’s Medicare
Part B claims for covered professional
services furnished during the applicable
reporting period.
(ii) Reporting the individual
Physician Quality Reporting System
quality measures or Physician Quality
Reporting System measures groups to a
qualified registry (as specified in
paragraph (b) of this section) in the form
and manner and by the deadline
specified by the qualified registry
selected by the eligible professional.
The selected registry will submit
information, as required by CMS, for
covered professional services furnished
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73620
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
by the eligible professional during the
applicable reporting period to CMS on
the eligible professional’s behalf; or
(iii) Reporting the individual
Physician Quality Reporting System
quality measures to CMS by extracting
clinical data using a secure data
submission method, as required by
CMS, from a qualified EHR product (as
defined in paragraph (b) of this section)
by the deadline specified by CMS for
covered professional services furnished
by the eligible professional during the
applicable reporting period. Prior to
actual data submission for a given
program year and by a date specified by
CMS, the eligible professional must
submit a test file containing real or
dummy clinical quality data extracted
from the qualified EHR product selected
by the eligible professional using a
secure data submission method, as
required by CMS.
(g) Requirements for group practices
to qualify to receive an incentive
payment. A group practice (as defined
in paragraph (b) of this section) will be
treated as satisfactorily submitting data
on quality measures under Physician
Quality Reporting System for covered
professional services for a reporting
period, if, in lieu of reporting Physician
Quality Reporting System measures, the
group practice—
(1) Meets the participation
requirements specified by CMS for the
Physician Quality Reporting System
group practice reporting option or is a
group practice of any size (including
solo practitioners) or comprised of
multiple TINs participating in a
Medicare approved demonstration
project that is deemed to be
participating in the Physician Quality
Reporting System group practice
reporting option;
(2) Is selected by CMS to participate
in the Physician Quality Reporting
System group practice reporting option;
(3) Reports measures specified by
CMS in the form and manner, and at a
time specified by CMS; and
(4) Meets other requirements for
satisfactory reporting specified by CMS.
(5) No double payments. Payments to
a group practice under this paragraph
must be in lieu of the payments that
would otherwise be made under the
Physician Quality Reporting System to
eligible professionals in the group
practice for meeting the criteria for
satisfactory reporting for individual
eligible professionals.
(i) If an eligible professional, as
identified by an individual NPI, has
reassigned his or her Medicare billing
rights to a TIN selected to participate in
the Physician Quality Reporting System
group practice reporting option for a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
program year, then for that program year
the eligible professional must
participate in the Physician Quality
Reporting System via the group practice
reporting option. For any program year
in which the TIN is selected to
participate in the Physician Quality
Reporting System group practice
reporting option, the eligible
professional cannot individually qualify
for a Physician Quality Reporting
System incentive payment by meeting
the requirements specified in paragraph
(f) of this section.
(ii) If, for the program year, the
eligible professional participates in the
Physician Quality Reporting System
under another TIN that is not selected
to participate in the Physician Quality
Reporting System group practice
reporting option for that program year,
then the eligible professional may
individually qualify for a Physician
Quality Reporting System incentive by
meeting the requirements specified in
paragraph (f) of this section under that
TIN.
(h) Limitations on review. Except as
specified in paragraph (i) of this section,
there is no administrative or judicial
review under section 1869 or 1879 of
the Act, or otherwise of—
(1) The determination of measures
applicable to services furnished by
eligible professionals under the
Physician Quality Reporting System;
(2) The determination of the payment
limitation; and
(3) The determination of any
Physician Quality Reporting System
incentive payment and the Physician
Quality Reporting System payment
adjustment.
(i) Informal review. Eligible
professionals (or in the case of reporting
under paragraph (g) of this section,
group practices) may seek an informal
review of the determination that an
eligible professional (or in the case of
reporting under paragraph (g) of this
section, group practices) did not
satisfactorily submit data on quality
measures under the Physician Quality
Reporting System.
(1) To request an informal review, an
eligible professional (or in the case of
reporting under paragraph (g) of this
section, group practices) must submit a
request to CMS within 90 days of the
release of the feedback reports. The
request must be submitted in writing or
via e-mail and summarize the concern(s)
and reasons for requesting an informal
review and may also include
information to assist in the review.
(2) CMS will provide a written
response within 60 days of the receipt
of the original request.
PO 00000
Frm 00118
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(i) All decisions based on the informal
review will be final.
(ii) There will be no further review or
appeal.
(j) Public reporting of an eligible
professional’s or group practice’s
Physician Quality Reporting System
data. For each program year, CMS will
post on a public Web site, in an easily
understandable format, a list of the
names of eligible professionals (or in the
case of reporting under paragraph (g) of
this section, group practices) who
satisfactorily submitted Physician
Quality Reporting System quality
measures.
■ 30. A new § 414.92 is added to read
as follows:
§ 414.92 Electronic Prescribing Incentive
Program.
(a) Basis and scope. This section
implements the following provisions of
the Act:
(1) Section 1848(a)—Payment Based
on Fee Schedule.
(2) Section 1848(m)—Incentive
Payments for Quality Reporting.
(b) Definitions. As used in this
section, unless otherwise indicated—
Covered professional services means
services for which payment is made
under, or is based on, the Medicare
physician fee schedule which are
furnished by an eligible professional.
Electronic Prescribing Incentive
Program means the incentive payment
program established under section
1848(m) of the Act for the adoption and
use of electronic prescribing technology
by eligible professionals.
Eligible professional means any of the
following healthcare professionals who
have prescribing authority:
(i) A physician.
(ii) A practitioner described in section
1842(b)(18)(C) of the Act.
(iii) A physical or occupational
therapist or a qualified speech-language
pathologist.
(iv) A qualified audiologist (as
defined in section 1861(ll)(3)(B) of the
Act).
Group practice means a group
practice that is—
(i) Defined at § 414.90(b), that is
participating in the Physician Quality
Reporting System; or
(ii) (A) In a Medicare approved
demonstration project that is deemed to
be participating in the Physician Quality
Reporting System group practice
reporting option; and
(B) Has indicated its desire to
participate in the electronic prescribing
group practice option.
Qualified electronic health record
product means an electronic health
record product and version that, with
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
respect to a particular program year, is
designated by CMS as a qualified
electronic health record product for the
purpose of the Physician Quality
Reporting System (as described in
§ 414.90) and the product’s vendor has
indicated a desire to have the product
qualified for purposes of the product’s
users to submit information related to
the electronic prescribing measure.
Qualified registry means a medical
registry or a Maintenance of
Certification Program operated by a
specialty body of the American Board of
Medical Specialties that, with respect to
a particular program year, is designated
by CMS as a qualified registry for the
purpose of the Physician Quality
Reporting System (as described in
§ 414.90) and that has indicated its
desire to be qualified to submit the
electronic prescribing measure on behalf
of eligible professionals for the purposes
of the Electronic Prescribing Incentive
Program.
(c) Incentive payments and payment
adjustments. (1) Incentive payments.
Subject to paragraph (c)(3) of this
section, with respect to covered
professional services furnished during a
reporting period by an eligible
professional, if the eligible professional
is a successful electronic prescriber for
such reporting period, in addition to the
amount otherwise paid under section
1848 of the Act, there also must be paid
to the eligible professional (or to an
employer or facility in the cases
described in section 1842(b)(6)(A) of the
Act) or, in the case of a group practice
under paragraph (e) of this section, to
the group practice, from the Federal
Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust
Fund established under section 1841 of
the Act an amount equal to the
applicable electronic prescribing
percent (as specified in paragraph
(c)(1)(ii) of this section) of the eligible
professional’s (or, in the case of a group
practice under paragraph (e) of this
section, the group practice’s) total
estimated allowed charges for all
covered professional services furnished
by the eligible professional (or, in the
case of a group practice under paragraph
(e) of this section, by the group practice)
during the applicable reporting period.
(i) For purposes of paragraph (c)(1) of
this section,
(A) The eligible professional’s (or, in
the case of a group practice under
paragraph (e) of this section, the group
practice’s) total estimated allowed
charges for covered professional
services furnished during a reporting
period are determined based on claims
processed in the National Claims
History (NCH) no later than 2 months
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
after the end of the applicable reporting
period;
(B) In the case of an eligible
professional who furnishes covered
professional services in more than one
practice, incentive payments are
separately determined for each practice
based on claims submitted for the
eligible professional for each practice;
(C) Incentive payments earned by an
eligible professional (or in the case of a
group practice under paragraph (e) of
this section, by a group practice) for a
particular program year will be paid as
a single consolidated payment to the
TIN holder of record.
(ii) Applicable electronic prescribing
percent. The applicable electronic
prescribing percent is as follows:
(A) For the 2011 and 2012 program
years, 1.0 percent.
(B) For the 2013 program year, 0.5
percent.
(iii) Limitation with respect to
electronic health record (EHR) incentive
payments. The provisions of this
paragraph do not apply to an eligible
professional (or, in the case of a group
practice under paragraph (e) of this
section, a group practice) if, for the
electronic health record reporting
period the eligible professional (or
group practice) receives an incentive
payment under section 1848(o)(1)(A) of
the Act with respect to a certified
electronic health record technology (as
defined in section 1848(o)(4) of the Act)
that has the capability of electronic
prescribing.
(2) Incentive payment adjustment.
Subject to paragraphs (c)(1)(ii) and (c)(3)
of this section, with respect to covered
professional services furnished by an
eligible professional during 2012, 2013,
or 2014, if the eligible professional (or
in the case of a group practice under
paragraph (e) of this section, the group
practice) is not a successful electronic
prescriber (as specified by CMS for
purposes of the payment adjustment) for
an applicable reporting period (as
specified by CMS) the fee schedule
amount for such services furnished by
such professional (or group practice)
during the program year (including the
fee schedule amount for purposes of
determining a payment based on such
amount) is equal to the applicable
percent (as specified in paragraph
(c)(2)(i) of this section) of the fee
schedule amount that would otherwise
apply to such services under section
1848 of the Act.
(i) Applicable percent. The applicable
percent is as follows:
(A) For 2012, 99 percent;
(B) For 2013, 98.5 percent; and
(C) For 2014, 98 percent.
PO 00000
Frm 00119
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73621
(ii) Significant hardship exception.
CMS may, on a case-by-case basis,
exempt an eligible professional (or in
the case of a group practice under
paragraph (e) of this section, a group
practice) from the application of the
payment adjustment under paragraph
(c)(2) of this section if, CMS determines,
subject to annual renewal, that
compliance with the requirement for
being a successful electronic prescriber
would result in a significant hardship.
(3) Limitation with respect to
electronic prescribing quality measures.
The provisions of paragraphs (c)(1) and
(c)(2) of this section do not apply to an
eligible professional (or, in the case of
a group practice under paragraph (e) of
this section, a group practice) if for the
reporting period the allowed charges
under section 1848 of the Act for all
covered professional services furnished
by the eligible professional (or group, as
applicable) for the codes to which the
electronic prescribing measure applies
are less than 10 percent of the total of
the allowed charges under section 1848
of the Act for all such covered
professional services furnished by the
eligible professional (or the group
practice, as applicable).
(d) Requirements for individual
eligible professionals to qualify to
receive an incentive payment. In order
to be considered a successful electronic
prescriber and qualify to earn an
electronic prescribing incentive
payment (subject to paragraph (c)(3) of
this section), an individual eligible
professional, as identified by a unique
TIN/NPI combination, must meet the
criteria for successful electronic
prescriber under section 1848(m)(3)(B)
of the Act and as specified by CMS
during the reporting period specified in
paragraph (d)(1) of this section and
using one of the reporting mechanisms
specified in paragraph (d)(2) of this
section. Although an eligible
professional may attempt to qualify for
the electronic prescribing incentive
payment using more than one reporting
mechanism (as specified in paragraph
(d)(2) of this section), the eligible
professional will receive only one
electronic prescribing incentive
payment per TIN/NPI combination for a
program year.
(1) Reporting period. For purposes of
this paragraph in 2011, the reporting
period with respect to a program year is
the entire calendar year.
(2) Reporting mechanisms. For
program year 2011, an eligible
professional who wishes to participate
in the Electronic Prescribing Incentive
Program must report information on the
electronic prescribing measure
identified by CMS to—
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73622
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
(i) CMS, by no later than 2 months
after the end of the applicable reporting
period, on the eligible professional’s
Medicare Part B claims for covered
professional services furnished by the
eligible professional during the
reporting period specified in paragraph
(d)(1) of this section;
(ii) A qualified registry (as defined in
paragraph (b) of this section) in the form
and manner and by the deadline
specified by the qualified registry
selected by the eligible professional.
The selected qualified registry will
submit information, as required by
CMS, for covered professional services
furnished by the eligible professional
during the reporting period specified in
paragraph (d)(1) of this section to CMS
on the eligible professional’s behalf; or
(iii) CMS by extracting clinical data
using a secure data submission method,
as required by CMS, from a qualified
electronic health record product (as
defined in paragraph (b) of this section)
by the deadline specified by CMS for
covered professional services furnished
by the eligible professional during the
reporting period specified in paragraph
(d)(1) of this section. Prior to actual data
submission for a given program year and
by a date specified by CMS, the eligible
professional must submit a test file
containing real or dummy clinical
quality data extracted from the qualified
electronic health record product
selected by the eligible professional
using a secure data submission method,
as required by CMS.
(e) Requirements for group practices
to qualify to receive an incentive
payment. (1) A group practice (as
defined in paragraph (b) of this section)
will be treated as a successful electronic
prescriber for covered professional
services for a reporting period if the
group practice meets the criteria for
successful electronic prescriber
specified by CMS in the form and
manner and at the time specified by
CMS.
(2) No double payments. Payments to
a group practice under this paragraph
must be in lieu of the payments that
would otherwise be made under the
Electronic Prescribing Incentive
Program to eligible professionals in the
group practice for being a successful
electronic prescriber.
(i) If an eligible professional, as
identified by an individual NPI, has
reassigned his or her Medicare billing
rights to a TIN selected to participate in
the electronic prescribing group practice
reporting option for a program year,
then for that program year the eligible
professional must participate in the
Electronic Prescribing Incentive
Program via the group practice reporting
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
option. For any program year in which
the TIN is selected to participate in the
Electronic Prescribing Incentive
Program group practice reporting
option, the eligible professional cannot
individually qualify for an electronic
prescribing incentive payment by
meeting the requirements specified in
paragraph (d) of this section.
(ii) If, for the program year, the
eligible professional participates in the
Electronic Prescribing Incentive
Program under another TIN that is not
selected to participate in the Electronic
Prescribing Incentive Program group
practice reporting option for that
program year, then the eligible
professional may individually qualify
for an electronic prescribing incentive
by meeting the requirements specified
in paragraph (d) of this section under
that TIN.
(f) Public reporting of an eligible
professional’s or group practice’s
Electronic Prescribing Incentive
Program data. For each program year,
CMS will post on a public Web site, in
an easily understandable format, a list of
the names of eligible professionals (or in
the case of reporting under paragraph (e)
of this section, group practices) who are
successful electronic prescribers.
Subpart D—Payment for Durable
Medical Equipment and Prosthetic and
Orthotic Devices
31. Section 414.202 is amended by
adding the definition of ‘‘Complex
rehabilitative power-driven wheelchair.
■
§ 414.202
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Complex rehabilitative power-driven
wheelchair means a power-driven
wheelchair that is classified as—
(1) Group 2 power wheelchair with
power options that can accommodate
rehabilitative features (for example, tilt
in space); or
(2) Group 3 power wheelchair.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 32. Section 414.229 is amended by—
■ A. Revising paragraphs (a)(3), (d)(1),
and (h).
■ B. Adding paragraphs (a)(4), (a)(5),
and (b)(3).
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
§ 414.229 Other durable medical
equipment-capped rental items.
(a) * * *
(3) For power-driven wheelchairs
furnished on or after January 1, 2006
through December 31, 2010, payment is
made in accordance with the rules set
forth in paragraphs (f) or (h) of this
section.
PO 00000
Frm 00120
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(4) For power-driven wheelchairs that
are not classified as complex
rehabilitative power-driven
wheelchairs, furnished on or after
January 1, 2011, payment is made in
accordance with the rules set forth in
paragraph (f) of this section.
(5) For power-driven wheelchairs
classified as complex rehabilitative
power-driven wheelchairs, furnished on
or after January 1, 2011, payment is
made in accordance with the rules set
forth in paragraphs (f) or (h) of this
section.
(b) * * *
(3) For power-driven wheelchairs
furnished on or after January 1, 2011,
the monthly fee schedule amount for
rental equipment equals 15 percent of
the purchase price recognized as
determined under paragraph (c) of this
section for each of the first 3 months
and 6 percent of the purchase price for
each of the remaining months.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) Suppliers must offer beneficiaries
the option of purchasing power-driven
wheelchairs at the time the supplier first
furnishes the item. On or after January
1, 2011, this option is available only for
complex rehabilitative power-driven
wheelchairs. Payment must be on a
lump-sum fee schedule purchase basis if
the beneficiary chooses the purchase
option. The purchase fee is the amount
established in paragraph (c) of this
section.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) Purchase of power-driven
wheelchairs furnished on or after
January 1, 2006. (1) Suppliers must offer
beneficiaries the option to purchase
power-driven wheelchairs at the time
the equipment is initially furnished.
(2) Payment is made on a lump-sum
purchase basis if the beneficiary chooses
this option.
(3) On or after January 1, 2011, this
option is available only for complex
rehabilitative power-driven
wheelchairs.
Subpart F—Competitive Bidding for
Certain Durable Medical Equipment,
Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies
(DMEPOS)
33. Section 414.402 is amended by
adding the definitions of ‘‘Affected
party,’’ ‘‘Breach of contract,’’ ‘‘Corrective
action plan (CAP),’’ ‘‘Hearing officer,’’
‘‘Mail order item,’’ ‘‘National mail order
DMEPOS competitive bidding program,’’
‘‘Non-mail order item’’ and ‘‘Parties to
the hearing’’ in alphabetical order to
read as follows:
■
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
§ 414.402
Definitions.
Affected party means a contract
supplier that has been notified that their
DMEPOS CBP contract will be
terminated for a breach of contract.
*
*
*
*
*
Breach of contract means any
deviation from contract requirements,
including a failure to comply with a
governmental agency or licensing
organization requirements, constitutes a
breach of contract.
*
*
*
*
*
Corrective action plan (CAP) means a
contract supplier’s written document
with supporting information that
describes the actions the contract
supplier will take within a specified
timeframe to remedy a breach of
contract.
*
*
*
*
*
Hearing officer (HO) means an
individual, who was not involved with
the CBIC recommendation to terminate
a DMEPOS Competitive Bidding
Program contract, who is designated by
CMS to review and make an unbiased
and independent recommendation
when there is an appeal of CMS’s initial
determination to terminate a DMEPOS
Competitive Bidding Program contract.
*
*
*
*
*
Mail order item means any item (for
example, diabetic testing supplies)
shipped or delivered to the beneficiary’s
home, regardless of the method of
delivery.
*
*
*
*
*
National mail order DMEPOS
competitive bidding program means a
program whereby contracts are awarded
to suppliers for the furnishing of mail
order items across the nation.
*
*
*
*
*
Non-mail order item means any item
(for example, diabetic testing supplies)
that a beneficiary or caregiver picks up
in person at a local pharmacy or
supplier storefront.
Parties to the hearing means the
DMEPOS contract supplier and CMS.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 34. Section 414.404 is amended by
revising paragraph (b)(1)(i) to read as
follows:
§ 414.404
Scope and applicability.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) The items furnished are limited to
crutches, canes, walkers, folding manual
wheelchairs, blood glucose monitors,
and infusion pumps that are DME, and
off-the-shelf (OTS) orthotics.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 35. Section 414.408 is amended by—
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
A. Revising paragraph (f)(1).
B. Redesignating paragraph (h)(2)
through (h)(7) as paragraphs (h)(3)
through (h)(8), respectively.
■ C. Adding new paragraph (h)(2).
■ D. In newly designated paragraphs
(h)(3)(i) and (ii), remove the phrase
‘‘(h)(2)’’ and insert in its place the phrase
‘‘(h)(3).’’
The revision and addition reads as
follows:
■
■
§ 414.408
Payment rules.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) * * *
(1) The single payment amounts for
new purchased durable medical
equipment, including power
wheelchairs that are purchased when
the equipment is initially furnished and
enteral nutrition equipment are
calculated based on the bids submitted
and accepted for these items. For
contracts entered into beginning on or
after January 1, 2011, payment on a
lump sum purchase basis is only
available for power wheelchairs
classified as complex rehabilitative
power wheelchairs.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) * * *
(2) For contracts entered into
beginning on or after January 1, 2011,
the monthly fee schedule amount for
rental of power wheelchairs equals 15
percent of the single payment amounts
calculated for new durable medical
equipment under paragraph (f)(1) of this
section for each of the first 3 months,
and 6 percent of the single payment
amounts calculated for these items for
each of the remaining months 4 through
13.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 36. Section 414.410 is amended as
follows:
■ A. Revising paragraphs (a)(2) and
(a)(3).
■ B. Adding a new paragraph (a)(4).
The revisions and addition read as
follows:
§ 414.410 Phase-in implementation of
competitive bidding programs.
(a) * * *
(2) In CY 2011, in an additional 91
MSAs (the additional 70 MSAs selected
by CMS as of June 1, 2008, and the next
21 largest MSAs by total population
based on 2009 population estimates,
and not already phased in as of June 1,
2008). CMS may subdivide any of the 91
MSAs with a population of greater than
8,000,000 into separate CBAs, thereby
resulting in more than 91 CBAs.
(3) After CY 2011, additional CBAs
(or, in the case of national mail order for
items and services, after CY 2010).
PO 00000
Frm 00121
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73623
(4) For competitions (other than for
national mail order items and services)
after CY 2011 and prior to CY 2015, the
following areas are excluded:
(i) Rural areas.
(ii) MSAs not selected under
paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section
with a population of less than 250,000.
(iii) An area with low population
density within an MSA not selected
under paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this
section.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 37. Section 414.411 is added to read
as follows:
§ 414.411 Special rule in case of
competitions for diabetic testing strips
conducted on or after January 1, 2011.
(a) National mail order competitions.
A supplier must demonstrate that their
bid submitted as part of a national mail
order competition for diabetic testing
strips covers the furnishing of a
sufficient number of different types of
diabetic testing strip products that, in
the aggregate, and taking into account
volume for the different products,
includes at least 50 percent of all the
different types of products on the
market. A type of diabetic testing strip
means a specific brand and model of
testing strips.
(b) Other competitions. CMS may
apply this special rule to non-mail order
or local competitions for diabetic testing
strips.
■ 38. Section 414.422 is amended by
adding paragraph (e)(3) to read as
follows:
§ 414.422
Term of contracts.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(3) Contract suppliers for diabetic
testing supplies must furnish the brand
of diabetic testing supplies that work
with the home blood glucose monitor
selected by the beneficiary. The contract
supplier is prohibited from influencing
or incentivizing the beneficiary by
persuading, pressuring, or advising
them to switch from their current brand
or for new beneficiaries from their
preferred brand of glucose monitor and
testing supplies. The contract supplier
may not furnish information about
alternative brands to the beneficiary
unless the beneficiary requests such
information.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 39. Section 414.423 is added to read
as follows:
§ 414.423 Appeals Process for Termination
of Competitive Bidding Contract.
This section implements an appeals
process for suppliers that CMS has
determined are in breach of their
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73624
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Medicare DMEPOS Competitive Bidding
Program contracts and where CMS has
taken action to terminate the supplier’s
contract. Except as specified in this
regulation termination decisions made
under this section are final and binding.
(a) Terminations for breach of
contract. CMS may terminate a
supplier’s DMEPOS Competitive
Bidding Program contract when it
determines that the supplier has
violated any of the terms of its contract.
(b) Notice of termination.
(1) CMS notification. If CMS
determines a supplier to be in breach of
its contract either in part or in whole,
it will notify the Medicare DMEPOS
supplier of the termination by certified
mail.
(2) Content of the notice. The CMS
notice will include the following:
(i) The reasons for the termination.
(ii) The right to request a hearing by
a CBIC Hearing Officer, and depending
on the nature of the breach, the supplier
may also be allowed to submit a CAP in
lieu of requesting a hearing by a CBIC
Hearing Officer, as specified in
paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section.
(iii) The address to which the written
request for a hearing must be mailed.
(iv) The address to which the CAP
must be mailed, if applicable.
(v) Penalties that will accompany the
termination, such as not being eligible
to bid in future rounds of competitive
bidding.
(vi) The effective date of termination
is 45 days from the date of the
notification letter unless a timely
hearing request has been filed or a
corrective action plan (CAP) has been
submitted within 30 days of the date on
the notification letter.
(c) Corrective action plan (CAP). (1)
Option for corrective action plan (CAP).
(i) CMS has the option to allow a
DMEPOS supplier to provide a written
corrective action plan (CAP) to remedy
the deficiencies identified in the notice,
when CMS determines that the delay in
the termination date caused by allowing
a CAP will not cause harm to
beneficiaries, for example, we would
not allow a CAP if the supplier has been
excluded from any Federal program,
debarred by a Federal agency, or
convicted of a healthcare-related crime.
(ii) If a supplier chooses not to submit
a CAP or if CMS determines that a
supplier’s CAP is insufficient, the
supplier may request a hearing on the
termination.
(2) Submission of a CAP. (i) A
corrective action plan must be
submitted within 30 days from the date
on the notification letter. If the supplier
decides not to submit a corrective action
plan the supplier may within 30 days of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
the date on the termination letter
request a hearing by a CBIC hearing
officer.
(ii) Suppliers will only have the
opportunity to submit a CAP when they
are first notified that they have been
determined to be in breach of contract.
If the CAP is not acceptable or properly
implemented, suppliers will receive a
subsequent termination notice.
(d) The purpose of the corrective
action plan. (1) For the supplier to
eliminate all of the deficiencies that
were identified in the notice to
terminate its contract to avoid contract
termination.
(2) To identify the timeframes by
which the supplier will implement each
of the components of the CAP.
(e) Review of the CAP. (1) The CBIC
will review the CAP. Suppliers may
only revise their CAP one-time during
the review process based on the
deficiencies identified by the CBIC. The
CBIC will submit a recommendation to
CMS concerning whether the CAP
includes the steps necessary to remedy
the contract deficiencies as identified in
the notice of termination.
(2) If CMS accepts the CAP, including
supplier’s designated timeframe for its
completion; the supplier must provide a
follow-up report within 5 days after the
supplier has fully implemented the CAP
that verifies that all of the deficiencies
identified in the CAP have been
corrected in accordance with the
timeframes accepted by CMS.
(3) If the supplier does not implement
an acceptable CAP the supplier will
receive a subsequent notice that their
contract will be terminated within 45
days of the date on that notice.
(f) Right to request a hearing by the
CBIC hearing officer (HO). (1) A
supplier who has received a notice that
CMS considers the supplier in breach of
contract or that the supplier’s CAP is
not acceptable has the right to request
a hearing before an HO who was not
involved with the original
determination.
(2) A supplier who wishes to appeal
the termination notice must submit a
written request to the CBIC. The request
for a hearing must be received by the
CBIC within 30 days from the date of
the notice to terminate.
(3) A request for hearing must be in
writing and submitted by an authorized
official of the supplier.
(4) The appeals process for the
Medicare DMEPOS Competitive Bidding
Program is not to be used in place of
other existing appeals processes that
apply to other parts of the Medicare.
(5) If the supplier is given the
opportunity to submit a CAP and a CAP
is not submitted and the supplier fails
PO 00000
Frm 00122
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
to timely request a hearing, this will
result in the termination of the
supplier’s DMEPOS Competitive
Bidding Program contract effective 45
days from the date on the notice to
terminate received by the supplier.
(g) The CBIC Hearing Officer
schedules and conducts the hearing. (1)
Within 30 days from the receipt of the
supplier’s timely request for a hearing
the hearing officer will contact the
parties to schedule the hearing.
(2) The hearing may be held in person
or by telephone at the supplier’s
request.
(3) The scheduling notice to the
parties must indicate the time and place
for the hearing and must be sent to the
supplier 30 days before the date of the
hearing.
(4) The HO may, on his or her own
motion, or at the request of a party,
change the time and place for the
hearing, but must give the parties to the
hearing 30 days notice of the change.
(5) The HO’s scheduling notice must
provide the parties to the hearing and
the CBIC the following information:
(i) Description of the hearing
procedure.
(ii) The general and specific issues to
be resolved.
(iii) The supplier has the burden to
prove it is not in violation of the
contract.
(iv) The opportunity for parties to the
hearing to submit additional evidence to
support their positions, if requested by
the HO.
(v) All evidence submitted, both from
the supplier and CMS, in preparation
for the hearing with all affected parties
within 15 days prior to the scheduled
date of the hearing.
(h) Burden of proof. (1) The burden of
proof is on the Competitive Bidding
Program contract supplier to
demonstrate to the HO with convincing
evidence that it has not breached its
contract or that termination is not
appropriate.
(2) The supplier’s supporting
evidence must be submitted with its
request for a hearing.
(3) If the Medicare DMEPOS supplier
fails to submit this evidence at the time
of its submission, the Medicare
DMEPOS supplier is precluded from
introducing new evidence later during
the hearing process, unless permitted by
the hearing officer.
(4) CMS also has the opportunity to
submit evidence to the HO within 10
days of receiving a notice announcing
the hearing.
(5) The HO will share all evidence
submitted by the supplier and/or CMS,
with all parties to the hearing and the
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
CBIC within 15 days prior to the
scheduled date of the hearing.
(i) Role of the Hearing Officer. The
HO will conduct a thorough and
independent review of the evidence
including the information and
documentation submitted for the
hearing and other information that the
HO considers pertinent for the hearing.
The role of the HO includes, at a
minimum, the following:
(1) Conducts the hearing and decides
the order in which the evidence and the
arguments of the parties are presented;
(2) Determines the rules on
admissibility of the evidence;
(3) Examines the witnesses, in
addition to the examinations conducted
by CMS and the contract supplier;
(4) The CBIC may assist CMS in the
appeals process including being present
at the hearing, testifying as a witness, or
performing other, related ministerial
duties.
(5) Determines the rules for requesting
documents and other evidence from
other parties;
(6) Ensures a complete record of the
hearing is made available to all parties
to the hearing;
(7) Prepares a file of the record of the
hearing which includes all evidence
submitted as well as any relevant
documents identified by the HO and
considered as part of the hearing; and
(8) Complies with all applicable
provisions of 42 USC Title 18 and
related provisions of the Act, the
applicable regulations issued by the
Secretary, and manual instructions
issued by CMS.
(j) Hearing Officer recommendation.
(1) The HO will issue a written
recommendation to CMS within 30 days
of the close of the hearing unless an
extension has been granted by CMS
because the HO has demonstrated that
an extension is needed due to the
complexity of the matter or heavy
workload.
(2) The recommendation will explain
the basis and the rationale for the HO’s
recommendation.
(3) The hearing officer must include
the record of the hearing, along with all
evidence and documents produced
during the hearing along with its
recommendation.
(k) CMS’ final determination. (1)
CMS’ review of the HO recommendation
will not allow the supplier to submit
new information.
(2) After reviewing the HO
recommendation, CMS’ decision will be
made within 30 days from the date of
receipt of the HO’s recommendation.
(3) A CMS decision to terminate will
indicate the effective date of the
termination.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
(4) This decision is final and binding.
(l) Effect of contract termination. A
contract supplier whose contract has
been terminated—
(1) All locations included in the
contract can no longer furnish
competitive bid items to beneficiaries
within a CBA and the supplier cannot
be reimbursed by Medicare for these
items after the effective date of the
termination.
(2) Must notify all beneficiaries who
are receiving rented competitive bid
items or competitive bid items received
on a recurring basis, of the termination
of their contract.
(i) The notice to the beneficiary from
the supplier whose contract was
terminated must be provided within 15
days of receipt of the final notice of
termination.
(ii) The notification to the
beneficiaries must inform the
beneficiaries that they are going to have
to select a new contract supplier to
furnish these items in order for
Medicare to pay these items.
(m) Effective date of the contract
termination. (1) A supplier’s DMEPOS
CBP contract is terminated effective on
the termination date specified in the
notice to the supplier, unless the
supplier timely requests a hearing with
the HO or the supplier has submitted a
CAP under paragraph (c) of this section.
(2) If a supplier requests an HO
review of the CMS decision to terminate
its contract, and CMS based upon the
HO’s recommendation terminates the
supplier’s contract, the effective date of
the termination will be the date
specified in the post-hearing notice to
the supplier indicating CMS’s final
determination to terminate the contract.
(3) For violations of the terms of the
supplier’s DMEPOS CBP contract that
may harm beneficiaries, such as a
supplier providing an inferior product
that causes harm to the beneficiary, no
delays of the effective date of the
termination will be allowed.
Subpart H —Fee Schedule for
Ambulance Services
39. Section 414.610 is amended as
follows:
■ A. Revising paragraph (c)(1)(i).
■ B. Redesignating (c)(1)(ii) as (c)(1)(iii).
■ C. Adding a new paragraph (c)(1)(ii).
■ D. Revising paragraphs (c)(5)(ii), (f),
and (h).
The revisions and addition read as
follows:
■
§ 414.610
*
Basis of payments.
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
PO 00000
Frm 00123
*
Fmt 4701
*
Sfmt 4700
73625
(i) For services furnished during the
period July 1, 2004 through December
31, 2006, ambulance services originating
in—
(A) Urban areas (both base rate and
mileage) are paid based on a rate that is
1 percent higher than otherwise is
applicable under this section; and
(B) Rural areas (both base rate and
mileage) are paid based on a rate that is
2 percent higher than otherwise is
applicable under this section.
(ii) For services furnished during the
period July 1, 2008 through December
31, 2010, ambulance services originating
in—
(A) Urban areas (both base rate and
mileage) are paid based on a rate that is
2 percent higher than otherwise is
applicable under this section;
(B) Rural areas (both base rate and
mileage) are paid based on a rate that is
3 percent higher than otherwise is
applicable under this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(5) * * *
(ii) For services furnished during the
period July 1, 2004 through December
31, 2010, the payment amount for the
ground ambulance base rate is increased
by 22.6 percent where the point of
pickup is in a rural area determined to
be in the lowest 25 percent of rural
population arrayed by population
density. The amount of this increase is
based on CMS’s estimate of the ratio of
the average cost per trip for the rural
areas in the lowest quartile of
population compared to the average cost
per trip for the rural areas in the highest
quartile of population. In making this
estimate, CMS may use data provided
by the GAO.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Updates. The CF, the air
ambulance base rates, and the mileage
rates are updated annually by an
inflation factor established by law. The
inflation factor is based on the
consumer price index for all urban
consumers (CPI–U) (U.S. city average)
for the 12-month period ending with
June of the previous year and, for 2011
and each subsequent year, is reduced by
the productivity adjustment described
in section 1886(b)(3)(B)(xi)(II) of the
Act.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) Treatment of certain areas for
payment for air ambulance services.
Any area that was designated as a rural
area for purposes of making payments
under the ambulance fee schedule for
air ambulance services furnished on
December 31, 2006, must be treated as
a rural area for purposes of making
payments under the ambulance fee
schedule for air ambulance services
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73626
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
furnished during the period July 1, 2008
through December 31, 2010.
■ 40. Section 414.620 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 414.620 Publication of the ambulance fee
schedule.
(a) Changes in payment rates resulting
from incorporation of the annual
inflation factor and the productivity
adjustment as described in § 414.610(f)
will be announced by CMS by
instruction and on the CMS Web site.
(b) CMS will follow applicable
rulemaking procedures in publishing
revisions to the fee schedule for
ambulance services that result from any
factors other than those described in
§ 414.610(f).
Subpart J—Submission of
Manufacturer’s Average Sales Price
Data
41. Section 414.804 is amended by—
A. Redesignating paragraph (a)(6) as
(a)(7).
■ B. Adding new paragraph (a)(6).
■ C. Reserving paragraph (b).
■ The addition reads as follows:
■
■
§ 414.804
Basis of payment.
(a) * * *
(6) The manufacturer’s average sales
price must be calculated based on the
amount of product in a vial or other
container as conspicuously reflected on
the FDA approved label as defined by
section 201(k) of the Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act.
(b) [Reserved]
Subpart K—Payment for Drugs and
Biologicals Under Part B
42. Section 414.902 is amended by
adding the definitions of ‘‘Biosimilar
biological product’’ and ‘‘Reference
biological product’’ in alphabetical order
to read as follows:
■
§ 414.902
Definitions.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
*
*
*
*
*
Biosimilar biological product means a
biological product approved under an
abbreviated application for a license of
a biological product that relies in part
on data or information in an application
for another biological product licensed
under section 351 of the Public Health
Service Act (PHSA) as defined at section
1847A(c)(6)(H) of the Act.
*
*
*
*
*
Reference biological product means
the biological product licensed under
such section 351 of the PHSA that is
referred to in the application of the
biosimilar biological product as defined
at section 1847A(c)(6)(I) of the Act.
*
*
*
*
*
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
43. Section 414.904 is amended by—
A. Adding paragraphs (a)(3), (i), and
(j).
■ B. Revising paragraph (d)(3).
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
■
■
§ 414.904 Average sales price as the basis
for payment.
(a) * * *
(3) For purposes of this paragraph—
(i) CMS calculates an average sales
price payment limit based on the
amount of product included in a vial or
other container as reflected on the FDAapproved label.
(ii) Additional product contained in
the vial or other container does not
represent a cost to providers and is not
incorporated into the ASP payment
limit.
(iii) No payment is made for amounts
of product in excess of that reflected on
the FDA-approved label.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(3) Widely available market price and
average manufacturer price. If the
Inspector General finds that the average
sales price exceeds the widely available
market price or the average
manufacturer price by 5 percent or more
in CYs 2005 through 2011 the payment
limit in the quarter following the
transmittal of this information to the
Secretary is the lesser of the widely
available market price or 103 percent of
the average manufacturer price.
*
*
*
*
*
(i) If manufacturer ASP data is not
available prior to the publication
deadline for quarterly payment limits
and the unavailability of manufacturer
ASP data significantly changes the
quarterly payment limit for the billing
code when compared to the prior
quarter’s billing code payment limit, the
payment limit is calculated by carrying
over the most recent available
manufacturer ASP price from a previous
quarter for an NDC in the billing code,
adjusted by the weighted average of the
change in the manufacturer ASPs for the
NDCs that were reported for both the
most recently available previous quarter
and the current quarter.
(j) Biosimilar biological products.
Effective July 1, 2010, the payment
amount for a biosimilar biological drug
product (as defined in § 414.902 of this
subpart) is the sum of the average sales
price of all NDCs assigned to the
biosimilar biological product as
determined under section 1847A(b)(6)
of the Act and 6 percent of the amount
determined under section 1847A(b)(4)
of the Act for the reference drug product
(as defined in § 414.902 of this subpart).
PO 00000
Frm 00124
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
PART 415—SERVICES FURNISHED BY
PHYSICIANS IN PROVIDERS,
SUPERVISING PHYSICIANS IN
TEACHING SETTINGS, AND
RESIDENTS IN CERTAIN SETTINGS
44. The authority citation for part 415
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: Secs. 1102 and 1871 of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302 and
1395hh).
Subpart C—Part B Carrier Payments
for Physician Services to Beneficiaries
in Providers
45. Section 415.130 is amended by
revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
■
§ 415.130 Conditions for payment:
Physician pathology services.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Physician pathology services
furnished by an independent laboratory.
(1) The technical component of
physician pathology services furnished
by an independent laboratory to a
hospital inpatient or outpatient on or
before December 31, 2010, may be paid
to the laboratory by the contractor under
the physician fee schedule if the
Medicare beneficiary is a patient of a
covered hospital as defined in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(2) For services furnished after
December 31, 2010, an independent
laboratory may not bill the Medicare
contractor for the technical component
of physician pathology services
furnished to a hospital inpatient or
outpatient.
(3) For services furnished on or after
January 1, 2008, the date of service
policy in § 414.510 of this chapter
applies to the TC of specimens for
physician pathology services.
PART 424—CONDITIONS FOR
MEDICARE PAYMENT
46. The authority citation for part 424
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: Secs. 1102 and 1871 of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302 and
1395hh).
Subpart B—Certification and Plan of
Treatment Requirements
47. Section 424.20 is amended by
revising paragraph (e)(2) to read as
follows:
■
§ 424.20 Requirements for posthospital
SNF care.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(2) A physician extender (that is, a
nurse practitioner, a clinical nurse
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
specialist, or a physician assistant as
those terms are defined in section
1861(aa)(5) of the Act) who does not
have a direct or indirect employment
relationship with the facility but who is
working in collaboration with a
physician. For purposes of this
section—
(i) Collaboration. (A) Collaboration
means a process whereby a physician
extender works with a doctor of
medicine or osteopathy to deliver health
care services.
(B) The services are delivered within
the scope of the physician extender’s
professional expertise, with medical
direction and appropriate supervision as
provided for in guidelines jointly
developed by the physician extender
and the physician or other mechanisms
defined by Federal regulations and the
law of the State in which the services
are performed.
(ii) Types of employment
relationships. (A) Direct employment
relationship. A direct employment
relationship with the facility is one in
which the physician extender meets the
common law definition of the facility’s
‘‘employee,’’ as specified in § 404.1005,
§ 404.1007, and § 404.1009 of title 20 of
the regulations. When a physician
extender meets this definition with
respect to an entity other than the
facility itself, and that entity has an
agreement with the facility for the
provision of nursing services under
§ 409.21 of this subchapter, the facility
is considered to have an indirect
employment relationship with the
physician extender.
(B) Indirect employment relationship.
(1) When a physician extender meets
the definition of a direct employment
relationship in paragraph (e)(2)(ii)(A) of
this section with respect to an entity
other than the facility itself, and that
entity has an agreement with the facility
for the provision of nursing services
under § 409.21 of this subchapter, the
facility is considered to have an indirect
employment relationship with the
physician extender.
(2) An indirect employment
relationship does not exist if the
agreement between the entity and the
facility involves only the performance of
delegated physician tasks under
§ 483.40(e) of this chapter.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart C—Claims for Payment
48. Section 424.44 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (e) to
read as follows:
■
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
§ 424.44
Time limits for filing claims.
(a) Time limits. (1) Except as provided
in paragraphs (b) and (e) of this section,
for services furnished on or after
January 1, 2010, the claim must be filed
no later than the close of the period
ending 1 calendar year after the date of
service.
(2) Except as provided in paragraphs
(b) and (e) of this section and except for
services furnished during the last 3
months of 2009, for services furnished
before January 1, 2010, the claim must
be filed—
(i) On or before December 31 of the
following year for services that were
furnished during the first 9 months of a
calendar year; and
(ii) On or before December 31st of the
second following year for services that
were furnished during the last 3 months
of the calendar year.
(3) For services furnished during the
last 3 months of CY 2009 all claims
must be filed no later than December 31,
2010.
(b) Exceptions to time limits.
Exceptions to the time limits for filing
claims include the following:
(1) The time for filing a claim will be
extended if CMS or one of its
contractors determines that a failure to
meet the deadline in paragraph (a) of
this section was caused by error or
misrepresentation of an employee,
Medicare contractor (including
Medicare Administrative Contractor,
intermediary, or carrier), or agent of
HHS that was performing Medicare
functions and acting within the scope of
its authority.
(2) The time for filing a claim will be
extended if CMS or one of its
contractors determines that a failure to
meet the deadline in paragraph (a) of
this section is caused by all of the
following conditions:
(i) At the time the service was
furnished the beneficiary was not
entitled to Medicare.
(ii) The beneficiary subsequently
received notification of Medicare
entitlement effective retroactively to or
before the date of the furnished service.
(3) The time for filing a claim will be
extended if CMS or one of its
contractors determines that a failure to
meet the deadline in paragraph (a) of
this section is caused by all of the
following conditions:
(i) At the time the service was
furnished the beneficiary was not
entitled to Medicare.
(ii) The beneficiary subsequently
received notification of Medicare
entitlement effective retroactively to or
before the date of the furnished service.
(iii) A State Medicaid agency
recovered the Medicaid payment for the
PO 00000
Frm 00125
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73627
furnished service from a provider or
supplier 6 months or more after the
service was furnished.
(4) The time for filing a claim will be
extended if CMS or one of its
contractors determines that a failure to
meet the deadline in paragraph (a) of
this section is caused by all of the
following conditions:
(i) At the time the service was
furnished the beneficiary was enrolled
in a Medicare Advantage plan or
Program of All-inclusive Care for the
Elderly (PACE) provider organization.
(ii) The beneficiary was subsequently
disenrolled from the Medicare
Advantage plan or Program of Allinclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE)
provider organization effective
retroactively to or before the date of the
furnished service.
(iii) The Medicare Advantage plan or
Program of All-inclusive Care for the
Elderly (PACE) provider organization
recovered its payment for the furnished
service from a provider or supplier 6
months or more after the service was
furnished.
(5) Extension of time. (i) If CMS or one
of its contractors determines that a
failure to meet the deadline specified in
paragraph (a) of this section was caused
by error or misrepresentation of an
employee, Medicare contractor
(including Medicare Administrative
Contractor, intermediary, or carrier), or
agent of HHS that was performing
Medicare functions and acting within
the scope of its authority, the time to file
a claim will be extended through the
last day of the sixth calendar month
following the month in which either the
beneficiary or the provider or supplier
received notification that the error or
misrepresentation referenced in
paragraph (b)(1) of this section was
corrected. No extension of time will be
granted for paragraph (b)(1) when the
request for that exception is made to
CMS or one of its contractors more than
4 years after the date of service.
(ii) If CMS or one of its contractors
determines that both of the conditions
are met in paragraph (b)(2) of this
section but that all of the conditions in
paragraph (b)(3) are not satisfied, the
time to file a claim will be extended
through the last day of the sixth
calendar month following the month in
which either the beneficiary or the
provider or supplier received
notification of Medicare entitlement
effective retroactively to or before the
date of the furnished service.
(iii) If CMS or one of its contractors
determines that all of the conditions are
met in paragraph (b)(3) of this section,
the time to file a claim will be extended
through the last day of the sixth
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73628
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
calendar month following the month in
which the State Medicaid agency
recovered the Medicaid payment for the
furnished service from the provider or
supplier.
(iv) If CMS or one of its contractors
determines that all of the conditions are
met in paragraph (b)(4) of this section,
the time to file a claim will be extended
through the last day of the sixth
calendar month following the month in
which the Medicare Advantage plan or
Program of All-inclusive Care for the
Elderly (PACE) provider organization
recovered its payment for the furnished
service from the provider or supplier.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) As specified in § 424.520 and
§ 424.521 of this subpart, there are
restrictions on the ability of the
following newly-enrolled suppliers to
submit claims for items or services
furnished prior to the effective date of
their Medicare billing privileges:
(1) Physician or nonphysician
practitioner organizations.
(2) Physicians.
(3) Nonphysician practitioners.
(4) Independent diagnostic testing
facilities.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart P—Requirements for
Establishing and Maintaining Medicare
Billing Privileges
49. Section 424.502 is amended by
adding a definition of ‘‘Voluntary
termination’’ to read as follows:
■
§ 424.502
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Voluntary termination means that a
provider or supplier, including an
individual physician or nonphysician
practitioner, submits written
confirmation to CMS of its decision to
discontinue enrollment in the Medicare
program.
■ 50. Section 424.510 is amended by
revising paragraph (d)(2)(iii) to read as
follows:
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
§ 424.510 Requirements for enrolling in
the Medicare program.
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) Submission of all documentation,
including—
(A) All applicable Federal and State
licenses, certifications including, but
not limited to Federal Aviation
Administration; and
(B) Documentation associated with
regulatory and statutory requirements
necessary to establish a provider’s or
supplier’s eligibility to furnish Medicare
covered items or services to
beneficiaries in the Medicare program.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
51. Section 424.516 is amended by
adding a new paragraph (e)(3) to read as
follows:
■
§ 424.516 Additional provider and supplier
requirements for enrolling and maintaining
active enrollment status in the Medicare
program.
(e) * * *
(3) Within 30 days of any revocation
or suspension of a Federal or State
license or certification including
Federal Aviation Administration
certifications, an air ambulance supplier
must report a revocation or suspension
of its license or certification to the
applicable Medicare contractor. The
following FAA certifications must be
reported:
(i) Specific pilot certifications
including but not limited to instrument
and medical certifications.
(ii) Airworthiness certification.
*
*
*
*
*
Authority: Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance Program No. 93.773, Medicare—
Hospital Insurance; and Program No. 93.774,
Medicare—Supplementary Medical
Insurance Program.
Dated: October 26, 2010.
Donald M. Berwick,
Administrator, Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services.
Approved: October 29, 2010.
Kathleen Sebelius,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human
Services.
Addendum A: Explanation and Use of
Addenda B and C
The Addenda on the following pages
provide various data pertaining to the
Medicare fee schedule for physicians’
services furnished in CY 2011. Addendum B
contains the RVUs for work, nonfacility PE,
facility PE, and malpractice expense, and
other information for all services included in
the PFS. Addendum C contains the list of
HCPCS codes that have interim work, PE,
and/or malpractice expense RVUs for CY
2011 and are open for comment on this final
rule with comment period.
(1) Addendum B, CY 2011 Relative Value
Units and Related Information Used in
Determining Medicare Payments
In previous years, we have listed many
services in Addendum B that are not paid
under the PFS. To avoid publishing as many
pages of codes for these services, we are not
including clinical laboratory codes or the
alpha-numeric codes (Healthcare Common
Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes not
included in CPT) not paid under the PFS in
Addendum B.
Addendum B contains the following
information for each CPT code and alphanumeric HCPCS code, except for: alphanumeric codes beginning with B (enteral and
parenteral therapy); E (durable medical
equipment); K (temporary codes for
nonphysicians’ services or items); or L
(orthotics); and codes for anesthesiology.
Please also note the following:
PO 00000
Frm 00126
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
• An ‘‘NA’’ in the ‘‘Nonfacility PE RVUs’’
column of Addendum B means that CMS has
not developed a PE RVU in the nonfacility
setting for the service because it is typically
performed in the hospital (for example, an
open heart surgery is generally performed in
the hospital setting and not a physician’s
office). If there is an ‘‘NA’’ in the nonfacility
PE RVU column, and the contractor
determines that this service can be performed
in the nonfacility setting, the service will be
paid at the facility PE RVU rate.
• Services that have an ‘‘NA’’ in the
‘‘Facility PE RVUs’’ column of Addendum B
are typically not paid under the PFS when
provided in a facility setting. These services
(which include ‘‘incident to’’ services and the
technical portion of diagnostic tests) are
generally paid under either the hospital
outpatient prospective payment system or
bundled into the hospital inpatient
prospective payment system payment. In
some cases, these services may be paid in a
facility setting at the PFS rate (for example,
therapy services), but there would be no
payment made to the practitioner under the
PFS in these situations.
1. CPT/HCPCS code. This is the CPT or
alpha-numeric HCPCS number for the
service. Alpha-numeric HCPCS codes are
included at the end of this Addendum.
2. Modifier. A modifier is shown if there
is a technical component (modifier TC) and
a professional component (PC) (modifier-26)
for the service. If there is a PC and a TC for
the service, Addendum B contains three
entries for the code. A code for: the global
values (both professional and technical);
modifier-26 (PC); and modifier TC. The
global service is not designated by a modifier,
and physicians must bill using the code
without a modifier if the physician furnishes
both the PC and the TC of the service.
Modifier-53 is shown for a discontinued
procedure, for example, a colonoscopy that is
not completed. There will be RVUs for a code
with this modifier.
3. Status indicator. This indicator shows
whether the CPT/HCPCS code is included in
the PFS and whether it is separately payable
if the service is covered. An explanation of
types of status indicators follows:
A = Active code. These codes are
separately payable under the PFS if covered.
There will be RVUs for codes with this
status. The presence of an ‘‘A’’ indicator does
not mean that Medicare has made a national
coverage determination regarding the service.
Contractors remain responsible for coverage
decisions in the absence of a national
Medicare policy.
B = Bundled code. Payments for covered
services are always bundled into payment for
other services not specified. If RVUs are
shown, they are not used for Medicare
payment. If these services are covered,
payment for them is subsumed by the
payment for the services to which they are
incident (for example, a telephone call from
a hospital nurse regarding care of a patient).
C = Contractors price the code. Contractors
establish RVUs and payment amounts for
these services, generally on an individual
case basis following review of
documentation, such as an operative report.
E = Excluded from the PFS by regulation.
These codes are for items and services that
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
CMS chose to exclude from the PFS by
regulation. No RVUs are shown, and no
payment may be made under the PFS for
these codes. Payment for them, when
covered, continues under reasonable charge
procedures.
I = Not valid for Medicare purposes.
Medicare uses another code for the reporting
of, and the payment for these services. (Codes
not subject to a 90 day grace period.)
M = Measurement codes, used for reporting
purposes only. There are no RVUs and no
payment amounts for these codes. CMS uses
them to aid with performance measurement.
No separate payment is made. These codes
should be billed with a zero (($0.00) charge
and are denied) on the MPFSDB.
N = Non-covered service. These codes are
noncovered services. Medicare payment may
not be made for these codes. If RVUs are
shown, they are not used for Medicare
payment.
R = Restricted coverage. Special coverage
instructions apply. If the service is covered
and no RVUs are shown, it is contractorpriced.
T = There are RVUs for these services, but
they are only paid if there are no other
services payable under the PFS billed on the
same date by the same provider. If any other
services payable under the PFS are billed on
the same date by the same provider, these
services are bundled into the service(s) for
which payment is made.
X = Statutory exclusion. These codes
represent an item or service that is not within
the statutory definition of ‘‘physicians’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
services’’ for PFS payment purposes. No
RVUs are shown for these codes, and no
payment may be made under the PFS, (for
example, ambulance services and clinical
diagnostic laboratory services.)
4. Description of code. This is the code’s
short descriptor, which is an abbreviated
version of the narrative description of the
code.
5. Physician work RVUs. These are the
RVUs for the physician work in CY 2011.
6. Fully implemented nonfacility PE RVUs.
These are the fully implemented resourcebased PE RVUs for nonfacility settings.
7. CY 2011 transitional nonfacility PE
RVUs. These are the CY 2011 resource-based
PE RVUs for nonfacility settings.
8. Fully implemented facility PE RVUs.
These are the fully implemented resourcebased PE RVUs for facility settings.
9. CY 2011 Transitional facility PE RVUs.
These are the CY 2011 resource-based PE
RVUs for facility settings.
10. Malpractice expense RVUs. These are
the RVUs for the malpractice expense for CY
2011.
Note: The BN reduction resulting from the
chiropractic demonstration is not reflected in
the RVUs for CPT codes 98940, 98941, and
98942. The required reduction will only be
reflected in the files used for Medicare
payment.
11. Global period. This indicator shows the
number of days in the global period for the
code (0, 10, or 90 days). An explanation of
the alpha codes follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00127
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
73629
MMM = Code describes a service furnished
in uncomplicated maternity cases, including
ante partum care, delivery, and postpartum
care. The usual global surgical concept does
not apply. See the Physicians’ Current
Procedural Terminology for specific
definitions.
XXX = The global concept does not apply.
YYY = The global period is to be set by the
contractor (for example, unlisted surgery
codes).
ZZZ = Code related to another service that
is always included in the global period of the
other service. (Note: Physician work and PE
are associated with intra-service time and, in
some instances, with the post-service time.)
(2) Addendum C, Codes with Interim RVUs
Addendum C, Codes with Interim RVUs,
includes the columns and indicators
described above for Addendum B, plus an
additional column to indicate which
component, or components, of each code’s
RVUs are interim final for CY 2011 and,
therefore, open for public comment: work,
PE, and/or malpractice expense. This
column, headed ‘‘RVUs Open for Comment’’
and located between the columns for the
‘‘Description’’ and ‘‘Physician Work RVUs,’’
displays the indicators below.
W = Physician work RVUs are interim for
CY 2011 and open for comment.
PE = Nonfacility and facility PE RVUs are
interim for CY 2011 and open for comment.
MP = Malpractice expense RVUs are
interim for CY 2011 and open for comment.
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00128
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.000
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73630
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00129
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73631
ER29NO10.001
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00130
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.002
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73632
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00131
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73633
ER29NO10.003
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00132
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.004
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73634
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00133
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73635
ER29NO10.005
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00134
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.006
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73636
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00135
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73637
ER29NO10.007
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00136
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.008
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73638
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00137
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73639
ER29NO10.009
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00138
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.010
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73640
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00139
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73641
ER29NO10.011
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00140
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.012
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73642
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00141
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73643
ER29NO10.013
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00142
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.014
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73644
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00143
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73645
ER29NO10.015
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00144
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.016
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73646
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00145
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73647
ER29NO10.017
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00146
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.018
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73648
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00147
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73649
ER29NO10.019
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00148
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.020
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73650
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00149
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73651
ER29NO10.021
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00150
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.022
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73652
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00151
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73653
ER29NO10.023
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00152
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.024
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73654
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00153
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73655
ER29NO10.025
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00154
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.026
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73656
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00155
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73657
ER29NO10.027
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00156
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.028
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73658
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00157
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73659
ER29NO10.029
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00158
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.030
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73660
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00159
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73661
ER29NO10.031
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00160
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.032
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73662
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00161
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73663
ER29NO10.033
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00162
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.034
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73664
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00163
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73665
ER29NO10.035
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00164
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.036
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73666
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00165
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73667
ER29NO10.037
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00166
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.038
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73668
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00167
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73669
ER29NO10.039
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00168
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.040
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73670
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00169
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73671
ER29NO10.041
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00170
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.042
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73672
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00171
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73673
ER29NO10.043
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00172
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.044
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73674
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00173
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73675
ER29NO10.045
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00174
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.046
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73676
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00175
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73677
ER29NO10.047
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00176
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.048
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73678
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00177
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73679
ER29NO10.049
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00178
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.050
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73680
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00179
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73681
ER29NO10.051
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00180
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.052
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73682
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00181
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73683
ER29NO10.053
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00182
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.054
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73684
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00183
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73685
ER29NO10.055
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00184
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.056
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73686
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00185
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73687
ER29NO10.057
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00186
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.058
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73688
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00187
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73689
ER29NO10.059
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00188
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.060
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73690
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00189
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73691
ER29NO10.061
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00190
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.062
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73692
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00191
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73693
ER29NO10.063
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00192
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.064
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73694
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00193
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73695
ER29NO10.065
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00194
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.066
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73696
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00195
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73697
ER29NO10.067
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00196
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.068
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73698
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00197
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73699
ER29NO10.069
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00198
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.070
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73700
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00199
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73701
ER29NO10.071
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00200
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.072
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73702
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00201
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73703
ER29NO10.073
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00202
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.074
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73704
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00203
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73705
ER29NO10.075
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00204
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.076
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73706
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00205
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73707
ER29NO10.077
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00206
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.078
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73708
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00207
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73709
ER29NO10.079
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00208
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.080
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73710
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00209
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73711
ER29NO10.081
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00210
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.082
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73712
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00211
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73713
ER29NO10.083
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00212
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.084
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73714
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00213
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73715
ER29NO10.085
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00214
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.086
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73716
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00215
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73717
ER29NO10.087
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00216
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.088
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73718
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00217
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73719
ER29NO10.089
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00218
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.090
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73720
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00219
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73721
ER29NO10.091
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00220
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.092
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73722
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00221
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73723
ER29NO10.093
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00222
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.094
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73724
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00223
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73725
ER29NO10.095
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00224
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.096
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73726
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00225
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73727
ER29NO10.097
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00226
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.098
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73728
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00227
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73729
ER29NO10.099
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00228
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.100
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73730
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00229
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73731
ER29NO10.101
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00230
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.102
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73732
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00231
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73733
ER29NO10.103
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00232
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.104
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73734
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00233
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73735
ER29NO10.105
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00234
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.106
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73736
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00235
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73737
ER29NO10.107
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00236
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.108
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73738
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00237
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73739
ER29NO10.109
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00238
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.110
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73740
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00239
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73741
ER29NO10.111
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00240
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.112
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73742
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00241
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73743
ER29NO10.113
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00242
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.114
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73744
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00243
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73745
ER29NO10.115
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00244
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.116
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73746
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00245
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73747
ER29NO10.117
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00246
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.118
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73748
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00247
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73749
ER29NO10.119
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00248
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.120
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73750
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00249
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73751
ER29NO10.121
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00250
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.122
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73752
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00251
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73753
ER29NO10.123
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00252
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.124
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73754
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00253
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73755
ER29NO10.125
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00254
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.126
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73756
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00255
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73757
ER29NO10.127
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00256
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.128
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73758
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00257
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73759
ER29NO10.129
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00258
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.130
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73760
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00259
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73761
ER29NO10.131
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00260
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.132
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73762
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00261
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73763
ER29NO10.133
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00262
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.134
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73764
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00263
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73765
ER29NO10.135
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00264
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.136
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73766
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00265
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73767
ER29NO10.137
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00266
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.138
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73768
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00267
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73769
ER29NO10.139
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00268
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.140
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73770
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00269
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73771
ER29NO10.141
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00270
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.142
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73772
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00271
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73773
ER29NO10.143
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00272
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.144
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73774
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00273
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73775
ER29NO10.145
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00274
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.146
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73776
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00275
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73777
ER29NO10.147
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00276
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.148
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73778
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00277
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73779
ER29NO10.149
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00278
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.150
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73780
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00279
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73781
ER29NO10.151
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00280
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.152
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73782
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00281
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73783
ER29NO10.153
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00282
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.154
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73784
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00283
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73785
ER29NO10.155
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00284
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.156
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73786
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00285
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73787
ER29NO10.157
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00286
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.158
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73788
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00287
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73789
ER29NO10.159
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00288
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.160
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73790
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00289
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73791
ER29NO10.161
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00290
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.162
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73792
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00291
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73793
ER29NO10.163
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00292
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.164
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73794
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00293
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73795
ER29NO10.165
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00294
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.166
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73796
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00295
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73797
ER29NO10.167
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00296
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.168
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73798
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00297
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73799
ER29NO10.169
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00298
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.170
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73800
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00299
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73801
ER29NO10.171
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00300
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.172
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73802
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00301
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73803
ER29NO10.173
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00302
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.174
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73804
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00303
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73805
ER29NO10.175
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00304
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.176
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73806
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00305
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73807
ER29NO10.177
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00306
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.178
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73808
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00307
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73809
ER29NO10.179
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00308
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.180
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73810
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00309
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73811
ER29NO10.181
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00310
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.182
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73812
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00311
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73813
ER29NO10.183
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00312
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.184
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73814
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00313
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73815
ER29NO10.185
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00314
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.186
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73816
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00315
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73817
ER29NO10.187
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00316
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.188
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73818
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00317
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73819
ER29NO10.189
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00318
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.190
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73820
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00319
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73821
ER29NO10.191
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00320
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.192
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73822
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00321
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73823
ER29NO10.193
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00322
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.194
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73824
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00323
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73825
ER29NO10.195
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00324
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.196
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73826
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00325
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73827
ER29NO10.197
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00326
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.198
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73828
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00327
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73829
ER29NO10.199
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00328
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.200
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73830
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00329
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73831
ER29NO10.201
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00330
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.202
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73832
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00331
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73833
ER29NO10.203
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00332
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.204
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73834
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00333
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73835
ER29NO10.205
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00334
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.206
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73836
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00335
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73837
ER29NO10.207
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00336
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.208
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73838
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00337
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73839
ER29NO10.209
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00338
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.210
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73840
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00339
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73841
ER29NO10.211
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00340
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.212
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73842
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00341
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73843
ER29NO10.213
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00342
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.214
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73844
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00343
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73845
ER29NO10.215
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00344
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.216
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73846
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00345
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73847
ER29NO10.217
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00346
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.218
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73848
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00347
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73849
ER29NO10.219
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00348
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.220
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73850
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00349
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73851
ER29NO10.221
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00350
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.222
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73852
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00351
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73853
ER29NO10.223
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00352
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.224
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73854
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00353
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73855
ER29NO10.225
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00354
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.226
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73856
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00355
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73857
ER29NO10.227
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00356
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.228
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73858
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00357
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
73859
ER29NO10.229
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
[FR Doc. 2010–27969 Filed 11–2–10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4120–01–C
VerDate Mar<15>2010
23:39 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00358
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\29NOR3.SGM
29NOR3
ER29NO10.230
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES3
73860
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 228 (Monday, November 29, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73170-73860]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27969]
[[Page 73169]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Health and Human Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
42 CFR Parts 405, 409, 410 et al.
Medicare Program; Payment Policies Under the Physician Fee Schedule and
Other Revisions to Part B for CY 2011; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 73170]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
42 CFR Parts 405, 409, 410, 411, 413, 414, 415, and 424
[CMS-1503-FC]
RIN 0938-AP79
Medicare Program; Payment Policies Under the Physician Fee
Schedule and Other Revisions to Part B for CY 2011
AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
ACTION: Final rule with comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule with comment period addresses changes to the
physician fee schedule and other Medicare Part B payment policies to
ensure that our payment systems are updated to reflect changes in
medical practice and the relative value of services. It finalizes the
calendar year (CY) 2010 interim relative value units (RVUs) and issues
interim RVUs for new and revised procedure codes for CY 2011. It also
addresses, implements, or discusses certain provisions of both the
Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the Medicare Improvements for Patients
and Providers Act of 2008 (MIPPA). In addition, this final rule with
comment period discusses payments under the Ambulance Fee Schedule
(AFS), the Ambulatory Surgical Center (ASC) payment system, and the
Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule (CLFS), payments to end-stage renal
disease (ESRD) facilities, and payments for Part B drugs. Finally, this
final rule with comment period also includes a discussion regarding the
Chiropractic Services Demonstration program, the Competitive Bidding
Program for durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics, and
supplies (CBP DMEPOS), and provider and supplier enrollment issues
associated with air ambulances.
DATES: Effective date: These regulations are effective on January 1,
2011. Comment date: To be assured consideration, comments must be
received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m.
on January 3, 2011.
ADDRESSES: In commenting, please refer to file code CMS-1503-FC.
Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by
facsimile (FAX) transmission.
You may submit comments in one of four ways (please choose only one
of the ways listed):
1. Electronically. You may submit electronic comments on this
regulation to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for
``submitting a comment.''
2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments to the following
address ONLY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of
Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS-1503-FC, P.O. Box 8013,
Baltimore, MD 21244-8013.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received
before the close of the comment period.
3. By express or overnight mail. You may send written comments to
the following address ONLY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services,
Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS-1503-FC, Mail
Stop C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.
4. By hand or courier. If you prefer, you may deliver (by hand or
courier) your written comments before the close of the comment period
to either of the following addresses: a. For delivery in Washington,
DC--Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and
Human Services, Room 445-G, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201
(Because access to the interior of the Hubert H. Humphrey Building
is not readily available to persons without Federal government
identification, commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in
the CMS drop slots located in the main lobby of the building. A stamp-
in clock is available for persons wishing to retain a proof of filing
by stamping in and retaining an extra copy of the comments being
filed.)
b. For delivery in Baltimore, MD--Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services, Department of Health and Human Services, 7500 Security
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.
If you intend to deliver your comments to the Baltimore address,
please call telephone number (410) 786-9994 in advance to schedule your
arrival with one of our staff members.
Comments mailed to the addresses indicated as appropriate for hand
or courier delivery may be delayed and received after the comment
period.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sara Vitolo, (410) 786-5714, for issues related to malpractice RVUs.
Erin Smith, (410) 786-0763, for issues related to end-stage renal
disease-related services for home dialysis.
Michael Moore, (410) 786-6830, for issues related to geographic
practice cost indices.
Ken Marsalek, (410) 786-4502, for issues related to the physician
practice information survey, the multiple procedure payment reduction,
and payment for the technical component of pathology services.
Regina Walker-Wren, (410) 786-9160, for issues related to outpatient
mental health add-on provision and increased payment for certified
nurse-midwife services.
Elizabeth Truong, (410) 786-6005, or Sara Vitolo, (410) 786-5714, for
issues related to potentially misvalued services.
Elizabeth Truong, (410) 786-6005, for issues related to the sustainable
growth rate or anesthesia or physician fee schedule conversion factors.
Dorothy Shannon, (410) 786-3396, for issues related to outpatient
therapy services.
Pamela West, (410) 786-2302, for issues related to payment for diabetes
self-management training programs and kidney disease education
services.
Ryan Howe, (410) 786-3355, for issues related to direct practice
expense inputs and telehealth services.
Sara Vitolo, (410) 786-5714, for issues related to pulmonary
rehabilitation services, application of skin substitutes, canalith
repositioning, intranasal/oral immunization, and the refinement panel.
Roberta Epps, (410) 786-4503, for issues related to portable x-ray and
bone density tests.
Chava Sheffield, (410) 786-2298, for issues related to equipment
utilization rate assumption for advanced imaging services.
Chava Sheffield, (410) 786-2298, or Larry Chan, (410) 786-6864, for
issues related the physician fee schedule practice expense methodology.
Stephanie Frilling, (410) 786-4507, or Erin Smith, (410) 786-0763, for
issues related to the incentive payment programs for primary care and
general surgery services, and payment for the annual wellness visit and
preventive services.
Cheryl Gilbreath, (410) 786-5919, for issues related to payment for
covered outpatient drugs and biologicals.
Roechel Kujawa, (410) 786-9111, for issues related to ambulance
services.
Glenn McGuirk, (410) 786-5723, for clinical laboratory issues.
Randall Ricktor, (410) 786-4632, for Federally Qualified Health Center
Issues.
Pauline Lapin, (410) 786-6883, for issues related to the chiropractic
services demonstration BN issue.
Troy Barsky, (410) 786-8873, or Kristin Bohl, (410) 786-8680, for
issues related to physician self-referral.
[[Page 73171]]
Troy Barsky, (410) 786-8873, or Fred Grabau (410) 786-0206, for issues
related to timely filing rules.
Henry Richter, (410) 786-4562, or Lisa Hubbard, (410) 786-5472, for
issues related to renal dialysis provisions and payments for end-stage
renal disease facilities.
Diane Stern, (410) 786-1133, for issues related to the physician
quality reporting initiative and incentives for e-prescribing.
Sheila Roman, (410) 786-6004, or Pamela Cheetham, 410-786-2259, for
issues related to the Physician Resource Use Feedback Program and
value-based purchasing.
Joel Kaiser, (410) 786-4499, for issues related to the DME provisions.
Sandra Bastinelli, (410) 786-3630, for issues related to provider and
supplier enrollment issues.
Rebecca Cole, (410) 786-4497, for issues related to physician payment
not identified above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comment Subject Areas: We will consider
comments on the following subject areas discussed in this final rule
with comment period that are received by the date and time indicated in
the DATES section of this final rule with comment period:
(1) The interim final work, practice expense, and malpractice RVUs
(including the direct practice expense (PE) inputs and the equipment
utilization rate assumption, and the applicability of a multiple
procedure payment reduction (MPPR)), for new and revised CY 2011 HCPCS
codes. These codes and their CY 2011 interim final RVUs are listed in
Addendum C to this final rule with comment period.
(2) The physician self-referral designated health services codes
listed in Tables 98 and 99.
Inspection of Public Comments: All comments received before the
close of the comment period are available for viewing by the public,
including any personally identifiable or confidential business
information that is included in a comment. We post all comments
received before the close of the comment period on the following Web
site as soon as possible after they have been received: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the search instructions on that Web site to
view public comments.
Comments received timely will also be available for public
inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3
weeks after publication of a document, at the headquarters of the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard,
Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an appointment to view public comments,
phone 1-800-743-3951.
Table of Contents
To assist readers in referencing sections contained in this
preamble, we are providing a table of contents. Some of the issues
discussed in this preamble affect the payment policies, but do not
require changes to the regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR). Information on the regulations impact appears throughout the
preamble and, therefore, is not discussed exclusively in section XI. of
this final rule with comment period.
I. Background
A. Development of the Relative Value System
1. Work RVUs
2. Practice Expense Relative Value Units (PE RVUs)
3. Resource-Based Malpractice (MP) RVUs
4. Refinements to the RVUs
5. Adjustments to RVUs Are Budget Neutral
B. Components of the Fee Schedule Payment Amounts
C. Most Recent Changes to Fee Schedule
D. Public Comments Received in Response to the CY 2011 PFS
Proposed Rule
II. Provisions of the Final Rule for the Physician Fee Schedule
A. Resource-Based Practice Expense (PE) Relative Value Units
(RVUs)
1. Overview
2. Practice Expense Methodology
a. Direct Practice Expense
b. Indirect Practice Expense per Hour Data
c. Allocation of PE to Services
(i) Direct costs
(ii) Indirect costs
d. Facility and Nonfacility Costs
e. Services with Technical Components (TCs) and Professional
Components (PCs)
f. Alternative Data Sources and Public Comments on Final Rule
for 2010
g. PE RVU Methodology
(1) Setup File
(2) Calculate the Direct Cost PE RVUs
(3) Create the Indirect Cost PE RVUs
(4) Calculate the Final PE RVUs
(5) Setup File Information
(6) Equipment Cost per Minute
3. PE Revisions for CY 2011
a. Equipment Utilization Rate
b. HCPCS Code-Specific PE Issues
(1) Biohazard Bags
(2) PE Inputs for Professional Component (PC) Only and Technical
Component (TC) Only Codes Summing to Global Only Codes
(3) Equipment Time Inputs for Certain Diagnostic Tests
(4) Cobalt-57 Flood Source
(5) Venom Immunotherapy
(6) Equipment Redundancy
(7) Equipment Duplication
(8) Establishing Overall Direct PE Supply Price Inputs Based on
Unit Prices and Quantities
c. AMA RUC Recommendations in CY 2010 for Changes to Direct PE
Inputs
(1) Electrogastrography and Esophageal Function Test
(2) 64-Slice CT Scanner and Software
(3) Breath Hydrogen Test
(4) Radiographic Fluoroscopic Room
(5) Cystometrogram
d. Referral of Existing CPT Codes for AMA RUC Review
e. Updating Equipment and Supply Price Inputs for Existing Codes
f. Other Issues
B. Malpractice Relative Value Units (RVUs)
1. Background
2. Malpractice RVUs for New and Revised Services Effective
Before the Next 5-Year Review
3. Revised Malpractice RVUs for Selected Disc Arthroplasty
Services
C. Potentially Misvalued Services Under the Physician Fee
Schedule
1. Valuing Services Under the PFS
2. Identifying, Reviewing, and Validating the RVUs of
Potentially Misvalued Services Under the PFS
a. Background
b. Progress in Identifying and Reviewing Potentially Misvalued
Codes
c. Validating RVUs of Potentially Misvalued Codes
3. CY 2011 Identification and Review of Potentially Misvalued
Services
a. Codes on the Multispecialty Points of Comparison List
b. Codes with Low Work RVUs Commonly Billed in Multiple Units
Per Single Encounter
c. Codes with High Volume and Low Work RVUs
d. Codes with Site-of-Service-Anomalies
e. Codes with ``23-hour'' Stays
4. Expanding the Multiple Procedure Payment Reduction (MPPR)
Policy to Additional Nonsurgical Services
a. Background
b. CY 2011 Expansion of the Imaging Technical Component MPPR
Policy to Additional Combinations of Imaging Services
c. CY 2011 Expansion of the MPPR Policy to Therapy Services
5. High Cost Supplies
a. Background
b. Future Updates to the Prices of High-Cost Supplies
D. Geographic Practice Cost Indices (GPCIs)
1. Background
2. GPCI Update
a. Physician Work GPCIs
b. Practice Expense GPCIs
(1) The Affordable Care Act Requirements for PE GPCIs
(A) General Methodology for the CY 2011 GPCIs
(B) Phase-In of PE GPCIs
(C) Data Analysis
(D) Determining the PE GPCI Cost Share Weights
(E) PE GPCI Floor for Frontier States
(2) Summary of CY 2011 PE GPCIs
c. Malpractice GPCIs
d. Public Comments and CMS Responses on the Proposed 6th GPCI
Update
e. Summary of Final CY 2011 GPCIs
[[Page 73172]]
3. Payment Localities
E. PFS Update for CY 2010: Rebasing and Revising of the Medicare
Economic Index (MEI)
1. Background
2. Use of More Current Data
3. Rebasing and Revising Expense Categories in the MEI
a. Developing the Weights for Use in the MEI
b. Physician's Own Time
c. Physician's Practice Expenses
(1) Nonphysician Employee Compensation
(2) Office Expenses
(3) Professional Liability Insurance (PLI) Expense
(4) Medical Equipment Expenses
(5) Medical Supplies Expenses
(6) Other Professional Expenses
4. Selection of Price Proxies for Use in the MEI
a. Cost (Expense) Categories in the MEI
(1) Physician's Own Time (Physician Compensation)
(2) Nonphysician Employee Compensation
(3) Utilities
(4) Chemicals
(5) Paper
(6) Rubber and Plastics
(7) Telephone
(8) Postage
(9) All Other Services
(10) All Other Products
(11) Fixed Capital
(12) Moveable Capital
(13) Professional Liability Insurance (PLI)
(14) Medical Equipment
(15) Medical Materials and Supplies
(16) Other Professional Expenses
(b) Productivity Adjustment to the MEI
5. Results of Rebasing
6. Medicare Economic Index Technical Advisory Panel
7. Summaries of Comments and the Associated Responses
a. Timing of Rebasing and Revising the MEI
b. PPIS Data
c. Office Expenses
d. Purpose of the MEI
e. Technical Panel
f. Other
8. Adjustments to the RVU Shares To Match the Proposed Rebased
MEI Weights
F. Allowed Expenditures for Physicians' Services and the
Sustainable Growth Rate
1. Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate
2. Physicians' Services
3. Preliminary Estimate of the SGR for 2011
4. Revised Sustainable Growth Rate for 2010
5. Final Sustainable Growth Rate for 2009
6. Calculation of 2011, 2010, and 2009 Sustainable Growth Rates
a. Detail on the CY 2011 SGR
(1) Factor 1 Changes in Fees for Physicians' Services (Before
Applying Legislative Adjustments) for CY 2011
(2) Factor 2 The Percentage Change in the Average Number of Part
B Enrollees From CY 2010 to CY 2011
(3) Factor 3 Estimated Real Gross Domestic Product Per Capita
Growth in 2011
(4) Factor 4 Percentage Change in Expenditures for Physicians'
Services Resulting From Changes in Statute or Regulations in CY 2011
Compared With CY 2010
b. Detail on the CY 2010 SGR
(1) Factor 1 Changes in Fees for Physicians' Services (Before
Applying Legislative Adjustments) for 2010
(2) Factor 2 The Percentage Change in the Average Number of Part
B Enrollees from CY 2009 to CY 2010
(3) Factor 3 Estimated Real Gross Domestic Product Per Capita
Growth in CY 2010
(4) Factor 4 Percentage Change in Expenditures for Physicians'
Services Resulting From Changes in Statute or Regulations in CY 2010
Compared With CY 2009
c. Detail on the CY 2009 SGR
(1) Factor 1 Changes in Fees for Physicians' Services (Before
Applying Legislative Adjustments) for 2009
(2) Factor 2 The Percentage Change in the Average Number of Part
B Enrollees from CY 2008 to CY 2009
(3) Factor 3 Estimated Real Gross Domestic Product Per Capita
Growth in CY 2009
(4) Factor 4 Percentage Change in Expenditures for Physicians'
Services Resulting From Changes in Statute or Regulations in CY 2009
Compared With CY 2008
G. The Update Adjustment Factor (UAF)
1. Calculation under Current Law
H. Physician and Anesthesia Fee Schedule Conversion Factors for
CY 2011
1. Physician Fee Schedule Update and Conversion Factor
a. CY 2011 PFS Update
b. CY 2011 PFS Conversion Factor
2. Anesthesia Conversion Factor
III. Code-Specific Issues for the PFS
A. Therapy Services
1. Outpatient Therapy Caps for CY 2011
2. Alternatives to Therapy Caps
a. Background
b. Current Activities
c. Potential Short-Term Approaches to Therapy Caps
B. Diabetes Self-Management Training (DSMT) Services (HCPCS
Codes G0108 and G0109)
1. Background
2. Payment for DSMT Services
C. End-Stage Renal Disease Related Services for Home Dialysis
(CPT code 90963, 90964, 90965, and 90966)
1. End-Stage Renal Disease Home Dialysis Monthly Capitation
Payment Services (CPT codes 90963, 90964, 90965, and 90966)
2. Daily and Monthly ESRD-Related Services (CPT Codes 90951
through 90970)
D. Portable X-Ray Set-Up (HCPCS code Q0092)
E. Pulmonary Rehabilitation Services (HCPCS Code G0424)
F. Application of Tissue Cultured Skin Substitutes to Lower
Extremities (HCPCS Codes G0440 and G0441)
G. Canalith Repositioning (CPT code 95992)
H. Intranasal/Oral Immunization Codes (CPT codes 90467, 90468,
90473, and 90474)
I. Refinement Panel Process
J. Remote Cardiac Monitoring Services (CPT codes 93012, 93229,
93268, and 93271)
IV. Medicare Telehealth Services for the Physician Fee Schedule
A. Billing and Payment for Telehealth Services
1. History
2. Current Telehealth Billing and Payment Policies
B. Requests for Adding Services to the List of Medicare
Telehealth Services
C. Submitted Requests for Addition to the List of Telehealth
Services for CY 2011
1. Individual KDE Services
2. Individual DSMT Services
3. Group KDE, MNT, DSMT, and HBAI Services
4. Initial, Subsequent, and Discharge Day Management Hospital
Care Services
5. Initial, Subsequent, Discharge Day Management, and Other
Nursing Facility Care Services
6. Neuropsychological Testing Services
7. Speech-Language Pathology Services
8. Home Wound Care Services
9. Other Issues
D. Summary of CY 2011 Telehealth Policies
E. Telehealth Originating Site Facility Fee Payment Amount
Update
V. Addressing Interim Final Relative Value Units from CY 2010 and
Establishing Interim Relative Value Units for CY 2011
A. Background
B. Addressing Interim Final RVUs from CY 2010
1. CY 2010 Interim Final Work RVUs Referred to the Refinement
Panel
2. CY 2010 Interim Final RVUs for which Public Comments Were
Received
a. Insertion of Breast Prosthesis (CPT code 19340)
b. Computed Tomographic Colonography (CPT code 74261)
c. Myocardial Perfusion Imaging (CPT codes 78451, 78452, 78453,
and 78454)
d. Nerve Conduction Test (CPT code 95905)
e. Kidney Disease Education Services (HCPCS codes G0420 and
G0421)
f. Excision of Soft Tissue and Bone Tumors (CPT codes 21011
through 21016, 21552, 21554 through 21558, 21930 through 21933,
21395, 21936, 22900 through 22905, 23071, 23073, 23075 through
23078, 23200, 23210, 23220, 24071, 24073, 24075 through 24077,
24079, 24150 through 24153, 25071, 25073, 25075 through 25078,
25170, 26111, 26113, 26115 through 26118, 26250, 26255, 26260,
26262, 27043, 27045, 27047 through 27049, 27059, 27075 through
27078, 27327 through 27329, 27337, 27339, 27364, 27365, 27615,
27616, 27618, 27619, 27632, 27634, 27619, 27645 through 27647,
28039, 28041, 28043, 28045 through 28047, 28171, 28173, and 28175)
g. Cryoablation of Prostate (CPT code 55873)
h. Urodynamics Studies (CPT Codes 51728 and 51729)
i. Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography (CPT codes 75571,
75572, 75573, and 75574)
[[Page 73173]]
j. Adjacent Tissue Transfer or Rearrangement (CPT codes 14301
and 14302)
k. Insertion of a Temporary Prostatic Urethral Stent (CPT code
53855)
l. High Dose Rate Brachytherapy (CPT codes 77785, 77786, and
77787)
m. Injection of Facet Joint (CPT codes 64490, 64491, 64492,
64493, 64494, and 64495)
n. Knee Arthroscopy (CPT code 29870)
3. Status of Interim Final Work RVUs for Potentially Misvalued
Site-of-Service Anomaly Codes from CY 2009 and CY 2010
4. Other New, Revised, or Potentially Misvalued Codes with CY
2010 Interim Final RVUs Not Specifically Discussed in the CY 2011
Final Rule with Comment Period
C. Establishment of Interim Final RVUs for CY 2011
1. Establishment of Interim Final Work RVUs for CY 2011
a. Background
b. CY 2011 Interim Final Work RVUs for New and Revised Codes
(i) CY 2011 New and Revised Codes that Do Not Represent Major
New Comprehensive Services
(1) Excision and Debridement (CPT codes 11010, 11011, 11012,
11042, 11043, 11044, 11045, 11046, 11047, and 97598)
(2) Arthrodesis Including Discectomy (CPT code 22551)
(3) Strapping Lower Extremity (CPT codes 29540 and 29550)
(4) Paraesophageal Hernia Procedures (CPT codes 43333 and 43335)
(5) Vaginal Radiation Afterloading Apparatus for Clinical
Brachytherapy (CPT codes 57155 and 57156)
(6) Vagus Nerve Stimulator (CPT codes 61885, 64568, 64569, and
64570)
(7) Ultrasound of Extremity (CPT codes 76881 and 76882)
(8) Evaluation of Fine Needle Aspirate (CPT code 88172)
(9) Immunization Administration (CPT code 90460 and 90461)
(10) Diabetic Retinopathy Imaging (CPT code 92228)
(11) Speech-Language Pathology Services (CPT codes 92508 and
92606)
(12) Sleep Testing (CPT codes 95806 and 95807)
(13) Subsequent Hospital Observation Care
(ii) Comprehensive Codes for a Bundle of Existing Component
Services
(iii) Work Budget Neutrality for Clinical Categories of CPT
Codes
c. CY 2011 Interim Final Work RVUs for Potentially Misvalued
Codes
(1) Excision and Debridement (CPT codes 11043 and 11044)
(2) Strapping Lower Extremity (CPT code 29540)
(3) Control Nasal Hemorrhage (CPT code 30901)
(4) Cystourethroscopy (CPT codes 52281 and 52332)
(5) Vaginal Radiation Afterloading Apparatus for Clinical
Brachytherapy (CPT code 51755)
(6) Obstetrical Care Codes (CPT codes 59440, 59410, 59510,
59515, 59610, 59614, 59618, and 59622)
(7) Vagus Nerve Stimulator (CPT code 61885)
(8) Transforaminal Epidural Injection (CPT code 64483)
(9) CT Thorax (CPT code 71250)
(10) CT Spine (CPT code 72125)
(11) CT Upper and CT Lower Extremity (CPT code 73200 and 73700)
(12) Radiation Treatment Management (CPT code 77427)
2. Establishment of Interim Final Direct PE Inputs for CY 2011
a. Background
b. CY 2011 Interim Final Direct PE Inputs for New, Revised, and
Potentially Misvalued Codes
(1) General Equipment Time
(2) Equipment Time and Clinical Labor for Conscious Sedation
(3) Equipment Time for Add-On Codes
(4) Changes in Standard Uses of Certain Supplies
(5) New Supply and Equipment Items
(6) Endovascular Revascularization Stents
(7) Nasal/Sinus Endoscopy Supply and Equipment Items
3. Establishment of Interim Final Malpractice RVUs for CY 2011
VI. Provisions of the Affordable Care Act
A. Section 3002: Improvements to the Physician Quality Reporting
System
B. Section 3003: Improvements to the Physician Feedback Program
and Section 3007: Value-based payment modifier under the physician
fee schedule
1. Background
2. Effect of the ACA of 2010 on the Program
3. Phase II Proposed Changes
4. Implementation of Sections 3003 and 3007 of ACA
5. Comments Sought on Specific Statistical Issues Related to ACA
Sections 3003 and 3007
a. Risk Adjustment
b. Attribution
c. Benchmarking and Peer Groups
d. Cost and Quality Measures and Compositing Methods
C. Section 3102: Extension of the Work Geographic Index Floor
and Revisions to the Practice Expense Geographic Adjustment under
the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, and Protections for Frontier
States as amended by Section 10324
D. Section 3103: Extension of Exceptions Process for Medicare
Therapy Caps
E. Section 3104: Extension of Payment for Technical Component of
Certain Physician Pathology Services
F. Section 3105 and 10311: Extension of Ambulance Add-Ons
1. Amendment to Section 1834(l)(13) of the Act
2. Amendment to Section 146(b)(1) of MIPAA
3. Amendment to Section 1834(l)(12) of the Act
G. Section 3107: Extension of Physician Fee Schedule Mental
Health Add-On
H. Section 3108: Permitting Physician Assistants to Order Post-
Hospital Extended Care Services
I. Section 3111: Payment for Bone Density Tests
J. Section 3114: Improved Access for Certified Nurse-Midwife
Services
K. Section 3122: Extension of Medicare Reasonable Costs Payments
for Certain Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests Furnished to
Hospital Patients in Certain Rural Areas
L. Section 3134: Misvalued Codes Under the Physician Fee
Schedule
M. Section 3135: Modification of Equipment Utilization Factor
for Advanced Imaging Services
1. Adjustment in Practice Expense to Reflect Higher Presumed
Utilization
2. Adjustment in Technical Component ``Discount'' on Single-
Session Imaging to Consecutive Body Parts
N. Section 3136: Revision for Payment for Power-Driven
Wheelchairs
1. Payment Rules for Power Wheelchairs
2. Revision of Payment Amounts for Power Wheelchairs
3. Elimination of Lump Sum Payment for Standard Power
Wheelchairs
O. Section 3139: Payment for Biosimilar Biological Products
P. Section 3401: Revision of Certain Market Basket Updates and
Incorporation of Productivity Improvements into Market Basket
Updates That Do Not Already Incorporate Such Improvements
1. ESRD Market Basket Discussion
2. Productivity Adjustment regarding Ambulatory Surgical Center,
Ambulance, Clinical Laboratory and DMEPOS Fee Schedules
a. Ambulatory Surgery Centers (ASCs)
b. Ambulance Fee Schedule (AFS)
c. Clinical Lab Fee Schedule
d. DMEPOS Fee Schedule
Q. Section 4103: Medicare Coverage of Annual Wellness Visit
Providing a Personalized Prevention Plan
1. Background and Statutory Authority
a. Medicare Coverage of Preventive Physical Examinations and
Routine Checkups
b. Requirements for Coverage of an Annual Wellness Visit
2. Regulatory Revisions--Summary of Proposed Rule and Comments
a. Revisions to Sec. 411.15, Particular Services Excluded from
Coverage
b. Revisions to Part 410, Subpart B--Medical and Other Health
Services
(1) Definitions
(2) Requirements of the First Annual Wellness Visit Providing
Personalized Prevention Plan Services
(3) Requirements of Subsequent Annual Wellness Visits Providing
Personalized Prevention Plan Services
3. Payment for the Annual Wellness Visit Providing Personalized
Prevention Plan Services (PPPS)
R. Section 4104: Removal of Barriers to Preventive Services in
Medicare
1. Definition of ``Preventive Services''
2. Deductible and Coinsurance for Preventive Services
3. Extension of Waiver of Deductible to Services Furnished in
Connection With or in Relation to a Colorectal Cancer Screening Test
that Becomes Diagnostic or Therapeutic
[[Page 73174]]
S. Section 5501: Expanding Access to Primary Care Services and
General Surgery Services
1. Section 5501(a): Incentive Payment Program for Primary Care
Services
a. Background
b. Primary Care Incentive Payment Program (PCIP)
(1) Primary Specialty Designation
(2) Primary Care Percentage Calculation
(3) Period of Claims Data for Primary Care Percentage
Calculation
(4) PCIP Payment
(5) Summary of Final PCIP Policies
2. Section 5501(b): Incentive Payment Program for Major Surgical
Procedures Furnished in Health Professional Shortage Areas
a. Background
b. HPSA Surgical Incentive Payment Program (HSIP)
3. Sections 5501(a) and (b) of the Affordable Care Act and
Payment for Critical Access Hospital Professional Services Under the
Optional Method
T. Section 6003: Disclosure Requirements for In-Office Ancillary
Services Exception to the Prohibition on Physician Self-Referral for
Certain Imaging Services
1. Background
2. Disclosure Requirement
a. Services the Trigger the Disclosure Requirement
b. General Disclosure Requirements
c. List of Alternate Suppliers
d. Documentation of Disclosure
e. Effective Date
f. Other comments
U. Section 6404: Maximum Period for Submission of Medicare
Claims Reduced to Not More than 12 Months
1. Background
2. Provisions of ACA
V. Section 6410 of the Affordable Care Act and Section 154 of
MIPPA: Adjustments to the Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) for
Medicare Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and
Supplies Competitive Acquisition Program
1. Background
2. Subdividing Large MSAs under Round 2
3. Exclusions of Certain Areas after Round 2 and Prior to 2015
4. Expansion of Round 2
W. Section 10501(i)(3): Collection of HCPCS data for Development
and Implementation of a Prospective Payment System for the Medicare
Federally Qualified Health Center Program
VII. Other Provisions of the Final Rule
A. Part B Drug Payment: Average Sales Price (ASP) Issues
1. ``Carry Over'' ASP
2. Partial Quarter ASP Data
3. Determining the Payment Amount for Drugs and Biologicals
Which Include Intentional Overfill
4. WAMP/AMP
5. AMP Threshold and Price Substitutions
6. Out of Scope Comments
B. Ambulance Fee Schedule: Policy for Reporting Units when
Billing for Ambulance Fractional Mileage
1. History of Medicare Ambulance Services
a. Statutory Coverage of Ambulance Services
b. Medicare Regulations for Ambulance Services
2. Mileage Reporting--Summary of the Provisions of the CY 2011
Proposed Rule
a. Background and Current Process for Reporting Ambulance
Mileage
b. Concerns Regarding the Potential for Inaccuracies in
Reporting Units and Associated Considerations
c. Billing of Fractional Units for Mileage
3. Analysis of and Responses to Public Comments
a. Basis for Reconsideration of the Ambulance Mileage Reporting
Requirements
b. Appropriateness of Fractional Mileage Reporting Policy
(1) Financial Impact of Fractional Mileage Policy
c. Administrative Impact
(2) Technical and Other Considerations
(A) Ability to Measure Fractional Miles
(B) Ambulance Provider versus Supplier Billing
(C) Billing Software
(D) Enforcement and Compliance
(E) Air Ambulance
(F) Miscellaneous Comments
4. Applicability of the Fractional Billing Policy to Other
Services
5. Final Fractional Mileage Billing Policy
C. Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule: Signature on Requisition
D. Discussion of Budget Neutrality for the Chiropractic Services
Demonstration
E. Provisions Related to Payment for Renal Dialysis Services
Furnished by End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) Facilities
(1) Update to the Drug Add-on Adjustment to the Composite Rate
(2) Estimating Per Patient Growth
(3) Update to the Drug Add-on Adjustment
(4) Update to the Geographic Adjustments to the Composite Rate
(5) Updates to Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA) Definitions
(6) Updated Wage Index Values
(7) Wage index Values for Areas With No Hospital Data
(8) Reduction to the ESRD Wage Index Floor
(9) Budget Neutrality Adjustment
(10) ESRD Wage Index Tables
F. Issues Related to the Medicare Improvements for Patients and
Providers Act of 2008 (MIPPA)
1. Section 131: Physician Payment, Efficiency, and Quality
Improvements--Physician Quality Reporting System
a. Program Background and Statutory Authority
b. Incentive Payments for the 2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System
c. 2011 Reporting Periods for Individual Eligible Professionals
d. 2011 Physician Quality Reporting System Reporting Mechanisms
for Individual Eligible Professionals
(1) Final Requirements for Individual Eligible Professionals Who
Choose the Claims-based Reporting Mechanism
(2) Final Requirements for Individual Eligible Professionals Who
Choose the Registry-based Reporting Mechanism
(3) Final Requirements for Individual Eligible Professionals Who
Choose the EHR based Reporting Mechanism
(4) Final Qualification Requirements for Registries
(5) Final Qualification Requirements for EHR Vendors and Their
Products
e. Criteria for Satisfactory Reporting of Individual Quality
Measures for Individual Eligible Professionals
f. Criteria for Satisfactory Reporting Measures Groups for
Individual Eligible Professionals
g. Reporting Option for Satisfactory Reporting on Quality
Measures by Group Practices
(1) Background and Authority
(2) Definition of ``Group Practice''
(3) Process for Physician Group Practices to Participate as
Group Practices and Criteria for Satisfactory Reporting
A. Group Practice Reporting Option for Physician Group Practices
with 200 or More NPIs GPRO I
B. Group Practice Reporting Option for Group Practices of 2-199
NPIs--GPRO-II
h. Statutory Requirements and Other Considerations for 2011
Physician Quality Reporting System Measures
(1) Statutory Requirements for 2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System Measures
(2) Other Considerations for 2011 Physician Quality Reporting
System Measures
(3) Summary of Comments and Responses
i. The Final 2011 Physician Quality Reporting System Quality
Measures for Individual Eligible Professionals
(1) 2011 Individual Quality Measures Selected From the 2010
Physician Quality Reporting System Quality Measures Set Available
for Claims based Reporting and Registry-based Reporting
(2) 2011 Individual Quality Measures Selected From the 2010
Physician Quality Reporting System Quality Measures Set Available
for Registry-based Reporting Only
(3) New Individual Quality Measures for 2011
(4) 2011 Measures Available for EHR-based Reporting
(5) Measures Proposed for Inclusion in 2011 Measures Groups
j. 2011 Physician Quality Reporting System Quality Measures for
Group Practices Selected to Participate in the Group Practice
Reporting Option (GPRO I)
k. Public Reporting of Physician Quality Reporting System Data
l. Other Relevant ACA Provisions
(1) Section 3002 (b)--Incentive Payment Adjustment for Quality
Reporting
(2) Section 3002(c)--Maintenance of Certification Programs and
Section 10327 Improvements to the Physician Quality Reporting System
(3) Section 3002(d)--Integration of Physician Quality Reporting
and EHR Reporting
(4) Section 3002(e)--Feedback
(5) Section 3002(f)--Appeals
2. Section 132: Incentives for Electronic Prescribing (eRx)- The
Electronic Prescribing Incentive Program
[[Page 73175]]
a. Program Background and Statutory Authority
b. The 2011 eRx Incentive
(1) The 2011 Reporting Period for the eRx Incentive Program
(2) Criteria for Determination of Successful Electronic
Prescriber for Eligible Professionals
(A) Reporting the Electronic Prescribing Measure
(B) The Reporting Denominator for the Electronic Prescribing
Measure
(C) Qualified Electronic Prescribing System--Required
Functionalities and Part D eRx Standards
(D) The Reporting Numerator for the Electronic Prescribing
Measure
(E) Criteria for Successful Reporting of the Electronic
Prescribing Measure
(3) Determination of the 2011 Incentive Payment Amount for
Individual Eligible Professionals Who Are Successful Electronic
Prescribers
(4) Reporting Option for Satisfactory Reporting of the
Electronic Prescribing Measure by Group Practices
(A) Definition of ``Group Practice''
(B) Process for Group Practices to Participate as Group
Practices and Criteria for Successful Reporting of the Electronic
Prescribing Measure by Group Practices
c. The 2012 eRx Payment Adjustment
(1) The eRx Payment Adjustment Reporting Period
(2) Criteria for Determining Applicability of the 2012 eRx
Payment Adjustment to Individual Eligible Professionals
(3) Criteria for Determining Applicability of the 2012 eRx
Payment Adjustment to Group Practices
(4) Significant Hardship Exemption
d. The 2013 eRx Payment Adjustment
e. Public Reporting of Names of Successful Electronic
Prescribers
G. DMEPOS Provisions
1. Medicare Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics,
and Supplies (DMEPOS) Competitive Bidding Program (CBP)
a. Legislative and Regulatory History of DMEPOS CBP
b. Implementation of a National Mail Order DMEPOS Competitive
Bidding Program (CBP) for Diabetic Testing Supplies
(1) Future Competitions for Diabetic Testing Supplies
(2) Definition of Mail Order Item
(3) Special Rule in Case of Competition for Diabetic Testing
Strips
(4) Anti-switching Rule in Case of Competition for Diabetic Test
Strips
c. Off-the-Shelf (OTS) Orthotics Exemption
d. Grandfathering Rules Resulting in Additional Payments to
Contract Suppliers under the DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Program
(CBP)
e. Appeals Process
(1) Purpose and Definitions: (Sec. 414.402)
(2) Applicability
(3) Contract Termination
(4) Notice of Termination
(5) Corrective Action Plan
(6) Right to Request a Hearing by the CBIC Hearing Officer (HO)
(7) Scheduling of the Hearing
(8) Burden of Proof
(9) Role of the Hearing Officer (HO)
(10) CMS's Final Determination
(11) Effective Date of the Contract Termination
(12) Effect of Contract Termination
2. Changes to Payment Rules for Oxygen and Oxygen Equipment
a. Background
b. Furnishing Oxygen Equipment after the 36-Month Rental Period
(CAP)
c. Furnishing Oxygen Equipment during the 36-Month Rental Period
(CAP)
H. Provider and Supplier Enrollment Issue: Air Ambulance
Provision
I. Technical Corrections
1. Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy and Speech-language
Pathology
2. Scope of Benefits
J. Physician Self-Referral Prohibition: Annual Update to the
List of CPT/HCPCS Codes
1. General
2. Annual Update to the Code List
a. Background
b. Response to Comments
c. Revisions Effective for 2011
VIII. Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking and Delay in Effective Date
IX. Collection of Information Requirements
A. ICRs Regarding Diagnostic X-ray Tests, Diagnostic Laboratory
Tests, and Other Diagnostic Tests: Conditions (Sec. 410.32)
B. ICRs Regarding General Exceptions to the Referral Prohibition
Related to Both Ownership/Investment and Compensation (Sec.
411.355)
C. ICRs Regarding Appeals Process for Termination of Competitive
Bidding Contract (Sec. 414.423)
D. ICRs Regarding Additional Provider and Supplier Requirements
for Enrolling and Maintaining Active Enrollment status in the
Medicare Program (Sec. 424.516)
E. Additional Information Collection Requirements
1. Part B Drug Payment
2. Physician Quality Reporting Initiative (PQRI)
3. Electronic Prescribing (eRx) Incentive Program
X. Response to Comments
XI. Regulatory Impact Analysis
A. RVU Impacts
1. Resource Based Work, PE, and Malpractice RVUs
2. CY 2011 PFS Impact Discussion
a. Changes in RVUs
b. Combined Impact
B. Geographic Practice Cost Indices (GPCIs)
C. Rebasing and Revising of the MEI
D. The Affordable Care Act Provisions
1. Section 3002: Improvements to the Physician Quality Reporting
System
2. Sections 3003 and 3007: Improvements to the Physician
Feedback Program and Value-Based Payment Under the Physician Fee
Schedule
2. Section 3103: Extension of Exceptions Process for Medicare
Therapy Caps
3. Section 3102: Extension of the Work Geographic Index Floor
and Revisions to the Practice Expense Geographic Adjustment under
the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, and Protections for Frontier
States as amended by Section 10324
4. Section 3103: Extension of Exceptions Process for Medicare
Therapy Caps
5. Section 3104: Extension of Payment for Technical Component of
Certain Physician Pathology Services
6. Sections 3105 and 10311: Extension of Ambulance Add-Ons
7. Section 3107: Extension of Physician Fee Schedule Mental
Health Add-On
8. Section 3108: Permitting Physician Assistants to Order Post-
Hospital Extended Care Services
9. Section 3111: Payment for Bone Density Tests
10. Section 3114: Improved Access for Certified Nurse-Midwife
Services
11. Section 3122: Extension of Medicare Reasonable Costs
Payments for Certain Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests Furnished
to Hospital Patients in Certain Rural Areas
12. Section 3134: Misvalued Codes Under the PFS
13. Section 3135: Modification of Equipment Utilization Factor
For Advanced Imaging Services
14. Section 3136: Revisions in Payments for Power Wheelchairs
15. Section 3139: Payment for Biosimilar Biological Products
16. Section 3401: Revisions of Certain Market Basket Updates and
Incorporation of Productivity Adjustments
17. Section 4103: Medicare Coverage of Annual Wellness Visit
Providing a Personalized Prevention Plan
18. Section 4104: Removal of Barriers to Preventive Services in
Medicare
19. Section 5501: Expanding Access to Primary Care Services and
General Surgery Services
20. Section 6003: Disclosure Requirements for In-office
Ancillary Services Exception to the Prohibition of Physician Self-
referral for Certain Imaging Services
21. Section 6404: Maximum Period for Submission of Medicare
Claims Reduced to Not More Than 12 Months
22. Section 6410 of Patient Accountability and Affordable Care
Act and Section 154 of MIPPA: Adjustments to the Metropolitan
Statistical Areas (MSA) for Medicare Durable Medical Equipment,
Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies Competitive Acquisition Program
23. Section 10501(i)(3): Collection of HCPCS Data for the
Development and Implementation of a Prospective Payment System for
the Medicare FQHC Program
E. Other Provisions of the Proposed Regulation
1. Part B Drug Payment: ASP Issues
2. Ambulance Fee Schedule: Proposed Policy for Reporting Units
when Billing for Ambulance Fractional Mileage
3. Chiropractic Services Demonstration
4. Renal Dialysis Services Furnished by ESRD Facilities
5. Section 131(b) of the MIPPA: Physician Payment, Efficiency,
and Quality Improvements--Physician Quality Reporting System
6. Section 132 of the MIPPA: Incentives for Electronic
Prescribing (eRx)--The eRx Incentive Program
[[Page 73176]]
7. Durable Medical Equipment-Related Issues
a. Off-the-Shelf (OTS) Orthotics Exemption
b. Changes to Payment for Oxygen Equipment
c. Diabetic Testing Supplies
d. Metropolitan Statistical Areas
8. Air Ambulance
F. Alternatives Considered
G. Impact on Beneficiaries
H. Accounting Statement
Regulations Text
Addendum A--Explanation and Use of Addendum B
Addendum B--Relative Value Units and Related Information Used In
Determining Medicare Payments for CY 2011
Addendum C--Codes With Interim RVUS
Addendum D--Final 2011 Geographic Adjustment Factors (GAFS)
Addendum E--Final 2011****Geographic Practice Cost Indicies (GPCIS)
By State and Medicare Locality
Addendum F--CY 2011 Diagnostic Imaging Services Subject To The
Multiple Procedure Payment Reduction
Addendum G--CPT/HCPCS Imaging Codes Defined By Section 5102(B) of
the DRA
Addendum H--CY 2011 ``Always Therapy'' Services* Subject to the
Multiple Procedure Payment Reduction
Addendum I--[Reserved]
Addendum J--List of CPT1/HCPCS Codes Used to Define Certain
Designated Health Service Categories \2\ Under Section 1877 of the
Social Security Act Effective January 1, 2011
Addendum K--CY 2011 ESRD Wage Index For Urban Areas Based On CBSA
Labor Market Areas
Addendum L-- CY 2011 Wage Index For Rural Areas Based On CBSA Labor
Market Areas
Acronyms
In addition, because of the many organizations and terms to which
we refer by acronym in this proposed rule, we are listing these
acronyms and their corresponding terms in alphabetical order below:
AA Anesthesiologist assistant
AACVPR American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary
Rehabilitation
AANA American Association of Nurse Anesthetists
ABMS American Board of Medical Specialties
ABN Advanced Beneficiary Notice
ACA ``Affordable Care Act''
ACC American College of Cardiology
ACGME Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education
ACLS Advanced cardiac life support
ACP American College of Physicians
ACR American College of Radiology
ACS American Community Survey
AED Automated external defibrillator
AFROC Association of Freestanding Radiation Oncology Centers
AFS Ambulance Fee Schedule
AHA American Heart Association
AHFS-DI American Hospital Formulary Service-Drug Information
AHRQ [HHS] Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
AMA American Medical Association
AMA-DE American Medical Association Drug Evaluations
AACE American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists
AADE American Association of Diabetes Educators
AMP Average manufacturer price
AO Accreditation organization
AOA American Osteopathic Association
APA American Psychological Association
APC Administrative Procedures Act
APTA American Physical Therapy Association
ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Pub. L. 111-5)
ASC Ambulatory surgical center
ASP Average sales price
ASRT American Society of Radiologic Technologists
ASTRO American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology
ATA American Telemedicine Association
AWP Average wholesale price
AWV Annual Wellness Visit
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)
BPM Benefit Policy Manual
BIPA Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement Protection
Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-554)
BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics
BN Budget neutrality
BPM Benefit Policy Manual
CABG Coronary artery bypass graft
CAD Coronary artery disease
CAH Critical access hospital
CAHEA Committee on Allied Health Education and Accreditation
CAP Competitive acquisition program
CARE Continuity Assessment Record and Evaluation
CBIC Competitive Bidding Implementation Contractor
CBP Competitive Bidding Program
CBSA Core-Based Statistical Area
CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
CEM Cardiac Event Monitoring
CF Conversion factor
CFC Conditions for Coverage
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CKD Chronic kidney disease
CLFS Clinical laboratory fee schedule
CMA California Medical Association
CMD Contractor Medical Director
CMHC Community mental health center
CMP Civil money penalty
CMS Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
CNS Clinical nurse specialist
CoP Condition of participation
COPD Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
CORF Comprehensive Outpatient Rehabilitation Facility
COS Cost of service
CPEP Clinical Practice Expert Panel
CPI Consumer Price Index
CPI-U Consumer price index for urban consumers
CPR Cardiopulmonary resuscitation
CPT [Physicians] Current Procedural Terminology (4th Edition, 2002,
copyrighted by the American Medical Association)
CR Cardiac rehabilitation
CRNA Certified registered nurse anesthetist
CRP Canalith repositioning
CRT Certified respiratory therapist
CSW Clinical social worker
CT Computed Tomography
CTA Computed Tomography Angography
CSC Computer Sciences Corporation
CWF Common Working File
CY Calendar year
DEA Drug Enforcement Agency
DOTPA Development of Outpatient Therapy Alternatives
DHS Designated health services
DHHS Department of Health and Human Services
DME Durable medical equipment
DMEPOS Durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics, and
supplies
DOQ Doctors Office Quality
DOS Date of service
DRA Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-171)
DSMT Diabetes self-management training
EGC Electrocardiogram
E/M Evaluation and management
EDI Electronic data interchange
EEG Electroencephalogram
EHR Electronic health record
EKG Electrocardiogram
EMG Electromyogram
EMTALA Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act
EOG Electro-oculogram
EPO Erythopoeitin
eRx Electronic Prescribing
ESO Endoscopy Supplies
ESRD End-stage renal disease
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAX Facsimile
FDA Food and Drug Administration (HHS)
FFS Fee-for-service
FOTO Focus On Therapeutic Outcomes
FQHC Federally Qualified Health Center
FR Federal Register
GAF Geographic adjustment factor
GAO General Accounting Office
GEM Generating Medicare [Physician Quality Performance Measurement
Results]
GFR Glomerular filtration rate
GPRO Group Practice Reporting Option
GPO Group purchasing organization
GPCI Geographic practice cost index
GPS Geographic Positioning System
GSA General Services Administration
HAC Hospital-acquired conditions
HBAI Health and behavior assessment and intervention
HCC Hierarchal Condition Category
HCPAC Health Care Professional Advisory Committee
HCPCS Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System
HCRIS Healthcare Cost Report Information System
HEMS Helicopter Emergency Medical Services
HDRT High dose radiation therapy
[[Page 73177]]
HH PPS Home Health Prospective Payment System
HHA Home health agency
HHRG Home health resource group
HHS [Department of] Health and Human Services
HIPAA Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
(Pub. L. 104-191)
HIT Health information technology
HITECH Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical
Health Act (Title IV of Division B of the Recovery Act, together
with Title XIII of Division A of the Recovery Act)
HITSP Healthcare Information Technology Standards Panel
HIV Human immunodeficiency virus
HOPD Hospital outpatient department
HPSA Health Professional Shortage Area
HRA Health Risk Assessment
HRSA Health Resources Services Administration (HHS)
HSIP HPSA Surgical Incentive Program
HUD Housing and Urban Development
IACS Individuals Access to CMS Systems
ICD International Classification of Diseases
ICF Intermediate care facilities
ICF International Classification of Functioning, Disability and
Health
ICR Intensive cardiac rehabilitation
ICR Information collection requirement
IDTF Independent diagnostic testing facility
IGI IHS Global Insight, Inc.
IFC Interim final rule with comment period
IMRT Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy
IOM Internet Only Manual
IPCI indirect practice cost index
IPPE Initial preventive physical examination
IPPS Inpatient prospective payment system
IRS Internal Revenue Service
ISO Insurance services office
IVD Ischemic Vascular Disease
IVIG Intravenous immune globulin
IWPUT Intra-service work per unit of time
TJC Joint Commission
JRCERT Joint Review Committee on Education in Radiologic Technology
KDE Kidney disease education
LCD Local coverage determination
MA Medicare Advantage
MA-PD Medicare Advantage-Prescription Drug Plans
MAC Medicare Administrative Contractor
MAV Measure Applicability Validation
MCMP Medicare Care Management Performance
MCP Monthly Capitation Payment
MDRD Modification of Diet in Renal Disease
MedCAC Medicare Evidence Development and Coverage Advisory
Committee (formerly the Medicare Coverage Advisory Committee (MCAC))
MedPAC Medicare Payment Advisory Commission
MGMA Medical Group Management Association
MEI Medicare Economic Index
MIEA-TRHCA Medicare Improvements and Extension Act of 2006 (that
is, Division B of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (TRHCA)
(Pub. L. 109-432)
MIPPA Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008
(Pub. L. 110-275)
MMA Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act
of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-173)
MMSEA Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (Pub. L.
110-173)
MNT Medical nutrition therapy
MOC Maintenance of certification
MP Malpractice
MPC Mulitspecialty Points of Comparison
MPPR Multiple procedure payment reduction
MQSA Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-539)
MRA Magnetic Resonance Angiography
MRI Magnetic Resonance Imaging
MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area
MSP Medicare Secondary Payer
MUE Medically Unlikely Edit
NCCI National Correct Coding Initiative
NCD National Coverage Determination
NCQA National Committee for Quality Assurance
NCQDIS National Coalition of Quality Diagnostic Imaging Services
NDC National drug code
NF Nursing facility
NISTA National Institute of Standards and Technology Act
NP Nurse practitioner
NPI National Provider Identifier
NPP Nonphysician practitioner
NQF National Quality Forum
NBRC National Board for Respiratory Care
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
NUBC National Uniform Billing Committee
OACT [CMS] Office of the Actuary
OBRA Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
OCR Optical Character Recognition
ODF Open door forum
OES Occupational Employment Statistics
OGPE Oxygen generating portable equipment
OIG Office of Inspector General
OMB Office of Management and Budget
ONC [HHS] Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT
OPPS Outpatient prospective payment system
OSCAR Online Survey and Certification and Reporting
PA Physician assistant
PACE Program of All-inclusive Care for the Elderly
PAT Performance assessment tool
PC Professional component
PCI Percutaneous coronary intervention
PCIP Primary Care Incentive Payment Program
PDP Prescription drug plan
PE Practice expense
PE/HR Practice expense per hour
PEAC Practice Expense Advisory Committee
PECOS Provider Enrollment Chain and Ownership System
PERC Practice Expense Review Committee
PFS Physician Fee Schedule
PGP [Medicare] Physician Group Practice
PHI Protected health information
PHP Partial hospitalization program
PIM [Medicare] Program Integrity Manual
PLI Professional liability insurance
POA Present on admission
POC Plan of care
PPI Producer price index
PPIS Physician Practice Information Survey
PPPS Personalized Prevention Plan Services
PPS Prospective payment system
PPTA Plasma Protein Therapeutics Association
PQRI Physician Quality Reporting Initiative
PR Pulmonary rehabilitation
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PSA Physician scarcity areas
PT Physical therapy
PTCA Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty
PTA Physical therapy assistant
PVBP Physician and Other Health Professional Value-Based Purchasing
Workgroup
QDCs (Physician Quality Reporting System) Quality Data Codes
RA Radiology assistant
RAC Medicare Recovery Audit Contractor
RBMA Radiology Business Management Association
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RHC Rural health clinic
RHQDAPU Reporting Hospital Quality Data Annual Payment Update
Program
RIA Regulatory impact analysis
RN Registered nurse
RNAC Reasonable net acquisition cost
RPA Radiology practitioner assistant
RRT Registered respiratory therapist
RUC [AMAs Specialty Society] Relative (Value) Update Committee
RVRBS Resource-Based Relative Value Scale
RVU Relative value unit
SBA Small Business Administration
SCHIP State Children's Health Insurance Programs
SDW Special Disability Workload
SGR Sustainable growth rate
STATS Short Term Alternatives for Therapy Services
SLP Speech-language pathology
SMS [AMAs] Socioeconomic Monitoring System
SNF Skilled nursing facility
SOR System of record
SRS Stereotactic radiosurgery
SSA Social Security Administration
SSI Social Security Income
STARS Services Tracking and Reporting System
STATS Short Term Alternative Therapy Services
TC Technical Component
TIN Tax identification number
TRHCA Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-432)
TTO Transtracheal oxygen
UAF Update Adjustment Factor
UPMC University of Pittsburgh Medical Center
URAC Utilization Review Accreditation Committee
USDE United States Department of Education
USP-DI United States Pharmacopoeia-Drug Information
VA Veterans Administration
VBP Value-based purchasing
WAC Wholesale Acquisition Cost
[[Page 73178]]
WAMP Widely available market price
WHO World Health Organization
CPT (Current Procedural Terminology) Copyright Notice
Throughout this final rule with comment period, we use CPT codes
and descriptions to refer to a variety of services. We note that CPT
codes and descriptions are copyright 2010 American Medical Association.
All Rights Reserved. CPT is a registered trademark of the American
Medical Association (AMA). Applicable FARS/DFARS apply.
I. Background
Since January 1, 1992, Medicare has paid for physicians' services
under section 1848 of the Social Security Act (the Act), ``Payment for
Physicians' Services.'' The Act requires that payments under the
physician fee schedule (PFS) are based on national uniform relative
value units (RVUs) based on the relative resources used in furnishing a
service. Section 1848(c) of the Act requires that national RVUs be
established for physician work, practice expense (PE), and malpractice
expense. Before the establishment of the resource-based relative value
system, Medicare payment for physicians' services was based on
reasonable charges. We note that throughout this final rule with
comment period, unless otherwise noted, the term ``practitioner'' is
used to describe both physicians and eligible nonphysician
practitioners (such as physician assistants, nurse practitioners,
clinical nurse specialists, certified nurse-midwives, psychologists, or
social workers) that are permitted to furnish and bill Medicare under
the PFS for the services under discussion.
A. Development of the Relative Value System
1. Work RVUs
The concepts and methodology underlying the PFS were enacted as
part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1989 (Pub. L.
101-239), and OBRA 1990, (Pub. L. 101-508). The final rule, published
on November 25, 1991 (56 FR 59502), set forth the fee schedule for
payment for physicians' services beginning January 1, 1992. Initially,
only the physician work RVUs were resource-based, and the PE and
malpractice RVUs were based on average allowable charges.
The physician work RVUs established for the implementation of the
fee schedule in January 1992 were developed with extensive input from
the physician community. A research team at the Harvard School of
Public Health developed the original physician work RVUs for most codes
in a cooperative agreement with the Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS). In constructing the code-specific vignettes for the
original physician work RVUs, Harvard worked with panels of experts,
both inside and outside the Federal government, and obtained input from
numerous physician specialty groups.
Section 1848(b)(2)(B) of the Act specifies that the RVUs for
anesthesia services are based on RVUs from a uniform relative value
guide, with appropriate adjustment of the conversion factor (CF), in a
manner to assure that fee schedule amounts for anesthesia services are
consistent with those for other services of comparable value. We
established a separate CF for anesthesia services, and we continue to
utilize time units as a factor in determining payment for these
services. As a result, there is a separate payment methodology for
anesthesia services.
We establish physician work RVUs for new and revised codes based on
our review of recommendations received from the American Medical
Association's (AMA) Specialty Society Relative Value Update Committee
(RUC).
2. Practice Expense Relative Value Units (PE RVUs)
Section 121 of the Social Security Act Amendments of 1994 (Pub. L.
103-432), enacted on October 31, 1994, amended section
1848(c)(2)(C)(ii) of the Act and required us to develop resource-based
PE RVUs for each physicians' service beginning in 1998. We were to
consider general categories of expenses (such as office rent and wages
of personnel, but excluding malpractice expenses) comprising PEs.
Section 4505(a) of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) (Pub. L.
105-33), amended section 1848(c)(2)(C)(ii) of the Act to delay
implementation of the resource-based PE RVU system until January 1,
1999. In addition, section 4505(b) of the BBA provided for a 4-year
transition period from charge-based PE RVUs to resource-based RVUs.
We established the resource-based PE RVUs for each physicians'
service in a final rule, published November 2, 1998 (63 FR 58814),
effective for services furnished in 1999. Based on the requirement to
transition to a resource-based system for PE over a 4-year period,
resource-based PE RVUs did not become fully effective until 2002.
This resource-based system was based on two significant sources of
actual PE data: the Clinical Practice Expert Panel (CPEP) data; and the
AMA's Socioeconomic Monitoring System (SMS) data. The CPEP data were
collected from panels of physicians, practice administrators, and
nonphysicians (for example, registered nurses (RNs)) nominated by
physician specialty societies and other groups. The CPEP panels
identified the direct inputs required for each physicians' service in
both the office setting and out-of-office setting. We have since
refined and revised these inputs based on recommendations from the RUC.
The AMA's SMS data provided aggregate specialty-specific information on
hours worked and PEs.
Separate PE RVUs are established for procedures that can be
performed in both a nonfacility setting, such as a physician's office,
and a facility setting, such as a hospital outpatient department
(HOPD). The difference between the facility and nonfacility RVUs
reflects the fact that a facility typically receives separate payment
from Medicare for its costs of providing the service, apart from
payment under the PFS. The nonfacility RVUs reflect all of the direct
and indirect PEs of providing a particular service.
Section 212 of the Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999 (BBRA)
(Pub. L. 106-113) directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services
(the Secretary) to establish a process under which we accept and use,
to the maximum extent practicable and consistent with sound data
practices, data collected or developed by entities and organizations to
supplement the data we normally collect in determining the PE
component. On May 3, 2000, we published the interim final rule (65 FR
25664) that set forth the criteria for the submission of these
supplemental PE survey data. The criteria were modified in response to
comments received, and published in the Federal Register (65 FR 65376)
as part of a November 1, 2000 final rule. The PFS final rules published
in 2001 and 2003, respectively, (66 FR 55246 and 68 FR 63196) extended
the period during which we would accept these supplemental data through
March 1, 2005.
In the calendar year (CY) 2007 PFS final rule with comment period
(71 FR 69624), we revised the methodology for