Payment or Reimbursement for Emergency Services for Nonservice-Connected Conditions in Non-VA Facilities, 30598-30600 [2011-13015]
Download as PDF
30598
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Dated: May 10, 2011.
J.R. Castillo,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Eleventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2011–13036 Filed 5–25–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS
38 CFR Part 17
RIN 2900–AN86
Payment or Reimbursement for
Emergency Services for NonserviceConnected Conditions in Non-VA
Facilities
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
This document proposes to
amend the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) ‘‘Payment or
Reimbursement for Emergency Services
for Nonservice-Connected Conditions in
Non-VA Facilities’’ regulations to
conform with changes made by certain
sections of the Expansion of Veteran
Eligibility for Reimbursement Act. Some
of the revisions in this proposed rule are
purely technical, matching the language
of our regulations to the language of the
revised statute, while others set out
VA’s policies regarding the
implementation of statutory
requirements. The proposed rule would
expand the qualifications for payment
or reimbursement to veterans who
receive emergency services in non-VA
facilities, and would establish
accompanying standards for the method
and amount of payment or
reimbursement.
SUMMARY:
Comments on the proposed rule
must be received by VA on or before
July 25, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Written comments may be
submitted through https://
www.Regulations.gov; by mail or handdelivery to the Director, Regulations
Management (02REG), Department of
Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue,
NW., Room 1068, Washington, DC
20420; or by fax to (202) 273–9026.
Comments should indicate that they are
submitted in response to ‘‘RIN 2900–
AN86—Payment or Reimbursement of
Emergency Services for NonserviceConnected Conditions in Non-VA
Facilities.’’ Copies of comments received
will be available for public inspection in
the Office of Regulation Policy and
Management, Room 1063B, between the
hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday (except holidays). Please
call (202) 461–4902 for an appointment.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
DATES:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:50 May 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
This is not a toll-free number. In
addition, during the comment period,
comments may be viewed online at
https://www.Regulations.gov through the
Federal Docket Management Systems
(FDMS).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Holley Niethammer, Fee Policy Chief,
National Fee Program Office, Veterans
Health Administration, Department of
Veterans Affairs, 3773 Cherry Creek Dr.
N., East Tower, Ste 495, Denver, CO
80209, (303) 370–5062. (This is not a
toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On February 1, 2010, Congress
enacted the Expansion of Veteran
Eligibility for Reimbursement Act (2010
Act), amending 38 U.S.C. 1725. Current
VA regulations implement section 1725
in 38 CFR 17.1000 through 17.1008
under the undesignated heading
‘‘Payment or Reimbursement for
Emergency Services for NonserviceConnected Conditions in Non-VA
Facilities.’’ This proposed rule would
revise §§ 17.1001, 17.1002, 17.1004, and
17.1005. These revisions would
eliminate certain exclusions from
emergency care payment or
reimbursement, and define the payment
limitations for those qualifying for
payment or reimbursement under the
law as amended by the 2010 Act.
The 2010 Act amended 38 U.S.C.
1725 by removing a provision that
included automobile insurance carriers
in the definition of ‘‘health-plan
contract.’’ Under 38 U.S.C. 1725,
veterans who are covered by a healthplan contract are ineligible for VA
payment or reimbursement. Thus, we
propose to remove current 38 CFR
17.1001(a)(5), which includes
automobile insurance in the definition
of ‘‘health-plan contract.’’ These
proposed amendments would
implement VA’s authority to pay or
reimburse claimants for providing
emergency services to a veteran if the
veteran received, or is legally eligible to
receive, partial payment towards
emergency services from an automobile
insurer.
The 2010 Act also amended 38 U.S.C.
1725 by removing a provision that
precluded certain claimants from
payment or reimbursement by VA for
emergency care at non-VA facilities.
Parties who qualified as claimants
under former section 1725 (as
implemented by VA in current 38 CFR
17.1004(a)) included veterans, the
provider of the emergency treatment, or
the person or organization that paid for
such treatment on behalf of the veteran.
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Under the 2010 Act, claimants who are
entitled to partial payment from a third
party for providing non-VA emergency
services to a veteran are no longer
barred from also receiving VA payment
or reimbursement for such care. Prior to
the 2010 Act, section 1725 required that
VA deny any claim in which a veteran
has ‘‘other contractual or legal recourse
against a third party that would, in
whole or in part, extinguish such
liability to the provider.’’ The 2010 Act
removed ‘‘or in part’’ from this
exclusion. In order to remove this
partial payment exclusion from VA
regulations, we propose to remove the
clause, ‘‘or in part’’, from § 17.1002(h), to
parallel the language in 38 U.S.C. 1725.
In addition, the 2010 Act authorized,
but did not require, VA to provide
repayment under section 1725 ‘‘for
emergency treatment furnished to a
veteran before the date of the enactment
of th[e 2010] Act, if the Secretary
determines that, under the
circumstances applicable with respect
to the veteran, it is appropriate to do
so.’’ We interpret this provision to allow
VA, through regulation, to provide
retroactive reimbursement, and we
propose to implement this authority in
§ 17.1004(f).
Under current § 17.1004(d), claims for
reimbursement must be filed within 90
days after the latest of four dates: (1)
July 19, 2001 (the effective date of
§ 17.1004(d) when VA first promulgated
the regulation); (2) the date that the
veteran was discharged from the facility
that provided the emergency treatment;
(3) the date of the veteran’s death (under
specified circumstances); or (4) the date
that the veteran finally exhausted,
without success, action to obtain
reimbursement from a third party. A
retroactive claim under proposed
§ 17.1004(f) would be an exception to
this rule. Moreover, the first
requirement in current § 17.1004(d)(1)—
that claims must be filed within the 90day period after July 19, 2001—is an
outdated provision because all claims
now received by VHA for
reimbursement must, as a practical
matter, be filed many years after July 19,
2001. Therefore, we propose to remove
§ 17.1004(d)(1).
Because proposed § 17.1004(f) would
authorize reimbursement for a claim
that does not meet the generally
applicable criteria in § 17.1004(d), we
would make the provision apply
‘‘[n]otwithstanding paragraph (d)’’. We
would also require that the emergency
treatment was received on or after July
19, 2001. We use this date from current
§ 17.1004(d)(1) because there is no
indication in the language or history of
the 2010 Act that Congress intended a
E:\FR\FM\26MYP1.SGM
26MYP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
greater benefit for claimants applying
under the retroactive authorization in
the 2010 Act than what VA prescribed
for claimants under current
§ 17.1004(d). In addition, the
retroactivity authorized by paragraph (f)
would apply only to treatment received
more than 90 days before the effective
date of the final rule in this rulemaking.
This limitation is necessary because
treatment received after that date would
be covered by § 17.1004(d), i.e., a claim
for such care is not a retroactive claim.
We also propose to limit the
applicability of this retroactive authority
to claims filed within 1 year after the
effective date of the final rule. Because
retroactive claims may be for care
provided nearly 10 years ago, we believe
that a 1-year time limit allows claimants
adequate time to learn about the new
rule and complete their claims, while
providing VA a reasonable timeframe
within which it must be prepared to
handle these more complex retroactive
claims.
Section 1725, as amended by the 2010
Act, sets forth specific payment
limitations for those claimants who now
qualify for payment or reimbursement
based on the removal of the partial
payment restriction discussed above.
We would establish these limitations in
paragraphs (c) and (d) of § 17.1005.
First, in proposed § 17.1005(c)(1), VA
would be a secondary payer in cases
where a third party is financially
responsible for part of the veteran’s
emergency treatment expenses. This
reflects 38 U.S.C. 1725(c)(4)(B), which
directs VA to be the secondary payer in
such cases. Under proposed
§ 17.1005(c)(2), in cases where a veteran
receives, or is legally entitled to receive,
only partial reimbursement from a third
party, VA would ‘‘pay the difference
between the amount VA would have
paid under this section for the cost of
the emergency treatment and the
amount paid (or payable) by the third
party.’’ This payment limitation would
be based on 38 U.S.C. 1725(c)(4)(A),
which specifically requires VA to pay
this amount.
VA would pay the provider the
difference between the amount paid on
behalf of the veteran by the third party
and the amount VA would have paid in
the absence of legal liability for the
payment of the veteran’s health care
cost by a third party. The total of these
combined payments would also be
considered payment in full and
extinguish any liability that the veteran
may have to the provider. This payment
limitation is required by 38 U.S.C.
1725(c)(4)(C), which directs VA to pay
in full and extinguish the veteran’s
liability. The veteran would no longer
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:50 May 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
be liable because the amount of the
third party’s payment or legal liability,
plus VA’s payment, would equal the
total payment VA would have made in
the absence of third party liability for
the veteran’s emergency care costs.
Therefore, in proposed § 17.1005(c)(3),
VA would state that ‘‘[t]he provider will
consider the combined payment under
paragraph (c)(2) of this section as
payment in full and extinguish the
veteran’s liability to the provider.’’
Under proposed § 17.1005(d), VA
would not reimburse claimants for any
‘‘deductible, copayment or similar
payment’’ that veterans owe to third
parties. This is based on 38 U.S.C.
1725(c)(4)(D).
Finally, we note that it is not
necessary to propose changes based on
the statutory language precluding
reimbursement for amounts ‘‘for which
the veteran is responsible under a
health-plan contract,’’ because current
38 CFR 17.1002(g) already prevents any
reimbursement or payment where the
veteran is under a health-plan contract.
Unfunded Mandates
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that
agencies prepare an assessment of
anticipated costs and benefits before
issuing any rule that may result in
expenditure by State, local, or Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any
given year. This proposed rule would
have no such effect on State, local, or
Tribal governments, or on the private
sector.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) assigns a control number for
each collection of information it
approves. Except for emergency
approvals under 44 U.S.C. 3507(j), VA
may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
Current § 17.1004 contains a
collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3501–3521). OMB previously approved
the collection of information and
assigned Control Number 2900–0620.
Because this proposed rule does not
alter the information collection
approved by OMB under the existing
control number, we do not propose to
seek new approval.
We propose to insert a citation to the
OMB control number immediately after
the authority citation for § 17.1004 to
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30599
clarify that that section contains an
approved collection of information.
Executive Order 12866
Executive Order 12866 directs
agencies to assess all costs and benefits
of available regulatory alternatives and,
when regulation is necessary, to select
regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health
and safety, and other advantages;
distributive impacts; and equity). The
Executive Order classifies a regulatory
action as a ‘‘significant regulatory
action,’’ requiring review by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB)
unless OMB waives such review, if it is
a regulatory action that is likely to result
in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million
or more or adversely affect in a material
way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local, or Tribal
governments or communities; (2) create
a serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfere with an action taken or
planned by another agency; (3)
materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel
legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President’s priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive
Order.
The economic, interagency,
budgetary, legal, and policy
implications of this proposed rule have
been examined and it has been
determined not to be a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Secretary hereby certifies that
this proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities as
they are defined in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612. This
proposed rule would not cause a
significant economic impact on health
care providers, suppliers, or entities
since only a small portion of the
business of such entities concerns VA
beneficiaries. Further, under this
proposed rule, affected small entities
would be reimbursed for the expenses
they incur for the emergency treatment
of certain veterans. Therefore, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this proposed rule is
exempt from the initial and final
regulatory flexibility analysis
requirements of sections 603 and 604.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP1.SGM
26MYP1
30600
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
The Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance program number and title for
this proposed rule are as follows:
64.005, Grants to States for Construction
of State Home Facilities; 64.007, Blind
Rehabilitation Centers; 64.008, Veterans
Domiciliary Care; 64.009, Veterans
Medical Care Benefits; 64.010, Veterans
Nursing Home Care; 64.014, Veterans
State Domiciliary Care; 64.015, Veterans
State Nursing Home Care; 64.018,
Sharing Specialized Medical Resources;
64.019, Veterans Rehabilitation Alcohol
and Drug Dependence; 64.022, Veterans
Home Based Primary Care; and 64.024,
VA Homeless Providers Grant and Per
Diem Program.
Signing Authority
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or
designee, approved this document and
authorized the undersigned to sign and
submit the document to the Office of the
Federal Register for publication
electronically as an official document of
the Department of Veterans Affairs. John
R. Gingrich, Chief of Staff, Department
of Veterans Affairs, approved this
document on May 19, 2011, for
publication.
List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 17
Administrative practice and
procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism,
Claims, Day care, Dental health, Drug
abuse, Foreign relations, Government
contracts, Grant programs—health,
Government programs—veterans, Health
care, Health facilities, Health
professions, Health records, Homeless,
Medical and dental schools, Medical
devices, Medical research, Mental
health programs, Nursing home care,
Veterans.
Dated: May 20, 2011.
William F. Russo,
Deputy Director, Office of Regulations Policy
& Management, Department of Veterans
Affairs.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the Department of Veterans
Affairs proposes to revise 38 CFR part
17 as follows:
PART 17—MEDICAL
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, and as noted in
specific sections.
§ 17.1001
[Amended]
2. Amend § 17.1001 by removing
paragraph (a)(5).
§ 17.1002
[Amended]
3. Amend § 17.1002 by removing the
words ‘‘or in part’’ in paragraph (h).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:55 May 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
§ 17.1004
[Amended]
4. Amend § 17.1004 as follows:
a. Remove paragraph (d)(1).
b. Redesignate paragraphs (d)(2),
(d)(3) and (d)(4) as new paragraphs
(d)(1), (d)(2) and (d)(3), respectively.
c. Add paragraph (f) immediately
following paragraph (e).
d. Add an information collection
approval parenthetical at the end of the
section.
The additions read as follows:
§ 17.1004.
*
*
*
*
(f) Notwithstanding paragraph (d) of
this section, VA will provide retroactive
payment or reimbursement for
emergency treatment received by the
veteran on or after July 19, 2001, but
more than 90 days before [the effective
date of the final rule], if the claimant
files a claim for reimbursement no later
than 1 year after [the effective date of
the final rule].
*
*
*
*
*
(The Office of Management and
Budget has approved the information
collection requirements in this section
under control number 2900–0620.)
5. Amend § 17.1005 by adding
paragraphs (c) and (d), to read as
follows:
Payment limitations.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) If an eligible veteran under
§ 17.1002 has contractual or legal
recourse against a third party that would
only partially extinguish the veteran’s
liability to the provider of emergency
treatment then:
(1) VA will be the secondary payer;
(2) Subject to the limitations of this
section, VA will pay the difference
between the amount VA would have
paid under this section for the cost of
the emergency treatment and the
amount paid (or payable) by the third
party; and
(3) The provider will consider the
combined payment under paragraph
(c)(2) of this section as payment in full
and extinguish the veteran’s liability to
the provider.
(d) VA will not reimburse a claimant
under this section for any deductible,
copayment or similar payment that the
veteran owes the third party.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2011–13015 Filed 5–25–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0195; FRL–9311–8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia;
Revisions to Clean Air Interstate Rule
Emissions Trading Program
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to approve
a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the
Commonwealth of Virginia. The
revision, which amends the Virginia
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) trading
program, is comprised of technical
corrections and revisions to the
definition of a cogeneration unit to
ensure the Commonwealth’s CAIR
trading program is consistent with
Federal CAIR requirements. This action
is being taken under the Clean Air Act
(CAA).
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before June 27, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID Number EPA–
R03–OAR–2011–0195 by one of the
following methods:
A. https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
B. E-mail:
fernandez.cristina@epa.gov.
C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0195,
Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director,
Office of Air Quality Planning, Mailcode
3AP30, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket’s normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2011–
0195. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change, and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
SUMMARY:
Filing claims.
*
§ 17.1005.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
E:\FR\FM\26MYP1.SGM
26MYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 102 (Thursday, May 26, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30598-30600]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13015]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
38 CFR Part 17
RIN 2900-AN86
Payment or Reimbursement for Emergency Services for Nonservice-
Connected Conditions in Non-VA Facilities
AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes to amend the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) ``Payment or Reimbursement for Emergency Services for
Nonservice-Connected Conditions in Non-VA Facilities'' regulations to
conform with changes made by certain sections of the Expansion of
Veteran Eligibility for Reimbursement Act. Some of the revisions in
this proposed rule are purely technical, matching the language of our
regulations to the language of the revised statute, while others set
out VA's policies regarding the implementation of statutory
requirements. The proposed rule would expand the qualifications for
payment or reimbursement to veterans who receive emergency services in
non-VA facilities, and would establish accompanying standards for the
method and amount of payment or reimbursement.
DATES: Comments on the proposed rule must be received by VA on or
before July 25, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Written comments may be submitted through https://www.Regulations.gov; by mail or hand-delivery to the Director,
Regulations Management (02REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810
Vermont Avenue, NW., Room 1068, Washington, DC 20420; or by fax to
(202) 273-9026. Comments should indicate that they are submitted in
response to ``RIN 2900-AN86--Payment or Reimbursement of Emergency
Services for Nonservice-Connected Conditions in Non-VA Facilities.''
Copies of comments received will be available for public inspection in
the Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Room 1063B, between the
hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday (except holidays).
Please call (202) 461-4902 for an appointment. This is not a toll-free
number. In addition, during the comment period, comments may be viewed
online at https://www.Regulations.gov through the Federal Docket
Management Systems (FDMS).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Holley Niethammer, Fee Policy Chief,
National Fee Program Office, Veterans Health Administration, Department
of Veterans Affairs, 3773 Cherry Creek Dr. N., East Tower, Ste 495,
Denver, CO 80209, (303) 370-5062. (This is not a toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On February 1, 2010, Congress enacted the Expansion of Veteran
Eligibility for Reimbursement Act (2010 Act), amending 38 U.S.C. 1725.
Current VA regulations implement section 1725 in 38 CFR 17.1000 through
17.1008 under the undesignated heading ``Payment or Reimbursement for
Emergency Services for Nonservice-Connected Conditions in Non-VA
Facilities.'' This proposed rule would revise Sec. Sec. 17.1001,
17.1002, 17.1004, and 17.1005. These revisions would eliminate certain
exclusions from emergency care payment or reimbursement, and define the
payment limitations for those qualifying for payment or reimbursement
under the law as amended by the 2010 Act.
The 2010 Act amended 38 U.S.C. 1725 by removing a provision that
included automobile insurance carriers in the definition of ``health-
plan contract.'' Under 38 U.S.C. 1725, veterans who are covered by a
health-plan contract are ineligible for VA payment or reimbursement.
Thus, we propose to remove current 38 CFR 17.1001(a)(5), which includes
automobile insurance in the definition of ``health-plan contract.''
These proposed amendments would implement VA's authority to pay or
reimburse claimants for providing emergency services to a veteran if
the veteran received, or is legally eligible to receive, partial
payment towards emergency services from an automobile insurer.
The 2010 Act also amended 38 U.S.C. 1725 by removing a provision
that precluded certain claimants from payment or reimbursement by VA
for emergency care at non-VA facilities. Parties who qualified as
claimants under former section 1725 (as implemented by VA in current 38
CFR 17.1004(a)) included veterans, the provider of the emergency
treatment, or the person or organization that paid for such treatment
on behalf of the veteran. Under the 2010 Act, claimants who are
entitled to partial payment from a third party for providing non-VA
emergency services to a veteran are no longer barred from also
receiving VA payment or reimbursement for such care. Prior to the 2010
Act, section 1725 required that VA deny any claim in which a veteran
has ``other contractual or legal recourse against a third party that
would, in whole or in part, extinguish such liability to the
provider.'' The 2010 Act removed ``or in part'' from this exclusion. In
order to remove this partial payment exclusion from VA regulations, we
propose to remove the clause, ``or in part'', from Sec. 17.1002(h), to
parallel the language in 38 U.S.C. 1725.
In addition, the 2010 Act authorized, but did not require, VA to
provide repayment under section 1725 ``for emergency treatment
furnished to a veteran before the date of the enactment of th[e 2010]
Act, if the Secretary determines that, under the circumstances
applicable with respect to the veteran, it is appropriate to do so.''
We interpret this provision to allow VA, through regulation, to provide
retroactive reimbursement, and we propose to implement this authority
in Sec. 17.1004(f).
Under current Sec. 17.1004(d), claims for reimbursement must be
filed within 90 days after the latest of four dates: (1) July 19, 2001
(the effective date of Sec. 17.1004(d) when VA first promulgated the
regulation); (2) the date that the veteran was discharged from the
facility that provided the emergency treatment; (3) the date of the
veteran's death (under specified circumstances); or (4) the date that
the veteran finally exhausted, without success, action to obtain
reimbursement from a third party. A retroactive claim under proposed
Sec. 17.1004(f) would be an exception to this rule. Moreover, the
first requirement in current Sec. 17.1004(d)(1)--that claims must be
filed within the 90-day period after July 19, 2001--is an outdated
provision because all claims now received by VHA for reimbursement
must, as a practical matter, be filed many years after July 19, 2001.
Therefore, we propose to remove Sec. 17.1004(d)(1).
Because proposed Sec. 17.1004(f) would authorize reimbursement for
a claim that does not meet the generally applicable criteria in Sec.
17.1004(d), we would make the provision apply ``[n]otwithstanding
paragraph (d)''. We would also require that the emergency treatment was
received on or after July 19, 2001. We use this date from current Sec.
17.1004(d)(1) because there is no indication in the language or history
of the 2010 Act that Congress intended a
[[Page 30599]]
greater benefit for claimants applying under the retroactive
authorization in the 2010 Act than what VA prescribed for claimants
under current Sec. 17.1004(d). In addition, the retroactivity
authorized by paragraph (f) would apply only to treatment received more
than 90 days before the effective date of the final rule in this
rulemaking. This limitation is necessary because treatment received
after that date would be covered by Sec. 17.1004(d), i.e., a claim for
such care is not a retroactive claim.
We also propose to limit the applicability of this retroactive
authority to claims filed within 1 year after the effective date of the
final rule. Because retroactive claims may be for care provided nearly
10 years ago, we believe that a 1-year time limit allows claimants
adequate time to learn about the new rule and complete their claims,
while providing VA a reasonable timeframe within which it must be
prepared to handle these more complex retroactive claims.
Section 1725, as amended by the 2010 Act, sets forth specific
payment limitations for those claimants who now qualify for payment or
reimbursement based on the removal of the partial payment restriction
discussed above. We would establish these limitations in paragraphs (c)
and (d) of Sec. 17.1005.
First, in proposed Sec. 17.1005(c)(1), VA would be a secondary
payer in cases where a third party is financially responsible for part
of the veteran's emergency treatment expenses. This reflects 38 U.S.C.
1725(c)(4)(B), which directs VA to be the secondary payer in such
cases. Under proposed Sec. 17.1005(c)(2), in cases where a veteran
receives, or is legally entitled to receive, only partial reimbursement
from a third party, VA would ``pay the difference between the amount VA
would have paid under this section for the cost of the emergency
treatment and the amount paid (or payable) by the third party.'' This
payment limitation would be based on 38 U.S.C. 1725(c)(4)(A), which
specifically requires VA to pay this amount.
VA would pay the provider the difference between the amount paid on
behalf of the veteran by the third party and the amount VA would have
paid in the absence of legal liability for the payment of the veteran's
health care cost by a third party. The total of these combined payments
would also be considered payment in full and extinguish any liability
that the veteran may have to the provider. This payment limitation is
required by 38 U.S.C. 1725(c)(4)(C), which directs VA to pay in full
and extinguish the veteran's liability. The veteran would no longer be
liable because the amount of the third party's payment or legal
liability, plus VA's payment, would equal the total payment VA would
have made in the absence of third party liability for the veteran's
emergency care costs. Therefore, in proposed Sec. 17.1005(c)(3), VA
would state that ``[t]he provider will consider the combined payment
under paragraph (c)(2) of this section as payment in full and
extinguish the veteran's liability to the provider.''
Under proposed Sec. 17.1005(d), VA would not reimburse claimants
for any ``deductible, copayment or similar payment'' that veterans owe
to third parties. This is based on 38 U.S.C. 1725(c)(4)(D).
Finally, we note that it is not necessary to propose changes based
on the statutory language precluding reimbursement for amounts ``for
which the veteran is responsible under a health-plan contract,''
because current 38 CFR 17.1002(g) already prevents any reimbursement or
payment where the veteran is under a health-plan contract.
Unfunded Mandates
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C.
1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and
benefits before issuing any rule that may result in expenditure by
State, local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for
inflation) in any given year. This proposed rule would have no such
effect on State, local, or Tribal governments, or on the private
sector.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) assigns a control number
for each collection of information it approves. Except for emergency
approvals under 44 U.S.C. 3507(j), VA may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Current Sec. 17.1004 contains a collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). OMB previously
approved the collection of information and assigned Control Number
2900-0620. Because this proposed rule does not alter the information
collection approved by OMB under the existing control number, we do not
propose to seek new approval.
We propose to insert a citation to the OMB control number
immediately after the authority citation for Sec. 17.1004 to clarify
that that section contains an approved collection of information.
Executive Order 12866
Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and
benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety,
and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The Executive
Order classifies a regulatory action as a ``significant regulatory
action,'' requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
unless OMB waives such review, if it is a regulatory action that is
likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way
the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs,
the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal
governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user
fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy
implications of this proposed rule have been examined and it has been
determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive
Order 12866.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Secretary hereby certifies that this proposed rule would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. 601-612. This proposed rule would not cause a significant
economic impact on health care providers, suppliers, or entities since
only a small portion of the business of such entities concerns VA
beneficiaries. Further, under this proposed rule, affected small
entities would be reimbursed for the expenses they incur for the
emergency treatment of certain veterans. Therefore, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 605(b), this proposed rule is exempt from the initial and final
regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.
[[Page 30600]]
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program number and title
for this proposed rule are as follows: 64.005, Grants to States for
Construction of State Home Facilities; 64.007, Blind Rehabilitation
Centers; 64.008, Veterans Domiciliary Care; 64.009, Veterans Medical
Care Benefits; 64.010, Veterans Nursing Home Care; 64.014, Veterans
State Domiciliary Care; 64.015, Veterans State Nursing Home Care;
64.018, Sharing Specialized Medical Resources; 64.019, Veterans
Rehabilitation Alcohol and Drug Dependence; 64.022, Veterans Home Based
Primary Care; and 64.024, VA Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem
Program.
Signing Authority
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this
document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document
to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as
an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. John R.
Gingrich, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this
document on May 19, 2011, for publication.
List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 17
Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism,
Claims, Day care, Dental health, Drug abuse, Foreign relations,
Government contracts, Grant programs--health, Government programs--
veterans, Health care, Health facilities, Health professions, Health
records, Homeless, Medical and dental schools, Medical devices, Medical
research, Mental health programs, Nursing home care, Veterans.
Dated: May 20, 2011.
William F. Russo,
Deputy Director, Office of Regulations Policy & Management, Department
of Veterans Affairs.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Veterans
Affairs proposes to revise 38 CFR part 17 as follows:
PART 17--MEDICAL
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, and as noted in specific sections.
Sec. 17.1001 [Amended]
2. Amend Sec. 17.1001 by removing paragraph (a)(5).
Sec. 17.1002 [Amended]
3. Amend Sec. 17.1002 by removing the words ``or in part'' in
paragraph (h).
Sec. 17.1004 [Amended]
4. Amend Sec. 17.1004 as follows:
a. Remove paragraph (d)(1).
b. Redesignate paragraphs (d)(2), (d)(3) and (d)(4) as new
paragraphs (d)(1), (d)(2) and (d)(3), respectively.
c. Add paragraph (f) immediately following paragraph (e).
d. Add an information collection approval parenthetical at the end
of the section.
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 17.1004. Filing claims.
* * * * *
(f) Notwithstanding paragraph (d) of this section, VA will provide
retroactive payment or reimbursement for emergency treatment received
by the veteran on or after July 19, 2001, but more than 90 days before
[the effective date of the final rule], if the claimant files a claim
for reimbursement no later than 1 year after [the effective date of the
final rule].
* * * * *
(The Office of Management and Budget has approved the information
collection requirements in this section under control number 2900-
0620.)
5. Amend Sec. 17.1005 by adding paragraphs (c) and (d), to read as
follows:
Sec. 17.1005. Payment limitations.
* * * * *
(c) If an eligible veteran under Sec. 17.1002 has contractual or
legal recourse against a third party that would only partially
extinguish the veteran's liability to the provider of emergency
treatment then:
(1) VA will be the secondary payer;
(2) Subject to the limitations of this section, VA will pay the
difference between the amount VA would have paid under this section for
the cost of the emergency treatment and the amount paid (or payable) by
the third party; and
(3) The provider will consider the combined payment under paragraph
(c)(2) of this section as payment in full and extinguish the veteran's
liability to the provider.
(d) VA will not reimburse a claimant under this section for any
deductible, copayment or similar payment that the veteran owes the
third party.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-13015 Filed 5-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P