TRICARE Revision to CHAMPUS DRG-Based Payment System, Pricing of Hospital Claims, 10579-10581 [2013-03419]
Download as PDF
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 31 / Thursday, February 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules
the Agencies and also Form 8–Ks with
the SEC announcing they have entered
into an agreement to merge. Subsequent
findings in the course of due diligence
cause A and B to terminate the merger
agreement and A files an additional
Form 8–K announcing the termination
of an agreement. A states that it may
seek to enter into a new or amended
merger agreement with B. A’s premerger
notification filing is deemed to have
been withdrawn on the date of the filing
of the Form 8–K announcing the
termination of the merger agreement. A
can, however, refile within two business
days on a new merger agreement,
commencing a new waiting period,
without paying an additional filing fee,
if it meets the requirements of
§ 803.12(c).
6. A and B enter into a merger
agreement and file premerger
notification filings with the Agencies
and Form 8–Ks with the SEC. Second
requests are issued. A and B
subsequently certify compliance with
the second request, starting the
extended waiting period. Prior to the
expiration of the extended waiting
period, the parties enter into an
agreement with the agency conducting
the investigation to delay closing of the
transaction, allowing the consummation
of the acquisition only after 30-days’
notice (a ‘‘timing agreement’’), and the
extended waiting period expires. During
the pendency of the timing agreement,
A and B terminate the merger agreement
and A files a Form 8–K with the SEC
announcing the termination of an
agreement. A’s premerger notification
filing is deemed withdrawn on the date
of the SEC filing as a result of that filing,
even though the extended waiting
period has expired and the parties are
still within the one year period
following that expiration under
§ 803.7(a). Note that had the extended
waiting period expired and no timing
agreement had been entered into, a
filing with the SEC announcing the
termination of the agreement would not
result in the withdrawal of A’s
premerger notification filing.
7. A and B enter into a merger
agreement and file premerger
notification filings with the Agencies
and Form 8–Ks with the SEC. The
agencies complete their review and
early termination of the initial 30-day
waiting period is granted. Prior to the
expiration of the one year period
following the grant of early termination,
A and B terminate the merger agreement
and A files a Form 8–K with the SEC
announcing the termination of an
agreement. A’s premerger notification
filing is not deemed withdrawn as a
result of the SEC filing because the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:13 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 229001
initial 30-day premerger notification
waiting period had been granted early
termination. Therefore, the parties still
have the full one year period prior to the
expiration of the notification under
§ 803.7(a) to consummate the
transaction should it be recommenced.
By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
Note: The following appendix will not
appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
Concurring Statement of Commissioner
Joshua D. Wright Regarding Proposed
Amendments to Hart-Scott-Rodino
Rules
FTC Matter No. P859910
February 1, 2013.
The Commission has voted today to
publish a notice of proposed rulemaking
seeking comment on amendments to the
Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) rules. Under
the proposed amendments, HSR filings
would be automatically withdrawn
upon the submission of an SEC filing
that the notified transaction had been
terminated.1 I wish to thank staff in the
Premerger Notification Office for their
efforts in crafting this proposed rule and
their diligent administration of the
premerger notification program.
I concur in the Commission’s decision
because I believe the Commission
would benefit from the public’s input
into this proposed rulemaking.
Nevertheless, I am concerned that the
proposed rules may impose costs in
excess of any potential benefits.
The proposed rulemaking appears to
be a solution in search of a problem.
The Federal Register notice states that
the proposed rules are necessary to
prevent the FTC and DOJ from
‘‘expend[ing] scarce resources on
hypothetical transactions.’’ Yet, I have
not to date been presented with
evidence that any of the over 68,000
transactions notified under the HSR
rules have required Commission
resources to be allocated to a truly
hypothetical transaction. Indeed, it
would be surprising to see firms
incurring the costs and devoting the
time and effort associated with antitrust
review in the absence of a good faith
intent to proceed with their transaction.
The proposed rules, if adopted, could
increase the costs of corporate takeovers
and thus distort the market for corporate
control. Some companies that had
complied with or were attempting to
1 The proposed rulemaking would also codify,
with one modification, the existing procedure for
pulling and refiling an HSR notification without
payment of an additional filing fee. I have no
objections to this proposal.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
10579
comply with a Second Request, for
example, could be forced to restart their
antitrust review, leading to significant
delays and added expenses. The
proposed rules could also create
incentives for firms to structure their
transactions less efficiently and
discourage the use of tender offers.
Finally, the proposed new rules will
disproportionately burden U.S. public
companies; the Federal Register notice
acknowledges that the new rules will
not apply to tender offers for many nonpublic and foreign companies.
Given these concerns, I hope that
interested parties will avail themselves
of the opportunity to submit public
comments so that the Commission can
make an informed decision at the
conclusion of this process.
[FR Doc. 2013–02821 Filed 2–13–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
32 CFR Part 199
[Docket ID DOD–2012–HA–0105]
RIN 0720–AB58
TRICARE Revision to CHAMPUS DRGBased Payment System, Pricing of
Hospital Claims
Office of the Secretary,
Department of Defense.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
This rule proposes to change
TRICARE’s current regulatory provision
for hospital claims priced under the
DRG-based payment system. Claims are
currently priced by using the rates and
weights that are in effect on a
beneficiary’s date of admission. This
rule proposes to change that provision
to price such claims by using the rates
and weights that are in effect on a
beneficiary’s date of discharge.
DATES: Written comments received at
the address indicated below by April 15,
2013 will be accepted.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by docket number and or
Regulatory Information Number (RIN)
number and title, by either of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Federal Docket Management
System Office, 4800 Mark Center Drive,
East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria,
VA 22350–3100.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM
14FEP1
10580
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 31 / Thursday, February 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules
docket number or RIN for this Federal
Register document. The general policy
for comments and other submissions
from members of the public is to make
these submissions available for public
viewing on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov as they are
received without change, including any
personal identifiers or contact
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Amber Butterfield, TRICARE
Management Activity, Medical Benefits
and Reimbursement Systems, telephone
(303) 676–3565.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Executive Summary and Overview
I. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
This rule proposes to amend the
TRICARE/CHAMPUS regulatory
provision of pricing hospital claims that
are reimbursed under the DRG-based
payment system from the beneficiary’s
date of admission, to pricing such
claims based on the beneficiary’s date of
discharge.
The TRICARE/CHAMPUS DRG-based
payment system applies to hospitals,
unless such hospital is exempt by
regulation from the payment system.
Under the TRICARE DRG-based
payment system, payment for the
operating costs of inpatient hospital
services subject to the payment system
are made on the basis of prospectively
determined rates.
The TRICARE DRG-based payment
system is modeled on the Medicare
Inpatient Prospective Payment System
(IPPS). Although many of the
procedures in the TRICARE DRG-based
payment system are similar or identical
to the procedures in the Medicare IPPS,
the actual payment amounts, DRG
weights, and certain procedures are
different. This is necessary because of
the differences in the two programs,
especially in the beneficiary population.
Since the inception of the DRG-based
payment system in 1987, claims have
been priced following the beneficiary’s
discharge by the hospital, but using the
rules, weights, and rates that were in
effect on the beneficiary’s date of
admission. That is, claims submitted for
the beneficiary’s inpatient stay are
grouped to a specific DRG, and the
pricing (i.e., payment rate) is
determined by using the rules, weights
and rates that were in effect on the date
of the beneficiary’s admission to the
hospital. The August 31, 1988, Final
Rule (53 FR 33461) published in the
Federal Register explains TRICARE’s
decision to utilize the date of admission
to price claims. Using the date of
admission to price claims allowed
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:13 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 229001
hospitals to be reimbursed for inpatient
services under the same payment
methodology they expected to be used
when the patient was admitted. Prior to
implementation of the DRG-based
payment system, the hospital could
expect to be reimbursed at the billed
charge rate since that was the method
TRICARE used to reimburse hospitals at
that time. For patients admitted after
implementation of the DRG-based
payment system, the hospital could
expect to be reimbursed using the DRGbased payment system. The Final Rule
continues by stating that since certain
services were previously excluded from
the DRG-based system, but may have
already involved an interim bill prior to
the effective date of the Final Rule, it
would be administratively difficult and
fiscally unfair to hospitals, to attempt to
reconcile the total payments with the
DRG-based allowed amounts. As a result
of the analysis at the time, the provision
stated, ‘‘except for interim claims
submitted for qualifying outlier cases,
all claims reimbursed under the
CHAMPUS DRG-based payment system
are to be priced as of the date of
admission, regardless of when the claim
is submitted.’’
II. Summary of the Major Provisions of
the Regulatory Action
The major provision of this proposed
rule is to revise TRICARE’s regulation
on the pricing of claims paid under the
DRG-based payment system. Claims are
currently priced by using the rates and
weights that are in effect on a
beneficiary’s date of admission. This
rule proposes to change that provision
to price such claims by using the rates
and weights that are in effect on a
beneficiary’s date of discharge.
In the early stages of the DRG-based
payment system, the approach of
pricing claims based on the date of the
beneficiary’s admission to the hospital
was an effective operational policy for
TRICARE. It is now time, however, to
revise this policy to be consistent with
industry standards. Medicare and other
payers have an operational policy of
pricing all claims, to include interim
claims, based on the date of discharge.
While pricing using the date of
discharge applies to all claims, it
becomes an issue only for those
relatively few claims that span Fiscal
Years (FY). That is, if an admission
occurs on September 29, 2013, (FY
2013) and the discharge occurs on
October 2, 2013, (FY2014) the payment
rate is currently based upon the DRG
rates and weights in effect on September
29, 2013, (FY2013) rather than on
October 2, 2013, (FY2014). Using this
same example, if the provisions of this
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
proposed rule are made final and the
date of discharge is used to price the
claim, the claim will be priced using the
rates and weights in place on October 2,
2013, (FY2014). The rates and weights
for the DRG-based payment system are
updated every FY, and are based on the
previous year’s TRICARE claims data.
III. Costs and Benefits
The benefits of this change include,
aligning TRICARE pricing of hospital
claims practices with industry standards
and enhancing provider satisfaction
because we are following Medicare and
industry standards.
There are known cost impacts
associated with this change:
1. One-time information technology
costs associated with changes to
Managed Care Support Contractors’
claims processing systems and one time
administrative costs associated with the
review change order and the assessment
of the impact on Claims Operations,
Customer Service, Provider
Administration and Contracts
Maintenance. The total one time
information technology and
administrative costs is estimated at
$88,208.
2. An annual cost of reprocessing
interim claims of $2,500.
3. An increase in health care costs to
account for using the weights and rates
in place on the date of discharge. Using
2009 claims data, it is estimated about
1,200 inpatient claims will span FYs.
Consequently, reimbursing using the
updated weights and rates in place for
the new FYs date of discharge is
expected to increase the payment for
approximately 1,200 claims with
estimated additional cost of $500,000
annually.
4. Total costs for this change equal
approximately $600,000.
IV. Regulatory Procedures
Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review’’ and Executive
Order 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation
and Regulatory Review’’
Section 801 of title 5, United States
Code, and Executive Orders 12866 and
13563 require certain regulatory
assessments and procedures for any
major rule or significant regulatory
action, defined as one that would result
in an annual effect of $100 million or
more on the national economy or which
would have other substantial impacts. It
has been certified that this rule is not
economically significant, and has been
reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget as required under the
provisions of E.O. 12866.
E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM
14FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 31 / Thursday, February 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Public Law 104–4, Section 202,
‘‘Unfunded Mandates Reform Act’’
PART 199—[AMENDED]
Section 202 of Public Law 104–4,
‘‘Unfunded Mandates Reform Act,’’
requires that an analysis be performed
to determine whether any federal
mandate may result in the expenditure
by State, local and tribal governments,
in the aggregate, or by the private sector
of $100 million in any one year. It has
been certified that this proposed rule
does not contain a Federal mandate that
may result in the expenditure by State,
local and tribal governments, in
aggregate, or by the private sector, of
$100 million or more in any one year,
and thus this proposed rule is not
subject to this requirement.
Public Law 96–354, ‘‘Regulatory
Flexibility Act’’ (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601)
Public Law 96–354, ‘‘Regulatory
Flexibility Act’’ (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601),
requires that each Federal agency
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis
when the agency issues a regulation
which would have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. This proposed rule is not an
economically significant regulatory
action, and it has been certified that it
will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Therefore, this proposed rule is not
subject to the requirements of the RFA.
Public Law 96–511, ‘‘Paperwork
Reduction Act’’ (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35)
This rule does not contain a
‘‘collection of information’’
requirement, and will not impose
additional information collection
requirements on the public under Public
Law 96–511, ‘‘Paperwork Reduction
Act’’ (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’
Claims, Dental health, Health care,
Health insurance, Individuals with
disabilities, Military personnel.
Accordingly, 32 CFR Part 199 is
amended as follows:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:13 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 229001
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 10 U.S.C. chapter
55.
2. Section 199.14 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(1)(i)(C)(3) to read
as follows:
■
§ 199.14 Provider Reimbursement
Methods
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) * * *
(3) Pricing of claims. All claims
reimbursed under the CHAMPUS DRGbased payment system are to be priced
as of the date of discharge, regardless of
when the claim is submitted.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: February 1, 2013.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer,
Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2013–03419 Filed 2–13–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
ARCHITECTURAL AND
TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS
COMPLIANCE BOARD
36 CFR Part 1192
RIN 3014–AA42
Rail Vehicles Access Advisory
Committee
Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance
Board.
ACTION: Notice of intent to establish
advisory committee.
AGENCY:
We, the Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance
Board (Access Board), plan to revise and
update our accessibility guidelines
issued pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act for transportation
vehicles that operate on fixed guideway
systems (e.g., rapid rail, light rail,
commuter rail, and intercity rail). We
are establishing a Rail Vehicles Access
Advisory Committee (Committee) to
make recommendations for revisions
and updates to the accessibility
guidelines. We request applications
from interested organizations for
representatives to serve on the
Committee.
SUMMARY:
E.O. 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ requires
that an impact analysis be performed to
determine whether the rule has
federalism implications that would have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. It has been
certified that this proposed rule does
not have federalism implications, as set
forth in E.O. 13132.
List of Subjects in 32 CFR part 199
1. The authority citation for Part 199
continues to read as follows:
■
DATES:
Submit applications by April 1,
2013.
Submit applications by any
of the following methods:
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
10581
• Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier: Paul
Beatty, Access Board, 1331 F Street
NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC
20004–1111.
• Fax: 202–272–0081.
• Email: rvaac@access-board.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul
Beatty, Access Board, 1331 F Street
NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC
20004–1111. Telephone: (202) 272–0012
(Voice) or (202) 272–0072 (TTY). Email
address: rvaac@access-board.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In this
notice, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to
the Architectural and Transportation
Barriers Compliance Board (Access
Board).
The Americans with Disabilities Act
requires us to issue guidelines to ensure
that transportation vehicles covered by
the statute are accessible to individuals
with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. 12204. Our
accessibility guidelines for
transportation vehicles form the basis
for legally enforceable accessibility
standards issued by the U.S. Department
of Transportation (DOT). Our
accessibility guidelines for
transportation vehicles are codified at
36 CFR part 1192; the DOT accessibility
standards for transportation vehicles are
codified at 49 CFR part 38.
We issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) in 2010 to revise
and update our accessibility guidelines
for buses, over-the-road buses, and vans.
75 FR 43748 (July 26, 2010). The NPRM
noted that we would revise and update
our accessibility guidelines for
transportation vehicles that operate on
fixed guideway systems (e.g., rapid rail,
light rail, commuter rail, and intercity
rail) at a future date. To begin the
process of revising and updating our
accessibility guidelines for
transportation vehicles that operate on
fixed guideway systems, we are
establishing a Rail Vehicles Access
Advisory Committee (Committee) to
make recommendations for revisions
and updates to the guidelines. We
request applications from
representatives of the following interests
for membership on the Committee:
• Manufacturers of transportation
vehicles that operate on fixed guideway
systems;
• Transportation providers that
operate fixed guideway systems;
• Organizations representing
individuals with disabilities; and
• Other entities whose interests may
be affected by the accessibility
guidelines.
Federal agencies may serve as exofficio members on the advisory
committee.
The number of Committee members
will be limited so that the Committee’s
E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM
14FEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 31 (Thursday, February 14, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10579-10581]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03419]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
32 CFR Part 199
[Docket ID DOD-2012-HA-0105]
RIN 0720-AB58
TRICARE Revision to CHAMPUS DRG-Based Payment System, Pricing of
Hospital Claims
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Department of Defense.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule proposes to change TRICARE's current regulatory
provision for hospital claims priced under the DRG-based payment
system. Claims are currently priced by using the rates and weights that
are in effect on a beneficiary's date of admission. This rule proposes
to change that provision to price such claims by using the rates and
weights that are in effect on a beneficiary's date of discharge.
DATES: Written comments received at the address indicated below by
April 15, 2013 will be accepted.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and or
Regulatory Information Number (RIN) number and title, by either of the
following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Federal Docket Management System Office, 4800 Mark
Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and
[[Page 10580]]
docket number or RIN for this Federal Register document. The general
policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is
to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet
at https://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change,
including any personal identifiers or contact information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Amber Butterfield, TRICARE
Management Activity, Medical Benefits and Reimbursement Systems,
telephone (303) 676-3565.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary and Overview
I. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
This rule proposes to amend the TRICARE/CHAMPUS regulatory
provision of pricing hospital claims that are reimbursed under the DRG-
based payment system from the beneficiary's date of admission, to
pricing such claims based on the beneficiary's date of discharge.
The TRICARE/CHAMPUS DRG-based payment system applies to hospitals,
unless such hospital is exempt by regulation from the payment system.
Under the TRICARE DRG-based payment system, payment for the operating
costs of inpatient hospital services subject to the payment system are
made on the basis of prospectively determined rates.
The TRICARE DRG-based payment system is modeled on the Medicare
Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS). Although many of the
procedures in the TRICARE DRG-based payment system are similar or
identical to the procedures in the Medicare IPPS, the actual payment
amounts, DRG weights, and certain procedures are different. This is
necessary because of the differences in the two programs, especially in
the beneficiary population.
Since the inception of the DRG-based payment system in 1987, claims
have been priced following the beneficiary's discharge by the hospital,
but using the rules, weights, and rates that were in effect on the
beneficiary's date of admission. That is, claims submitted for the
beneficiary's inpatient stay are grouped to a specific DRG, and the
pricing (i.e., payment rate) is determined by using the rules, weights
and rates that were in effect on the date of the beneficiary's
admission to the hospital. The August 31, 1988, Final Rule (53 FR
33461) published in the Federal Register explains TRICARE's decision to
utilize the date of admission to price claims. Using the date of
admission to price claims allowed hospitals to be reimbursed for
inpatient services under the same payment methodology they expected to
be used when the patient was admitted. Prior to implementation of the
DRG-based payment system, the hospital could expect to be reimbursed at
the billed charge rate since that was the method TRICARE used to
reimburse hospitals at that time. For patients admitted after
implementation of the DRG-based payment system, the hospital could
expect to be reimbursed using the DRG-based payment system. The Final
Rule continues by stating that since certain services were previously
excluded from the DRG-based system, but may have already involved an
interim bill prior to the effective date of the Final Rule, it would be
administratively difficult and fiscally unfair to hospitals, to attempt
to reconcile the total payments with the DRG-based allowed amounts. As
a result of the analysis at the time, the provision stated, ``except
for interim claims submitted for qualifying outlier cases, all claims
reimbursed under the CHAMPUS DRG-based payment system are to be priced
as of the date of admission, regardless of when the claim is
submitted.''
II. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action
The major provision of this proposed rule is to revise TRICARE's
regulation on the pricing of claims paid under the DRG-based payment
system. Claims are currently priced by using the rates and weights that
are in effect on a beneficiary's date of admission. This rule proposes
to change that provision to price such claims by using the rates and
weights that are in effect on a beneficiary's date of discharge.
In the early stages of the DRG-based payment system, the approach
of pricing claims based on the date of the beneficiary's admission to
the hospital was an effective operational policy for TRICARE. It is now
time, however, to revise this policy to be consistent with industry
standards. Medicare and other payers have an operational policy of
pricing all claims, to include interim claims, based on the date of
discharge. While pricing using the date of discharge applies to all
claims, it becomes an issue only for those relatively few claims that
span Fiscal Years (FY). That is, if an admission occurs on September
29, 2013, (FY 2013) and the discharge occurs on October 2, 2013,
(FY2014) the payment rate is currently based upon the DRG rates and
weights in effect on September 29, 2013, (FY2013) rather than on
October 2, 2013, (FY2014). Using this same example, if the provisions
of this proposed rule are made final and the date of discharge is used
to price the claim, the claim will be priced using the rates and
weights in place on October 2, 2013, (FY2014). The rates and weights
for the DRG-based payment system are updated every FY, and are based on
the previous year's TRICARE claims data.
III. Costs and Benefits
The benefits of this change include, aligning TRICARE pricing of
hospital claims practices with industry standards and enhancing
provider satisfaction because we are following Medicare and industry
standards.
There are known cost impacts associated with this change:
1. One-time information technology costs associated with changes to
Managed Care Support Contractors' claims processing systems and one
time administrative costs associated with the review change order and
the assessment of the impact on Claims Operations, Customer Service,
Provider Administration and Contracts Maintenance. The total one time
information technology and administrative costs is estimated at
$88,208.
2. An annual cost of reprocessing interim claims of $2,500.
3. An increase in health care costs to account for using the
weights and rates in place on the date of discharge. Using 2009 claims
data, it is estimated about 1,200 inpatient claims will span FYs.
Consequently, reimbursing using the updated weights and rates in place
for the new FYs date of discharge is expected to increase the payment
for approximately 1,200 claims with estimated additional cost of
$500,000 annually.
4. Total costs for this change equal approximately $600,000.
IV. Regulatory Procedures
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' and Executive
Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review''
Section 801 of title 5, United States Code, and Executive Orders
12866 and 13563 require certain regulatory assessments and procedures
for any major rule or significant regulatory action, defined as one
that would result in an annual effect of $100 million or more on the
national economy or which would have other substantial impacts. It has
been certified that this rule is not economically significant, and has
been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget as required under
the provisions of E.O. 12866.
[[Page 10581]]
Public Law 104-4, Section 202, ``Unfunded Mandates Reform Act''
Section 202 of Public Law 104-4, ``Unfunded Mandates Reform Act,''
requires that an analysis be performed to determine whether any federal
mandate may result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million
in any one year. It has been certified that this proposed rule does not
contain a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State,
local and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector,
of $100 million or more in any one year, and thus this proposed rule is
not subject to this requirement.
Public Law 96-354, ``Regulatory Flexibility Act'' (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601)
Public Law 96-354, ``Regulatory Flexibility Act'' (RFA) (5 U.S.C.
601), requires that each Federal agency prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis when the agency issues a regulation which would
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule is not an economically significant regulatory
action, and it has been certified that it will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, this
proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of the RFA.
Public Law 96-511, ``Paperwork Reduction Act'' (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35)
This rule does not contain a ``collection of information''
requirement, and will not impose additional information collection
requirements on the public under Public Law 96-511, ``Paperwork
Reduction Act'' (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism''
E.O. 13132, ``Federalism,'' requires that an impact analysis be
performed to determine whether the rule has federalism implications
that would have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. It has been certified that this proposed rule does not have
federalism implications, as set forth in E.O. 13132.
List of Subjects in 32 CFR part 199
Claims, Dental health, Health care, Health insurance, Individuals
with disabilities, Military personnel.
Accordingly, 32 CFR Part 199 is amended as follows:
PART 199--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for Part 199 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 10 U.S.C. chapter 55.
0
2. Section 199.14 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1)(i)(C)(3) to
read as follows:
Sec. 199.14 Provider Reimbursement Methods
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) * * *
(3) Pricing of claims. All claims reimbursed under the CHAMPUS DRG-
based payment system are to be priced as of the date of discharge,
regardless of when the claim is submitted.
* * * * *
Dated: February 1, 2013.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2013-03419 Filed 2-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P