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seek to enter into a new or amended merger agreement with B. A’s premerger notification filing is deemed to have been withdrawn on the date of the filing of the Form 8–K announcing the termination of the merger agreement.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 A’s premerger notification filing is deemed withdrawn on the date of the SEC filing as a result of that filing, even though the extended waiting period has expired and the parties are still within the one year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
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.