TRICARE; Reimbursement of Long Term Care Hospitals, 3926-3933 [2015-01242]
Download as PDF
3926
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Issued in Renton, Washington, on January
15, 2015.
John P. Piccola, Jr.,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015–01217 Filed 1–23–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 1
[REG–151416–06]
RIN 1545–BG21
Certain Distributions Treated as Sales
or Exchanges; Correction
Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Treasury.
ACTION: Correction to notice of proposed
rulemaking.
AGENCY:
This document contains
corrections to a notice of proposed
rulemaking (REG–151416–06) that was
published in the Federal Register on
Monday, November 3, 2014 (79 FR
65151), that prescribe how a partner
should measure its interest in a
partnership’s unrealized receivables and
inventory items, and that provide
guidance regarding the tax
consequences of a distribution that
causes a reduction in that interest.
DATES: Written or electronic comments
and request for a public hearing for the
notice of proposed rulemaking at 79 FR
65151, November 3, 2014, are still being
accepted and must be received by
February 2, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Allison R. Carmody, at (202) 317–5279
or Frank J. Fisher, at (202) 317–6850
(not a toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Background
The notice of proposed rulemaking
published Monday, November 3, 2014
(79 FR 65151), is under section 751(b)
of the Internal Revenue Code.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Need for Correction
As published, the notice of proposed
rulemaking (REG–151416–06) contains
errors that are misleading and are in
need of clarification.
Correction to Publication
Accordingly, the notice of proposed
rulemaking, FR Doc. 2014–25487,
beginning on page 65151 in the issue of
November 3, 2014, is corrected as
follows:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:26 Jan 23, 2015
Jkt 235001
1. On page 65152, in the preamble,
second column, twenty-fifth line from
the top of the column, the language
‘‘example, Rev. Rul. 84–102 (84–102
CB’’ is corrected to read ‘‘example, Rev.
Rul. 84–102 (1984–2 CB’’.
■ 2. On page 65154, in the preamble,
second column, sixth line from the
bottom of the second full paragraph, the
language ‘‘751(b) in situations in which
751(b)’’ is corrected to read ‘‘751(b) in
situations in which section 751(b)’’.
■ 3. On page 65155, in the preamble,
third column, first and second lines
from the bottom of the first full
paragraph, the language ‘‘must disclose
its position on Form 8275, Disclosure
Statement.’’ is corrected to read ‘‘must
disclose its position on Form 8275–R,
Regulation Disclosure Statement.’’.
■
§ 1.751–1
[Corrected]
4. On page 65160, second column,
sixteenth line of paragraph (b)(2)(ii), the
language ‘‘takes into account any
section 743 basis’’ is corrected to read
‘‘takes into account any section 743(b)
basis’’.
■ 5. On page 65160, third column, ninth
line of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A), the
language ‘‘taking into account any
section 743’’ is corrected to read ‘‘taking
into account any section 743(b)’’.
■ 6. On page 65163, second column, the
twenty-fourth through the twenty-sixth
lines of paragraph (f), the language ‘‘this
section consistently for all partnership
sales, exchanges, and distributions,
including for any’’ is corrected to read
‘‘this section, and proposed § 1.704–
1(b)(2)(iv)(f), consistently for all
partnership sales, exchanges, and
distributions occurring on or after
November 3, 2014, including for any’’.
■ 7. On page 65165, second column,
paragraph (g) Example 4. (ii)(B), the
eleventh line, the language
‘‘immediately before the distribution are
$25’’ is corrected to read ‘‘immediately
before the distribution is $25’’.
■
§ 1.755–1
[Corrected]
8. On page 65172, second column,
paragraph (c)(2)(vi), the twentieth line,
the language ‘‘and (v), would have
applied if no’’ is corrected to read ‘‘or
(v), would have applied if no’’.
■ 9. On page 65173, first column,
paragraph (c)(6) Example 2. (vi)(D), the
second line, the language ‘‘$9 remaining
section 743(b) adjustments is’’ is
corrected to ‘‘$9 remaining section
743(b) adjustment is’’.
■ 10. On page 65173, first column,
paragraph (c)(6) Example 2. (vi)(D), the
eighth line from the bottom of the
paragraph, the language ‘‘section 743(b)
adjustments is not taken into’’ is
■
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
corrected to ‘‘section 743(b) adjustment
is not taken into’’.
Martin V. Franks,
Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch,
Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief
Counsel (Procedure and Administration).
[FR Doc. 2015–01258 Filed 1–23–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
32 CFR Part 199
[DOD–2012–HA–0146]
RIN 0720–AB47
TRICARE; Reimbursement of Long
Term Care Hospitals
Office of the Secretary,
Department of Defense (DoD).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
This proposed rule requests
public comment on proposed
implementation for Long Term Care
Hospitals (LTCHs) the statutory
provision at title 10, United States Code
(U.S.C.), section 1079(j)(2) that
TRICARE payment methods for
institutional care be determined, to the
extent practicable, in accordance with
the same reimbursement rules as those
that apply to payments to providers of
services of the same type under
Medicare. This proposed rule sets forth
the proposed regulation modifications
necessary to implement a TRICARE
reimbursement methodology similar to
that applicable to Medicare beneficiaries
for inpatient services provided by
LTCHs.
SUMMARY:
Written comments received at
the address indicated below by March
27, 2015 will be accepted.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by docket number or
Regulatory Information Number (RIN)
and title, by either of the following
methods:
The Web site: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Federal Docket Management
System Office, Room 3C843, 1160
Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC
20301–1160.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
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://
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\26JAP1.SGM
26JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules
www.regulations.gov as they are
received without change, including any
personal identifiers or contact
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann
Fazzini, TRICARE Management Activity
(TMA), Medical Benefits and
Reimbursement Branch, telephone (303)
676–3803.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Executive Summary
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
A. Purpose of the Proposed Rule
The purpose of this proposed rule is
to publish proposed TRICARE
regulation modifications necessary to
implement for LTCHs the statutory
requirement that for TRICARE
institutional services ‘‘payments shall
be determined to the extent practicable
in accordance with the same
reimbursement rules as apply to
payments to providers of services of the
same type under [Medicare].’’ Medicare
pays LTCHs using a LTCH Prospective
Payment System (PPS) which classifies
Long Term Care (LTC) patients into
distinct Diagnosis-Related Groups
(DRG). The patient classification system
groupings are called Medicare Severity
Long Term Care Diagnosis Related
Groups (MS–LTC–DRGs), which are the
same DRGs used under the hospital
inpatient PPS, but that have been
weighted to reflect the resources
required to treat the medically complex
patients treated at LTCHs.
TRICARE pays for most hospital care
under the CHAMPUS DRG-based
payment system, which is similar to
Medicare’s, but some hospitals are
exempt from the CHAMPUS DRG-based
payment system. LTCHs are currently
exempt from the CHAMPUS DRG-based
payment system; they are paid their
billed charges or a discount from their
billed charges. Paying billed charges is
fiscally imprudent and inconsistent
with TRICARE’s governing statute.
Paying LTCHs under a method similar
to Medicare’s is prudent, practicable,
and harmonious with the statute. Our
legal authority for this proposed rule is
10 U.S.C. 1079(j)(2).
B. Summary of the Major Provisions of
the Proposed Rule
1. Implementation of a Prospective
Payment System Methodology for
LTCHs. TRICARE proposes to reimburse
LTCHs for inpatient care using a method
similar to Medicare’s LTCH PPS using
MS–LTC–DRGs. Under the proposed
TRICARE LTCH reimbursement method,
payment for a TRICARE patient will be
made at a predetermined, per-discharge
amount for each MS–LTC–DRG. The
TRICARE LTCH reimbursement method
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:26 Jan 23, 2015
Jkt 235001
would include payment for all inpatient
operating and capital costs of furnishing
covered services (including routine and
ancillary services), but not certain passthrough costs (e.g.—bad debts, direct
medical education, and blood clotting
factors).
2. Transition period. In the past when
implementing new reimbursement
systems, TRICARE has offered a
transition or phase-in period to buffer
revenue reductions experienced by
hospitals. For additional information,
we refer the reader to the final rule on
Sole Community Hospital (SCH)
reimbursement (78 FR 48303). The
phase-in period for SCHs was provided,
in part, to allow hospitals sufficient
time to adjust and budget for these
reductions. It also provided an incentive
for hospitals to remain in the network
by allowing a 5 percent difference in
payment reductions per year. More
importantly, the transition was allowed
by TRICARE because, by their nature,
SCHs were the only hospitals in specific
vicinities, so TRICARE patients were
dependent on them. In addition, some
SCHs rely heavily on TRICARE patients.
Neither of these situations is true for
LTCHs.
In analyzing TRICARE data for LTCH
admissions, we found reasons to forego
a transition or phase-in period. First,
LTCHs are not financially dependent on
TRICARE beneficiaries. Our data show
the average LTCH serving TRICARE
beneficiaries had less than four
admissions in Fiscal Year (FY) 12.
Seventeen LTCHs scattered across eight
states had 10 or more TRICARE
admissions in FY12 and the vast
majority of LTCHs had zero or one
TRICARE admission in that same fiscal
year. Second, out of the 227 LTCHs that
had TRICARE admissions in FY12,
about 75 percent of these hospitals
admitted four or fewer TRICARE
beneficiaries. In reviewing the allowed
amount paid by TRICARE to LTCHs,
allowed charges for non-TRICARE For
Life (TFL) beneficiaries were
approximately $71 million in FY12.
These allowed amounts were equal to
73 percent of billed charges, indicating
that there are significant discounts off of
the billed charge that are currently being
accepted by LTCHs. Considering the
low utilization of LTCHs by TRICARE
beneficiaries and the discounts LTCHs
are offering, we have concluded that
implementation of TRICARE LTCH
reimbursement methods similar to
Medicare will have little financial
impact on LTCHs. As a result, we are
foregoing a transition period, but invite
comments on this approach.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3927
C. Costs and Benefits
The economic impact of the proposed
rule is anticipated to reduce DoD
payments to LTCHs, for all TRICARE
beneficiaries by approximately $57
million during the first year of
implementation.
II. Introduction and Background
A. TRICARE LTCH Reimbursement
Per 32 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) 199.14(a)(1)(ii)(D)(4), LTCHs are
currently exempt from the TRICARE
DRG-based payment system, just as they
were exempt from Medicare’s Inpatient
Prospective Payment System (IPPS)
when the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services (CMS) initially
implemented its DRG-based payment
system. Because LTCHs are exempt from
the TRICARE DRG-based payment
system, and because there is no
alternate TRICARE reimbursement
mechanism in 32 CFR Part 199 at this
time, LTCH inpatient care provided to
TRICARE beneficiaries is currently paid
on the lower of a negotiated rate (if a
network hospital) or billed charges (if a
non-network hospital).
Medicare also created a PPS for
LTCHs effective with the cost reporting
period beginning on or after October 1,
2002. TRICARE often adopts Medicare’s
reimbursement methods but delays
implementation generally until any
transition phase is complete for the
Medicare program. CMS included a 5year transition period when it adopted
LTCH PPS for Medicare, under which
LTCHs could elect to be paid a blended
rate for a set period of time. This
transition period ended in 2006.
Following the transition phase,
Medicare adopted an LTCH-specific
DRG system, the MS–LTC–DRG, in
2008. The MS–LTC–DRG is still used as
the patient classification system for
LTCHs. Given TRICARE’s statutory
requirement to adopt Medicare’s
reimbursement methods when
practicable, TRICARE is proposing to
adopt a reimbursement method similar
to Medicare’s LTCH PPS for our
beneficiaries.
Under 10 U.S.C. 1079(j)(2), the
amount to be paid to hospitals, skilled
nursing facilities, and other institutional
providers under TRICARE, ‘‘shall be
determined to the extent practicable in
accordance with the same
reimbursement rules as apply to
payments to providers of services of the
same type under Medicare.’’
Patients with clinically complex
problems, such as multiple acute or
chronic conditions, may need hospital
care for an extended period of time.
LTCHs represent a relatively small
E:\FR\FM\26JAP1.SGM
26JAP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
3928
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules
number of hospitals (approximately 425
under Medicare), which treat a critically
ill population with complex needs.
The MS–LTC–DRG system under
Medicare’s LTCH PPS classifies patients
into distinct diagnostic groups based on
clinical characteristics and expected
resource needs. The patient
classification groupings, which are the
same groupings used under the
inpatient acute care hospital groupings
(i.e., MS–DRGs) are weighted to reflect
the resources required to treat the
medically complex patients who are
treated in LTCHs. By their nature,
LTCHs treat patients with comorbidities
requiring long-stay, hospital-level care.
For TRICARE, there were
approximately 700 non-TFL and 100
TFL LTCH admissions in FY 12 for
which TRICARE was the primary payer.
The average LTCH serving non-TFL
TRICARE beneficiaries had less than
four admissions in FY 12. TRICARE
non-TFL LTCH-allowed charges were
approximately $71 million in FY 12.
These allowed amounts are equal to 73
percent of billed charges, indicating that
there are significant discounts at LTCHs.
We found that the average allowed
amount for non-TFL beneficiaries was
almost $101,000 during FY 12, which is
significantly more than the estimated
amount that Medicare would have paid
for these discharges (the average
Medicare LTCH PPS payment would
have been less than $50,000). Thus,
using the Medicare LTCH–PPS system
would reduce TRICARE-allowed
amounts significantly, reducing
TRICARE payments by $40 million per
year for non-TFL beneficiaries.
For TFL beneficiaries for whom
TRICARE was the primary payer,
TRICARE paid approximately $23
million in FY 12. In cases where
TRICARE is the primary payer, such as
when a Medicare beneficiary exhausts
his/her day limits, TRICARE is paying
billed charges. Reimbursing using
methods similar to Medicare LTCH
reimbursement would reduce TRICARE
payments for TFL beneficiaries by
approximately $17 million per year.
Shifting to methods similar to
Medicare LTCH reimbursement would
reduce TRICARE payments to LTCHs for
non-TFL and TFL beneficiaries by $57
million during the first year of
implementation.
TRICARE currently pays LTCHs for
inpatient care in one of two ways:
(1) Network hospitals: Payment is an
amount equal to billed charges less a
negotiated discount. The discounted
reimbursement is usually substantially
greater than what would be paid using
the TRICARE DRG method, which
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:26 Jan 23, 2015
Jkt 235001
TRICARE generally uses to reimburse
hospitals for inpatient care; or
(2) Non-network hospitals: Payment is
equal to billed charges.
As discussed above TRICARE’s
current payment method results in
TRICARE reimbursing LTCHs
substantially more than Medicare does
for equivalent inpatient care. A change
is needed to conform to the statute.
Under 32 CFR 199.14(a)(l)(ii)(D)(4),
LTCHs are currently exempt from the
TRICARE DRG-based payment system.
Based on 10 U.S.C. 1079(j)(2), TRICARE
is proposing to adopt a reimbursement
method similar to Medicare’s LTCH PPS
as the methodology to reimburse
TRICARE LTCHs.
Establishing a TRICARE LTCH
inpatient reimbursement method similar
to Medicare is practicable. Even though
the beneficiary populations differ
between Medicare and TRICARE, we
have found that the distribution of
LTCH cases by diagnosis groups is
similar between TRICARE and
Medicare. Additionally, TRICARE has a
low volume of admissions to LTCHs, so
calculating weights and rates for
TRICARE admissions to LTCHs is
impracticable. We are able to calculate
our own weights for admissions to
general hospitals on an annual basis
because of the volume of TRICARE
admissions to general hospitals,
however, it would be difficult to
determine a new set of weights based on
a small admission population. For
example, only five MS–LTC–DRGs had
25 or more TRICARE admissions in FY
12 and only 17 had ten or more
TRICARE admissions in that year.
Consequently, we are proposing to
adopt the methods used currently in
Medicare’s MS–LTC–DRG
reimbursement system except for slight
differences in calculating short stay
outlier payments; and not adopting the
25 percent threshold payment
adjustment policy. TRICARE’s proposed
adoption of Medicare’s MS–LTC–DRG
reimbursement system includes
adoption of Medicare’s interrupted stay
policy and high-cost outlier payments.
Short Stay Outlier (SSO). For cases
with a very short length of stay,
Medicare uses an alternate method of
payment. For an SSO discharge, the
Medicare payment is based on the least
of the following:
• 100 percent of the estimated cost of
the case.
• 120 percent of the MS–LTC–DRG
specific per diem amount multiplied by
the covered length of stay of the
particular case.
• The full MS–LTC–DRG amount.
• A blend of the IPPS amount for the
same type of case and 120 percent of the
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
MS–LTC–DRG per diem amount (for
certain cases with relatively short
lengths of stay, the blend percentage for
the MS–LTC–DRG per diem portion is
zero percent and as such the blended
payment under this option is 100
percent of the IPPS amount).
To simplify, and because it is not
practicable for TRICARE to adopt
Medicare’s complex four step process
considering our low volume of LTCH
claims, we are proposing to adopt the
methodology of paying short stay
outliers at the lesser of: 1) Their cost
(i.e., 100 percent of the estimated cost of
the case) or 2) the full MS–LTC–DRG
amount. This approach is fair and
ensures that LTCH costs will be covered
for short stay outlier cases.
25 Percent Threshold Payment
Adjustment. In the FY 2005 Inpatient
Prospective Payment System (IPPS)
Final Rule, the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services (CMS) established a
special payment adjustment policy for
LTCHs as defined by section
1886(d)(1)(B)(iv)(I) of the Social
Security Act. This includes LTCHs that
are Hospitals-within-Hospitals (HwHs)
or satellites of an LTCH that is colocated with a host hospital or on the
campus (any facility within 250 yards of
the hospital).
This payment adjustment policy is
commonly called the ‘‘25 percent rule.’’
The 25 percent transfer rule provides a
financial penalty to LTCHs that receive
more than 25 percent of their patients
from any one acute care hospital. Given
the low number of TRICARE
admissions, this provision is not
practicable, and is unnecessary under
TRICARE.
We are also aware the Department of
Health and Human Services intends to
address implementation of Section
1206(a) of the Pathway for SGR Reform
Act of 2013 (Public Law 113–67) in the
FY 2016 rulemaking process. Section
1206(a) provides for the establishment
of patient criteria for ‘‘site neutral’’
payment rates under the LTCH PPS. The
Department of Defense proposes to defer
action on this issue pending review of
the final Medicare policy.
B. Pediatric Cases
Our analysis found that the TRICARE
and Medicare populations have similar
diagnoses and that the estimated
TRICARE costs in each MS–LTC–DRG
group are similar to those in Medicare.
There are very few TRICARE LTCH
cases for patients under age 17;
however, these pediatric cases have
similar diagnoses as other TRICARE
LTCH admissions. Therefore, we
propose to adopt the same MS–LTC–
DRG reimbursement for pediatric
E:\FR\FM\26JAP1.SGM
26JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules
patients as we are for all other TRICARE
beneficiaries.
We are inviting comments on this
proposal and welcome feedback on
whether the MS–LTC–DRG weights are
appropriate for pediatric cases. We also
welcome options and alternative
approaches for LTCH reimbursement for
pediatric beneficiaries.
III. Regulatory Impact Analysis
A. Overall Impact
DoD has examined the impacts of this
proposed rule as required by Executive
Orders (E.O.s) 12866 (September 1993,
Regulatory Planning and Review) and
13563 (January 18, 2011, Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review), the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
(September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96–354),
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (Pub. L. 104–4), and the
Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C.
804(2)).
1. Executive Order 12866 and Executive
Order 13563
E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies
to assess all costs and benefits of
available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select
regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health
and safety effects, distributive impacts,
and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the
importance of quantifying both costs
and benefits, of reducing costs, of
harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. A regulatory impact analysis
(RIA) must be prepared for major rules
with economically significant effects
($100 million or more in any one year).
We estimate that the effects of the
LTCH provisions that would be
implemented by this rule would not
result in LTCH revenue reductions
exceeding $100 million in any one year.
We estimate that this rulemaking is not
‘‘economically significant’’ as measured
by the $100 million threshold. However,
we have prepared a Regulatory Impact
Analysis that, to the best of our ability,
presents the costs and benefits of the
rulemaking.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2. Congressional Review Act. 5 U.S.C.
801
Under the Congressional Review Act,
a major rule may not take effect until at
least 60 days after submission to
Congress of a report regarding the rule.
A major rule is one that would have an
annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more or have certain other
impacts. This Notice of Proposed Rule
Making (NPRM) is not a major rule
under the Congressional Review Act.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:26 Jan 23, 2015
Jkt 235001
3. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
The RFA requires agencies to analyze
options for regulatory relief of small
businesses if a rule has a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. For purposes of the RFA, small
entities include small businesses,
nonprofit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions. Most
hospitals are considered to be small
entities, either by being nonprofit
organizations or by meeting the Small
Business Administration (SBA)
identification of a small business
(having revenues of $34.5 million or less
in any one year). For purposes of the
RFA, we have determined that all
LTCHs would be considered small
entities according to the SBA size
standards. Individuals and States are
not included in the definition of a small
entity. Therefore, this Rule would have
a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The
Regulatory Impact Analysis, as well as
the contents contained in the preamble,
also serves as the Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis.
4. Unfunded Mandates
Section 202 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also
requires that agencies assess anticipated
costs and benefits before issuing any
rule whose mandates require spending
in any one year of $100 million in 1995
dollars, updated annually for inflation.
That threshold level is currently
approximately $140 million. This
Proposed Rule will not mandate any
requirements for State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector.
5. Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule will not impose significant
additional information collection
requirements on the public under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3502–3511). Existing information
collection requirements of the TRICARE
and Medicare programs will be utilized.
We do not anticipate any increased
costs to hospitals because of paperwork,
billing, or software requirements since
we are keeping TRICARE’s billing/
coding requirements (i.e., hospitals will
be coding and filing claims in the same
manner as they currently are with
TRICARE).
6. Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’
This rule has been examined for its
impact under E.O. 13132, and it does
not contain policies that have
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
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3929
responsibilities among the various
levels of Government. Therefore,
consultation with State and local
officials is not required.
B. Hospitals Included In and Excluded
From the Proposed TRICARE LTCH
Reimbursement Methodology
The TRICARE LTCH reimbursement
system encompasses all TRICARE
authorized LTCHs that have inpatient
stays for TRICARE beneficiaries except
for hospitals in States that are paid by
Medicare and TRICARE under a waiver
that exempts them from Medicare’s
inpatient prospective payment system
or the CHAMPUS DRG-based payment
system, respectively. Currently, only
Maryland hospitals operate under such
a waiver.
C. Analysis of the Impact of TRICARE
LTCH Payment Reform on LTCHs
1. Methodology
We analyzed the impact of TRICARE
implementing a new method of payment
for LTCHs. The proposed method is
very similar to Medicare’s LTCH
payment method, which uses the
Medicare MS–LTC–DRG system. Our
analysis compares the payment impact
of the new methodology compared to
current TRICARE methodology (where
TRICARE pays billed charges or
discounts off of these billed charges for
all LTCH claims).
The data used in developing the
quantitative analyses presented below
are taken from TRICARE charge and
payment data from October 2011–
September 2012. Our analysis has
several qualifications. First, we drew
upon various sources for the data used
to categorize hospitals in Table 1,
below. We attempted to construct these
variables using information from
Medicare’s FY12 Impact file to verify
that each provider was in fact a
Medicare LTCH. For individual
hospitals, however, some
miscategorizations are possible. We
were unable to match 18 hospital claims
from 7 LTCHs to the FY12 Impact file,
and therefore excluded them from the
analysis. After we removed the
excluded claims which we could not
assign payment and hospital
classification variables for, we used the
remaining hospitals and claims as the
basis for our analysis. All Maryland
LTCHs were also excluded from the
analysis.
Using charge data from 2012, the
FY12 Medicare MS–LTC–DRG weights,
the FY12 Medicare national base
payment rate, the FY12 Medicare high
cost outlier fixed threshold, and the
FY12 wage index adjustment factors, we
E:\FR\FM\26JAP1.SGM
26JAP1
3930
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules
simulated TRICARE payments using the
proposed LTCH payment method. We
focused the analysis on TRICARE claims
where TRICARE was the primary payer
because only these TRICARE payments
will be affected by the proposed
reforms.
2. Effect on Hospitals
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Table 1, First Year Impact of
TRICARE LTCH proposed rule, below,
demonstrates the results of our analysis.
This table categorizes LTCHs which had
TRICARE inpatient stays in FY12 by
various geographic and special payment
consideration groups to illustrate the
varying impacts on different types of
LTCHs. The first column represents the
number of LTCHs in FY12 in each
category which had inpatient stays in
which TRICARE was the primary payer.
The second column shows the number
of TRICARE discharges in each category.
The third and fourth columns show the
average allowed amount per discharge
paid by TRICARE in FY12, and under
the proposed LTCH payment method.
The fifth column shows the percentage
impact of the policy change by showing
the percentage reduction in the
proposed allowed amounts relative to
the current allowed amounts.
The first row in Table 1 shows the
overall impact of the 227 LTCHs
included in the analysis. The next three
rows of the table contain hospitals
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:26 Jan 23, 2015
Jkt 235001
categorized according to their
geographic location (large urban, other
urban, and rural). The second major
grouping is by bed-size category,
followed by a grouping for TRICARE
network status. The fourth grouping
shows the LTCHs by regional Census
divisions while the final grouping is by
LTCH ownership status.
We estimate that in the first year of
implementation, TRICARE payments to
LTCHs will decrease by 61 percent
under the proposed LTCH payment
methodology in comparison to the
current TRICARE payment methodology
for LTCH claims. For all groups of
hospitals, payments under the proposed
payment methodology would be
reduced.
The following discussion highlights
some of the changes in payments among
LTCH classifications.
Ninety-eight percent of all TRICARE
LTCH admissions were to urban LTCHs.
Payments would decrease by 61 percent
for large urban, 63 percent for other
urban, and 58 percent for rural LTCHs.
Very small LTCHs (1–24 beds) would
have the least impact; payments would
be reduced by 49 percent. The change
in payment methodology would have a
slightly greater impact on medium-sized
LTCHs (50–124 beds), where payments
would be reduced by about 64 percent.
The change in LTCH payment
methodology would have a larger
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
impact on TRICARE non-network
LTCHs than network LTCHs. Payments
to non-network LTCHs would decline
by 71 percent, in comparison to 56
percent for in-network hospitals. There
is a smaller decline in TRICARE
payments for network hospitals because
these LTCHs provide discounts to
TRICARE, which means that their
allowed amounts are already lower. We
found that network hospitals on average
provide a 29 percent discount off billed
charges and that almost 77 percent of all
TRICARE LTCH discharges are innetwork.
LTCHs in various geographic areas
will be affected differently due to this
change in payment methodology. The
two regions with the largest number of
TRICARE claims, the South Atlantic and
West South Central region, would have
an average decrease of 62 and 61
percent respectively, which are very
similar to the overall average of 61
percent. LTCHs in the East North
Central and New England regions would
have the lowest reductions: 52 and 50
percent. Seventy-eight percent of all
TRICARE LTCH discharges in FY12
were in proprietary (for-profit) LTCHs,
and these facilities would have their
allowed amounts reduced by
approximately 63 percent. The decline
in allowed amounts for voluntary (notfor-profit) LTCHs would be less than
for-profit hospitals (57 percent).
E:\FR\FM\26JAP1.SGM
26JAP1
3931
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules
First Year Impact ofTRICARE LTCH Rule
Allowed per Allowed per
Discharge
Discharge
Number of Number of
(Current
(Medicare
Hospitals Discharges
Policy)
Method)
All LTCHs
Large Urban
Other Urban
Rural
227
799
119
99
9
452
331
16
Beds
1-24
25-34
35-49
50-74
75-124
125+
227
799
8
53
52
58
29
27
15
133
158
241
129
123
Network Status
Network
Non-Network
227
799
167
60
615
184
Region
New England
Mid Atlantic
South Atlantic
East North Central
East South Central
West North Central
West South Central
Mountain
Pacific
227
799
9
12
43
31
19
11
68
22
12
16
17
225
80
50
26
262
87
36
Ownership
Proprietary
Government Owned
Voluntary
227
799
180
5
42
625
12
162
Percent
Reduction
in Allowed
Amounts
(Medicare)
$118,313
$130,245
$104,693
$62,960
$45,818
$51,305
$39,254
$26,583
61%
61%
63%
58%
$118,313
$70,322
$110,915
$102,939
$122,152
$128,611
$133,590
$45,818
$36,020
$42,644
$44,645
$43,093
$47,691
$55,324
61%
49%
62%
57%
65%
63%
59%
$118,313
$98,171
$185,633
$45,818
$43,417
$53,841
61%
56%
71%
$118,313
$84,165
$174,619
$143,208
$85,300
$92,855
$120,767
$86,930
$123,410
$274,333
$45,818
$42,352
$39,285
$53,810
$40,781
$32,717
$40,459
$34,044
$55,947
$94,955
61%
50%
78%
62%
52%
65%
66%
61%
55%
65%
$118,313
$111,926
$60,539
$147,233
$45,818
$41,377
$32,068
$63,968
61%
63%
47%
57%
Source: TRICARE FY12 LTCH Claims and the FY12 Medicare Impact File.
3. Review for a Transition Period
We considered whether a transition
would be necessary to implement the
change in LTCH payment methodology
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:26 Jan 23, 2015
Jkt 235001
for TRICARE claims. For the following
reasons, we have determined, that a
transition period is unnecessary.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
First, the TRICARE payments to
LTCHs will be equal to or, for short stay
outlier cases, TRICARE payments may
be greater than Medicare’s LTCH
E:\FR\FM\26JAP1.SGM
26JAP1
EP26JA15.000
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Note: Excludes 18 LTCH claims from 7 LTCHs where we were unable to match LTCH claims to the
FY12 Medicare Impact File
3932
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
payments. TRICARE’s short-stay outlier
payments will be based on costs, which
is at least as generous as Medicare’s
short-stay outlier payments. The
Medicare Payment Advisory Committee
(MedPAC) is an independent
congressional agency to advise the U.S.
Congress on issues affecting the
Medicare program. MedPAC’s most
recent research indicates that Medicare
LTCHs have a positive margin. Thus, we
believe that paying LTCHs amounts that
are at least as generous as Medicare do
not require a transition.
Second, the number of TRICARE
discharges from LTCHs is very small in
comparison to the number of Medicare
discharges in LTCHs each year. In FY12,
there were 799 discharges to LTCHs in
which TRICARE was the primary payer.
Medicare, in comparison, had
approximately 134,700 discharges to
LTCHs in 2010. Thus, in aggregate, the
TRICARE LTCH claims are a very small
percentage of the industry’s claims
(about one-half of a percent).
Third, we also found that in FY12
there were only 17 LTCHs with 10 or
more TRICARE admissions. For these 17
LTCHs, we found that TRICARE
admissions accounted for less than 4
percent of the Medicare discharges at
those LTCHs. More importantly, at none
of the 17 LTCHs did the TRICARE LTCH
discharges (where TRICARE was the
primary payer) exceed 5 percent of the
LTCH’s discharges. Because the number
of TRICARE discharges at any one LTCH
is so small and such a small portion of
their LTCH business, a transition period
is not required.
Fourth, for the reasons cited above,
we do not think that there will be access
problems for TRICARE beneficiaries. In
addition, we note that MedPAC has
concluded that Medicare beneficiaries
have continued access to LTCHs as
evidenced by an increasing supply of
providers and an increasing number of
LTCH stays. Given that the TRICARE
LTCH rates will equal or exceed
Medicare LTCH rates, we do not
anticipate access problems for TRICARE
beneficiaries. Further, by statute,
hospitals that participate under
Medicare are required to agree to accept
TRICARE reimbursement.
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
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 199—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 199
continues to read as follows:
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:26 Jan 23, 2015
Jkt 235001
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 10 U.S.C. chapter
55.
2. In § 199.2, amend paragraph (b) by
adding a definition of ‘‘Long Term Care
Hospital’’ in alphabetical order to read
as follows:
■
§ 199.2
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
Long Term Care Hospital (LTCH). A
hospital that is designated by the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services (CMS) as a LTCH and meets the
applicable requirements established by
§ 199.6(b)(4)(xviii).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. In § 199.6, add paragraph
(b)(4)(xviii) to read as follows:
§ 199.6
TRICARE—authorized providers.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(4) * * *
(xviii) Long Term Care Hospital
(LTCH). LTCHs must meet all the
criteria for classification as an LTCH
under 42 CFR part 412, subpart O, as
well as all of the requirements of this
part in order to be considered an
authorized LTCH under the TRICARE
program.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. Section 199.14 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(D)(4) and
adding paragraph (a)(9) to read as
follows:
The revisions and addition read as
follows:
§ 199.14 Provider reimbursement
methods.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(D) * * *
(4) Long Term Care Hospitals. Prior to
implementation of the CHAMPUS
reimbursement method described in
paragraph (a)(9) of this section, a long
term care hospital which is exempt from
the Medicare prospective payment
system is also exempt from the
CHAMPUS DRG-based payment system.
In order for a long term hospital which
does not participate in Medicare to be
exempt from the CHAMPUS DRG-based
payment system, it must meet the same
criteria (as determined by the Director,
DHA, or a designee) as required for
exemption from the Medicare
Prospective Payment System as
contained in 42 CFR 412.23.
*
*
*
*
*
(9) Reimbursement for inpatient
services provided by an LTCH. (i) In
accordance with 10 U.S.C. 1079(j)(2),
TRICARE payment methods for
institutional care shall be determined, to
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the extent practicable, in accordance
with the same reimbursement rules as
those that apply to payments to
providers of services of the same type
under Medicare. The CHAMPUS–LTC–
DRG reimbursement methodology shall
be in accordance with Medicare’s
Medicare Severity Long Term Care
Diagnosis Related Groups (MS–LTC–
DRGs) as found in regulation at 42 CFR
part 412, subpart O. Inpatient services
provided in hospitals subject to the
Medicare LTCH reimbursement
methodology as specified in 42 CFR
parts 412 and 413 will be paid in
accordance with the provisions outlined
in sections 1886(d)(1)(B)(IV) of the
Social Security Act and its
implementing Medicare regulation (42
CFR parts 412 and 413) to the extent
practicable. Under the above governing
provisions, CHAMPUS will recognize,
to the extent practicable, in accordance
with 10 U.S.C. 1079(j)(2), Medicare’s
MS–LTC–DRG methodology to include,
the relative weights, inpatient operating
and capital costs of furnishing covered
services (including routine and ancillary
services), interrupted stay policy, high
cost outlier payments, wage adjustments
for variations in labor-related costs
across geographical regions, cost-ofliving adjustments, and updates to the
system.
(ii) While CHAMPUS intends to
remain as true as possible to Medicare’s
MS–LTC–DRG methodology, there will
be some deviations required to
accommodate CHAMPUS’ unique
benefit structure and beneficiary
population as authorized under the
provisions of 10 U.S.C.1079(j)(2).
(A) Due to TRICARE’s low claim
volume admissions to LTCHs, TRICARE
will not adopt the 25 percent threshold
rule.
(B) Rather than adopting Medicare’s
four-step process for short-stay outliers,
TRICARE shall pay short-stay outliers at
the lesser of:
(1) One hundred (100) percent of
costs; or
(2) The full LTCH DRG amount. The
100 percent of costs will be based on the
LTCH’s billed charge multiplied by the
LTCH’s most recent cost-to-charge ratio
as determined by the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services.
(C) The criteria for adopting,
modifying, and/or extending deviations
and/or adjustments to the MS–LTC–
DRG payments shall be issued through
CHAMPUS policies, instructions,
procedures and guidelines as deemed
appropriate by the Director, DHA, or a
designee.
(iii) Exemption. The TRICARE LTCH
reimbursement methodology under this
paragraph does not apply to hospitals
E:\FR\FM\26JAP1.SGM
26JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules
paid in States that are paid by Medicare
and TRICARE under a waiver that
exempts them from Medicare’s inpatient
prospective payment system or the
CHAMPUS DRG-based payment system,
respectively.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: January 20, 2015.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison
Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2015–01242 Filed 1–23–15; 8:45 am]
comments. To avoid duplication, please
use only one of these methods.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Ms. Kashanda Booker,
Bridge Specialist; telephone 757–398–
6227; email Kashanda.l.booker@
uscg.mil. If you have questions on
viewing or submitting material to the
docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202–366–9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
Table of Acronyms
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
§
Section Symbol
U.S.C.
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG–2014–0483]
RIN 1625–AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation;
Chincoteague Channel, Chincoteague,
VA
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard proposes to
change the operating schedule that
governs the SR 175 Bridge across Lewis
Channel and Black Narrows, mile 3.5 at
Chincoteague, VA. The proposed change
would eliminate the need for the current
special operating schedule and return
the bridge to open on demand. The
proposed change does not include the
last consecutive Wednesday and
Thursday in July for the annual Pony
swim.
SUMMARY:
Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
March 12, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2014–0483 using any one of the
following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov.
(2) Fax: 202–493–2251.
(3) Mail or Delivery: Docket
Management Facility (M–30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590–0001. Deliveries
accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. The telephone number is 202–
366–9329.
See the ‘‘Public Participation and
Request for Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below for instructions on submitting
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
DATES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:26 Jan 23, 2015
Jkt 235001
United States Code
A. Public Participation and Request for
Comments
We encourage you to participate in
this proposed rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All
comments received will be posted,
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you have
provided.
1. Submitting Comments
If you submit a comment, please
include the docket number for this
proposed rulemaking (USCG–2014–
0483), indicate the specific section of
this document to which each comment
applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You
may submit your comments and
material online (https://
www.regulations.gov), or by fax, mail or
hand delivery, but please use only one
of these means. If you submit a
comment online via https://
www.regulations.gov, it will be
considered received by the Coast Guard
when you successfully transmit the
comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or
mail your comment, it will be
considered as having been received by
the Coast Guard when it is received at
the Docket Management Facility. We
recommend that you include your name
and a mailing address, an email address,
or a phone number in the body of your
document so that we can contact you if
we have questions regarding your
submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
https://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number [USCG–2014–0483] in
the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click
‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on ‘‘Submit a
Comment’’ on the line associated with
this rulemaking. If you submit your
comments by mail or hand delivery,
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3933
submit them in an unbound format, no
larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you
submit them by mail and would like to
know that they reached the Facility,
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed
postcard or envelope. We will consider
all comments and material received
during the comment period and may
change the rule based on your
comments.
2. Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to
https://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number (USCG–2014–0483) in
the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click
‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket
Folder on the line associated with this
rulemaking. You may also visit the
Docket Management Facility in Room
W12–140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
3. Privacy Act
Anyone can search the electronic
form of comments received into any of
our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on
behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review a Privacy
Act notice regarding our public dockets
in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).
4. Public Meeting
We do not now plan to hold a public
meeting. You may submit a request for
one using one of the methods specified
under ADDRESSES. Please explain why
one would be beneficial. If we
determine that one would aid this
rulemaking, we will hold one at a time
and place announced by a later notice
in the Federal Register .
B. Regulatory History and Information
On July 14, 2014 the Coast Guard
published a test deviation with request
for comments, entitled ‘‘Drawbridge
Elizabeth River, Eastern Branch, VA’’.
79 FR 40638. The bridge operated under
this NPRM’s proposed schedule from
August 4, 2014 to November 3, 2014. No
comments were received.
C. Basis and Purpose
Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDOT), who owns and operates SR 175
Bridge across Lewis Channel and Black
Narrows, mile 3.5, at Chincoteague, VA
has requested to change the existing
E:\FR\FM\26JAP1.SGM
26JAP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 16 (Monday, January 26, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3926-3933]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01242]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
32 CFR Part 199
[DOD-2012-HA-0146]
RIN 0720-AB47
TRICARE; Reimbursement of Long Term Care Hospitals
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Department of Defense (DoD).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule requests public comment on proposed
implementation for Long Term Care Hospitals (LTCHs) the statutory
provision at title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), section 1079(j)(2)
that TRICARE payment methods for institutional care be determined, to
the extent practicable, in accordance with the same reimbursement rules
as those that apply to payments to providers of services of the same
type under Medicare. This proposed rule sets forth the proposed
regulation modifications necessary to implement a TRICARE reimbursement
methodology similar to that applicable to Medicare beneficiaries for
inpatient services provided by LTCHs.
DATES: Written comments received at the address indicated below by
March 27, 2015 will be accepted.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number or
Regulatory Information Number (RIN) and title, by either of the
following methods:
The Web site: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions
for submitting comments.
Mail: Federal Docket Management System Office, Room 3C843, 1160
Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1160.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and 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://
[[Page 3927]]
www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any
personal identifiers or contact information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann Fazzini, TRICARE Management
Activity (TMA), Medical Benefits and Reimbursement Branch, telephone
(303) 676-3803.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of the Proposed Rule
The purpose of this proposed rule is to publish proposed TRICARE
regulation modifications necessary to implement for LTCHs the statutory
requirement that for TRICARE institutional services ``payments shall be
determined to the extent practicable in accordance with the same
reimbursement rules as apply to payments to providers of services of
the same type under [Medicare].'' Medicare pays LTCHs using a LTCH
Prospective Payment System (PPS) which classifies Long Term Care (LTC)
patients into distinct Diagnosis-Related Groups (DRG). The patient
classification system groupings are called Medicare Severity Long Term
Care Diagnosis Related Groups (MS-LTC-DRGs), which are the same DRGs
used under the hospital inpatient PPS, but that have been weighted to
reflect the resources required to treat the medically complex patients
treated at LTCHs.
TRICARE pays for most hospital care under the CHAMPUS DRG-based
payment system, which is similar to Medicare's, but some hospitals are
exempt from the CHAMPUS DRG-based payment system. LTCHs are currently
exempt from the CHAMPUS DRG-based payment system; they are paid their
billed charges or a discount from their billed charges. Paying billed
charges is fiscally imprudent and inconsistent with TRICARE's governing
statute. Paying LTCHs under a method similar to Medicare's is prudent,
practicable, and harmonious with the statute. Our legal authority for
this proposed rule is 10 U.S.C. 1079(j)(2).
B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Proposed Rule
1. Implementation of a Prospective Payment System Methodology for
LTCHs. TRICARE proposes to reimburse LTCHs for inpatient care using a
method similar to Medicare's LTCH PPS using MS-LTC-DRGs. Under the
proposed TRICARE LTCH reimbursement method, payment for a TRICARE
patient will be made at a predetermined, per-discharge amount for each
MS-LTC-DRG. The TRICARE LTCH reimbursement method would include payment
for all inpatient operating and capital costs of furnishing covered
services (including routine and ancillary services), but not certain
pass-through costs (e.g.--bad debts, direct medical education, and
blood clotting factors).
2. Transition period. In the past when implementing new
reimbursement systems, TRICARE has offered a transition or phase-in
period to buffer revenue reductions experienced by hospitals. For
additional information, we refer the reader to the final rule on Sole
Community Hospital (SCH) reimbursement (78 FR 48303). The phase-in
period for SCHs was provided, in part, to allow hospitals sufficient
time to adjust and budget for these reductions. It also provided an
incentive for hospitals to remain in the network by allowing a 5
percent difference in payment reductions per year. More importantly,
the transition was allowed by TRICARE because, by their nature, SCHs
were the only hospitals in specific vicinities, so TRICARE patients
were dependent on them. In addition, some SCHs rely heavily on TRICARE
patients. Neither of these situations is true for LTCHs.
In analyzing TRICARE data for LTCH admissions, we found reasons to
forego a transition or phase-in period. First, LTCHs are not
financially dependent on TRICARE beneficiaries. Our data show the
average LTCH serving TRICARE beneficiaries had less than four
admissions in Fiscal Year (FY) 12. Seventeen LTCHs scattered across
eight states had 10 or more TRICARE admissions in FY12 and the vast
majority of LTCHs had zero or one TRICARE admission in that same fiscal
year. Second, out of the 227 LTCHs that had TRICARE admissions in FY12,
about 75 percent of these hospitals admitted four or fewer TRICARE
beneficiaries. In reviewing the allowed amount paid by TRICARE to
LTCHs, allowed charges for non-TRICARE For Life (TFL) beneficiaries
were approximately $71 million in FY12. These allowed amounts were
equal to 73 percent of billed charges, indicating that there are
significant discounts off of the billed charge that are currently being
accepted by LTCHs. Considering the low utilization of LTCHs by TRICARE
beneficiaries and the discounts LTCHs are offering, we have concluded
that implementation of TRICARE LTCH reimbursement methods similar to
Medicare will have little financial impact on LTCHs. As a result, we
are foregoing a transition period, but invite comments on this
approach.
C. Costs and Benefits
The economic impact of the proposed rule is anticipated to reduce
DoD payments to LTCHs, for all TRICARE beneficiaries by approximately
$57 million during the first year of implementation.
II. Introduction and Background
A. TRICARE LTCH Reimbursement
Per 32 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 199.14(a)(1)(ii)(D)(4),
LTCHs are currently exempt from the TRICARE DRG-based payment system,
just as they were exempt from Medicare's Inpatient Prospective Payment
System (IPPS) when the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
initially implemented its DRG-based payment system. Because LTCHs are
exempt from the TRICARE DRG-based payment system, and because there is
no alternate TRICARE reimbursement mechanism in 32 CFR Part 199 at this
time, LTCH inpatient care provided to TRICARE beneficiaries is
currently paid on the lower of a negotiated rate (if a network
hospital) or billed charges (if a non-network hospital).
Medicare also created a PPS for LTCHs effective with the cost
reporting period beginning on or after October 1, 2002. TRICARE often
adopts Medicare's reimbursement methods but delays implementation
generally until any transition phase is complete for the Medicare
program. CMS included a 5-year transition period when it adopted LTCH
PPS for Medicare, under which LTCHs could elect to be paid a blended
rate for a set period of time. This transition period ended in 2006.
Following the transition phase, Medicare adopted an LTCH-specific DRG
system, the MS-LTC-DRG, in 2008. The MS-LTC-DRG is still used as the
patient classification system for LTCHs. Given TRICARE's statutory
requirement to adopt Medicare's reimbursement methods when practicable,
TRICARE is proposing to adopt a reimbursement method similar to
Medicare's LTCH PPS for our beneficiaries.
Under 10 U.S.C. 1079(j)(2), the amount to be paid to hospitals,
skilled nursing facilities, and other institutional providers under
TRICARE, ``shall be determined to the extent practicable in accordance
with the same reimbursement rules as apply to payments to providers of
services of the same type under Medicare.''
Patients with clinically complex problems, such as multiple acute
or chronic conditions, may need hospital care for an extended period of
time. LTCHs represent a relatively small
[[Page 3928]]
number of hospitals (approximately 425 under Medicare), which treat a
critically ill population with complex needs.
The MS-LTC-DRG system under Medicare's LTCH PPS classifies patients
into distinct diagnostic groups based on clinical characteristics and
expected resource needs. The patient classification groupings, which
are the same groupings used under the inpatient acute care hospital
groupings (i.e., MS-DRGs) are weighted to reflect the resources
required to treat the medically complex patients who are treated in
LTCHs. By their nature, LTCHs treat patients with comorbidities
requiring long-stay, hospital-level care.
For TRICARE, there were approximately 700 non-TFL and 100 TFL LTCH
admissions in FY 12 for which TRICARE was the primary payer. The
average LTCH serving non-TFL TRICARE beneficiaries had less than four
admissions in FY 12. TRICARE non-TFL LTCH-allowed charges were
approximately $71 million in FY 12. These allowed amounts are equal to
73 percent of billed charges, indicating that there are significant
discounts at LTCHs. We found that the average allowed amount for non-
TFL beneficiaries was almost $101,000 during FY 12, which is
significantly more than the estimated amount that Medicare would have
paid for these discharges (the average Medicare LTCH PPS payment would
have been less than $50,000). Thus, using the Medicare LTCH-PPS system
would reduce TRICARE-allowed amounts significantly, reducing TRICARE
payments by $40 million per year for non-TFL beneficiaries.
For TFL beneficiaries for whom TRICARE was the primary payer,
TRICARE paid approximately $23 million in FY 12. In cases where TRICARE
is the primary payer, such as when a Medicare beneficiary exhausts his/
her day limits, TRICARE is paying billed charges. Reimbursing using
methods similar to Medicare LTCH reimbursement would reduce TRICARE
payments for TFL beneficiaries by approximately $17 million per year.
Shifting to methods similar to Medicare LTCH reimbursement would
reduce TRICARE payments to LTCHs for non-TFL and TFL beneficiaries by
$57 million during the first year of implementation.
TRICARE currently pays LTCHs for inpatient care in one of two ways:
(1) Network hospitals: Payment is an amount equal to billed charges
less a negotiated discount. The discounted reimbursement is usually
substantially greater than what would be paid using the TRICARE DRG
method, which TRICARE generally uses to reimburse hospitals for
inpatient care; or
(2) Non-network hospitals: Payment is equal to billed charges.
As discussed above TRICARE's current payment method results in
TRICARE reimbursing LTCHs substantially more than Medicare does for
equivalent inpatient care. A change is needed to conform to the
statute.
Under 32 CFR 199.14(a)(l)(ii)(D)(4), LTCHs are currently exempt
from the TRICARE DRG-based payment system. Based on 10 U.S.C.
1079(j)(2), TRICARE is proposing to adopt a reimbursement method
similar to Medicare's LTCH PPS as the methodology to reimburse TRICARE
LTCHs.
Establishing a TRICARE LTCH inpatient reimbursement method similar
to Medicare is practicable. Even though the beneficiary populations
differ between Medicare and TRICARE, we have found that the
distribution of LTCH cases by diagnosis groups is similar between
TRICARE and Medicare. Additionally, TRICARE has a low volume of
admissions to LTCHs, so calculating weights and rates for TRICARE
admissions to LTCHs is impracticable. We are able to calculate our own
weights for admissions to general hospitals on an annual basis because
of the volume of TRICARE admissions to general hospitals, however, it
would be difficult to determine a new set of weights based on a small
admission population. For example, only five MS-LTC-DRGs had 25 or more
TRICARE admissions in FY 12 and only 17 had ten or more TRICARE
admissions in that year. Consequently, we are proposing to adopt the
methods used currently in Medicare's MS-LTC-DRG reimbursement system
except for slight differences in calculating short stay outlier
payments; and not adopting the 25 percent threshold payment adjustment
policy. TRICARE's proposed adoption of Medicare's MS-LTC-DRG
reimbursement system includes adoption of Medicare's interrupted stay
policy and high-cost outlier payments.
Short Stay Outlier (SSO). For cases with a very short length of
stay, Medicare uses an alternate method of payment. For an SSO
discharge, the Medicare payment is based on the least of the following:
100 percent of the estimated cost of the case.
120 percent of the MS-LTC-DRG specific per diem amount
multiplied by the covered length of stay of the particular case.
The full MS-LTC-DRG amount.
A blend of the IPPS amount for the same type of case and
120 percent of the MS-LTC-DRG per diem amount (for certain cases with
relatively short lengths of stay, the blend percentage for the MS-LTC-
DRG per diem portion is zero percent and as such the blended payment
under this option is 100 percent of the IPPS amount).
To simplify, and because it is not practicable for TRICARE to adopt
Medicare's complex four step process considering our low volume of LTCH
claims, we are proposing to adopt the methodology of paying short stay
outliers at the lesser of: 1) Their cost (i.e., 100 percent of the
estimated cost of the case) or 2) the full MS-LTC-DRG amount. This
approach is fair and ensures that LTCH costs will be covered for short
stay outlier cases.
25 Percent Threshold Payment Adjustment. In the FY 2005 Inpatient
Prospective Payment System (IPPS) Final Rule, the Centers for Medicare
& Medicaid Services (CMS) established a special payment adjustment
policy for LTCHs as defined by section 1886(d)(1)(B)(iv)(I) of the
Social Security Act. This includes LTCHs that are Hospitals-within-
Hospitals (HwHs) or satellites of an LTCH that is co-located with a
host hospital or on the campus (any facility within 250 yards of the
hospital).
This payment adjustment policy is commonly called the ``25 percent
rule.'' The 25 percent transfer rule provides a financial penalty to
LTCHs that receive more than 25 percent of their patients from any one
acute care hospital. Given the low number of TRICARE admissions, this
provision is not practicable, and is unnecessary under TRICARE.
We are also aware the Department of Health and Human Services
intends to address implementation of Section 1206(a) of the Pathway for
SGR Reform Act of 2013 (Public Law 113-67) in the FY 2016 rulemaking
process. Section 1206(a) provides for the establishment of patient
criteria for ``site neutral'' payment rates under the LTCH PPS. The
Department of Defense proposes to defer action on this issue pending
review of the final Medicare policy.
B. Pediatric Cases
Our analysis found that the TRICARE and Medicare populations have
similar diagnoses and that the estimated TRICARE costs in each MS-LTC-
DRG group are similar to those in Medicare. There are very few TRICARE
LTCH cases for patients under age 17; however, these pediatric cases
have similar diagnoses as other TRICARE LTCH admissions. Therefore, we
propose to adopt the same MS-LTC-DRG reimbursement for pediatric
[[Page 3929]]
patients as we are for all other TRICARE beneficiaries.
We are inviting comments on this proposal and welcome feedback on
whether the MS-LTC-DRG weights are appropriate for pediatric cases. We
also welcome options and alternative approaches for LTCH reimbursement
for pediatric beneficiaries.
III. Regulatory Impact Analysis
A. Overall Impact
DoD has examined the impacts of this proposed rule as required by
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 (September 1993, Regulatory Planning and
Review) and 13563 (January 18, 2011, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19,
1980, Pub. L. 96-354), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub.
L. 104-4), and the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)).
1. Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563
E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and
benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety
effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the
importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs,
of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. A regulatory impact
analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules with economically
significant effects ($100 million or more in any one year).
We estimate that the effects of the LTCH provisions that would be
implemented by this rule would not result in LTCH revenue reductions
exceeding $100 million in any one year. We estimate that this
rulemaking is not ``economically significant'' as measured by the $100
million threshold. However, we have prepared a Regulatory Impact
Analysis that, to the best of our ability, presents the costs and
benefits of the rulemaking.
2. Congressional Review Act. 5 U.S.C. 801
Under the Congressional Review Act, a major rule may not take
effect until at least 60 days after submission to Congress of a report
regarding the rule. A major rule is one that would have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million or more or have certain other
impacts. This Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) is not a major rule
under the Congressional Review Act.
3. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief
of small businesses if a rule has a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. For purposes of the RFA, small entities
include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions. Most hospitals are considered to be small
entities, either by being nonprofit organizations or by meeting the
Small Business Administration (SBA) identification of a small business
(having revenues of $34.5 million or less in any one year). For
purposes of the RFA, we have determined that all LTCHs would be
considered small entities according to the SBA size standards.
Individuals and States are not included in the definition of a small
entity. Therefore, this Rule would have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The Regulatory Impact Analysis,
as well as the contents contained in the preamble, also serves as the
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
4. Unfunded Mandates
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also
requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before
issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any one year of
$100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. That
threshold level is currently approximately $140 million. This Proposed
Rule will not mandate any requirements for State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector.
5. Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule will not impose significant additional information
collection requirements on the public under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3502-3511). Existing information collection
requirements of the TRICARE and Medicare programs will be utilized. We
do not anticipate any increased costs to hospitals because of
paperwork, billing, or software requirements since we are keeping
TRICARE's billing/coding requirements (i.e., hospitals will be coding
and filing claims in the same manner as they currently are with
TRICARE).
6. Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism''
This rule has been examined for its impact under E.O. 13132, and it
does not contain policies that have 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.
Therefore, consultation with State and local officials is not required.
B. Hospitals Included In and Excluded From the Proposed TRICARE LTCH
Reimbursement Methodology
The TRICARE LTCH reimbursement system encompasses all TRICARE
authorized LTCHs that have inpatient stays for TRICARE beneficiaries
except for hospitals in States that are paid by Medicare and TRICARE
under a waiver that exempts them from Medicare's inpatient prospective
payment system or the CHAMPUS DRG-based payment system, respectively.
Currently, only Maryland hospitals operate under such a waiver.
C. Analysis of the Impact of TRICARE LTCH Payment Reform on LTCHs
1. Methodology
We analyzed the impact of TRICARE implementing a new method of
payment for LTCHs. The proposed method is very similar to Medicare's
LTCH payment method, which uses the Medicare MS-LTC-DRG system. Our
analysis compares the payment impact of the new methodology compared to
current TRICARE methodology (where TRICARE pays billed charges or
discounts off of these billed charges for all LTCH claims).
The data used in developing the quantitative analyses presented
below are taken from TRICARE charge and payment data from October 2011-
September 2012. Our analysis has several qualifications. First, we drew
upon various sources for the data used to categorize hospitals in Table
1, below. We attempted to construct these variables using information
from Medicare's FY12 Impact file to verify that each provider was in
fact a Medicare LTCH. For individual hospitals, however, some
miscategorizations are possible. We were unable to match 18 hospital
claims from 7 LTCHs to the FY12 Impact file, and therefore excluded
them from the analysis. After we removed the excluded claims which we
could not assign payment and hospital classification variables for, we
used the remaining hospitals and claims as the basis for our analysis.
All Maryland LTCHs were also excluded from the analysis.
Using charge data from 2012, the FY12 Medicare MS-LTC-DRG weights,
the FY12 Medicare national base payment rate, the FY12 Medicare high
cost outlier fixed threshold, and the FY12 wage index adjustment
factors, we
[[Page 3930]]
simulated TRICARE payments using the proposed LTCH payment method. We
focused the analysis on TRICARE claims where TRICARE was the primary
payer because only these TRICARE payments will be affected by the
proposed reforms.
2. Effect on Hospitals
Table 1, First Year Impact of TRICARE LTCH proposed rule, below,
demonstrates the results of our analysis. This table categorizes LTCHs
which had TRICARE inpatient stays in FY12 by various geographic and
special payment consideration groups to illustrate the varying impacts
on different types of LTCHs. The first column represents the number of
LTCHs in FY12 in each category which had inpatient stays in which
TRICARE was the primary payer. The second column shows the number of
TRICARE discharges in each category. The third and fourth columns show
the average allowed amount per discharge paid by TRICARE in FY12, and
under the proposed LTCH payment method. The fifth column shows the
percentage impact of the policy change by showing the percentage
reduction in the proposed allowed amounts relative to the current
allowed amounts.
The first row in Table 1 shows the overall impact of the 227 LTCHs
included in the analysis. The next three rows of the table contain
hospitals categorized according to their geographic location (large
urban, other urban, and rural). The second major grouping is by bed-
size category, followed by a grouping for TRICARE network status. The
fourth grouping shows the LTCHs by regional Census divisions while the
final grouping is by LTCH ownership status.
We estimate that in the first year of implementation, TRICARE
payments to LTCHs will decrease by 61 percent under the proposed LTCH
payment methodology in comparison to the current TRICARE payment
methodology for LTCH claims. For all groups of hospitals, payments
under the proposed payment methodology would be reduced.
The following discussion highlights some of the changes in payments
among LTCH classifications.
Ninety-eight percent of all TRICARE LTCH admissions were to urban
LTCHs. Payments would decrease by 61 percent for large urban, 63
percent for other urban, and 58 percent for rural LTCHs.
Very small LTCHs (1-24 beds) would have the least impact; payments
would be reduced by 49 percent. The change in payment methodology would
have a slightly greater impact on medium-sized LTCHs (50-124 beds),
where payments would be reduced by about 64 percent.
The change in LTCH payment methodology would have a larger impact
on TRICARE non-network LTCHs than network LTCHs. Payments to non-
network LTCHs would decline by 71 percent, in comparison to 56 percent
for in-network hospitals. There is a smaller decline in TRICARE
payments for network hospitals because these LTCHs provide discounts to
TRICARE, which means that their allowed amounts are already lower. We
found that network hospitals on average provide a 29 percent discount
off billed charges and that almost 77 percent of all TRICARE LTCH
discharges are in-network.
LTCHs in various geographic areas will be affected differently due
to this change in payment methodology. The two regions with the largest
number of TRICARE claims, the South Atlantic and West South Central
region, would have an average decrease of 62 and 61 percent
respectively, which are very similar to the overall average of 61
percent. LTCHs in the East North Central and New England regions would
have the lowest reductions: 52 and 50 percent. Seventy-eight percent of
all TRICARE LTCH discharges in FY12 were in proprietary (for-profit)
LTCHs, and these facilities would have their allowed amounts reduced by
approximately 63 percent. The decline in allowed amounts for voluntary
(not-for-profit) LTCHs would be less than for-profit hospitals (57
percent).
[[Page 3931]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26JA15.000
3. Review for a Transition Period
We considered whether a transition would be necessary to implement
the change in LTCH payment methodology for TRICARE claims. For the
following reasons, we have determined, that a transition period is
unnecessary.
First, the TRICARE payments to LTCHs will be equal to or, for short
stay outlier cases, TRICARE payments may be greater than Medicare's
LTCH
[[Page 3932]]
payments. TRICARE's short-stay outlier payments will be based on costs,
which is at least as generous as Medicare's short-stay outlier
payments. The Medicare Payment Advisory Committee (MedPAC) is an
independent congressional agency to advise the U.S. Congress on issues
affecting the Medicare program. MedPAC's most recent research indicates
that Medicare LTCHs have a positive margin. Thus, we believe that
paying LTCHs amounts that are at least as generous as Medicare do not
require a transition.
Second, the number of TRICARE discharges from LTCHs is very small
in comparison to the number of Medicare discharges in LTCHs each year.
In FY12, there were 799 discharges to LTCHs in which TRICARE was the
primary payer. Medicare, in comparison, had approximately 134,700
discharges to LTCHs in 2010. Thus, in aggregate, the TRICARE LTCH
claims are a very small percentage of the industry's claims (about one-
half of a percent).
Third, we also found that in FY12 there were only 17 LTCHs with 10
or more TRICARE admissions. For these 17 LTCHs, we found that TRICARE
admissions accounted for less than 4 percent of the Medicare discharges
at those LTCHs. More importantly, at none of the 17 LTCHs did the
TRICARE LTCH discharges (where TRICARE was the primary payer) exceed 5
percent of the LTCH's discharges. Because the number of TRICARE
discharges at any one LTCH is so small and such a small portion of
their LTCH business, a transition period is not required.
Fourth, for the reasons cited above, we do not think that there
will be access problems for TRICARE beneficiaries. In addition, we note
that MedPAC has concluded that Medicare beneficiaries have continued
access to LTCHs as evidenced by an increasing supply of providers and
an increasing number of LTCH stays. Given that the TRICARE LTCH rates
will equal or exceed Medicare LTCH rates, we do not anticipate access
problems for TRICARE beneficiaries. Further, by statute, hospitals that
participate under Medicare are required to agree to accept TRICARE
reimbursement.
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 proposed to be 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. In Sec. 199.2, amend paragraph (b) by adding a definition of ``Long
Term Care Hospital'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 199.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
Long Term Care Hospital (LTCH). A hospital that is designated by
the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) as a LTCH and
meets the applicable requirements established by Sec.
199.6(b)(4)(xviii).
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec. 199.6, add paragraph (b)(4)(xviii) to read as follows:
Sec. 199.6 TRICARE--authorized providers.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) * * *
(xviii) Long Term Care Hospital (LTCH). LTCHs must meet all the
criteria for classification as an LTCH under 42 CFR part 412, subpart
O, as well as all of the requirements of this part in order to be
considered an authorized LTCH under the TRICARE program.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 199.14 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(D)(4) and
adding paragraph (a)(9) to read as follows:
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 199.14 Provider reimbursement methods.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(D) * * *
(4) Long Term Care Hospitals. Prior to implementation of the
CHAMPUS reimbursement method described in paragraph (a)(9) of this
section, a long term care hospital which is exempt from the Medicare
prospective payment system is also exempt from the CHAMPUS DRG-based
payment system. In order for a long term hospital which does not
participate in Medicare to be exempt from the CHAMPUS DRG-based payment
system, it must meet the same criteria (as determined by the Director,
DHA, or a designee) as required for exemption from the Medicare
Prospective Payment System as contained in 42 CFR 412.23.
* * * * *
(9) Reimbursement for inpatient services provided by an LTCH. (i)
In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 1079(j)(2), TRICARE payment methods for
institutional care shall be determined, to the extent practicable, in
accordance with the same reimbursement rules as those that apply to
payments to providers of services of the same type under Medicare. The
CHAMPUS-LTC-DRG reimbursement methodology shall be in accordance with
Medicare's Medicare Severity Long Term Care Diagnosis Related Groups
(MS-LTC-DRGs) as found in regulation at 42 CFR part 412, subpart O.
Inpatient services provided in hospitals subject to the Medicare LTCH
reimbursement methodology as specified in 42 CFR parts 412 and 413 will
be paid in accordance with the provisions outlined in sections
1886(d)(1)(B)(IV) of the Social Security Act and its implementing
Medicare regulation (42 CFR parts 412 and 413) to the extent
practicable. Under the above governing provisions, CHAMPUS will
recognize, to the extent practicable, in accordance with 10 U.S.C.
1079(j)(2), Medicare's MS-LTC-DRG methodology to include, the relative
weights, inpatient operating and capital costs of furnishing covered
services (including routine and ancillary services), interrupted stay
policy, high cost outlier payments, wage adjustments for variations in
labor-related costs across geographical regions, cost-of-living
adjustments, and updates to the system.
(ii) While CHAMPUS intends to remain as true as possible to
Medicare's MS-LTC-DRG methodology, there will be some deviations
required to accommodate CHAMPUS' unique benefit structure and
beneficiary population as authorized under the provisions of 10
U.S.C.1079(j)(2).
(A) Due to TRICARE's low claim volume admissions to LTCHs, TRICARE
will not adopt the 25 percent threshold rule.
(B) Rather than adopting Medicare's four-step process for short-
stay outliers, TRICARE shall pay short-stay outliers at the lesser of:
(1) One hundred (100) percent of costs; or
(2) The full LTCH DRG amount. The 100 percent of costs will be
based on the LTCH's billed charge multiplied by the LTCH's most recent
cost-to-charge ratio as determined by the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services.
(C) The criteria for adopting, modifying, and/or extending
deviations and/or adjustments to the MS-LTC-DRG payments shall be
issued through CHAMPUS policies, instructions, procedures and
guidelines as deemed appropriate by the Director, DHA, or a designee.
(iii) Exemption. The TRICARE LTCH reimbursement methodology under
this paragraph does not apply to hospitals
[[Page 3933]]
paid in States that are paid by Medicare and TRICARE under a waiver
that exempts them from Medicare's inpatient prospective payment system
or the CHAMPUS DRG-based payment system, respectively.
* * * * *
Dated: January 20, 2015.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2015-01242 Filed 1-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P