Medicare Program; Medicare Secondary Payer and Certain Civil Money Penalties, 8793-8804 [2020-03069]
Download as PDF
8793
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 32 / Tuesday, February 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules
EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI REGULATIONS
Missouri citation
State effective
date
Title
EPA approval date
Explanation
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Chapter 6—Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the State of
Missouri
*
10–6.380 ........................
*
*
Control of NOX Emissions From Portland
Cement Kilns.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2020–03073 Filed 2–14–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 60, 61, and 63
[EPA–R09–OAR–2019–0632; FRL–10004–
32–Region 9]
Delegation of New Source
Performance Standards and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for the States of Arizona
and Nevada
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
updates to the Code of Federal
Regulations delegation tables to reflect
the current delegation status of New
Source Performance Standards and
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants in Arizona
and Nevada.
DATES: Comments must be received by
March 19, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
OAR–2019–0632 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
buss.jeffrey@epa.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. For either manner of
submission, the EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:13 Feb 14, 2020
2/28/2019
Jkt 250001
*
*
*
[Date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], [Federal Register citation of
the final rule].
*
*
*
*
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jeffrey Buss, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–
4152, buss.jeffrey@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this
Federal Register, the EPA is approving
updates to the Code of Federal
Regulations delegation tables to reflect
the current delegation status of New
Source Performance Standards and
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants in Arizona
and Nevada. We are approving these
updates in a direct final action without
prior proposal because we believe this
action is not controversial. A detailed
rationale for the approval is set forth in
the direct final rule. If we receive
adverse comments, however, we will
publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule and address the
comments in a subsequent final rule
based on this proposed rule. Please note
that if the EPA receives adverse
comment on an amendment, paragraph,
or section of this rule and if that
provision may be severed from the
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
*
remainder of the rule, the EPA may
adopt as final those provisions of the
rule that are not the subject of an
adverse comment.
We do not plan to open a second
comment period, so anyone interested
in commenting should do so at this
time. If we do not receive adverse
comments, no further activity is
planned. For further information, see
please see the direct final action.
Dated: December 23, 2019.
Elizabeth J. Adams,
Director, Air and Radiation Division, Region
IX.
[FR Doc. 2020–01729 Filed 2–14–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services
42 CFR Part 402
Office of the Secretary
45 CFR Part 102
[CMS–6061–P]
RIN 0938–AT86
Medicare Program; Medicare
Secondary Payer and Certain Civil
Money Penalties
Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
This proposed rule would
specify how and when CMS must
calculate and impose civil money
penalties (CMPs) when group health
plan (GHP) and non-group health plan
(NGHP) responsible reporting entities
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\18FEP1.SGM
18FEP1
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
8794
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 32 / Tuesday, February 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules
(RREs) fail to meet their Medicare
Secondary Payer (MSP) reporting
obligations in any one or more of the
following ways: When RREs fail to
register and report as required by MSP
reporting requirements; when RREs
report as required, but report in a
manner that exceeds error tolerances
established by the Secretary of the
Department of Health and Human
Services (the Secretary); when RREs
contradict the information the RREs
have reported when CMS attempts to
recover its payments from these RREs.
This proposed rule would also establish
CMP amounts and circumstances under
which CMPs would and would not be
imposed.
DATES: Comment date: To be assured
consideration, comments must be
received at one of the addresses
provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on
April 20, 2020.
ADDRESSES: In commenting, please refer
to file code CMS–6061–P. Because of
staff and resource limitations, we cannot
accept comments by facsimile (FAX)
transmission.
You may submit comments in one of
four ways (please choose only one of the
ways listed).
1. Electronically. You may submit
electronic comments on this regulation
to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the ‘‘Submit a comment’’ instructions.
2. By regular mail. You may mail
written comments (one original and two
copies) to the following address ONLY:
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services, Department of Health and
Human Services, Attention:
CMS–6061–P, P.O. Box 8013, Baltimore,
MD 21244–8013.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed
comments to be received before the
close of the comment period.
3. By express or overnight mail. You
may send written comments (one
original and two copies) to the following
address ONLY: Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services, Department of
Health and Human Services, Attention:
CMS–6061–P, Mail Stop C4–26–05,
7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD
21244–1850.
For information on viewing public
comments, see the beginning of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jacqueline Cipa, (410) 786–3259.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Inspection
of Public Comments: All comments
received before the close of the
comment period are available for
viewing by the public, including any
personally identifiable or confidential
business information that is included in
a comment. We post all comments
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:13 Feb 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
received before the close of the
comment period on the following
website as soon as possible after they
have been received: https://
regulations.gov. Follow the search
instructions on that website to view
public comments.
Comments received timely will be
also available for public inspection as
they are received, generally beginning
approximately 3 weeks after publication
of a document, at the headquarters of
the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services, 7500 Security Boulevard,
Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday
through Friday of each week from 8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an
appointment to view public comments,
phone 1–800–743–3951.
I. Background
A. Imposition of Civil Money Penalties
(CMPs)—Legislative Overview
In 1981, the Congress added section
1128A to the Social Security Act (the
Act) (section 2105 of Pub. L. 97–35) to
authorize the Secretary of Health and
Human Services (the Secretary) to
impose civil money penalties (CMPs)
and assessments on certain health care
facilities, health care practitioners, and
other suppliers for noncompliance with
rules of the Medicare and Medicaid
programs. CMPs and assessments
provide an enforcement tool for
agencies to use to ensure compliance
with statutory and regulatory
requirements. These administrative
penalties may be imposed in addition to
potential criminal or civil penalties.
Since 1981, the Congress has
increased both the number and the
types of circumstances under which the
Secretary may impose CMPs. Some CMP
authorities address fraud,
misrepresentation, or falsification, while
others address noncompliance with
programmatic or regulatory
requirements. The Secretary has
delegated the authority for certain
provisions to either the Office of
Inspector General (OIG) or Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).
(See the October 20, 1994 notice, titled
‘‘Office of Inspector General; Health
Care Financing Administration;
Statement of Organization, Functions,
and Delegations of Authority,’’ (58 FR
52967).) A summary of these CMP
changes are discussed in this section of
this proposed rule.
B. Legislative History
In 1980, the Congress added section
1862(b) of the Act, which defined when
Medicare is the secondary payer to
certain primary plans. These provisions
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
are known as the Medicare Secondary
Payer (MSP) provisions of the Act.
Section 1862(b) of the Act prohibits
Medicare from making payment if
payment has been made, or can
reasonably be expected to be made by
any of the following primary plans:
• Group Health Plans (GHPs).
• Workers’ compensation plans.
• Liability insurance (including selfinsurance).
• No-fault insurance.
Medicare may make conditional
payments, subject to Medicare payment
rules, in situations where workers’
compensation, liability insurance
(including self-insurance), or no-fault
insurance has not made payment or
cannot be expected to make payment
promptly. See section 1862(b)(2)(A) of
the Act. Any conditional payments that
Medicare makes are subject to
reimbursement from the primary plan.
See section 1862(b)(2)(B) of the Act.
C. Legislative Provisions Regarding
Mandatory Reporting Requirements
To enhance enforcement of the MSP
provisions, section 111 of the Medicare,
Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of
2007 (MMSEA) (Pub. L. 110–173) added
paragraphs (7) and (8) to section 1862(b)
of the Act. These paragraphs established
new mandatory reporting requirements
regarding Medicare beneficiaries who
have coverage under GHP arrangements
as well as for Medicare beneficiaries
who receive settlements, judgments,
awards or other payment from liability
insurance (including self-insurance), nofault insurance, or workers’
compensation (collectively referred to as
Non-Group Health Plan, or NGHP).
Sections 1862(b)(7)(A) and 1862(b)(8)(F)
of the Act define those parties
responsible for this reporting
(collectively referred to as RREs); they
are generally identified as group health
insurers or third party administrators or
both as well as NGHP applicable plans.
RREs are currently required to submit
coverage information for Medicare
beneficiaries on a quarterly basis
through an electronic file submission
process that may vary depending upon
the number of beneficiary records being
reported or updated. This coverage
information primarily consists of
enough identifying information to
uniquely identify the Medicare
beneficiary and confirm their
beneficiary status, as well as
information about the nature of the
coverage (such as GHP or NGHP,
coverage effective dates, policy limits,
settlement amounts, and so forth). These
section 111 of MMSEA reporting
provisions do not eliminate any other
existing statutory provisions or
E:\FR\FM\18FEP1.SGM
18FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 32 / Tuesday, February 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
regulations. Further, these reporting
provisions include authority for
Medicare to impose CMPs against
entities that fail to comply with the
section 111 of MMSEA reporting
requirements under section 1862(b)(7)
or (b)(8) of the Act, and required that
GHPs and NGHPs that fail to comply
with these reporting requirements shall
be subject to a CMP of up to $1,000 for
each calendar day of noncompliance.
In 2013, Congress enacted the
Medicare IVIG Access and
Strengthening Medicare and Repaying
Taxpayers Act of 2012 (the SMART Act,
at SSA section 1862(b), and codified at
42 U.S.C. 1395(y)(b)(2). The SMART Act
amended section 1862(b)(8)(E) of the
Act, which includes the section 111 of
MMSEA reporting requirements and
describes the enforcement provisions for
NGHPs that fail to comply with the
reporting requirements. The SMART
Act revised section 1862(b)(8)(E) of the
Act to state that NGHP applicable plans
that fail to comply with the reporting
requirements may be subject to a civil
money penalty of up to $1,000 for each
calendar day of reporting
noncompliance required of NGHP
applicable plans under section
1862(b)(8)(E) of the Act. The SMART
Act also added section 1862(b)(8)(I) of
the Act, which specifically required
rulemaking actions regarding the
enforcement of CMP provisions under
section 1862(b)(8)(E) of the Act.
We note that the SMART Act did not
amend any CMP provisions for GHP
arrangements that have reporting
obligations under section 1862(b)(7) of
the Act. Such GHP arrangements remain
subject to mandatory CMPs of $1,000
per calendar day of noncompliance and
per individual for whom submission of
information was required. In addition,
the SMART Act directed rulemaking for
NGHP applicable plans regarding the
imposition and non-imposition of
CMPs.
We further note that the statutory
language speaks to ‘‘individuals,’’
though there are situations described
that are specifically applicable to
Medicare beneficiaries; we have
attempted to be consistent with the
usage of this statutory terminology but
use the term ‘‘beneficiary’’ where it is
more appropriate.
D. Summary of Public Comments
Received on the December 11, 2013
Advanced Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPRM)
In accordance with the rulemaking
directed by the SMART Act, on
December 11, 2013 (78 FR 75304), we
published an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) titled
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:13 Feb 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
‘‘Medicare Secondary Payer and Certain
Civil Money Penalties.’’ The December
2013 ANPRM solicited public comment
on specific practices for which CMPs
may or may not be imposed for failure
to comply with MSP reporting
requirements for certain GHP and NGHP
arrangements.
We received 34 timely pieces of
correspondence in response to the
December 2013 ANPRM. In this section
of the proposed rule, we provide an
analysis of the public comments
received by subject area, with a focus on
the most common issues raised, and
briefly discuss how we propose to
address the issues raised by commenters
in response to the 2013 ANPRM in this
proposed rule.
1. CMPs and ‘‘Good Faith Efforts’’ To
Obtain Information To Report
Commenters suggested that CMS
refrain from imposing CMPs where
NGHPs with reporting obligations under
section 1862(b)(8) of the Act make
‘‘good faith efforts’’ to obtain required
information from individuals who are
unwilling or unable to provide it. Some
‘‘good faith efforts’’ suggested included
the following: (1) CMS could accept
documentation signed by the individual
stating that he, or she is either not a
Medicare beneficiary, or will not
provide the NGHP entity with his or her
Social Security Number (SSN) (full SSN
or last 5 digits); and (2) CMS could
accept a judicial order establishing that
the individual is not required to provide
his or her Medicare Beneficiary
Identifier (MBI) or SSN to the NGHP
entity. We note that concerns about
‘‘good faith efforts’’ were received from
the NGHP industry and not the GHP
industry, which we believe is reflective
of fundamental differences between the
two industries and the relationships
between those plans and the individuals
in question. Our understanding is that
NGHP applicable plans may be in an
adversarial relationship at times with
the reportable individual, whereas the
reportable individual is typically the
client of a GHP.
In response to the comments, we are
proposing that we would not assess
CMPs against NGHP entities where
those entities make efforts as defined in
this proposed rule to obtain necessary
reporting information. NGHP entities
would document their records with
their efforts to obtain this reporting
information, as we would retain the
right to audit such documentation.
2. Determining Noncompliance
Most commenters suggested that
‘‘noncompliance’’ with CMS’s reporting
requirements include failure to—(1)
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
8795
report when an entity is required to
report; (2) report all Medicare
beneficiaries who are/were plan
participants (GHP) or claimants (NGHP);
and (3) report when medical care was
either claimed or released (as a part of
a settlement, judgment, award, or other
payment). We generally agree with the
suggested concepts and have
incorporated them into section II. of this
proposed rule involving these reporting
requirements.
3. Amounts of CMPs
A number of commenters
recommended developing a ‘‘sliding
scale’’ or ‘‘tiered’’ CMP approach, based
upon the requirement of the responsible
reporting entity (RRE) to obtain the
necessary reporting information from
these entities. We considered the
possibility of incorporating penalty tiers
for NGHP entities that have reporting
obligations under section 1862(b)(8) of
the Act. However, we are not proposing
to rely on the intent of the NGHP entity
reporting. Instead, we are proposing that
we would assign CMP amounts based
on the number of times, meaning
individuals, a particular entity fails to
report, or fails to report correctly. We
solicit comment on this proposal, as
explained in section II. of this proposed
rule.
4. Proposed ‘‘Safe Harbors’’
Many commenters suggested that
CMS should establish a series of ‘‘safe
harbors’’ that would preclude the
assessment of a CMP. We note that
multiple commenters were concerned
about non-compliance due to technical
issues and wished to define these
myriad situations as ‘‘safe harbors.’’ In
section II. of this proposed rule, we are
proposing to employ tolerances related
to submissions that contain certain
types of errors or mistakes to address
these comments, and to only consider
performance against those tolerances
over time so that a few poor
submissions do not necessarily result in
the imposition of a CMP. Multiple
commenters were also concerned about
their ability to obtain all of the required
information for reporting and requested
safe harbors for non-compliance due to
non-cooperation on the part of the
reportable individual. This situation has
been addressed under ‘‘good faith
efforts’’ in this section.
5. Develop an Appeals Process
A number of commenters suggested
that CMS should develop a formal
appeals process to provide entities with
reporting obligations a formal structure
in which to appeal any notice of a
pending or imposed CMP. We would
E:\FR\FM\18FEP1.SGM
18FEP1
8796
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 32 / Tuesday, February 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules
expect that this proposed rule, once
finalized, would comport with the
appeals process as prescribed by 42 CFR
402.19 and set forth under 42 CFR part
1005. In broad terms, parties subject to
CMP would receive formal written
notice at the time penalty is proposed.
The recipient would have the right to
request a hearing with an
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) within
60 calendar days of receipt. Any party
may appeal the initial decision of the
ALJ to the Departmental Appeals Board
(DAB) within 30 calendar days. The
DAB’s decision becomes binding 60
calendar days following service of the
DAB’s decision, absent petition for
judicial review
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
6. Rule is Prospective
Many commenters suggested that the
rule should be enforced prospectively
only. We agree and would evaluate
compliance based only upon files
submitted by the RRE on or after the
effective date of any final rule.
7. Statute of Limitations
Many commenters requested a statute
of limitations on the imposition of
CMPs. We agree and will apply the 5year statute of limitations as required by
28 U.S.C. 2462. Under 28 U.S.C. 2462,
we may only impose a CMP within 5
years from the date when the noncompliance was identified by CMS. An
explanation and example of how this
proposed statute of limitations would
work for each of the three proposed
types of CMPs is provided in this
section of this rule.
For failure to report, the
noncompliance occurs on every day of
non-reporting after the required
timeframe for reporting has elapsed:
If an RRE fails to report any
beneficiary record as required beginning
in 2023, and CMS identifies this noncompliance in 2024 but fails to take
action until 2030, then no CMP would
be imposed.
For responses to recovery efforts
contradicting reporting, the
noncompliance occurs when the
response is received by CMS:
If in 2023 an RRE reported ongoing
primary payment responsibility for a
given beneficiary and then responded to
recovery efforts 1 year later, in 2024,
with an assertion that coverage for that
beneficiary was actually terminated
prior to the issuance of the recovery
demand letter. If CMS fails to impose a
CMP for this noncompliance within 5
years (no later than 2029), then no CMP
would be imposed for this incident of
noncompliance.
For situations where the reporter
exceeds the error tolerance threshold,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:13 Feb 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
the noncompliance occurs at the end of
the fourth consecutive reporting period
over the 20 percent threshold (out of
eight consecutive reporting periods):
If an RRE exceeds the error tolerance
threshold in all four reporting periods of
2023 and then never exceeds the
threshold again, it would normally be
subject to a CMP. But if CMS fails to
impose a CMP for this noncompliance
within 5 years (no later than 2028), then
no CMP would be imposed for this
noncompliance.
We do appreciate the concerns raised
by commenters and wish to reiterate
that CMPs would only be imposed on a
prospective basis.
8. Informal and Formal Notice
Many commenters requested that
CMS explain how it will provide notice
to entities regarding pending or imposed
CMPs and how much information will
be included.
We would expect to communicate
with the entity informally before issuing
formal notice regarding a CMP. Informal
communications would depend upon
the nature of the non-compliance.
Regarding the potential imposition of
CMPs on other grounds, CMS
anticipates utilizing an informal (that is,
prior to formal enforcement actions)
written ‘‘pre-notice’’ process that would
allow the RRE the opportunity to
present mitigating evidence before the
imposition of a CMP. Once we
determine that a CMP will be imposed,
we would provide formal notice to the
entity in writing in accordance with 42
CFR 402.7, which would contain
information on the reason for the
assessment of a CMP, the amount of the
CMP, and next steps for the entity,
including appeal rights.
For example, we expect to continue to
utilize the current messaging procedures
around file errors described in the
MMSEA Section 111 User Guides,
which entail indicators on response
files, emails, and phone calls depending
upon the nature and severity of the
error. RREs thus would remain informed
about the performance of their quarterly
file submissions. Upon the third
submission out of seven consecutive
reporting periods that exceeds error
tolerances, the RRE would receive an
‘‘informal notice’’ that consists of a
written warning letter (which requires
no response, but is intended to warn the
RRE that a subsequent submission that
exceeds tolerances would result in
potential CMP imposition). Upon the
fourth submission out of eight
consecutive reporting periods that
exceeds error tolerances (and any
additional triggering submissions), the
RRE would receive another ‘‘informal’’
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
written notice of non-compliance
indicating the nature of the noncompliance and the determination of
the potential amount of the CMP, with
30 calendar days to respond with any
mitigating information prior to the
issuance of a notice of proposed
determination in accordance with 42
CFR 402.7.
In the event that a CMP may be
imposed for lack of timely reporting,
CMS would issue an informal written
notice of non-compliance, identifying
the nature of the non-compliance and
the determination of the potential
amount of the CMP. The RRE would
again have 30 calendar days to respond
with mitigating information before the
issuance of a written notice in
accordance with 42 CFR 402.7.
Recovery demand letters would be
revised to include information regarding
the potential for CMPs should an RRE
contradict its own reporting in the
recovery process. If an RRE submits a
dispute or redetermination request in
response to the recovery process that
appears to directly contradict its own
reporting, an informal written notice of
non-compliance identifying the nature
of the non-compliance and the
determination of the potential amount
of the CMP would be issued to the RRE.
The RRE would again have 30 calendar
days to respond with mitigating
information before the issuance of a
written notice in accordance with 42
CFR 402.7.
9. Suspension of CMP Imposition Where
Programmatic Changes Are Required
Commenters suggested that CMS
consider suspending the imposition of
CMPs, where changes to mandatory
reporting procedure require RREs to
make significant revisions to the
systems used to prepare the data for
reporting.
We would expect to continue to
provide at least 6 months’ (180 calendar
days) notice regarding any changes in
policy or procedure associated with
section 111 of MMSEA required
reporting to allow reporting entities
adequate time to react. We would not
assess any CMPs associated with a
specific policy or procedural change for
a minimum of two reporting periods
following the implementation of that
policy or procedural change.
10. Duplicative Reporting and CMPs
Commenters suggested that CMS
should not impose CMPs in situations
where required information has already
been reported to another agency or
entity, such as the Department of Labor,
or in situations where multiple entities
have obligations to report the same
E:\FR\FM\18FEP1.SGM
18FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 32 / Tuesday, February 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules
information to CMS and one entity has
already reported.
The reporting requirements
established under sections 1862(b)(7)
and (b)(8) of the Act imposed certain
unique requirements on specific entities
to report data to CMS for the purposes
of identifying those situations where
another party has primary payment
responsibility. These reporting
requirements were imposed under the
Act, regardless of whether another
agency or entity requires the same or
similar data (and such data must also be
reported to CMS in the manner and
form specified by the Secretary). The
current OMB control number assigned
to this information collection effort, as
required under the Paperwork
Reduction Act, is 0938–1074.
11. Correct Coordination of Benefits and
Recovery
Commenters suggested that CMS not
impose CMPs when CMS has been able
to coordinate benefits correctly or CMS
has otherwise been able to recover.
The obligations to report under
section 1862(b)(7) and (b)(8) of the Act
are separate and distinct from any other
obligation with respect to MSP. The fact
that we may be able to correctly
coordinate benefits and pursue recovery
does not negate the obligations
established under section 1862(b)(7) and
(b)(8) of the Act.
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
II. Provisions of Proposed Regulations
We have reviewed the public
comments in response to our December
11, 2013 ANPRM (78 FR 75304), and
other policy considerations as discussed
in section I.D. of this proposed rule.
Accordingly, we are proposing specific
criteria for when CMPs would be
imposed and proposing specific criteria
for when CMPs would not be imposed,
in circumstances when a GHP or an
NGHP entity fails to comply (either on
its own or through a reporting agent)
with MSP reporting requirements
specified under section 1862(b)(7) and
(b)(8) of the Act. We note that the
proposed CMPs would be levied in
addition to any MSP reimbursement
obligations.
Further, we proposed to amend the
amount of these CMPs, as set forth
under 45 CFR 102.3 (Penalty adjustment
and table).
A. CMP Bases and Scope
Section 402.1 describes the basis for
imposition CMPs against parties who
violate the provisions of the Act. We
propose to add regulatory language
under § 402.1(c), which would identify
situations in which GHP entities and
NGHP entities with RREs would be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:13 Feb 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
subject to CMPs under sections
1862(b)(7) and (b)(8) of the Act. To
accomplish this regulatory addition, we
are proposing the following regulatory
revisions in § 402.1:
• Removing paragraph (c)(20).
• Redesignating paragraph (c)(21) as
paragraph (c)(20).
• Redesignating paragraphs (c)(22)
through (34) as paragraphs (c)(23)
through (35).
• Adding new paragraphs (c)(21) and
(22).
Section 402.105(b) establishes the
amount of penalties assessed against
parties who violate the provisions of the
Act. The proposed regulation at
§ 402.105(b)(2) would establish the
amount of penalties imposed against
GHPs, and the proposed regulation at
§ 402.105(b)(3) would establish the
amount of penalties imposed against
NGHPs. The regulatory provisions
proposed would amend § 402.105(b) by
revising paragraph (b)(2) and adding a
new paragraph (b)(3). The proposed
regulatory changes would establish the
amount of CMPs imposed in these
situations.
In addition, we have revised the
regulations at 45 CFR 102.3 to establish
the updated amounts for all CMPs at
issue in these and the impacted
proposed regulations. The table in this
section sets forth the changes described
for these amounts.
B. CMP Imposition and Amounts
The proposed regulations at § 402.1(c)
would identify circumstances where
GHP entities and NGHP entities with
RREs would be subject to CMPs for
violation of sections 1862(b)(7) and
(b)(8) of the Act. We may become aware
of these violations through various
means. Currently self-referral is the
most common means by which RREs
that have failed to properly register and
report are identified, which we expect
to continue. Following publication of
the final rule, we will enhance
monitoring of recovery process disputes
and appeals that contradict reported
data, as well as monitoring of the
reported data and performance over
time to identify reporting that exceeds
error tolerances. The proposed
regulations at § 402.105(b) would clarify
how we would calculate CMP amounts
for GHP and NGHP entities that have
reporting obligations under sections
1862(b)(7) and (b)(8) of the Act.
Furthermore, the proposed § 402.1(c)
would identify situations where GHP
and NGHP RREs would not be subject
to CMPs for violation of section
1862(b)(7) and (b)(8) of the Act.
Under section 1862(b)(7) of the Act, a
GHP RRE shall be subject to a CMP of
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
8797
$1,000 as adjusted annually under 45
CFR part 102 (currently $1,569 as of
January 17, 2020; please see 85 FR 2869)
for each calendar day of noncompliance
for each individual for which the
required information should have been
submitted. Under section 1862(b)(8) of
the Act, an NGHP RRE may be subject
to a CMP of up to $1,000 (as adjusted
annually under 45 CFR part 102) for
each calendar day of noncompliance for
each individual for which the required
information should have been
submitted. These CMPs would be in
addition to any other penalties
prescribed by law, and in addition to
any MSP claim under section 1862(b) of
the Act with respect to an individual.
1. Imposition of a CMP
We would impose a CMP in the
following situations:
• If an RRE fails to report any GHP
beneficiary record within the required
timeframe (no more than 1 calendar year
after GHP coverage effective date or the
Medicare beneficiary’s entitlement date,
whichever is later). The penalty would
be calculated on a daily basis, based on
the actual number of individual
beneficiaries’ records that the entity
submitted untimely (that is, beyond the
required timeframe after the GHP MSP
effective date). The penalty would be
$1,000 (as adjusted annually under 45
CFR part 102) for each calendar day of
noncompliance for each individual for
which the required information should
have been submitted, as counted from
the day after the last day of the RRE’s
assigned reporting window where the
information should have been submitted
through the day that CMS received the
information, up to a maximum penalty
of $365,000 (as adjusted annually under
45 CFR part 102, currently $572,685)
per individual per year.
• If an RRE fails to report any NGHP
beneficiary record within the required
timeframe (no more than 1 year of the
date of the settlement, judgment, award,
or other payment (also referred to as the
Total Payment Obligation to Claimant
(TPOC)). The penalty would be
calculated on a daily basis, based on the
actual number of individual
beneficiaries’ records that the entity
submitted untimely (that is, in excess of
the required timeframe after the TPOC
date). The penalty would be up to
$1,000 (as adjusted annually under 45
CFR part 102) for each calendar day of
noncompliance for each individual for
which the required information should
have been submitted, as counted from
the day after the last day of the RRE’s
assigned reporting window where the
information should have been submitted
through the day that CMS received the
E:\FR\FM\18FEP1.SGM
18FEP1
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
8798
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 32 / Tuesday, February 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules
information, up to a maximum penalty
of $365,000 (as adjusted annually under
45 CFR part 102) per individual per
year.
• If a GHP’s or NGHP’s response to
CMS recovery efforts contradicts the
entity’s section 111 of MMSEA
reporting. For example, if an RRE
reported and repeatedly affirmed
ongoing primary payment responsibility
for a given beneficiary, then responded
to recovery efforts with the assertion
that coverage for that beneficiary
actually terminated 2 years prior to the
issuance of the recovery demand letter.
The penalty would be calculated based
on the number of calendar days that the
entity failed to appropriately report
updates to beneficiary records, as
required for accurate and timely
reporting under section 111 of MMSEA.
For a GHP, the penalty would be $1,000
(as adjusted annually under 45 CFR part
102) for each calendar day of
noncompliance for each individual for
which the required information should
have been submitted. For an NGHP, the
penalty would be up to $1,000 (as
adjusted annually under 45 CFR part
102) per calendar day of noncompliance
for each individual, for a maximum
annual penalty of $365,000 (as adjusted
annually under 45 CFR part 102) for
each individual for which the required
information should have been
submitted.
• If a GHP or NGHP entity has
reported, and exceeds any error
tolerance(s) threshold established by the
Secretary in any 4 out of 8 consecutive
reporting periods. We propose that the
initial and maximum error tolerance
threshold would be 20 percent
(representing errors that prevent 20
percent or more of the beneficiary
records from being processed), with any
reduction in that tolerance to be
published for notice and comment in
advance of implementation. We intend
for this tolerance to be applied as an
absolute percentage of the records
submitted in a given reporting cycle; we
welcome feedback on this proposed
methodology and threshold. The errors
that would be used to determine
whether the error tolerance is met must
also be defined in advance of
implementation of the final rule; we are
only considering those significant errors
which prevent a file or individual
beneficiary record from processing.
These errors are defined in the Section
111 User Guides, but we welcome the
public’s feedback. We would maintain
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:13 Feb 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
the current notification process in place
where RREs receive notice via response
file and direct outreach (email and, in
more serious cases, telephone call)
when there are errors with their file
submissions.
Although the Act indicates that CMPs
are calculated based on the number of
days of RRE noncompliance, RREs do
not report on a daily basis and so nonconformance in this situation cannot be
defined on a daily basis. Therefore
under this proposed rule, an RRE is
considered to be out of compliance for
the entire reporting period when the
RRE exceeds the error tolerance
threshold. A reporting period is defined
as one quarter (defined as 90 calendar
days for the purposes of standardizing
quarters). For a GHP entity, the penalty
would be imposed if the GHP entity was
determined to have exceeded the error
tolerances(s) in the entity’s fourth
above-tolerance submission out of any
eight consecutive reporting periods. The
penalty would be $1,000 (as adjusted
annually under 45 CFR part 102) for
each calendar day of noncompliance for
each individual for which the required
information should have been
submitted. An RRE is considered to be
out of compliance for the entire
reporting period when the error
tolerance is exceeded; as previously
noted, a reporting period is currently
defined as one quarter (standardized to
90 calendar days). Therefore, the
penalty for a non-compliant GHP would
be $90,000 (as adjusted, currently
$141,210) for each individual for which
the required information should have
been submitted, per reporting period
where a CMP may be imposed.
For an NGHP entity, a CMP would be
imposed on a tiered approach if the
NGHP entity exceeded the error
tolerance(s) in the entity’s fourth abovetolerance submission. As with GHP
entities, an NGHP entity is considered
to be out of compliance for the entire
reporting period when the error
tolerance is exceeded; a reporting period
is defined as one quarter, standardized
to 90 calendar days. For the first level
of this penalty (reflecting the fourth
submission exceeding error tolerances
in any of the previous eight consecutive
reporting periods), we would impose a
penalty of one quarter, or 25 percent, of
the maximum penalty per individual
record per calendar day of noncompliance (this maximum penalty is
currently defined as $1,000, as adjusted
annually under 45 CFR part 102) after
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the required date of submission (last
calendar day of the NGHP’s reporting
period), based upon the number of
beneficiaries whose records exceeded
any error tolerance(s) established by the
Secretary. In effect, $250 (as adjusted,
currently $392) per calendar day, over
the 90 calendar days of non-compliance
for the full reporting period, per
individual record. If the NGHP entity
fails to comply again in the next
consecutive reporting period, the
amount of the penalty would increase to
one half, or 50 percent, of the maximum
penalty (currently defined as $1000, as
adjusted annually under 45 CFR part
102) per beneficiary per calendar day of
non-compliance. In effect, $500 (as
adjusted, currently $785) per calendar
day, over the 90 calendar days of noncompliance for the full reporting period,
per individual record. If the NGHP
entity fails to comply again in the next
consecutive reporting period, the
amount would increase again to threequarters, or 75 percent, of the maximum
penalty (currently defined as $1,000, as
adjusted annually under 45 CFR part
102), and so on, up to the maximum
penalty of $1,000 (as adjusted annually
under 45 CFR part 102) per beneficiary
per calendar day of non-compliance (in
effect, $90,000 as adjusted, over the 90
calendar days of non-compliance for the
full reporting period, per individual
record). However, the potential penalty
amount for the next penalty-eligible file
would be reduced by one quarter (25
percent) of the maximum penalty of
$1,000 (as adjusted annually under 45
CFR part 102) per individual record per
calendar day of non-compliance for
each immediately consecutive
subsequent quarter of compliance where
an NGHP entity reports after the
assessment of a penalty and the entity
remains below any error tolerances.
Such reductions may accumulate for
each subsequent reporting period where
the entity remains below the error
tolerance until the entity is once again
at the minimum penalty of one quarter,
or 25 percent, of the maximum penalty
per individual record per calendar day
of non-compliance.
The following chart depicts how the
concept of ‘‘any 4 out of the most recent
8 consecutive reporting periods’’ would
work. CMP amounts are used for
illustration purposes only; all amounts
should be assumed to be adjusted
annually.
E:\FR\FM\18FEP1.SGM
18FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 32 / Tuesday, February 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Example
1
2
3
4
5
8799
CMP Imposed
.........................................................
.........................................................
.........................................................
.........................................................
.........................................................
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
E
E
*
*
*
E
E
*
*
E
G
G
*
*
G
E
G
*
E
E
G
G
E
E
G
G
G
G
G
E
G
E
E
G
G
E
G
G
E
E
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
E
E
E
G
E
G
G
E
E
E
G
Q4 of Year 2.
No.
No.
Q3 and Q4 of Year 3.
Q4 of Year 2 and Q2 of Year 3.
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Key: * = No File; E = Error Tolerance Exceeded; G = Good File.
The following explanations correlate
to the examples depicted in this chart.
Example 1. CMP Imposed: Error
tolerances exceeded in 4 out of 8
quarters as of year 2, quarter 4. As of
year 3, quarter 3, there are only three
out of eight quarters where submissions
exceeded error tolerances, so no
additional CMP would be imposed.
Example 2. No CMP Imposed: In no 8
sequential quarters were error tolerances
exceeded 4 or more times.
Example 3. No CMP Imposed: In no 8
sequential quarters were error tolerances
exceeded 4 or more times.
Example 4. CMP Imposed: Error
tolerances were exceeded in 4 out of 8
quarters as of year 3, quarter 3. The
subsequent submission (year 3, quarter
4) also exceeded error tolerances.
According to the assessments proposed
for GHP reporting entities, a GHP RRE
would be assessed a CMP of $1,000 per
calendar day for each individual for
whom information should have been
submitted. According to the tiered
approach proposed for NGHP reporting
entities discussed later, an NGHP RRE
would be assessed a CMP of $250 per
calendar day per for quarter 3 and $500
per beneficiary above the tolerance per
calendar day for quarter 4.
Example 5. CMP Imposed: Error
tolerances were exceeded in 4 out of 7
quarters by year 2, quarter 4. According
to the assessments proposed for GHP
reporting entities, a GHP RRE would be
assessed a CMP of $1,000 per calendar
day for each individual for whom
information should have been
submitted. According to the tiered
approach proposed for NGHP reporting
entities discussed later, an NGHP RRE
would be assessed a CMP of $250 per
calendar day per individual for whom
information should have been
submitted. Error tolerances were again
exceeded in year 3, quarter 2. Because
error tolerances were not exceeded in
year 3, quarter 1, an NGHP RRE would
only be assessed a CMP of $250 per
calendar day per individual for whom
information should have been submitted
for year 3, quarter 2 instead of $500.
The following examples demonstrate
how the concept of exceeding error
tolerances in ‘‘any 4 out of 8
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:13 Feb 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
consecutive reporting periods’’ would
work:
Example 1: The RRE, ABC Insurer,
submitted a file for each quarter in Year
1 of its required submissions. For Year
1, quarters 1 and 2, ABC Insurer
submitted files where the file
submissions entirely failed processing
(100 percent error rate), and thus the
quarterly submissions exceeded the
error rate tolerance. In quarter 3 of Year
1, ABC Insurer submitted a file with no
serious errors that prevented the files
from being processed. However, severe
file errors again occurred in quarter 4
and 25 percent of its records failed.
These errors were corrected by the RRE
for the first quarter of Year 2. ABC
Insurer continued to submit error-free
files for quarter 2 and quarter 3 of Year
2. However, in quarter 4 of Year 2, 50
percent of the submitted records failed.
CMS would impose a CMP because the
error tolerances exceeded four out of the
eight quarterly reporting periods as of
quarter 4 of Year 2.
Example 2: In the first two quarters of
Year 1, Acme Insurance submitted files
with errors that prevented 30 percent of
the records from processing (exceeding
error tolerances for quarter 1 and quarter
2). The file submissions for the last two
quarters of Year 1 and quarters 1
through 3 of Year 2 did not have any
significant errors and did not exceed
tolerances. However, quarter 4 of Year 2
saw a recurrence of serious errors and
Acme Insurance again exceeded the
error tolerance with 25 percent of its
records failing to process. Quarters 1
and 2 of Year 3 did not exceed
tolerances, but the third and fourth
quarters of Year 3 again saw Acme
Insurance exceed the error tolerance
with 30 percent and 20 percent of its
records failing to process, respectively.
CMS would not impose a CMP as in no
continuous eight reporting periods did
Acme Insurance exceed error tolerance
four or more times.
We are proposing a maximum 20
percent per file submission error
tolerance. Any future modification to
this error tolerance threshold will be
subject to notice and comment. We
would not consider submission errors
that fall below this tolerance in
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
determining the imposition of a
potential CMP; we would continue to
provide the response file that allows
submitters to be aware of their
performance. We have evaluated the
historical error rates from RRE
submissions and have determined that
the vast majority of submitters are able
to meet or exceed this initial minimum
acceptable performance level. The 20
percent per file tolerance for errors
would only include those errors and
condition flags that are within the
entities’ direct control and cause CMS to
be unable to process the individual
beneficiary records or entire file
submissions. The errors that would be
used to determine whether the error
tolerance is met shall also be defined a
minimum of 6 months in advance of
imposition of any CMP (after
publication of the final rule) in the
reporting User Guides and will be
subject to notice and comment. We
would only consider those significant
errors which prevent a file or individual
beneficiary record from processing, such
as failure to provide an individual’s last
name or valid date of birth, or failure to
provide a matching Tax Identification
Number. Less serious errors, such as
internal CMS processing errors, will
continue to be noted on the response
files, but will not be considered in
determining compliance. We currently
interact with RREs to inform them of
errors with file submissions, between
response files to email notifications to,
in more severe situations, direct
telephone outreach. Following
publication of the final rule, we would
implement a monitoring system but
would continue to review submissions
each reporting period to determine
whether the entity has continued to
exceed error tolerance(s) and preserve
the notification apparatus currently in
place. GHP and NGHP entities will
continue to have penalties assessed for
each reporting period, until the entity
submits a file that does not exceed any
error tolerance(s).
2. No CMP Imposed
We would not impose a CMP in the
following situations, where all of the
applicable conditions are met:
E:\FR\FM\18FEP1.SGM
18FEP1
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
8800
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 32 / Tuesday, February 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules
• If a RRE reports any GHP
beneficiary record that is reported on a
quarterly submission timeframe within
the required timeframe (not to exceed 1
year after the GHP effective date), or any
NGHP beneficiary record that is
submitted within the required
timeframe (not to exceed 1 year after the
TPOC date).
• If an RRE complies with any TPOC
reporting thresholds or any other
reporting exclusions published in
CMS’s MMSEA Section 111 User Guides
or otherwise granted by CMS. Note that
these thresholds are not defined in the
regulatory text as TPOC reporting
thresholds are currently subject to
change on an annual basis per 42 U.S.C.
1395(y)(b)(9)(i). CMS also elects to
impose operational thresholds for
reporting, such as the current $5,000
threshold for Health Reimbursement
Arrangements.
• If a GHP entity or NGHP entity does
not exceed any error tolerance(s) in any
four out of eight consecutive reporting
periods.
• If an NGHP entity fails to report
required information because the NGHP
entity was unable to obtain information
necessary for reporting from the
reportable individual, including an
individual’s last name, first name, date
of birth, gender, MBI, or SSN (or the last
5 digits of the SSN), and the responsible
applicable plan has made and
maintained records of its good faith
effort to obtain this information by
taking all of the following steps:
++ The NGHP has communicated the
need for this information to the
individual and his or her attorney or
other representative and requested the
information from the individual and his
or her attorney or other representative at
least twice by mail and at least once by
phone or other means of contact such as
electronic mail in the absence of a
response to the mailings.
++ The NGHP certifies that it has not
received a response in writing, or has
received a response in writing that the
individual will not provide his or her
MBI or SSN (or last 5 digits of his or her
SSN).
++ The NGHP has documented its
records to reflect its efforts to obtain the
MBI or SSN (or the last 5 digits of the
SSN) and the reason for the failure to
collect this information.
The NGHP entity should maintain
records of these good faith efforts (such
as dates and types of communications
with the individual) in order to be
produced as mitigating evidence should
CMS contemplate the imposition of a
CMP. Such records must be maintained
for a period of 5 years. The current OMB
control number assigned to this
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:13 Feb 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
information collection effort, as required
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, is
0938–1074.
We solicit comments on our proposed
approaches to imposing and not
imposing CMPs, including our proposed
methods of calculating CMP amounts,
and our proposed error tolerance rates.
Our proposed approach to imposing
CMPs was developed to give entities
meaningful opportunities to resolve
most reporting issues, without the
immediate risk that a CMP would be
imposed.
III. Collection of Information
Requirements
This document does not impose any
new information collection and
recordkeeping requirements that have
not already been reviewed by the Office
of Management and Budget under the
authority of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995.
IV. Responses to Comments
Because of the large number of public
comments we normally receive on
Federal Register documents, we are not
able to acknowledge or respond to them
individually. We will consider all
comments we receive by the date and
time specified in the ‘‘DATES’’ section
of this preamble, and, when we proceed
with a subsequent document, we will
respond to the comments in the
preamble to that document.
V. Regulatory Impact Statement
We have examined the impact of this
rule as required by Executive Order
12866 on Regulatory Planning and
Review (September 30, 1993), Executive
Order 13563 on Improving Regulation
and Regulatory Review (January 18,
2011), the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA) (September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96–
354), section 1102(b) of the Social
Security Act, section 202 of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(March 22, 1995; Pub. L. 104–4),
Executive Order 13132 on Federalism
(August 4, 1999), the Congressional
Review Act (CRA) (5 U.S.C. 804(2)), and
Executive Order 13771 on Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs (January 30, 2017).
Executive Orders 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). A detailed regulatory impact
analysis (RIA) must be prepared for
major rules with economically
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
significant effects ($100 million or more
in any 1 year). Estimating the economic
effects of this rule presents a significant
challenge under current circumstances.
At this point in time, the reporting
program has not yet reached a level of
maturity where we have definitively
identified any additional RREs that have
failed to register and report as required.
We have purposely selected an error
tolerance threshold (20 percent) that is
achievable for all current RREs based on
recent performance, and thus would not
impose any CMPs based on current
performance. However, we do not yet
have eight consecutive reporting periods
of data, and, as such, we are not able to
currently model the potential
imposition of CMPs on this basis at this
time. We also do not have the systems
in place at this time to monitor when
entities contradict their reported data in
response to CMS MSP recovery efforts.
At this point in time, we do not expect
to collect CMPs totaling $100 million or
more in any given year, nor do we
expect this rule to have any other
economic effects that meet or exceed
that threshold. Therefore, this rule is not
considered a major rule under the CRA.
We note that we are currently
implementing monitoring systems that
will allow us to better model future
reporting violations and CMP
imposition. Therefore, when we are
ready to develop the final rule we
expect to have available a significantly
increased array of relevant data. As a
result, we commit to providing a
detailed analysis of the costs and
benefits of this rule at that time. We also
invite feedback from the public that
would assist us in determining the
quantifiable costs and benefits of this
proposed rule.
The RFA requires agencies to analyze
options for regulatory relief of small
entities. For purposes of the RFA, small
entities include small businesses,
nonprofit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions. Most
hospitals and most other providers and
suppliers are small entities, either by
nonprofit status or by having revenues
of $7.0 million to $35.5 million in any
1 year. Individuals and States are not
included in the definition of a small
entity. We consider a rule to have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities if it has at least
a 3-percent impact of revenue on at least
5 percent of small entities. Affected
entities with reporting responsibilities
have been required to comply with
sections 1862(b)(7) and (b)(8) of the Act
since these provisions were added to the
Act in 2007. This proposed rule is
intended to define how CMPs would be
E:\FR\FM\18FEP1.SGM
18FEP1
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 32 / Tuesday, February 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules
imposed as a consequence of noncompliance with these statutory
obligations, and thus does not present
any additional burden beyond the
review of the rule. As discussed later in
this section, the total cost impact of
reviewing this rule by all 20,855
currently registered RREs, regardless of
size, is estimated to be $6,842,437, or
$328 per entity. This falls below the
standard definition of ‘‘significance’’ of
3 or more of small entity revenue. As a
result, we have determined, and the
Secretary certifies, that this proposed
rule would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act
requires us to prepare an RIA if a rule
may have a significant impact on the
operations of a substantial number of
small rural hospitals. This analysis must
conform to the provisions of section 603
for the RFA. For purposes of section
1102(b) of the Act, we define a small
rural hospital as a hospital that is
located outside of a Metropolitan
Statistical Area for Medicare payment
regulations and has fewer than 100
beds. We are not preparing an analysis
for section 1102(b) of the Act because
we have determined, and the Secretary
certifies, that this proposed rule would
not have a significant impact on the
operations of a substantial number of
small rural hospitals.
Section 202 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also
requires that agencies assess anticipated
costs and benefits before issuing any
rule whose mandates require spending
in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995
dollars, updated annually for inflation.
In 2019, that threshold is approximately
$154 million. This proposed rule has no
consequential effect on state, local, or
tribal governments or on the private
sector.
Executive Order 13132 establishes
certain requirements that an agency
must meet when it promulgates a
proposed rule (and subsequent final
rule) that imposes substantial direct
requirement costs on State and local
governments, preempts State law, or
otherwise has federalism implications.
Since this regulation does not impose
any costs on State or local governments,
the requirements of Executive Order
13132 are not applicable.
Executive Order 13771, titled
Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs, was issued on January
30, 2017 It has been determined that
this proposed rule is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ and thus does not
trigger the previously discussed
requirements of Executive Order 13771.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:13 Feb 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
We used the current number of GHP
RREs (1,039) and NGHP RREs (19,816)
to determine the total number of
impacted entities (20,855). We recognize
that this is a slight overestimate, as a
single corporate parent may have
multiple associated RREs. We welcome
any comments on the approach in
estimating the number of entities which
will review this proposed rule.
Using the May 2018 wage information
from the U.S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics for medical
and health service managers (Code 11–
9111), we estimate that the cost of
reviewing this rule is $109.36 per hour,
based on doubling the mean hourly
wage of $54.68 to include overhead and
fringe benefits (see https://www.bls.gov/
oes/current/oes119111.htm). We assume
that one individual associated with each
of the 20,855 impacted entities will read
the rule. Assuming an average reading
speed, we estimate that it would take
approximately 3 hours for the staff to
review this proposed rule. For each
entity that reviews the rule, the
estimated cost is $328.08 (3 hours ×
$109.36). Therefore, we estimate that
the total cost of reviewing this proposed
rule is $6,842,437 ($328.08 × 20,855).
In accordance with the provisions of
Executive Order 12866, this proposed
rule was reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget.
List of Subjects
42 CFR Part 402
Assessments, Civil money penalties,
Exclusions.
45 CFR Part 102
Administrative practice and
procedure, Penalties.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services proposes to amend
42 CFR chapter IV as set forth below:
PART 402—CIVIL MONEY PENALTIES,
ASSESSMENTS, AND EXCLUSIONS
1. The authority citation for part 402
is revised to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1302 and 1395hh.
2. Section 402.1 is amended—
a. In paragraph (c) introductory text by
removing the reference ‘‘(c)(34) of this
section’’ and adding in its place the
reference ‘‘(c)(35) of this section’’;
■ b. By removing paragraph (c)(20);
■ c. By redesignating paragraph (c)(21)
as paragraph (c)(20);
■ d. By redesignating paragraphs (c)(22)
through (34) as paragraphs (c)(23)
through (35); and
■ e. By adding new paragraphs (c)(21)
and (22).
■
■
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
8801
The additions read as follows:
§ 402.1
Basis and scope.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(21) Section 1862(b)(7)(B)—Except for
the situation described in paragraphs
(c)(21)(iv)(A) and (B) of this section, any
entity that has a reporting obligation
under section 1862(b)(7) of the Act
(‘‘reporting entity’’) reports, but fails to
comply with the reporting instructions
in the following situations:
(i) Fails to report any beneficiary
record within 1 year from the group
health plan (GHP) coverage effective
date or the Medicare beneficiary’s
entitlement date.
(ii) Contradicts its reporting under
section 1862(b)(7) of the Act in response
to CMS recovery efforts.
(iii) Has reported and exceeds any
error tolerance(s) threshold established
by the Secretary in any 4 out of 8
consecutive reporting periods.
(iv) A civil money penalty (CMP) is
not imposed if—
(A) It is associated with a specific
policy or procedural change is not
imposed for a minimum of two
reporting periods following the
implementation of that policy or
procedural change; or
(B) The entity complies with any
reporting thresholds or any other
reporting exclusions.
(22) Section 1862(b)(8)(E)—An
applicable plan has a reporting
obligation under section 1862(b)(8) of
the Act (‘‘applicable plan’’), but fails to
comply with the reporting instructions
in the following situations:
(i) Except for the situations described
in paragraphs (c)(22)(iv)(A) through (C)
of this section, fails to report any
beneficiary record within 1 year from
the date of the settlement, judgment,
award, or other payment.
(ii) Contradicts its reporting under
section 1862(b)(8) of the Act in response
to CMS recovery efforts.
(iii) Has reported, and exceeds any
error tolerance(s) threshold established
by the Secretary (not to exceed 20
percent) in any 4 out of 8 (or less)
consecutive reporting periods.
(iv) A CMP is not imposed in the
following situations:
(A) If a non-group health plan (NGHP)
applicable plan fails to report required
information as a result of the applicable
plan’s inability to obtain an individual’s
last name, first name, date of birth,
gender, Medicare Beneficiary Identifier
(MBI), Social Security Number (SSN), or
the last 5 digits of the SSN, and the
applicable plan has made a good faith
effort to obtain this information by
meeting all of the following:
E:\FR\FM\18FEP1.SGM
18FEP1
8802
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 32 / Tuesday, February 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules
(1) Communicating the need for this
information to the individual and his or
her attorney or other representative.
(2) Requesting the information from
the individual and his or her attorney or
other representative at least twice by
mail and at least once by phone or other
means of contact.
(3) Has not received a response or has
received a response in writing that the
individual refuses to provide his or her
MBI or SSN or a truncated form of the
MBI or SSN.
(4) Has documented its efforts to
obtain the MBI or SSN (or the last 5
digits of the SSN).
(B) A CMP is not imposed if an NGHP
applicable plan complies with any
reporting thresholds or any other
reporting exclusions.
(C) A CMP associated with a specific
policy or procedural change is not
imposed for a minimum of two
reporting periods following the
implementation of that policy or
procedural change.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Section 402.105 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b)(2) and adding
paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:
§ 402.105
Amount of penalty.
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) For entities with reporting
obligations under section 1862(b)(7) of
the Act (‘‘reporting entity’’) as follows:
(i) A reporting entity fails to report
any beneficiary record within the
specified period from the latter of the
GHP coverage effective date or the
Medicare beneficiary’s entitlement date.
The penalty is—
(A) Calculated on a daily basis, based
on the actual number of beneficiary
records that the entity submitted more
than 1 year after the GHP Medicare
Secondary Payer (MSP) effective date;
and
(B) $1,000 as adjusted annually under
45 CFR part 102 for each calendar day
of noncompliance for each individual
for which the required information
should have been submitted, up to a
maximum penalty of $365,000 as
adjusted annually under 45 CFR part
102 per individual per year.
(ii) A reporting entity’s response to
CMS recovery efforts contradicts the
entity’s reporting under section
1862(b)(7) of the Act. The penalty is—
(A) Calculated based on the number of
calendar days that the entity failed to
appropriately report updates to
beneficiary records, as required for
accurate and timely reporting; and
(B) $1,000 as adjusted annually under
45 CFR part 102 for each calendar day
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:13 Feb 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
of noncompliance for each individual
for which the required information
should have been submitted.
(iii) A reporting entity has reported,
and exceeds any error tolerance(s)
threshold established by the Secretary
(not to exceed 20 percent) in any 4 out
of 8 (or less) consecutive reporting
periods. The penalty is—
(A) Based upon the number of
beneficiary records on the fourth
submission that exceed any such error
tolerance(s); and
(B) $1,000 as adjusted annually under
45 CFR part 102 for each calendar day
of noncompliance for each individual
for which the required information
should have been submitted.
(3) For entities with reporting
obligations under section 1862(b)(8)
(‘‘applicable plan’’) of the Act as
follows:
(i) An applicable plan fails to report
any NGHP beneficiary record within the
specified period from the date of the
settlement, judgment, award, or other
payment. The penalty is—
(A) Calculated on a daily basis, based
on the actual number of beneficiary
records that the entity submitted more
than 1 year after the Total Payment
Obligation to Claimant (TPOC) date; and
(B) Up to $1,000 as adjusted annually
under 45 CFR part 102 for each calendar
day of noncompliance for each
individual for which the required
information should have been
submitted, up to a maximum penalty of
$365,000 as adjusted annually under 45
CFR part 102 per individual per year.
(ii) An applicable plan’s response to
CMS recovery efforts contradicts the
entity’s reporting under section
1862(b)(8) of the Act. The penalty is—
(A) Calculated based on the number of
calendar days that the entity failed to
appropriately report updates to
beneficiary records, as required for
accurate and timely reporting; and
(B) Up to $1,000 as adjusted annually
under 45 CFR part 102 per calendar day
of noncompliance, for a maximum
penalty of $365,000 as adjusted
annually under 45 CFR part 102.
(iii) An applicable plan has reported,
and exceeds any error tolerance(s)
threshold established by the Secretary
(not to exceed 20 percent) in any 4 out
of 8 consecutive reporting periods. The
penalty is calculated using the following
tiered approach, based on the number of
calendar days that the applicable plan
exceeded the error tolerance(s) in the
entity’s fourth above-tolerance
submission.
(A) Initial penalty amount. For the
first penalty, CMS imposes a penalty of
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
one-quarter (25 percent) of the
maximum penalty per beneficiary per
calendar day of non-compliance after
the required date of submission (last
calendar day of the applicable plan’s
reporting period), based upon the
number of beneficiaries whose records
exceeded any error tolerance(s)
established by the Secretary.
(B) Subsequent penalty amounts. For
the second and subsequent penalties,
CMS increases the penalty specified in
paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(A) of this section in
increments of one-quarter (25 percent)
of the maximum penalty for applicable
plans that fail to comply in consecutive
reporting periods to a maximum of
$1,000 as adjusted annually under 45
CFR part 102 per beneficiary per
calendar day of non-compliance.
(C) Reduction in penalty amount. If
the applicable plan reports after the
assessment of a penalty and the entity
remains below any error tolerances, the
penalty amount for the next penalty
eligible file is reduced by increments of
one-quarter (25 percent) of the
maximum penalty per beneficiary per
calendar day of non-compliance per
consecutive subsequent quarter of
compliance, to the minimum penalty of
one-quarter (25 percent) of the
maximum penalty per beneficiary per
calendar day of non-compliance.
*
*
*
*
*
For the reasons specified in the
preamble, the Department of Health and
Human Services proposes to amend 45
CFR part 102 as specified below:
PART 102—ADJUSTMENT OF CIVIL
MONETARY PENALTIES FOR
INFLATION
4. The authority for part 102
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: Public Law 101–410, Sec. 701
of Public Law 114–74, 31 U.S.C. 3801–3812.
5. Section 102.3 is amended in the
table by:
■ a. Revising the entries ‘‘1395m(k)(6),’’
‘‘1395m(l)(6),’’ ‘‘1395y(b)(6)(B),’’ and
‘‘1395y(b)(7)(B)(i);’’
■ b. Adding an entry for
‘‘1395y(b)(8)(E)(i)’’ in alphanumeric
order; and
■ c. Revising the entries for
‘‘1395pp(h),’’ ‘‘1395ss(a)(2),’’
‘‘1395ss(p)(8),’’ ‘‘1395ss(p)(9)(C),’’
‘‘1395ss(q)(5)(C),’’ ‘‘1395ss(r)(6)(A),’’
‘‘1395ss(s)(4),’’ and ‘‘1395ss(t)(2).’’
The revisions and addition read as
follows:
■
§ 102.3
*
E:\FR\FM\18FEP1.SGM
Penalty adjustment and table.
*
*
18FEP1
*
*
8803
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 32 / Tuesday, February 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1 TO § 102.3—CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY AUTHORITIES ADMINISTERED BY HHS AGENCIES AND PENALTY
AMOUNTS
[January 17, 2020]
CFR 1
*
HHS
agency
*
Date of last
statutorily
established
penalty
figure 3
Description 2
*
*
*
*
2019
maximum
adjusted
penalty
($)
2020
maximum
adjusted
penalty
($) 4
*
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
42 U.S.C:
*
1395m(k)(6) 5 ..........
*
42 CFR 402.1(c)(32),
402.105(d)(3).
1395m(l)(6) 5 ...........
42 CFR 402.1(c)(33),
402.105(d)(4).
*
1395y(b)(6)(B) ........
*
42 CFR 402.1(c)(20),
402.105(a).
1395y(b)(7)(B)(i) .....
42 CFR 402.1(c)(21),
402.105(a).
*
1395y(b)(8)(E)(i) .....
*
42 CFR 402.1(c)(22),
402.105(a)(E).
CMS
*
1395pp(h) 5 .............
*
42 CFR 402.1(c)(24),
402.105(d)(2)(xv).
CMS
1395ss(a)(2) ...........
42 CFR 402.1(c)(25),
405.105(f)(1).
*
1395ss(p)(8) ...........
*
42 CFR 402.1(c)(26),
402.105(e).
1395ss(p)(9)(C) ......
VerDate Sep<11>2014
*
CMS
CMS
*
CMS
CMS
*
*
CMS
*
CMS
42 CFR 402.1(c)(26),
405.105(f)(2).
CMS
42 CFR 402.1(c)(27),
402.105(e).
CMS
17:13 Feb 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
*
*
Penalty for any person or entity who knowingly
and willfully bills or collects for any outpatient
therapy services or comprehensive outpatient
rehabilitation services on other than an assignment-related basis. (Penalties are assessed in the same manner as 42 U.S.C.
1395m(k)(6) and 1395u(j)(2)(B), which is assessed according to 1320a–7a(a)).
Penalty for any supplier of ambulance services
who knowingly and willfully fills or collects for
any services on other than an assignment-related basis. (Penalties are assessed in the
same manner as 42 U.S.C. 1395u(b)(18)(B),
which is assessed according to 1320a–7a(a)).
*
*
*
Penalty for any entity that knowingly, willfully,
and repeatedly fails to complete a claim form
relating to the availability of other health benefits in accordance with statute or provides inaccurate information relating to such on the
claim form.
Penalty for any entity serving as insurer, third
party administrator, or fiduciary for a group
health plan that fails to provide information
that identifies situations where the group
health plan is or was a primary plan to Medicare to the HHS Secretary.
*
*
*
Penalty for any entity serving as insurer, third
party administrator, or fiduciary for a nongroup health plan that fails to provide information that identifies situations where the group
health plan is or was a primary plan to Medicare to the HHS Secretary.
*
*
*
Penalty for any durable medical equipment supplier, including a supplier of prosthetic devices, prosthetics, orthotics, or supplies, that
knowingly and willfully fails to make refunds in
a timely manner to Medicare beneficiaries
under
certain
conditions.
(42
U.S.C.
1395(m)(18) sanctions apply here in the same
manner, which is under 1395u(j)(2) and
1320a–7a(a)).
Penalty for any person that issues a Medicare
supplemental policy that has not been approved by the State regulatory program or
does not meet Federal standards after a
statutorily defined effective date.
*
*
*
Penalty for any person that sells or issues Medicare supplemental polices after a given date
that fail to conform to the NAIC or Federal
standards established by statute.
Penalty for any person that sells or issues Medicare supplemental polices after a given date
that fail to conform to the NAIC or Federal
standards established by statute.
Penalty for any person that sells a Medicare
supplemental policy and fails to make available for sale the core group of basic benefits
when selling other Medicare supplemental
policies with additional benefits or fails to provide the individual, before selling the policy,
an outline of coverage describing benefits.
*
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\18FEP1.SGM
2019
*
15,975
16,257
2019
15,15,975
16,257
2019
*
3,383
3,443
2019
1,211
1,232
2019
*
1,211
1,232
2019
*
15,975
16,257
2019
54,832
55,799
2019
*
28,413
28,914
2019
47,357
48,192
2019
28,413
28,914
18FEP1
8804
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 32 / Tuesday, February 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1 TO § 102.3—CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY AUTHORITIES ADMINISTERED BY HHS AGENCIES AND PENALTY
AMOUNTS—Continued
[January 17, 2020]
HHS
agency
CFR 1
42 CFR 402.1(c)(27),
405.105(f)(3), (4).
1395ss(q)(5)(C) ......
42 CFR 402.1(c)(28),
405.105(f)(5).
CMS
1395ss(r)(6)(A) .......
42 CFR 402.1(c)(29),
405.105(f)(6).
CMS
1395ss(s)(4) ...........
42 CFR 402.1(c)(30),
405.105(c).
CMS
1395ss(t)(2) ............
42 CFR 402.1(c)(31),
405.105(f)(7).
CMS
*
*
Date of last
statutorily
established
penalty
figure 3
Description 2
Penalty for any person that sells a Medicare
supplemental policy and fails to make available for sale the core group of basic benefits
when selling other Medicare supplemental
policies with additional benefits or fails to provide the individual, before selling the policy,
an outline of coverage describing benefits.
Penalty for any person that fails to suspend the
policy of a policyholder made eligible for medical assistance or automatically reinstates the
policy of a policyholder who has lost eligibility
for medical assistance, under certain circumstances.
Penalty for any person that fails to provide refunds or credits as required by section
1882(r)(1)(B).
Penalty for any issuer of a Medicare supplemental policy that does not waive listed time
periods if they were already satisfied under a
proceeding Medicare supplemental policy, or
denies a policy, or conditions the issuances
or effectiveness of the policy, or discriminates
in the pricing of the policy base on health status or other specified criteria.
Penalty for any issuer of a Medicare supplemental policy that fails to fulfill listed responsibilities.
*
*
*
2019
maximum
adjusted
penalty
($)
2020
maximum
adjusted
penalty
($) 4
2019
47,357
48,192
2019
47,357
48,192
2019
47,357
48,192
2019
20,104
20,459
2019
47,357
48,192
*
*
1 Some
HHS components have not promulgated regulations regarding their civil monetary penalty-specific statutory authorities.
2 The description is not intended to be a comprehensive explanation of the underlying violation; the statute and corresponding regulation, if applicable, should be
consulted.
3 Statutory or Inflation Act Adjustment.
4 The cost of living multiplier for 2018, based on the CPI–U for the month of October 2017, not seasonally adjusted, is 1.02041, as indicated in OMB Memorandum
M–18–03, ‘‘Implementation of Penalty Inflation Adjustments for 2018, Pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015’’ (December
15, 2017).
5 The cost of living multiplier for 2020, based on the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI–U) for the month of October 2019, not seasonally adjusted, is 1.01764, as indicated in OMB Memorandum M–20–05, ‘‘Implementation of Penalty Inflation Adjustments for 2019, Pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties
Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015’’ (December 16, 2019).
Dated: August 12, 2019.
Seema Verma,
Administrator, Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services.
Dated: December 12, 2019.
Alex Azar,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human
Services.
[FR Doc. 2020–03069 Filed 2–13–20; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
47 CFR Parts 1 and 54
[WC Docket Nos. 18–143 and 10–90; Report
No. 3142; FRS 16493]
Petition for Reconsideration of Action
in Rulemaking Proceeding
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Petition for Reconsideration.
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:13 Feb 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
A Petition for Reconsideration
(Petition) has been filed in the
Commission’s rulemaking proceeding
by L. Charles Keller, on behalf of Virgin
Islands Telephone Corporation dba
Viya.
SUMMARY:
Oppositions to the Petition must
be filed on or before March 4, 2020.
Replies to an opposition must be filed
on or before March 16, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th Street SW,
Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alexander Minard, email:
Alexander.Minard@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s
document, Report No. 3142, released
February 6, 2020. The full text of the
Petition is available for viewing and
copying at the FCC Reference
Information Center, 445 12th Street SW,
Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554.
It also may be accessed online via the
Commission’s Electronic Comment
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
Filing System at: https://apps.fcc.gov/
ecfs/. The Commission will not send a
Congressional Review Act (CRA)
submission to Congress or the
Government Accountability Office
pursuant to the CRA, 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A) because no rules are being
adopted by the Commission.
Subject: The Uniendo a Puerto Rico
Fund and the Connect America USVI
Fund, Connect America Fund; DA 19–
1300, released by the Commission on
December 19, 2019, in WC Docket Nos.
18–143, 10–90. This document is being
published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e).
See also 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1) and 1.429(f),
(g).
Number of Petitions Filed: 1.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020–03148 Filed 2–14–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
E:\FR\FM\18FEP1.SGM
18FEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 32 (Tuesday, February 18, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8793-8804]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03069]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
42 CFR Part 402
Office of the Secretary
45 CFR Part 102
[CMS-6061-P]
RIN 0938-AT86
Medicare Program; Medicare Secondary Payer and Certain Civil
Money Penalties
AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would specify how and when CMS must
calculate and impose civil money penalties (CMPs) when group health
plan (GHP) and non-group health plan (NGHP) responsible reporting
entities
[[Page 8794]]
(RREs) fail to meet their Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) reporting
obligations in any one or more of the following ways: When RREs fail to
register and report as required by MSP reporting requirements; when
RREs report as required, but report in a manner that exceeds error
tolerances established by the Secretary of the Department of Health and
Human Services (the Secretary); when RREs contradict the information
the RREs have reported when CMS attempts to recover its payments from
these RREs. This proposed rule would also establish CMP amounts and
circumstances under which CMPs would and would not be imposed.
DATES: Comment date: To be assured consideration, comments must be
received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m.
on April 20, 2020.
ADDRESSES: In commenting, please refer to file code CMS-6061-P. Because
of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by
facsimile (FAX) transmission.
You may submit comments in one of four ways (please choose only one
of the ways listed).
1. Electronically. You may submit electronic comments on this
regulation to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the ``Submit a
comment'' instructions.
2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments (one original and
two copies) to the following address ONLY: Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention:
CMS-6061-P, P.O. Box 8013, Baltimore, MD 21244-8013.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received
before the close of the comment period.
3. By express or overnight mail. You may send written comments (one
original and two copies) to the following address ONLY: Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services,
Attention: CMS-6061-P, Mail Stop C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard,
Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.
For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline Cipa, (410) 786-3259.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Inspection of Public Comments: All comments
received before the close of the comment period are available for
viewing by the public, including any personally identifiable or
confidential business information that is included in a comment. We
post all comments received before the close of the comment period on
the following website as soon as possible after they have been
received: https://regulations.gov. Follow the search instructions on
that website to view public comments.
Comments received timely will be also available for public
inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3
weeks after publication of a document, at the headquarters of the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard,
Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an appointment to view public comments,
phone 1-800-743-3951.
I. Background
A. Imposition of Civil Money Penalties (CMPs)--Legislative Overview
In 1981, the Congress added section 1128A to the Social Security
Act (the Act) (section 2105 of Pub. L. 97-35) to authorize the
Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) to impose civil
money penalties (CMPs) and assessments on certain health care
facilities, health care practitioners, and other suppliers for
noncompliance with rules of the Medicare and Medicaid programs. CMPs
and assessments provide an enforcement tool for agencies to use to
ensure compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements. These
administrative penalties may be imposed in addition to potential
criminal or civil penalties.
Since 1981, the Congress has increased both the number and the
types of circumstances under which the Secretary may impose CMPs. Some
CMP authorities address fraud, misrepresentation, or falsification,
while others address noncompliance with programmatic or regulatory
requirements. The Secretary has delegated the authority for certain
provisions to either the Office of Inspector General (OIG) or Centers
for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). (See the October 20, 1994
notice, titled ``Office of Inspector General; Health Care Financing
Administration; Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations
of Authority,'' (58 FR 52967).) A summary of these CMP changes are
discussed in this section of this proposed rule.
B. Legislative History
In 1980, the Congress added section 1862(b) of the Act, which
defined when Medicare is the secondary payer to certain primary plans.
These provisions are known as the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP)
provisions of the Act.
Section 1862(b) of the Act prohibits Medicare from making payment
if payment has been made, or can reasonably be expected to be made by
any of the following primary plans:
Group Health Plans (GHPs).
Workers' compensation plans.
Liability insurance (including self-insurance).
No-fault insurance.
Medicare may make conditional payments, subject to Medicare payment
rules, in situations where workers' compensation, liability insurance
(including self-insurance), or no-fault insurance has not made payment
or cannot be expected to make payment promptly. See section
1862(b)(2)(A) of the Act. Any conditional payments that Medicare makes
are subject to reimbursement from the primary plan. See section
1862(b)(2)(B) of the Act.
C. Legislative Provisions Regarding Mandatory Reporting Requirements
To enhance enforcement of the MSP provisions, section 111 of the
Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (MMSEA) (Pub. L.
110-173) added paragraphs (7) and (8) to section 1862(b) of the Act.
These paragraphs established new mandatory reporting requirements
regarding Medicare beneficiaries who have coverage under GHP
arrangements as well as for Medicare beneficiaries who receive
settlements, judgments, awards or other payment from liability
insurance (including self-insurance), no-fault insurance, or workers'
compensation (collectively referred to as Non-Group Health Plan, or
NGHP). Sections 1862(b)(7)(A) and 1862(b)(8)(F) of the Act define those
parties responsible for this reporting (collectively referred to as
RREs); they are generally identified as group health insurers or third
party administrators or both as well as NGHP applicable plans. RREs are
currently required to submit coverage information for Medicare
beneficiaries on a quarterly basis through an electronic file
submission process that may vary depending upon the number of
beneficiary records being reported or updated. This coverage
information primarily consists of enough identifying information to
uniquely identify the Medicare beneficiary and confirm their
beneficiary status, as well as information about the nature of the
coverage (such as GHP or NGHP, coverage effective dates, policy limits,
settlement amounts, and so forth). These section 111 of MMSEA reporting
provisions do not eliminate any other existing statutory provisions or
[[Page 8795]]
regulations. Further, these reporting provisions include authority for
Medicare to impose CMPs against entities that fail to comply with the
section 111 of MMSEA reporting requirements under section 1862(b)(7) or
(b)(8) of the Act, and required that GHPs and NGHPs that fail to comply
with these reporting requirements shall be subject to a CMP of up to
$1,000 for each calendar day of noncompliance.
In 2013, Congress enacted the Medicare IVIG Access and
Strengthening Medicare and Repaying Taxpayers Act of 2012 (the SMART
Act, at SSA section 1862(b), and codified at 42 U.S.C. 1395(y)(b)(2).
The SMART Act amended section 1862(b)(8)(E) of the Act, which includes
the section 111 of MMSEA reporting requirements and describes the
enforcement provisions for NGHPs that fail to comply with the reporting
requirements. The SMART Act revised section 1862(b)(8)(E) of the Act to
state that NGHP applicable plans that fail to comply with the reporting
requirements may be subject to a civil money penalty of up to $1,000
for each calendar day of reporting noncompliance required of NGHP
applicable plans under section 1862(b)(8)(E) of the Act. The SMART Act
also added section 1862(b)(8)(I) of the Act, which specifically
required rulemaking actions regarding the enforcement of CMP provisions
under section 1862(b)(8)(E) of the Act.
We note that the SMART Act did not amend any CMP provisions for GHP
arrangements that have reporting obligations under section 1862(b)(7)
of the Act. Such GHP arrangements remain subject to mandatory CMPs of
$1,000 per calendar day of noncompliance and per individual for whom
submission of information was required. In addition, the SMART Act
directed rulemaking for NGHP applicable plans regarding the imposition
and non-imposition of CMPs.
We further note that the statutory language speaks to
``individuals,'' though there are situations described that are
specifically applicable to Medicare beneficiaries; we have attempted to
be consistent with the usage of this statutory terminology but use the
term ``beneficiary'' where it is more appropriate.
D. Summary of Public Comments Received on the December 11, 2013
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM)
In accordance with the rulemaking directed by the SMART Act, on
December 11, 2013 (78 FR 75304), we published an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) titled ``Medicare Secondary Payer and
Certain Civil Money Penalties.'' The December 2013 ANPRM solicited
public comment on specific practices for which CMPs may or may not be
imposed for failure to comply with MSP reporting requirements for
certain GHP and NGHP arrangements.
We received 34 timely pieces of correspondence in response to the
December 2013 ANPRM. In this section of the proposed rule, we provide
an analysis of the public comments received by subject area, with a
focus on the most common issues raised, and briefly discuss how we
propose to address the issues raised by commenters in response to the
2013 ANPRM in this proposed rule.
1. CMPs and ``Good Faith Efforts'' To Obtain Information To Report
Commenters suggested that CMS refrain from imposing CMPs where
NGHPs with reporting obligations under section 1862(b)(8) of the Act
make ``good faith efforts'' to obtain required information from
individuals who are unwilling or unable to provide it. Some ``good
faith efforts'' suggested included the following: (1) CMS could accept
documentation signed by the individual stating that he, or she is
either not a Medicare beneficiary, or will not provide the NGHP entity
with his or her Social Security Number (SSN) (full SSN or last 5
digits); and (2) CMS could accept a judicial order establishing that
the individual is not required to provide his or her Medicare
Beneficiary Identifier (MBI) or SSN to the NGHP entity. We note that
concerns about ``good faith efforts'' were received from the NGHP
industry and not the GHP industry, which we believe is reflective of
fundamental differences between the two industries and the
relationships between those plans and the individuals in question. Our
understanding is that NGHP applicable plans may be in an adversarial
relationship at times with the reportable individual, whereas the
reportable individual is typically the client of a GHP.
In response to the comments, we are proposing that we would not
assess CMPs against NGHP entities where those entities make efforts as
defined in this proposed rule to obtain necessary reporting
information. NGHP entities would document their records with their
efforts to obtain this reporting information, as we would retain the
right to audit such documentation.
2. Determining Noncompliance
Most commenters suggested that ``noncompliance'' with CMS's
reporting requirements include failure to--(1) report when an entity is
required to report; (2) report all Medicare beneficiaries who are/were
plan participants (GHP) or claimants (NGHP); and (3) report when
medical care was either claimed or released (as a part of a settlement,
judgment, award, or other payment). We generally agree with the
suggested concepts and have incorporated them into section II. of this
proposed rule involving these reporting requirements.
3. Amounts of CMPs
A number of commenters recommended developing a ``sliding scale''
or ``tiered'' CMP approach, based upon the requirement of the
responsible reporting entity (RRE) to obtain the necessary reporting
information from these entities. We considered the possibility of
incorporating penalty tiers for NGHP entities that have reporting
obligations under section 1862(b)(8) of the Act. However, we are not
proposing to rely on the intent of the NGHP entity reporting. Instead,
we are proposing that we would assign CMP amounts based on the number
of times, meaning individuals, a particular entity fails to report, or
fails to report correctly. We solicit comment on this proposal, as
explained in section II. of this proposed rule.
4. Proposed ``Safe Harbors''
Many commenters suggested that CMS should establish a series of
``safe harbors'' that would preclude the assessment of a CMP. We note
that multiple commenters were concerned about non-compliance due to
technical issues and wished to define these myriad situations as ``safe
harbors.'' In section II. of this proposed rule, we are proposing to
employ tolerances related to submissions that contain certain types of
errors or mistakes to address these comments, and to only consider
performance against those tolerances over time so that a few poor
submissions do not necessarily result in the imposition of a CMP.
Multiple commenters were also concerned about their ability to obtain
all of the required information for reporting and requested safe
harbors for non-compliance due to non-cooperation on the part of the
reportable individual. This situation has been addressed under ``good
faith efforts'' in this section.
5. Develop an Appeals Process
A number of commenters suggested that CMS should develop a formal
appeals process to provide entities with reporting obligations a formal
structure in which to appeal any notice of a pending or imposed CMP. We
would
[[Page 8796]]
expect that this proposed rule, once finalized, would comport with the
appeals process as prescribed by 42 CFR 402.19 and set forth under 42
CFR part 1005. In broad terms, parties subject to CMP would receive
formal written notice at the time penalty is proposed. The recipient
would have the right to request a hearing with an Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ) within 60 calendar days of receipt. Any party may appeal
the initial decision of the ALJ to the Departmental Appeals Board (DAB)
within 30 calendar days. The DAB's decision becomes binding 60 calendar
days following service of the DAB's decision, absent petition for
judicial review
6. Rule is Prospective
Many commenters suggested that the rule should be enforced
prospectively only. We agree and would evaluate compliance based only
upon files submitted by the RRE on or after the effective date of any
final rule.
7. Statute of Limitations
Many commenters requested a statute of limitations on the
imposition of CMPs. We agree and will apply the 5-year statute of
limitations as required by 28 U.S.C. 2462. Under 28 U.S.C. 2462, we may
only impose a CMP within 5 years from the date when the non-compliance
was identified by CMS. An explanation and example of how this proposed
statute of limitations would work for each of the three proposed types
of CMPs is provided in this section of this rule.
For failure to report, the noncompliance occurs on every day of
non-reporting after the required timeframe for reporting has elapsed:
If an RRE fails to report any beneficiary record as required
beginning in 2023, and CMS identifies this non-compliance in 2024 but
fails to take action until 2030, then no CMP would be imposed.
For responses to recovery efforts contradicting reporting, the
noncompliance occurs when the response is received by CMS:
If in 2023 an RRE reported ongoing primary payment responsibility
for a given beneficiary and then responded to recovery efforts 1 year
later, in 2024, with an assertion that coverage for that beneficiary
was actually terminated prior to the issuance of the recovery demand
letter. If CMS fails to impose a CMP for this noncompliance within 5
years (no later than 2029), then no CMP would be imposed for this
incident of noncompliance.
For situations where the reporter exceeds the error tolerance
threshold, the noncompliance occurs at the end of the fourth
consecutive reporting period over the 20 percent threshold (out of
eight consecutive reporting periods):
If an RRE exceeds the error tolerance threshold in all four
reporting periods of 2023 and then never exceeds the threshold again,
it would normally be subject to a CMP. But if CMS fails to impose a CMP
for this noncompliance within 5 years (no later than 2028), then no CMP
would be imposed for this noncompliance.
We do appreciate the concerns raised by commenters and wish to
reiterate that CMPs would only be imposed on a prospective basis.
8. Informal and Formal Notice
Many commenters requested that CMS explain how it will provide
notice to entities regarding pending or imposed CMPs and how much
information will be included.
We would expect to communicate with the entity informally before
issuing formal notice regarding a CMP. Informal communications would
depend upon the nature of the non-compliance. Regarding the potential
imposition of CMPs on other grounds, CMS anticipates utilizing an
informal (that is, prior to formal enforcement actions) written ``pre-
notice'' process that would allow the RRE the opportunity to present
mitigating evidence before the imposition of a CMP. Once we determine
that a CMP will be imposed, we would provide formal notice to the
entity in writing in accordance with 42 CFR 402.7, which would contain
information on the reason for the assessment of a CMP, the amount of
the CMP, and next steps for the entity, including appeal rights.
For example, we expect to continue to utilize the current messaging
procedures around file errors described in the MMSEA Section 111 User
Guides, which entail indicators on response files, emails, and phone
calls depending upon the nature and severity of the error. RREs thus
would remain informed about the performance of their quarterly file
submissions. Upon the third submission out of seven consecutive
reporting periods that exceeds error tolerances, the RRE would receive
an ``informal notice'' that consists of a written warning letter (which
requires no response, but is intended to warn the RRE that a subsequent
submission that exceeds tolerances would result in potential CMP
imposition). Upon the fourth submission out of eight consecutive
reporting periods that exceeds error tolerances (and any additional
triggering submissions), the RRE would receive another ``informal''
written notice of non-compliance indicating the nature of the non-
compliance and the determination of the potential amount of the CMP,
with 30 calendar days to respond with any mitigating information prior
to the issuance of a notice of proposed determination in accordance
with 42 CFR 402.7.
In the event that a CMP may be imposed for lack of timely
reporting, CMS would issue an informal written notice of non-
compliance, identifying the nature of the non-compliance and the
determination of the potential amount of the CMP. The RRE would again
have 30 calendar days to respond with mitigating information before the
issuance of a written notice in accordance with 42 CFR 402.7.
Recovery demand letters would be revised to include information
regarding the potential for CMPs should an RRE contradict its own
reporting in the recovery process. If an RRE submits a dispute or
redetermination request in response to the recovery process that
appears to directly contradict its own reporting, an informal written
notice of non-compliance identifying the nature of the non-compliance
and the determination of the potential amount of the CMP would be
issued to the RRE. The RRE would again have 30 calendar days to respond
with mitigating information before the issuance of a written notice in
accordance with 42 CFR 402.7.
9. Suspension of CMP Imposition Where Programmatic Changes Are Required
Commenters suggested that CMS consider suspending the imposition of
CMPs, where changes to mandatory reporting procedure require RREs to
make significant revisions to the systems used to prepare the data for
reporting.
We would expect to continue to provide at least 6 months' (180
calendar days) notice regarding any changes in policy or procedure
associated with section 111 of MMSEA required reporting to allow
reporting entities adequate time to react. We would not assess any CMPs
associated with a specific policy or procedural change for a minimum of
two reporting periods following the implementation of that policy or
procedural change.
10. Duplicative Reporting and CMPs
Commenters suggested that CMS should not impose CMPs in situations
where required information has already been reported to another agency
or entity, such as the Department of Labor, or in situations where
multiple entities have obligations to report the same
[[Page 8797]]
information to CMS and one entity has already reported.
The reporting requirements established under sections 1862(b)(7)
and (b)(8) of the Act imposed certain unique requirements on specific
entities to report data to CMS for the purposes of identifying those
situations where another party has primary payment responsibility.
These reporting requirements were imposed under the Act, regardless of
whether another agency or entity requires the same or similar data (and
such data must also be reported to CMS in the manner and form specified
by the Secretary). The current OMB control number assigned to this
information collection effort, as required under the Paperwork
Reduction Act, is 0938-1074.
11. Correct Coordination of Benefits and Recovery
Commenters suggested that CMS not impose CMPs when CMS has been
able to coordinate benefits correctly or CMS has otherwise been able to
recover.
The obligations to report under section 1862(b)(7) and (b)(8) of
the Act are separate and distinct from any other obligation with
respect to MSP. The fact that we may be able to correctly coordinate
benefits and pursue recovery does not negate the obligations
established under section 1862(b)(7) and (b)(8) of the Act.
II. Provisions of Proposed Regulations
We have reviewed the public comments in response to our December
11, 2013 ANPRM (78 FR 75304), and other policy considerations as
discussed in section I.D. of this proposed rule. Accordingly, we are
proposing specific criteria for when CMPs would be imposed and
proposing specific criteria for when CMPs would not be imposed, in
circumstances when a GHP or an NGHP entity fails to comply (either on
its own or through a reporting agent) with MSP reporting requirements
specified under section 1862(b)(7) and (b)(8) of the Act. We note that
the proposed CMPs would be levied in addition to any MSP reimbursement
obligations.
Further, we proposed to amend the amount of these CMPs, as set
forth under 45 CFR 102.3 (Penalty adjustment and table).
A. CMP Bases and Scope
Section 402.1 describes the basis for imposition CMPs against
parties who violate the provisions of the Act. We propose to add
regulatory language under Sec. 402.1(c), which would identify
situations in which GHP entities and NGHP entities with RREs would be
subject to CMPs under sections 1862(b)(7) and (b)(8) of the Act. To
accomplish this regulatory addition, we are proposing the following
regulatory revisions in Sec. 402.1:
Removing paragraph (c)(20).
Redesignating paragraph (c)(21) as paragraph (c)(20).
Redesignating paragraphs (c)(22) through (34) as
paragraphs (c)(23) through (35).
Adding new paragraphs (c)(21) and (22).
Section 402.105(b) establishes the amount of penalties assessed
against parties who violate the provisions of the Act. The proposed
regulation at Sec. 402.105(b)(2) would establish the amount of
penalties imposed against GHPs, and the proposed regulation at Sec.
402.105(b)(3) would establish the amount of penalties imposed against
NGHPs. The regulatory provisions proposed would amend Sec. 402.105(b)
by revising paragraph (b)(2) and adding a new paragraph (b)(3). The
proposed regulatory changes would establish the amount of CMPs imposed
in these situations.
In addition, we have revised the regulations at 45 CFR 102.3 to
establish the updated amounts for all CMPs at issue in these and the
impacted proposed regulations. The table in this section sets forth the
changes described for these amounts.
B. CMP Imposition and Amounts
The proposed regulations at Sec. 402.1(c) would identify
circumstances where GHP entities and NGHP entities with RREs would be
subject to CMPs for violation of sections 1862(b)(7) and (b)(8) of the
Act. We may become aware of these violations through various means.
Currently self-referral is the most common means by which RREs that
have failed to properly register and report are identified, which we
expect to continue. Following publication of the final rule, we will
enhance monitoring of recovery process disputes and appeals that
contradict reported data, as well as monitoring of the reported data
and performance over time to identify reporting that exceeds error
tolerances. The proposed regulations at Sec. 402.105(b) would clarify
how we would calculate CMP amounts for GHP and NGHP entities that have
reporting obligations under sections 1862(b)(7) and (b)(8) of the Act.
Furthermore, the proposed Sec. 402.1(c) would identify situations
where GHP and NGHP RREs would not be subject to CMPs for violation of
section 1862(b)(7) and (b)(8) of the Act.
Under section 1862(b)(7) of the Act, a GHP RRE shall be subject to
a CMP of $1,000 as adjusted annually under 45 CFR part 102 (currently
$1,569 as of January 17, 2020; please see 85 FR 2869) for each calendar
day of noncompliance for each individual for which the required
information should have been submitted. Under section 1862(b)(8) of the
Act, an NGHP RRE may be subject to a CMP of up to $1,000 (as adjusted
annually under 45 CFR part 102) for each calendar day of noncompliance
for each individual for which the required information should have been
submitted. These CMPs would be in addition to any other penalties
prescribed by law, and in addition to any MSP claim under section
1862(b) of the Act with respect to an individual.
1. Imposition of a CMP
We would impose a CMP in the following situations:
If an RRE fails to report any GHP beneficiary record
within the required timeframe (no more than 1 calendar year after GHP
coverage effective date or the Medicare beneficiary's entitlement date,
whichever is later). The penalty would be calculated on a daily basis,
based on the actual number of individual beneficiaries' records that
the entity submitted untimely (that is, beyond the required timeframe
after the GHP MSP effective date). The penalty would be $1,000 (as
adjusted annually under 45 CFR part 102) for each calendar day of
noncompliance for each individual for which the required information
should have been submitted, as counted from the day after the last day
of the RRE's assigned reporting window where the information should
have been submitted through the day that CMS received the information,
up to a maximum penalty of $365,000 (as adjusted annually under 45 CFR
part 102, currently $572,685) per individual per year.
If an RRE fails to report any NGHP beneficiary record
within the required timeframe (no more than 1 year of the date of the
settlement, judgment, award, or other payment (also referred to as the
Total Payment Obligation to Claimant (TPOC)). The penalty would be
calculated on a daily basis, based on the actual number of individual
beneficiaries' records that the entity submitted untimely (that is, in
excess of the required timeframe after the TPOC date). The penalty
would be up to $1,000 (as adjusted annually under 45 CFR part 102) for
each calendar day of noncompliance for each individual for which the
required information should have been submitted, as counted from the
day after the last day of the RRE's assigned reporting window where the
information should have been submitted through the day that CMS
received the
[[Page 8798]]
information, up to a maximum penalty of $365,000 (as adjusted annually
under 45 CFR part 102) per individual per year.
If a GHP's or NGHP's response to CMS recovery efforts
contradicts the entity's section 111 of MMSEA reporting. For example,
if an RRE reported and repeatedly affirmed ongoing primary payment
responsibility for a given beneficiary, then responded to recovery
efforts with the assertion that coverage for that beneficiary actually
terminated 2 years prior to the issuance of the recovery demand letter.
The penalty would be calculated based on the number of calendar days
that the entity failed to appropriately report updates to beneficiary
records, as required for accurate and timely reporting under section
111 of MMSEA. For a GHP, the penalty would be $1,000 (as adjusted
annually under 45 CFR part 102) for each calendar day of noncompliance
for each individual for which the required information should have been
submitted. For an NGHP, the penalty would be up to $1,000 (as adjusted
annually under 45 CFR part 102) per calendar day of noncompliance for
each individual, for a maximum annual penalty of $365,000 (as adjusted
annually under 45 CFR part 102) for each individual for which the
required information should have been submitted.
If a GHP or NGHP entity has reported, and exceeds any
error tolerance(s) threshold established by the Secretary in any 4 out
of 8 consecutive reporting periods. We propose that the initial and
maximum error tolerance threshold would be 20 percent (representing
errors that prevent 20 percent or more of the beneficiary records from
being processed), with any reduction in that tolerance to be published
for notice and comment in advance of implementation. We intend for this
tolerance to be applied as an absolute percentage of the records
submitted in a given reporting cycle; we welcome feedback on this
proposed methodology and threshold. The errors that would be used to
determine whether the error tolerance is met must also be defined in
advance of implementation of the final rule; we are only considering
those significant errors which prevent a file or individual beneficiary
record from processing. These errors are defined in the Section 111
User Guides, but we welcome the public's feedback. We would maintain
the current notification process in place where RREs receive notice via
response file and direct outreach (email and, in more serious cases,
telephone call) when there are errors with their file submissions.
Although the Act indicates that CMPs are calculated based on the
number of days of RRE noncompliance, RREs do not report on a daily
basis and so non-conformance in this situation cannot be defined on a
daily basis. Therefore under this proposed rule, an RRE is considered
to be out of compliance for the entire reporting period when the RRE
exceeds the error tolerance threshold. A reporting period is defined as
one quarter (defined as 90 calendar days for the purposes of
standardizing quarters). For a GHP entity, the penalty would be imposed
if the GHP entity was determined to have exceeded the error
tolerances(s) in the entity's fourth above-tolerance submission out of
any eight consecutive reporting periods. The penalty would be $1,000
(as adjusted annually under 45 CFR part 102) for each calendar day of
noncompliance for each individual for which the required information
should have been submitted. An RRE is considered to be out of
compliance for the entire reporting period when the error tolerance is
exceeded; as previously noted, a reporting period is currently defined
as one quarter (standardized to 90 calendar days). Therefore, the
penalty for a non-compliant GHP would be $90,000 (as adjusted,
currently $141,210) for each individual for which the required
information should have been submitted, per reporting period where a
CMP may be imposed.
For an NGHP entity, a CMP would be imposed on a tiered approach if
the NGHP entity exceeded the error tolerance(s) in the entity's fourth
above-tolerance submission. As with GHP entities, an NGHP entity is
considered to be out of compliance for the entire reporting period when
the error tolerance is exceeded; a reporting period is defined as one
quarter, standardized to 90 calendar days. For the first level of this
penalty (reflecting the fourth submission exceeding error tolerances in
any of the previous eight consecutive reporting periods), we would
impose a penalty of one quarter, or 25 percent, of the maximum penalty
per individual record per calendar day of non-compliance (this maximum
penalty is currently defined as $1,000, as adjusted annually under 45
CFR part 102) after the required date of submission (last calendar day
of the NGHP's reporting period), based upon the number of beneficiaries
whose records exceeded any error tolerance(s) established by the
Secretary. In effect, $250 (as adjusted, currently $392) per calendar
day, over the 90 calendar days of non-compliance for the full reporting
period, per individual record. If the NGHP entity fails to comply again
in the next consecutive reporting period, the amount of the penalty
would increase to one half, or 50 percent, of the maximum penalty
(currently defined as $1000, as adjusted annually under 45 CFR part
102) per beneficiary per calendar day of non-compliance. In effect,
$500 (as adjusted, currently $785) per calendar day, over the 90
calendar days of non-compliance for the full reporting period, per
individual record. If the NGHP entity fails to comply again in the next
consecutive reporting period, the amount would increase again to three-
quarters, or 75 percent, of the maximum penalty (currently defined as
$1,000, as adjusted annually under 45 CFR part 102), and so on, up to
the maximum penalty of $1,000 (as adjusted annually under 45 CFR part
102) per beneficiary per calendar day of non-compliance (in effect,
$90,000 as adjusted, over the 90 calendar days of non-compliance for
the full reporting period, per individual record). However, the
potential penalty amount for the next penalty-eligible file would be
reduced by one quarter (25 percent) of the maximum penalty of $1,000
(as adjusted annually under 45 CFR part 102) per individual record per
calendar day of non-compliance for each immediately consecutive
subsequent quarter of compliance where an NGHP entity reports after the
assessment of a penalty and the entity remains below any error
tolerances. Such reductions may accumulate for each subsequent
reporting period where the entity remains below the error tolerance
until the entity is once again at the minimum penalty of one quarter,
or 25 percent, of the maximum penalty per individual record per
calendar day of non-compliance.
The following chart depicts how the concept of ``any 4 out of the
most recent 8 consecutive reporting periods'' would work. CMP amounts
are used for illustration purposes only; all amounts should be assumed
to be adjusted annually.
[[Page 8799]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Example ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CMP Imposed
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................................... E E G E G G G E G G E G Q4 of Year 2.
2......................................... E E G G G G E G G G E E No.
3......................................... * * * * E G E G G G G E No.
4......................................... * * * E E G G E G G E E Q3 and Q4 of Year 3.
5......................................... * E G E G E G E G E G G Q4 of Year 2 and Q2 of Year 3.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key: * = No File; E = Error Tolerance Exceeded; G = Good File.
The following explanations correlate to the examples depicted in
this chart.
Example 1. CMP Imposed: Error tolerances exceeded in 4 out of 8
quarters as of year 2, quarter 4. As of year 3, quarter 3, there are
only three out of eight quarters where submissions exceeded error
tolerances, so no additional CMP would be imposed.
Example 2. No CMP Imposed: In no 8 sequential quarters were error
tolerances exceeded 4 or more times.
Example 3. No CMP Imposed: In no 8 sequential quarters were error
tolerances exceeded 4 or more times.
Example 4. CMP Imposed: Error tolerances were exceeded in 4 out of
8 quarters as of year 3, quarter 3. The subsequent submission (year 3,
quarter 4) also exceeded error tolerances. According to the assessments
proposed for GHP reporting entities, a GHP RRE would be assessed a CMP
of $1,000 per calendar day for each individual for whom information
should have been submitted. According to the tiered approach proposed
for NGHP reporting entities discussed later, an NGHP RRE would be
assessed a CMP of $250 per calendar day per for quarter 3 and $500 per
beneficiary above the tolerance per calendar day for quarter 4.
Example 5. CMP Imposed: Error tolerances were exceeded in 4 out of
7 quarters by year 2, quarter 4. According to the assessments proposed
for GHP reporting entities, a GHP RRE would be assessed a CMP of $1,000
per calendar day for each individual for whom information should have
been submitted. According to the tiered approach proposed for NGHP
reporting entities discussed later, an NGHP RRE would be assessed a CMP
of $250 per calendar day per individual for whom information should
have been submitted. Error tolerances were again exceeded in year 3,
quarter 2. Because error tolerances were not exceeded in year 3,
quarter 1, an NGHP RRE would only be assessed a CMP of $250 per
calendar day per individual for whom information should have been
submitted for year 3, quarter 2 instead of $500.
The following examples demonstrate how the concept of exceeding
error tolerances in ``any 4 out of 8 consecutive reporting periods''
would work:
Example 1: The RRE, ABC Insurer, submitted a file for each quarter
in Year 1 of its required submissions. For Year 1, quarters 1 and 2,
ABC Insurer submitted files where the file submissions entirely failed
processing (100 percent error rate), and thus the quarterly submissions
exceeded the error rate tolerance. In quarter 3 of Year 1, ABC Insurer
submitted a file with no serious errors that prevented the files from
being processed. However, severe file errors again occurred in quarter
4 and 25 percent of its records failed. These errors were corrected by
the RRE for the first quarter of Year 2. ABC Insurer continued to
submit error-free files for quarter 2 and quarter 3 of Year 2. However,
in quarter 4 of Year 2, 50 percent of the submitted records failed. CMS
would impose a CMP because the error tolerances exceeded four out of
the eight quarterly reporting periods as of quarter 4 of Year 2.
Example 2: In the first two quarters of Year 1, Acme Insurance
submitted files with errors that prevented 30 percent of the records
from processing (exceeding error tolerances for quarter 1 and quarter
2). The file submissions for the last two quarters of Year 1 and
quarters 1 through 3 of Year 2 did not have any significant errors and
did not exceed tolerances. However, quarter 4 of Year 2 saw a
recurrence of serious errors and Acme Insurance again exceeded the
error tolerance with 25 percent of its records failing to process.
Quarters 1 and 2 of Year 3 did not exceed tolerances, but the third and
fourth quarters of Year 3 again saw Acme Insurance exceed the error
tolerance with 30 percent and 20 percent of its records failing to
process, respectively. CMS would not impose a CMP as in no continuous
eight reporting periods did Acme Insurance exceed error tolerance four
or more times.
We are proposing a maximum 20 percent per file submission error
tolerance. Any future modification to this error tolerance threshold
will be subject to notice and comment. We would not consider submission
errors that fall below this tolerance in determining the imposition of
a potential CMP; we would continue to provide the response file that
allows submitters to be aware of their performance. We have evaluated
the historical error rates from RRE submissions and have determined
that the vast majority of submitters are able to meet or exceed this
initial minimum acceptable performance level. The 20 percent per file
tolerance for errors would only include those errors and condition
flags that are within the entities' direct control and cause CMS to be
unable to process the individual beneficiary records or entire file
submissions. The errors that would be used to determine whether the
error tolerance is met shall also be defined a minimum of 6 months in
advance of imposition of any CMP (after publication of the final rule)
in the reporting User Guides and will be subject to notice and comment.
We would only consider those significant errors which prevent a file or
individual beneficiary record from processing, such as failure to
provide an individual's last name or valid date of birth, or failure to
provide a matching Tax Identification Number. Less serious errors, such
as internal CMS processing errors, will continue to be noted on the
response files, but will not be considered in determining compliance.
We currently interact with RREs to inform them of errors with file
submissions, between response files to email notifications to, in more
severe situations, direct telephone outreach. Following publication of
the final rule, we would implement a monitoring system but would
continue to review submissions each reporting period to determine
whether the entity has continued to exceed error tolerance(s) and
preserve the notification apparatus currently in place. GHP and NGHP
entities will continue to have penalties assessed for each reporting
period, until the entity submits a file that does not exceed any error
tolerance(s).
2. No CMP Imposed
We would not impose a CMP in the following situations, where all of
the applicable conditions are met:
[[Page 8800]]
If a RRE reports any GHP beneficiary record that is
reported on a quarterly submission timeframe within the required
timeframe (not to exceed 1 year after the GHP effective date), or any
NGHP beneficiary record that is submitted within the required timeframe
(not to exceed 1 year after the TPOC date).
If an RRE complies with any TPOC reporting thresholds or
any other reporting exclusions published in CMS's MMSEA Section 111
User Guides or otherwise granted by CMS. Note that these thresholds are
not defined in the regulatory text as TPOC reporting thresholds are
currently subject to change on an annual basis per 42 U.S.C.
1395(y)(b)(9)(i). CMS also elects to impose operational thresholds for
reporting, such as the current $5,000 threshold for Health
Reimbursement Arrangements.
If a GHP entity or NGHP entity does not exceed any error
tolerance(s) in any four out of eight consecutive reporting periods.
If an NGHP entity fails to report required information
because the NGHP entity was unable to obtain information necessary for
reporting from the reportable individual, including an individual's
last name, first name, date of birth, gender, MBI, or SSN (or the last
5 digits of the SSN), and the responsible applicable plan has made and
maintained records of its good faith effort to obtain this information
by taking all of the following steps:
++ The NGHP has communicated the need for this information to the
individual and his or her attorney or other representative and
requested the information from the individual and his or her attorney
or other representative at least twice by mail and at least once by
phone or other means of contact such as electronic mail in the absence
of a response to the mailings.
++ The NGHP certifies that it has not received a response in
writing, or has received a response in writing that the individual will
not provide his or her MBI or SSN (or last 5 digits of his or her SSN).
++ The NGHP has documented its records to reflect its efforts to
obtain the MBI or SSN (or the last 5 digits of the SSN) and the reason
for the failure to collect this information.
The NGHP entity should maintain records of these good faith efforts
(such as dates and types of communications with the individual) in
order to be produced as mitigating evidence should CMS contemplate the
imposition of a CMP. Such records must be maintained for a period of 5
years. The current OMB control number assigned to this information
collection effort, as required under the Paperwork Reduction Act, is
0938-1074.
We solicit comments on our proposed approaches to imposing and not
imposing CMPs, including our proposed methods of calculating CMP
amounts, and our proposed error tolerance rates. Our proposed approach
to imposing CMPs was developed to give entities meaningful
opportunities to resolve most reporting issues, without the immediate
risk that a CMP would be imposed.
III. Collection of Information Requirements
This document does not impose any new information collection and
recordkeeping requirements that have not already been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995.
IV. Responses to Comments
Because of the large number of public comments we normally receive
on Federal Register documents, we are not able to acknowledge or
respond to them individually. We will consider all comments we receive
by the date and time specified in the ``DATES'' section of this
preamble, and, when we proceed with a subsequent document, we will
respond to the comments in the preamble to that document.
V. Regulatory Impact Statement
We have examined the impact of this rule as required by Executive
Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review (September 30, 1993),
Executive Order 13563 on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
(January 18, 2011), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19,
1980, Pub. L. 96-354), section 1102(b) of the Social Security Act,
section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (March 22,
1995; Pub. L. 104-4), Executive Order 13132 on Federalism (August 4,
1999), the Congressional Review Act (CRA) (5 U.S.C. 804(2)), and
Executive Order 13771 on Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs (January 30, 2017).
Executive Orders 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). A
detailed regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major
rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in
any 1 year). Estimating the economic effects of this rule presents a
significant challenge under current circumstances. At this point in
time, the reporting program has not yet reached a level of maturity
where we have definitively identified any additional RREs that have
failed to register and report as required. We have purposely selected
an error tolerance threshold (20 percent) that is achievable for all
current RREs based on recent performance, and thus would not impose any
CMPs based on current performance. However, we do not yet have eight
consecutive reporting periods of data, and, as such, we are not able to
currently model the potential imposition of CMPs on this basis at this
time. We also do not have the systems in place at this time to monitor
when entities contradict their reported data in response to CMS MSP
recovery efforts. At this point in time, we do not expect to collect
CMPs totaling $100 million or more in any given year, nor do we expect
this rule to have any other economic effects that meet or exceed that
threshold. Therefore, this rule is not considered a major rule under
the CRA. We note that we are currently implementing monitoring systems
that will allow us to better model future reporting violations and CMP
imposition. Therefore, when we are ready to develop the final rule we
expect to have available a significantly increased array of relevant
data. As a result, we commit to providing a detailed analysis of the
costs and benefits of this rule at that time. We also invite feedback
from the public that would assist us in determining the quantifiable
costs and benefits of this proposed rule.
The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief
of small entities. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include
small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions. Most hospitals and most other providers and suppliers
are small entities, either by nonprofit status or by having revenues of
$7.0 million to $35.5 million in any 1 year. Individuals and States are
not included in the definition of a small entity. We consider a rule to
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities if
it has at least a 3-percent impact of revenue on at least 5 percent of
small entities. Affected entities with reporting responsibilities have
been required to comply with sections 1862(b)(7) and (b)(8) of the Act
since these provisions were added to the Act in 2007. This proposed
rule is intended to define how CMPs would be
[[Page 8801]]
imposed as a consequence of non-compliance with these statutory
obligations, and thus does not present any additional burden beyond the
review of the rule. As discussed later in this section, the total cost
impact of reviewing this rule by all 20,855 currently registered RREs,
regardless of size, is estimated to be $6,842,437, or $328 per entity.
This falls below the standard definition of ``significance'' of 3 or
more of small entity revenue. As a result, we have determined, and the
Secretary certifies, that this proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare an
RIA if a rule may have a significant impact on the operations of a
substantial number of small rural hospitals. This analysis must conform
to the provisions of section 603 for the RFA. For purposes of section
1102(b) of the Act, we define a small rural hospital as a hospital that
is located outside of a Metropolitan Statistical Area for Medicare
payment regulations and has fewer than 100 beds. We are not preparing
an analysis for section 1102(b) of the Act because we have determined,
and the Secretary certifies, that this proposed rule would not have a
significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small
rural hospitals.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also
requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before
issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100
million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. In 2019, that
threshold is approximately $154 million. This proposed rule has no
consequential effect on state, local, or tribal governments or on the
private sector.
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an
agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent
final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State
and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has federalism
implications. Since this regulation does not impose any costs on State
or local governments, the requirements of Executive Order 13132 are not
applicable.
Executive Order 13771, titled Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs, was issued on January 30, 2017 It has been determined
that this proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
thus does not trigger the previously discussed requirements of
Executive Order 13771.
We used the current number of GHP RREs (1,039) and NGHP RREs
(19,816) to determine the total number of impacted entities (20,855).
We recognize that this is a slight overestimate, as a single corporate
parent may have multiple associated RREs. We welcome any comments on
the approach in estimating the number of entities which will review
this proposed rule.
Using the May 2018 wage information from the U.S. Department of
Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics for medical and health service
managers (Code 11-9111), we estimate that the cost of reviewing this
rule is $109.36 per hour, based on doubling the mean hourly wage of
$54.68 to include overhead and fringe benefits (see https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes119111.htm). We assume that one individual
associated with each of the 20,855 impacted entities will read the
rule. Assuming an average reading speed, we estimate that it would take
approximately 3 hours for the staff to review this proposed rule. For
each entity that reviews the rule, the estimated cost is $328.08 (3
hours x $109.36). Therefore, we estimate that the total cost of
reviewing this proposed rule is $6,842,437 ($328.08 x 20,855).
In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this
proposed rule was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
List of Subjects
42 CFR Part 402
Assessments, Civil money penalties, Exclusions.
45 CFR Part 102
Administrative practice and procedure, Penalties.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Centers for Medicare
& Medicaid Services proposes to amend 42 CFR chapter IV as set forth
below:
PART 402--CIVIL MONEY PENALTIES, ASSESSMENTS, AND EXCLUSIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 402 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1302 and 1395hh.
0
2. Section 402.1 is amended--
0
a. In paragraph (c) introductory text by removing the reference
``(c)(34) of this section'' and adding in its place the reference
``(c)(35) of this section'';
0
b. By removing paragraph (c)(20);
0
c. By redesignating paragraph (c)(21) as paragraph (c)(20);
0
d. By redesignating paragraphs (c)(22) through (34) as paragraphs
(c)(23) through (35); and
0
e. By adding new paragraphs (c)(21) and (22).
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 402.1 Basis and scope.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(21) Section 1862(b)(7)(B)--Except for the situation described in
paragraphs (c)(21)(iv)(A) and (B) of this section, any entity that has
a reporting obligation under section 1862(b)(7) of the Act (``reporting
entity'') reports, but fails to comply with the reporting instructions
in the following situations:
(i) Fails to report any beneficiary record within 1 year from the
group health plan (GHP) coverage effective date or the Medicare
beneficiary's entitlement date.
(ii) Contradicts its reporting under section 1862(b)(7) of the Act
in response to CMS recovery efforts.
(iii) Has reported and exceeds any error tolerance(s) threshold
established by the Secretary in any 4 out of 8 consecutive reporting
periods.
(iv) A civil money penalty (CMP) is not imposed if--
(A) It is associated with a specific policy or procedural change is
not imposed for a minimum of two reporting periods following the
implementation of that policy or procedural change; or
(B) The entity complies with any reporting thresholds or any other
reporting exclusions.
(22) Section 1862(b)(8)(E)--An applicable plan has a reporting
obligation under section 1862(b)(8) of the Act (``applicable plan''),
but fails to comply with the reporting instructions in the following
situations:
(i) Except for the situations described in paragraphs
(c)(22)(iv)(A) through (C) of this section, fails to report any
beneficiary record within 1 year from the date of the settlement,
judgment, award, or other payment.
(ii) Contradicts its reporting under section 1862(b)(8) of the Act
in response to CMS recovery efforts.
(iii) Has reported, and exceeds any error tolerance(s) threshold
established by the Secretary (not to exceed 20 percent) in any 4 out of
8 (or less) consecutive reporting periods.
(iv) A CMP is not imposed in the following situations:
(A) If a non-group health plan (NGHP) applicable plan fails to
report required information as a result of the applicable plan's
inability to obtain an individual's last name, first name, date of
birth, gender, Medicare Beneficiary Identifier (MBI), Social Security
Number (SSN), or the last 5 digits of the SSN, and the applicable plan
has made a good faith effort to obtain this information by meeting all
of the following:
[[Page 8802]]
(1) Communicating the need for this information to the individual
and his or her attorney or other representative.
(2) Requesting the information from the individual and his or her
attorney or other representative at least twice by mail and at least
once by phone or other means of contact.
(3) Has not received a response or has received a response in
writing that the individual refuses to provide his or her MBI or SSN or
a truncated form of the MBI or SSN.
(4) Has documented its efforts to obtain the MBI or SSN (or the
last 5 digits of the SSN).
(B) A CMP is not imposed if an NGHP applicable plan complies with
any reporting thresholds or any other reporting exclusions.
(C) A CMP associated with a specific policy or procedural change is
not imposed for a minimum of two reporting periods following the
implementation of that policy or procedural change.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 402.105 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(2) and adding
paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 402.105 Amount of penalty.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) For entities with reporting obligations under section
1862(b)(7) of the Act (``reporting entity'') as follows:
(i) A reporting entity fails to report any beneficiary record
within the specified period from the latter of the GHP coverage
effective date or the Medicare beneficiary's entitlement date. The
penalty is--
(A) Calculated on a daily basis, based on the actual number of
beneficiary records that the entity submitted more than 1 year after
the GHP Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) effective date; and
(B) $1,000 as adjusted annually under 45 CFR part 102 for each
calendar day of noncompliance for each individual for which the
required information should have been submitted, up to a maximum
penalty of $365,000 as adjusted annually under 45 CFR part 102 per
individual per year.
(ii) A reporting entity's response to CMS recovery efforts
contradicts the entity's reporting under section 1862(b)(7) of the Act.
The penalty is--
(A) Calculated based on the number of calendar days that the entity
failed to appropriately report updates to beneficiary records, as
required for accurate and timely reporting; and
(B) $1,000 as adjusted annually under 45 CFR part 102 for each
calendar day of noncompliance for each individual for which the
required information should have been submitted.
(iii) A reporting entity has reported, and exceeds any error
tolerance(s) threshold established by the Secretary (not to exceed 20
percent) in any 4 out of 8 (or less) consecutive reporting periods. The
penalty is--
(A) Based upon the number of beneficiary records on the fourth
submission that exceed any such error tolerance(s); and
(B) $1,000 as adjusted annually under 45 CFR part 102 for each
calendar day of noncompliance for each individual for which the
required information should have been submitted.
(3) For entities with reporting obligations under section
1862(b)(8) (``applicable plan'') of the Act as follows:
(i) An applicable plan fails to report any NGHP beneficiary record
within the specified period from the date of the settlement, judgment,
award, or other payment. The penalty is--
(A) Calculated on a daily basis, based on the actual number of
beneficiary records that the entity submitted more than 1 year after
the Total Payment Obligation to Claimant (TPOC) date; and
(B) Up to $1,000 as adjusted annually under 45 CFR part 102 for
each calendar day of noncompliance for each individual for which the
required information should have been submitted, up to a maximum
penalty of $365,000 as adjusted annually under 45 CFR part 102 per
individual per year.
(ii) An applicable plan's response to CMS recovery efforts
contradicts the entity's reporting under section 1862(b)(8) of the Act.
The penalty is--
(A) Calculated based on the number of calendar days that the entity
failed to appropriately report updates to beneficiary records, as
required for accurate and timely reporting; and
(B) Up to $1,000 as adjusted annually under 45 CFR part 102 per
calendar day of noncompliance, for a maximum penalty of $365,000 as
adjusted annually under 45 CFR part 102.
(iii) An applicable plan has reported, and exceeds any error
tolerance(s) threshold established by the Secretary (not to exceed 20
percent) in any 4 out of 8 consecutive reporting periods. The penalty
is calculated using the following tiered approach, based on the number
of calendar days that the applicable plan exceeded the error
tolerance(s) in the entity's fourth above-tolerance submission.
(A) Initial penalty amount. For the first penalty, CMS imposes a
penalty of one-quarter (25 percent) of the maximum penalty per
beneficiary per calendar day of non-compliance after the required date
of submission (last calendar day of the applicable plan's reporting
period), based upon the number of beneficiaries whose records exceeded
any error tolerance(s) established by the Secretary.
(B) Subsequent penalty amounts. For the second and subsequent
penalties, CMS increases the penalty specified in paragraph
(b)(3)(iii)(A) of this section in increments of one-quarter (25
percent) of the maximum penalty for applicable plans that fail to
comply in consecutive reporting periods to a maximum of $1,000 as
adjusted annually under 45 CFR part 102 per beneficiary per calendar
day of non-compliance.
(C) Reduction in penalty amount. If the applicable plan reports
after the assessment of a penalty and the entity remains below any
error tolerances, the penalty amount for the next penalty eligible file
is reduced by increments of one-quarter (25 percent) of the maximum
penalty per beneficiary per calendar day of non-compliance per
consecutive subsequent quarter of compliance, to the minimum penalty of
one-quarter (25 percent) of the maximum penalty per beneficiary per
calendar day of non-compliance.
* * * * *
For the reasons specified in the preamble, the Department of Health
and Human Services proposes to amend 45 CFR part 102 as specified
below:
PART 102--ADJUSTMENT OF CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES FOR INFLATION
0
4. The authority for part 102 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Public Law 101-410, Sec. 701 of Public Law 114-74,
31 U.S.C. 3801-3812.
0
5. Section 102.3 is amended in the table by:
0
a. Revising the entries ``1395m(k)(6),'' ``1395m(l)(6),''
``1395y(b)(6)(B),'' and ``1395y(b)(7)(B)(i);''
0
b. Adding an entry for ``1395y(b)(8)(E)(i)'' in alphanumeric order; and
0
c. Revising the entries for ``1395pp(h),'' ``1395ss(a)(2),''
``1395ss(p)(8),'' ``1395ss(p)(9)(C),'' ``1395ss(q)(5)(C),''
``1395ss(r)(6)(A),'' ``1395ss(s)(4),'' and ``1395ss(t)(2).''
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 102.3 Penalty adjustment and table.
* * * * *
[[Page 8803]]
Table 1 to Sec. 102.3--Civil Monetary Penalty Authorities Administered by HHS Agencies and Penalty Amounts
[January 17, 2020]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of last
statutorily 2019 maximum 2020 maximum
CFR \1\ HHS agency Description \2\ established adjusted adjusted
penalty figure penalty ($) penalty ($)
\3\ \4\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
42 U.S.C:
* * * * * * *
1395m(k)(6) \5\................ 42 CFR 402.1(c)(32), CMS Penalty for any person or 2019 15,975 16,257
402.105(d)(3). entity who knowingly and
willfully bills or
collects for any
outpatient therapy
services or comprehensive
outpatient rehabilitation
services on other than an
assignment-related basis.
(Penalties are assessed
in the same manner as 42
U.S.C. 1395m(k)(6) and
1395u(j)(2)(B), which is
assessed according to
1320a-7a(a)).
1395m(l)(6) \5\................ 42 CFR 402.1(c)(33), CMS Penalty for any supplier 2019 15,15,975 16,257
402.105(d)(4). of ambulance services who
knowingly and willfully
fills or collects for any
services on other than an
assignment-related basis.
(Penalties are assessed
in the same manner as 42
U.S.C. 1395u(b)(18)(B),
which is assessed
according to 1320a-7a(a)).
* * * * * * *
1395y(b)(6)(B)................. 42 CFR 402.1(c)(20), CMS Penalty for any entity 2019 3,383 3,443
402.105(a). that knowingly,
willfully, and repeatedly
fails to complete a claim
form relating to the
availability of other
health benefits in
accordance with statute
or provides inaccurate
information relating to
such on the claim form.
1395y(b)(7)(B)(i).............. 42 CFR 402.1(c)(21), CMS Penalty for any entity 2019 1,211 1,232
402.105(a). serving as insurer, third
party administrator, or
fiduciary for a group
health plan that fails to
provide information that
identifies situations
where the group health
plan is or was a primary
plan to Medicare to the
HHS Secretary.
* * * * * * *
1395y(b)(8)(E)(i).............. 42 CFR 402.1(c)(22), CMS Penalty for any entity 2019 1,211 1,232
402.105(a)(E). serving as insurer, third
party administrator, or
fiduciary for a non-group
health plan that fails to
provide information that
identifies situations
where the group health
plan is or was a primary
plan to Medicare to the
HHS Secretary.
* * * * * * *
1395pp(h) \5\.................. 42 CFR 402.1(c)(24), CMS Penalty for any durable 2019 15,975 16,257
402.105(d)(2)(xv). medical equipment
supplier, including a
supplier of prosthetic
devices, prosthetics,
orthotics, or supplies,
that knowingly and
willfully fails to make
refunds in a timely
manner to Medicare
beneficiaries under
certain conditions. (42
U.S.C. 1395(m)(18)
sanctions apply here in
the same manner, which is
under 1395u(j)(2) and
1320a-7a(a)).
1395ss(a)(2)................... 42 CFR 402.1(c)(25), CMS Penalty for any person 2019 54,832 55,799
405.105(f)(1). that issues a Medicare
supplemental policy that
has not been approved by
the State regulatory
program or does not meet
Federal standards after a
statutorily defined
effective date.
* * * * * * *
1395ss(p)(8)................... 42 CFR 402.1(c)(26), CMS Penalty for any person 2019 28,413 28,914
402.105(e). that sells or issues
Medicare supplemental
polices after a given
date that fail to conform
to the NAIC or Federal
standards established by
statute.
42 CFR 402.1(c)(26), CMS Penalty for any person 2019 47,357 48,192
405.105(f)(2). that sells or issues
Medicare supplemental
polices after a given
date that fail to conform
to the NAIC or Federal
standards established by
statute.
1395ss(p)(9)(C)................ 42 CFR 402.1(c)(27), CMS Penalty for any person 2019 28,413 28,914
402.105(e). that sells a Medicare
supplemental policy and
fails to make available
for sale the core group
of basic benefits when
selling other Medicare
supplemental policies
with additional benefits
or fails to provide the
individual, before
selling the policy, an
outline of coverage
describing benefits.
[[Page 8804]]
42 CFR 402.1(c)(27), ................ Penalty for any person 2019 47,357 48,192
405.105(f)(3), (4). that sells a Medicare
supplemental policy and
fails to make available
for sale the core group
of basic benefits when
selling other Medicare
supplemental policies
with additional benefits
or fails to provide the
individual, before
selling the policy, an
outline of coverage
describing benefits.
1395ss(q)(5)(C)................ 42 CFR 402.1(c)(28), CMS Penalty for any person 2019 47,357 48,192
405.105(f)(5). that fails to suspend the
policy of a policyholder
made eligible for medical
assistance or
automatically reinstates
the policy of a
policyholder who has lost
eligibility for medical
assistance, under certain
circumstances.
1395ss(r)(6)(A)................ 42 CFR 402.1(c)(29), CMS Penalty for any person 2019 47,357 48,192
405.105(f)(6). that fails to provide
refunds or credits as
required by section
1882(r)(1)(B).
1395ss(s)(4)................... 42 CFR 402.1(c)(30), CMS Penalty for any issuer of 2019 20,104 20,459
405.105(c). a Medicare supplemental
policy that does not
waive listed time periods
if they were already
satisfied under a
proceeding Medicare
supplemental policy, or
denies a policy, or
conditions the issuances
or effectiveness of the
policy, or discriminates
in the pricing of the
policy base on health
status or other specified
criteria.
1395ss(t)(2)................... 42 CFR 402.1(c)(31), CMS Penalty for any issuer of 2019 47,357 48,192
405.105(f)(7). a Medicare supplemental
policy that fails to
fulfill listed
responsibilities.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some HHS components have not promulgated regulations regarding their civil monetary penalty-specific statutory authorities.
\2\ The description is not intended to be a comprehensive explanation of the underlying violation; the statute and corresponding regulation, if
applicable, should be consulted.
\3\ Statutory or Inflation Act Adjustment.
\4\ The cost of living multiplier for 2018, based on the CPI-U for the month of October 2017, not seasonally adjusted, is 1.02041, as indicated in OMB
Memorandum M-18-03, ``Implementation of Penalty Inflation Adjustments for 2018, Pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Adjustment Act Improvements
Act of 2015'' (December 15, 2017).
\5\ The cost of living multiplier for 2020, based on the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the month of October 2019, not
seasonally adjusted, is 1.01764, as indicated in OMB Memorandum M-20-05, ``Implementation of Penalty Inflation Adjustments for 2019, Pursuant to the
Federal Civil Penalties Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015'' (December 16, 2019).
Dated: August 12, 2019.
Seema Verma,
Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
Dated: December 12, 2019.
Alex Azar,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
[FR Doc. 2020-03069 Filed 2-13-20; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4120-01-P