Radiation Oncology (RO) Model, 52698-52704 [2022-18541]
Download as PDF
52698
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
DELEGATION STATUS FOR PART 63 STANDARDS—STATE OF ARKANSAS 1—Continued
Subpart
Source category
DEQ 2
AAAAAA ...........
BBBBBB ...........
CCCCCC ..........
DDDDDD ..........
EEEEEE ...........
FFFFFF ............
GGGGGG .........
HHHHHH ..........
IIIIII ....................
JJJJJJ ...............
KKKKKK ...........
LLLLLL ..............
MMMMMM ........
NNNNNN ..........
OOOOOO .........
PPPPPP ...........
QQQQQQ .........
RRRRRR ..........
SSSSSS ...........
TTTTTT ............
UUUUUU ..........
VVVVVV ...........
WWWWWW .....
XXXXXX ...........
YYYYYY ...........
ZZZZZZ ............
AAAAAAA .........
BBBBBBB .........
CCCCCCC .......
DDDDDDD .......
EEEEEEE .........
FFFFFFF ..........
GGGGGGG ......
HHHHHHH .......
(Reserved) ............................................................................................................................................................
Gasoline Distribution Bulk Terminals, Bulk Plants, and Pipeline Facilities ..........................................................
Gasoline Dispensing Facilities ..............................................................................................................................
Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production Area Sources ............................................................................
Primary Copper Smelting Area Sources ..............................................................................................................
Secondary Copper Smelting Area Sources .........................................................................................................
Primary Nonferrous Metals Area Sources: Zinc, Cadmium, and Beryllium .........................................................
Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources ..............................................
(Reserved) ............................................................................................................................................................
Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers: Area Sources ..........................................................................
(Reserved) ............................................................................................................................................................
Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production Area Sources .....................................................................................
Carbon Black Production Area Sources ...............................................................................................................
Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources: Chromium Compounds ........................................................................
Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication Area Sources .............................................................
Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Sources ..................................................................................................
Wood Preserving Area Sources ...........................................................................................................................
Clay Ceramics Manufacturing Area Sources .......................................................................................................
Glass Manufacturing Area Sources .....................................................................................................................
Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing Area Sources ....................................................................................
(Reserved) ............................................................................................................................................................
Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources ................................................................................................................
Plating and Polishing Operations Area Sources ..................................................................................................
Nine Metal Fabrication and Finishing Categories Area Sources .........................................................................
Ferroalloys Production Facilities Area Sources ...................................................................................................
Aluminum, Copper, and Other Nonferrous Foundries Area Sources ..................................................................
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Area Sources ..............................................................
Chemical Preparations Industry Area Sources ....................................................................................................
Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing Area Sources ....................................................................................
Prepared Feeds Manufacturing Area Sources .....................................................................................................
Gold Mine Ore Processing and Production Area Sources ..................................................................................
Reserved ..............................................................................................................................................................
Reserved ..............................................................................................................................................................
Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production ...................................................................................................
........................
........................
........................
........................
X
X
X
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
X
X
........................
........................
........................
........................
X
........................
........................
X
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
X
1 Program
delegated to Arkansas Department of Energy and Environment, Division of Environmental Quality (DEQ).
which may not be delegated include: § 63.6(g), Approval of Alternative Non-Opacity Emission Standards; § 63.6(h)(9), Approval of
Alternative Opacity Standards; § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f), Approval of Major Alternatives to Test Methods; § 63.8(f), Approval of Major Alternatives to
Monitoring; § 63.10(f), Approval of Major Alternatives to Recordkeeping and Reporting; and all authorities identified in the subparts (e.g., under
‘‘Delegation of Authority’’) that cannot be delegated.
3 This subpart was vacated and remanded to EPA by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. See, Mossville
Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 370 F. 3d 1232 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Because of the DC Court’s holding, this subpart is not delegated to DEQ
at this time.
4 This subpart was issued a partial vacatur on October 29, 2007 (72 FR 61060), by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
5 Final rule. See 76 FR 15608 (March 21, 2011), as amended at 78 FR 7138 (January 31, 2013); 80 FR 72807 (November 20, 2015).
6 Final promulgated rule adopted by the EPA. See 80 FR 65470 (October 26, 2015). Note that subpart KKKKK of this part was amended in response to a petition for reconsideration of the final rule. See 84 FR 58601 (November 1, 2019).
7 Initial final rule. See 77 FR 9304 (February 16, 2012), as amended 81 FR 20172 (April 6, 2016). Final supplemental finding that it is appropriate and necessary to regulate hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from coal- and oil-fired electric utility steam generating units (EUSGU).
See 81 FR 24420 (April 25, 2016).
2 Authorities
[FR Doc. 2022–18179 Filed 8–26–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services
42 CFR Part 512
[CMS–5527–F2]
We are finalizing our proposal
to delay the current start date of the RO
Model to a date to be determined
through future rulemaking, and to
modify the definition of the model
performance period to provide that the
start and end dates of the model
performance period for the RO Model
will be established in future rulemaking.
SUMMARY:
RIN 0938–AT89
These regulations are effective
on October 28, 2022.
Radiation Oncology (RO) Model
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
DATES:
Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services (CMS), Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:03 Aug 26, 2022
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Genevieve Kehoe, RadiationTherapy@
cms.hhs.gov, or 1–844–711–2664
Option 5, for questions related to the
Radiation Oncology Model.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\29AUR1.SGM
29AUR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
I. Background
We are committed to promoting
higher quality of cancer care and
improving outcomes for Medicare
beneficiaries while reducing costs. As
part of that effort, the Biden
Administration has taken a number of
efforts to improve the care of Medicare
cancer patients, most notably with the
President’s cancer agenda and the
Cancer Moonshot, as well as the CMS
Innovation Center’s Oncology Care
Model 1 and Enhancing Oncology
Model,2 which focus on patients with
cancer who receive chemotherapy.
In December 2015, Congress passed
the Patient Access and Medicare
Protection Act (Pub. L. 114–115), and
section 3(b) of this legislation required
the Secretary of the Department of
Health and Human Services to submit to
Congress a report, no later than 18
months after enactment, on ‘‘the
development of an episodic alternative
payment model’’ for payment under the
Medicare program for radiation therapy
(RT) services. We released the 2017
Report to Congress: ‘‘Episodic
Alternative Payment Model for
Radiation Therapy Services,’’ which
laid out the potential for reforming the
way Medicare pays for radiation
oncology. Based on that work, using our
authority under section 1115A of the
Social Security Act (the Act), we
published a proposed rule, titled
‘‘Medicare Program; Specialty Care
Models to Improve Quality of Care and
Reduce Expenditures’’, which appeared
in the Federal Register on July 18, 2019
(84 FR 34478), and included a proposal
for implementing a mandatory model
for radiation oncology services
(hereinafter referred to as the RO Model)
(84 FR 34490 through 34535). The RO
Model was designed to test whether
making site-neutral, prospective,
episode-based payments to hospital
outpatient departments (HOPDs),
physician group practices (PGPs), and
freestanding radiation therapy centers
for RT episodes of care would preserve
or enhance the quality of care furnished
to Medicare beneficiaries while
reducing or maintaining Medicare
program spending. More specifically, as
described in the final rule titled
‘‘Medicare Program; Specialty Care
Models to Improve Quality of Care and
Reduce Expenditures’’ that appeared in
the September 29, 2020 Federal Register
(85 FR 61115) (hereinafter referred to as
the ‘‘Specialty Care Models final rule’’),
the RO Model was designed to include
1 https://innovation.cms.gov/innovation-models/
oncology-care.
2 https://innovation.cms.gov/innovation-models/
enhancing-oncology-model.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:03 Aug 26, 2022
Jkt 256001
prospective payments for certain RT
services furnished during a 90-day RO
episode for included cancer types for
certain Medicare beneficiaries. The
Model was designed to test the costsaving potential of prospective episode
payments for certain RT services
furnished during an RO episode and
whether shorter courses of RT (that is,
fewer doses, also known as fractions)
will encourage more efficient care
delivery and incentivize higher value
care.
In the Specialty Care Models final
rule, we codified policies at 42 CFR part
512, subparts A and B, that included a
finalized RO Model with a model
performance period that was to begin
January 1, 2021, and end December 31,
2025 (85 FR 61367). We finalized that
each performance year (PY) would be
the 12-month period beginning on
January 1 and ending on December 31
of each calendar year (CY) during the
model performance period, and no new
RO episodes may begin after October 3,
2025, in order for all RO episodes to end
by December 31, 2025.
Due to the public health emergency
for the Coronavirus disease 2019
(COVID–19) pandemic, we revised the
RO Model’s model performance period
at 42 CFR 512.205 to begin on July 1,
2021, and to end December 31, 2025,
giving RO participants an additional 6
months to prepare for the RO Model. We
implemented the revised model period
via interim final regulations included in
the final rule with comment period and
interim final rule with comment period
that appeared in the December 29, 2020
Federal Register titled ‘‘Medicare
Program: Hospital Outpatient
Prospective Payment and Ambulatory
Surgical Center Payment Systems and
Quality Reporting Programs; New
Categories for Hospital Outpatient
Department Prior Authorization Process;
Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule:
Laboratory Date of Service Policy;
Overall Hospital Quality Star Rating
Methodology; Physician-owned
Hospitals; Notice of Closure of Two
Teaching Hospitals and Opportunity To
Apply for Available Slots, Radiation
Oncology Model; and Reporting
Requirements for Hospitals and Critical
Access Hospitals (CAHs) to Report
COVID–19 Therapeutic Inventory and
Usage and to Report Acute Respiratory
Illness During the Public Health
Emergency (PHE) for Coronavirus
Disease 2019 (COVID–19)’’ (85 FR
85866) (hereinafter referred to as ‘‘CY
2021 OPPS/ASC IFC’’).
Section 133 of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act (CAA), 2021 (Pub.
L. 116–260) (hereinafter referred to as
‘‘CAA, 2021’’), enacted on December 27,
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
52699
2020, included a provision that
prohibited implementation of the RO
Model before January 1, 2022. This
congressional action superseded the
start date of the model performance
period of July 1, 2021, established in the
CY 2021 OPPS/ASC IFC. To align the
RO Model regulations with the
requirements of the CAA, 2021, we
proposed to modify the definition of
‘‘model performance period’’ in 42 CFR
512.205 to provide for a 5-year model
performance period starting on January
1, 2022, unless the RO Model is
prohibited by law from starting on
January 1, 2022, in which case the
model performance period would begin
on the earliest date permitted by law
that is January 1, April 1, or July 1. We
also proposed other modifications both
related to and unrelated to the timing of
the RO Model in the proposed rule that
appeared in the August 4, 2021 Federal
Register titled ‘‘Medicare Program:
Hospital Outpatient Prospective
Payment and Ambulatory Surgical
Center Payment Systems and Quality
Reporting Programs; Price Transparency
of Hospital Standard Charges; Radiation
Oncology Model; Request for
Information on Rural Emergency
Hospitals’’ (86 FR 42018). These
provisions were finalized in a final rule
with comment period titled ‘‘Medicare
Program: Hospital Outpatient
Prospective Payment and Ambulatory
Surgical Center Payment Systems and
Quality Reporting Programs; Price
Transparency of Hospital Standard
Charges; Radiation Oncology Model’’
that appeared in the November 16, 2021
Federal Register (86 FR 63458)
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘CY 2022
OPPS/ASC FC’’).
On December 10, 2021, the Protecting
Medicare and American Farmers from
Sequester Cuts Act (Pub. L. 117–71) was
enacted, which included a provision
that prohibits implementation of the RO
Model prior to January 1, 2023. The CY
2022 OPPS/ASC FC specified that if the
RO Model was prohibited by law from
beginning on January 1, 2022, the model
performance period would begin on the
earliest date permitted by law that is
January 1, April 1, or July 1. As a result,
under the current definition for model
performance period at 42 CFR 512.205,
the RO Model would start on January 1,
2023, because that date is the earliest
date permitted by law. However, given
the multiple delays to date, and because
both CMS and RO participants must
invest operational resources in
preparation for implementation of the
RO Model, we have considered how
best to proceed under these
circumstances.
E:\FR\FM\29AUR1.SGM
29AUR1
52700
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
In a proposed rule titled ‘‘Radiation
Oncology (RO) Model,’’ which appeared
in the Federal Register on April 8, 2022
(87 FR 20800) (hereinafter referred to as
the ‘‘April 2022 RO Model proposed
rule’’), we proposed to delay the current
start date of the RO Model to a date to
be determined through future
rulemaking, and to modify the
definition of the model performance
period at 42 CFR 512.205 to provide that
the start and end dates of the model
performance period for the RO Model
will be established in future rulemaking.
We solicited public comment on our
proposal and received approximately 38
timely pieces of correspondence. We
summarize and respond to public
comments in this final rule.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
II. Provisions of the Finalized
Regulations
A. Model Performance Period
As stated in the April 2022 RO Model
proposed rule, we continue to believe
that the RO Model would address longstanding concerns related to RT delivery
and payment, including the lack of site
neutrality for payments, incentives that
encourage volume of services over the
value of services, and coding and
payment challenges (87 FR 20802). We
believe the RO Model would provide
payment stability and promote highquality care for Medicare beneficiaries.
We have heard that the RO Model is
valuable and needed in the radiation
oncology space from some interested
parties and that some RT providers and
RT suppliers selected to be RO
participants are dedicated to preparing
for implementation of the RO Model.
However, given that there have been
two legislative delays of the RO Model,
the operational resources required of
CMS and RO participants to continue to
prepare for the RO Model before it can
be implemented, and some interested
parties’ comments that they would not
support the RO Model unless specific
changes were made, we proposed to
delay the start of the RO Model to a date
to be determined through future
rulemaking and to modify the definition
of model performance period at 42 CFR
512.205 to reflect this policy. We noted
that we would plan to propose the new
start date no less than 6 months prior to
that proposed start date.
As noted previously, Congress has
delayed the RO Model twice. There is a
substantial cost to continue funding
preparation for implementation of the
RO Model in 2023. For example,
funding is needed for CMS to prepare
for participant onboarding, claims
systems changes, and updates to the
data used in the Model’s design and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:03 Aug 26, 2022
Jkt 256001
participant-specific payment amounts,
among a number of other activities. The
cost of the operational funding needed
to continue to prepare to implement the
RO Model takes resources away from
the development of other alternative
payment models, particularly when it is
not known whether there may be further
legislative delays to the start of the RO
Model.
Additionally, those entities selected
to be RO participants continue to make
good faith efforts to prepare to
implement the RO Model, which may
involve financial, operational, and
administrative investment and
resources. Given multiple delays and
uncertainty about the timing of the RO
Model, delaying the RO Model
indefinitely will give RO participants
the ability to pause their efforts to
prepare for implementation of the RO
Model. In the April 2022 RO Model
proposed rule, we stated that we
welcome additional dialogue with RO
participants and interested parties about
Medicare payment for RT services (87
FR 20802).
Further, RO participants and
interested parties have requested
additional changes to the RO Model’s
payment methodology and to other
aspects of the RO Model design and
participation requirements, such as
lower discounts while keeping the
geographic scope of the Model the same.
As we have informed interested parties,
if the discounts are lowered below 3.5
percent for the professional component
and 4.5 percent for the technical
component, we would need to expand
the geographic scope of the RO Model
to be larger than 30 percent of Core
Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) (86 FR
63928 and 63929). If the discount
amounts are significantly smaller, all
else equal, the projected savings will be
smaller, and therefore, the number of
CBSAs (and episodes) in the participant
group may not be sufficient for CMS to
detect an effect of the RO Model with
statistical confidence. However, we
believe that some interested parties will
not support the RO Model test moving
forward with unchanged discounts and
as noted previously, these interested
parties have also requested that we not
increase the geographic scope of the
Model.
Thus, for these reasons, we proposed
to delay the current start date of the RO
Model, and to establish the start and
end dates for the model through future
rulemaking, which may also involve
modifications to the model design. We
proposed to modify the definition of the
model performance period at 42 CFR
512.205 to reflect this proposed delay,
by removing the provision that the RO
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Model begins on January 1, 2022, and
ends on December 31, 2026, unless the
RO Model is prohibited by law from
starting on January 1, 2022, in which
case the model performance period
begins on the earliest date permitted by
law that is January 1, April 1, or July 1.
We proposed to modify the definition of
model performance period to instead
specify that CMS will establish the start
and end dates of the model performance
period for the RO Model through future
rulemaking. Finally, in the April 2022
RO Model proposed rule, we noted that
if we do not finalize this proposal and
instead proceed with a start date of
January 1, 2023, we do not plan to
change the CBSAs selected for
participation before that start date (87
FR 20802).
The following is a summary of
comments we received on the proposal
to delay the RO Model to a date to be
determined through future rulemaking
in section II.A. of the April 2022 RO
Model proposed rule and our responses
to these comments:
Comment: Many commenters
supported the delay of the RO Model to
a date to be determined in future
rulemaking. CMS received a couple
comments requesting a January 1, 2024
start date to allow for additional time to
prepare for the Model.
Response: We appreciate the support
for the delay of the RO Model to a date
yet to be determined and that a couple
commenters requested a specific
alternative future date for the RO Model
to begin. We will consider whether a
January 1, 2024, start date or an
alternative start date would be feasible
and whether such a date is likely to
provide enough time to address the
current challenges associated with
starting the RO Model as we
contemplate future rulemaking.
Comment: Some commenters
requested that the RO Model as it is
currently designed be cancelled
altogether. These commenters noted that
they believe that the Model as currently
designed does not align with the Biden
Administration’s Cancer Moonshot goal
of increasing access to innovative and
appropriate cancer care. Specifically,
commenters were concerned the Model
would impact equitable access to proton
therapy and future innovation in
radiation oncology. Some commenters
stated that CMS should work with
interested parties to redesign the Model
with respect to, for example, the
discounts, mandatory participation,
billing requirements, quality and
clinical reporting, included modalities,
and the Advanced Alternative Payment
Model (APM) bonus.
E:\FR\FM\29AUR1.SGM
29AUR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
Response: We appreciate these
comments. However, we do not agree
with the comments that the RO Model
should be cancelled. As noted
previously, we continue to believe that
the RO Model will address longstanding concerns related to delivery
and payment of RT services and benefit
RT providers and RT suppliers as well
as beneficiaries, because of the RO
Model’s focus on financial predictability
through prospective, site-neutral,
episode-based payment and care
improvement by linking payment to
quality. The RO Model is designed to
test an innovative approach to payment
and service delivery in the field of
radiation oncology. We welcome further
dialogue with interested parties and RO
participants about the design of the RO
Model.
Comment: A few commenters
opposed the delay of the RO Model to
a date to be determined through future
rulemaking. These commenters stated
that the RO Model has been delayed
long enough and should begin on
January 1, 2023. A commenter noted its
disappointment in the continued delay
of the RO Model and its frustration with
the starting and stopping of preparation
efforts. The commenter provided
support for value-based, bundled
payment for RT services to ensure
payment stability, and urged CMS to
work with interested parties to make
necessary final refinements to the RO
Model and implement it as soon as
possible. A commenter who requested
that the RO Model start January 1, 2023
further stated that the only changes that
should be considered with a January 1,
2023 start are those related to changes
in the national base rates or the
adjustment rates that would increase the
revenue to RO participants, because the
commenter believed that the cost of
paying RO participants more would
likely be less than the cost of continued
delays.
Response: Although we continue to
believe that the RO Model will address
longstanding concerns related to
delivery and payment of RT services as
described in more detail in the Specialty
Care Models final rule (85 FR 61347)
and again in the CY 2022 OPPS/ASC FC
(86 FR 63911 and 63912), such as the
site-of-service payment differential that
exists under the OPPS and PFS as well
as the incentives built into the current
fee-for-service payment system that
promotes volume over the value of
services, Congress has delayed the RO
Model twice, and it is not known
whether there may be further delays to
the start of the RO Model that are out
of CMS’s control. As noted previously,
there is a substantial cost to continue
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:03 Aug 26, 2022
Jkt 256001
funding preparation for implementation
of the RO Model in 2023, and the cost
of such funding takes resources away
from the development of other
alternative payment models. A
continued cycle of starting and stopping
preparation efforts may also involve
resources on the part of RO participants.
Furthermore, as described in the
Specialty Care Models final rule (85 FR
61152) and in the CY 2022 OPPS/ASC
FC (86 FR 63928 and 63929), in order
to be able to detect an impact of the
Model, changes to RO Model payment
methodology may require changes to
other aspects of the Model, such as
increasing the size of the Model. In light
of the fact that it is unknown whether
there may be further delays to the RO
Model that are out of CMS’s control, we
believe that the best course of action is
to delay the implementation of the RO
Model to a future date. While we
appreciate commenters’ request to begin
the RO Model as soon as possible on
January 1, 2023, we believe that the
delay will provide us with the
opportunity for additional dialogue with
RO participants and interested parties
about Medicare payment for RT
services.
Comment: We received a few
comments requesting that CMS provide
more than 6 months’ notice in advance
of the future RO Model start date.
Response: We appreciate these
comments. We want to emphasize that
we would plan to propose a new start
date for the RO Model at least 6 months
prior to that proposed start date, and the
public would have an opportunity to
comment on the new proposed start
date as part of the rulemaking process.
CMS is committed to the success of the
RO Model and providing RO
participants sufficient time to prepare
before the RO Model begins. Should we
receive comments indicating that a
proposed start date provides insufficient
time to prepare, CMS will consider any
such comments in its decision of when
to start the RO Model.
Comment: Many commenters
provided feedback not directly related
to our proposal to delay the start date
of the RO Model to a date to be
determined through future rulemaking.
These comments concerned a range of
issues, including participation
requirements and criteria, the
geographic size of the Model, included
modalities, Advanced APM incentive
payment under the Quality Payment
Program (QPP), and the Model’s pricing
methodology (for example, the national
base rates, trend factor, case mix and
historical experience adjustments,
blend, and discount rates). Commenters
also provided feedback related to the RO
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
52701
Model’s potential impact on rural
practices, health equity, and health
disparities, as well as the burden of
collecting and reporting the clinical data
elements and the quality measures, and
the burden of the RO Model’s billing
requirements. Commenters also
discussed patient navigation tools, the
beneficiary notification letter, and how
the RO Model does or does not align
with the goals of the Biden
Administration’s cancer agenda and the
Cancer Moonshot.
Response: We appreciate these
additional comments, which we may
further consider as we evaluate how
best to proceed with the RO Model
going forward. As noted previously, we
continue to welcome further feedback
and dialogue with interested parties and
RO participants on the design of the RO
Model.
After considering public comments,
we are finalizing our proposal to delay
the start of the RO Model to a date to
be determined through future
rulemaking. Specifically, we are
finalizing our proposed revisions to the
definition of model performance period
at 42 CFR 512.205, to specify that model
performance period means the 5
performance years (PYs) during which
RO episodes initiate and terminate, and
that CMS will establish the start and
end dates of the model performance
period for the RO Model through future
rulemaking.
III. Collection of Information
Requirements
As stated in section 1115A(d)(3) of the
Act, Chapter 35 of title 44, United States
Code, shall not apply to the testing,
evaluation, and expansion of CMS
Innovation Center Models.
Consequently, there is no need for
review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the authority of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
IV. Regulatory Impact Analysis
A. Statement of Need
The purpose of this final rule is to
delay the start of the RO Model to a date
yet to be determined, and to modify the
definition of model performance period
at 42 CFR 512.205. Delaying the start of
the RO Model to a date yet to be
determined does not change the
statement of need for the RO Model as
described in the Specialty Care Models
final rule (85 FR 61347) and the CY
2021 OPPS/ASC IFC (85 FR 86296) and
again in the CY 2022 OPPS/ASC FC (86
FR 63458).
E:\FR\FM\29AUR1.SGM
29AUR1
52702
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
B. Overall Impact
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 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), and the
Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C.
804(2)).
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). Section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 defines a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ as an action that is likely to
result in a rule: (1) having an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million
or more in any 1 year, or adversely and
materially affecting a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or state, local or tribal
governments or communities (also
referred to as ‘‘economically
significant’’); (2) creating a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfering
with an action taken or planned by
another agency; (3) materially altering
the budgetary impacts of entitlement
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the
rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or (4) raising novel legal or
policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President’s priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive
order.
A regulatory impact analysis (RIA)
must be prepared for regulatory actions
with economically significant effects
($100 million or more in any 1 year).
Based on our estimates, OMB’s Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs has
determined this rulemaking is
‘‘economically significant’’ as measured
by the $100 million threshold, and
hence is also a major rule under Subtitle
E of the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (also
known as the Congressional Review
Act). Accordingly, we have prepared an
RIA that to the best of our ability
presents the costs and benefits of the
rulemaking.
C. Detailed Economic Analysis
Delaying the start of the RO Model to
a later undetermined date and
modifying the regulatory text at 42 CFR
512.205 to reflect this means that the
annualized/monetarized estimates of
costs and transfers policy for the RO
Model presented in the CY 2022 OPPS/
ASC FC (86 FR 63986) will not be
realized at this time.
Similarly, the burden estimates
related to implementation of the RO
Model presented in the Specialty Care
Models final rule (85 FR 61358), the CY
2021 OPPS/ASC IFC (85 FR 86297), and
the CY 2022 OPPS/ASC FC (86 FR
63987) will not be realized at this time.
The regulatory impact analysis of the
CY 2022 OPPS/ASC FC estimated that
on net the RO Model would reduce
Medicare spending by $150 million over
the 5-year model performance period.
This amount is the net Medicare Part B
impact that includes both Part B
premium and Medicare Advantage
United States Per Capita Costs (MA
USPCC) rate financing interaction
effects. This estimate excludes changes
in beneficiary cost sharing liability to
the extent it is not a Federal outlay
under the policy. These potential
impacts were estimated to occur
beginning on January 1, 2022, through
December 31, 2026, in alignment with a
January 1, 2022, model start. Table 1
summarizes the estimated impact of the
RO Model with a model performance
period that would have begun January 1,
2022, and ended December 31, 2026.
Table 2 provides additional information
about those expected impacts by year.
However, because the RO Model was
not implemented on January 1, 2022, as
contemplated in the CY 2022 OPPS/
ASC FC, such effects have yet not
occurred.
TABLE 1—ESTIMATES OF MEDICARE PROGRAM SAVINGS (MILLIONS $) FOR RADIATION ONCOLOGY MODEL
[Starting January 1, 2022]
Year of model
2022
Net Impact to Medicare Program Spending .........................................................
Changes to Incurred FFS Spending ........
Changes to MA Capitation Payments .....
Part B Premium Revenue Offset .............
Total APM Incentive Payments ...............
Episode Allowed Charges ........................
Episode Medicare Payment .....................
Total Number of Episodes .......................
Total Number of Beneficiaries .................
2023
¥20
¥20
0
0
0
830
650
53,300
51,900
2024
¥30
¥20
¥20
10
0
860
670
54,900
53,500
¥20
¥20
¥20
10
10
900
700
56,400
54,900
2025
2026
¥40
¥30
¥20
10
0
930
730
58,000
56,500
¥40
¥30
¥30
10
0
970
750
59,600
58,100
Total*
¥150
¥120
¥80
50
10
4,490
3,500
282,200
250,200
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
* Negative spending reflects a reduction in Medicare spending, while positive spending reflects an increase.
* Totals may not sum due to rounding and from beneficiaries that have cancer treatment spanning multiple years.
TABLE 2—RADIATION ONCOLOGY MODEL PHYSICIAN GROUP PRACTICE (PGP) (INCLUDING FREESTANDING RADIATION
THERAPY CENTERS) VS HOSPITAL OUTPATIENT DEPARTMENT (HOPD) ALLOWED CHARGE IMPACTS 2022 TO 2026 AS
COMPARED TO THOSE NOT PARTICIPATING IN THE RO MODEL
2022
(%)
% Impact
PGP (including freestanding radiation
therapy centers) ...................................
HOPD .......................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:03 Aug 26, 2022
Jkt 256001
2023
(%)
3.1
¥7.8
PO 00000
Frm 00042
2024
(%)
4.5
¥8.8
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
6.0
¥9.6
2025
(%)
2026
($)
7.4
¥10.6
E:\FR\FM\29AUR1.SGM
29AUR1
8.9
¥11.6
2022 to 2026
(%)
6.3
¥9.9
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
Nevertheless, and notwithstanding
the RO Model delay, the analysis uses
a baseline in which the RO Model
provisions of the CY 2022 OPPS/ASC
FC were effective on January 1, 2022, to
calculate the monetized estimates of the
effects of this final rule. We maintain
the analytical approach described in the
regulatory impact analysis of the CY
2022 OPPS/ASC FC, and, for the
purposes of quantifying the effects of
this final rule, we assumed that the
regulations at 42 CFR part 512, subpart
B, as amended by the CY 2022 OPPS/
ASC FC were otherwise in full effect. As
we are finalizing the delay of the start
of the RO Model to a date yet to be
determined, the estimated savings
presented in Table 90 of the CY 2022
OPPS/ASC FC will not occur at this
time. We summarize this result in Table
3 later in this section, which illustrates,
inversely, the net monetized estimates
contained in Table 90 of the CY 2022
OPPS/ASC FC. The period covered
shown in Table 3 begins January 2022
52703
in alignment with Table 90 of the CY
2022 OPPS/ASC FC.
As required by OMB Circular A–4
(available at the Office of Management
and Budget website at: https://
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/
whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A4/
a-4.pdf), we have prepared an
accounting statement in Table 3
showing the classification of the impact
associated with the provisions of this
final rule.
TABLE 3—ACCOUNTING STATEMENT: ESTIMATED IMPACTS FROM CY 2022 TO CY 2026 AS A RESULT OF PROVISIONS OF
THIS FINAL RULE
Units
Estimates
(million)
Category
Transfers:
Annualized Monetized ($million/year) ..............................................................
From Whom to Whom .....................................................................................
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
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 health care
providers and suppliers are small
entities, either by nonprofit status or by
having revenues of less than $8 million
to $41.5 million in any 1 year.
Individuals and states are not included
in the definition of a small entity. For
details, see the Small Business
Administration’s ‘‘Table of Small
Business Size Standards’’ at https://
www.sba.gov/document/support--tablesize-standards.
As its measure of significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, HHS uses a
change in revenue of more than 3 to 5
percent. Because we are finalizing our
proposal, the estimated impact of the
RO Model as described in the CY 2022
OPPS/ASC FC will not occur. Instead,
payment for submitted claims will be
made under the applicable Medicare
payment methodology. As a result, the
Secretary has determined that this final
rule will not have a significant 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:03 Aug 26, 2022
Jkt 256001
Discount
rate
(%)
Year
dollar
$27
29
2020
2020
Period
covered
7
3
2022–2026
2022–2026
From the Federal Government to healthcare providers.
conform to the provisions of section 604
of 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 the RO Model will not
have a significant impact on the
operations of a substantial number of
small rural hospitals.
We requested comments on our
estimate of significantly affected
providers and suppliers and the
magnitude of estimated effects for the
proposed rule. We did not receive any
comments.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
Section 202 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
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 2022, that
threshold is approximately $165
million. This final rule does not
mandate any requirements for State,
local, or tribal governments, or for the
private sector.
must meet when it promulgates a final
rule that imposes substantial direct
requirement costs on State and local
governments, preempts State law, or
otherwise has federalism implications.
This rule would not have a substantial
direct effect on state or local
governments, preempt state law, or
otherwise have a federalism implication
because the RO Model is a Federal
payment model impacting Federal
payments only and does not implicate
local governments or state law.
Therefore, the requirements of
Executive Order 13132 are not
applicable.
List of Subjects in 42 CFR Part 512
Administrative practice and
procedure, Health facilities, Medicare,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble and under the authority at 42
U.S.C. 1302, 1315a, and 1395hh, the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services amends 42 CFR part 512 as set
forth below:
PART 512—RADIATION ONCOLOGY
MODEL AND END STAGE RENAL
DISEASE TREATMENT CHOICES
MODEL
F. Federalism
1. The authority citation for part 512
continues to read as follows:
Executive Order 13132 establishes
certain requirements that an agency
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1302, 1315a, and
1395hh.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
■
E:\FR\FM\29AUR1.SGM
29AUR1
52704
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
2. Section 512.205 is amended by
revising the definition of ‘‘Model
performance period’’ to read as follows:
■
§ 512.205
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Model performance period means the
5 performance years (PYs) during which
RO episodes initiate and terminate.
CMS will establish the start and end
dates of the model performance period
for the RO Model through future
rulemaking.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: August 24, 2022.
Xavier Becerra,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human
Services.
[FR Doc. 2022–18541 Filed 8–25–22; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 665
[RTID 0648–XC196]
Pacific Island Fisheries; 2022 U.S.
Territorial Longline Bigeye Tuna Catch
Limits for American Samoa
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Announcement of a valid
specified fishing agreement.
AGENCY:
NMFS announces a valid
specified fishing agreement that
allocates up to 1,500 metric tons (t) of
the 2022 bigeye tuna limit for American
Samoa to U.S. longline fishing vessels.
The agreement supports the long-term
sustainability of fishery resources of the
U.S. Pacific Islands, and fisheries
development in American Samoa.
DATES: The specified fishing agreement
was valid as of July 20, 2022. The start
date for attributing 2022 bigeye tuna
catch to American Samoa was August
25, 2022.
ADDRESSES: The Fishery Ecosystem Plan
for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western
Pacific (FEP) describes specified fishing
agreements and is available from the
Western Pacific Fishery Management
Council (Council), 1164 Bishop St.,
Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813, tel
808–522–8220, fax 808–522–8226, or
https://www.wpcouncil.org.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:03 Aug 26, 2022
Jkt 256001
NMFS prepared environmental
analyses that describe the potential
impacts on the human environment that
would result from the action. The
analyses, identified by NOAA–NMFS–
2021–0076, are available from https://
www.regulations.gov/search/
docket?filter=NOAA-NMFS-2021-0076,
or from Sarah Malloy, Acting Regional
Administrator, NMFS Pacific Islands
Region (PIR), 1845 Wasp Blvd., Bldg.
176, Honolulu, HI 96818.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lynn Rassel, NMFS PIRO Sustainable
Fisheries, 808–725–5184.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a final
rule published on December 29, 2021,
NMFS specified a 2022 limit of 2,000 t
of longline-caught bigeye tuna for each
of the U.S. Pacific Island territories of
American Samoa, Guam, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands (86 FR 73990). NMFS allows
each territory to allocate up to 1,500 t
of the 2,000 t limit to U.S. longline
fishing vessels identified in a valid
specified fishing agreement, but the
overall allocation limit among all
territories may not exceed 3,000 t.
On June 24, 2022, NMFS received
from the Council, through its Executive
Director, a specified fishing agreement
between American Samoa and the
Hawaii Longline Association providing
an initial allocation to U.S. fishing of
1,300 t followed by a subsequent
allocation, upon notification by HLA to
American Samoa at a later date, of any
unallocated portion of American
Samoa’s 1,500 mt allocation limit to
U.S. fishing vessels identified in the
agreement for 2022. The Council’s
Executive Director advised that the
agreement is consistent with the FEP
and its implementing regulations. On
July 20, 2022, NMFS reviewed the
agreement and determined that it is
consistent with the FEP, implementing
regulations, the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management
Act, and other applicable laws.
On March 29, 2022, NMFS
determined that the U.S. longline
fishery exceeded the 3,554 t 2021 U.S.
bigeye tuna catch limit established in
regulations at 50 CFR 300.224 by 196 t.
Western and Central Pacific Fisheries
Commission (WCPFC) Conservation and
Management Measures (CMM) 2021–01,
Paragraph 37, states that where the limit
has been exceeded, any overage of the
limit shall be deducted from the catch
limit for the following year. In
accordance with U.S. obligations as a
WCPFC member, NMFS must reduce
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 9990
the 2022 U.S. bigeye tuna limit by the
amount of the overage of 196 t. NMFS
is preparing a separate regulatory
package that would revise the 2022 U.S.
bigeye tuna limit to 3,358 t. Although
the revised limit is not yet effective,
NMFS is basing its decisions for
attributing bigeye catch under valid
specified fishing agreements with U.S.
participating territories pursuant to 50
CFR 665.819(c)(9)(i) on this 3,358 t limit
to ensure compliance with CMM 2021–
01.
At the time NMFS determined the
American Samoa specified fishing
agreement was consistent with
applicable laws, U.S. longline vessels
operating in the area of application of
the Convention on the Conservation and
Management of Highly Migratory Fish
Stocks in the Western and Central
Pacific Ocean (WCPO) still had about 9
percent of the 3,358 t U.S. catch limit
left, so NMFS waited for a later
projection to determine the date for
attributing catch to the 2022 American
Samoa limit and agreement.
In accordance with 50 CFR 300.224(d)
and 50 CFR 665.819(c)(9), vessels in the
agreement may retain and land bigeye
tuna in the WCPO under the American
Samoa attribution specified in the
fishing agreement. Based on logbook
data submitted by U.S. longline vessels
in the WCPFC Convention Area, NMFS
forecasts that the U.S. longline fishery
will reach the U.S. bigeye tuna limit of
3,358 t by September 1, 2022.
Regulations at 50 CFR 665.819(c)(9)(i)
direct NMFS to begin attributing catch
to the applicable U.S. territory starting
seven days before the date NMFS
forecasts the U.S. limit to be reached, or
upon the effective date of the agreement,
whichever is later. Therefore, on August
25, 2022, NMFS began attributing bigeye
tuna caught by vessels in the agreement
to American Samoa. If NMFS
determines that the fishery will reach
the overall 2,000 t territorial catch limit
or the 1,500 t allocation limit, NMFS
will restrict the catch and retention of
longline-caught bigeye tuna by vessels
in order to not exceed these limits,
unless the vessels are included in a
subsequent specified fishing agreement
with another U.S. territory.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: August 23, 2022.
Jennifer M. Wallace,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2022–18499 Filed 8–26–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\29AUR1.SGM
29AUR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 166 (Monday, August 29, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52698-52704]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18541]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
42 CFR Part 512
[CMS-5527-F2]
RIN 0938-AT89
Radiation Oncology (RO) Model
AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are finalizing our proposal to delay the current start date
of the RO Model to a date to be determined through future rulemaking,
and to modify the definition of the model performance period to provide
that the start and end dates of the model performance period for the RO
Model will be established in future rulemaking.
DATES: These regulations are effective on October 28, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Genevieve Kehoe,
[email protected], or 1-844-711-2664 Option 5, for questions
related to the Radiation Oncology Model.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 52699]]
I. Background
We are committed to promoting higher quality of cancer care and
improving outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries while reducing costs. As
part of that effort, the Biden Administration has taken a number of
efforts to improve the care of Medicare cancer patients, most notably
with the President's cancer agenda and the Cancer Moonshot, as well as
the CMS Innovation Center's Oncology Care Model \1\ and Enhancing
Oncology Model,\2\ which focus on patients with cancer who receive
chemotherapy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://innovation.cms.gov/innovation-models/oncology-care.
\2\ https://innovation.cms.gov/innovation-models/enhancing-oncology-model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2015, Congress passed the Patient Access and Medicare
Protection Act (Pub. L. 114-115), and section 3(b) of this legislation
required the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services
to submit to Congress a report, no later than 18 months after
enactment, on ``the development of an episodic alternative payment
model'' for payment under the Medicare program for radiation therapy
(RT) services. We released the 2017 Report to Congress: ``Episodic
Alternative Payment Model for Radiation Therapy Services,'' which laid
out the potential for reforming the way Medicare pays for radiation
oncology. Based on that work, using our authority under section 1115A
of the Social Security Act (the Act), we published a proposed rule,
titled ``Medicare Program; Specialty Care Models to Improve Quality of
Care and Reduce Expenditures'', which appeared in the Federal Register
on July 18, 2019 (84 FR 34478), and included a proposal for
implementing a mandatory model for radiation oncology services
(hereinafter referred to as the RO Model) (84 FR 34490 through 34535).
The RO Model was designed to test whether making site-neutral,
prospective, episode-based payments to hospital outpatient departments
(HOPDs), physician group practices (PGPs), and freestanding radiation
therapy centers for RT episodes of care would preserve or enhance the
quality of care furnished to Medicare beneficiaries while reducing or
maintaining Medicare program spending. More specifically, as described
in the final rule titled ``Medicare Program; Specialty Care Models to
Improve Quality of Care and Reduce Expenditures'' that appeared in the
September 29, 2020 Federal Register (85 FR 61115) (hereinafter referred
to as the ``Specialty Care Models final rule''), the RO Model was
designed to include prospective payments for certain RT services
furnished during a 90-day RO episode for included cancer types for
certain Medicare beneficiaries. The Model was designed to test the
cost-saving potential of prospective episode payments for certain RT
services furnished during an RO episode and whether shorter courses of
RT (that is, fewer doses, also known as fractions) will encourage more
efficient care delivery and incentivize higher value care.
In the Specialty Care Models final rule, we codified policies at 42
CFR part 512, subparts A and B, that included a finalized RO Model with
a model performance period that was to begin January 1, 2021, and end
December 31, 2025 (85 FR 61367). We finalized that each performance
year (PY) would be the 12-month period beginning on January 1 and
ending on December 31 of each calendar year (CY) during the model
performance period, and no new RO episodes may begin after October 3,
2025, in order for all RO episodes to end by December 31, 2025.
Due to the public health emergency for the Coronavirus disease 2019
(COVID-19) pandemic, we revised the RO Model's model performance period
at 42 CFR 512.205 to begin on July 1, 2021, and to end December 31,
2025, giving RO participants an additional 6 months to prepare for the
RO Model. We implemented the revised model period via interim final
regulations included in the final rule with comment period and interim
final rule with comment period that appeared in the December 29, 2020
Federal Register titled ``Medicare Program: Hospital Outpatient
Prospective Payment and Ambulatory Surgical Center Payment Systems and
Quality Reporting Programs; New Categories for Hospital Outpatient
Department Prior Authorization Process; Clinical Laboratory Fee
Schedule: Laboratory Date of Service Policy; Overall Hospital Quality
Star Rating Methodology; Physician-owned Hospitals; Notice of Closure
of Two Teaching Hospitals and Opportunity To Apply for Available Slots,
Radiation Oncology Model; and Reporting Requirements for Hospitals and
Critical Access Hospitals (CAHs) to Report COVID-19 Therapeutic
Inventory and Usage and to Report Acute Respiratory Illness During the
Public Health Emergency (PHE) for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)''
(85 FR 85866) (hereinafter referred to as ``CY 2021 OPPS/ASC IFC'').
Section 133 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act (CAA), 2021
(Pub. L. 116-260) (hereinafter referred to as ``CAA, 2021''), enacted
on December 27, 2020, included a provision that prohibited
implementation of the RO Model before January 1, 2022. This
congressional action superseded the start date of the model performance
period of July 1, 2021, established in the CY 2021 OPPS/ASC IFC. To
align the RO Model regulations with the requirements of the CAA, 2021,
we proposed to modify the definition of ``model performance period'' in
42 CFR 512.205 to provide for a 5-year model performance period
starting on January 1, 2022, unless the RO Model is prohibited by law
from starting on January 1, 2022, in which case the model performance
period would begin on the earliest date permitted by law that is
January 1, April 1, or July 1. We also proposed other modifications
both related to and unrelated to the timing of the RO Model in the
proposed rule that appeared in the August 4, 2021 Federal Register
titled ``Medicare Program: Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment and
Ambulatory Surgical Center Payment Systems and Quality Reporting
Programs; Price Transparency of Hospital Standard Charges; Radiation
Oncology Model; Request for Information on Rural Emergency Hospitals''
(86 FR 42018). These provisions were finalized in a final rule with
comment period titled ``Medicare Program: Hospital Outpatient
Prospective Payment and Ambulatory Surgical Center Payment Systems and
Quality Reporting Programs; Price Transparency of Hospital Standard
Charges; Radiation Oncology Model'' that appeared in the November 16,
2021 Federal Register (86 FR 63458) (hereinafter referred to as the
``CY 2022 OPPS/ASC FC'').
On December 10, 2021, the Protecting Medicare and American Farmers
from Sequester Cuts Act (Pub. L. 117-71) was enacted, which included a
provision that prohibits implementation of the RO Model prior to
January 1, 2023. The CY 2022 OPPS/ASC FC specified that if the RO Model
was prohibited by law from beginning on January 1, 2022, the model
performance period would begin on the earliest date permitted by law
that is January 1, April 1, or July 1. As a result, under the current
definition for model performance period at 42 CFR 512.205, the RO Model
would start on January 1, 2023, because that date is the earliest date
permitted by law. However, given the multiple delays to date, and
because both CMS and RO participants must invest operational resources
in preparation for implementation of the RO Model, we have considered
how best to proceed under these circumstances.
[[Page 52700]]
In a proposed rule titled ``Radiation Oncology (RO) Model,'' which
appeared in the Federal Register on April 8, 2022 (87 FR 20800)
(hereinafter referred to as the ``April 2022 RO Model proposed rule''),
we proposed to delay the current start date of the RO Model to a date
to be determined through future rulemaking, and to modify the
definition of the model performance period at 42 CFR 512.205 to provide
that the start and end dates of the model performance period for the RO
Model will be established in future rulemaking.
We solicited public comment on our proposal and received
approximately 38 timely pieces of correspondence. We summarize and
respond to public comments in this final rule.
II. Provisions of the Finalized Regulations
A. Model Performance Period
As stated in the April 2022 RO Model proposed rule, we continue to
believe that the RO Model would address long-standing concerns related
to RT delivery and payment, including the lack of site neutrality for
payments, incentives that encourage volume of services over the value
of services, and coding and payment challenges (87 FR 20802). We
believe the RO Model would provide payment stability and promote high-
quality care for Medicare beneficiaries. We have heard that the RO
Model is valuable and needed in the radiation oncology space from some
interested parties and that some RT providers and RT suppliers selected
to be RO participants are dedicated to preparing for implementation of
the RO Model.
However, given that there have been two legislative delays of the
RO Model, the operational resources required of CMS and RO participants
to continue to prepare for the RO Model before it can be implemented,
and some interested parties' comments that they would not support the
RO Model unless specific changes were made, we proposed to delay the
start of the RO Model to a date to be determined through future
rulemaking and to modify the definition of model performance period at
42 CFR 512.205 to reflect this policy. We noted that we would plan to
propose the new start date no less than 6 months prior to that proposed
start date.
As noted previously, Congress has delayed the RO Model twice. There
is a substantial cost to continue funding preparation for
implementation of the RO Model in 2023. For example, funding is needed
for CMS to prepare for participant onboarding, claims systems changes,
and updates to the data used in the Model's design and participant-
specific payment amounts, among a number of other activities. The cost
of the operational funding needed to continue to prepare to implement
the RO Model takes resources away from the development of other
alternative payment models, particularly when it is not known whether
there may be further legislative delays to the start of the RO Model.
Additionally, those entities selected to be RO participants
continue to make good faith efforts to prepare to implement the RO
Model, which may involve financial, operational, and administrative
investment and resources. Given multiple delays and uncertainty about
the timing of the RO Model, delaying the RO Model indefinitely will
give RO participants the ability to pause their efforts to prepare for
implementation of the RO Model. In the April 2022 RO Model proposed
rule, we stated that we welcome additional dialogue with RO
participants and interested parties about Medicare payment for RT
services (87 FR 20802).
Further, RO participants and interested parties have requested
additional changes to the RO Model's payment methodology and to other
aspects of the RO Model design and participation requirements, such as
lower discounts while keeping the geographic scope of the Model the
same. As we have informed interested parties, if the discounts are
lowered below 3.5 percent for the professional component and 4.5
percent for the technical component, we would need to expand the
geographic scope of the RO Model to be larger than 30 percent of Core
Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) (86 FR 63928 and 63929). If the
discount amounts are significantly smaller, all else equal, the
projected savings will be smaller, and therefore, the number of CBSAs
(and episodes) in the participant group may not be sufficient for CMS
to detect an effect of the RO Model with statistical confidence.
However, we believe that some interested parties will not support the
RO Model test moving forward with unchanged discounts and as noted
previously, these interested parties have also requested that we not
increase the geographic scope of the Model.
Thus, for these reasons, we proposed to delay the current start
date of the RO Model, and to establish the start and end dates for the
model through future rulemaking, which may also involve modifications
to the model design. We proposed to modify the definition of the model
performance period at 42 CFR 512.205 to reflect this proposed delay, by
removing the provision that the RO Model begins on January 1, 2022, and
ends on December 31, 2026, unless the RO Model is prohibited by law
from starting on January 1, 2022, in which case the model performance
period begins on the earliest date permitted by law that is January 1,
April 1, or July 1. We proposed to modify the definition of model
performance period to instead specify that CMS will establish the start
and end dates of the model performance period for the RO Model through
future rulemaking. Finally, in the April 2022 RO Model proposed rule,
we noted that if we do not finalize this proposal and instead proceed
with a start date of January 1, 2023, we do not plan to change the
CBSAs selected for participation before that start date (87 FR 20802).
The following is a summary of comments we received on the proposal
to delay the RO Model to a date to be determined through future
rulemaking in section II.A. of the April 2022 RO Model proposed rule
and our responses to these comments:
Comment: Many commenters supported the delay of the RO Model to a
date to be determined in future rulemaking. CMS received a couple
comments requesting a January 1, 2024 start date to allow for
additional time to prepare for the Model.
Response: We appreciate the support for the delay of the RO Model
to a date yet to be determined and that a couple commenters requested a
specific alternative future date for the RO Model to begin. We will
consider whether a January 1, 2024, start date or an alternative start
date would be feasible and whether such a date is likely to provide
enough time to address the current challenges associated with starting
the RO Model as we contemplate future rulemaking.
Comment: Some commenters requested that the RO Model as it is
currently designed be cancelled altogether. These commenters noted that
they believe that the Model as currently designed does not align with
the Biden Administration's Cancer Moonshot goal of increasing access to
innovative and appropriate cancer care. Specifically, commenters were
concerned the Model would impact equitable access to proton therapy and
future innovation in radiation oncology. Some commenters stated that
CMS should work with interested parties to redesign the Model with
respect to, for example, the discounts, mandatory participation,
billing requirements, quality and clinical reporting, included
modalities, and the Advanced Alternative Payment Model (APM) bonus.
[[Page 52701]]
Response: We appreciate these comments. However, we do not agree
with the comments that the RO Model should be cancelled. As noted
previously, we continue to believe that the RO Model will address long-
standing concerns related to delivery and payment of RT services and
benefit RT providers and RT suppliers as well as beneficiaries, because
of the RO Model's focus on financial predictability through
prospective, site-neutral, episode-based payment and care improvement
by linking payment to quality. The RO Model is designed to test an
innovative approach to payment and service delivery in the field of
radiation oncology. We welcome further dialogue with interested parties
and RO participants about the design of the RO Model.
Comment: A few commenters opposed the delay of the RO Model to a
date to be determined through future rulemaking. These commenters
stated that the RO Model has been delayed long enough and should begin
on January 1, 2023. A commenter noted its disappointment in the
continued delay of the RO Model and its frustration with the starting
and stopping of preparation efforts. The commenter provided support for
value-based, bundled payment for RT services to ensure payment
stability, and urged CMS to work with interested parties to make
necessary final refinements to the RO Model and implement it as soon as
possible. A commenter who requested that the RO Model start January 1,
2023 further stated that the only changes that should be considered
with a January 1, 2023 start are those related to changes in the
national base rates or the adjustment rates that would increase the
revenue to RO participants, because the commenter believed that the
cost of paying RO participants more would likely be less than the cost
of continued delays.
Response: Although we continue to believe that the RO Model will
address longstanding concerns related to delivery and payment of RT
services as described in more detail in the Specialty Care Models final
rule (85 FR 61347) and again in the CY 2022 OPPS/ASC FC (86 FR 63911
and 63912), such as the site-of-service payment differential that
exists under the OPPS and PFS as well as the incentives built into the
current fee-for-service payment system that promotes volume over the
value of services, Congress has delayed the RO Model twice, and it is
not known whether there may be further delays to the start of the RO
Model that are out of CMS's control. As noted previously, there is a
substantial cost to continue funding preparation for implementation of
the RO Model in 2023, and the cost of such funding takes resources away
from the development of other alternative payment models. A continued
cycle of starting and stopping preparation efforts may also involve
resources on the part of RO participants. Furthermore, as described in
the Specialty Care Models final rule (85 FR 61152) and in the CY 2022
OPPS/ASC FC (86 FR 63928 and 63929), in order to be able to detect an
impact of the Model, changes to RO Model payment methodology may
require changes to other aspects of the Model, such as increasing the
size of the Model. In light of the fact that it is unknown whether
there may be further delays to the RO Model that are out of CMS's
control, we believe that the best course of action is to delay the
implementation of the RO Model to a future date. While we appreciate
commenters' request to begin the RO Model as soon as possible on
January 1, 2023, we believe that the delay will provide us with the
opportunity for additional dialogue with RO participants and interested
parties about Medicare payment for RT services.
Comment: We received a few comments requesting that CMS provide
more than 6 months' notice in advance of the future RO Model start
date.
Response: We appreciate these comments. We want to emphasize that
we would plan to propose a new start date for the RO Model at least 6
months prior to that proposed start date, and the public would have an
opportunity to comment on the new proposed start date as part of the
rulemaking process. CMS is committed to the success of the RO Model and
providing RO participants sufficient time to prepare before the RO
Model begins. Should we receive comments indicating that a proposed
start date provides insufficient time to prepare, CMS will consider any
such comments in its decision of when to start the RO Model.
Comment: Many commenters provided feedback not directly related to
our proposal to delay the start date of the RO Model to a date to be
determined through future rulemaking. These comments concerned a range
of issues, including participation requirements and criteria, the
geographic size of the Model, included modalities, Advanced APM
incentive payment under the Quality Payment Program (QPP), and the
Model's pricing methodology (for example, the national base rates,
trend factor, case mix and historical experience adjustments, blend,
and discount rates). Commenters also provided feedback related to the
RO Model's potential impact on rural practices, health equity, and
health disparities, as well as the burden of collecting and reporting
the clinical data elements and the quality measures, and the burden of
the RO Model's billing requirements. Commenters also discussed patient
navigation tools, the beneficiary notification letter, and how the RO
Model does or does not align with the goals of the Biden
Administration's cancer agenda and the Cancer Moonshot.
Response: We appreciate these additional comments, which we may
further consider as we evaluate how best to proceed with the RO Model
going forward. As noted previously, we continue to welcome further
feedback and dialogue with interested parties and RO participants on
the design of the RO Model.
After considering public comments, we are finalizing our proposal
to delay the start of the RO Model to a date to be determined through
future rulemaking. Specifically, we are finalizing our proposed
revisions to the definition of model performance period at 42 CFR
512.205, to specify that model performance period means the 5
performance years (PYs) during which RO episodes initiate and
terminate, and that CMS will establish the start and end dates of the
model performance period for the RO Model through future rulemaking.
III. Collection of Information Requirements
As stated in section 1115A(d)(3) of the Act, Chapter 35 of title
44, United States Code, shall not apply to the testing, evaluation, and
expansion of CMS Innovation Center Models. Consequently, there is no
need for review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.).
IV. Regulatory Impact Analysis
A. Statement of Need
The purpose of this final rule is to delay the start of the RO
Model to a date yet to be determined, and to modify the definition of
model performance period at 42 CFR 512.205. Delaying the start of the
RO Model to a date yet to be determined does not change the statement
of need for the RO Model as described in the Specialty Care Models
final rule (85 FR 61347) and the CY 2021 OPPS/ASC IFC (85 FR 86296) and
again in the CY 2022 OPPS/ASC FC (86 FR 63458).
[[Page 52702]]
B. Overall Impact
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 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), and the
Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)).
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). Section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a ``significant regulatory
action'' as an action that is likely to result in a rule: (1) having an
annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more in any 1 year, or
adversely and materially affecting a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or state, local or tribal governments or communities (also
referred to as ``economically significant''); (2) creating a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned
by another agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of
entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raising novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive order.
A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for regulatory
actions with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in
any 1 year). Based on our estimates, OMB's Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has determined this rulemaking is ``economically
significant'' as measured by the $100 million threshold, and hence is
also a major rule under Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (also known as the Congressional
Review Act). Accordingly, we have prepared an RIA that to the best of
our ability presents the costs and benefits of the rulemaking.
C. Detailed Economic Analysis
Delaying the start of the RO Model to a later undetermined date and
modifying the regulatory text at 42 CFR 512.205 to reflect this means
that the annualized/monetarized estimates of costs and transfers policy
for the RO Model presented in the CY 2022 OPPS/ASC FC (86 FR 63986)
will not be realized at this time.
Similarly, the burden estimates related to implementation of the RO
Model presented in the Specialty Care Models final rule (85 FR 61358),
the CY 2021 OPPS/ASC IFC (85 FR 86297), and the CY 2022 OPPS/ASC FC (86
FR 63987) will not be realized at this time.
The regulatory impact analysis of the CY 2022 OPPS/ASC FC estimated
that on net the RO Model would reduce Medicare spending by $150 million
over the 5-year model performance period. This amount is the net
Medicare Part B impact that includes both Part B premium and Medicare
Advantage United States Per Capita Costs (MA USPCC) rate financing
interaction effects. This estimate excludes changes in beneficiary cost
sharing liability to the extent it is not a Federal outlay under the
policy. These potential impacts were estimated to occur beginning on
January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2026, in alignment with a January
1, 2022, model start. Table 1 summarizes the estimated impact of the RO
Model with a model performance period that would have begun January 1,
2022, and ended December 31, 2026. Table 2 provides additional
information about those expected impacts by year. However, because the
RO Model was not implemented on January 1, 2022, as contemplated in the
CY 2022 OPPS/ASC FC, such effects have yet not occurred.
Table 1--Estimates of Medicare Program Savings (Millions $) for Radiation Oncology Model
[Starting January 1, 2022]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year of model
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Total*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Impact to Medicare Program Spending................. -20 -30 -20 -40 -40 -150
Changes to Incurred FFS Spending........................ -20 -20 -20 -30 -30 -120
Changes to MA Capitation Payments....................... 0 -20 -20 -20 -30 -80
Part B Premium Revenue Offset........................... 0 10 10 10 10 50
Total APM Incentive Payments............................ 0 0 10 0 0 10
Episode Allowed Charges................................. 830 860 900 930 970 4,490
Episode Medicare Payment................................ 650 670 700 730 750 3,500
Total Number of Episodes................................ 53,300 54,900 56,400 58,000 59,600 282,200
Total Number of Beneficiaries........................... 51,900 53,500 54,900 56,500 58,100 250,200
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Negative spending reflects a reduction in Medicare spending, while positive spending reflects an increase.
* Totals may not sum due to rounding and from beneficiaries that have cancer treatment spanning multiple years.
Table 2--Radiation Oncology Model Physician Group Practice (PGP) (Including Freestanding Radiation Therapy Centers) vs Hospital Outpatient Department
(HOPD) Allowed Charge Impacts 2022 to 2026 as Compared to Those Not Participating in the RO Model
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2022 to 2026
% Impact 2022 (%) 2023 (%) 2024 (%) 2025 (%) 2026 ($) (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PGP (including freestanding radiation therapy centers).. 3.1 4.5 6.0 7.4 8.9 6.3
HOPD.................................................... -7.8 -8.8 -9.6 -10.6 -11.6 -9.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 52703]]
Nevertheless, and notwithstanding the RO Model delay, the analysis
uses a baseline in which the RO Model provisions of the CY 2022 OPPS/
ASC FC were effective on January 1, 2022, to calculate the monetized
estimates of the effects of this final rule. We maintain the analytical
approach described in the regulatory impact analysis of the CY 2022
OPPS/ASC FC, and, for the purposes of quantifying the effects of this
final rule, we assumed that the regulations at 42 CFR part 512, subpart
B, as amended by the CY 2022 OPPS/ASC FC were otherwise in full effect.
As we are finalizing the delay of the start of the RO Model to a date
yet to be determined, the estimated savings presented in Table 90 of
the CY 2022 OPPS/ASC FC will not occur at this time. We summarize this
result in Table 3 later in this section, which illustrates, inversely,
the net monetized estimates contained in Table 90 of the CY 2022 OPPS/
ASC FC. The period covered shown in Table 3 begins January 2022 in
alignment with Table 90 of the CY 2022 OPPS/ASC FC.
As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at the Office of
Management and Budget website at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf), we have prepared an
accounting statement in Table 3 showing the classification of the
impact associated with the provisions of this final rule.
Table 3--Accounting Statement: Estimated Impacts From CY 2022 TO CY 2026 as a Result of Provisions of This Final
Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Units
Estimates -----------------------------------------------
Category (million) Discount rate Period
Year dollar (%) covered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfers:
Annualized Monetized ($million/year)............ $27 2020 7 2022-2026
29 2020 3 2022-2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Whom to Whom............................... From the Federal Government to healthcare providers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
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 health care providers and
suppliers are small entities, either by nonprofit status or by having
revenues of less than $8 million to $41.5 million in any 1 year.
Individuals and states are not included in the definition of a small
entity. For details, see the Small Business Administration's ``Table of
Small Business Size Standards'' at https://www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards.
As its measure of significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, HHS uses a change in revenue of more than 3
to 5 percent. Because we are finalizing our proposal, the estimated
impact of the RO Model as described in the CY 2022 OPPS/ASC FC will not
occur. Instead, payment for submitted claims will be made under the
applicable Medicare payment methodology. As a result, the Secretary has
determined that this final rule will not have a significant 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 604 of 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 the RO Model will not have a
significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small
rural hospitals.
We requested comments on our estimate of significantly affected
providers and suppliers and the magnitude of estimated effects for the
proposed rule. We did not receive any comments.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 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 2022, that
threshold is approximately $165 million. This final rule does not
mandate any requirements for State, local, or tribal governments, or
for the private sector.
F. Federalism
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an
agency must meet when it promulgates a final rule that imposes
substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments,
preempts State law, or otherwise has federalism implications. This rule
would not have a substantial direct effect on state or local
governments, preempt state law, or otherwise have a federalism
implication because the RO Model is a Federal payment model impacting
Federal payments only and does not implicate local governments or state
law. Therefore, the requirements of Executive Order 13132 are not
applicable.
List of Subjects in 42 CFR Part 512
Administrative practice and procedure, Health facilities, Medicare,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble and under the authority
at 42 U.S.C. 1302, 1315a, and 1395hh, the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services amends 42 CFR part 512 as set forth below:
PART 512--RADIATION ONCOLOGY MODEL AND END STAGE RENAL DISEASE
TREATMENT CHOICES MODEL
0
1. The authority citation for part 512 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1302, 1315a, and 1395hh.
[[Page 52704]]
0
2. Section 512.205 is amended by revising the definition of ``Model
performance period'' to read as follows:
Sec. 512.205 Definitions.
* * * * *
Model performance period means the 5 performance years (PYs) during
which RO episodes initiate and terminate. CMS will establish the start
and end dates of the model performance period for the RO Model through
future rulemaking.
* * * * *
Dated: August 24, 2022.
Xavier Becerra,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
[FR Doc. 2022-18541 Filed 8-25-22; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4120-01-P