Change in Rates VA Pays for Special Modes of Transportation, 10032-10037 [2023-03013]
Download as PDF
10032
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 32 / Thursday, February 16, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
add, in their places, the text ‘‘electronic
submittals’’ and ‘‘https://www.uscg.mil/
HQ/MSC’’, respectively.
add, in their places, the text ‘‘electronic
submittals’’ and ‘‘https://www.uscg.mil/
HQ/MSC’’, respectively.
§ 162.018–8
PART 163—CONSTRUCTION
PART 173—SPECIAL RULES
PERTAINING TO VESSEL USE
53. The authority citation for part 173
is revised to read as follows:
■
[Amended]
50. In § 162.018–8(a), remove the text
‘‘submitting the VSP electronically’’ and
‘‘https://www.uscg.mil/HQ/MSC’’ and
add, in their places, the text ‘‘electronic
submittals’’ and ‘‘https://www.uscg.mil/
HQ/MSC’’, respectively.
■
§ 162.050–7
[Amended]
52. The authority citation for part 163
is revised to read as follows:
■
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703; E.O.
12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p.
277; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision
No. 01.3.
Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1333; 46 U.S.C. 2113,
3306, 5115; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR,
1980 Comp., p. 277; DHS Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.
54. In § 173.095, revise the equations
in paragraphs (b) and (d) to read as
follows:
■
§ 173.095
51. In § 162.050–7(a), remove the text
‘‘submitting the VSP electronically’’ and
‘‘https://www.uscg.mil/HQ/MSC’’ and
■
*
GM
Towline pull criterion.
*
*
(b) * * *
*
*
= (N)(P X D)2/a(s)(h)
Kl\(f/B)
*****
(d)
***
2 (N)(P x D)2/3
(s)(h)(cos8)
HA=
Kl\
*
*
*
*
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS
PART 178—INTACT STABILITY AND
SEAWORTHINESS
55. The authority citation for part 178
is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1333; 46 U.S.C. 2103,
3306, 3703; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR,
1980 Comp., p. 277; DHS Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.
§ 178.450
Change in Rates VA Pays for Special
Modes of Transportation
ACTION:
56. In § 178.450(a), remove the text
‘‘Basis Drainage’’ and add, in its place,
the text ‘‘Basic Drainage’’.
Dated: January 25, 2023.
Michael Cunningham,
Chief, Office of Regulations and
Administrative Law.
[FR Doc. 2023–01938 Filed 2–15–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:15 Feb 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Final rule.
The Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) amends its beneficiary
travel regulations to establish a new
payment methodology for special modes
of transportation. The new payment
methodology will apply in the absence
of a contract between VA and a vendor
of the special mode of transportation.
For transport by ambulance, VA will
pay the lesser of the actual charge or the
amount determined by the Medicare
Part B Ambulance Fee Schedule
established by the Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid Services. For travel by
modes other than ambulance, VA will
establish a payment methodology based
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Ben
Williams, Director, Veterans
Transportation Program (15MEM),
Veterans Health Administration,
Department of Veterans Affairs, 810
Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC
20420, (404) 828–5691. (This is not a
toll-free number.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant
to section 111 of title 38 United States
Code (U.S.C.), VA provides beneficiary
travel benefits to eligible individuals
who need to travel in connection with
vocational rehabilitation, counseling
required by the Secretary pursuant to
chapter 34 or 35 of Title 38, U.S.C., or
for the purpose of examination,
treatment, or care. Regulations
governing beneficiary travel benefits
provided by the Veterans Health
Administration (VHA) are in part 70 of
title 38 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR). Under part 70, VA has
established limiting criteria to pay for a
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
RIN 2900–AP89
AGENCY:
The rule is effective February 16,
2024.
[Amended]
■
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
DATES:
38 CFR Part 70
■
on States’ posted rates or the actual
charge.
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\16FER1.SGM
16FER1
ER16FE23.015
*
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 32 / Thursday, February 16, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
‘‘special mode of transportation’’ when
that travel is medically required, the
beneficiary is unable to defray the cost
of that transportation, and VHA
approved the travel in advance or the
travel was undertaken in connection
with a medical emergency. See 38 CFR
70.2 (defining the term ‘‘[s]pecial mode
of transportation’’), and 38 CFR 70.4(d)
(establishing criteria for approval of
special mode travel).
On November 5, 2020, VA proposed
amending its beneficiary travel
regulations to implement the
discretionary authority in 38 U.S.C.
111(b)(3)(C), which permits VA to pay
the lesser of the actual charge for
ambulance transportation or the amount
determined by the Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid (CMS) Medicare Part B
Ambulance Fee Schedule (hereafter
referred to the CMS ambulance fee
schedule) established under section
1834(l) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395m(l)), unless VA has entered
into a contract for that transportation.
Additionally, VA proposed to establish
a payment methodology for other types
of special modes of transportation,
including wheelchair and stretcher van
services, which would be used while
VA collects data for the purpose of
developing a new payment
methodology. See 85 FR 70551. We
provided a 60-day comment period that
ended on January 4, 2021, and we
received six comments, five of which
were substantive comments. Those five
comments all raised similar concerns to
38 CFR 70.30(a)(4) introductory text and
(a)(4)(i) and (ii) as proposed, related to
using the CMS ambulance fee schedule
or the posted rates from each State. We
first clarify one aspect of the regulation
for the commenters in general, and then
address more specific concerns of the
individual commenters as applicable
(we note that we refer to issues raised
by a ‘‘commenter’’ or ‘‘commenters’’
below). Based on the summary and
responses below, we adopt the proposed
rule as final with two nonsubstantive
changes.
After the close of the comment period,
VA received several Congressional
letters that expressed some concerns
also raised in comments. At Congress’
request, VA also attended four meetings
with members of Congress and their
staff between December 20, 2022, and
December 22, 2022, during which VA
outlined the terms of the proposed rule.
General Clarification for Commenters
At the outset of our responses, we
note that we read the commenters’
assertions to rely on the assumption that
the proposed rule would create a
scenario where VA in all cases will shift
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:15 Feb 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
from paying billed charges to instead
paying amounts derived from the CMS
ambulance fee schedule. We first clarify
that § 70.30(a)(4)(i) as proposed would
only provide that VA pay the lesser of
actual charges or the rates determined
under the CMS ambulance fee schedule
if VA has not otherwise entered into a
contract with a vendor of special mode
transportation (to include ambulance
transport) as provided in § 70.30(a)(4) as
proposed. Therefore, VA’s payment of
rates as determined under the CMS
ambulance fee schedule, to the extent
they would be lesser than actual charges
under § 70.30(a)(4)(i) as proposed, is
only enabled if VA has not otherwise
entered into a contract under
§ 70.30(a)(4) as proposed. If VA enters
into a contract under § 70.30(a)(4), such
contract could provide for an agreed rate
that may be different than the CMS
ambulance fee schedule. Therefore, it is
not an accurate assumption that in all
cases VA will pay rates that result from
the CMS ambulance fee schedule. We
make this clarification so that our
additional responses below can be
understood in that context.
Specific Concerns Raised by Individual
Commenters
One commenter asserted that VA
using Medicare rates for ambulance
transports is a bad idea because those
rates are below what it actually costs to
transport patients, and subsequently
that VA would receive horrible service
and veterans would suffer. Further, the
commenter asserted that if a patient is
not Medicare covered or is under the
age of 65, the rates for ambulance
transports should be higher, and that
each hospital (we assume the
commenter was referring to each VA
medical facility) should instead enter
into contracts with agreed upon rates.
Regarding the assertion that Medicare
rates are inadequate to cover the actual
costs of ambulance transport, we do not
make changes from the proposed rule.
Congress granted VA the discretion in
38 U.S.C. 111(b)(3)(C) to use the CMS
ambulance fee schedule as part of VA’s
methodology to calculate ambulance
payments, ostensibly finding such
schedule to be sufficient. Further, in its
most recent ambulance report, the
Medicare Payment Advisory
Commission (MedPAC),
www.medpac.gov, found that, in
aggregate, Medicare ambulance margins
were adequate, and VA has no cause or
expertise to challenge that finding.
Regarding the assertion that VA’s use of
the CMS ambulance fee schedule would
result in bad service for VA and
veterans, VA is not aware of, and the
commenter did not provide evidence to
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
10033
demonstrate that veterans are currently
receiving preferential treatment from
ambulance providers by virtue of VA
paying billed charges or that such
preferential treatment would stop were
VA to pay CMS ambulance fee schedule
rates in the absence of a contract.
Additionally, that assertion would
assume that ambulance carriers and
operators do not apply their
professional certification or other
standards and ethics in all cases
regardless of whether an individual is a
veteran, which VA does not believe to
be the case. VA has no reason to doubt
that the same level of ambulance
services would be provided regardless
of the payment source or amount of
payment for ambulance services.
Regarding the assertion that there
should be higher rates paid for
ambulance for individuals who are not
covered by Medicare or who are below
the age of 65, we do not make any
changes from the proposed rule. VA
does not adopt multiple rate structures
or schedules that are dependent on age
or other health insurance coverage as
VA health care benefits are not private
insurance. Rather, VA benefits are
created by statute and administered by
regulations, through which VA pays for
certain services provided to individuals
who meet the administrative eligibility
and other clinical criteria, without
regard to factors such as age. Regarding
the assertion that VA medical facilities
should contract for adequate rates, we
do not make any changes from the
proposed rule and reiterate from our
responses above that VA will retain the
authority in this final rule to enter into
contracts with ambulance providers and
pay the agreed-upon negotiated rate. We
make no changes to the regulation based
on this comment.
One commenter, a provider of air
ambulance transport, asserted that VA’s
proposed change to use the CMS
ambulance fee schedule would hinder
their ability to continue to serve rural
areas because the CMS ambulance fee
schedule reimburses less than 50
percent of their operational costs, which
would cause a loss of several millions
of dollars for their company and would
impact the rest of emergency air medical
services provided throughout the United
States. This commenter further asserted
that, although they have submitted
comments to CMS to review and adjust
air ambulance rates under the CMS
ambulance fee schedule, such
adjustments have not occurred in a
manner to keep up with increased costs
in providing this transport. The
commenter opined that this lack of
adjustment in CMS ambulance fee
schedule rates, combined with the
E:\FR\FM\16FER1.SGM
16FER1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
10034
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 32 / Thursday, February 16, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
effects that COVID–19 has had in
increasing transport costs and
deteriorating their payer mix, make their
provision of services less sustainable.
Regarding the commenter’s assertions
that the rates determined under the
CMS ambulance fee schedule are
inadequate and would hinder their
ability to serve rural areas, and that
CMS should adjust their ambulance fee
schedule in any particular manner, we
are not making any changes from the
proposed rule. VA cannot modify or
increase the CMS ambulance fee
schedule rates. We further reiterate that
§ 70.30(a)(4) as proposed would provide
VA the option to enter into a contract
with a vendor of special mode
transportation (to include air ambulance
transport), and the terms of that contract
would govern the payment rates for
such transport. Such contracts could
provide for a different rate as agreed, in
the event that VA determined it may be
justified based on local considerations,
such as for rural areas, or to include any
additional consideration of difficulties
presented during the COVID–19
pandemic. Regarding the assertion that
changes in the final rule to permit VA
to pay the lesser or the billed charges or
the CMS ambulance fee schedule rates
would have a detrimental effect on their
business we do not make changes from
the proposed rule but rely on the
Regulatory Flexibility Act section of the
proposed rule where VA has estimated
there will not be a significant economic
impact on vendors of ambulance
services because the potential impact
per vendor has been estimated to be less
than 1 percent of their annual reported
receipts, using North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) Code
62910. Therefore, in addition to the
ability for ambulance providers to
contract with VA for potentially
different rates under the final rule, VA
has analyzed that any potential effect on
ambulance providers would not be
significant. We make no changes to the
regulation based on this comment.
One commenter, also a provider of air
ambulance transport, more specifically
asserted that indexing government
reimbursement to the CMS ambulance
fee schedule was a gross miscalculation
that is poorly timed, as this fee schedule
is flawed and cutting reimbursement
rates during a global pandemic is
unconscionable. This commenter urged
that, rather than cutting reimbursements
for air ambulance care for veterans, VA
should work with the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) to
reform the CMS ambulance fee schedule
to bring rates closer to actual costs of
providing the service. We do not make
any changes to the rule as proposed
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:15 Feb 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
based on this comment. We restate from
our responses above that we believe
VA’s use of this schedule is appropriate.
Regarding the assertion that it is poor
timing for VA to implement this change
during the COVID–19 pandemic, we
reiterate that § 70.30(a)(4) as proposed
would provide VA the option to enter
into a contract with a vendor of special
mode transportation to provide for
different rates as VA determines may be
justified based on local considerations
(for instance, to address any difficulties
due to the COVID–19 pandemic).
Regarding the assertion that CMS
should adjust their ambulance fee
schedule in any particular manner, or
that VA should engage with HHS to
reform this schedule, we do not make
changes from the proposed rule as those
subjects are beyond the scope of the
proposed rule.
One commenter, a trade association
representing providers of air ambulance
services, offered more specific data
regarding the background of air
ambulance transport in support of
establishing actual costs, as well as
background on the establishment of the
CMS ambulance fee schedule in support
of the assertion that the schedule has
not been adjusted appropriately to keep
up with actual costs. This commenter
also more specifically asserted that,
should VA move to parity with the CMS
ambulance fee schedule, the cost of
uncompensated care will only increase,
furthering the increased costs shifted to
commercial payors or, should those
costs not be covered, leading to the
increased closure of air ambulance
bases, which would increasingly impact
low-volume rural areas and other areas
with a higher portion of Medicare and
Medicaid beneficiaries, as well as VA
beneficiaries. This commenter also
expressed concern that any effort by the
government to limit payments during
the global health crisis presented by
COVID–19 may be disastrous and have
far-reaching consequences for the
healthcare and emergency medical
systems. Ultimately, this commenter
urged VA to delay the implementation
of this proposal and revisit the proposed
changes only after appropriate data has
been collected and analyzed by CMS to
determine a fair reimbursement rate,
and to otherwise delay any decision to
limit payments to providers until the
end of the COVID–19 pandemic.
We do not make any changes from the
proposed rule based on this
commenter’s assertions. Regarding the
assertions that CMS rates are
inadequate, we restate that Congress
granted VA the discretion in 38 U.S.C.
111(b)(3)(C) to use the CMS ambulance
fee schedule as part of VA’s
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
methodology to calculate ambulance
payments (ostensibly finding such
schedule to be sufficient), and VA has
no cause to question the most recent
MedPAC report finding that Medicare
ambulance margins were adequate.
Regarding the assertion that VA
should delay implementation of
§ 70.30(a)(4) until more data can be
collected by CMS to adjust their
ambulance fee schedule, the comment
alluded to ‘‘recent legislation passed by
Congress’’ that ‘‘will create a federal
database of air ambulance costs which
we hope will allow for CMS to
modernize the current’’ ambulance fee
schedule. We believe the comment may
be referencing provisions of title I (No
Surprises Act) and title II
(Transparency) of Division BB of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act
(CAA), 2021 (Pub. L. 116–260). We are
aware of a notice of proposed
rulemaking published on September 16,
2021 (86 FR 51730), that would
implement certain provisions of title I
(No Surprises Act) and title II
(Transparency) of Division BB of the
CAA. Among other things, this
proposed rule would increase
transparency by requiring group health
plans and health insurance issuers in
the group and individual markets, and
Federal Employee Health Benefits
carriers, to submit certain information
about air ambulance services to the
Secretaries of Health and Human
Services (HHS), Labor, and the
Treasury, and the Director of the Office
of Personnel Management, as
applicable, and by requiring providers
of air ambulance services to submit
certain information to the Secretaries of
HHS and Transportation. The
information submitted under this
proposed rule will include specific
elements outlined in law that are
necessary for HHS, along with the
Department of Transportation, to
develop a comprehensive public report
on air ambulance services. VA does not
have a clear understanding as to how
this public report would be used, or
whether HHS or CMS may use the
report or any product of the required
reporting under the proposed rule to
determine (as we believe is suggested by
the commenter) whether changes to the
ambulance fee schedule are warranted.
Because VA does not have a sense of
whether changes to the CMS ambulance
fee schedule could be pending as
suggested by the commenter, VA will
not delay the implementation of this
final rule until such time as any changes
to CMS ambulance rates may occur. We
note that because VA is referencing the
CMS fee schedule in general in this
regulation and not the specific amount
E:\FR\FM\16FER1.SGM
16FER1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 32 / Thursday, February 16, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
that is currently established in the CMS
fee schedule, any changes to the CMS
rates will be automatically applicable
without the need for future rulemaking.
VA will, however, delay the effective
date of this final rule until February 16,
2024, to ensure that ambulance
providers have adequate time to adjust
to VA’s new methodology for
calculating ambulance rates. Such
adjustment could include ambulance
providers entering into negotiations
with VA to contract for payment rates
different than those under the CMS fee
schedule.
Regarding the assertion that VA
should delay implementation of
§ 70.30(a)(4) until the end of the
COVID–19 pandemic, VA is not in a
position to know when that time may
be, although as stated above VA will
delay the implementation of the final
rule to provide additional time for
vendors of special mode transportation
who are concerned with the CMS fee
schedule to enter into a contract with
VA. Such contracts could provide for a
different rate, in the event that VA
determined different rates may be
justified based on local considerations
(to include any additional difficulties
presented during the COVID–19
pandemic, or for rural areas as the
commenter asserted such areas could be
disproportionately affected).
One commenter asserted that some of
the information presented in the
proposed rule would make it more
difficult for patients to access
transportation assistance, and
specifically opposed the payment
methodology in proposed § 70.30(a)(4)
for travel by modes other than
ambulance. The commenter noted that
the problem with this methodology was
that the resulting rates (given that they
were available for each State) are often
quoted as lower than what the actual
transportation cost may be. The
commenter further inquired as to what
happens with any remaining balance,
and whether the patient is responsible
for the payment of transportation
services. Ultimately, the commenter
asserted that there needed to be further
clarification regarding this methodology
for modes of transportation other than
ambulance, and that VA should
continue to pay for the total cost of nonambulance transport until more data can
be collected and another proposed rule
submitted regarding a different
methodology.
Regarding the assertions of the
commenter that the quoted rates per
State for non-ambulance transports are
lower than actual costs of such
transportation, we do not make any
changes from the proposed rule. Similar
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:15 Feb 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
to our responses regarding adequacy of
rates for ambulance transport, we
believe it is reasonable and appropriate
to rely on posted rates as available per
State. Using the rates posted by States
ensures consistency and predictability
for how much VA will pay to vendors
in each State. Section 70.30(a)(4) as
proposed would provide VA the option
to enter into a contract with a vendor of
special mode transportation (to travel by
modes other than ambulance under
§ 70.30(a)(4)(ii) as proposed), and the
terms of that contract would govern the
payment rates for such transport. Such
contracts could provide for a different
rate in the event that VA determines
that may be justified based on local
considerations. We further note that,
based on the Regulatory Flexibility Act
section of proposed rule, VA has
estimated there will not be a significant
economic impact on non-ambulance
vendors within NAICS Code 621999
(All Other Miscellaneous Ambulatory
Health Care Services) or NAICS Code
485991 (Special Needs Transportation)
because VA estimates that over 99
percent of its payments to vendors
potentially covered within these NAICS
Codes are made pursuant to a contract.
Regarding the commenter’s inquiry
related to billing by non-ambulance
providers of veterans for any remaining
balance after VA payment for the
transport, over 99 percent of these nonambulance transports are paid for by VA
under contract, and the terms of such
contracts indicate that payment by VA
constitutes payment in full and
extinguishes any liability on the part of
the individual transported. For the
remaining 1 percent of non-ambulance
providers that we estimate are not
covered by a contract, we do not have
knowledge that such providers bill
veterans for any remaining balance after
receipt of VA’s payment. However, if
VA becomes aware of such billing of
veterans for any remaining balance, we
could propose an additional regulatory
revision to address that issue in a future
rulemaking. We do not make any
changes from the proposed rule.
Regarding the commenter’s request
that VA delay implementation of the
methodology for non-ambulance
transports until more data can be
collected, we will be delaying
implementation of the final rule until
February 16, 2024, and additional data
will be obtained once this rule is
implemented. We stated in the proposed
rule that after utilizing this methodology
for an initial 90 calendar day period
after this rule becomes final in the
Federal Register, VA will analyze the
payments made to vendors for travel by
modes other than ambulance and
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
10035
determine whether we have enough
payment data (e.g., arithmetic average of
actual charges, locality rates, or posted
rates) to develop a new payment
methodology. If VA determines that it
has enough payment data, then VA will
develop a payment methodology using
the lowest possible rate. If VA does not
have enough payment data to create a
new methodology after the initial 90
calendar day period, then VA would
continue to collect data for as many 90
calendar day intervals as VA would
deem necessary to gather sufficient
payment data, which we do not
anticipate exceeding 18 months from
the effective date of the final rule.
Subsequently, VA would propose a new
methodology for travel by modes other
than ambulance in a separate
rulemaking in the Federal Register.
Technical Changes Not Based on
Comments
VA makes technical changes not
based on comments. The first is to move
the last sentence from § 70.30(a)(4) as
proposed to instead be placed in
§ 70.30(a)(4)(ii)(B), which occurs after
§ 70.30(a)(4)(ii)(A)(3) (§ 70.30(a)(4)(ii)(C)
as proposed). The new language in
§ 70.30(a)(4)(ii)(B) will provide that the
term ‘‘posted rate’’ refers to the
applicable Medicaid rate for the special
mode transport in the State or States
where the vendor is domiciled or where
transport occurred (‘‘involved States’’).
And, in the absence of a posted rate for
an involved State, VA will pay the
lowest among the available posted rates
or the vendor’s actual charge. This is not
a substantive change, but rather moving
language into one location so that all
interpretation of the meaning of the
term ‘‘posted rate’’ in § 70.30(a)(4)(ii) is
located in one place.
Second, we are amending the
language to capitalize the word ‘‘State’’
in the regulations affected by the
proposed rule to be consistent with how
VA capitalizes the word ‘‘State’’
throughout our regulations.
Based on the rationale set forth in the
proposed rule and in this document, we
are adopting the provisions of the
proposed rule as final with the changes
noted above.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
direct agencies to assess the costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, when regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety
effects, and other advantages;
distributive impacts; and equity).
E:\FR\FM\16FER1.SGM
16FER1
10036
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 32 / Thursday, February 16, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Executive Order 13563 (Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review)
emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits,
reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and
promoting flexibility. The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs has
determined that this rule is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866. The Regulatory
Impact Analysis associated with this
rulemaking can be found as a
supporting document at https://
www.regulations.gov.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Secretary hereby certifies that
this final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities as they are
defined in the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612. VA estimates
that this final rule will potentially
impact 2,979 small entities within
NAICS Code 621910 (Ambulance
Services), which represents 97 percent
of the total entities covered by NAICS
Code 621910. However, VA assumes
that all entities within NAICS Code
621910 would bear VA’s cost avoidance
equally. The per entity burden is
estimated to be less than 1 percent of
preliminary receipts for all entities in
NAICS Code 621910.
VA does not believe the impact on
vendors within NAICS Code 621999
(All Other Miscellaneous Ambulatory
Health Care Services) or NAICS Code
485991 (Special Needs Transportation)
will be significant because we do not
typically pay for non-contract
wheelchair or stretcher van services.
Because VA estimates that over 99
percent of its payments to vendors
potentially covered within NAICS
Codes 621999 and 485991 are made
pursuant to a contract, less than 1
percent of small entities within these
NAICS Codes are estimated to be
impacted by this final rule. Therefore,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the initial
and final regulatory flexibility analysis
requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 do
not apply.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Unfunded Mandates
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that
agencies prepare an assessment of
anticipated costs and benefits before
issuing any rule that may result in the
expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any
one year. This final rule will have no
such effect on State, local, and tribal
governments, or on the private sector.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:15 Feb 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule contains no provisions
constituting a collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521).
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
The catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance numbers and titles affected
by this document are 64.040,VHA
Inpatient Medicine (C, D), 64.041, VHA
Outpatient Specialty Care (C), 64.042,
VHA Inpatient Surgery (C), 64.043, VHA
Mental Health Residential (C), 64.044,
VHA Home Care (C), 64.045, VHA
Outpatient Ancillary Services (C),
64.046, VHA Inpatient Psychiatry (C),
64.047, VHA Primary Care (C), 64.048,
VHA Mental Health clinics (C), 64.049,
VHA Community Living Center (C),
64.050, VHA Diagnostic Care (C).
Congressional Review Act
Pursuant to the Subtitle E of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (known as the
Congressional Review Act) (5 U.S.C. 801
et seq.), the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs designated this rule
as not a major rule, as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 70
Administrative practice and
procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism,
Claims, Day care, Dental health, Drug
abuse, Foreign relations, Government
contracts, Grant programs—health,
Grant programs—veterans, Health care,
Health facilities, Health professions,
Health records, Homeless, Medical and
dental schools, Medical devices,
Medical research, Mental health
programs, Nursing homes, Philippines,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Scholarships and
fellowships, Travel and transportation
expenses, Veterans.
Signing Authority
Denis McDonough, Secretary of
Veterans Affairs, approved this
document on February 6, 2023, and
authorized the undersigned to sign and
submit the document to the Office of the
Federal Register for publication
electronically as an official document of
the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Consuela Benjamin,
Regulation Development Coordinator Office
of Regulation Policy & Management, Office
of General Counsel, Department of Veterans
Affairs.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the Department of Veterans
Affairs amends 38 CFR part 70 as
follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
PART 70—VETERANS
TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS
1. The authority citation for part 70 is
revised to read as follows:
■
Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101, 111, 111A, 501,
1701, 1714, 1720, 1728, 1782, and 1783; E.O.
11302, 31 FR 11741, 3 CFR, 1966–1970
Comp., p. 578; and E.O. 13520, 74 FR 62201,
3 CFR, 2009 Comp., p. 274.
2. In § 70.2, add a definition for
‘‘Ambulance’’ in alphabetical order to
read as follows:
■
§ 70.2
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Ambulance, as used in this subpart,
means advanced life support, level 1
(ALS1); advanced life support, level 2
(ALS2); basic life support (BLS); fixed
wing air ambulance (FW); rotary wing
air ambulance (RW); and specialty care
transport (SCT), as those terms are
defined in 42 CFR 414.605.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. In § 70.30 revise paragraph (a)(4) to
read as follows:
§ 70.30
Payment principles.
(a) * * *
(4) VA payments for special modes of
transportation will be made in
accordance with this section, unless VA
has entered into a contract with the
vendor in which case the terms of the
contract will govern VA payments. This
section applies notwithstanding 38 CFR
17.55 and 17.56 for purposes of 38 CFR
17.120.
(i) Travel by ambulance. VA will pay
the lesser of the actual charge for
ambulance transportation or the amount
determined by the fee schedule
established under section 1834(l) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395m(l)).
(ii) Travel by modes other than
ambulance. (A) VA will pay the lesser
of:
(1) The vendor’s actual charge.
(2) The posted rate in the State where
the vendor is domiciled. If the vendor
is domiciled in more than one State, the
lowest posted rate among all involved
States.
(3) The posted rate in the State where
transport occurred. If transport occurred
in more than one State, the lowest
posted rate among all involved States.
(B) The term ‘‘posted rate’’ refers to
the applicable Medicaid rate for the
special mode transport in the State or
States where the vendor is domiciled or
where transport occurred (‘‘involved
States’’). In the absence of a posted rate
for an involved State, VA will pay the
lowest among the available posted rates
or the vendor’s actual charge.
*
*
*
*
*
E:\FR\FM\16FER1.SGM
16FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 32 / Thursday, February 16, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
§§ 70.1, 70.2, 70.3, 70.4, 70.10, 70.20, 70.21,
70.30, 70.31, 70.32, 70.40, 70.41, 70.42,
70.50, 70.70, 70.71, 70.72, 70.73 [Amended]
4. Part 70 is further amended in the
following sections by removing the
parenthetical authority citation at the
end of the section:
■ a. Section 70.1.
■ b. Section 70.2.
■ c. Section 70.3.
■ d. Section 70.4.
■ e. Section 70.10.
■ f. Section 70.20.
■ g. Section 70.21.
■ h. Section 70.30.
■ i. Section 70.31.
■ j. Section 70.32.
■ k. Section 70.40.
■ l. Section 70.41.
■ m. Section 70.42.
■ n. Section 70.50.
■ o. Section 70.70.
■ p. Section 70.71.
■ q. Section 70.72.
■ r. Section 70.73.
■
[FR Doc. 2023–03013 Filed 2–15–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320–01–P
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
39 CFR Part 3055
[Docket No. RM2022–7; Order No. 6439]
RIN 3211–AA32
Reporting of Service Performance
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
This Commission adopts rules
which revise the Postal Service’s service
performance reporting requirements and
includes additions required by recent
postal legislation.
DATES: This rule is effective March 20,
2023.
ADDRESSES: For additional information,
Order No. 6439 can be accessed
electronically through the Commission’s
website at https://www.prc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at
202–789–6820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Table of Contents
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
I. Relevant Statutory Requirements
II. Background
III. Basis and Purpose of Final Rules
I. Relevant Statutory Requirements
Section 3652(e)(1) of title 39 of the
United States Code requires the
Commission to prescribe the content
and form of the public reports that the
Postal Service files with the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:15 Feb 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
Commission. 39 U.S.C. 3652(e)(1). In
doing so, the Commission must attempt
to provide the public with timely
information that is adequate to allow it
to assess the lawfulness of Postal
Service rates, should attempt to avoid
unnecessary or unwarranted Postal
Service effort and expense, and must
endeavor to protect the confidentiality
of commercially sensitive information.
See id. The Commission may initiate
proceedings to improve the quality,
accuracy, or completeness of Postal
Service reporting whenever it
determines that the service performance
data have become significantly
inadequate, could be significantly
improved, or otherwise require revision
as necessitated by the public interest. 39
U.S.C. 3652(e)(2).
Additionally, section 3692 directs the
Postal Service to develop and maintain
a publicly available online ‘‘dashboard’’
that provides weekly service
performance data for Market Dominant
products and mandates that the
Commission provide reporting
requirements for this Postal Service
dashboard as well as ‘‘recommendations
for any modifications to the Postal
Service’s measurement systems
necessary to measure and publish the
performance information’’ located on
the dashboard. 39 U.S.C. 3692(b)(2), (c).
The Postal Service is also authorized to
provide certain nonpostal services to the
public and other Governmental agencies
and consequently required to
periodically report the quality of service
for these nonpostal services. See 39
U.S.C. 3703–3705.
10037
6160 at 5–6. The Commission also
solicited comments on how best to
effectuate the statutes requiring the
Postal Service to report on nonpostal
products and implement a performance
dashboard. Id. at 6–8.
The Commission received a wide
range of comments in response to Order
No. 6160, both discussing the suggested
revisions and proposing additional
amendments to the reporting
requirements. In response, on
September 21, 2022, the Commission
issued Order No. 6275, revising the
previously-proposed reporting
requirements, presenting the
requirements as draft regulations, and
providing another opportunity for
interested persons to comment.2 Again,
the Commission received a variety of
comments in response.
II. Background
Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 503, 3652, 3653,
3692 and 3705, the Commission
initiated Docket No. RM2022–7 to
update the service performance
reporting requirements codified in 39
CFR part 3055 and make the
aforementioned additions for dashboard
and nonpostal product reporting. On
April 26, 2022, the Commission issued
Order No. 6160, proposing several
modifications to the reporting
requirements, providing an opportunity
for interested persons to comment, and
appointing a Public Representative.1
Included among these suggested
modifications were proposals to require
the Postal Service to report average
actual days to delivery and point impact
data, information regarding the
performance for each national operating
plan target, and data about mail
excluded from measurement. Order No.
III. Basis and Purpose of Final Rules
After reviewing the commenters’
suggestions and analysis, the
Commission issues the following
revisions to the rules proposed in Order
No. 6275. Most rules have not been
changed substantively; those that have
are addressed below.
First, proposed § 3055.2(m)—which
relates to required annual reporting on
the Postal Service’s Site-Specific
Operating Plan (SSOP)—is revised to
state that the Postal Service must
provide a description of each SSOP,
including operation completion time
performance for each SSOP
measurement category.
Second, proposed § 3055.21—which
specifies the annual service
performance reporting requirements for
the Postal Service—is revised so that
proposed § 3055.21(b) specifies that the
Postal Service need not identify point
impact data for USPS Marketing Mail
Every Door Direct Mail or USPS
Marketing Mail Destination Delivery
Unit Entry Saturation Flats.
Third, proposed § 3055.25—which
describes the reporting requirements for
nonpostal services—is revised to specify
that the Postal Service provide the
measure of the quality of service for
nonpostal service products annually.
Additionally, paragraph (b) is added to
specify that the Postal Service may
report service performance in a
qualitative manner where the quality of
nonpostal service itself cannot be
measured using on-time service
performance. Paragraph (c) is also added
to specify that quality of service
performance for interagency agreements
shall be reported for the program as a
1 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to
Revise Periodic Reporting of Service Performance,
April 26, 2022 (Order No. 6160).
2 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Revise
Periodic Reporting of Service Performance,
September 21, 2022 (Order No. 6275).
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\16FER1.SGM
16FER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 32 (Thursday, February 16, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10032-10037]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03013]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
38 CFR Part 70
RIN 2900-AP89
Change in Rates VA Pays for Special Modes of Transportation
AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) amends its beneficiary
travel regulations to establish a new payment methodology for special
modes of transportation. The new payment methodology will apply in the
absence of a contract between VA and a vendor of the special mode of
transportation. For transport by ambulance, VA will pay the lesser of
the actual charge or the amount determined by the Medicare Part B
Ambulance Fee Schedule established by the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services. For travel by modes other than ambulance, VA will
establish a payment methodology based on States' posted rates or the
actual charge.
DATES: The rule is effective February 16, 2024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben Williams, Director, Veterans
Transportation Program (15MEM), Veterans Health Administration,
Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC
20420, (404) 828-5691. (This is not a toll-free number.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 111 of title 38 United
States Code (U.S.C.), VA provides beneficiary travel benefits to
eligible individuals who need to travel in connection with vocational
rehabilitation, counseling required by the Secretary pursuant to
chapter 34 or 35 of Title 38, U.S.C., or for the purpose of
examination, treatment, or care. Regulations governing beneficiary
travel benefits provided by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA)
are in part 70 of title 38 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Under
part 70, VA has established limiting criteria to pay for a
[[Page 10033]]
``special mode of transportation'' when that travel is medically
required, the beneficiary is unable to defray the cost of that
transportation, and VHA approved the travel in advance or the travel
was undertaken in connection with a medical emergency. See 38 CFR 70.2
(defining the term ``[s]pecial mode of transportation''), and 38 CFR
70.4(d) (establishing criteria for approval of special mode travel).
On November 5, 2020, VA proposed amending its beneficiary travel
regulations to implement the discretionary authority in 38 U.S.C.
111(b)(3)(C), which permits VA to pay the lesser of the actual charge
for ambulance transportation or the amount determined by the Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) Medicare Part B Ambulance Fee Schedule
(hereafter referred to the CMS ambulance fee schedule) established
under section 1834(l) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m(l)),
unless VA has entered into a contract for that transportation.
Additionally, VA proposed to establish a payment methodology for other
types of special modes of transportation, including wheelchair and
stretcher van services, which would be used while VA collects data for
the purpose of developing a new payment methodology. See 85 FR 70551.
We provided a 60-day comment period that ended on January 4, 2021, and
we received six comments, five of which were substantive comments.
Those five comments all raised similar concerns to 38 CFR 70.30(a)(4)
introductory text and (a)(4)(i) and (ii) as proposed, related to using
the CMS ambulance fee schedule or the posted rates from each State. We
first clarify one aspect of the regulation for the commenters in
general, and then address more specific concerns of the individual
commenters as applicable (we note that we refer to issues raised by a
``commenter'' or ``commenters'' below). Based on the summary and
responses below, we adopt the proposed rule as final with two
nonsubstantive changes.
After the close of the comment period, VA received several
Congressional letters that expressed some concerns also raised in
comments. At Congress' request, VA also attended four meetings with
members of Congress and their staff between December 20, 2022, and
December 22, 2022, during which VA outlined the terms of the proposed
rule.
General Clarification for Commenters
At the outset of our responses, we note that we read the
commenters' assertions to rely on the assumption that the proposed rule
would create a scenario where VA in all cases will shift from paying
billed charges to instead paying amounts derived from the CMS ambulance
fee schedule. We first clarify that Sec. 70.30(a)(4)(i) as proposed
would only provide that VA pay the lesser of actual charges or the
rates determined under the CMS ambulance fee schedule if VA has not
otherwise entered into a contract with a vendor of special mode
transportation (to include ambulance transport) as provided in Sec.
70.30(a)(4) as proposed. Therefore, VA's payment of rates as determined
under the CMS ambulance fee schedule, to the extent they would be
lesser than actual charges under Sec. 70.30(a)(4)(i) as proposed, is
only enabled if VA has not otherwise entered into a contract under
Sec. 70.30(a)(4) as proposed. If VA enters into a contract under Sec.
70.30(a)(4), such contract could provide for an agreed rate that may be
different than the CMS ambulance fee schedule. Therefore, it is not an
accurate assumption that in all cases VA will pay rates that result
from the CMS ambulance fee schedule. We make this clarification so that
our additional responses below can be understood in that context.
Specific Concerns Raised by Individual Commenters
One commenter asserted that VA using Medicare rates for ambulance
transports is a bad idea because those rates are below what it actually
costs to transport patients, and subsequently that VA would receive
horrible service and veterans would suffer. Further, the commenter
asserted that if a patient is not Medicare covered or is under the age
of 65, the rates for ambulance transports should be higher, and that
each hospital (we assume the commenter was referring to each VA medical
facility) should instead enter into contracts with agreed upon rates.
Regarding the assertion that Medicare rates are inadequate to cover
the actual costs of ambulance transport, we do not make changes from
the proposed rule. Congress granted VA the discretion in 38 U.S.C.
111(b)(3)(C) to use the CMS ambulance fee schedule as part of VA's
methodology to calculate ambulance payments, ostensibly finding such
schedule to be sufficient. Further, in its most recent ambulance
report, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC),
www.medpac.gov, found that, in aggregate, Medicare ambulance margins
were adequate, and VA has no cause or expertise to challenge that
finding. Regarding the assertion that VA's use of the CMS ambulance fee
schedule would result in bad service for VA and veterans, VA is not
aware of, and the commenter did not provide evidence to demonstrate
that veterans are currently receiving preferential treatment from
ambulance providers by virtue of VA paying billed charges or that such
preferential treatment would stop were VA to pay CMS ambulance fee
schedule rates in the absence of a contract. Additionally, that
assertion would assume that ambulance carriers and operators do not
apply their professional certification or other standards and ethics in
all cases regardless of whether an individual is a veteran, which VA
does not believe to be the case. VA has no reason to doubt that the
same level of ambulance services would be provided regardless of the
payment source or amount of payment for ambulance services.
Regarding the assertion that there should be higher rates paid for
ambulance for individuals who are not covered by Medicare or who are
below the age of 65, we do not make any changes from the proposed rule.
VA does not adopt multiple rate structures or schedules that are
dependent on age or other health insurance coverage as VA health care
benefits are not private insurance. Rather, VA benefits are created by
statute and administered by regulations, through which VA pays for
certain services provided to individuals who meet the administrative
eligibility and other clinical criteria, without regard to factors such
as age. Regarding the assertion that VA medical facilities should
contract for adequate rates, we do not make any changes from the
proposed rule and reiterate from our responses above that VA will
retain the authority in this final rule to enter into contracts with
ambulance providers and pay the agreed-upon negotiated rate. We make no
changes to the regulation based on this comment.
One commenter, a provider of air ambulance transport, asserted that
VA's proposed change to use the CMS ambulance fee schedule would hinder
their ability to continue to serve rural areas because the CMS
ambulance fee schedule reimburses less than 50 percent of their
operational costs, which would cause a loss of several millions of
dollars for their company and would impact the rest of emergency air
medical services provided throughout the United States. This commenter
further asserted that, although they have submitted comments to CMS to
review and adjust air ambulance rates under the CMS ambulance fee
schedule, such adjustments have not occurred in a manner to keep up
with increased costs in providing this transport. The commenter opined
that this lack of adjustment in CMS ambulance fee schedule rates,
combined with the
[[Page 10034]]
effects that COVID-19 has had in increasing transport costs and
deteriorating their payer mix, make their provision of services less
sustainable.
Regarding the commenter's assertions that the rates determined
under the CMS ambulance fee schedule are inadequate and would hinder
their ability to serve rural areas, and that CMS should adjust their
ambulance fee schedule in any particular manner, we are not making any
changes from the proposed rule. VA cannot modify or increase the CMS
ambulance fee schedule rates. We further reiterate that Sec.
70.30(a)(4) as proposed would provide VA the option to enter into a
contract with a vendor of special mode transportation (to include air
ambulance transport), and the terms of that contract would govern the
payment rates for such transport. Such contracts could provide for a
different rate as agreed, in the event that VA determined it may be
justified based on local considerations, such as for rural areas, or to
include any additional consideration of difficulties presented during
the COVID-19 pandemic. Regarding the assertion that changes in the
final rule to permit VA to pay the lesser or the billed charges or the
CMS ambulance fee schedule rates would have a detrimental effect on
their business we do not make changes from the proposed rule but rely
on the Regulatory Flexibility Act section of the proposed rule where VA
has estimated there will not be a significant economic impact on
vendors of ambulance services because the potential impact per vendor
has been estimated to be less than 1 percent of their annual reported
receipts, using North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
Code 62910. Therefore, in addition to the ability for ambulance
providers to contract with VA for potentially different rates under the
final rule, VA has analyzed that any potential effect on ambulance
providers would not be significant. We make no changes to the
regulation based on this comment.
One commenter, also a provider of air ambulance transport, more
specifically asserted that indexing government reimbursement to the CMS
ambulance fee schedule was a gross miscalculation that is poorly timed,
as this fee schedule is flawed and cutting reimbursement rates during a
global pandemic is unconscionable. This commenter urged that, rather
than cutting reimbursements for air ambulance care for veterans, VA
should work with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to
reform the CMS ambulance fee schedule to bring rates closer to actual
costs of providing the service. We do not make any changes to the rule
as proposed based on this comment. We restate from our responses above
that we believe VA's use of this schedule is appropriate. Regarding the
assertion that it is poor timing for VA to implement this change during
the COVID-19 pandemic, we reiterate that Sec. 70.30(a)(4) as proposed
would provide VA the option to enter into a contract with a vendor of
special mode transportation to provide for different rates as VA
determines may be justified based on local considerations (for
instance, to address any difficulties due to the COVID-19 pandemic).
Regarding the assertion that CMS should adjust their ambulance fee
schedule in any particular manner, or that VA should engage with HHS to
reform this schedule, we do not make changes from the proposed rule as
those subjects are beyond the scope of the proposed rule.
One commenter, a trade association representing providers of air
ambulance services, offered more specific data regarding the background
of air ambulance transport in support of establishing actual costs, as
well as background on the establishment of the CMS ambulance fee
schedule in support of the assertion that the schedule has not been
adjusted appropriately to keep up with actual costs. This commenter
also more specifically asserted that, should VA move to parity with the
CMS ambulance fee schedule, the cost of uncompensated care will only
increase, furthering the increased costs shifted to commercial payors
or, should those costs not be covered, leading to the increased closure
of air ambulance bases, which would increasingly impact low-volume
rural areas and other areas with a higher portion of Medicare and
Medicaid beneficiaries, as well as VA beneficiaries. This commenter
also expressed concern that any effort by the government to limit
payments during the global health crisis presented by COVID-19 may be
disastrous and have far-reaching consequences for the healthcare and
emergency medical systems. Ultimately, this commenter urged VA to delay
the implementation of this proposal and revisit the proposed changes
only after appropriate data has been collected and analyzed by CMS to
determine a fair reimbursement rate, and to otherwise delay any
decision to limit payments to providers until the end of the COVID-19
pandemic.
We do not make any changes from the proposed rule based on this
commenter's assertions. Regarding the assertions that CMS rates are
inadequate, we restate that Congress granted VA the discretion in 38
U.S.C. 111(b)(3)(C) to use the CMS ambulance fee schedule as part of
VA's methodology to calculate ambulance payments (ostensibly finding
such schedule to be sufficient), and VA has no cause to question the
most recent MedPAC report finding that Medicare ambulance margins were
adequate.
Regarding the assertion that VA should delay implementation of
Sec. 70.30(a)(4) until more data can be collected by CMS to adjust
their ambulance fee schedule, the comment alluded to ``recent
legislation passed by Congress'' that ``will create a federal database
of air ambulance costs which we hope will allow for CMS to modernize
the current'' ambulance fee schedule. We believe the comment may be
referencing provisions of title I (No Surprises Act) and title II
(Transparency) of Division BB of the Consolidated Appropriations Act
(CAA), 2021 (Pub. L. 116-260). We are aware of a notice of proposed
rulemaking published on September 16, 2021 (86 FR 51730), that would
implement certain provisions of title I (No Surprises Act) and title II
(Transparency) of Division BB of the CAA. Among other things, this
proposed rule would increase transparency by requiring group health
plans and health insurance issuers in the group and individual markets,
and Federal Employee Health Benefits carriers, to submit certain
information about air ambulance services to the Secretaries of Health
and Human Services (HHS), Labor, and the Treasury, and the Director of
the Office of Personnel Management, as applicable, and by requiring
providers of air ambulance services to submit certain information to
the Secretaries of HHS and Transportation. The information submitted
under this proposed rule will include specific elements outlined in law
that are necessary for HHS, along with the Department of
Transportation, to develop a comprehensive public report on air
ambulance services. VA does not have a clear understanding as to how
this public report would be used, or whether HHS or CMS may use the
report or any product of the required reporting under the proposed rule
to determine (as we believe is suggested by the commenter) whether
changes to the ambulance fee schedule are warranted.
Because VA does not have a sense of whether changes to the CMS
ambulance fee schedule could be pending as suggested by the commenter,
VA will not delay the implementation of this final rule until such time
as any changes to CMS ambulance rates may occur. We note that because
VA is referencing the CMS fee schedule in general in this regulation
and not the specific amount
[[Page 10035]]
that is currently established in the CMS fee schedule, any changes to
the CMS rates will be automatically applicable without the need for
future rulemaking. VA will, however, delay the effective date of this
final rule until February 16, 2024, to ensure that ambulance providers
have adequate time to adjust to VA's new methodology for calculating
ambulance rates. Such adjustment could include ambulance providers
entering into negotiations with VA to contract for payment rates
different than those under the CMS fee schedule.
Regarding the assertion that VA should delay implementation of
Sec. 70.30(a)(4) until the end of the COVID-19 pandemic, VA is not in
a position to know when that time may be, although as stated above VA
will delay the implementation of the final rule to provide additional
time for vendors of special mode transportation who are concerned with
the CMS fee schedule to enter into a contract with VA. Such contracts
could provide for a different rate, in the event that VA determined
different rates may be justified based on local considerations (to
include any additional difficulties presented during the COVID-19
pandemic, or for rural areas as the commenter asserted such areas could
be disproportionately affected).
One commenter asserted that some of the information presented in
the proposed rule would make it more difficult for patients to access
transportation assistance, and specifically opposed the payment
methodology in proposed Sec. 70.30(a)(4) for travel by modes other
than ambulance. The commenter noted that the problem with this
methodology was that the resulting rates (given that they were
available for each State) are often quoted as lower than what the
actual transportation cost may be. The commenter further inquired as to
what happens with any remaining balance, and whether the patient is
responsible for the payment of transportation services. Ultimately, the
commenter asserted that there needed to be further clarification
regarding this methodology for modes of transportation other than
ambulance, and that VA should continue to pay for the total cost of
non-ambulance transport until more data can be collected and another
proposed rule submitted regarding a different methodology.
Regarding the assertions of the commenter that the quoted rates per
State for non-ambulance transports are lower than actual costs of such
transportation, we do not make any changes from the proposed rule.
Similar to our responses regarding adequacy of rates for ambulance
transport, we believe it is reasonable and appropriate to rely on
posted rates as available per State. Using the rates posted by States
ensures consistency and predictability for how much VA will pay to
vendors in each State. Section 70.30(a)(4) as proposed would provide VA
the option to enter into a contract with a vendor of special mode
transportation (to travel by modes other than ambulance under Sec.
70.30(a)(4)(ii) as proposed), and the terms of that contract would
govern the payment rates for such transport. Such contracts could
provide for a different rate in the event that VA determines that may
be justified based on local considerations. We further note that, based
on the Regulatory Flexibility Act section of proposed rule, VA has
estimated there will not be a significant economic impact on non-
ambulance vendors within NAICS Code 621999 (All Other Miscellaneous
Ambulatory Health Care Services) or NAICS Code 485991 (Special Needs
Transportation) because VA estimates that over 99 percent of its
payments to vendors potentially covered within these NAICS Codes are
made pursuant to a contract.
Regarding the commenter's inquiry related to billing by non-
ambulance providers of veterans for any remaining balance after VA
payment for the transport, over 99 percent of these non-ambulance
transports are paid for by VA under contract, and the terms of such
contracts indicate that payment by VA constitutes payment in full and
extinguishes any liability on the part of the individual transported.
For the remaining 1 percent of non-ambulance providers that we estimate
are not covered by a contract, we do not have knowledge that such
providers bill veterans for any remaining balance after receipt of VA's
payment. However, if VA becomes aware of such billing of veterans for
any remaining balance, we could propose an additional regulatory
revision to address that issue in a future rulemaking. We do not make
any changes from the proposed rule.
Regarding the commenter's request that VA delay implementation of
the methodology for non-ambulance transports until more data can be
collected, we will be delaying implementation of the final rule until
February 16, 2024, and additional data will be obtained once this rule
is implemented. We stated in the proposed rule that after utilizing
this methodology for an initial 90 calendar day period after this rule
becomes final in the Federal Register, VA will analyze the payments
made to vendors for travel by modes other than ambulance and determine
whether we have enough payment data (e.g., arithmetic average of actual
charges, locality rates, or posted rates) to develop a new payment
methodology. If VA determines that it has enough payment data, then VA
will develop a payment methodology using the lowest possible rate. If
VA does not have enough payment data to create a new methodology after
the initial 90 calendar day period, then VA would continue to collect
data for as many 90 calendar day intervals as VA would deem necessary
to gather sufficient payment data, which we do not anticipate exceeding
18 months from the effective date of the final rule. Subsequently, VA
would propose a new methodology for travel by modes other than
ambulance in a separate rulemaking in the Federal Register.
Technical Changes Not Based on Comments
VA makes technical changes not based on comments. The first is to
move the last sentence from Sec. 70.30(a)(4) as proposed to instead be
placed in Sec. 70.30(a)(4)(ii)(B), which occurs after Sec.
70.30(a)(4)(ii)(A)(3) (Sec. 70.30(a)(4)(ii)(C) as proposed). The new
language in Sec. 70.30(a)(4)(ii)(B) will provide that the term
``posted rate'' refers to the applicable Medicaid rate for the special
mode transport in the State or States where the vendor is domiciled or
where transport occurred (``involved States''). And, in the absence of
a posted rate for an involved State, VA will pay the lowest among the
available posted rates or the vendor's actual charge. This is not a
substantive change, but rather moving language into one location so
that all interpretation of the meaning of the term ``posted rate'' in
Sec. 70.30(a)(4)(ii) is located in one place.
Second, we are amending the language to capitalize the word
``State'' in the regulations affected by the proposed rule to be
consistent with how VA capitalizes the word ``State'' throughout our
regulations.
Based on the rationale set forth in the proposed rule and in this
document, we are adopting the provisions of the proposed rule as final
with the changes noted above.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts;
and equity).
[[Page 10036]]
Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)
emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits,
reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. The
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this
rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order
12866. The Regulatory Impact Analysis associated with this rulemaking
can be found as a supporting document at https://www.regulations.gov.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-
612. VA estimates that this final rule will potentially impact 2,979
small entities within NAICS Code 621910 (Ambulance Services), which
represents 97 percent of the total entities covered by NAICS Code
621910. However, VA assumes that all entities within NAICS Code 621910
would bear VA's cost avoidance equally. The per entity burden is
estimated to be less than 1 percent of preliminary receipts for all
entities in NAICS Code 621910.
VA does not believe the impact on vendors within NAICS Code 621999
(All Other Miscellaneous Ambulatory Health Care Services) or NAICS Code
485991 (Special Needs Transportation) will be significant because we do
not typically pay for non-contract wheelchair or stretcher van
services. Because VA estimates that over 99 percent of its payments to
vendors potentially covered within NAICS Codes 621999 and 485991 are
made pursuant to a contract, less than 1 percent of small entities
within these NAICS Codes are estimated to be impacted by this final
rule. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the initial and final
regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 do
not apply.
Unfunded Mandates
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C.
1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and
benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for
inflation) in any one year. This final rule will have no such effect on
State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3521).
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
The catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers and titles
affected by this document are 64.040,VHA Inpatient Medicine (C, D),
64.041, VHA Outpatient Specialty Care (C), 64.042, VHA Inpatient
Surgery (C), 64.043, VHA Mental Health Residential (C), 64.044, VHA
Home Care (C), 64.045, VHA Outpatient Ancillary Services (C), 64.046,
VHA Inpatient Psychiatry (C), 64.047, VHA Primary Care (C), 64.048, VHA
Mental Health clinics (C), 64.049, VHA Community Living Center (C),
64.050, VHA Diagnostic Care (C).
Congressional Review Act
Pursuant to the Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (known as the Congressional Review
Act) (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs designated this rule as not a major rule, as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 70
Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism,
Claims, Day care, Dental health, Drug abuse, Foreign relations,
Government contracts, Grant programs--health, Grant programs--veterans,
Health care, Health facilities, Health professions, Health records,
Homeless, Medical and dental schools, Medical devices, Medical
research, Mental health programs, Nursing homes, Philippines, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Scholarships and fellowships, Travel
and transportation expenses, Veterans.
Signing Authority
Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, approved this
document on February 6, 2023, and authorized the undersigned to sign
and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for
publication electronically as an official document of the Department of
Veterans Affairs.
Consuela Benjamin,
Regulation Development Coordinator Office of Regulation Policy &
Management, Office of General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Veterans
Affairs amends 38 CFR part 70 as follows:
PART 70--VETERANS TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS
0
1. The authority citation for part 70 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101, 111, 111A, 501, 1701, 1714, 1720,
1728, 1782, and 1783; E.O. 11302, 31 FR 11741, 3 CFR, 1966-1970
Comp., p. 578; and E.O. 13520, 74 FR 62201, 3 CFR, 2009 Comp., p.
274.
0
2. In Sec. 70.2, add a definition for ``Ambulance'' in alphabetical
order to read as follows:
Sec. 70.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Ambulance, as used in this subpart, means advanced life support,
level 1 (ALS1); advanced life support, level 2 (ALS2); basic life
support (BLS); fixed wing air ambulance (FW); rotary wing air ambulance
(RW); and specialty care transport (SCT), as those terms are defined in
42 CFR 414.605.
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec. 70.30 revise paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 70.30 Payment principles.
(a) * * *
(4) VA payments for special modes of transportation will be made in
accordance with this section, unless VA has entered into a contract
with the vendor in which case the terms of the contract will govern VA
payments. This section applies notwithstanding 38 CFR 17.55 and 17.56
for purposes of 38 CFR 17.120.
(i) Travel by ambulance. VA will pay the lesser of the actual
charge for ambulance transportation or the amount determined by the fee
schedule established under section 1834(l) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395m(l)).
(ii) Travel by modes other than ambulance. (A) VA will pay the
lesser of:
(1) The vendor's actual charge.
(2) The posted rate in the State where the vendor is domiciled. If
the vendor is domiciled in more than one State, the lowest posted rate
among all involved States.
(3) The posted rate in the State where transport occurred. If
transport occurred in more than one State, the lowest posted rate among
all involved States.
(B) The term ``posted rate'' refers to the applicable Medicaid rate
for the special mode transport in the State or States where the vendor
is domiciled or where transport occurred (``involved States''). In the
absence of a posted rate for an involved State, VA will pay the lowest
among the available posted rates or the vendor's actual charge.
* * * * *
[[Page 10037]]
Sec. Sec. 70.1, 70.2, 70.3, 70.4, 70.10, 70.20, 70.21, 70.30, 70.31,
70.32, 70.40, 70.41, 70.42, 70.50, 70.70, 70.71, 70.72, 70.73
[Amended]
0
4. Part 70 is further amended in the following sections by removing the
parenthetical authority citation at the end of the section:
0
a. Section 70.1.
0
b. Section 70.2.
0
c. Section 70.3.
0
d. Section 70.4.
0
e. Section 70.10.
0
f. Section 70.20.
0
g. Section 70.21.
0
h. Section 70.30.
0
i. Section 70.31.
0
j. Section 70.32.
0
k. Section 70.40.
0
l. Section 70.41.
0
m. Section 70.42.
0
n. Section 70.50.
0
o. Section 70.70.
0
p. Section 70.71.
0
q. Section 70.72.
0
r. Section 70.73.
[FR Doc. 2023-03013 Filed 2-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P