[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 208 (Thursday, October 28, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58134-58209]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-27864]
[[Page 58133]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Department of Health and Human Services
_______________________________________________________________________
Health Care Financing Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
42 CFR Parts 409, 410, 411, etc.
Medicare Program; Prospective Payment System for Home Health Agencies;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 1999 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 58134]]
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Health Care Financing Administration
42 CFR Parts 409, 410, 411, 413, 424, and 484
[HCFA-1059-P]
RIN 0938-AJ24
Medicare Program; Prospective Payment System for Home Health
Agencies
AGENCY: Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), HHS.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would establish requirements for the new
prospective payment system for home health agencies as required by
section 4603 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, as amended by section
5101 of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999. These include the
implementation of a prospective payment system for home health
agencies, consolidated billing requirements, and a number of other
related changes. The prospective payment system described in this rule
would replace the retrospective reasonable-cost-based system currently
used by Medicare for the payment of home health services under Part A
and Part B.
DATES: Comments will be considered if we receive them at the
appropriate address, as provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on
December 27, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Mail written comments (1 original and 3 copies) to the
following address: Health Care Financing Administration, Department of
Health and Human Services, Attention: HCFA-1059-P, P.O. Box 8010,
Baltimore, MD 21244-8010.
If you prefer, you may deliver your written comments (1 original
and 3 copies) to one of the following addresses: Room 443-G Hubert H.
Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201,
or Room C5-14-03, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bob Wardwell (Project Manager), (410) 786-4607.
Susan Levy (Payment Policy), (410) 786-9364.
Debbie Chaney (Data), (410) 786-8164.
Randy Throndset (Data), (410) 786-0131.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Because of staffing and resource
limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission.
In commenting, please refer to file code HCFA-1059-P. Comments received
timely will be available for public inspection as they are received,
generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of a
document, in Room 443-G of the Department's offices at 200 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, on Monday through Friday of each week from
8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. (phone: (202) 690-7890).
Copies: To order copies of the Federal Register containing this
document, send your request to: New Orders, Superintendent of
Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954. Specify the date
of the issue requested and enclose a check or money order payable to
the Superintendent of Documents, or enclose your Visa or Master Card
number and expiration date. Credit card orders can also be placed by
calling the order desk at (202) 512-1800 or by faxing to (202) 512-
2250. The cost for each copy is $8. As an alternative, you can view and
photocopy the Federal Register document at most libraries designated as
Federal Depository Libraries and at many other public and academic
libraries throughout the country that receive the Federal Register.
To assist readers in referencing sections contained in this
document, we are providing the following table of contents.
Table of Contents
Preamble
I. Background
A. Current System for Payment of Home Health Agencies
B. Requirements of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and the
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act
for Fiscal Year 1999 for the Development of a Prospective Payment
System for Home Health Agencies
C. Summary of the Research
D. Home Health Agency Prospective Payment--Overview
1. Payment Provisions--National Episode Payment Rate
a. Episode Definition
b. National Episode Payment Rate
2. Payment Provisions--Split Payment
3. Payment Provisions--Outlier Payments
4. Payment Provisions--Transition Period
5. Consolidated Billing for Home Health Agencies
6. Medical Review Under the Prospective Payment System
7. Continued Access to Quality Home Health Services Under the
Prospective Payment System
8. Implementation of the Prospective Payment System
II. Prospective Payment System for Home Health Agencies
A. National 60-Day Episode Payment
1. Costs and Services Covered by the 60-Day Episode Payment
2. Data Sources Used for the Development of the 60-Day Episode
Payment
a. Audited Cost Report Data
b. Home Health Agency Market Basket Index
c. Claims Data
d. Hospital Wage Index
e. Abt Associates Case-Mix Research Project Data
3. Methodology Used for the Calculation of the 60-Day Episode
Payment Amount
a. Cost Data--60-Day Episode Payment
b. Utilization Data--60-Day Episode Payment
c. Updating the Data
d. Standardization Factor
e. Budget-Neutrality Factor
4. Methodology Used for Low-Utilization Payments
5. Methodology Used for Outlier Payments
B. Examples of National Standardized 60-Day Episode Payment
Amounts and Low-Utilization Payment Adjustments
C. Design and Methodology for Case-Mix Adjustment of 60-Day
Episode Payments
1. Background on Clinical Model Patient Classification System
2. The Clinical Model--Home Health Resource Group Classification
System
3. Determining the Case-Mix Indices
4. Application of the Clinical Model Patient Classification
System
5. Background on the Case-Mix Research Project for a National
Home Health PPS
III. Audited Cost Report Data Sample Methodology
IV. HHA PPS Framework--How the System Works
A. Start of Care
B. End of Episode
C. Recertification of 60-day Episode Period
D. Determining Whether a Beneficiary Is Under an Established
Plan of Care
E. Medical Review
F. Overpayments and Adjustments
G. Implementation Effective Date for PPS
H. Claims Processing Transition
I. Quality System
J. Illustrative Examples
1. 60-day Episode--No Recertification
2. 60-day Episode with Recertification
3. Partial Episode Payment Adjustment Examples
4. Significant Change in Condition Payment Adjustment Examples
K. Required Schedule for Completing OASIS Supplemented by One
Additional Case-Mix Item
L. Relationship Between Payment and OASIS
M. Transition of Assessment and Certification Dates for
Beneficiaries Under an Established Home Health Plan of Care
1. Use of Current OASIS Assessment for Purposes of Case-Mix
Classification
2. Physician Certification Dates for Beneficiaries Under an
Established Home Health Plan of Care
V. Consolidated Billing
A. Background
B. HHA Consolidated Billing Legislation
C. Types of Services That Are Subject to the Provision
[[Page 58135]]
D. Effects of This Provision
E. Effective Date for Consolidated Billing
VI. Provisions of the Proposed Rule
VII. Response to Comments
VIII. Collection of Information Requirements
IX. Regulatory Impact Statement
A. Background
1. General
2. 60-Day Episode Definition and Payment Rate
3. Case Mix
B. Alternatives Considered
1. Unit of Payment
a. 60-Day National Episode Payment
b. Low-Utilization Payment Adjustment
c. Partial Episode Payment Adjustment
d. Significant Change in Condition Adjustment
2. Outlier Payments
3. Transition
4. Operational Options
5. Consolidated Billing
C. Effects of this Proposed Rule
D. Rural Hospital Impact Statement
Regulations Text
In addition, because of the many terms to which we refer by
abbreviation in this rule, we are listing these abbreviations and
their corresponding terms in alphabetical order below:
ADL--Activities of Daily Living
BBA--Balanced Budget Act of 1997
COPs--Conditions of participation
DME--Durable medical equipment
FIs--Fiscal intermediaries
FFY--Federal fiscal year
FMR--Focused medical review
FY--Fiscal year
HHA--Home health agency
HIC--Health insurance claim
HHRGs--Home Health Resource Groups
IADL--Instrumental Activities of Daily Living
IPS--Interim payment system
LUPA--Low-utilization payment adjustment
MS--Medical social services
MSA--Metropolitan Statistical Area
NCSB--Neurological, cognitive, sensory, and behavioral variables
OASIS--Outcome and Assessment Information Set
OBQI--Outcome based quality improvement
OCESAA--Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999
OES--[U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics] Occupational Employment
Survey
OSCAR--On-line Survey and Certification System
OT--Occupational therapy
PEP--Partial episode payment
PPS--Prospective payment system
PT--Physical therapy
RHHI--Regional Home Health Intermediary
RUGs--Resource Utilization Groups
SCIC--Significant Change in Condition
SN--Skilled nursing service
SP--Speech-language pathology
I. Background
A. Current System for Payment of Home Health Agencies
The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33) (BBA), enacted
on August 5, 1997, significantly changed the way we pay for Medicare
home health services. Until the implementation of a home health
prospective payment system (PPS), home health agencies (HHAs) receive
payment under a cost-based reimbursement system, referred to as the
interim payment system and generally established by section 4602 of the
BBA. The interim payment system imposes two sets of cost limits for
HHAs. Section 4206(a) of the BBA reduced the home health per-visit cost
limits from 112 percent of the mean labor-related and nonlabor per-
visit costs for freestanding agencies to 105 percent of the median. In
addition, HHA costs are subjected to an aggregate per-beneficiary cost
limitation. For those providers with a 12-month cost reporting period
ending in Federal fiscal year (FFY) 1994, the per-beneficiary cost
limitation is based on a blend of costs (75 percent on 98 percent of
the agency-specific costs and 25 percent on 98 percent of the
standardized regional average of the costs for the agency's census
region). For new providers and those providers without a 12-month cost-
reporting period ending in FFY 1994, the per-beneficiary limitation is
the national median of the per-beneficiary limits for HHAs. Under the
interim payment system, HHAs are paid the lesser of (1) actual costs;
(2) the per-visit limits; or (3) the per-beneficiary limits. Effective
October 1, 1997, the interim payment system exists until prospective
payment for HHAs is implemented.
On October 21, 1998, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act (OCESAA), 1999 (Public Law 105-277) was
signed into law. Section 5101 of OCESAA amended section 1861(v)(1)(L)
of the Social Security Act (the Act) by providing for adjustments to
the per-beneficiary and per-visit limitations for cost-reporting
periods beginning on or after October 1, 1998. We had published a
notice with comment period establishing the cost limitations for cost
reporting periods beginning on or after October 1, 1998 in the Federal
Register that was entitled ``Medicare Program; Schedules of Per-Visit
and Per-Beneficiary Limitations on Home Health Agency Costs for Cost
Reporting Periods Beginning On or After October 1, 1998'' (HCFA-1035-
NC) on August 11, 1998 (63 FR 42912). OCESAA made the following
adjustments to these limitations:
Providers with a 12-month cost reporting period ending during FY
1994, whose per-beneficiary limitations were less than the national
median, which is to be set at 100 percent for comparison purposes, will
get their current per-beneficiary limitation plus \1/3\ of the
difference between their rate and the adjusted national median per-
beneficiary limitation. New providers and providers without a 12-month
cost-reporting period ending in FFR 1994 whose first cost-reporting
period begins before October 1, 1998 will receive 100 percent of the
national median per-beneficiary limitation.
New providers whose first cost-reporting periods begin during FFY
1999 will receive 75 percent of the national median per-beneficiary
limitation as published in the August 11, 1998 notice. In the case of a
new provider or a provider that did not have a 12-month cost-reporting
period beginning during FFY 1994 that filed an application for HHA
provider status before October 15, 1998 or that was approved as a
branch of its parent agency before that date and becomes a subunit of
the parent agency or a separate freestanding agency on or after that
date, the per-beneficiary limitation will be set at 100 percent of the
median. The per-visit limitation effective for cost-reporting periods
beginning on or after October 1, 1998 is set at 106 percent of the
median instead of 105 percent of the median, as previously required in
the BBA.
There is contingency language for the home health PPS provided in
the BBA that was also amended by section 5101 of OCESAA. If the
Secretary for any reason does not establish and implement the PPS for
home health services, the Secretary will provide for a reduction by 15
percent to the per-visit cost limits and per-beneficiary limits, as
those limits would otherwise be in effect on September 30, 2000.
B. Requirements of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and the Omnibus
Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal
Year 1999 for the Development of a Prospective Payment System for Home
Health Agencies
Section 4603(a) of the BBA provides the authority for the
development of a PPS for all Medicare-covered home health services paid
on a reasonable cost basis that will ultimately be based on units of
payment by adding section 1895 to the Act entitled ``Prospective
Payment For Home Health Services.''
Section 5101(c) of OCESAA amends section 1895(a) of the Act by
removing the transition into the PPS by cost-reporting periods and
requiring all HHAs to be paid under PPS effective upon the
implementation date of the system. Section 1895(a) of the Act now
states ``Notwithstanding section 1861(v),
[[Page 58136]]
the Secretary shall provide for portions of cost-reporting periods
occurring on or after October 1, 2000, for payments for home health
services in accordance with a prospective payment system established by
the Secretary under this section.''
Section 1895(b)(1) of the Act requires the Secretary to establish a
PPS for all costs of home health services. Under this system all
services covered and paid for on a reasonable-cost basis under the
Medicare home health benefit as of the date of enactment of the BBA,
including medical supplies, will be paid on the basis of a prospective
payment amount. The Secretary may provide for a transition of not
longer than 4 years during which a portion of the prospective payment
may be agency-specific as long as the blend does not exceed budget-
neutrality targets.
Section 1895(b)(2) of the Act requires the Secretary in defining a
prospective payment amount to consider an appropriate unit of service
and the number, type, and duration of visits furnished within that
unit, potential changes in the mix of services provided within that
unit and their cost, and a general system design that provides for
continued access to quality services.
Section 1895(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act requires that (1) the
computation of a standard prospective payment amount include all costs
of home health services covered and paid for on a reasonable cost basis
and be initially based on the most recent audited cost report data
available to the Secretary, and (2) the prospective payment amounts be
standardized to eliminate the effects of case mix and wage levels among
HHAs.
Section 5101(c) of OCESAA modifies the effective date of the
budget-neutrality targets for HHA PPS by amending section
1895(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act. Section 1895(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act, as
amended, requires that the standard prospective payment limitation
amounts be budget neutral to what would be expended under the current
interim payment system with the limits reduced by 15 percent at the
inception of the PPS on October 1, 2000.
Section 5101(d)(2) of OCESAA also modifies the statutory provisions
dealing with the home health market basket percentage increase. For
fiscal years 2002 or 2003, sections 1895(b)(3)(B)(i) and (b)(3)(B)(ii)
of the Act, as so modified, require that the standard prospective
payment amounts be increased by a factor equal to the home health
market basket minus 1.1 percentage points. In addition, for any
subsequent fiscal years, the statute requires the rates to be increased
by the applicable home health market basket index change.
Section 1895(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires the Secretary to reduce
the prospective payment amounts if the Secretary accounts for an
addition or adjustment to the payment amount made in the case of
outlier payments. The reduction must be in a proportion such that the
aggregate reduction in the prospective payment amounts for the given
period equals the aggregate increase in payments resulting from the
application of outlier payments.
Section 1895(b)(4) of the Act governs the payment computation.
Sections 1895(b)(4)(A)(i) and (b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act require the
standard prospective payment amount to be adjusted for case mix and
geographic differences in wage levels. Section 1895(b)(4)(B) of the Act
requires the establishment of an appropriate case-mix adjustment factor
that explains a significant amount of the variation in cost among
different units of services. Similarly, section 1895(b)(4)(C) of the
Act requires the establishment of wage adjustment factors that reflect
the relative level of wages and wage-related costs applicable to the
furnishing of home health services in a geographic area compared to the
national average applicable level. These wage-adjustment factors may be
the factors used by the Secretary for purposes of section 1886(d)(3)(E)
of the Act.
Section 1895(b)(5) of the Act gives the Secretary the option to
grant additions or adjustments to the payment amount otherwise made in
the case of outliers because of unusual variations in the type or
amount of medically necessary care. Total outlier payments in a given
fiscal year cannot exceed 5 percent of total payments projected or
estimated.
Section 1895(b)(6) of the Act provides for the proration of
prospective payment amounts between the HHAs involved in the case of a
patient electing to transfer or receive services from another HHA
within the period covered by the prospective payment amount.
Section 1895(d) of the Act limits review of certain aspects of the
HHA PPS. Specifically, there is no administrative or judicial review
under sections 1869 or 1878 of the Act, or otherwise, of the following:
the establishment of the transition period under 1895(b)(1) of the Act,
the definition and application of payment units under section
1895(b)(2) of the Act, the computation of initial standard prospective
amounts under 1895(b)(3)(A) of the Act (including the reduction
described in section 1895(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act), the establishment
of the adjustment for outliers under 1895(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the
establishment of case-mix and area wage adjustments under 1895(b)(4) of
the Act, and the establishment of any adjustments for outliers under
1895(b)(5) of the Act.
Section 4603(b) of the BBA amends section 1815(e)(2) of the Act by
eliminating periodic interim payments for HHAs effective October 1,
2000.
Section 4603(c) of the BBA sets forth the following conforming
amendments: Section 1814(b)(1) of the Act is amended to indicate that
payments under Part A will also be made under section 1895 of the Act;
section 1833(a)(2)(A) of the Act is amended to require that home health
services, other than a covered osteoporosis drug, are paid under HHA
PPS, and section 1833(a)(2) is amended by adding a new subparagraph (G)
regarding payment of Part B services at section 1861(s)(10)(A) of the
Act; and section 1842(b)(6)(F) is added to the Act and section
1832(a)(1) of the Act is amended to include a reference to section
1842(b)(6)(F), both governing the consolidated billing requirements.
Section 4603(d) of the BBA was amended by section 5101(c)(2) of
OCESAA by changing the effective date language for the HHA PPS and the
other changes made by section 4603 of the BBA. Section 4603(d) provided
that: ``Except as otherwise provided, the amendments made by this
section shall apply to portions of cost reporting periods occurring on
or after October 1, 2000.'' This change requires all HHAs to be paid
under HHA PPS effective October 1, 2000 regardless of the current cost-
reporting period. This change is discussed in detail in section IV.H.
of this regulation.
Section 4603(e) of the BBA sets forth the contingency language for
HHA PPS. If the Secretary for any reason does not establish and
implement HHA PPS on October 1, 2000, the per-visit cost limits and
per-beneficiary limits under the interim payment system will be reduced
by 15 percent.
C. Summary of the Research
The PPS described in the following sections is a culmination of
substantial research efforts focusing on the areas of HHA payment and
quality.
The Per-Visit Prospective Payment Demonstration
Description of the Demonstration
Under the per-visit demonstration, administered under a contract to
Abt Associates, Inc., 47 agencies in California, Florida, Illinois,
Massachusetts, and Texas were phased
[[Page 58137]]
into the project at the beginning of their fiscal years starting in
October 1990 and continuing for 3 years. Of the 47 agencies, 26 were
randomly assigned to be paid prospectively, and the remaining 21 were
paid retrospectively, subject to the statutory limitations. The
participating agencies were representative nationally in terms of their
average costs per visit for each visit type and their patients'
characteristics.
For the first year, prospective per-visit rates by type of visit
(for example, skilled nursing or occupational therapy) were set for
each demonstration agency based on the agency's cost for the year
preceding its entry into the project and adjusted for inflation. If the
base year cost used to set the rates exceeded the statutory cost
limits, it was reduced to satisfy the limits. For the second and third
years, the agency-specific rates were updated for inflation. The
demonstration payment rates were adjusted annually for changes in
agencies' volume. Payments were adjusted to share losses and profits
with us.
The opportunity to earn a profit on visits was expected to motivate
demonstration agencies to hold increases in cost per visit below the
rate of increase in their payment per visit. It was expected that
agencies would make a variety of changes to enhance efficiency and hold
down both service-related and administrative costs. However, it was
recognized that costs to the Medicare program could potentially
increase under prospective rate setting, if agencies furnished more
visits than they would have under cost reimbursement, or if agencies'
efforts to lower costs also lowered quality of care and led to
increased use of other Medicare services. It was the role of the
evaluation contractor to study these and other potential consequences.
Evaluation of the Demonstration
We contracted with Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. to perform an
independent evaluation of the demonstration. The objectives of the
evaluation were to describe and assess the impacts on the Medicare
program and its beneficiaries and to understand possible changes in
agency decision making and operations as a result of the incentives of
the new payment method.
Major data resources for the evaluation included Medicare claims,
enrollment files, case studies, and site visits with participating
providers, an annual mail survey of demonstration agencies, interviews
with organizations involved in the demonstration (for example, fiscal
intermediaries), provider cost reports, patient surveys, patient intake
data collected by the providers, home health certification and plan of
treatment forms (Form 485), and records of quality assurance reviews
from the New England Research Institute, the demonstration's quality
assurance contractor.
Several types of multivariate regression models were used to
estimate treatment-control differences. For example, analysis of costs
per visit and visit volume involved a comparison of cost reports during
the 3 years of the demonstration and the 3 prior years. Using a
regression procedure, the treatment group's change in average visit
cost and average number of visits was compared to the control group's
change. Impacts on visits per episode were estimated using episode-
level data from claims, with separate analyses conducted for each
demonstration year. Patient survey data and quality assurance reviews
were among the sources for analyses of quality impacts, which
controlled for potential confounding factors such as patient and agency
characteristics.
Qualitative research to understand agency responses used case study
methods. Twenty-two cases for study (11 treatment and 11 control
agencies) were drawn from across the five States to represent the
variation in a range of provider characteristics, such as auspices,
size, and urban or rural location. The agencies were followed over most
of the 3 years of the demonstration. Data were collected through site
visit and telephone interviews, as well as from cost reports and a mail
survey of agencies. The case studies focused on several key aspects of
demonstration operations, such as strategic planning, clinical costs,
administrative costs, relations between the agencies and administrative
organizations, and perceptions about a national program of prospective
payment.
Evaluation Results
Cost
The per-visit PPS did not result in more cost control, nor did it
induce excessive volume. There were no statistically significant
differences between treatment and control agencies in the change in
average cost per visit, regardless of type of visit. For example, the
cost per skilled nursing visit for treatment agencies increased from an
average of about $81 to about $92 between the predemonstration and
demonstration periods. Control agencies' average costs grew by a
similar amount. A related analysis found that a subgroup of agencies--
freestanding agencies with a large proportion of Medicare visits--
exhibited treatment-control differences in profits and ability to
control cost increases. Their greater success in generating profits and
in holding down Medicare cost increases suggested that HHAs can be
induced to control costs. Nonetheless, this possible demonstration
effect was too small to produce a difference in impacts for the sample
as a whole.
Utilization
The analysis of volume suggested no impact from prospective rate
setting. Average total visits for the two groups grew at similar rates
between the base year and the end of the demonstration--21.3 percent
per year for the treatment group and 23.6 percent per year for the
control group. Visit growth for three specific types of visits (skilled
nursing, aide, and physical therapy) was statistically equal for the
two groups as well. Small sample sizes prevented reliable estimation
for the remaining three visit types.
Treatment group agencies did not differentially increase the number
of visits per episode. They provided slightly fewer physical therapy
visits per episode, a result that is inconsistent with the incentives
to increase visits under visit-based rate setting and may not have been
a result of the demonstration. The duration of episodes did not differ
between treatment and control agencies, although the length of aide
visits was significantly shorter for treatment agencies. However, the
evaluators concluded this was probably not due to the prospective
payment, and this finding was not supported by data from other
evaluation sources. The demonstration had no effects on patients' use
of other Medicare-covered services, such as hospital care or
physicians' visits. Finally, per-visit PPS did not appear to affect
patients' use of non-Medicare services or on the amount of informal
care received.
Quality and Access
The evidence suggested that quality of care was unaffected by per-
visit prospective payment. Analyses of quality assurance data uncovered
no impacts. Access-related provider behavior--such as agencies becoming
more selective about the patients they accepted--was unaffected. For
example, treatment and control group patients differed significantly in
all 3 years on only two of the many patient characteristics at
admission--clinical stability and pre-admission location. There were no
significant differences in the proportion of admissions with
[[Page 58138]]
characteristics suggesting a need for long visits.
Qualitative Findings
The first year of the demonstration was a time of transition,
during which participants were adjusting to demonstration operations,
which included collection of special patient-intake data and use of a
single fiscal intermediary. Agencies reported that these adjustments
imposed costs that limited their ability to reduce overall costs. The
environment of the first year was one of change and competition, which
continually compelled providers to assess their services and service
areas, payment sources, and marketing activities. For many providers,
it was also a time of large volume growth and an increasing proportion
of more acutely ill patients. Agencies were continuing to seek
efficiency measures, as they had before the demonstration. The
evaluators did not observe any effect of the demonstration itself on
such clinical activities as referral procedures, intake procedures,
assessment and care planning, and quality assurance procedures.
Relations with the fiscal intermediary were generally smooth, although
some problems needed resolution, particularly during the early months.
By the third year of the demonstration, it was clear that the
incentives introduced by the switch to visit-based prospective payment
did not dramatically alter the overall environment of treatment
agencies relative to controls. This outcome seemed attributable to
background conditions deriving from Medicare program cost limits and
allowable cost determinations. In addition, the combined effects of
competition in the industry and cost control policies in other health
sectors created a climate in which agencies, both treatment and
control, felt pressures to produce services efficiently. Yet most
identified little that could be done to reduce their costs. The
evaluators concluded that the prospective payment incentive may have
been responsible for some slight additional attention to cost cutting.
Specific examples included more attention to efficiency and
profitability in the strategic plans of treatment as compared to
control agencies, more branch offices opened by treatment than control
agencies, more use of computers by treatment than control agencies, and
higher productivity expectations for staff of treatment compared to
control agencies.
Summary of Results
The evaluation findings overall suggested that prospective per-
visit rates are unlikely to generate sizable cost savings for the
Medicare program. Agencies appeared to respond modestly to this
incentive to be more efficient. Due to the limited size of the project,
the evaluators had little opportunity to assess whether prospective
rate setting worked better for certain types of agencies. Nevertheless,
the demonstration suggested that agencies can make some changes to slow
the rate of increase in costs per visit.
The Per-Episode Prospective Payment Demonstration Description of
the Demonstration
The per-episode PPS demonstration, administered under a contract to
Abt Associates, Inc., began in June 1995. The demonstration was
scheduled to terminate by December 1998. At the participating agencies'
request, the demonstration has been extended pending the implementation
of a national, episode-based PPS. However, as originally planned, the
collection of evaluation data terminated at year-end 1998.
Ninety-one agencies from five sites--California, Florida, Illinois,
Massachusetts, and Texas--were randomly assigned to either the
treatment group (PPS payment, 48 agencies) or the control group
(conventional cost-based reimbursement, 43 agencies). The agencies
phased into the demonstration at the beginning of their 1996 fiscal
year.
The payments received by the treatment group agencies for the first
120 days of an episode are based on each agency's own costs in the
fiscal year immediately preceding its entry into the demonstration,
updated for inflation and adjusted for changes in its case mix. While
each agency is ``at risk'' during the first 120 days after admission
for all home health visits the patient needs, we reimburse treatment
agencies for up to 99 percent of fiscal-year losses, up to the
statutory payment limits. Profits in excess of the specified statutory
limits are shared with us. For visits occurring after the initial 120
days, agencies are reimbursed using prospective per-visit rates.
Episodes are defined by gaps of at least 45 days in the receipt of
Medicare home health care. Only after the 120-day payment period and a
45-day gap in services could an agency receive a new episode-based
payment for a given Medicare beneficiary.
Treatment agencies can reduce the cost of care they furnish during
the 120-day payment period by reducing visits, changing the mix of
visits to make less costly visits a larger proportion of visits,
reducing per-visit costs, or some combination of all three. The cost-
reducing activities raise the possibility that quality of care might
deteriorate under episode-based payment. Quality reduction could occur
through several cost-saving mechanisms, such as inadequate provision of
expensive therapeutic services, excessive reductions in visit
frequency, or excessive shortening of visits.
Evaluation of the Demonstration
We contracted with Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. to evaluate
the episode-based demonstration. As with the visit-based demonstration
evaluation, this project sought to answer policy questions on two main
issues: program impacts and agency decisions and operations. The
program evaluation addresses impacts on home health utilization, other
Medicare services utilization, non-Medicare services utilization,
quality and access, and cost. The analysis of agency decisions and
operations seeks to provide useful insights for the implementation of a
national program of episode-based prospective payment.
We also contracted with the Center for Health Policy Research at
the University of Colorado to perform quality assurance monitoring. All
agencies participating in the demonstration are required to collect
patient status data at the start of care, at discharge, at 120 days
after admission if the patient is still on service, at admission to an
inpatient facility for 48 hours or more, and upon resumption of care
after an inpatient stay. Outcomes are reported at the agency level.
Based on outcome report findings, agencies are requested to engage in
follow-up activities to investigate processes of care, and specific
agencies are selected for an additional process of care review. In
addition to outcome monitoring for individual agencies, the quality
assurance project reports on patterns of outcomes for treatment and
control agencies.
The evaluation results to date are based largely on data from the
first year of the demonstration. Most of the analyses are based on
approximately 51,000 home health episodes from 85 of the demonstration
agencies (6 dropped out or had inadequate data). All admissions
occurring between an agency's start date (beginning of its 1996 fiscal
year) and August 1996 are included. Medicare claims files provided data
on the outcomes variables describing the use of services. Claims
[[Page 58139]]
data were supplemented with data from the quality assurance contractor
for the analyses of quality impacts. Claims data and cost report data
were used to research the impact of the demonstration on agency costs.
Data from a survey of patients conducted during the second and third
demonstration years were the basis for a study of utilization of non-
Medicare services and selected quality outcomes.
For most statistical analyses, regression models were used to
estimate treatment-control differences. Use of regression analysis
permits the isolation of PPS effects from other potential causes of
treatment-control differences, such as a difference in the proportion
of agencies affiliated with a hospital. Data collected at admission for
case-mix adjustment and from prior Medicare claims histories provided
measures of pre-admission patient characteristics that were used to
account for potential pre-existing treatment-control differences in
patient populations. Other control variables were obtained from agency
cost reports and the demonstration contractor.
A qualitative research component of the evaluation is based on case
study methods. For a judgmental sample of 67 demonstration agencies,
primary data were collected during site visits early in the
demonstration and supplemented by agency documents. Freestanding
agencies (56) predominated in the sample. About half of the
freestanding agencies were for-profit, and half were voluntary or
private nonprofit organizations (primarily visiting nurse
associations). Administrative data on these agencies came from our
provider files. The researchers also conducted telephone interviews
with representatives of the demonstration contractor and fiscal
intermediaries.
Interim Evaluation Results
Cost
On average, episode prospective payment reduced the cost per
episode by $419, or 13 percent. This appears to have resulted from the
combined effects of fewer visits and higher average cost per visit,
compared to agencies not paid prospectively. For treatment agencies,
the rising cost per visit would have increased the cost per episode by
$377, whereas decreases in visits per episode would have reduced the
cost per episode by $656, for a net decline of $280. For control
agencies, a relatively small increase in cost per episode ($139, or
about 4 percent) was due almost entirely to increases in costs per
visit. Because treatment agencies' costs declined by $280 per episode
instead of rising by $139, the overall effect of prospective payment
was $419.
The impact on cost per episode was similar across different types
of agencies, except that small agencies (less than 30,000 visits in the
base year) exhibited a significantly smaller effect than large
agencies. Small agencies failed to decrease their cost per episode in
the first demonstration year, evidently because they added to their
cost per visit more, and lowered their number of visits less, than
larger treatment agencies. This response may be due in part to more
pronounced economies of scale among small agencies, with the result
that they incur relatively high cost increases as volume declines.
Utilization
Based on first-year findings, per-episode PPS appears to have a
substantial impact on the amount of services delivered during the 120-
day payment period. Few other impacts on the pattern of service
delivery were observed. The number of visits in a 120-day risk period
was 17 percent lower for patients in treatment agencies compared to
controls. Treatment agencies delivered an average of 37 visits,
compared to an average of 45 for control agencies. This difference was
primarily due to fewer skilled nurse visits, home health aide visits,
and medical social worker visits. Episode prospective payment reduced
the average length of episodes (within the first 120 days) by about 15
percent. About 25 percent of stays exceeded 120 days under prospective
payment, compared to about 35 percent without prospective payment.
Except for occupational therapy, the proportion of patients
receiving care in each home health discipline changed little under
episode payment. The one-third reduction in the user rate for
occupational therapy (to about 8 percent of patients) may be due to
fewer patients receiving assessment visits from occupational
therapists. Prospective payment appeared to have no effect on the
proportion of visits per episode accounted for by any particular home
health discipline.
These findings generally applied to agencies regardless of size,
nonprofit status, affiliation status (hospital or freestanding), or use
pattern (that is, whether the agency provided more or less than the
average number of visits during a base year, given its case mix). One
exception to this rule was that the reduction in total visits was
significantly greater for agencies with a high-use practice pattern
than for agencies with a low-use practice pattern.
The reduction in visits does not lead to compensating utilization
in other parts of the health care system. The analysis of utilization
and reimbursement for other Medicare-covered services during the 120-
day payment period found that prospective payment did not affect the
use of reimbursement for these services. This suggests that a reduction
in home health utilization at the level observed under the
demonstration does not adversely affect care quality or shift costs to
services in other settings (acute care hospitals, emergency rooms,
skilled nursing facilities, other HHAs, and outpatient hospital
departments). Questions on the patient survey addressed ``spillover
effects'' on certain non-Medicare services. Prospective payment was
associated with a lower likelihood of admission to an assisted living
facility. It may have reduced the likelihood of admission to a nursing
home. It did not affect the likelihood of receipt of nonresidential
services, such as personal care aide and adult day care. Nor did it
affect the likelihood of receipt of care from relatives or friends.
Quality
The interim analysis of quality impacts found few differences in
patient outcomes between treatment and control agencies, and when
differences were found they were small. The three basic sources of
quality evaluation data to date are claims, the patient survey, and
patient assessment data.
Analysis of claims data indicated that episode PPS patients have
significantly lower emergency room use. There were no significant
differences due to episode PPS in any other outcomes studied from the
claims data, including institutional admissions for a diagnosis related
to the home health diagnosis, and mortality.
Results from the patient survey on client satisfaction suggested
that both treatment and control group clients were generally satisfied.
On three specific components of satisfaction with agency staff,
treatment-group clients were found to be somewhat less satisfied than
control group clients, although satisfaction levels were quite high in
both groups. Measures of health and functional outcomes from the survey
offered equivocal evidence for small negative effects of prospective
payment in a few of the functional outcomes. Those results are
preliminary and will require further study.
Measures constructed from the patient status assessments at the
start of care and at discharge or follow-up consist of indicators of
improvement or
[[Page 58140]]
stabilization for 17 outcomes, such as improvement in pain or
ambulation. Results from these data source are provisional, in part
because differences in the timing of quality outcome data collection
between the treatment and control groups could cause unreliable
comparisons. As noted earlier, treatment agency patients tend to be
discharged sooner. Their outcome measurements may reflect less
improvement because of the earlier average observation point.
The comparisons demonstrated one significant difference suggesting
improvement in measures of confusion was more likely among treatment
agencies. There were also two differences in the stabilization
indicators, one favoring the treatment group and one the control group;
however, both differences were small. Analysis of the assessment data
by the quality assurance contractor using different methods suggested
no consistent evidence that per-episode payment under the demonstration
improves or harms patient outcomes. Several separate analyses conducted
by the contractor revealed a mix of small impacts, some favoring the
treatment group and others favoring the control group. A recent
analysis of the second year of the demonstration did not show any
statistically significant differences between treatment and control
agencies. See Center for Health Policy Research, Executive Summary of
Quality Assurance Activities and Findings to Date, December 1998.
Qualitative Findings
The qualitative evaluation results to date come from the case study
activities conducted early in the demonstration. Almost all of the case
study agencies, which included both PPS agencies and controls, had
taken steps to reduce their per-visit costs in the 3 years before the
site visits. They had done so primarily to make themselves more
attractive to managed care organizations from whom they were seeking
contracts. Strategies to cut costs varied. About half of the agencies
sought to reduce administrative costs (for example, through
consolidating functions or positions) or to stabilize them while
growing their volume. About one agency in five reduced per-visit costs
by making technology investments, such as portable computers for home
health workers. In addition, about one in six took an approach such as
using lower-cost staff for intake, scheduling and record keeping;
introduction of productivity standards and controls on overtime hours;
moving away from hourly or salary payment of staff to per-visit
payment; reducing travel costs by restructuring staffing of geographic
areas or improving scheduling programs to reduce mileage; and reducing
supply costs, through, for example, centralized purchasing.
Half of the visited treatment agencies reported plans for specific
initiatives to reduce per-episode costs spurred by their participation
in the demonstration project. These initiatives included closer
supervision of utilization through such measures as better review of
the initial plan of treatment and requiring special justification for
any visits beyond those originally approved; use of care protocols for
patients with selected diagnoses; greater reliance on community
services or informal caregivers; replacement of some visits by
telephone contacts; speeding up patient education in self-care;
eliminating multiple visits in a day; making greater use of specialists
such as dietitians and wound healing experts; focusing on patient
rehabilitation or environmental modifications to reduce patient need
for personal care; and use of multidosing pumps for intravenous therapy
patients, so that patients and caregivers can administer a larger
proportion of therapy treatments without assistance.
From their case studies conducted early in the demonstration, the
evaluators concluded that treatment agencies did not change their
behavior in ways that threatened access or quality of care. They did
not change referral and patient admission practices to avoid costly
patients or recruit lower-care ones. Many agencies were struggling to
maintain a stream of referrals. They were not in a position to shun
referral sources, and they did not do so. Some of the strategies being
planned seemed likely to improve care quality, such as strategies to
achieve quicker patient independence. For certain other strategies, the
long-term consequences might be variable. For example, the success of
greater reliance on informal caregivers and community resources would
depend on the adequacy of these auxiliary resources.
Remaining Evaluation Activities
The evaluation of the second year of the demonstration is expected
to be completed by fall 1999. A draft report that includes analysis of
utilization effects beyond the first 120 days has been received and is
under review. The findings are consistent with the initial results
reported earlier: Episode prospective payment reduced the average
number of visits to a patient in the year following admission to home
health care by 24 percent compared to the levels under cost-based
reimbursement. Reductions in services occurred both during and after
the 120-day period covered by the episode payment, and they were of a
similar proportion for each service type. Prospectively paid agencies
achieved these reductions by shortening the overall length of service
and by lowering the frequency of visits provided. Reductions occurred
among all subgroups of agencies and patients investigated, and they
were stable between the first and second years of the demonstration.
Subsequent reports will evaluate the consequences of these service
reductions on patient health and access, non-home health expenditures,
and other outcomes. These reports will include results from a follow-up
patient survey at 8 months from admission that will address impacts on
quality of care and use of non-Medicare health services over a longer
term than did the first survey. There will be further case study
results on agency response to the demonstration and an extension of
previous work on cost impacts to include an analysis of agencies'
financial performance. Finally, supplementary analyses will consider
the representativeness of the demonstration sample and the patient
selection behavior of agencies.
Case-Mix Research
Case-mix adjustment is a prerequisite for an effective national
home health PPS. With a prospectively set payment unit, providers have
an incentive to seek profits by economizing on patient care during the
covered period. For example, providers can try to economize by
admitting patients with lower care needs, or by furnishing fewer and
lower-quality services. Case-mix adjustment seeks to counteract this
incentive by modifying the prospective payments according to patient
need for services. To administer the case-mix adjustment system,
patients are evaluated and then classified into groups with differing
expected need. Varying payments for the groups will reduce provider
incentives to economize inappropriately. Case-mix adjusted payments are
intended to produce appropriate compensation for providers while
retaining opportunities to manage care efficiently.
Background of the Case-Mix Project
In the late 1980s, the Secretary funded several empirical studies
that sought to increase understanding of the major issues facing PPS
designers, particularly the factors that define case mix. As reported
in the 1989 Report to Congress, studies investigating case-mix issues
[[Page 58141]]
were necessary because methodologies at that time were insufficiently
tested on a large scale with Medicare patients. A sizable,
comprehensive Medicare database was considered necessary to test
existing methodologies and possibly develop new ones.
We assembled this data resource under a cooperative agreement with
the Georgetown University School of Nursing (Virginia K. Saba,
``Develop and Demonstrate a Method for Classifying Home Health Patients
to Predict Resource Requirements and to Measure Outcomes, Georgetown
University School of Nursing, February 1991). Subsequent attempts to
test existing case-mix methodologies using the Georgetown data
suggested that indicators of home health treatments could play a
substantial role in case-mix adjusters of acceptable predictive
accuracy. Examples of treatment measures include indicators for
specific skilled nursing activities, such as teaching diabetic care and
infusion care, and physical, occupational, and speech therapy. Two
basic case-mix adjustment methodologies tested with these data
demonstrated comparable accuracy for the purposes of paying providers
prospectively (Brown, Randall S., Barbara R. Phillips, and Valarie E.
Cheh, et al. ``Case Mix Analysis Using Georgetown Data: Home Health
Prospective Payment Demonstration.'' Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy
Research, Inc., November 25, 1991). These two approaches were a
regression-based approach and a classification-method approach that
uses computer algorithms to find groups of similar patients.
Although case-mix research on the Georgetown data and other
smaller-scale data sets demonstrated progress in testing and developing
case-mix methodologies, a significant concern lingered. Research had
demonstrated the explanatory power of treatment information, but
treatments are not necessarily a suitable basis for payment. Treatment
planning and execution is subject to some discretion on the part of the
provider. This means a case-mix system predicated on treatments planned
or delivered may be vulnerable to manipulation for profit maximization.
In the early 1990s, the per-visit prospective payment demonstration
provided another relatively large source of data to continue case-mix
adjuster development. The database was not as varied as the Georgetown
database, but it was sizable, containing 11,000 cases. The
expendability of possibly manipulable treatment variables was
specifically addressed in the Georgetown research. This demonstration
tested the impact of using less treatment information with the best
methodologies. When measures of treatments considered highly or
moderately vulnerable to provider manipulation were dropped from the
study's case-mix adjuster, the predictive accuracy of the adjuster was
poor. The researchers recommended that in future research we study
additional patient characteristics data needed to make up for the loss
of explanatory power from the treatments (Phillips, Barbara R., Randall
S. Brown, Jennifer L. Schore, Amy C. Klein, Peter Z. Schochet, Jerrold
W. Hill, and Dexter Chu. ``Case-Mix Analysis Using Demonstration Data:
Home Health Prospective Payment Demonstration.'' Princeton, NJ:
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., December 21, 1992; and Phillips,
Barbara R. ``Improving the Accuracy of Case-Mix Adjusters for Per-
episode Home Health Prospective Payment: Measures of Alternative
Sources of Care and Patient and Caregiver Characteristics.'' Draft
Report. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., April 27,
1995).
By 1994, we had launched a comprehensive review of home health care
policies called the Medicare Home Health Initiative. One result was a
recommendation to revise the HHA conditions of participation (COP). The
revision would require a standard assessment instrument to be used in a
program of continuous quality improvement. We subsequently adopted a
comprehensive list of specific patient assessment elements to implement
this quality improvement system (final regulations were published
January 25, 1999 (64 FR 3747 and 64 FR 3764)). Known as the Outcome and
Assessment Information Set (OASIS), these elements cover patient
demographics and health history, living arrangements, supportive
assistance, sensory status, integumentary status, respiratory status,
elimination status, neuro/emotional/behavioral status, Activities of
Daily Living (ADLs) and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living
(IADLs), medications, equipment management, emergent care use, and
discharge disposition. OASIS offers a fairly detailed examination of
the patient's condition. Importantly, if OASIS elements could be the
basis for a case-mix adjuster as well as continuous quality
improvement, we could implement home health payment and quality reforms
while minimizing data burdens on providers.
Case-Mix Research Project for a National Home Health PPS
In 1996, in anticipation of the Medicare program's eventual
adoption of OASIS assessment data, we began research with a sample of
90 HHAs to develop a case-mix adjustment system for use under a future
national prospective payment for home health care. The project was
conducted under contract to Abt Associates, Inc., of Cambridge, Mass.
(Contract Number 500-96-0003/TO2). The purpose of this project was to
develop a case-mix adjuster based on OASIS assessment elements and,
potentially, on additional assessment items that could enhance the
case-mix adjuster's predictive accuracy. To assure its relevancy to
Medicare's needs, the project collected data on a large cohort of
Medicare patients admitted to a broad sample of Medicare-certified HHAs
in late 1997 and early 1998. An important feature of the Abt Associates
research is the use of improved measurement methods compared to
previous studies. Improvements in measurement for the dependent
variable, resource costs, and for the explanatory variables of patient
characteristics allow the system's developers to reach a clearer
understanding of the contribution of individual items to case-mix
measurement. This leads to improved predictive accuracy for the case-
mix groups.
Another important feature of the Abt Associates project is its
objective of developing easily understandable patient case-mix
groupings. We sought a system of groups that uses recognizable clinical
categories and adheres to clinicians' logic as they assess a patient's
care needs.
The case-mix system resulting from the Abt Associates project was
developed from statistical analysis, review of the literature, and
consultation with home health clinicians. Government policy and
research experts helped with the development process to ensure the
administrative feasibility and policy relevance of the final product.
The system is a straightforward method of combining 20 data
elements to measure case mix. The data elements measure three basic
dimensions of case mix: clinical severity factors, functional status
factors, and service utilization factors. Each possible value for each
data element used in a dimension is given a score. Scores were
developed through statistical analysis of the agencies' data. Within
each dimension, scores on assessment items are summed, and the
resulting summation is used to
[[Page 58142]]
assign a patient to a severity level on the given dimension. The case-
mix system defines a set of 80 groups from all possible combinations of
severity levels across the three dimensions.
The process of defining a structure for the case-mix system, and of
selecting items for the dimensions, is described in detail in Abt
Associates, Second Interim Report, August 1999. The process of
selecting items for the three case-mix dimensions employed not only
statistical criteria for predictive accuracy, but also qualitative
criteria relating to policy objectives, incentives to provide good
care, susceptibility to gaming, apparent item subjectivity, and
administrative feasibility. Further discussion of the item selection
process is provided below in section II.C.
The first case-mix system dimension is the clinical severity
dimension. It is measured by OASIS items pertaining to the following
clinical conditions and risk factors: diagnoses involving orthopedic,
neurological, or diabetic conditions; therapies used at home (that is,
intravenous therapy or infusion therapy, parenteral and enteral
nutrition); vision status; pain frequency; status of pressure ulcers,
stasis ulcers, and surgical wounds; dyspnea; urinary and bowel
incontinence; bowel ostomy; and cognitive/behavioral problems such as
impaired decisionmaking and hallucinations. This dimension captures
significant indicators of clinical need from several OASIS subdomains,
including patient history, sensory status, integumentary status,
respiratory status, elimination status, and neuro/emotional/behavioral
status.
The second case-mix dimension is the functional status dimension,
comprised of six Activities of Daily Living: upper and lower body
dressing, bathing, toileting, transferring, and locomotion. These items
come from the ADL/IADL subdomain of the OASIS assessment instrument.
The third case-mix dimension is the services utilization dimension.
This dimension is measured via two basic kinds of data elements. The
first describes the patient's pre-admission location in the 14 days
preceding admission to home care. The pre-admission location is
recognized among clinicians and in the literature as an indicator for
the amount and type of care likely to be needed by a patient. It comes
from the patient history subdomain of OASIS. The second is a
utilization variable from the period of the home health episode itself.
This variable is receipt of home health therapies totaling at least 8
hours. The data for this variable will come from the HHA's billing
records. Ideally, the case-mix system should rely on data elements that
do not depend on treatments planned or received; however, the case-mix
research project found that a measure of therapy received is extremely
powerful in explaining resource use, even after all other predictive
patient characteristics are used in the system. Consequently, we
decided to incorporate a measure of therapy. It is adopted under a
definition designed to minimize its vulnerability to provider
manipulation. A patient must need and use at least 8 hours of home
health therapies to be assigned to a therapy case-mix group. In the Abt
Associates sample, a minority of therapy users receive at least 8 hours
of therapy. It is probable that many of the remaining therapy users
received relatively little therapy beyond services from therapists for
evaluation purposes. The therapy receipt definition in the case-mix
system is intended to preserve access to therapy for patients with
significant therapy needs. Patients receiving relatively little therapy
or those with therapy use limited to evaluation services with or
without a small amount of therapy are included in nontherapy groups.
Their relative resource cost is accounted for in those groups.
For each dimension, additional measures of patient characteristics
or utilization were considered and tested before arriving at the final
set of data elements in the recommended model. The proposed set of data
elements is our best recommendation after an intensive process of
subjecting the items to statistical analysis, policy criteria, criteria
pertaining to clinical care incentives and gaming vulnerability that
might be introduced, reliability-related criteria, and administrative
feasibility considerations.
The recommended case-mix system performs well in terms of overall
predictive accuracy. It explains 32 percent of the variation in
resource use over a 60-day episode. The 60-day episodes available for
case-mix system development from the Abt Associates research sample
pertained to the first 60 days from admission. However, a sizable
number of observations was assembled from the study sample to evaluate
the explanatory power for the subsequent 60-day period of care. From
data available to the case-mix project to date, we find that the
explanatory power of the groups is similar regardless of whether the
episode is the patient's first 60 days or the subsequent 60 days
following the start of care. The presence of certain data elements in
the case-mix adjustment model may help explain the statistical finding
suggesting that the case-mix model is inherently self-adjusting to
changes in patient characteristics that drive resource use over a
sequence of 60-day episodes. Examples comprise the preadmission
location variable, the functional status elements, the therapy receipt
variable, and the ulcers/wound status variables. As the accumulating
data permit, we will continue to test the model's explanatory power on
later 60-day units.
The data and methods of the case-mix development project are
described in further detail in sections II.A.2 and II.C below and in
Abt Associates, Inc., Second Interim Report, August 1999. Comments on
specific issues of model design and implementation are being solicited
as noted in section II.C.
D. Home Health Agency Prospective Payment--Overview
1. Payment Provisions--National Episode Payment Rate
a. Episode Definition
The PPS will apply to all home health services furnished by all
HHAs participating in the Medicare program. Section 4603(a) of the BBA
adds section 1895(b)(1) to the Act. Section 1895(b)(1) requires all
services covered and paid on a reasonable cost basis under the Medicare
home health benefit as of the date of the enactment of the BBA,
including medical supplies, to be paid on the basis of a prospective
payment amount under HHA PPS. Durable medical equipment (DME) is a
covered home health service that is not currently paid on a reasonable
cost basis, but paid on a fee schedule basis when covered as a home
health service under the Medicare home health benefit. Under HHA PPS,
DME covered as a home health service as part of the Medicare home
health benefit will continue to be paid under the DME fee schedule.
Thus, a separate additional payment amount based on the DME fee
schedule in addition to the prospective payment amount for home health
services will be made for DME covered as a home health service under
PPS.
In compliance with section 1895(b)(2) of the Act, requiring the
Secretary to determine the unit of payment under PPS, we have analyzed
the number, type, duration, and costs of visits furnished within the
proposed episode payment. In addition, we will discuss the general
system design that provides for continued access to quality services in
section IV.J. of this regulation.
Preliminary results from the Phase II per-episode HHA PPS
demonstration have provided information regarding how length of
episodes are affected by prospective payments and how analysis
[[Page 58143]]
from the National Claims History File can show the existing use and
length of service. Preliminary results from the Phase II per-episode
PPS demonstration indicate that about 60 percent of episodes paid under
PPS were completed within 60 days and 73 percent within 120 days. These
episode completion rates are about 5 to 10 percentage points higher
than rates for the control group under the demonstration. These
findings indicate that PPS should result in shorter average length of
episodes.
We also conducted analysis on an episode database created from the
1997 National Claims History File using 60-day episodes. Data from the
1997 national claims history suggest that the proportions completing
their episodes in the first and second month are slightly lower than
the proportions for the PPS demonstration control group. We interpret
the demonstration findings to indicate that national PPS should use
shorter average episodes. From the 1997 national claims history, we
find at the end of a full year, 20 percent of home health beneficiaries
have not yet completed their episodes. This indicates the need to
provide continuing episode payments to capture the long-stay home
health patient under PPS since the volume of long-stay cases exceeds
the capacity of an outlier policy.
60-Day National Episode Payment
Recognizing that OASIS data will be captured on a 60-day cycle and
current Medicare plan of care certification requirements govern a
bimonthly period of time, we are proposing a 60-day episode as the
basic unit of payment for the HHA PPS. We are proposing that a new 60-
day episode begins with the first Medicare billable visit as day 1 and
ends on and includes the 60th day from the start-of-care date. The next
continuous episode recertification period would begin on day 61 and end
on and include day 120. We are proposing the requirement that the 60-
day episode payment covers one individual for 60 days of care
regardless of the number of days of care actually furnished during the
60-day period unless there is one of the following intervening events
during the 60-day episode: (1) A beneficiary elected transfer; (2) a
discharge resulting from the beneficiary reaching the treatment goals
in the original plan of care (not defined as a significant change in
condition during an existing plan of care) and return to the same HHA;
or (3) a significant change in condition resulting in a new case-mix
assignment. The significant change in condition is a change not
anticipated in the original plan of care or as part of the expected
course of the patient's response to treatment. The significant change
in condition must be sufficient to require a new OASIS assessment and
thus, resulting in a change in the case-mix assignment.
The intervening event defined above as (1) a beneficiary elected
transfer or (2) a discharge and return to the same HHA during a 60-day
episode, starts a new 60-day episode for purposes of payment, OASIS
assessment, and physician certification of the plan of care. The
original 60-day episode payment is proportionally adjusted to reflect
the actual length of time the beneficiary remained under the agency's
care prior to the intervening event of the beneficiary elected transfer
or the discharge and return to the same HHA during the 60-day episode.
The proportional payment adjustment that closes the original 60-day
episode payment is called the partial episode payment adjustment or PEP
adjustment. We are proposing the PEP adjustment to the original 60-day
episode payment in order to equitably recognize the intervening events
of a beneficiary elected transfer or a discharge and return to the same
HHA over the course of a 60-day episode of home health care.
Since we are proposing to close out the initial episode payment
with a PEP adjustment and restart the 60-day episode clock under an
existing episode due to a beneficiary elected transfer, we are
concerned that these transfer situations could be subject to
manipulation. Therefore, we are proposing not to apply the PEP
adjustment in the situation of transfers between organizations of
common ownership. A determination of whether an individual (or
individuals) or organization possesses significant ownership or equity
in the provider organization and the supplying organization, in order
to consider if the organizations related by common ownership, will be
made on the basis of the facts and circumstances in each case. This
rule applies whether the provider organization or supplying
organization is a sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, trust
or estate, or any other form of business organization, proprietary or
nonprofit. In the case of a nonprofit organization, ownership or equity
of interest will be determined by reference to the interest in the
assets of the organization. In the situation of a transfer among
organizations of common ownership, we are proposing that the HHAs under
common ownership look to the initial HHA for payment. Therefore, PEP
adjustment would not apply in situations of transfers among HHAs under
common ownership.
The discharge and return to the same HHA during the 60-day episode
period is only recognized when a beneficiary has reached all treatment
goals in the original plan of care for the 60-day episode. The original
plan of care must be terminated with no anticipated need for additional
home health services for the balance of the 60-day period. The
discharge cannot be a result of a significant change in condition. In
order for the situation to be defined as a PEP adjustment due to
discharge and return to the same HHA during the 60-day episode, the
discharge must be a termination of the complete course of treatment in
the original plan of care. We would not recognize any PEP adjustment in
an attempt to circumvent the more conservative payment made under the
significant change in condition payment adjustment discussed below.
If a patient experiences an intervening hospital stay during an
existing 60-day episode under an open plan of care, then the patient
would not have met all of the treatment goals in the plan of care.
Therefore, the intervening hospital admission during an existing 60-day
episode could result in a SCIC adjustment, but could not be considered
a discharge and return to the same HHA PEP adjustment.
The PEP adjustment is based on the span of days including the start
of care date (first billable service date through and including the
last billable service date) under the original plan of care prior to
the intervening event. The PEP adjustment is calculated using the span
of days (first billable service date through and including the last
billable service date) under the original plan of care as a proportion
of 60. The proportion is multiplied by the original case mix and wage
adjusted 60-day episode payment. For example, a patient is assigned to
a 60-day episode payment of $3000. Day 1 through Day 30 the patient is
served by HHA-1. Day 1 is the first billable service date and Day 30 is
the last billable service provided by HHA-1 under the original plan of
care. The beneficiary elects to transfer to HHA-2 on Day 35. The first
ordered service for the beneficiary under the new plan of care is Day
38. Day 38 starts a new 60-day episode clock for purposes of payment,
OASIS assessment, and physician certification of the plan of care. Day
38 becomes Day 1 of the new 60-day episode. The final payment to HHA-1
is proportionally adjusted to reflect the length of time the
beneficiary remained under its care. HHA-1 would receive a PEP
adjustment equal to 30/60
[[Page 58144]]
* $3000 = $1500. The initial percentage payment will be adjusted
accordingly to reflect the PEP adjustment. Several illustrative PEP
adjustment examples are provided in section IV. of this regulation. An
HHA may also receive a low-utilization payment adjustment instead of
the PEP adjustment described in this section of the regulation or an
outlier payment in addition to the PEP adjustment described in section
IV. of this regulation.
We are proposing the requirement that the 60-day episode payment
covers the individual for 60 days of care unless one of three
intervening events occurs. The PEP adjustment described above
encompasses the two intervening events defined as a beneficiary elected
transfer or a discharge and return to the same HHA over the course of a
60-day episode of home health care. We are proposing that the third
intervening during a 60-day episode of home health care that could
trigger a change in payment level would be a significant change in the
patient's condition. We are proposing the significant change in
condition payment adjustment (SCIC adjustment) to be the proportional
payment adjustment reflecting the time both prior and after the patient
experienced a significant change in condition during the 60-day
episode. The proposed SCIC adjustment occurs when a beneficiary
experiences a significant change in condition during a 60-day episode
that was not envisioned in the original plan of care. In order to
receive a new case mix assignment for purposes of SCIC payment during
the 60-day episode, the HHA must complete an OASIS assessment and
obtain the necessary physician change orders reflecting the significant
change in treatment approach in the patient's plan of care.
The SCIC adjustment is calculated in two parts. The first part of
the SCIC adjustment reflects the adjustment to the level of payment
prior to the significant change in the patient's condition during the
60-day episode. The second part of the SCIC adjustment reflects the
adjustment to the level of payment after the significant change in the
patient's condition occurs during the 60-day episode. The first part of
the SCIC adjustment is determined by taking the span of days (first
billable service date through the last billable service date) before
the patient's significant change in condition (defined below) as a
proportion of 60 multiplied by the original episode payment amount. The
original episode payment level is proportionally adjusted using the
span of time the patient was under the care of the HHA prior to the
significant change in condition that warranted an OASIS assessment,
physician change orders indicating the need for a significant change in
the course of the treatment plan, and the new case mix assignment for
payment at the end of the 60-day episode.
The second part of the SCIC adjustment reflects the time the
patient is under the care of the HHA after the patient experienced the
significant change in condition during the 60-day episode that
warranted the new case mix assignment for payment purposes. The second
part of the SCIC adjustment is a proportional payment adjustment
reflecting the time the patient will be under the care of the HHA after
the significant change in condition and continuing until the end of the
60-day episode. Once the HHA completes the OASIS, obtains the necessary
physician change orders reflecting the need for a new course of
treatment in the plan of care, and assigns a new case mix level for
payment, the second part of the SCIC adjustment begins. The second part
of the SCIC adjustment is determined by taking the span of days (first
billable service date through the last billable service date) after the
patient experiences the significant change in condition through the
balance of the 60-day episode as a proportion of 60 multiplied by the
new episode payment level resulting from the significant change. The
initial percentage payment provided at the start of the 60-day episode
will be adjusted at the end of the episode to reflect the first and
second parts of the SCIC adjustment (or any applicable medical review
or (LUPA) discussed below) determined at the final billing for the 60-
day episode. Illustrative examples are provided in section IV.J.4. of
this proposed rule.
As discussed above, we are concentrating additional monitoring
resources on the events that would trigger the PEP adjustment and SCIC
adjustment. We are also planning to analyze the data from the
demonstration sites to determine the frequency of a (1) beneficiary
elected transfer, (2) discharge and return to the same HHA during the
60-day episode, or (3) significant change in condition, in order to
establish a baseline of information to determine how frequently these
events occur prior to PPS. Based on this information we will establish
a baseline, identify agencies which differ significantly from it, and
concentrate monitoring resources on those agencies.
In order to address the needs of longer stay patients, at this time
we are proposing not to limit the number of 60-day episode
recertifications in a given fiscal year. There is the potential for
unlimited consecutive episodes. Recertification of and payment for
consecutive 60-day episodes is, of course, dependent on OASIS
assessment and the patient's eligibility for continued medically
necessary Medicare home health services. We believe the consecutive 60-
day episode recertification and payment will ensure continued access to
the Medicare home health benefit without exceeding the statutory
budget-neutrality targets.
We believe the 60-day episode provides an appropriate time frame
for purposes of prospective payment for many reasons. The 60-day
episode period is the basic time frame under which HHAs have
historically been required to manage and project home health care needs
of beneficiaries in order to comply with current plan of care
certification requirements for Medicare home health plans of care. The
60-day episode period also basically matches the reassessment schedule
for OASIS, and this parallel time frame will permit case-mix adjustment
of each episode. Further, the 60-day episode captures the majority of
stays experienced in the Phase II per-episode HHA PPS demonstration.
As discussed above, about 60 percent of the Phase II per-episode
HHA/PPS demonstration patients completed their episodes within 60 days.
If capturing a majority of the patients is one criterion for the
episode length, we now have evidence from the Phase II per-episode PPS
demonstration that a 60-day episode will do so. A 120-day episode, as
tested in the Phase II per-episode HHA/PPS demonstration, also meets
this criterion, but we do not gain a significantly larger completion
percentage by lengthening the episode to 120 days. A 120-day episode
may result in more inequity in payments because of the larger risk of a
change in a patient's condition over the span of the longer episode. We
are specifically soliciting comments on the utility of a 60-day episode
period for purposes of prospective payment and the efficacy of
unlimited consecutive episode recertifications for eligible
beneficiaries in a given fiscal year.
Low-Utilization Payment Adjustment
As discussed above, the statute requires that the definition of the
unit of payment must take into consideration the number, type,
duration, mix , and cost of visits furnished within the unit of
payment. We are concerned with the financial incentive to provide
minimal services within an episode. We are also challenged by the
possible motivation to obtain an additional full 60-day episode payment
beyond a current episode by
[[Page 58145]]
furnishing the absolute minimum of additional services. Utilization
incentives potentially change from overutilization under the cost based
payment system to underutilization under a prospective payment system.
We want to ensure that HHAs do not have an incentive to provide less
care than is necessary. Under such an approach, an HHA that provided
the minimum threshold number of visits or less during the 60-day
episode would receive a low utilization payment adjustment reflecting a
national average per-visit payment by discipline for the visits
actually provided during the episode. We believe this policy reduces
incentives to provide only one or two visits to beneficiaries to
trigger a full prospective payment and, in addition, makes it harder to
obtain either an initial or a second prospective payment by providing a
minimal number of additional services. As a result of our analysis, we
determined the need to recognize a low utilization payment adjustment
under HHA PPS.
Our next decision required us to determine the number of visits
that must be provided before a full 60 day prospective payment is made.
Increasing the number of visits required, decreases the potential for
agency gaming by providing a few additional services to obtain a full
prospective payment. Based on analysis of our episode database, we
concluded approximately 12 percent of current episodes constitute four
or fewer visits. We explored the option of a six or fewer visit
threshold for the low utilization payment adjustment and found
approximately 20 percent of episodes in our database contain six or
fewer visits. However, we recognize that these numbers may change under
a fully implemented PPS.
A potential advantage of the six or fewer visit threshold would be
to further reduce the number of episodes with only six or fewer visits
during a 60-day episode; that is, agencies will have incentives to
provide enough services to reach the threshold by increasing the number
of services delivered to individuals who currently receive only a few.
It would also make it harder to provide enough additional services to
game or trigger full prospective episode payments inappropriately.
However, the six visit threshold based on current data would result in
20 percent of all episodes under national HHA PPS being paid at the
lower per-visit amount. We are soliciting comments and supporting data
on the most appropriate threshold for the low utilization payment
adjustment. We also plan to focus our medical review resources on the
fourth or sixth visit, whichever is chosen in the final rule, to assure
the medical appropriateness of the visits which actually triggers a
full prospective episode payment.
We have developed our approach in the regulation to reflect the
four or fewer visit threshold for the low-utilization payment
adjustment. The methodology for the low-utilization payment adjustment
and all other payment calculations in this rule reflect the four or
fewer visit threshold. Under this proposed provision, a 60-day episode,
a PEP adjustment, or a SCIC adjustment with four or fewer visits would
be paid the national standardized per-visit amount by discipline for
each visit type furnished during the 60-day episode. However, we are
seeking comments and supporting data on the utility of the six or fewer
visit threshold for the low-utilization payment adjustment. We are
soliciting comments on the operational and financial impact of the low
utilization payment adjustment. We are also specifically seeking
comments on the potential financial impact on rural HHAs to comply with
this requirement.
We are concerned with the potential manipulation of the LUPA under
a pattern of certification of continuous home health episodes. Our
interest is focused on patterns of behavior involving two continuous
60-day episodes. We are concerned that the possibility of a 60-day
period may be too long for a second episode if the intensity of
services is greater in the earlier part of that second episode. We are
also concerned that agencies may have greater incentives to provide
five additional visits beyond the first 60-day episode so as to trigger
a second 60-day payment than they do at the beginning of the first
episode. We are analyzing data on the second and subsequent 60-day
episode and the distribution of the intensity of services within these
episodes. Based on this analysis, we are considering the following
possible alternative policies: (1) modify the proposed episode
definition; (2) extend the LUPA for the second and subsequent episodes
from four to six visits. We invite comment on these alternatives to the
policies presented in this proposed regulation.
b. National Episode Payment Rate
We propose that the HHA PPS use a 60-day national episode payment
rate. Section 1895(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act requires--(1) the computation
of a standard prospective payment amount to include all costs of home
health services covered and paid for on a reasonable cost basis and to
be initially based on the most current audited cost report data
available to the Secretary, and (2) the prospective payment amounts to
be standardized to eliminate the effects of case mix and wage levels
among HHAs. Section 5101(c) of OCESAA amends section 1895(b)(3)(A)(ii)
of the Act, to require that the standard prospective payment amounts be
budget neutral to the amounts expended under the current interim
payment system as of the inception of the PPS on October 1, 2000, with
the limits reduced by 15 percent. The data used to develop the HHA PPS
rates were adjusted using the latest available market basket increases
occurring between the cost-reporting periods contained in our database
and September 30, 2001. Sections 1895(b)(3)(B)(i) and (b)(3)(B)(ii) of
the Act, as amended by section 5101(d)(2) of OCESAA, require the
standard prospective payment amounts for fiscal year 2002 or 2003 to be
increased by a factor equal to the home health market basket minus 1.1
percentage points. For any subsequent fiscal years, the statute
requires the rates to be increased by the applicable home health market
basket index change.
The national 60-day episode payment incorporates adjustments to
account for provider case mix using a clinical classification system
that accounts for the relative resource utilization of different
patient types. The classification system, The Clinical Model from Abt,
uses patient assessment data (from the Outcome and Assessment
Information Set (OASIS)) supplemented by one additional patient-
specific item regarding number of therapy hours received in the 60-day
episode period that is completed by HHAs to assign patients into one of
80 Home Health Resource Groups (HHRGs). The OASIS items and the
supplemental therapy item are discussed in detail in section II.C.2. of
this regulation. HHAs complete the OASIS assessment according to an
assessment schedule specifically designed for Medicare payment (see
section IV.L. of this regulation). The total case-mix-adjusted 60-day
episode payment is based on the initial OASIS assessment and the
supplemental item indicating projected therapy hours received in a 60-
day episode submitted at the start of the 60-day episode. The projected
number of therapy hours received (physical, speech-language pathology,
and occupational therapy in any combination) in a 60-day episode
reported at the start of the 60-day episode is confirmed by the actual
receipt of therapy via the line-item date visits submitted on the final
claim at the
[[Page 58146]]
end of the 60-day episode. The reconciliation of projected therapy use
with actual therapy services furnished during the 60-day episode has
the potential to decrease the final payment if actual therapy use
reported at the end of the episode does not correspond to the projected
therapy use provided at the start of the episode. We are proposing to
use visit utilization data as a proxy for time. The proxy approach is
discussed in detail in the case-mix methodology in section II.C.2. of
this regulation.
For Medicare billing purposes, there are codes associated with each
of the 80 HHRGs. The patient will be grouped into the appropriate case-
mix category from the OASIS assessment at the HHA. The case-mix
methodology consists of 19 OASIS items plus one supplemental non-OASIS
item. We are exploring the approach that the ``grouper'' software will
be provided to HHAs via the HAVEN software used for State transmission
of OASIS quality data. The OASIS assessment is fed into the grouper
logic at the HHA. The grouper logic selects the OASIS elements
supplemented by one additional non-OASIS item indicating projected
therapy hours (as translated into therapy visits) in a 60-day episode
needed to establish the case-mix group and determines the appropriate
case-mix category for the patient. The visit projection must be based
on the physician's orders in the plan of care certified by the
physician. The grouper logic generates a code. The code corresponds to
the appropriate case-mix category and would be placed on the claim at
the provider. The initial claim is submitted for an initial percentage
payment at the start of care (see section I.D.2. of this regulation on
percentage payments). As mentioned above, as applicable, the
confirmation of the projected number of therapy hours received during
the 60-day episode from the line-item date visit information submitted
at the end of the 60-day episode is used for pricing the final case-mix
adjusted payment. The pricer logic at the Regional Home Health
Intermediary (RHHI) will compute the final episode payment based on the
reconciliation of the projected therapy use received during the 60-day
episode with the actual therapy visits reported on the final claim
submitted at the end of the 60-day episode.
The confirmation of projected therapy services has the potential to
decrease the final payment if the actual therapy use reported at the
end of the episode does not correspond with the projected therapy use
furnished at the start of the episode. The 60-day case-mix adjusted
episode payment is intended to provide full payment for the patient for
the 60-day period except in the case of a partial episode payment
adjustment, low-utilization payment adjustment, outlier payment
adjustment, or a finding that the episode was not medically necessary
or covered due to medical review. We are seeking comments on our
approach to the case-mix assignment during the 60-day episode. We are
specifically seeking comments on potential effects on cash flow for
HHAs. Operational aspects of the system design are discussed in more
detail in section IV. of this regulation.
2. Payment Provisions--Split Payment
We are proposing a split percentage payment during the 60-day
episode period. We propose that there be two percentage payments
(initial and final) and two corresponding claims (initial and final)
per 60-day episode. First, the initial percentage payment will equal 50
percent of the estimated case-mix adjusted episode payment. Each
initial claim submitted for the initial percentage payment must be
based on a current OASIS-based case mix and supplemented, as
applicable, by one item indicating proposed therapy use in a 60-day
episode. Second, the final payment will equal 50 percent of the actual
case-mix adjusted episode payment. A new initial and final bill must be
submitted for each recertified 60-day episode period. For example,
patient is assessed via OASIS supplemented by the therapy variable, if
applicable, and is categorized by the grouper logic into HHRG group Y.
Included in HHRG group Y is a projected therapy use of 8 hours or more
in a 60-day period. The HHRG group case-mix adjusted payment for the
60-day episode is $2,000. The HHA submits the claim with the
corresponding code to HHRG group Y. The pricer at the RHHI computes 50
percent of the payment for HHRG group. The HHA receives an initial
payment of $1,000. At the end of the 60-day episode, the HHA bills for
the residual 50 percent final payment. The line-item date information
confirms the receipt of at least 10 therapy visits as a proxy for time.
The final claim is submitted for payment. The pricer at the RHHI
confirms the line-item date information. No increase or decrease
adjustment is necessary for therapy use. The pricer computes the 50
percent residual final payment. The HHA receives a final payment of
$1,000. The initial percentage payment will be adjusted to reflect a
LUPA, PEP adjustment, SCIC adjustment, or medical review determination
as applicable.
Operational aspects of the split payment relationship to the system
design are discussed in detail in section III. of this regulation. We
are specifically soliciting comments on the impact on HHAs to
financially and operationally comply with the split percentage payment
approach. We are proposing a 50/50 percentage split for purposes of
this proposed rule; however, more complete data may result in future
refinements to the percentage payment approach.
3. Payment Provisions--Outlier Payments
Section 1895(b)(5) of the Act notes that we may provide for
additions or adjustments to the payments due to unusual variations in
the type or amount of medically necessary home health care. The total
amount for addition or adjustment payments during a fiscal year may not
exceed 5 percent of total payments projected or estimated to be made
based on the HHA PPS in that year. Because successive episode payments
will be made for a beneficiary as long as the beneficiary continues to
be recertified and otherwise eligible for additional home care, there
will be no need for long-stay outlier cases under the HHA PPS. However,
we believe outlier payments for 60-day episodes in which the HHA incurs
extraordinary costs beyond the regular episode payment amount may be
desirable. Outlier payments would provide some protection for
beneficiaries whose care needs cost more than the amount of the episode
payment. They would also provide HHAs with some financial protection
against possible losses on individual beneficiaries.
The methodology proposed for outlier payments is modeled on the
outlier payment methodology of the Medicare inpatient hospital PPS.
There are two basic principles underlying the approach: First, before
outlier payments are made for a case or episode, cost should exceed the
payment for the case. The amount by which cost exceeds payment should
be the same for cases in all case-mix groups because a dollar lost is a
dollar lost whether the case belongs in a low cost or a high cost case-
mix group. Use of a uniform fixed dollar loss for all case-mix groups
avoids creating differential incentives to accept patients in different
case-mix groups. The second principle is that outlier payments should
cover less than the full amount of the additional costs above the
outlier threshold to preserve the incentive to contain costs once a
case qualifies for outlier payments. (See Emmett B. Keeler, Grace M.
Carter, and Sally Trude, ``Insurance Aspects of DRG
[[Page 58147]]
Outlier Payments,'' The Rand Corporation, N-2762-HHS, October 1988.) We
discuss the outlier payments in greater detail in section II.A.5. of
this regulation.
We are seeking comments on our approach to outlier payments.
4. Payment Provisions--Transition Period
Section 4603(b)(1) of the BBA provides discretion on the transition
from payment under the current reasonable cost-based interim payment
system to the full prospective payment amount by blending a portion of
the PPS amount with agency-specific costs for a period of time. The
statute provides for the blend of agency-specific costs for up to 4
years in a budget-neutral manner.
Blending options provides significant practical obstacles. We could
in theory blend what would have been paid under the current reasonable
cost reimbursement system and PPS. A percentage of the payment would be
based on costs of the agency building on the current interim payment
system and a percentage would be based on the national PPS amount.
While other prospective payment systems have used a blended agency
and national payment amount, the complexities of blending dissimilar
payment methodologies for home health are so great that we believe it
is not a viable option. Moreover, OCESAA amended the statute to require
that we implement PPS on the same date for all providers, regardless of
their cost reporting period. This break in the cost reporting period
further discourages continued use of the cost-based system. The
legislation also reflects Congressional interest in expediting the
transition from the interim payment system to PPS. We believe
proceeding with a highly complicated percentage payment system based on
historical data from the cost-based interim payment system would not be
in the best interest of the industry based on historical reaction to
the interim payment system.
We believe full transition to the PPS system on October 1, 2000 is
the most viable option.
5. Consolidated Billing for Home Health Agencies
Both sections 4603(c)(2)(B) and (c)(2)(C) of the BBA require a new
consolidated billing and bundling of all home health services while a
beneficiary is under the plan of care. The BBA requires payment for all
covered home health items and services to be made to an HHA. However,
in accordance with section 1895(b)(1) of the Act, PPS payments are to
include only those home health services paid on a reasonable cost
basis, and DME is currently paid under the DME fee schedule.
Furthermore, payment for Medicare covered home health services can only
be made to the HHA that establishes the individual's home health plan
of care. The result is that the HHA must bill when the plan of care
specifies DME and even if an outside supplier provides it. HHAs will no
longer be able to ``unbundle'' services to an outside supplier that can
then submit a separate bill directly to the Part B carrier. Instead,
the HHA itself will have to furnish the home health services either
directly or under an arrangement with an outside supplier in which the
HHA itself, rather than the supplier, bills Medicare. The outside
supplier must look to the HHA rather than to Medicare Part B for
payment. The HHA consolidated billing requirement is discussed in
detail in section V. of this regulation.
6. Medical Review Under the Prospective Payment System
The financial incentives available to HHAs change from
overutilization to underutilization under an episode-based PPS. The
initial claim for each 60-day episode may contain visit information and
will only include the code corresponding to the appropriate case-mix
category. The final claim for the 60-day episode will include all of
the line-item visit information for the previous 60 days. Given the
limited information on the initial claim, prepayment review of the
initial claim would be limited to overall medical necessity of care and
technical eligibility issues, such as whether the homebound requirement
was met. Medical review will be conducted on a random and targeted
basis. Targeting may include claim-specific and patterns of case-mix
upcoding as well as general issues of the medical need for the episode
of care and technical eligibility. There must be the capacity, for both
prepayment and postpayment, to deny claims in total or to adjust
payment to correct case mix. Medical review will validate OASIS case-
mix category information used for payment against medical records and
the OASIS information separately submitted for quality. Medical review
will also be conducted to verify individual beneficiary therapy
information and patterns of therapy information for larger groups. The
information reported on claims will be an essential part of this effort
due to the significant impact of therapy use in the case-mix
designation.
7. Continued Access to Quality Home Health Services Under the
Prospective Payment System
The quality component of PPS is critical to ensure that HHAs do not
furnish less care than is necessary to beneficiaries in an attempt to
increase profit. The advantage of using similar elements to measure
quality through outcomes of care and case mix for payment purposes is
that an agency that provides less care than needed to a patient in an
episode will be likely to reflect poor outcomes of care in terms of
quality. The quality component of the HHA PPS is crucial to ensuring
that beneficiaries receive needed services. The continued access to
quality services under PPS is discussed further in section IV.J. of
this regulation.
8. Implementation of the Prospective Payment System
Section 5101(c)(1) of OCESAA removed the effective date of the PPS
by cost reporting period previously prescribed in the BBA and instead
requires all Medicare participating HHAs to be paid under PPS effective
on the same date of implementation-- October 1, 2000. The
implementation approach is discussed in section IV.H. of this
regulation.
II. Prospective Payment System for Home Health Agencies
A. National 60-Day Episode Payment
This proposed rule sets forth the methodology for the national PPS
applicable to all Medicare home health services covered under both Part
A and Part B. This proposed rule incorporates a national 60-day episode
payment for all of the reasonable costs of services furnished to an
eligible beneficiary under a Medicare home health plan of care. This
section describes the components of the national 60-day episode payment
and the methodology and data used in computation.
1. Costs and Services Covered by the 60-Day Episode Payment
The 60-day episode prospective payment applies to all home health
services set forth in section 1861(m) of the Act that are covered and
paid on a reasonable cost basis under the Medicare home health benefit
as of the date of the enactment of the BBA, including medical supplies.
DME is a covered home health service that is not currently paid on a
reasonable cost basis, but is paid on a fee schedule basis when covered
as a home health service under the Medicare home health benefit. Under
the HHA PPS, DME covered as a home health service as part
[[Page 58148]]
of the Medicare home health benefit will continue to be paid under the
DME fee schedule. Thus, we believe a separate payment amount in
addition to the prospective payment amount for home health services
will be made for DME currently covered as a home health service under
the PPS. All DME must be billed by the HHA during the 60-day episode
when it is furnished directly, under arrangement, or otherwise as
discussed in section V.C. of this regulation. Although the covered
osteoporosis drug under the home health benefit is currently paid on a
reasonable cost basis, section 4603(c) of the BBA of '97 amended
section 1833(a)(2)(A) of the Act to specifically exclude it from the
prospective payment rate. In addition, like DME, the osteoporosis drug
is included in the consolidated billing requirements.
2. Data Sources Used for the Development of the 60-Day Episode Payment
The methodology we used in developing the 60-day episode payment
combines a number of data sources. These data sources include audited
cost report data, claims data, a wage index, a market basket inflation
index, and Abt Associates Case-Mix Research Project Data. This section
describes each of these data sources while the following section
describes the methodology that combines them to produce the 60-day
episode payment.
a. Audited Cost Report Data
Section 1895(b)(1) of the Act requires the prospective payment
amount to include all services covered and paid on a reasonable cost
basis under the Medicare home health benefit, including medical
supplies. Section 1895(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act requires the computation
of a standard prospective payment amount to be initially based on the
most recent audited cost report data available to the Secretary. Under
section 1895(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act, the primary data source in
developing the cost basis for the 60-day episode payments was the
audited cost report sample of HHAs whose cost reporting periods ended
in fiscal year 1997 (that is, ended on or after October 1, 1996 through
September 30, 1997).
In February 1998, we directed our fiscal intermediaries (FIs) to
conduct comprehensive audits of the cost reports submitted by a sample
of HHAs whose cost reporting periods ended in FFY 1997. Each FI
received a list of agencies to audit and instructions on how to conduct
the audits and report the data obtained.
The sample was designed to be representative of the home health
industry in several respects: type of provider (for example, provider-
based), census region, urban versus rural location, and large versus
small agencies. We anticipated that many agencies in the sample would
not be audited because their records were unavailable for a variety of
reasons or their cost reporting periods were less than 12 months long.
Consequently, the sample size was adjusted upward by 15 to 20 percent
to allow for attrition.
To create national HHA PPS rates, each observation in the final
data set is weighted so that in the aggregate the entire sample
reflects the national Medicare home health payment experience. For
example, the estimates will reflect differences across census regions
and urban versus rural areas.
Audit Sample Methodology
The sample frame was intended to include all home health agencies
except very small ones and agencies without a full year of cost
reporting for the audit period. The sample selection design was a
stratified sample. With this design, agencies are selected as samples
within each stratum, where a stratum is defined for each provider type.
There were four strata: freestanding not-for-profit, freestanding for-
profit, freestanding governmental, and provider-based agencies. The
stratified design of the sample takes into account the number of
providers and the variation in cost and beneficiaries associated with
each provider type. The sample was designed to produce estimates from
key elements of the audit data with a reasonable level of precision.
One issue arose as auditing activities unfolded. Although
ordinarily each sampling unit should appear once and only once in the
frame, after the sample was drawn and fieldwork begun, it was found
that this assumption was not strictly true for the governmental units.
In some cases, multiple providers' numbers corresponding to a single
cost report appear on the frame, while in other cases a provider number
is a parent possibly with multiple subunits. In the former case, we
considered the subunits associated with a single cost report as the
appropriate sampling unit, and assigned weights to those observations
to compensate for their higher probability of inclusion in the sample.
This weighting procedure ensures that correct totals are obtained from
the analysis.
The original sample design anticipated that the weights would need
further adjustment so that audits expected but ultimately missing from
the sample are represented and the sample in total will produce the
known totals from the frame for key subgroups or cells. The process
assigns a larger weight to audited units in the sample similar (in the
same cell) to those missed. In the case of the HHA, the cells were
defined by cross-classification of three characteristics: urban or
rural location; the four census regions of Northeast, Midwest, South,
and West; and provider type. Therefore, the weights were adjusted for
the missed sample units to ensure that the units obtained most closely
represent the missed units cell by cell. (The adjustment gives more
weight to the audited HHA in a cell to account for the missing audits
within the cell.) The adjustment was a minor one, because examination
of counts from the realized sample, intended sample, and sample frame
showed that the sample actually obtained generally was within range or
close to the specifications.
After completing the weight adjustments, a file was created with
the resulting weights, the provider number, provider type, Census4
(four census regions), and Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) code.
This file can be merged with the data from the cost reports for the
audited providers to compute weighted values for costs and visits in
order to compute the average cost-per-visit ratios by discipline. As a
check on the computations, the following table is the result of a
summary by provider type that agrees with the frame totals.
Type Sample Frame #
FS/F 142 3290
FS/G 159 458
FS/N 171 955
PROV 95 2458
The final audit sample contained 567 audited cost reports which
were the basis of the home health PPS rate calculations. See Section
III. below for a more detailed description of the sampling and
estimation procedures.
Updating to September 30, 2001
Before computing the average cost per visit for each discipline
that would be used to calculate the prospective payment rate, we
adjusted the costs from the audit sample by the latest available market
basket factors to reflect expected cost increases occurring between the
cost reporting periods ending in FY 1997 to September 30, 2001.
Multiplying nominal dollars for a given FY end by their respective
inflation adjustment factor will express those dollars in the dollar
level for the FY end September 30, 2001. Therefore,
[[Page 58149]]
we multiplied the total costs for each provider by the appropriate
inflation factor shown in the table below. See section II.A.2.b. of
this regulation for a detailed description of the market basket.
Nonroutine Medical Supplies Paid on a Reasonable Cost Basis Under a
Home Health Plan of Care
Before computing the average cost per episode for nonroutine
medical supplies paid on a reasonable cost basis under a home health
plan of care, we also adjusted the audited cost report data for
nonroutine medical supplies using the latest available market basket
factors to reflect expected cost increases occurring between the cost
reporting periods ending in FY 1997 to September 30, 2001.
Adjusting Costs for Providers Impacted by the Visit Limits
For cost reporting periods ending in FY 1997, Medicare recognized
reasonable costs as the lower of the provider's actual costs or the
per-visit limit applied in the aggregate for the six disciplines.
Because some providers' costs were higher than the per-visit limits
applied in the aggregate for the six disciplines, it was necessary to
adjust their costs in order to reflect only those costs for which the
provider's payment was based. The adjustment factor was calculated by
dividing a provider's total visit limit by the total Medicare costs,
but only if the total visit limit was less than total Medicare costs.
For those providers not impacted by the visit limit, no adjustment was
necessary, and the adjustment factor was set equal to one. The
adjustment factor was applied to each provider's total costs for each
discipline. Summing each provider's updated, weighted, and adjusted
total costs by the sum of visits for each discipline results in the
nonstandardized, updated, weighted, and visit limit adjusted average
cost per visit by discipline. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) has
raised concerns that the payment rates may be inflated because improper
costs were included in the base year data. These concerns are based on
prior OIG reviews which have found improper payments have been made to
HHAs in the past. Depending on the results of these past reviews and
additional OIG reviews currently underway, HCFA may consider adjusting
the payment rates to account for improper costs that were included in
these rate calculations.
b. Home Health Agency Market Basket Index
The data used to develop the HHA PPS payments (60-day episode and
LUPA) were adjusted using the latest available market basket factors to
reflect expected cost increases occurring between the cost reporting
periods contained in our database and September 30, 2001. The following
inflation factors were used in calculating the HHA PPS:
Factors for Inflating Database Dollars to September 30, 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY end 1996 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 31........................................ 1.15486 .........
November 30....................................... 1.15222 .........
December 31....................................... 1.14961 .........
January 31........................................ ......... 1.14705
February 28....................................... ......... 1.14453
March 31.......................................... ......... 1.14202
April 30.......................................... ......... 1.13952
May 31............................................ ......... 1.13703
June 30........................................... ......... 1.13444
July 31........................................... ......... 1.13175
August 31......................................... ......... 1.12896
September 30...................................... ......... 1.12615
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For fiscal year 2002 or 2003, sections 1895(b)(3)(B)(i) and
(b)(3)(B)(ii) of the Act require the standard prospective payment
amounts to be increased by a factor equal to the home health market
basket minus 1.1 percentage points. In addition, for any subsequent
fiscal years, the statute requires the rates be increased by the
applicable home health market basket index change.
c. Claims Data
We also conducted analysis on an episode database created from the
1997 National Claims History File using 60-day episodes to define
episode lengths. These data were based on use of home health services
under the current system.
The 1997 60-day episode file used to establish the PPS rates was
created in two parts. The first part matched all home health claim
records for each beneficiary together to create a complete episode
history. We combined monthly records of home health services using a
60-day gap of service as the break for when an episode would begin and
end (that is, a 60-day consecutive gap in home health services would
trigger a new episode). The second part of the episode file creation
was to create exact 60-day episodes from the monthly episode file.
Using the first day of the episode, we counted exactly 60 days to find
the end of the 60-day episode. If the beneficiary was still receiving
home health services, we then started another 60-day episode on day 61
and continued the process until the end of the episode.
In order to create the first part of the 1997 60-day episode file,
we used the 100 percent National Claims History of 1997 HHA records. A
list of Health Insurance Claim (HIC) numbers was created for all
beneficiaries who received home health services in calendar year 1997.
Using the HIC number for each of those beneficiaries, we compared it
against the 1997 Master Beneficiary Denominator File. The comparison
was done to eliminate (1) Railroad Board beneficiaries, (2) invalid
beneficiary HIC numbers, and (3) beneficiaries enrolled in an HMO for
any part of 1997.
The valid matches on the 1997 Master Beneficiary Denominator File
were then matched against the initial 100 percent of 1997 HHA records.
The records that resulted from this step were compared to a program
table consisting of the dates that encompassed the universe of complete
episodes created (January 1996 through June 1998). The HHA records were
reformatted with Units and Reimbursement allocated to 1 of 7 Revenue
Center Code groupings:
550-559 skilled nursing
420-429 physical therapy
430-439 occupational therapy
440-449 speech pathology
560-569 medical social services
570-579 home health aide
270-279 medical supplies
This output was then sorted by the ``From and Thru Dates'' on each
claim to see if the From Date was within the first 2 months of 1997 and
the Thru Date was within the last 2 months of 1997. If the From Date
was within the first 2 months of 1997, a HIC list was created and
matched to the 1996 HHA records. If the Thru Date was within the last 2
months of 1997, a HIC list was created and matched to the 1998 HHA
records. At the time these files were created, 1998 HHA records were
complete only through June 1998. The HIC lists were processed through a
cross-reference procedure that ensures that any changes in HIC numbers
are related to the original HIC and to ensure all utilization for a
beneficiary was reflected under one current HIC number. These files
were matched against the 1996 HHA and 1998 HHA files, respectively. The
outputs of these matches were reformatted with Units and Reimbursement
allocated to 1 of 7 Revenue Center Code groupings (listed above). The
same process was performed on the 1997 HHA records.
The resulting three files for 1996, 1997, and 1998 were sorted by
From Date within each HIC number. The sorted file was read and a
complete
[[Page 58150]]
home health history was created for each beneficiary HIC. This was
accomplished by sorting the HHA records for each HIC in chronological
order from January 1996 through June 1998. During this process, Number
of Days, Total Charges, and Total Reimbursement were allocated to a
monthly table. For any records that spanned 2 calendar months, charges,
visits, and reimbursement were apportioned based on the distribution of
those days in each respective month. Whenever a beneficiary HIC's
history was read and tabled, the data were analyzed in order to
determine whether any prospective episodes would have ended in 1996 or
started in 1998. If either was true, that historical utilization was
discarded. The final valid data included 1996 data that were contiguous
or ended within 2 months (60 days) of 1997 data and 1998 data that
began within 2 months of 1997 data.
Once the valid table was completed, a single episode or multiple
episodes were determined by a 60-day break. The final episode(s) for
each home health beneficiary with combined monthly records was written
to an output file referred to as the 1997 Home Health Monthly Interval
File.
The 1997 HHA 60-Day Episode file was then derived from the 1997
Home Health Monthly Interval File by analyzing monthly records by
episode number and sequential month number. A full episode from the
Home Health Monthly Interval File is made up of two consecutive monthly
intervals in which the beneficiary received services (no 60-day gap in
services furnished to that beneficiary for a given episode of care).
Each monthly record within the common episode number was assigned a
sequential month number to indicate where, in the sequence of monthly
records for that given episode number, a particular monthly record
exists.
The first episode-begin-date for a 60-day episode was derived from
the first from-date for a given previously established episode (a group
of related monthly records) as read from the home health interval file.
An episode-end-date for that first 60-day episode was calculated by
adding 59 days to the episode-begin-date. Visits, charges, lengths of
stay, and reimbursement dollars were then accumulated across the six
disciplines (skilled nursing services, home health aide services,
physical therapy (PT) services, occupational therapy (OT) services,
speech-language pathology services, and medical social services) for
the 60-day episode by adding in subsequent monthly interval records (if
appropriate) for a given episode. If an episode-end-date occurs within
a monthly record, accumulating variables were prorated between the 60-
day episode record that was closed out and the subsequent 60-day
episode to be created. Consequently, the subsequent 60-day episode was
assigned an episode-begin-date equal to that of the previous episode's
episode-end-date plus 1. For episodes that did not begin and end within
a monthly record, the episode-begin-dates were established from the
from-date and episode-end-dates were calculated from the episode-begin-
date.
The end result was a 1997 HHA episode file of 60-day episode
records. In addition to the accumulating variables mentioned above, the
episode record also contained up to three provider numbers of HHAs
involved in furnishing care for that patient during the 60-day episode.
For identifiable purposes, the episode record contained variables
depicting--(1) the episode number (the episode number relates 60-day
episode records for which no 60-day gap in services existed), (2) the
total number of related 60-day episodes for that episode number, and
(3) a sequential number for that 60-day episode within the episode
number.
Using the 60-day episode file, we were able to analyze the number,
type, and duration of visits for each 60-day period as well as across
multiple 60-day episodes. Since the full 100 percent episode file was
created to determine actual episodes that could span more than 1 year,
episodes were defined by actual start and end dates even if they were
outside the calendar year period, as long as the beneficiary received
home health services in calendar year 1997. This provided a true
representation of the length of home health episodes and showed that 10
percent of the beneficiaries were receiving services that spanned more
than a full calendar year. This file also showed that 46 percent of the
beneficiaries completed home health services in the first 60 days and
over 60 percent actually completed their episodes in less than 120
days.
To complete the second part of the 1997 60-day episode file needed
to calculate prospective payment rates and to develop impacts, we
needed to convert the full episode file to a file containing only those
60-day episodes that fell into the calendar year 1997 period. This
meant that if a beneficiary started receiving home health services in
July 1996 and continued for multiple 60-day episodes through June 1997,
we only included their 4th, 5th, and 6th 60-day episodes that fell in
calendar year 1997. Calculating the distribution of beneficiaries
across the total number of episodes as we did for the full episode
file, we determined that the total percentage of beneficiaries with
only one episode increased to 51 percent. The table below shows the
distribution across total number of 60-day episodes for both the full
episode file and the calendar year 1997 file.
Table 1.--Distribution of the Number of Consecutive 60-Day Episodes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution
Distribution based on
based on all only 60-day
60-day episodes
Total number of consecutive 60-day episodes--even that
episodes those outside occurred in
the CY 1997 the CY 1997
period period
(percent) (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................................... 46 51
2......................................... 16 18
3......................................... 8 8
4......................................... 5 5
5......................................... 3 4
6......................................... 3 3
7......................................... 3 10
8......................................... 3 ............
9......................................... 2 ............
10........................................ 2 ............
11........................................ 1 ............
12........................................ 2 ............
13........................................ 2 ............
14........................................ 3 ............
15........................................ 0 ............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next, we calculated the average number of visits by discipline for
all 60-day episodes and compared that to only those episodes that fell
into the calendar year 1997. We discovered that there was a slight
decrease in the average number of visits for home health aide and
skilled nursing services when using only the episodes that fell in
calendar year 1997. This was expected due to the fact that the
utilization in 1997 declined because of the incentives under Operation
Restore Trust and because the distribution of beneficiaries having
fewer number of total episodes increased as shown in Table 1 above.
Beneficiaries with fewer total episodes had on average a lower total
average number of visits.
For purposes of rate setting, we believed it was more appropriate
to use the average number of visits for only those episodes that
occurred in calendar year 1997, as these reflect the reduced visit
utilization experienced since 1997 and thus represented more closely
the actual episodes that we would be paying for under PPS. Because we
are paying episodes with four or fewer visits on a per-visit basis,
under the LUPA methodology mentioned previously, it is necessary to
exclude them for the calculation of the average number of
[[Page 58151]]
episodes. Taking the low-visit episodes out of the calculation resulted
in an overall higher average for each discipline as would be expected.
Table 2.--Comparison of the Average Number of Visits Per Episode for Each Discipline for the Full Episode File,
Episodes in CY 1997 and Episodes in CY 1999 With Five or More Visits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average based Average based
on all 60-day Average based on only 60-day
episodes--even on only 60-day episodes that
Average number of visits by discipline those outside episodes that fell into the
the CY 1997 fell into the CY 1997 period
period CY 1997 period with visits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Skilled Nursing Services..................................... 13.14 12.55 14.69
Physical Therapy Services.................................... 2.08 2.35 2.74
Occupational Therapy Services................................ .36 0.41 0.48
Speech Pathology Services.................................... .14 0.15 0.18
Medical Social Services...................................... .30 0.31 0.36
Home Health Aide Services.................................... 16.78 14.59 17.59
Total for all disciplines.................................... 32.8 30.36 36.04
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis of each 60-day episode that occurred within calendar year
1997 showed that the distribution of visits across each discipline
changed the longer the home health patient received home health
services. For beneficiaries who had only one episode, the proportion of
skilled nursing visits to home health aide visits was about 2 to 1. But
for beneficiaries who are in their 6th consecutive episode, the
relationship is reversed. The longer a beneficiary receives home health
services, the lower their skilled nursing needs and the more they
become dependent only on home health aide services. It is also
noticeable and expected that physical therapy services decline over
time. This finding suggests that future PPS research should be directed
at whether the episode payment should vary with each consecutive
episode.
Table 3.--Distribution of Disciplines Across Series of 60-Day Episodes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Episode No.
within Percent of Percent of Percent of Percent of Percent of Percent of
Total number of 60-day episodes series of skilled home health occupational speech medical physical
60-day nursing aide therapy pathology social therapy
episodes services services services services services services
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1........................................................... 1 50 26 3 1 2 19
2........................................................... 1 46 34 3 1 1 15
2........................................................... 2 44 40 2 1 1 12
3........................................................... 1 46 38 2 1 1 11
3........................................................... 2 43 44 2 1 1 9
3........................................................... 3 43 46 1 1 1 8
4........................................................... 1 45 42 2 1 1 9
4........................................................... 2 42 48 1 1 1 7
4........................................................... 3 42 49 1 1 1 6
4........................................................... 4 42 50 1 0 1 6
5........................................................... 1 44 45 2 1 1 8
5........................................................... 2 41 50 1 1 1 6
5........................................................... 3 40 52 1 0 1 5
5........................................................... 4 40 53 1 0 1 5
5........................................................... 5 40 53 1 0 1 5
6........................................................... 1 42 48 1 1 1 7
6........................................................... 2 39 53 1 0 1 5
6........................................................... 3 38 55 1 0 1 4
6........................................................... 4 38 57 1 0 1 4
6........................................................... 5 37 57 1 0 1 4
6........................................................... 6 38 56 1 0 1 4
7........................................................... 1 36 59 1 0 1 4
7........................................................... 2 35 60 1 0 1 3
7........................................................... 3 35 61 0 0 1 3
7........................................................... 4 34 62 0 0 1 3
7........................................................... 5 34 62 0 0 1 3
7........................................................... 6 34 62 0 0 1 2
7........................................................... 7 35 61 0 0 1 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Part B Claims History File
Nonroutine medical supplies are also a covered home health service
listed in section 1861(m) of the Act. As discussed above, the home
health prospective payment rate includes those items that are currently
covered and paid on a reasonable-cost basis. DME covered as a home
health service (see section 1861(m) of the Act) will continue to be
paid the fee schedule amount. As discussed previously, there is a new
consolidated billing provision that requires HHAs to bill for all home
health services listed in section 1861(m)
[[Page 58152]]
of the Act that are ordered under a home health plan of care.
Before PPS implementation, HHAs were not required to bundle all
home health services. Specifically, nonroutine medical supplies that
are covered and paid under Part B could have been furnished by a
supplier rather than the HHA. Under the current interim payment system,
nonroutine medical supply costs were subjected to the aggregate per-
beneficiary limits, but not the per-visit limits. Some HHAs may have
chosen to unbundle those nonroutine medical supplies that had a
corresponding Part B payment. In order to determine the scope of the
unbundled nonroutine medical supplies under the current system, we
identified 199 HCPCS codes, representing those items that would fall
into the possible ``unbundled nonroutine medical supply'' category. We
pulled all claims with the corresponding HCPCS codes from the Part B
national claims history file. In order to determine whether the HCPCS
codes were related to a beneficiary receiving home health services
under a home health plan of care, we linked every Part B claim with one
or more of the 199 HCPCS codes to home health episodes from our episode
database, by beneficiary and dates of service. If a beneficiary
received home health services during a 60-day episode and there was a
corresponding Part B claim with one of the 199 HCPCS codes that was
billed during the same 60-day episode, we identified the item as
related to the home health stay.
Since the nonroutine medical supply costs are bundled into the
prospective payment rate and subjected to consolidated billing under
prospective payment, we are proposing an additional payment amount in
the 60-day episode base rate for those nonroutine medical supplies with
corresponding Part B codes that may have been unbundled under the
interim payment system. The methodology amount is set forth in section
II.B. of this regulation.
d. Hospital Wage Index
As discussed in section I. of this regulation, sections
1895(b)(4)(A)(ii) and (b)(4)(C) of the Act, require the Secretary to
establish area wage adjustment factors that reflect the relative level
of wages and wage-related costs applicable to the furnishing of home
health services and to provide appropriate adjustments to the episode
payment amounts under the PPS to account for area wage differences. The
wage adjustment factors may be the factors used by the Secretary for
purposes of section 1886(d)(3)(E) of the Act. The statute allows the
Secretary to use the area where the services are furnished or such area
as the Secretary may specify for the wage index adjustment. To be
consistent with the application of the wage index adjustment under the
current interim payment system for HHAs, we propose that the wage index
value applied to the labor portion of the 60-day episode payment under
HHA/PPS be adjusted by the appropriate wage index for the geographic
area in which the beneficiary received home health services.
In addition, section 1895(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act requires the
Secretary to standardize the cost data used in developing the HHA/PPS
payment amount for wage levels among different HHAs in a budget-neutral
manner. The wage-index adjustments to the 60-day episode payments must
be made in a manner that does not result in aggregate payments that are
greater or less than those that would otherwise be made if the 60-day
episode payments were not adjusted by the wage index.
Each HHA's labor market area is determined based on definitions of
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) issued by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). In establishing the 60-day episode
payments, we used the most recently published hospital wage index (that
is, the FY 1999 hospital wage index published in the Federal Register
on February 25, 1999 (64 FR 9378), which is based on 1995 hospital wage
data) without regard to whether these hospitals have been reclassified
to a new geographic area. Therefore, the prospective payments reflect
the MSA definitions that are currently in effect under the hospital
PPS.
We believe the use of the hospital wage data results in an
appropriate adjustment to the labor portion of costs based on an
appropriate wage index as required under sections 1895(b)(3)(A)(i),
(b)(4)(A)(ii), and (b)(4)(C) of the Act.
Table 4A.--FY 1999 WAGE INDEX FOR RURAL AREAS--Pre-floor and Pre-
reclassified
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wage
Rural Area Index
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama...................................................... 0.7294
Alaska....................................................... 1.2430
Arizona...................................................... 0.7989
Arkansas..................................................... 0.7250
California................................................... 0.9979
Colorado..................................................... 0.8436
Connecticut.................................................. 1.2074
Delaware..................................................... 0.8807
Florida...................................................... 0.8877
Georgia...................................................... 0.7888
Guam......................................................... 0.6516
Hawaii....................................................... 1.0910
Idaho........................................................ 0.8477
Illinois..................................................... 0.7916
Indiana...................................................... 0.8380
Iowa......................................................... 0.7777
Kansas....................................................... 0.7319
Kentucky..................................................... 0.7844
Louisiana.................................................... 0.7454
Maine........................................................ 0.8467
Maryland..................................................... 0.8555
Massachusetts................................................ 1.0834
Michigan..................................................... 0.8875
Minnesota.................................................... 0.8595
Mississippi.................................................. 0.7312
Missouri..................................................... 0.7452
Montana...................................................... 0.8398
Nebraska..................................................... 0.7674
Nevada....................................................... 0.9256
New Hampshire................................................ 1.0240
New Jersey \1\............................................... .........
New Mexico................................................... 0.8269
New York..................................................... 0.8588
North Carolina............................................... 0.8112
North Dakota................................................. 0.7497
Ohio......................................................... 0.8519
Oklahoma..................................................... 0.7124
Oregon....................................................... 0.9910
Pennsylvania................................................. 0.8664
Puerto Rico.................................................. 0.4080
Rhode Island \1\............................................. .........
South Carolina............................................... 0.8046
South Dakota................................................. 0.7508
Tennessee.................................................... 0.7492
Texas........................................................ 0.7565
Utah......................................................... 0.8859
Vermont...................................................... 0.9416
Virgin Islands............................................... 0.4588
Virginia..................................................... 0.7857
Washington................................................... 1.0489
West Virginia................................................ 0.7875
Wisconsin.................................................... 0.8711
Wyoming...................................................... 0.8768
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All counties within the State are classified as urban.
Table 4B--Wage Index for Urban Areas--Pre-floor and Pre-reclassified
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wage
MSA Urban Area (Constituent counties) Index
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0040 Abilene, TX 0.7981
Taylor, TX
0060 Aguadilla, PR 0.4727
Aguada, PR
Aguadilla, PR
Moca, PR
0080 Akron, OH 0.9900
Portage, OH
Summit, OH
0120 Albany, GA 0.7975
Dougherty, GA
Lee, GA
0160 Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY 0.8610
Albany, NY
Montgomery, NY
[[Page 58153]]
Rensselaer, NY
Saratoga, NY
Schenectady, NY
Schoharie, NY
0200 Albuquerque, NM 0.8613
Bernalillo, NM
Sandoval, NM
Valencia, NM
0220 Alexandria, LA 0.8526
Rapides, LA
0240 Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA 1.0204
Carbon, PA
Lehigh, PA
Northampton, PA
0280 Altoona, PA 0.9335
Blair, PA
0320 Amarillo, TX 0.8474
Potter, TX
Randall, TX
0380 Anchorage, AK 1.2818
Anchorage, AK
0440 Ann Arbor, MI 1.1033
Lenawee, MI
Livingston, MI
Washtenaw, MI
0450 Anniston, AL 0.8658
Calhoun, AL
0460 Appleton-Oshkosh-Neenah, WI 0.8825
Calumet, WI
Outagamie, WI
Winnebago, WI
0470 Arecibo, PR 0.4867
Arecibo, PR
Camuy, PR
Hatillo, PR
0480 Asheville, NC 0.8940
Buncombe, NC
Madison, NC
0500 Athens, GA 0.8673
Clarke, GA
Madison, GA
Oconee, GA
0520 Atlanta, GA 0.9915
Barrow, GA
Bartow, GA
Carroll, GA
Cherokee, GA
Clayton, GA
Cobb, GA
Coweta, GA
DeKalb, GA
Douglas, GA
Fayette, GA
Forsyth, GA
Fulton, GA
Gwinnett, GA
Henry, GA
Newton, GA
Paulding, GA
Pickens, GA
Rockdale, GA
Spalding, GA
Walton, GA
0560 Atlantic-Cape May, NJ 1.1536
Atlantic, NJ
Cape May, NJ
0600 Augusta-Aiken, GA-SC 0.9233
Columbia, GA
McDuffie, GA
Richmond, GA
Aiken, SC
Edgefield, SC
0640 Austin-San Marcos, TX 0.8782
Bastrop, TX
Caldwell, TX
Hays, TX
Travis, TX
Williamson, TX
0680 Bakersfield, CA 0.9531
Kern, CA
0720 Baltimore, MD 0.9642
Anne Arundel, MD
Baltimore, MD
Baltimore City, MD
Carroll, MD
Harford, MD
Howard, MD
Queen Anne's, MD
0733 Bangor, ME 0.9474
Penobscot, ME
0743 Barnstable-Yarmouth, MA 1.5382
Barnstable, MA
0760 Baton Rouge, LA 0.8872
Ascension, LA
East Baton Rouge, LA
Livingston, LA
West Baton Rouge, LA
0840 Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX 0.8659
Hardin, TX
Jefferson, TX
Orange, TX
0860 Bellingham, WA 1.1434
Whatcom, WA
0870 Benton Harbor, MI 0.8531
Berrien, MI
0875 Bergen-Passaic, NJ 1.2186
Bergen, NJ
Passaic, NJ
0880 Billings, MT 0.9143
Yellowstone, MT
0920 Biloxi-Gulfport-Pascagoula, MS 0.8276
Hancock, MS
Harrison, MS
Jackson, MS
0960 Binghamton, NY 0.9059
Broome, NY
Tioga, NY
1000 Birmingham, AL 0.9073
Blount, AL
Jefferson, AL
St. Clair, AL
Shelby, AL
1010 Bismarck, ND 0.8025
Burleigh, ND
Morton, ND
1020 Bloomington, IN 0.8965
Monroe, IN
1040 Bloomington-Normal, IL 0.8851
McLean, IL
1080 Boise City, ID 0.9160
Ada, ID
Canyon, ID
1123 Boston-Worcester-Lawrence-Lowell-Brockton, MA-NH 1.1269
Bristol, MA
Essex, MA
Middlesex, MA
Norfolk, MA
Plymouth, MA
Suffolk, MA
Worcester, MA
Hillsborough, NH
Merrimack, NH
Rockingham, NH
Strafford, NH
1125 Boulder-Longmont, CO 1.0038
Boulder, CO
1145 Brazoria, TX 0.8906
Brazoria, TX
1150 Bremerton, WA 1.1055
Kitsap, WA
1240 Brownsville-Harlingen-San Benito, TX 0.8237
Cameron, TX
1260 Bryan-College Station, TX 0.7820
Brazos, TX
1280 Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY 0.9587
Erie, NY
Niagara, NY
1303 Burlington, VT 0.9577
Chittenden, VT
Franklin, VT
Grand Isle, VT
1310 Caguas, PR 0.4400
Caguas, PR
Cayey, PR
Cidra, PR
Gurabo, PR
San Lorenzo, PR
1320 Canton-Massillon, OH 0.8813
Carroll, OH
Stark, OH
1350 Casper, WY 0.870
Natrona, WY
1360 Cedar Rapids, IA 0.8814
Linn, IA
1400 Champaign-Urbana, IL 0.8723
Champaign, IL
1440 Charleston-North Charleston, SC 0.9114
Berkeley, SC
Charleston, SC
Dorchester, SC
1480 Charleston, WV 0.8990
Kanawha, WV
Putnam, WV
1520 Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC 0.9686
Cabarrus, NC
Gaston, NC
Lincoln, NC
Mecklenburg, NC
Rowan, NC
Stanly, NC
Union, NC
York, SC
1540 Charlottesville, VA 1.0272
Albemarle, VA
Charlottesville City, VA
Fluvanna, VA
Greene, VA
1560 Chattanooga, TN-GA 0.9074
Catoosa, GA
Dade, GA
[[Page 58154]]
Walker, GA
Hamilton, TN
Marion, TN
1580 Cheyenne, WY 0.8149
Laramie, WY
1600 Chicago, IL 1.0461
Cook, IL
DeKalb, IL
DuPage, IL
Grundy, IL
Kane, IL
Kendall, IL
Lake, IL
McHenry, IL
Will, IL
1620 Chico-Paradise, CA 1.0145
Butte, CA
1640 Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN 0.9595
Dearborn, IN
Ohio, IN
Boone, KY
Campbell, KY
Gallatin, KY
Grant, KY
Kenton, KY
Pendleton, KY
Brown, OH
Clermont, OH
Hamilton, OH
Warren, OH
1660 Clarksville-Hopkinsville, TN-KY 0.8040
Christian, KY
Montgomery, TN
1680 Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria, OH 0.9886
Ashtabula, OH
Cuyahoga, OH
Geauga, OH
Lake, OH
Lorain, OH
Medina, OH
1720 Colorado Springs, CO 0.9390
El Paso, CO
1740 Columbia, MO 0.8942
Boone, MO
1760 Columbia, SC 0.9290
Lexington, SC
Richland, SC
1800 Columbus, GA-AL 0.8511
Russell, AL
Chattahoochee, GA
Harris, GA
Muscogee, GA
1840 Columbus, OH 0.9781
Delaware, OH
Fairfield, OH
Franklin, OH
Licking, OH
Madison, OH
Pickaway, OH
1880 Corpus Christi, TX 0.8513
Nueces, TX
San Patricio, TX
1900 Cumberland, MD-WV 0.8242
Allegany, MD
Mineral, WV
1920 Dallas, TX 0.9369
Collin, TX
Dallas, TX
Denton, TX
Ellis, TX
Henderson, TX
Hunt, TX
Kaufman, TX
Rockwall, TX
1950 Danville, VA 0.9045
Danville City, VA
Pittsylvania, VA
1960 Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL 0.8413
Scott, IA
Henry, IL
Rock Island, IL
2000 Dayton-Springfield, OH 0.9605
Clark, OH
Greene, OH
Miami, OH
Montgomery, OH
2020 Daytona Beach, FL 0.9134
Flagler, FL
Volusia, FL
2030 Decatur, AL 0.8233
Lawrence, AL
Morgan, AL
2040 Decatur, IL 0.8035
Macon, IL
2080 Denver, CO 1.0331
Adams, CO
Arapahoe, CO
Denver, CO
Douglas, CO
Jefferson, CO
2120 Des Moines, IA 0.8448
Dallas, IA
Polk, IA
Warren, IA
2160 Detroit, MI 1.0544
Lapeer, MI
Macomb, MI
Monroe, MI
Oakland, MI
St. Clair, MI
Wayne, MI
2180 Dothan, AL 0.7892
Dale, AL
Houston, AL
2190 Dover, DE 0.9363
Kent, DE
2200 Dubuque, IA 0.8222
Dubuque, IA
2240 Duluth-Superior, MN-WI 0.9962
St. Louis, MN
Douglas, WI
2281 Dutchess County, NY 1.0530
Dutchess, NY
2290 Eau Claire, WI 0.8573
Chippewa, WI
Eau Claire, WI
2320 El Paso, TX 0.9215
El Paso, TX
2330 Elkhart-Goshen, IN 0.9305
Elkhart, IN
2335 Elmira, NY 0.8440
Chemung, NY
2340 Enid, OK 0.7983
Garfield, OK
2360 Erie, PA 0.9271
Erie, PA
2400 Eugene-Springfield, OR 1.1193
Lane, OR
2440 Evansville-Henderson, IN-KY 0.8528
Posey, IN
Vanderburgh, IN
Warrick, IN
Henderson, KY
2520 Fargo-Moorhead, ND-MN 0.9520
Clay, MN
Cass, ND
2560 Fayetteville, NC 0.8389
Cumberland, NC
2580 Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR 0.8614
Benton, AR
Washington, AR
2620 Flagstaff, AZ-UT 0.9483
Coconino, AZ
Kane, UT
2640 Flint, MI 1.1031
Genesee, MI
2650 Florence, AL 0.7676
Colbert, AL
Lauderdale, AL
2655 Florence, SC 0.8501
Florence, SC
2670 Fort Collins-Loveland, CO 1.0770
Larimer, CO
2680 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 0.9807
Broward, FL
2700 Fort Myers-Cape Coral, FL 0.8942
Lee, FL
2710 Fort Pierce-Port St. Lucie, FL 1.0241
Martin, FL
St. Lucie, FL
2720 Fort Smith, AR-OK 0.7623
Crawford, AR
Sebastian, AR
Sequoyah, OK
2750 Fort Walton Beach, FL 0.8615
Okaloosa, FL
2760 Fort Wayne, IN 0.9047
Adams, IN
Allen, IN
De Kalb, IN
Huntington, IN
Wells, IN
Whitley, IN
2800 Forth Worth-Arlington, TX 0.9719
Hood, TX
Johnson, TX
Parker, TX
Tarrant, TX
2840 Fresno, CA 1.0700
Fresno, CA
Madera, CA
2880 Gadsden, AL 0.8779
Etowah, AL
2900 Gainesville, FL 0.9453
Alachua, FL
2920 Galveston-Texas City, TX 1.0894
Galveston, TX
2960 Gary, IN 0.9435
Lake, IN
Porter, IN
2975 Glens Falls, NY 0.8490
Warren, NY
Washington, NY
[[Page 58155]]
2980 Goldsboro, NC 0.8530
Wayne, NC
2985 Grand Forks, ND-MN 0.8836
Polk, MN
Grand Forks, ND
2995 Grand Junction, CO 0.8279
Mesa, CO
3000 Grand Rapids-Muskegon-Holland, MI 0.9971
Allegan, MI
Kent, MI
Muskegon, MI
Ottawa, MI
3040 Great Falls, MT 0.8872
Cascade, MT
3060 Greeley, CO 0.9457
Weld, CO
3080 Green Bay, WI 0.9156
Brown, WI
3120 Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point, NC 0.9547
Alamance, NC
Davidson, NC
Davie, NC
Forsyth, NC Guilford, NC
Randolph, NC
Stokes, NC
Yadkin, NC
3150 Greenville, NC 0.9434
Pitt, NC
3160 Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson, SC 0.9222
Anderson, SC
Cherokee, SC
Greenville, SC
Pickens, SC
Spartanburg, SC
3180 Hagerstown, MD 1.0183
Washington, MD
3200 Hamilton-Middletown, OH 0.9233
Butler, OH
3240 Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle, PA 1.0060
Cumberland, PA
Dauphin, PA
Lebanon, PA
Perry, PA
3283 Hartford, CT 1.1831
Hartford, CT
Litchfield, CT
Middlesex, CT
Tolland, CT
3285 Hattiesburg, MS 0.7261
Forrest, MS
Lamar, MS
3290 Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir, NC 0.8904
Alexander, NC
Burke, NC
Caldwell, NC
Catawba, NC
3320 Honolulu, HI 1.1510
Honolulu, HI
3350 Houma, LA
Lafourche, LA
Terrebonne, LA 0.8197
3360 Houston, TX 0.9889
Chambers, TX
Fort Bend, TX
Harris, TX
Liberty, TX
Montgomery, TX
Waller, TX
3400 Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH 0.9647
Boyd, KY
Carter, KY
Greenup, KY
Lawrence, OH
Cabell, WV
Wayne, WV
3440 Huntsville, AL 0.8385
Limestone, AL
Madison, AL
3480 Indianapolis, IN 0.9831
Boone, IN
Hamilton, IN
Hancock, IN
Hendricks, IN
Johnson, IN
Madison, IN
Marion, IN
Morgan, IN
Shelby, IN
3500 Iowa City, IA 0.9481
Johnson, IA
3520 Jackson, MI 0.9224
Jackson, MI
3560 Jackson, MS 0.8292
Hinds, MS
Madison, MS
Rankin, MS
3580 Jackson, TN 0.8560
Madison, TN
Chester, TN
3600 Jacksonville, FL 0.8900
Clay, FL
Duval, FL
Nassau, FL
St. Johns, FL
3605 Jacksonville, NC 0.7556
Onslow, NC
3610 Jamestown, NY 0.7660
Chautauqua, NY
3620 Janesville-Beloit, WI 0.9051
Rock, WI
3640 Jersey City, NJ 1.1598
Hudson, NJ
3660 Johnson City-Kingsport-Bristol, TN-VA 0.8773
Carter, TN
Hawkins, TN
Sullivan, TN
Unicoi, TN
Washington, TN
Bristol City, VA
Scott, VA
Washington, VA
3680 Johnstown, PA 0.8619
Cambria, PA
Somerset, PA
3700 Jonesboro, AR 0.7407
Craighead, AR
3710 Joplin, MO 0.7873
Jasper, MO
Newton, MO
3720 Kalamazoo-Battlecreek, MI 1.1331
Calhoun, MI
Kalamazoo, MI
Van Buren, MI
3740 Kankakee, IL 0.9418
Kankakee, IL
3760 Kansas City, KS-MO 0.9645
Johnson, KS
Leavenworth, KS
Miami, KS
Wyandotte, KS
Cass, MO
Clay, MO
Clinton, MO
Jackson, MO
Lafayette, MO
Platte, MO
Ray, MO
3800 Kenosha, WI 0.9129
Kenosha, WI
3810 Killeen-Temple, TX 1.0109
Bell, TX
Coryell, TX
3840 Knoxville, TN 0.8918
Anderson, TN
Blount, TN
Knox, TN
Loudon, TN
Sevier, TN
Union, TN
3850 Kokomo, IN 0.9275
Howard, IN
Tipton, IN
3870 La Crosse, WI-MN 0.8913
Houston, MN
La Crosse, WI
3880 Lafayette, LA 0.8255
Acadia, LA
Lafayette, LA
St. Landry, LA
St. Martin, LA
3920 Lafayette, IN 0.8841
Clinton, IN
Tippecanoe, IN
3960 Lake Charles, LA 0.7674
Calcasieu, LA
3980 Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL 0.8939
Polk, FL
4000 Lancaster, PA 0.9561
Lancaster, PA
4040 Lansing-East Lansing, MI 1.0090
Clinton, MI
Eaton, MI
Ingham, MI
4080 Laredo, TX 0.7343
Webb, TX
4100 Las Cruces, NM 0.8870
Dona Ana, NM
4120 Las Vegas, NV-AZ 1.1413
Mohave, AZ
Clark, NV
Nye, NV
4150 Lawrence, KS 0.8655
Douglas, KS
4200 Lawton, OK 0.8697
Comanche, OK
4243 Lewiston-Auburn, ME 0.9149
Androscoggin, ME
4280 Lexington, KY 0.8506
Bourbon, KY
Clark, KY
[[Page 58156]]
Fayette, KY
Jessamine, KY
Madison, KY
Scott, KY
Woodford, KY
4320 Lima, OH 0.8949
Allen, OH
Auglaize, OH
4360 Lincoln, NE 0.9303
Lancaster, NE
4400 Little Rock-North Little Rock, AR 0.8503
Faulkner, AR
Lonoke, AR
Pulaski, AR
Saline, AR
4420 Longview-Marshall, TX 0.8698
Gregg, TX
Harrison, TX
Upshur, TX
4480 Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA 1.2085
Los Angeles, CA
4520 Louisville, KY-IN 0.9093
Clark, IN
Floyd, IN
Harrison, IN
Scott, IN
Bullitt, KY
Jefferson, KY
Oldham, KY
4600 Lubbock, TX 0.8496
Lubbock, TX
4640 Lynchburg, VA 0.8900
Amherst, VA
Bedford, VA
Bedford City, VA
Campbell, VA
Lynchburg City, VA
4680 Macon, GA 0.8980
Bibb, GA
Houston, GA
Jones, GA
Peach, GA
Twiggs, GA
4720 Madison, WI 1.0018
Dane, WI
4800 Mansfield, OH 0.8534
Crawford, OH
Richland, OH
4840 Mayaguez, PR 0.4401
Anasco, PR
Cabo Rojo, PR
Hormigueros, PR
Mayaguez, PR
Sabana Grande, PR
San German, PR
4880 McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX 0.8893
Hidalgo, TX
4890 Medford-Ashland, OR 1.0020
Jackson, OR
4900 Melbourne-Titusville-Palm Bay, FL 0.9216
Brevard, Fl
4920 Memphis, TN-AR-MS 0.8361
Crittenden, AR
DeSoto, MS
Fayette, TN
Shelby, TN
Tipton, TN
4940 Merced, CA 1.0033
Merced, CA
5000 Miami, FL 1.0017
Dade, FL
5015 Middlesex-Somerset-Hunterdon, NJ 1.1152
Hunterdon, NJ
Middlesex, NJ
Somerset, NJ
5080 Milwaukee-Waukesha, WI 0.9356
Milwaukee, WI
Ozaukee, WI
Washington, WI
Waukesha, WI
5120 Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI 1.0854
Anoka, MN
Carver, MN
Chisago, MN
Dakota, MN
Hennepin, MN
Isanti, MN
Ramsey, MN
Scott, MN
Sherburne, MN
Washington, MN
Wright, MN
Pierce, WI
St. Croix, WI
5140 Missoula, MT 0.9189
Missoula, MT
5160 Mobile, AL 0.8377
Baldwin, AL
Mobile, AL
5170 Modesto, CA 1.0346
Stanislaus, CA
5190 Monmouth-Ocean, NJ 1.1317
Monmouth, NJ
Ocean, NJ
5200 Monroe, LA 0.8219
Ouachita, LA
5240 Montgomery, AL 0.7821
Autauga, AL
Elmore, AL
Montgomery, AL
5280 Muncie, IN 0.9414
Delaware, IN
5330 Myrtle Beach, SC 0.8179
Horry, SC
5345 Naples, FL 1.0177
Collier, FL
5360 Nashville, TN 0.9480
Cheatham, TN
Davidson, TN
Dickson, TN
Robertson, TN
Rutherford TN
Sumner, TN
Williamson, TN
Wilson, TN
5380 Nassau-Suffolk, NY 1.3593
Nassau, NY
Suffolk, NY
5483 New Haven-Bridgeport-Stamford-Waterbury-Danbury, CT 1.2328
Fairfield, CT
New Haven, CT
5523 New London-Norwich, CT 1.1616
New London, CT
5560 New Orleans, LA 0.9310
Jefferson, LA
Orleans, LA
Plaquemines, LA
St. Bernard, LA
St. Charles, LA
St. James, LA
St. John The Baptist, LA
St. Tammany, LA
5600 New York, NY 1.4461
Bronx, NY
Kings, NY
New York, NY
Putnam, NY
Queens, NY
Richmond, NY
Rockland, NY
Westchester, NY
5640 Newark, NJ 1.1866
Essex, NJ
Morris, NJ
Sussex, NJ
Union, NJ
Warren, NJ
Newburgh, NY-PA 1.1155
Orange, NY
Pike, PA
5720 Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News, VA-NC 0.8275
Currituck, NC
Chesapeake City, VA
Gloucester, VA
Hampton City, VA
Isle of Wight, VA
James City, VA
Mathews, VA
Newport News City, VA
Norfolk City, VA
Poquoson City, VA
Portsmouth City, VA
Suffolk City, VA
Virginia Beach City VA
Williamsburg City, VA
York, VA
5775 Oakland, CA 1.4993
Alameda, CA
Contra Costa, CA
5790 Ocala, FL 0.9152
Marion, FL
5800 Odessa-Midland, TX 0.8656
Ector, TX
Midland, TX
5880 Oklahoma City, OK 0.8708
Canadian, OK
Cleveland, OK
Logan, OK
McClain, OK
Oklahoma, OK
Pottawatomie, OK
5910 Olympia, WA 1.1522
Thurston, WA
5920 Omaha, NE-IA 0.9972
Pottawattamie, IA
Cass, NE
Douglas, NE
Sarpy, NE
Washington, NE
[[Page 58157]]
5945 Orange County, CA 1.1522
Orange, CA
5960 Orlando, FL 0.9813
Lake, FL
Orange, FL
Osceola, FL
Seminole, FL
5990 Owensboro, KY 0.7771
Daviess, KY
6015 Panama City, FL 0.8507
Bay, FL
6020 Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH 0.8016
Washington, OH
Wood, WV
6080 Pensacola, FL 0.8246
Escambia, FL
Santa Rosa, FL
6120 Peoria-Pekin, IL 0.8058
Peoria, IL
Tazewell, IL
Woodford, IL
6160 Philadelphia, PA-NJ 1.1370
Burlington, NJ
Camden, NJ
Gloucester, NJ
Salem, NJ
Bucks, PA
Chester, PA
Delaware, PA
Montgomery, PA
Philadelphia, PA
6200 Phoenix-Mesa, AZ 0.9591
Maricopa, AZ
Pinal, AZ
6240 Pine Bluff, AR 0.7912
Jefferson, AR
6280 Pittsburgh, PA 0.9789
Allegheny, PA
Beaver, PA
Butler, PA
Fayette, PA
Washington, PA
Westmoreland, PA
6323 Pittsfield, MA 1.0819
Berkshire, MA
6340 Pocatello, ID 0.8792
Bannock, ID
6360 Ponce, PR 0.4788
Guayanilla, PR
Juana Diaz, PR
Penuelas, PR
Ponce, PR
Villalba, PR
Yauco, PR
6403 Portland, ME 0.9561
Cumberland, ME
Sagadahoc, ME
York, ME
6440 Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA 1.1178
Clackamas, OR
Columbia, OR
Multnomah, OR
Washington, OR
Yamhill, OR
Clark, WA
6483 Providence-Warwick-Pawtucket, RI 1.0801
Bristol, RI
Kent, RI
Newport, RI
Providence, RI
Washington, RI
6520 Provo-Orem, UT 0.9885
Utah, UT
6560 Pueblo, CO 0.8712
Pueblo, CO
6580 Punta Gorda, FL 0.9031
Charlotte, FL
6600 Racine, WI 0.9130
Racine, WI
6640 Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC 0.9812
Chatham, NC
Durham, NC
Franklin, NC
Johnston, NC
Orange, NC
Wake, NC
6660 Rapid City, SD 0.8208
Pennington, SD
6680 Reading, PA 0.9234
Berks, PA
6690 Redding, CA 1.1858
Shasta, CA
6720 Reno, NV 1.1095
Washoe, NV
6740 Richland-Kennewick-Pasco, WA 1.0287
Benton, WA
Franklin, WA
6760 Richmond-Petersburg, VA 0.9211
Charles City County, VA
Chesterfield, VA
Colonial Heights City, VA
Dinwiddie, VA
Goochland, VA
Hanover, VA
Henrico, VA
Hopewell City, VA
New Kent, VA
Petersburg City, VA
Powhatan, VA
Prince George, VA
Richmond City, VA
6780 Riverside-San Bernardino, CA 1.0757
Riverside, CA
San Bernardino, CA
6800 Roanoke, VA 0.8509
Botetourt, VA
Roanoke, VA
Roanoke City, VA
Salem City, VA
6820 Rochester, MN 1.1698
Olmsted, MN
6840 Rochester, NY 0.9657
Genesee, NY
Livingston, NY
Monroe, NY
Ontario, NY
Orleans, NY
Wayne, NY
6880 Rockford, IL 0.8615
Boone, IL
Ogle, IL
Winnebago, IL
6895 Rocky Mount, NC 0.9012
Edgecombe, NC
Nash, NC
6920 Sacramento, CA 1.1962
El Dorado, CA
Placer, CA
Sacramento, CA
6960 Saginaw-Bay City-Midland, MI 0.9487
Bay, MI
Midland, MI
Saginaw, MI
6980 St. Cloud, MN 0.9586
Benton, MN
Stearns, MN
7000 St. Joseph, MO 0.9889
Andrew, MO
Buchanan, MO
7040 St. Louis, MO-IL 0.9151
Clinton, IL
Jersey, IL
Madison, IL
Monroe, IL
St. Clair, IL
Franklin, MO
Jefferson, MO
Lincoln, MO
St. Charles, MO
St. Louis, MO
St. Louis City, MO
Warren, MO
7080 Salem, OR 0.9904
Marion, OR
Polk, OR0
7120 Salinas, CA 1.5142
Monterey, CA
7160 Salt Lake City-Ogden, UT 0.9398
Davis, UT
Salt Lake, UT
Weber, UT
7200 San Angelo, TX 0.7646
Tom Green, TX
7240 San Antonio, TX 0.8100
Bexar, TX
Comal, TX
Guadalupe, TX
Wilson, TX
7320 San Diego, CA 1.2265
San Diego, CA
7360 San Francisco, CA 1.3957
Marin, CA
San Francisco, CA
San Mateo, CA
7400 San Jose, CA 1.3827
Santa Clara, CA
7440 San Juan-Bayamon, PR 0.4623
Aguas Buenas, PR
Barceloneta, PR
Bayamon, PR
Canovanas, PR
Carolina, PR
Catano, PR
Ceiba, PR
Comerio, PR
Corozal, PR
Dorado, PR
Fajardo, PR
Florida, PR
Guaynabo, PR
Humacao, PR
[[Page 58158]]
Juncos, PR
Los Piedras, PR
Loiza, PR
Luguillo, PR
Manati, PR
Morovis, PR
Naguabo, PR
Naranjito, PR
Rio Grande, PR
San Juan, PR
Toa Alta, PR
Toa Baja, PR
Trujillo Alto, PR
Vega Alta, PR
Vega Baja, PR
Yabucoa, PR
7460 San Luis Obispo-Atascadero-Paso Robles, CA 1.1264
San Luis Obispo, CA
7480 Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Lompoc, CA 1.1194
Santa Barbara, CA
7485 Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA 1.3981
Santa Cruz, CA
7490 Santa Fe, NM 0.9652
Los Alamos, NM
Santa Fe, NM
7500 Santa Rosa, CA 1.3597
Sonoma, CA
7510 Sarasota-Bradenton, FL 0.9532
Manatee, FL
Sarasota, FL
7520 Savannah, GA 1.0060
Bryan, GA
Chatham, GA
Effingham, GA
7560 Scranton--Wilkes-Barre--Hazleton, PA 0.8299
Columbia, PA
Lackawanna, PA
Luzerne, PA
Wyoming, PA
7600 Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA 1.1526
Island, WA
King, WA
Snohomish, WA
7610 Sharon, PA 0.8847
Mercer, PA
7620 Sheboygan, WI 0.8225
Sheboygan, WI
7640 Sherman-Denison, TX 0.8570
Grayson, TX
7680 Shreveport-Bossier City, LA 0.9386
Bossier, LA
Caddo, LA
Webster, LA
7720 Sioux City, IA-NE 0.8481
Woodbury, IA
Dakota, NE
7760 Sioux Falls, SD 0.8912
Lincoln, SD
Minnehaha, SD
7800 South Bend, IN 0.9859
St. Joseph, IN 0.9859
7840 Spokane, WA 1.0928
Spokane, WA
7880 Springfield, IL 0.8720
Menard, IL
Sangamon, IL
7920 Springfield, MO 0.8071
Christian, MO
Greene, MO
Webster, MO
8003 Springfield, MA 1.0990
Hampden, MA
Hampshire, MA
8050 State College, PA 0.9449
Centre, PA
8080 Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV 0.8428
Jefferson, OH
Brooke, WV
Hancock, WV
8120 Stockton-Lodi, CA 1.1075
San Joaquin, CA
8140 Sumter, SC 0.8127
Sumter, SC
8160 Syracuse, NY 0.9400
Cayuga, NY
Madison, NY
Onondaga, NY
Oswego, NY
8200 Tacoma, WA 1.0380
Pierce, WA
8240 Tallahassee, FL 0.8449
Gadsden, FL
Leon, FL
8280 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 0.9113
Hernando, FL
Hillsborough, FL
Pasco, FL
Pinellas, FL
8320 Terre Haute, IN 0.8991
Clay, IN
Vermillion, IN
Vigo, IN
8360 Texarkana, AR-Texarkana, TX 0.8506
Miller, AR
Bowie, TX
8400 Toledo, OH 0.9991
Fulton, OH
Lucas, OH
Wood, OH
8440 Topeka, KS 0.9812
Shawnee, KS
8480 Trenton, NJ 1.0509
Mercer, NJ
8520 Tucson, AZ 0.9028
Pima, AZ
8560 Tulsa, OK 0.8463
Creek, OK
Osage, OK
Rogers, OK
Tulsa, OK
Wagoner, OK
8600 Tuscaloosa, AL 0.7641
Tuscaloosa, AL
8640 Tyler, TX 0.8818
Smith, TX
8680 Utica-Rome, NY 0.8418
Herkimer, NY
Oneida, NY
8720 Vallejo-Fairfield-Napa, CA 1.3413
Napa, CA
Solano, CA
8735 Ventura, CA 1.1014
Ventura, CA
8750 Victoria, TX 0.8381
Victoria, TX
8760 Vineland-Millville-Bridgeton, NJ 1.0440
Cumberland, NJ
8780 Visalia-Tulare-Porterville, CA 1.0083
Tulare, CA
8800 Waco, TX 0.8371
McLennan, TX
8840 Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV 1.0807
District of Columbia, DC
Calvert, MD
Charles, MD
Frederick, MD
Montgomery, MD
Prince Georges, MD
Alexandria City, VA
Arlington, VA
Clarke, VA
Culpeper, VA
Fairfax, VA
Fairfax City, VA
Falls Church City, VA
Fauquier, VA
Fredericksburg City, VA
King George, VA
Loudoun, VA
Manassas City, VA
Manassas Park City, VA
Prince William, VA
Spotsylvania, VA
Stafford, VA
Warren, VA
Berkeley, WV
Jefferson, WV
8920 Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA 0.7958
Black Hawk, IA
8940 Wausau, WI 0.9733
Marathon, WI
8960 West Palm Beach-Boca Raton, FL 1.0219
Palm Beach, FL
9000 Wheeling, WV-OH 0.7627
Belmont, OH
Marshall, WV
Ohio, WV
9040 Wichita, KS 0.8898
Butler, KS
Harvey, KS
Sedgwick, KS
9080 Wichita Falls, TX 0.7830
Archer, TX
Wichita, TX
9140 Williamsport, PA 0.8556
Lycoming, PA
9160 Wilmington-Newark, DE-MD 1.1868
New Castle, DE
Cecil, MD
9200 Wilmington, NC 0.9343
New Hanover, NC
Brunswick, NC
9260 Yakima, WA 1.0318
Yakima, WA
9270 Yolo, CA 1.1233
Yolo, CA
9280 York, PA 0.9410
York, PA
[[Page 58159]]
9320 Youngstown-Warren, OH 0.9815
Columbiana, OH
Mahoning, OH
Trumbull, OH
9340 Yuba City, CA 1.0865
Sutter, CA
Yuba, CA
9360 Yuma, AZ 1.0058
Yuma, AZ
------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Abt Associates Case Mix Research Project Data
Under the Abt Associates case-mix research project (Contract Number
500-96-0003/TO2), data necessary for developing a system of case-mix
groups were collected and assembled into an analytic file. The basic
data components needed for case-mix system development were (1) a
reliable measure of resource cost for a defined unit of time and (2)
reliable measures of patient characteristics along with several
utilization variables. The patient and utilization variables were to be
tested for their usefulness as predictors of resource cost. The defined
unit of time was the 60-day payment episode, which was simulated from
dates appearing on Medicare claims and primary data (visit logs)
collected as part of the Abt Associates research. A total of 22,120
records for simulated 60-day episodes from more than 17,000 patients in
the study sample comprise the file. A random subsample of episode
records from this file was used for case-mix system development and
refinement. The remaining records were used to validate the predictive
accuracy of the recommended case-mix system. (A preliminary sample of
4,303 records available early in the study was used for most of the
period during which Abt Associates conducted case-mix system
development activities.)
After the case-mix system development phase was completed, the same
file--now with a case-mix group assigned to every 60-day episode
record--was combined with data on provider characteristics and national
episode counts to generate a set of sample weights for the Abt
Associates episode records. The provider characteristics data came from
the On-line Survey and Certification System (OSCAR) Provider of Service
file, and the national episode counts came from the episode claims file
described in subsection c. above. In addition to the sample weights,
the area hospital wage index applicable to each 60-day episode record
was merged onto the sample of episodes.
The sample weights were designed to make the sample episodes with
their case-mix group assignments represent 100 percent of the payment
episodes nationally in 1997. Weights were developed by case-mix group
for up to 32 stratification cells defined from an agency auspices
variable, urban/rural location, and regional location. Weights were
computed from the ratio of 1997 episodes in the stratum to episodes in
the sample from that stratum. Weights for initial 60-day episodes were
derived separately from weights for noninitial 60-day episodes.
After weighting the data, we estimated the average resource cost by
case-mix group, as well as the overall average resource cost. Ratios
formed from these averages provide case-mix relative weights. The
file's sample weights also permit national estimates of case-mix group
frequencies for 60-day episodes in 1997. Thus, the sample weights in
conjunction with the case-mix group assignment for each record in the
sample support two procedures underlying the rate setting methodology.
One is the computation of the case-mix relative weights shown in Table
9. This computation procedure is described in Section II.C.3. The
second procedure is the computation of the standardization factor
(which also relies on the merged area hospital wage index). For a
description of the standardization factor computation, see section
II.A.3.d.
The remainder of this section provides a summary of the study
sample and file construction activities leading to the Abt Associates
analytic file comprising 22,120 simulated 60-day episodes. More
detailed information on these aspects of the study is found in section
II.C below.
Ninety agencies were selected to provide the patient sample--a
cohort of all patients newly admitted between October 1997 and April
1998. Agencies were drawn from eight States (Arkansas, California,
Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin)
chosen to be representative of four census geographic regions
(northeast, north central, south, and west). Within these States,
agencies were selected from the four major auspices types (freestanding
for-profit, freestanding voluntary/private nonprofit, hospital-based,
and government) and both urban and rural areas. A final selection
criterion was the practice pattern of the agencies, measured in terms
of their visit volume relative to other agencies in the region.
Primary data sources for the study came from patient assessments
and visit logs. Secondary data came from Medicare claims and several
other administrative and economic data bases.
The assessment instrument consisted of OASIS data items
supplemented by approximately 40 additional assessment items. Using the
visit logs, agencies in the study collected data on every home health
visit to members of the cohort. The visit logs provide the study's
fundamental measure of resource use, the visit time, which is converted
into a standardized resource cost using Bureau of Labor Statistics
hourly wage data. Previous research on case mix generally used a
measure of resource use based on the count of visits. The case-mix
study measured time spent on visits rather than visit counts themselves
to provide more reliable information for forming case-mix groups than
did previous research.
Medicare claims for the 6-month cohort were linked to the patient
characteristics data (OASIS and other assessment items) and visit log
data to verify membership in the patient cohort, to provide utilization
measures, and to simulate 60-day episodes, using the from-and thru-
dates on the claims. Assessments were linked to an episode in the
simulation file only if the assessment was conducted within 14 days of
the start of the episode. Iterative matching algorithms, and intensive
manual review of potential matches, were used to match assessments and
visit logs to the claims records.
In order to estimate resource use for each 60-day period of care,
decision rules for allocating claims and visit logs by discipline to
60-day ``windows'' of time, or episodes, were developed.
After resources were calculated for all simulated payment segments,
analysis of the data revealed the presence of outliers in mean minutes
per visit by discipline within payment segment. Outlier values were
replaced with agency-level mean visit lengths by home health
discipline. The application of the various linkage rules resulted in
the final analytic file consisting of 22,120 60-day episodes of care.
Further information on these data procedures is provided below in
Section II.C. For complete details, see Abt Associates, Inc., Second
Interim Report, August 1999.
3. Methodology Used for the Calculation of the 60-Day Episode Payment
Amount
The methodology used to compute the standardized national 60-day
episode payment rates was a multistep process combining each of the
data sources described above. As stated above,
[[Page 58160]]
section 1895(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act, requires--(1) the computation of a
standard prospective payment amount that includes all costs of home
health services covered and paid for on a reasonable-cost basis be
initially based on the most recent audited cost report data available
to the Secretary, and (2) the prospective payment amounts to be
standardized to eliminate the effects of case mix and wage levels among
HHAs. Section 5101(c)(1) of the OCESAA amends section 1895(b)(3)(A)(ii)
of the Act, to require the standard prospective payment amounts be
budget neutral to the amounts expended under the current interim
payment system with the limits reduced by 15 percent at the inception
of the PPS on October 1, 2000. The data used to develop the HHA PPS
rates were adjusted using the latest available market basket increases
occurring between the cost reporting periods contained in our database
and September 30, 2001.
With data described above we calculated the standard average
prospective payment amount for the 60-day episode using the following
formula:
The nonstandardized average prospective payment amount for a 60-day
episode is calculated by--
(1) multiplying the national mean cost per visit updated for
inflation for each of the six disciplines (skilled nursing, physical
therapy, occupational therapy, speech-language pathology services,
medical social services, and home health aide services) in a 60-day
episode by (2) the national mean utilization for each of the six
disciplines in a 60-day episode summed in the aggregate. Added to this
amount are amounts for (1) nonroutine medical supplies paid on a
reasonable-cost basis under a home health plan of care, (2) possible
unbundled nonroutine medical supplies billed under Part B that will be
included under the PPS rate, and (3) an OASIS adjustment to pay HHAs
for estimated ongoing OASIS assessment reporting costs.
Nonroutine Medical Supplies
The per-episode nonroutine medical supply amounts, paid on a
reasonable cost basis under a home health plan of care, were calculated
by summing the nonroutine medical supply costs for all of the providers
in the audited cost report sample weighted to represent the national
population and updated to FY 2001. That total was divided by the number
of episodes for the providers in the audited cost report sample
weighted to represent the national population and updated to FY 2001.
The per-episode possible unbundled nonroutine medical supply
amounts billed under Part B included in the PPS rate were calculated by
summing the allowed charges for the 199 HCPC codes (described in
section II.A.2.c.) in calendar year 1997 for beneficiaries under a home
health plan of care. That total was divided by the total number of
episodes in calendar year 1997 from the episode database.
Ongoing OASIS Cost Adjustments
In the August 11, 1998 IPS Per-Visit and Per-Beneficiary
Limitations notice (63 FR 42912) HCFA discussed a proposed adjustment
for HHAs for the agency collection of the Outcome Assessment
Information Set (OASIS) Data. Collecting and reporting OASIS is a
condition of Medicare participation for HHAs. As we stated in the
August 11, 1998 IPS notice, we believe there will be no permanent
ongoing incremental costs associated with OASIS collection.
Additionally, we believe that there will be no further one-time, start-
up, OASIS reporting costs beyond those recognized at the inception of
OASIS collection under IPS. However, we do believe that ongoing costs
are associated with reporting OASIS data. Our proposed adjustment for
the ongoing costs associated with OASIS reporting is based on
information from the ongoing Medicare Quality and Improvement
Demonstration, as well as the OASIS demonstration data. We assume, for
purposes of deriving the OASIS proposed adjustment, that the typical
HHA has 486 admissions and 30,000 visits per year and an 18 person
staff. OASIS reporting adjustments are unlike the one-time OASIS
collection adjustments published in the August 11, 1998 Federal
Register which were based only on the number of skilled visits. These
reporting adjustments are based on total Medicare visits. The following
are HCFA's estimates of costs a typical HHA will incur for OASIS
reporting which form the basis of the per-visit OASIS reporting
adjustment and the per-episode OASIS adjustment. The first descriptive
chart below shows the base OASIS reporting costs for an HHA which
include the following: audits to ensure data accuracy; data entry,
editing and auditing; supplies; and telephone costs. We estimate these
ongoing OASIS costs to total $.101228 per visit. The second descriptive
chart shows the OASIS personal computer costs for those HHAs that are
unable to run OASIS because they lack the requisite hardware needed to
support automation of the assessment tool. We estimate this percentage
to be 50 percent (64 FR 3759). These costs consist of the depreciation
of a personal computer and printer. For years one through three, HHAs
are able to depreciate both their personal computer and printer. We
estimate this OASIS cost to be $.026778 per visit. For years four and
five, HHAs can only depreciate their printer. We estimate this OASIS
cost to be $.004 per visit. In order for HHAs to keep pace with the
ever evolving computing standards, to include enhancements to computer
hardware and software, as well as future versions of Haven's OASIS
software, this process of the depreciation of computer hardware is one
that would repeat itself every five years. In that vain, a yearly
average computer hardware depreciation adjustment was computed to yield
an OASIS adjustment for each of the five years. This was accomplished
by multiplying the first three years' computer hardware depreciation
adjustment of $.026778 by 3, multiplying the following two years'
computer hardware depreciation adjustment of $.004 by 2, summing those
two factors, and dividing that sum by the total number of depreciable
years(5) to get a yearly average for the computer hardware depreciation
adjustment of $.017667. This yearly average for computer hardware
depreciation adjustments ($.017667), when added to the base OASIS
adjustment ($.101228), results in a total OASIS adjustment of $.118895
rounded to $.12 per visit.
For purposes of calculating the ongoing OASIS adjustment for the
60-day episode payment, we multiplied the average number of visits per
60-day episode (36 visits) by the total rounded per-visit OASIS
adjustment ($.12 per visit). The calculation resulted in a per-episode
OASIS adjustment of $4.32 for each 60-day episode under HHA PPS. The
home health prospective payment calculation is provided in Table 5.
We calculated the ongoing OASIS adjustment for the low utilization
payment adjustments by adding the total rounded per-visit OASIS
adjustment ($.12 per visit) to the national standardized average cost
per visit by discipline for each of the four or fewer visits provided
in the episode. The low utilization payment adjustment calculation is
provided in Table 6.
BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
[[Page 58161]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28OC99.000
[[Page 58162]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28OC99.001
[[Page 58163]]
The nonstandardized average prospective payment amount must be
standardized to eliminate the effects of case mix and wage levels among
HHAs. The standard average prospective payment amount for the 60-day
episode equals the nonstandardized average prospective payment amount
for a 60-day episode divided by the standardization factor. The
standardization factor is discussed in section II.A.3.d. of this
regulation. Once the payment rate is standardized, that amount is
multiplied by the budget-neutrality factor. The budget-neutrality
factor is discussed in section II.A.3.e. of this regulation. The
standardized budget-neutral amount is divided by 1.05 to account for
outlier payments capped at 5 percent of total estimated outlays under
PPS.
The actual national 60-day episode payment amount that will be paid
to HHAs incorporates the standard average prospective payment amount
adjusted to account for case mix and wage index. All of the elements
incorporated into the national 60-day episode payment amounts (the
standard average prospective payment amount adjusted to account for
case mix and wage index) must be budget neutral to the interim payment
system limitation amounts reduced by 15 percent. Table 5 illustrates
the home health prospective payment calculation.
[[Page 58164]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28OC99.002
[[Page 58165]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28OC99.003
[[Page 58166]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28OC99.004
BILLING CODE 4120-01-C
[[Page 58167]]
Each component of the methodology is discussed below. The
methodology set forth in this rule may be refined based on the
accumulation of national OASIS data reported to us. We are specifically
soliciting comments on the impact on HHAs to financially comply with
the methodology set forth in this section.
a. Cost Data--60-Day Episode Payment
The audited cost data is discussed above in detail in section
II.A.2.a. of this proposed regulation. The data source used in
developing the national mean cost per visit for a 60-day episode is the
audited cost report sample database. We calculated the national mean
cost per visit for each of the six disciplines (skilled nursing,
physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech-language pathology
services, medical social services, and home health aide services) used
in a 60-day episode. The data source in developing the average cost per
episode for nonroutine medical supplies paid on a reasonable-cost basis
under a home health plan of care is the audited cost report sample
database also discussed in section II.A.2.a. and III of this proposed
regulation.
b. Utilization Data--60-Day Episode Payment
As discussed above, developing the national mean number of visits
for each of the six disciplines in a 60-day episode resulted from the
thorough analysis of the national claims history. See section II.A.2.c.
of this regulation for a detailed description of the utilization data
analysis.
c. Updating the Data
The HHA market basket index reflects changes over time in the
prices of an appropriate mix of goods and services included in covered
HHA services. The HHA market basket index is used to develop the
national 60-day episode payment rates. The data used to develop the HHA
PPS rates were adjusted using the latest available market basket
increases occurring between the cost reporting periods contained in our
database and September 30, 2001. For fiscal year 2002 or 2003, sections
1895(b)(3)(B)(i) and (b)(3)(B)(ii) of the Act require the standard
prospective payment amounts be increased by a factor equal to the home
health market basket minus 1.1 percentage points. In addition, for any
subsequent fiscal years, the statute requires the rates to be increased
by the applicable home health market basket index change. A complete
discussion concerning the design and application of the HHA market
basket index and the factors used in developing the 60-day episode
payment rates is discussed in section II.A.2.b. of this regulation.
d. Standardization Factor
Section 1895(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act requires that the prospective
payment amounts be standardized to eliminate the effects of variation
in wage levels and case mix among HHAs. The objective of
standardization is to ensure that the wage-index and case-mix
adjustments to the episode payment amount do not alter the aggregate
payments that would occur in the absence of these adjustments. All the
estimates described in this section are based on episodes with more
than four visits since only those episodes will be paid on a per-
episode basis.
Several types of information are required for standardization. To
account for wage differences, the proportion of labor and nonlabor
components of HHA costs must be identified. These proportions are based
on the relative importance of the different components of the HHA
market basket index. As calculated, the labor-related portion of cost
is 77 percent and the nonlabor-related portion is 23 percent. Wage
differences are measured using the hospital wage index. In
standardizing the episode payment amount, we used the FY 1999 hospital
wage index, which is based on 1995 hospital wage data. For application
of the wage index, the statute allows us to use the service area or any
other area we specify. To be consistent with the current interim
payment system, the wage index value that will be applied to the labor
portion of the episode amount will be the appropriate wage index for
the geographic area where the beneficiary received home health
services.
To account for case-mix differences, it is necessary to have
information on the distribution of 60-day home health episodes among
the 80 groups of the HHRG case-mix system. For this proposed rule, the
only available nationally representative sample of Medicare home health
episodes with information on HHRG case mix is the Abt data set
(described in section II.C. of the preamble) that was used to develop
the HHRG case-mix classification system. As national OASIS data become
available, we will develop a national data set that may enable us to
refine our standardization estimate for the final rule. Also required
for standardization is the set of HHRG relative weights that reflect
the resource intensity of the average episode in each HHRG group
relative to the overall average episode. A detailed description of the
HHRG relative weights appears in section II.C. of this regulation.
Ideally, standardization would be estimated using nationally
representative data with information on the joint variation in case-mix
and wage-index values. Currently, national data on wage-index variation
are only available from the episode data set constructed from 1997
Medicare home health claims. However, we are not able to classify these
data by case mix using the HHRGs. Only the Abt data set currently
provides information on both wage and case-mix variation. However,
because they are a sample, the Abt data provide less information on
wage variation than the claims episode data set.
In calculating standardization factors using the Abt sample,
population weights that reflect the number of episodes in the national
population represented by each sample episode were used in place of 1.0
for each episode to obtain the best population estimate from the
sample. These weights take account of the region, agency type, and
urban/rural characteristics used to stratify the Abt sample as well as
the case-mix distribution among HHRGs in the Abt data. The national
episode data derived from 1997 home health claims were the source of
the population estimates of episodes by region and agency
characteristics. These weights should not be confused with the audit
sample weights described in section II.A.2.a. The Abt sample weights
are described in detail in Appendix F of Abt Associates, Inc. Case-Mix
Adjustment for a National Home Health Prospective Payment System.
Second Interim Report, August 1999.
To make full use of the available data, we developed the following
strategy for standardizing the episode amount: First, we estimated two
standardization factors using the Abt data set. One accounts only for
variation in wage-index values; the other accounts for both case-mix
and wage-index variation. The Abt standardization factors differ by
about .006 (.96093 vs. .96667). Next, the wage-only standardization
factor from the Abt data was compared to the wage-only standardization
factor computed from the national claims episode data (.96093 vs.
.94935). These standardization factors differ by about .012. These
three estimates are quite consistent with one another. However, because
the wage-only standardization factor based on the national claims data
provides the most reliable estimate of the effects of wage variation,
we decided to use it (.94935) after applying a small adjustment for the
combined effects of wage and case-mix variation. Therefore,
[[Page 58168]]
we multiplied .94935 by the ratio of the two Abt estimates
(.9667/.96093=1.00597) to obtain a standardization factor of .95502.
Each of the three estimates of the standardization factor was
calculated in the following manner: For each episode (or in the case of
the Abt data, the number of episodes represented by each sample
episode), the appropriate wage-index value was multiplied by the labor-
related proportion of cost (.77) and added to the nonlabor-related
proportion (.23) to obtain a wage-adjustment factor. In turn, the wage-
adjustment factor was multiplied by the HHRG relative weight. The
product of the wage and case-mix factors was summed over all episodes
in the database, yielding a case-mix and wage-adjusted episode sum.
Dividing the case-mix and wage-adjusted episode sum by the total number
of episodes (the unadjusted episode sum) yields the standardization
factor, a ratio that indicates how the combined effects of wage and
case-mix variation impact aggregate payments. If the standardization
factor is greater than one, the unstandardized episode cost must be
reduced to account for the aggregate payment effect of the case-mix and
wage-index payment adjustments. If the factor is less than one, then
the unstandardized episode cost must be increased to accomplish the
same objective. The standardized episode amount is equal to the
unstandardized episode cost divided by the standardization factor. Note
that all three of our estimates were less than one, which implies that
the standardization factor increases the standard episode amount. Our
final standardization factor produces an increase of about 4.7 percent.
The OASIS data should give us better information about the national
distribution of episodes across the HHRG categories. As these data are
collected and reported, we will examine them to determine whether
refinements to the current estimate are needed.
e. Budget-Neutrality Factor
Section 1895(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act requires that the standardized
prospective payment amounts be computed in a budget-neutral manner so
that the total amounts payable under the PPS are equal to the amounts
that would have been made if the PPS were not in effect (that is,
payments were made under the interim payment system) but if the per-
visit and per-beneficiary limits had been reduced by 15 percent. The
BBA had established budget-neutrality with respect to expenditures that
would have been made under the interim payment system for FY 2000 (that
is, beginning October 1, 1999), and section 5101(c) of OCESAA changed
the date for the budget-neutrality calculation to be expenditures that
would have been made under the interim payment system for FY 2001 (that
is, beginning October 1, 2000), as if the 15 percent reduction in per-
visit and per-beneficiary limits had taken place. Before calculating
home health PPS rates in 2001, the IPS rates are reduced by 15 percent.
Then, the total amounts payable under the PPS are calculated in a
budget neutral fashion to be what would have been expended under the
current interim payment system with the limits reduced by 15 percent at
the inception of the PPS on October 1, 2000. The reduction in the IPS
limits will occur even if the PPS is not implemented by the October 1,
2000 statutory deadline.
To determine the adjustment factor, we determined what would have
been paid under a prospective payment system having an episode payment
of the non-standardized payment rate described earlier, which is
$2,599.56. Under this system, in cases where a beneficiary receives
four or fewer visits in an episode, we plan to reimburse at the per-
visit rates described in low utilization payment adjustment methodology
section of this regulation. We assumed that 5 percent of episodes would
be reimbursed under this method. We determined the average
reimbursement in these cases would be $348.72. This amount was
determined by taking the difference between the non-standardized
episode payment without low utilization episodes, $2,599.56 and the
non-standardized payment that included such episodes in the average
payment, $2,250.84.
In determining how many episodes there will be in fiscal year 2001,
results from the analysis of the calendar year 1997 episode file were
applied to the actual number of visits incurred in calendar year 1997.
The most accurate estimate of incurred visits for 1997 is 281.6
million. The number of visits per episode resulting from these visits
would have been 31.34, resulting in 8.985 million episodes. Although
the number of visits in total has declined since 1997, there is nothing
to indicate whether this would affect the number of 60-day episodes in
a year. We are projecting that the total number of episodes will be the
same in fiscal year 2001 as it was for 1997, 8.985 million. It is
estimated that 95 percent of these episodes will be receiving an
average payment of $2,599.56 and 5 percent will receive an average
payment of $348.72. This would result in incurred fee-for-service home
health payments of (8.985*.95*2599.56)+(8.985*.05* 348.72), equaling
$22,346 million for fiscal year 2001.
The current projection of incurred fee-for-service home health
expenditures for FY 2001 under IPS with a 15 percent reduction in the
per-visit and beneficiary cap limits is $17,466 million. We add to this
the projected costs of the non-routine medical supplies under PPS that
may have otherwise been unbundled under the interim payment system,
which is $93 million. The budget neutrality factor is then calculated
by dividing the sum of (1) our current projection for fee-for-service
incurred home health expenditures and (2) the projected non-routine
medical supplies currently paid by fee schedule by the projected
aggregate episode payments: (17,466+93)/22,346=0.78578. The resulting
budget neutrality factor is 0.78578.
4. Methodology Used for Low-Utilization Payments
As discussed above, section 1895(b)(1) of the Act requires the
development of the definition of the unit of payment or episode to take
into consideration the number, type, duration, mix, and cost of visits
provided within the unit of payment. As a result of our analysis, we
determined the need to also recognize a low-utilization payment under
HHA PPS. Low-utilization payment would reduce the 60-day episode
payments or the PEPA to those HHAs that provide minimal services to
patients during a 60-day episode.
Payments for low-utilization episodes will be made on a per-visit
basis using the cost-per-visit rates by discipline determined from the
audited cost report sample for calculation of the standard episode
amount. Included in these per-visit amounts are amounts for (1)
nonroutine medical supplies paid under a home health plan of care, (2)
nonroutine medical supplies possibly unbundled to Part B, and (3) a per
visit ongoing OASIS reporting adjustment as discussed above in section
II.A.3 of this regulation. These per-visit ``prices'' would be updated
and adjusted for budget neutrality in the same manner as the standard
episode amount. For low-utilization payments, they would be adjusted by
the wage index in the same manner as the standard episode amount.
However, the low-utilization payments are not case mix adjusted. The
standardization factor used to adjust the LUPAs was calculated using
national claims data for episodes containing four or fewer visits. This
standardization factor includes adjustments only for the
[[Page 58169]]
wage index. The ``savings'' from the reduced episode payments would be
redistributed to all episodes.
Below is Table 6, which presents the home health low-utilization
provider adjustment payment calculation.
Table 6.--Home Health Low-Utilization Provider Adjustment Payment Calculation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average cost per
Average cost per visit for non Average Final wage
Average visit for non routine medical cost per standardized and
cost per routine medical supplies possibly visit for Standardization Budget Outlier budget neutral
Home health discipline type visit from supplies unbundled and ongoing factor for wage neutrality adjustment per visit
the PPS reported as billed separately OASIS index \1\ factor \2\ factor \3\ payment amounts
audit costs on the to part B and adjustment per 60-day
sample cost report reimbursed on the costs \4\ episode for FY
fee schedule 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home Health Aide Services... $41.66 $1.41 $0.35 $0.12 .94622 .78578 1.05 $34.44
Medical Social Services..... 154.03 1.41 0.35 0.12 .94622 .78578 1.05 123.31
Occupational Therapy. 103.79 1.41 0.35 0.12 .94622 .78578 1.05 83.57
Services...................
Physical Therapy Services... 103.56 1.41 0.35 0.12 .94622 .78578 1.05 83.39
Skilled Nursing Services.... 94.62 1.41 0.35 0.12 .94622 .78578 1.05 76.32
Speech Pathology Services... 112.91 1.41 0.35 0.12 .94622 .78578 1.05 90.79
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on 100% episode for episodes with 4 or fewer visits and wage index only standardization factor.
\2\ Budget neutral to current IPS with 15% reduction in limits.
\3\ Adjustment to PPS rate to account for 5% of total payments to outlier episodes.
\4\ See Section II.A.3 for description of calculation of OASIS Adjustment cost.
Calculation for Nonroutine Medical Supplies Per-Visit Amount Included in
the Home Health Benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non Routine Medical Supplies included in the home $419,729,371.85
health benefit and reported as costs on the Cost
Report \1\..........................................
Total number of visits for those providers in the 298,478,790
audited cost report sample \2\......................
Average Cost per visits for Non Routine Medical $1.41
Supplies included in the home health benefit and
reported as costs on the Cost Report................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Source: Audited Cost Report Data from the audit sample updated to FY
2001 and weighted to National Totals.
\2\ Source: Calendar Year 1997 Episode file.
Calculation for Nonroutine Medical Supplies Per-Visit Amount Possibly
Unbundled and Billed Under Part B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non Routine Medical Supplies possibly unbundled and $92,958,370.81
billed separated to Part B and reimbursed on the Fee
Schedule \1\........................................
Total number of visits for all providers in the 263,144,000
calendar year 1997 file adjusted for estimated total
episodes in FY 2001 \2\.............................
Average Payment per visits for Non Routine Medical $0.35
Supplies possibly unbundled and billed separately to
Part B..............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Source: 1997 National Claims History Part B file extract for 199
codes matched to the 60-day episode file by beneficiary and dates of
service.
\2\ Calendar Year 1997 Episode file.
5. Methodology Used for Outlier Payments
As discussed above, while we are not statutorily required to make
provision for outlier payments, we are proposing outlier payments.
Outlier payments are payments made in addition to regular 60-day case-
mix-adjusted episode payments for episodes that incur unusually large
costs due to patient home health care needs. Outlier payments would be
made for episodes whose estimated cost exceeds a threshold amount for
each HHRG. The outlier threshold for each HHRG is defined as the 60-day
episode payment for the HHRG plus a fixed dollar loss amount that is
the same for all case-mix groups. Outlier payments can be made for 60-
day episode payments that reflect a PEP adjustment or SCIC adjustment.
The PEP adjustment results in a truncated episode period and a SCIC
adjustment results in a total of two proportional payments over a 60-
day episode, but these periods could still incur unusually large costs.
The outlier threshold for the PEP adjustment is the PEP adjustment plus
a fixed dollar loss. The outlier threshold for the SCIC adjustment
equals the total SCIC payment plus a fixed dollar loss. The wage
adjusted component discussed below will be applied consistently for the
60-day episode payment, the PEP adjustment, and the total SCIC
adjustment. The outlier payment is defined to be a proportion of the
estimated costs beyond the threshold. The proportion of additional
costs paid as outlier payments is referred to as the loss-sharing
ratio.
The fixed dollar loss amount and the loss-sharing ratio are chosen
so that estimated total outlier payments are 5 percent of total episode
payments. The 5 percent constraint on total outlier payments creates a
tradeoff between the values selected for the fixed dollar loss amount
and the loss-sharing ratio. For a given level of outlier payments, a
higher fixed dollar loss amount reduces the number of cases that
receive outlier payments, but makes it possible to select a higher
loss-sharing ratio and therefore increase outlier payments per episode.
Alternatively, a lower fixed dollar loss amount means that more
episodes qualify for outlier payments, but outlier payments per episode
must be lower. Therefore, setting these two parameters involves policy
choices about the number of outlier cases and their rate of payment.
Estimating the fixed dollar loss amount and loss-sharing ratios
that are consistent with the 5 percent constraint requires simulation
of payments under the PPS (including PEP adjustment, LUPA, 60-day
episode, SCIC adjustments and outlier payments) with and without
outlier payments. Feasible choices of fixed dollar loss amounts and
loss-sharing ratios must meet the following conditions: First, total
payments with and without outlier payments must be equal. Second, for
the simulation with outlier payments, total outlier payments must be 5
percent of total payments including outlier payments. In calculating
LUPA and 60-day episode payments the standard per-visit and episode
amounts are divided by 1.05 as the means of financing the
[[Page 58170]]
outlier payments. There will be no retroactive payments or recoupments
in the event the projected amounts turn out to be different than the
actual payment.
This simulation requires information on the HHRG for each episode
with more than four visits in order to calculate the case-mix adjusted
episode payment. The case-mix adjusted payment is necessary to
determine the outlier threshold. In other words, episodes that qualify
for outlier payments cannot be identified without knowing the assigned
HHRG. Because the Abt sample data are the only data source that
contains HHRG information by episode, they were used to simulate
potential outlier policy parameters.
Another data requirement for the policy simulation and also for
actual implementation of an outlier payment policy is an estimate of
the resource cost of each episode. To calculate outlier payments, two
questions must be answered: Does the cost of the episode exceed the
outlier threshold, and if so, by how much? Using the Abt data, we
estimated the cost of each episode using the same method that we
propose to use for the low-utilization. Specifically, the national per-
visit cost amounts used in constructing the standard episode payment
amount were multiplied by the number of visits in each discipline to
estimate a standard cost of the episode. In actually making outlier
payments under PPS, the cost of outlier episodes would be calculated
using the per-visit ``prices'' for each discipline that are used to pay
for low-utilization episodes.
The wage adjustment can be conceptualized in two ways that are
mathematically equivalent. First, all components could be wage
adjusted: the case-mix adjusted episode amount, the fixed dollar loss
amount, and the estimated cost of the episode. Then the difference
between the wage-adjusted episode cost and the wage-adjusted outlier
threshold would be multiplied by the loss-sharing ratio to obtain the
outlier payment for the episode. Alternatively, but equivalently, the
outlier threshold and the episode cost could be determined without
applying the wage adjustment. Their difference could then be multiplied
by the loss-sharing ratio and wage adjusted to obtain the outlier
payment.
Simulations using the Abt data provide some guidance about the
tradeoffs involved in the choice of outlier policy parameters. As shown
below, a loss-sharing ratio of .80 is consistent with a fixed dollar
loss of 1.35 times the standard episode payment amount. With these
values, 5.5 percent of regular episodes would qualify for outlier
payments, and the average outlier payment per outlier episode would be
93 percent of the standard episode payment amount. Decreasing the loss-
sharing ratio to .70 supports a fixed dollar loss of 1.22 times the
standard episode payment amount and increases the percent of episodes
receiving outlier payments to 6.5 percent. For purposes of this rule,
we are proposing the outlier policy option of a fixed dollar loss of
1.07 times the standard episode payment amount and a loss sharing ratio
of .60. We believe this option provides the most equitable threshold
for qualification of an outlier payment in the first year of PPS. The
proposed option increases the estimated percent of episodes receiving
outlier payment to 7.5 percent while holding estimated outlier outlays
at the required 5 percent. We are interested in receiving comments
concerning the choice of the outlier policy parameters set forth below.
The data were collected between October 1997 and April 1998, a
period that is initially pre-interim payment system and that ends early
in the interim payment system experience. Again, the availability of
national OASIS data for outlier simulations before finalization of this
rule will help us refine our outlier estimates.
Options for Outlier Policy Parameters: The Tradeoff Between the Fixed Dollar Loss and the Loss Sharing Ratio
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outlier Outlier Outlier payment
Fixed dollar loss Loss sharing payments of episodes of of std. episode
ratio total payments total episodes amt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.35........................................ .80 5.0 5.5 .93
1.29........................................ .75 5.0 5.9 .93
1.22........................................ .70 5.0 6.5 .72
1.15........................................ .65 5.0 7.0 .66
1.07........................................ .60 5.0 7.5 .62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example: An HHA serves a beneficiary who resides in Harrisburg, PA.
The HHA determines the beneficiary is in HHRG C3F4S0. The episode
contained 88 skilled nursing visits and 60 home health aide visits. It
qualifies for outlier payments. To simplify matters and demonstrate the
determination of outlier payments, the example begins after the case-
mix-adjusted episode payment has been calculated. Further, Harrisburg
was chosen because its wage-index value is very close to 1.0060, and
again for simplicity, the wage-index adjustment has also been omitted.
1. Determine the outlier threshold for C3F4S0 with the fixed
dollar loss option of 1.07:
Outlier threshold = Fixed Dollar Loss + Case-mix adj. $2,179.63
payment Fixed Dollar Loss = 1.07 * $2,037.04...........
Case-mix adjusted episode payment = ($2,037.04 * 1.4357) $2,924.58
-----------
Outlier threshold................................... $5,104.21
2. Calculate the standard cost of the episode:
88 skilled nursing visits @ $76.32...................... $6,716.16
60 hh aide visits @ $34.44.............................. $2,066.40
-----------
Total cost.......................................... $8,782.56
3. Calculate the cost in excess of the threshold:
$8,782.56-$5,104.21..................................... $3,678.35
4. Calculate the outlier payment:
$3,678.35 * .6.......................................... $2,207.01
5. Calculate total payment for the episode:
$2,924.58 + $2,207.01................................... $5,131.59
B. Examples of National Standardized 60-Day Episode Payment Amounts and
Low-Utilization Payment Adjustments
For any HHRG group, to compute a case-mix and wage-adjusted 60-day
episode prospective payment amount, the standardized prospective
payment rate for FY 2001 (see Table 5 of this regulation) is multiplied
by the case-mix index from Table 9 for that HHRG
[[Page 58171]]
group. To compute a wage-adjusted national 60-day episode payment, the
labor-related portion of the 60-day national prospective payment rate
for FY 2001 is multiplied by the HHA's appropriate wage-index factor
listed in Table 4A or 4B. The product of that calculation is added to
the corresponding nonlabor-related component. The resulting amount is
the national case-mix and wage-adjusted 60-day episode prospective
payment rate for FY 2001.
Example 1.--An HHA is providing services to a Medicare beneficiary in
State College, PA. The HHA determines the beneficiary is in HHRG C2F2S2
COMPUTATION OF CASE MIX AND WAGE ADJUSTED PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT AMOUNT
Case mix index from Table 9 for case mix group.............. 1.8275
Standardized Prospective Payment Rate for FY 2001........... $2,037.04
Calculate the Case Mix adjusted Prospective Payment Rate for $3,722.69
FY 2001 (1.8275 * $2,037.04)...............................
Calculate the Labor portion of the Prospective Payment Rate $2,891.34
for FY 2001 (.77668 * $ 3,722.69)..........................
Apply wage index factor from Table 4B for patient in State $2,732.03
College, PA (0.9449 * $ 2,891.34)..........................
Calculate the Non-Labor portion of the Prospective Payment $831.35
Rate for FY 2001 (.22332 * $3,722.69)......................
Calculate Total Prospective Payment Rate for FY 2001 by $3,563.38
adding the labor and non labor portion of the case mix and
wage index amounts ($2,732.03 + $831.35)...................
Example 2. An HHA serves a beneficiary who resides in Lake Placid, NY.
The HHA determines the patient is in HHRG C1F4S3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPUTATION OF CASE MIX AND WAGE ADJUSTED PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT AMOUNT
Case mix index from Table 9 for case mix group.............. 2.2241
Standardized Prospective Payment Rate for FY 2001........... $2,037.04
Calculate the Case Mix adjusted Prospective Payment Rate for $4,530.58
FY 2001 (2.2241 * $2,037.04)...............................
Calculate the Labor portion of the Prospective Payment Rate $3,518.81
for FY 2001 .77668 * $4,530.58)............................
Apply wage index factor from Table 4A for patient in Lake $3,021.95
Placid, NY (0.8588 * $3,518.81)............................
Calculate the Nonlabor portion of the Prospective Payment $1,011.77
Rate for FY 2001 (.22332 * $4,530.58)......................
Calculate Total Prospective Payment Rate for FY 2001 by $4,033.72
adding the labor and nonlabor portion of the case mix and
wage index amounts ($3,021.95 + $ 1,011.77)................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example 3.--HHA Serves a Beneficiary Who Resides in Fort Collins, CO.
The HHA Determines the Beneficiary Is in HHRG C3F0S0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPUTATION OF CASE MIX AND WAGE ADJUSTED PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT AMOUNT
Case mix index from Table 9 for case mix group.............. .9591
Standardized Prospective Payment Rate for FY 2001........... $2,037.04
Calculate the Case Mix adjusted Prospective Payment Rate for $1,953.73
FY 2001 (.9591 * $ 2,037.04)...............................
Calculate the Labor portion of the Prospective Payment Rate $1,517.42
for FY 2001 (.77668 * $1,953.73)...........................
Apply wage index factor from Table 4B for patient in Fort $1,634.26
Collins, CO (1.0770 * $1,517.42)...........................
Calculate the Non-Labor portion of the Prospective Payment $436.31
Rate for FY (2001 .22332 * $1,953.73)......................
Calculate Total Prospective Payment Rate for FY 2001 by $2,070.57
adding the labor and non labor portion of the case mix and
wage index amounts ($1,634.26 + $ 436.31)..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example 4.--HHA Serves a Beneficiary Who Resides in Grand Forks, ND. The
HHA Determines the Beneficiary Is in HHRG C0F3S1
COMPUTATION OF CASE MIX AND WAGE ADJUSTED PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT AMOUNT
Case mix index from Table 9 for case mix group.............. .8537
Standardized Prospective Payment Rate for FY 2001........... $2,037.04
Calculate the Case Mix adjusted Prospective Payment Rate for $1,739.02
FY 2001 (.8537* $2,037.04).................................
Calculate the Labor portion of the Prospective Payment Rate $1,350.66
for FY 2001 (.77668 * $1,739.02)...........................
Apply wage index factor from Table 4B for patient in Grand $1,193.44
Forks, ND (0.8836 * $1,350.66).............................
Calculate the Non-Labor portion of the Prospective Payment $388.36
Rate for FY (2001 .22332 * $1,739.02)......................
Calculate Total Prospective Payment Rate for FY 2001 by $1,581.80
adding the labor and non labor portion of the case mix and
wage index amounts ($1,193.44 + $388.36)...................
Example 5. An HHA in Baltimore, MD assigns a patient to an HHRG at
the start of a 60-day episode. The final claim for the patient
indicates that only two visits (one skilled nursing and one home health
aide) were furnished during the 60-day episode. The HHA would be paid
the low-utilization payment adjustment. Any necessary adjustment to the
50 percent initial payment for the episode would be made on subsequent
claims for the HHA.
Computation of Wage Index Adjusted Low Utilization Payment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final wage
standardized
and budget
neutral per-
Number and visit discipline type visit payment
amounts per 60-
day episode
for FY2001 \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Skilled Nursing Visit................................. $76.32
1 Home Health Aide Visit................................ 34.44
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Table 6 for the Calculation of Final Wage Standardized and
Budget Neutral Per-Visit Payment Amounts Per 60-Day Episode for FY
2001.
Calculate the labor portion of the Standardized Budget Neutral Per-
Visit Payment Amount for 1 Skilled Nursing Visit--.77668 * $76.32 =
$59.28
Apply wage index factor from Table 4B for Baltimore, MD--.9642 *
$59.28 = $57.15
Calculate the non-labor portion of the Standardized Budget Neutral
Per-Visit Payment Amount for 1 Skilled Nursing Visit--.22332* $76.32
= $17.04
[[Page 58172]]
SUBTOTAL-Low Utilization Payment for 1 Wage Adjusted Skilled Nursing
Visit rendered in a 60-day episode--$57.15 + $17.04 = $74.19
Calculate the labor portion of the Standardized Budget Neutral Per-
Visit Payment Amount for 1 home health aide visit--.77668* $34.44 =
$26.75
Apply wage index factor from Table 4B for Baltimore, MD--.9642*
$26.75 = $25.79
Calculate the non-labor portion of the Standardized Budget Neutral
Per-Visit Payment Amount for 1 home health aide visit--.22332*
$34.44 = $7.69
SUBTOTAL--Low Utilization Payment for 1 wage adjusted home health
aide visit rendered in a 60-day episode--$25.79 + $7.69 = $33.48
Calculate Total Low Utilization Payment Adjustment for 2 visits
provided during the 60-day episode by adding the wage adjusted
skilled nursing visit and the wage adjusted home health aide visit--
$74.19 + $33.48 = $107.67
C. Design and Methodology for Case-Mix Adjustment of 60-Day Episode
Payments
1. Background on Clinical Model Patient Classification System
As discussed above in section I.C. of this regulation, in 1996, we
began the current research project. The basic approach to the home
health case-mix adjuster development was to use the patient data and
other appropriate data to define alternative case-mix adjusters and
then estimate their ability to explain variation (R-squared value) in
resource use over the course of a 60-day payment period. Compared to
the 120-day payment period tested under the Phase II per-episode HHA
PPS Demonstration, a 60-day payment period will make payments more
responsive to the needs of long-stay home health patients and Medicare
(as the payor), as discussed in section I.D.1.a of the preamble to this
regulation.
The two basic data sources for the study are case-mix explanatory
variables from the patient data on OASIS-B (supplemented by additional
patient-specific items) and a resource-use variable from visit data. To
arrive at an estimate of resource use from the visit logs (as discussed
in section I.C. of this regulation), time is weighted by mean labor
cost for the discipline providing the visit. Medicare claims were
linked to the OASIS data and the visit log data to verify the visits
and provide utilization measures.
Clinical judgment was used to refine the components and structure
of a decision tree for assigning patients into case-mix groups. Along
with clinical judgment, the relative predictive value of potential
case-mix variables, their susceptibility to gaming and subjectivity,
and as well as administrative implications were considered in the final
resolution of the elements retained in the Clinical Model. The Clinical
Model consists of 80 HHRGs and has an R-squared of 32 percent. The
information to assign a patient to one of the 80 HHRGs are comprised of
19 OASIS-B elements supplemented by one additional patient status item
regarding projected therapy use in the 60-day episode. The non-OASIS
items tested in the case-mix research did not significantly increase
the predictive value of the model; therefore, the non-OASIS items were
not included in the final case-mix methodology.
2. Home Health Resource Group (HHRG) Classification System
In the HHRG case-mix classification system, patient characteristics
and health status information from the OASIS-B such as ``primary home
care diagnosis,'' ``ability to perform ADLs'' as supplemented by
projected therapy use during a 60-day episode, will be used to assign
the patient to an HHRG for payment.
The HHRG system measures three dimensions of case mix. Table 7
provides the HHRG system three-level decision tree logic.
BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
[[Page 58173]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28OC99.005
[[Page 58174]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28OC99.006
BILLING CODE 4120-01-C
A patient can be classified in one of 80 possible HHRG categories.
The first level of the decision tree is the Clinical Dimension, which
is divided into four severity groups. A patient is assigned one of four
severity levels in the Clinical Dimension: minimum, low, moderate, or
high clinical severity. To determine the severity group, a numeric
score is applied to each answer provided to the following 12 clinical
OASIS-B items: MO230 primary home health diagnosis, MO250 IV/Infusion/
Parenteral/Enteral Therapies, MO390 Vision, MO420 Pain, MO460 Current
Pressure Ulcer Stage, MO476 Stasis Ulcer, MO488 Surgical Wound, MO490
Dyspnea, MO530 Urinary Incontinence, MO540 Bowel Incontinence, MO550
Bowel Ostomy, MO610 Behavioral Problems. Table 7 provides the
corresponding numeric scores for the responses provided to the items in
the four severity groups within the Clinical Dimension. The scores are
then summed. The severity level is determined by the value of the
summed score. The next level of the subdivision of the decision tree
logic is based on patient functional status.
The Functional Dimension is divided into five severity groups. A
patient is assigned one of five severity levels in the Functional
Dimension: minimum, low, moderate, high, or maximum functional
severity. To determine the severity group, a numeric score is applied
to each answer provided for the following six OASIS-B items: MO650 and
MO660 Dressing Upper and Lower Body, MO670 Bathing, MO680 Toileting,
MO690 Transferring, and MO700 Locomotion. Table 7 provides the
corresponding numeric scores to the responses provided to the
functional status items. The scores are then summed. The severity level
for the Functional Dimension is determined by the value of the summed
score. The final level of the subdivision of the decision tree logic is
the Services Utilization Dimension.
The Services Utilization Dimension is also divided into four
severity groups. A patient is assigned to one of the four following
severity levels in the Services Utilization Dimension: minimum, low,
moderate, or high. To determine the severity group, a numeric score is
applied to each answer provided to the following OASIS-B item divided
into two questions, and one supplemental item regarding projected
receipt of therapy use: MO170 hospital discharge in past 14 days, MO170
inpatient rehabilitation/SNF discharge in past 14 days, and receipt of
therapy. Table 7 provides the corresponding scores to the responses
provided to the items in the Services Utilization Dimension. The scores
are then summed. The severity level for the Services Utilization
Dimension is determined by the value of the summed scores.
We are proposing a utilization proxy for the time variable
corresponding to the need for 8 or more therapy hours during a 60-day
episode. As a result of the Abt case-mix research, Abt determined that
10 visits of physical therapy, occupational therapy, or speech-language
pathology services in any combination in a 60-day period equate to 8
hours of physical therapy, occupational therapy, or speech-language
pathology services in any combination in a 60-day period. At the
inception of HHA PPS, the case-mix treatment variable regarding the
need for 8 or more hours of therapy in a 60-day episode will be defined
as 10 visits of physical therapy, occupational therapy, or speech-
language pathology services in any combination furnished during the 60-
day episode.
As discussed above, HHAs will project the therapy need for the
patient at the start of the 60-day episode. In accordance with the
utilization proxy for time developed by Abt, the need for 8 or more
hours of therapy during the 60-day episode will be defined as 10 visits
of physical therapy, occupational therapy, or speech-language pathology
services in any combination in a 60-day episode. The projection of
therapy use
[[Page 58175]]
at the start of the 60-day episode (8 hours of therapy as defined as 10
visits) will be confirmed at the end of the 60-day episode with the
current line-item date visit billing requirements included on the final
claim under PPS. We envision that the pricer logic at the RHHI will
confirm the projection of the utilization data at the start of care
with the actual utilization data submitted on the final claim. If 8 or
more hours of therapy as defined as 10 therapy visits are projected at
the start of the episode and confirmed at the end of the episode via
the line-item date billing information on the final claim, the episode
would be paid at the case-mix index level including the therapy-use
variable. This assumes no adjustment for other reasons, for example,
medical review etc. However, the reconciliation of projected therapy
use with actual therapy use has the potential to decrease the final
episode payment if the actual therapy use reported at the end of the
episode on the final claim does not correspond to projected therapy use
provided at the start of the episode. Depending upon the results of the
reporting of 15-minute increment billing, we will of course consider
reverting to measure the therapy use in terms of hours by 15-minute
increments rather than visits.
We are soliciting comments on the financial impact of this proposal
on HHAs as well as suggestions for future research to refine the PPS
methodology after implementation. The 60-day payment schedule results
in conforming changes to the current time frames governing plan of care
certifications and recertifications and the cycle of OASIS assessments.
The conforming changes are discussed in section IV. of this regulation.
Application of the case-mix indices to the standardized 60-day
payment amount presented in Table 6 results in 80 separate case-mix-
adjusted 60-day episode national payment amounts corresponding to the
80 separate HHRG classification groups described above and individually
listed in Table 9.
Below is Table 8 designating the acceptable ICD-9 codes
corresponding to the orthopedic, neurological, and diabetes diagnosis
groups for purposes of case-mix classification.
Table 8.--ICD-9 Codes Used to Define Diagnostic Groups
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DG ICD-9 Code Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORTHO............................ 170 MAL NEO BONE/ARCTIC
CART.
ORTHO............................ 171 MAL NEO SOFT TISSUE.
ORTHO............................ 213 BEN NEO BONE/ARCTIC
CART.
ORTHO............................ 274 GOUT.
ORTHO............................ 710 DIFF CONNECTIVE TISS
DIS.
ORTHO............................ 711 ARTHROPATHY W INFECTION.
ORTHO............................ 712 CRYSTAL ARTHROPATHIES.
ORTHO............................ 713 ARTHROPATH IN OTHER DIS.
ORTHO............................ 714 OTH INFLAMM POLYARTHROP.
ORTHO............................ 716 ARTHROPATHIES NEC/NOS.
ORTHO............................ 717 INTERNAL DERANGEMENT
KNEE.
ORTHO............................ 718 OTHER JOINT DERANGEMENT.
ORTHO............................ 720 INFLAM SPONDYLOPATHIES.
ORTHO............................ 721 SPONDYLOSIS ET AL.
ORTHO............................ 722 INTERVERTEBRAL DISC DIS.
ORTHO............................ 723 OTHER CERVICAL SPINE DI.
ORTHO............................ 724 BACK DISORDER NEC & NOS.
ORTHO............................ 725 POLYMYALGIA RHEUMATICA.
ORTHO............................ 728 DIS OF MUSCLE/LIG/
FASCIA.
ORTHO............................ 730 OSTEOMYELITIS.
ORTHO............................ 731 OSTEITIS DEFORMANS.
ORTHO............................ 732 OSTEOCHONDROPATHIES.
ORTHO............................ 781 NERV/MUSCULSKEL SYS
SYMP.
ORTHO............................ 800 SKULL VAULT FRACTURE.
ORTHO............................ 801 SKULL BASE FRACTURE.
ORTHO............................ 802 FRACTURE OF FACE BONES.
ORTHO............................ 803 OTHER SKULL FRACTURE.
ORTHO............................ 804 MULT FX SKULL W OTH
BONE.
ORTHO............................ 805 VERTEBRL FX W/O CORD
INJ.
ORTHO............................ 806 VERTEBRAL FX W CORD INJ.
ORTHO............................ 807 FX RIB/STERN/LARYN/
TRACH.
ORTHO............................ 808 PELVIC FRACTURE.
ORTHO............................ 809 FRACTURE OF TRUK BONES.
ORTHO............................ 810 CLAVICLE FRACTURE
ORTHO............................ 811 SCAPULA FRACTURE.
ORTHO............................ 812 HUMERUS FRACTURE.
ORTHO............................ 813 RADIUS & ULNA FRACTURE.
ORTHO............................ 814 CARPAL FRACTURE.
ORTHO............................ 815 METACARPAL FRACTURE.
ORTHO............................ 816 FRACTURE PHALANGES,
HAND.
ORTHO............................ 817 MULTIPLE HAND FRACTURES.
ORTHO............................ 818 FRACTURE ARM MULT/NOS.
ORTHO............................ 819 FX ARMS W RIB/STERNUM.
ORTHO............................ 820 FRACTURE NECK OF FEMUR.
ORTHO............................ 821 OTHER FEMORAL FRACTURE.
ORTHO............................ 822 PATELLA FRACTURE.
ORTHO............................ 823 TIBIA & FIBULA FRACTURE.
ORTHO............................ 824 ANKLE FRACTURE.
ORTHO............................ 825 FX OF TARSAL/METATARSAL.
[[Page 58176]]
ORTHO............................ 827 LOWER LIMB FRACTURE NEC.
ORTHO............................ 828 FX LEGS W ARM/RIB.
ORTHO............................ 831 SHOULDER DISLOCATION.
ORTHO............................ 832 ELBOW DISLOCATION.
ORTHO............................ 833 WRIST DISLOCATION.
ORTHO............................ 835 DISLOCATION OF HIP.
ORTHO............................ 836 DISLOCATION OF KNEE.
ORTHO............................ 837 DISLOCATION OF ANKLE.
ORTHO............................ 838 DISLOCATION OF FOOT.
ORTHO............................ 846 SPRAIN SACROILIAC
REGION.
ORTHO............................ 847 SPRAIN OF BACK NEC/NOS.
ORTHO............................ 88 TRAUMATIC AMPUT ARM/
HAND.
ORTHO............................ 896 TRAUMATIC AMPUTAT FOOT.
ORTHO............................ 897 TRAUMATIC AMPUTATION
LEG.
ORTHO............................ 927 CRUSHING INJ UPPER LIMB.
ORTHO............................ 928 CRUSHING INJURY OF LEG.
NEURO............................ 13 CNS TUBERCULOSIS.
NEURO............................ 45 ACUTE POLIOMYELITIS.
NEURO............................ 46 CNS SLOW VIRUS
INFECTION.
NEURO............................ 47 ENTEROVIRAL MENINGITIS.
NEURO............................ 48 OTH ENTEROVIRAL CNS DIS.
NEURO............................ 49 OTH NONARTHROPOD CNS
VIR.
NEURO............................ 191 MALIGNANT NEOPLASM
BRAIN.
NEURO............................ 192 MAL NEO NERVE NEC/NOS.
NEURO............................ 225 BENIGN NEO NERVOUS SYST.
NEURO............................ 320 BACTERIAL MENINGITIS.
NEURO............................ 321 OTH ORGANISM MENINGITIS
NEURO............................ 322 MENINGITIS, UNSPECIFIED.
NEURO............................ 323 ENCEPHALOMYELITIS.
NEURO............................ 324 CNS ABSCESS.
NEURO............................ 325 PHLEBITIS INTRCRAN SINU.
NEURO............................ 326 LATE EFF CNS ABSCESS.
NEURO............................ 330 CEREBRAL DEGEN IN CHILD.
NEURO............................ 331 CEREBRAL DEGENERATION.
NEURO............................ 332 PARKINSON'S DISEASE.
NEURO............................ 333 EXTRAPYRAMIDAL DIS NEC.
NEURO............................ 334 SPINOCEREBELLAR DISEASE.
NEURO............................ 335 ANT HORN CELL DISEASE.
NEURO............................ 336 SPINAL CORD DISEASE NEC.
NEURO............................ 337 AUTONOMIC NERVE
DISORDER.
NEURO............................ 340 MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS.
NEURO............................ 341 OTHER CNS DEMYELINATION.
NEURO............................ 342 HEMIPLEGIA.
NEURO............................ 343 INFANTILE CEREBRAL
PALSY.
NEURO............................ 344 OTH PARALYTIC SYNDROMES.
NEURO............................ 347 CATAPLEXY AND NARCOLEPS.
NEURO............................ 348 OTHER BRAIN CONDITIONS.
NEURO............................ 349 CNS DISORDER NEC/NOS.
NEURO............................ 352 DISORDER CRAN NERVE NEC.
NEURO............................ 356 HERED PERIPH NEUROPATHY.
NEURO............................ 357 INFLAM/TOXIC NEUROPATHY.
NEURO............................ 358 MYONEURAL DISORDERS .
NEURO............................ 392 RHEUMATIC CHOREA.
NEURO............................ 430 SUBARACHNOID HEMORRHAGE.
NEURO............................ 431 INTRACEREBRAL
HEMORRHAGE.
NEURO............................ 432 INTRACRANIAL HEM NEC/
NOS.
NEURO............................ 433 PRECEREBRAL OCCLUSION.
NEURO............................ 434 CEREBRAL ARTERY OCCLUS.
NEURO............................ 435 TRANSIENT CEREB
ISCHEMIA.
NEURO............................ 436 CVA .
NEURO............................ 437 OTH CEREBROVASC DISEASE.
NEURO............................ 741 SPINA BIFIDA.
NEURO............................ 742 OTH NERVOUS SYSTEM ANOM.
NEURO............................ 851 CEREBRAL LACER/
CONTUSION.
NEURO............................ 852 MENINGEAL HEM FOLLOW
INJ.
NEURO............................ 853 OTH TRAUMATIC BRAIN HEM.
NEURO............................ 854 OTHER BRAIN INJURY.
NEURO............................ 907 LATE EFF NERV SYSTEM
INJ.
NEURO............................ 950 INJ OPTIC NERV/PATHWAYS.
NEURO............................ 951 CRANIAL NERVE INJURY
NEC.
NEURO............................ 952 SPINAL CORD INJ W/O FX.
NEURO............................ 953 INJ NERVE ROOT/SPIN
PLEX.
[[Page 58177]]
NEURO............................ 954 INJURY OTH TRUNK NERVE.
NEURO............................ 955 INJ PERIPH NERV SHLD/
ARM.
NEURO............................ 956 INJ PERIPH NERV PELV/
LEG.
DM............................... 250 DIABETES MELLITUS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Determining the Case-Mix Indices
As discussed in section I. of this regulation, sections
1895(b)(4)(A)(i) and (b)(4)(B) of the Act require us to establish and
make appropriate case-mix adjustments to the episode payment in a
manner that explains a significant amount of the variation in cost.
Case-mix adjustment takes into account the relative resource use of
different patient types served by an HHA. The goal of a case-mix
payment system is to measure the intensity of care and services
required for each patient and translate it into an appropriate payment
level. A patient's need for care resources is represented by an index
score or relative weight based on the combination of clinical,
functional, and service utilization indicators measured at the start of
the 60-day episode. The decision tree logic for the case-mix groups is
discussed in section II.C.2. of this regulation.
As also discussed in section I.C. of this regulation, the patient
classification system used under the HHA PPS is the Clinical Model
developed by Abt, an 80-group patient case-mix classification system
(HHRGs), which provides the basis for the case-mix payment indices used
both for standardization of the 60-day episode payments and
subsequently to establish the case-mix adjustments to the 60-day
episode payment for patients with different home health service needs.
These indices reflect the weight of relative resource utilization or
value of each of the 80 HHRGs relative to all of the groups.
These payment indices are based on patient data (from the OASIS-B
supplemented by an additional non-OASIS treatment variable) and average
resource use per discipline. To arrive at an estimate of resource use
through visit logs, time is weighted by mean labor cost for each of the
six disciplines covered under the Medicare home health benefit
providing the visit. Medicare claims were linked to the OASIS data and
the visit log data to verify the visits and provide utilization
measures.
Construction of the Relative Weights for the HHRGs
Each of the 80 HHRGs is assigned a relative weight that, when
multiplied by the wage-adjusted standard episode amount, comprises the
case-mix-adjusted payment for each episode. The relative weights
measure the average resource intensity of the episodes in each HHRG
relative to the average resource intensity of all episodes. The data
that Abt used to develop the case-mix groups of the HHRG classification
system were also used to construct the relative weights reported in
Table 9. At this time, they are the only data that contain information
on resource intensity by HHRG. Because we are proposing to pay episodes
with four or fewer visits on a per-visit basis, we excluded those
episodes from the data used to construct the relative weights. The
resulting data set contained 19,449 episodes. The measure of resource
intensity used in the computation was the same variable that Abt used
in developing the HHRG system: the minutes spent on each visit were
multiplied by a standard national labor cost per minute for the type of
visit (skilled nursing, home health aide, etc.); these standard visit
costs were then summed for all visits within the episode to obtain the
cost for the episode.
If a large national data set that linked resource utilization and
HHRG classifications for 60-day episodes of care were available, we
would have computed the relative weights in the following manner:
First, we would have calculated the mean cost per episode for each
HHRG, as well as the mean cost for all episodes. Then, each mean cost
would have been divided by the mean cost of all episodes. Calculating
the relative weights in this manner ensures that the relative weight of
the average episode is 1.0.
However, since only a sample data set is available, it was
necessary to modify this method in order to obtain reliable relative
weights. The Abt data set is large enough to establish the case-mix
groups and to calculate average resource use for many of the HHRG
categories. However, there are also many HHRGs with relatively small
numbers of episodes for which reliable estimates cannot be made. As a
result, it was necessary to make full use of the information contained
in the sample. We are proposing to revise the case mix weights to
adjust for changes in patient population, actual changes in home health
care practice patterns, and changes in the coding or classification of
patients that do not reflect real changes in case mix.
All episodes at each level of the clinical, functional, and service
domains were employed to estimate the resource use for specific
combinations of clinical, functional, and service levels. For example,
in estimating the average cost of HHRG C3F4S1, we used data for all C3
episodes, all F4 episodes, and all S1 episodes. The method involved
computing an average cost for each clinical level (C0, C1, C2, and C3),
each functional level (F0, F1, F2, F3, and F4), and each service level
(S0, S1, S2, and S3). Then the average additional cost of each level
above the C0F0S0 base cost was computed: C1-C0, C2-C0, C3-C0; F1-F0,
F2-F0, F3-F0, F4-F0; S1-S0, S2-S0, S3-S0. Finally, these average
additional cost amounts were added to the base cost (C0F0S0) to obtain
the average cost of each HHRG. For example, to calculate the average
cost of C1F1S0, take the C0F0S0 amount and add to it the additional
cost of C1 cases (C1-C0) and the additional cost of F1 cases (F1-F0);
likewise, to obtain the average cost of C3F4S1, start with C0F0S0 and
add to it C3-C0, F4-F0, and S1-S0.
In more precise statistical terms, the mean cost estimates
described above were obtained using multiple regression analysis. To
account for the stratification of the sample, weighted regression was
used. We regressed the dependent variable (the Abt resource cost) on
categorical variables C1-C3, F1-F4, and S1-S3. By omitting C0, F0, and
S0 from the regression, the intercept term measures the mean cost of
the C0F0S0 group. The regression coefficients of each of the clinical,
functional, and service levels measure the mean difference in cost
between the given level and the base cost (C0F0S0). For example, the
coefficient of the C2 variable measures the average cost difference,
C2-C0.
Example: Calculation of Relative Weight for HHRG C3F4S1
Average cost for HHRG C0F0S0:.............................. $1371.44
Additional average cost of C3:............................. +1121.77
[[Page 58178]]
Additional average cost of F4:............................. +1239.00
Additional average cost of S1:............................. +218.09
------------
Average cost of C3F4S1:.................................... $3,950.30
Relative weight of C3F4S1: Average cost of C3F4S1 divided by average
cost of all episodes: $3950.30/$2599.56=1.5196
Table 9--Relative Case-Mix Weights Corresponding to Home Health Resource Groups
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case mix
HHRG group HHRG description weight
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C0F0S0.......................................... ``Clinical=Min, Functional=Min, Service=Min''.... 0.5276
C0F0S1.......................................... ``Clinical=Min, Functional=Min, Service=Low''.... 0.6115
C0F0S2.......................................... ``Clinical=Min, Functional=Min, Service=Mod''.... 1.4400
C0F0S3.......................................... ``Clinical=Min, Functional=Min, Service=High''... 1.6620
C0F1S0.......................................... ``Clinical=Min, Functional=Low, Service=Min''.... 0.6015
C0F1S1.......................................... ``Clinical=Min, Functional=Low, Service=Low''.... 0.6854
C0F1S2.......................................... ``Clinical=Min, Functional=Low, Service=Mod''.... 1.5140
C0F1S3.......................................... ``Clinical=Min, Functional=Low, Service=High''... 1.7360
C0F2S0.......................................... ``Clinical=Min, Functional=Mod, Service=Min''.... 0.7234
C0F2S1.......................................... ``Clinical=Min, Functional=Mod, Service=Low''.... 0.8073
C0F2S2.......................................... ``Clinical=Min, Functional=Mod, Service=Mod''.... 1.6359
C0F2S3.......................................... ``Clinical=Min, Functional=Mod, Service=High''... 1.8579
C0F3S0.......................................... ``Clinical=Min, Functional=High, Service=Min''... 0.7698
C0F3S1.......................................... ``Clinical=Min, Functional=High, Service=Low''... 0.8537
C0F3S2.......................................... ``Clinical=Min, Functional=High, Service=Mod''... 1.6822
C0F3S3.......................................... ``Clinical=Min, Functional=High, Service=High''.. 1.9043
C0F4S0.......................................... ``Clinical=Min, Functional=Max, Service=Min''.... 1.0042
C0F4S1.......................................... ``Clinical=Min, Functional=Max, Service=Low''.... 1.0881
C0F4S2.......................................... ``Clinical=Min, Functional=Max, Service=Mod''.... 1.9166
C0F4S3.......................................... ``Clinical=Min, Functional=Max, Service=High''... 2.1386
C1F0S0.......................................... ``Clinical=Low, Functional=Min, Service=Min''.... 0.6131
C1F0S1.......................................... ``Clinical=Low, Functional=Min, Service=Low''.... 0.6970
C1F0S2.......................................... ``Clinical=Low, Functional=Min, Service=Mod''.... 1.5255
C1F0S3.......................................... ``Clinical=Low, Functional=Min, Service=High''... 1.7475
C1F1S0.......................................... ``Clinical=Low, Functional=Low, Service=Min''.... 0.6870
C1F1S1.......................................... ``Clinical=Low, Functional=Low, Service=Low''.... 0.7709
C1F1S2.......................................... ``Clinical=Low, Functional=Low, Service=Mod''.... 1.5995
C1F1S3.......................................... ``Clinical=Low, Functional=Low, Service=High''... 1.8215
C1F2S0.......................................... ``Clinical=Low, Functional=Mod, Service=Min''.... 0.8089
C1F2S1.......................................... ``Clinical=Low, Functional=Mod, Service=Low''.... 0.8928
C1F2S2.......................................... ``Clinical=Low, Functional=Mod, Service=Mod''.... 1.7214
C1F2S3.......................................... ``Clinical=Low, Functional=Mod, Service=High''... 1.9434
C1F3S0.......................................... ``Clinical=Low, Functional=High, Service=Min''... 0.8553
C1F3S1.......................................... ``Clinical=Low, Functional=High, Service=Low''... 0.9392
C1F3S2.......................................... ``Clinical=Low, Functional=High, Service=Mod''... 1.7677
C1F3S3.......................................... ``Clinical=Low, Functional=High, Service=High''.. 1.9898
C1F4S0.......................................... ``Clinical=Low, Functional=Max, Service=Min''.... 1.0897
C1F4S1.......................................... ``Clinical=Low, Functional=Max, Service=Low''.... 1.1736
C1F4S2.......................................... ``Clinical=Low, Functional=Max, Service=Mod''.... 2.0021
C1F4S3.......................................... ``Clinical=Low, Functional=Max, Service=High''... 2.2241
C2F0S0.......................................... ``Clinical=Mod, Functional=Min, Service=Min''.... 0.7192
C2F0S1.......................................... ``Clinical=Mod, Functional=Min, Service=Low''.... 0.8031
C2F0S2.......................................... ``Clinical=Mod, Functional=Min, Service=Mod''.... 1.6316
C2F0S3.......................................... ``Clinical=Mod, Functional=Min, Service=High''... 1.8536
C2F1S0.......................................... ``Clinical=Mod, Functional=Low, Service=Min''.... 0.7932
C2F1S1.......................................... ``Clinical=Mod, Functional=Low, Service=Low''.... 0.8771
C2F1S2.......................................... ``Clinical=Mod, Functional=Low, Service=Mod''.... 1.7056
C2F1S3.......................................... ``Clinical=Mod, Functional=Low, Service=High''... 1.9276
C2F2S0.......................................... ``Clinical=Mod, Functional=Mod, Service=Min''.... 0.9150
C2F2S1.......................................... ``Clinical=Mod, Functional=Mod, Service=Low''.... 0.9989
C2F2S2.......................................... ``Clinical=Mod, Functional=Mod, Service=Mod''.... 1.8275
C2F2S3.......................................... ``Clinical=Mod, Functional=Mod, Service=High''... 2.0495
C2F3S0.......................................... ``Clinical=Mod, Functional=High, Service=Min''... 0.9614
C2F3S1.......................................... ``Clinical=Mod, Functional=High, Service=Low''... 1.0453
C2F3S2.......................................... ``Clinical=Mod, Functional=High, Service=Mod''... 1.8738
C2F3S3.......................................... ``Clinical=Mod, Functional=High, Service=High''.. 2.0959
C2F4S0.......................................... ``Clinical=Mod, Functional=Max, Service=Min''.... 1.1958
C2F4S1.......................................... ``Clinical=Mod, Functional=Max, Service=Low''.... 1.2797
C2F4S2.......................................... ``Clinical=Mod, Functional=Max, Service=Mod''.... 2.1082
C2F4S3.......................................... ``Clinical=Mod, Functional=Max, Service=High''... 2.3303
C3F0S0.......................................... ``Clinical=High, Functional=Min, Service=Min''... 0.9591
C3F0S1.......................................... ``Clinical=High, Functional=Min, Service=Low''... 1.0430
C3F0S2.......................................... ``Clinical=High, Functional=Min, Service=Mod''... 1.8715
C3F0S3.......................................... ``Clinical=High, Functional=Min, Service=High''.. 2.0935
C3F1S0.......................................... ``Clinical=High, Functional=Low, Service=Min''... 1.0331
C3F1S1.......................................... ``Clinical=High, Functional=Low, Service=Low''... 1.1170
C3F1S2.......................................... ``Clinical=High, Functional=Low, Service=Mod''... 1.9455
[[Page 58179]]
C3F1S3.......................................... ``Clinical=High, Functional=Low, Service=High''.. 2.1675
C3F2S0.......................................... ``Clinical=High, Functional=Mod, Service=Min''... 1.1550
C3F2S1.......................................... ``Clinical=High, Functional=Mod, Service=Low''... 1.2389
C3F2S2.......................................... ``Clinical=High, Functional=Mod, Service=Mod''... 2.0674
C3F2S3.......................................... ``Clinical=High, Functional=Mod, Service=High''.. 2.2894
C3F3S0.......................................... ``Clinical=High, Functional=High, Service=Min''.. 1.2013
C3F3S1.......................................... ``Clinical=High, Functional=High, Service=Low''.. 1.2852
C3F3S2.......................................... ``Clinical=High, Functional=High, Service=Mod''.. 2.1138
C3F3S3.......................................... ``Clinical=High, Functional=High, Service=High''. 2.3358
C3F4S0.......................................... ``Clinical=High, Functional=Max, Service=Min''... 1.4357
C3F4S1.......................................... ``Clinical=High, Functional=Max, Service=Low''... 1.5196
C3F4S2.......................................... ``Clinical=High, Functional=Max, Service=Mod''... 2.3481
C3F4S3.......................................... ``Clinical=High, Functional=Max, Service=High''.. 2.5702
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Application of the Clinical Model Patient Classification System
The following are several illustrative examples.
Case 1
An 83-year-old woman was discharged from a hospital 2 days ago
after admission for a stroke and referred for home health care. She has
residual right hemiparesis and also has diabetes and hypertension. She
is able to dress her upper body if clothes are laid out for her, but
needs help putting on socks, nylons and sometimes slacks. She needs
assistance with bathing to get in and out of the tub and uses a cane
for ambulating on flat surfaces and to transfer from sitting to
standing, but needs another person's assistance to go up and down
stairs. She is occasionally incontinent of urine, especially at night.
Her plan of care includes--
Physical therapy: two 45-minute visits per week for 9 weeks
Occupational therapy: one 45-minute visit per week for 4 weeks
Skilled nursing: one visit per week for 2 weeks, then one visit every
other week for 7 weeks
Aide: one visit twice a week for 9 weeks
Scoring: Clinical Severity=19 (for neurologic diagnosis)+8 urinary
incontinence=27 high severity
Functional Status Domain=4 (for dressing)+9 (bathing)+6 (locomotion)=19
Moderate severity
Service Domain=2 (hospital discharge)+4 (therapy more than 8 hours)
Moderate severity
HRG=C3F2S2
Case 2
A 73-year-old man with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is
referred for home health care after a hospitalization for an aspiration
pneumonia. Because of his inability to swallow, he had a gastrostomy
tube placed during the hospitalization and now receives enteral
feeding. He is dependent in all activities of daily living (ADLs).
His plan of care includes--
Skilled nursing three times a week for 9 weeks
Aide services daily for 9 weeks
Scoring
Clinical severity=19 (for neurological)+20 (for enteral feeding)
High
Functional status=27 High severity
Service Domain=0 Minimum severity
HRG=C3F3S0
5. Background on Case-Mix Research Project for a National Home Health
PPS
In 1996, in anticipation of the Medicare program's eventual
adoption of OASIS assessment data, we began research with a sample of
90 HHAs to develop a case-mix adjustment system for use under a future
national prospective payment for home health care. The project was
conducted under contract to Abt Associates, Inc., of Cambridge, Mass.
(Contract Number 500-96-0003/TO2). Agencies participating in the sample
have collected OASIS data supplemented by approximately 50 additional
assessment items on all patients newly admitted between October 1997
and April 1998 (this group of patients is called the six-month cohort)
to enable comparisons among items in terms of their utility in
measuring case mix. At the same time, agencies in the study collected
data on every home health visit to members of the cohort. Visit
information was collected on visit logs specially designed for each
home health service discipline (skilled nursing, physical therapy,
medical social work, etc.). The visit logs provided the fundamental
measure of resource use for developing case-mix groups. This measure is
the visit time, which is converted into a standardized resource cost
using Bureau of Labor Statistics hourly wage data (see below for
further description).
The development of case-mix groups requires identifying groups of
patients with similar resource cost and similar clinical and functional
characteristics. To do this, data analyses studied the statistical
association between clinical and functional characteristics, as
measured by the assessments, and resource cost, as measured by the
standardized resource cost. In choosing patient characteristics for
inclusion in the case-mix adjuster, and in arranging those
characteristics into a system of groups, the system's developers gave
considerable weight to the clinical diagnostic process. We sought data
elements and an overall system that reflected a clinician's perspective
when confronted with a patient with care needs to be assessed. We also
gave considerable weight to simplicity in the system's overall
structure, and thus opted for a straightforward three-dimensional
approach. Under this approach, a patient's case-mix classification is
found by assessing the patient on each of the three dimensions, and
then combining the results from the three dimensions. Further details
on the methods of the study and the resulting case-mix system follow.
Methods
Sample Selection
Agencies were recruited for the case-mix research in the spring of
1997. The sample design was intended to permit the computation of
nationally representative results. Eight States (Arkansas, California,
Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin)
were selected to be representative of four census geographic regions:
northeast, north central, south, and west. Sample selection was also
intended to ensure that the four major auspices types (freestanding
for-profit, freestanding voluntary/private nonprofit, hospital-based,
and
[[Page 58180]]
government) and both urban and rural agencies would be included. In
addition, selection criteria included the historical practice pattern
of the agencies, in order to ensure representation of agencies with
relatively low, moderate, and high numbers of visits per episode in
their region. When cross-classified, the four selection criteria--
region (four classes), auspices (four classes), urban/rural (two
classes), and practice pattern (three classes)-- produced a theoretical
stratification scheme consisting of 96 cells. Target sample sizes for
the cells were proportional to the universe populations of the cells
(for example, some of the cells had zero agencies in the universe), and
totaled 90 agencies for the sample overall. To be selected, agencies
had to have active Medicare certification before July 1, 1993, at least
50 Medicare patients in CY 1995, could not be participating in other
HCFA demonstrations involving collection of OASIS data, and could not
have been participating in the treatment group of the per-visit home
health prospective payment demonstration.
Considerable effort was made to recruit and inform potential
participants of the study goals and operations, and potential benefits
to themselves. Potential participants were told they could expect to
receive three main benefits from participation-- management reports
based on the data to be collected during the study, technical
assistance and training on OASIS procedures, and reimbursement for data
collection costs. Out of 1,797 eligible providers, approximately 290
agencies actually volunteered to participate in the study. Agencies
were randomly selected from among the volunteers within each sampling
cell in July 1997. Further details of the recruitment process are
provided in Abt Associates, First Interim Report, July 1998 (revised
December 1998).
Agency Training
The next phase of the study was training the agencies in data
collection procedures. Abt Associates staff developed a Procedures
Manual covering the project overview, directions on administering
patient assessments using the OASIS and supplemental items (OASIS and
the supplemental items were termed OASIS+, data storage and transfer
procedures, and information on training techniques for agencies to use
internally with their staff. Particular attention was given to item-by-
item guidelines for OASIS elements, in part to ensure the reliability
of the data collected for developing the case-mix adjuster. The uniform
assessments afforded by OASIS were a strength of the project, because
reliable data allow analysts to accurately evaluate the contribution of
potential case-mix variables to a case-mix adjuster.
Additional training activities included slides and other written
materials, and 2-day training sessions for participants. At least one
training session was held in each of the 8 States in July and August of
1997. Training sessions were attended by 296 staff from the 90
participating agencies, and covered the meaning and intent of the OASIS
and other assessment items, as well as operational procedures and data
management. A significant effort was made to educate staff in methods
of training and motivating their colleagues at the participating
agency. After the sessions, follow-up training activities and other
educational contacts were conducted by the contractor. Once the study
was underway, Abt Associates continued to promote communication with
the agencies, and to foster information-sharing among agencies, through
activities such as conference calls, meetings, and an e-mail discussion
group.
Data Resources
The two basic data sources for the study are case-mix explanatory
variables from the patient assessments and a resource use variable from
the visit data. Claims data comprised a third data source, and were
used to verify membership in the 6-month cohort and to supply several
additional potential case-mix explanatory variables for testing. All
three sources of data were collected on the 6-month cohort from
admission until the end of home care in the participating agency or
March through April 1999, whichever came first.
OASIS data. Study agencies collected patient characteristics data
using the OASIS assessment supplemented by additional assessment items
at the following points: admission to home health, resumption of care
following an inpatient stay, at follow up (every 57 to 62 days until
discharge), upon transfer to an inpatient facility, and at discharge or
death at home. The 129 patient data elements cover the following
domains: patient demographics and health history, living arrangements,
supportive assistance, sensory status, integumentary status,
respiratory status, elimination status, neuro/emotional/behavioral
status, ADLs and IADLs, medications, equipment management, emergent
care use, and discharge disposition. The items supplemental to OASIS
were integrated in the following OASIS domains: demographics and
patient history; living arrangements; supportive assistance;
integumentary status; elimination status; neuro/emotional/behavioral
status; ADLs and IADLs; and medications. An additional dimension was
added to the assessment data set, nutrition/hydration status, as the
research literature indicates that nutritional status and the potential
for dehydration are important predictors of poorer outcomes.
Development of new items was beyond the scope of the project;
therefore, supplemental items generally came from previously validated
instruments such as the Minimum Data Set for Home Care (MDS-HC)
(Morris, J. N., B. E. Fries, and D. Mehr, et al. ``A Comprehensive
Clinical Assessment in Community Settings.'' November 1996a,
unpublished manuscript; and Morris, J. N. The Minimum Data Set for Home
Care. Presentation for ``The Key to Elderly Care in an Aging World'' in
Reykjavik, Iceland, 1996b).
Visit log data. Visit information was recorded on a visit log
separately tailored for each type of visit (for example, home health
aide or medical social worker). The visit log consists of identifying
information, starting and ending times, and a column of items for
checkoff that detail the services performed during the visit and
factors explaining the time spent. The checkoff items were not intended
to capture information on all activities performed in the home--only
those likely to significantly affect the length of the visits. The
starting and ending times allow the calculation of total visit time for
the key resource use measure for the study. To arrive at a standardized
measure of resource use, time is weighted by the average labor cost for
the discipline of the clinician making the visit.
Standardized measure of resource use. Previous research on case mix
generally used a measure of resource use based on the count of visits.
However, visit lengths may vary substantially, making visit counts a
relatively imprecise measure of resource use. The case-mix study
measured time spent on visits, rather than the number of visits
themselves, to provide a more reliable measure resource use than did
previous research. The mean labor cost estimate for the standardized
resource use measure was based on hourly wage data from HHA respondents
to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment Survey
(OES). The survey collects wage data by occupation and industry. The
Standard Industrial Classification industry category used for our
estimate excludes agencies under
[[Page 58181]]
government auspices and hospital-based agencies where workers are
employed by the hospital. However, government civil service grades or
hospital pay for specialized occupations may systematically depart from
market wage rates. Our mean labor cost included an estimate of
benefits. Following our salary equivalency estimates for therapists,
the benefits were estimated exclusive of supplemental pay. The
occupational category mix within each discipline (for example,
registered nurses and licensed practical nurses delivering skilled
nursing visits) was estimated from the OES data. For further details on
the derivation of the mean labor cost used in the study, see Appendix E
in Abt Associates, Inc., First Interim Report, July 1998, Revised
December 1998.
Medicare claims. The Medicare claims for the 6-month cohort were
linked to the patient characteristics data and visit log data to verify
membership in the 6-month cohort and to provide utilization measures
(for example, therapy use or institutional health care services
received during the episode). The Medicare claims were also used to
simulate 60-day episodes, using the from-and through-dates on the
claims.
Data collection and management. The project's data management
procedures were designed to support agencies in the collection and
submission of consistent and reliable data on patient characteristics
and service use. Participating agencies entered the patient assessment
data into an electronic data file using software provided by Abt
Associates or their own data systems. Data entry on site was required
because this allowed a computer program to edit the data and to report
any errors for correction before the data were submitted to Abt
Associates. The visit logs were printed in different colors to minimize
the chances for confusion. The forms were designed for optical scanning
of the checkoff boxes, and the agencies forwarded the originals
directly to an optical scanning contractor. The data were double
entered and scanned, and the hard copy forms were sent to Abt
Associates, along with the electronic data files, for cleaning. Abt
processed all visit log forms received from project agencies, and
generated reports for the agencies indicating the outcomes of this
editing process. When agencies received the error reports and the
associated hard copy logs, their responsibility was to review the
problems, make any changes, and resubmit the forms.
Data preparation. The OASIS and other assessment items that had
been submitted by agencies had to be merged with the records for cohort
patients as defined using the claims data. Iterative matching
algorithms, and intensive manual review of potential matches, were used
to match assessment records to the claims patient records. Of 21,426
patients identified for the 6-month cohort from claims, 17,351 had one
or more assessments that could be matched at the time Abt Associates
constructed the analytic file used for case-mix system development.
Visit logs on more than 750,000 visits that had been submitted by
project agencies and processed by August 1998 were available for
matching to claims records. Because of the occasional presence of
inaccurate data in the identifying fields on the visit logs, it was
necessary to protect against false matching based on incorrect visit
log data. Even with an exact match on one key matching field (besides
the necessary match on provider, discipline and date), it was required
that the rest of the key fields be compatible. To accomplish this, a
matching algorithm was developed by Abt Associates and applied to
comparisons of all possible match fields. Based on the algorithm,
588,846 logged visits were matched to claims for cohort patients. The
remaining logs come from visits to non-cohort Medicare patients at
participating providers and visits to non-Medicare patients, inasmuch
as some agencies completed logs for all of their home care patients,
regardless of payor, to simplify recordkeeping procedures during the
study. In addition, some of the unmatched logs likely come from an
unknown number of visits to patients in the 6-month cohort whose
identifying information was not sufficient to make a match at the time
of file construction. (For further details of these matching
procedures, see Abt Associates, Second Interim Report, August 1999.)
Analytic file construction. The project data were assembled to
simulate a 60-day episode. In order to estimate resource use for each
60-day period of care, we developed certain decision rules for
allocating claims and visit logs by discipline to 60-day ``windows'' of
time, or episodes. Because we superimposed the 60-day episodes on the
pre-existing claims stream, an episode could start and end sometime
during the period covered by a claim. Many claims did not show the date
of each visit; therefore, an algorithm was needed to allocate visits
when a claim period fell into more than one episode. In general, the
visit logs were used to make this allocation since they provided
individual visit dates. If some logs were missing, the percentages of
nonmissing logs falling in the claim service period before and after
the episode date boundary were used to allocate visits identified on
the claim to the two episodes straddled by the claim. If no logs were
available, the visits from claims were allocated to the episodes in
proportion to the number of days covered by the claim that fell in each
60-day episode. In episodes with missing logs, additional steps were
taken to estimate the missing minutes of care that would have been
measured in the missing logs. Efforts were made to use all available
patient-and discipline-specific information in the imputation.
Combining these procedures with a rule requiring a 60-day gap in
service before a new start of care could be initiated for a cohort
member resulted in a total of 31,725 payment episodes--an average of
approximately 1.4 60-day episodes per cohort member with the data
available at the time of file construction. After resources were
calculated for all payment segments, analysis of the data revealed the
presence of extreme values of mean minutes per visit by discipline
within the 60-day episode. Visit lengths in episodes with extreme
values (defined as the highest and lowest 0.25 percent of cases within
each home health discipline) were replaced with agency-level mean visit
lengths by discipline. A total of 335 episodes (1 percent) were
adjusted in this manner, resulting in an insignificant change in mean
total resources per 60-day episode. These allocation, imputation, and
data adjustment procedures are described in detail in Abt Associates,
Inc., Second Interim Report, August 1999.
Linking the Assessment Data
To complete the analytic file, the patient assessment data had to
be added to the simulated episode file that contained data on visits
and resource costs. To protect the reliability of the assessment data
for the purpose of case-mix system development, assessments were linked
to an episode in the simulation file only if the assessment was
conducted within 14 days of the start of the episode.
Analytical Approach
Initial development of the case-mix model used data from 4,303
episodes pertaining primarily to the first 60-day period of care for
members of the 6-month cohort who enrolled from October 1997 through
December 1997. Subsequent refinement of the model occurred after the
analytic file was enlarged with data accumulated later to create an
augmented file. The augmented file was partitioned into a
[[Page 58182]]
development sample and a validation sample. The development sample,
consisting of 10,413 initial 60-day episodes for cohort members and
2,059 subsequent episodes, was used for the refinement phase. The
development sample episodes were randomly selected from the augmented
file. The remaining episodes--6,963 initial episodes and 1,331
subsequent episodes--were reserved to validate the final model.
The basic approach to case-mix development was to use the patient
data and other appropriate data to identify candidate case-mix
adjusters or their components, and then estimate their ability to
explain variation in resource use over the course of the simulated 60-
day episode. The measure of ``explanatory power'' used to evaluate the
overall system and its component dimensions as development proceeded
was the coefficient of determination, or R-squared.
The R-squared measures the proportion of variation in standardized
resource costs that is explained by the case-mix groups. R-squared
cannot be negative or greater than one. An R-squared of one would
indicate that each case-mix group's average resource cost exactly
predicts the individual resource cost of each episode in the case-mix
group. In actual applications in social science research, an R-squared
of one could be obtained only if each observation comprised its own
group. The R-squared for the final home health case-mix model is .32.
Based on the R-squared results, the home health case-mix system has
predictive accuracy comparable to its counterparts from other payment
systems. The diagnosis-related group (DRG) system used for hospital PPS
has an R-squared reported in various studies in the range of .26 to .33
(Worthman, Linda G. and Shan Cretin. Review of the Literature on
Diagnosis Related Groups, A RAND Note, N-2492-HCFA, Santa Monica, CA,
October 1986). The Resource Utilization Groups (RUGS)-III system of 44
case mix groups used for Medicare SNF per diem prospective payment has
a reported R-squared as high as .56 (Fries, B. E., D. P. Schneider, and
W. J. Foley, et al., ``Refining a Case-Mix Measure for Nursing Homes:
Resource Utilization Groups (RUG/II).'' Medical Care 32:668-685, 1994).
But comparisons between the SNF and home health case-mix measures must
recognize that home health resource consumption is being ``predicted''
over a 60-day period rather than on a daily basis, and that factors
other than case mix may be a stronger influence on resource consumption
under home health, leaving less variation to be explained by case-mix
variables. Additionally, there is evidence that the RUGS-III system in
actual application under the Medicare program will achieve an R-squared
of less than .56 (White, A., S. Pizer, and C. White. Refining Resource
Utilization Groups (RUG-III) for a National Skilled Nursing Facility
System: Technical Expert Panel Briefing. October 1998).
To construct alternative case-mix groupings, preliminary regression
analyses were used to investigate the relative importance of various
factors explaining resource use. Then, clinical judgment was used to
identify and define clinically meaningful dimensions of case mix,
taking into account the results from the regressions. Alternative ways
of measuring and constructing the dimensions and relating them to one
another in a complete structure were explored in consultation with
clinical experts. Along with clinical considerations, policy and
incentive implications of alternative variables or structures were also
considered--particularly the implications of alternatives for promoting
improvement in health and functional status and for making the adjuster
vulnerable to manipulation for profit-maximization.
Another consideration was ease of implementing the system. For
example, if all of the case-mix elements were available on the OASIS
assessment, then adoption of the data collection procedures necessary
for PPS would already be accomplished when agencies met the OASIS
requirements of the revised Conditions of Participation, pending for
the quality system. Thus, the resulting case-mix groupings, and their
component dimensions, were evaluated and refined interactively with
clinical, policy, and administrative input.
Case-mix development work under the Abt Associates contract
produced two alternative case-mix models, dubbed the ``clinical'' model
and the ``diagnostic'' model. The two models had many elements in
common, but the diagnostic model gave more emphasis to medical
diagnosis in measuring case mix. In the diagnostic model, patients were
classified into one of seven diagnosis groups based on the home health
primary diagnosis from the OASIS. Further subgrouping of the basic
seven groups was based on clinical, functional, and utilization-related
variables. There has been controversy regarding the relative advantages
and disadvantages of a diagnostically-driven model. Proponents believe
it more accurately reflects the way clinicians think about patients. It
may also have the potential to create more homogeneous patient
groupings, providing an opportunity to develop clinical, functional,
and utilization criteria customized for different diagnoses. There are
several disadvantages of the diagnostically-driven model, however. One
is that only a relatively few diagnostic categories (notably
orthopedic, neurological, diabetes, and skin wounds/lesions) carried
significant explanatory power in the analyses. This suggests that
diagnostic classification beyond these few categories brings little or
no additional benefit in predictive accuracy. Also, the diagnosis-based
approach usually leads to a model with a higher number of end-points
that may make it more complex and difficult to use. Another
disadvantage is that the use of diagnostic categories is problematic
when dealing with a home care population that frequently has multiple
diagnoses--the choice of a primary diagnosis to report could be unduly
influenced by payment incentives. If the case-mix system were to
consider multiple diagnoses simultaneously, the problem of incentive
impacts on reporting might be reduced, but at the expense of more
complexity in the adjuster. High predictive accuracy could outweigh
these disadvantages, but the R-squared of the diagnostic model was not
appreciably higher than the simpler clinical model.
The case-mix project analytic work occurred in three stages: early
exploratory analyses, clinically driven development work, and
refinements.
Early data analyses. We began exploratory analyses with the 4,303
observations available early in the analysis phase. These analyses
relied mostly on regression equations to begin to understand which
OASIS and other assessment variables might play an important role in an
eventual case-mix adjuster, and to gauge how much variation in resource
use beyond case mix alone could be explained in a mathematical model
that included factors such as agency characteristics, economic
characteristics in the agency's environment, and events taking place
during the home health visit. These exploratory regressions suggested
that up to .47 of the variation in resource use could be explained
using regression analyses that accounted for a range of causal factors
encompassing more than case mix. The equations included variables to
measure clinical, functional, home environment, agency, and economic
factors; home health treatment variables; and unusually time-consuming
events taking place during
[[Page 58183]]
visits. These analyses highlighted several potentially appropriate and
powerful variables in the data, such as preadmission location of the
patient; certain acute conditions (orthopedic, neurologic, open wounds
and lesions, diabetes); the presence of an ostomy; and functional
dependence in locomotion. These models further suggested that
restricting the explanatory variables to a subset of purely clinical
and functional patient characteristics alone would produce an R-squared
of approximately .20.
Clinically driven case-mix models: The project's goal from the
outset was to develop a case-mix adjuster that defines a number of
mutually exclusive patient groups that could be associated with
differing resource use. Another criterion for the grouping system is
that it should be clinically meaningful to the home health clinicians
using it, by making use of recognized clinical categories and by being
consistent with the clinical diagnostic process. A further criterion
was simplicity; ideally, the system should be comprised of a limited
number of mutually exclusive groups, and rules for classifying patients
into groups should be straightforward.
As described in their project report (Abt Associates, Inc., Second
Interim Report, August 1999), these objectives were approached by the
Abt Associates nurse-clinicians through a combination of professional
experience and study of previous work in the field reported in the
literature. They first focused on identifying clinically significant
indicators that address patient care needs from the perspective of the
home health clinician. To help identify indicators, they considered the
following questions: What level of complexity, severity and instability
characterizes the patient's clinical condition? How much and what type
of assistance does the patient need with activities of daily living?
Does the patient require special therapies or high-tech services? What
cognitive impairments, behavioral characteristics, risk factors, and
environmental conditions affect the amount and type of care this
patient will require? The Abt team then proceeded to review the patient
assessment variables as a source of information for the indicators. The
resulting list of variables was reviewed in light of several issues:
Policy implications: Some patient characteristics are not suitable
as a basis for payment because they raise issues of equity or are
otherwise questionable from a policy perspective. For example, the
assessment's race and education variables were excluded, as were
measures of the patient's social or physical environment (for example,
unsanitary or unsafe conditions). Similarly, a case-mix adjustment
system should not discourage assistance from family members of home
care patients. Although many observers assume that the availability or
efficacy of a caregiver is a significant influence on HHA resource
consumption, adjusting payment in accordance with caregiver variables
does not seem advisable.
Administrative ease: Initially, the list of assessment items
capturing clinically significant indicators included some that were
supplemental to the OASIS itself. Incorporating these items in the
assessment would require modification of the OASIS data collection
procedures and complicate the startup phase for OASIS data collection.
We carefully examined the explanatory power of the individual items and
sought substitutes for them whenever possible from among the existing
OASIS items. We were able to find substitutes for almost all of them
with little impact on the explanatory power of the model. The only
notable exception was an assessment item about a history of falls,
which analysis suggests could raise the explanatory power of the model
by about one one-hundredth. However, because this was the only
remaining variable that was not obtainable from the existing OASIS
collection procedure, we weighed its utility against possible delays
and confusion in OASIS implementation and decided not to use it. A
utilization variable pertaining to inpatient stays occurring during the
home health episode was also seriously considered but ultimately
dropped because data limitations prevented us from clearly
understanding its impact and because it posed an added data collection
burden for home health providers. This item would have required the HHA
to report whether a Medicare-covered inpatient stay occurred during the
60-day episode and the length of the stay. This information would be
used to determine any adjustment to the case-mix group assignment at
the end of the episode.
Other criteria: Reliability-related concerns were also a part of
the item selection process. If case-mix variables address
characteristics that appear subject to varying interpretation by
assessing clinicians, the system could be vulnerable to manipulation by
providers or patients. When payment increments are at stake, great care
must be taken before accepting items even if they have been proved
reliable in other circumstances, such as quality assurance research.
For example, items on rehabilitative prognosis and overall prognosis
were eliminated on these grounds. Some symptoms may be very short-
lived, but if they are present at the time of the assessment they would
have an impact on the case-mix adjuster if included. An example is a
supplemental item such as ``In last 3 days, noticeable decrease in the
amount of food client usually eats or fluids usually consumed?'' We
determined that basing payment adjustments on potentially transient
signs and symptoms captured by these items is ill-advised because their
impact on care delivery is uncertain at best. In addition, diagnoses
that were candidates for inclusion in broader diagnosis groups were
reviewed by a member of our clinical staff from the perspective of
their reliability as markers for resource-intensive conditions.
Incentive effects: Unintended incentive effects could result from
using variables that reward providers for negative practice patterns,
such as the use of a urinary catheter absent clinical need for the
device.
Structure of the system for case-mix measurement. In addition to
studying individual variables from the perspectives of explanatory
power, policy and administrative implications, and reliability, it was
necessary to define the system's decision logic, or structure. Examples
of other grouping models developed for research purposes, case-mix
classification, risk adjustment or care and treatment were studied to
suggest ways of categorizing functional impairment, clinical severity,
and other patient characteristics--such as whether to group patient
characteristics via distinct dimensions of health status (for example,
functional versus clinical); whether to consider bifurcations of groups
for which partitioning would produce clinical and statistical meaning
(that is, ADL ``splits,'' as the RUG-III system uses); the desirability
of symmetrical versus asymmetrical models; and whether to create an
indexing system or a categorical system. For example, when considering
issues such as cognition, we considered whether these variables would
be more appropriately captured within a clinical or functional domain,
or whether they would provide more clinical meaning (or statistical
power) if used as a binary split (that is, yes/no cognitive impairment)
after clinical and functional groups were established.
Similarly, in our consideration of existing classification systems,
we examined the clinical value of different structural and operational
features of systems. The Nursing Severity Index, for example, adds
points per each qualifying nursing diagnosis and sums to a total score.
The total score, or index, reflects the patient's severity, with a
[[Page 58184]]
total index of 34 reflecting the highest severity of illness. Unlike
the NSI, the RUG-III classification system is a hierarchical system,
with seven general categories that are placed in general order of costs
associated with caring for residents. The first category, or top split,
is rehabilitation; the last is reduced physical function. As we
reviewed these systems, we gave consideration to which type of system
seemed least complex for use by home health clinicians, most
clinically-intuitive, and most feasible to operationalize, given the
nature of the assessment data set.
Abt Associates used a computer package called PC-Group, which
creates decision trees whose terminal nodes may be regarded as case-mix
groups. This package allows the analyst to ``grow'' the tree
interactively, which means considerable judgment can be imposed in
selecting and dividing nodes as the tree is constructed.
To produce a workable product with the package, it was necessary
for the Abt analysts to summarize their variables first. Based on the
conceptual work and literature review conducted during the project,
they arrived at a small set of dimensions for summarizing assessment
elements. There are separate dimensions for clinical severity;
functional status; and service utilization. This organizing principle
suggests that patients can be classified along each dimension, and this
classification is correlated with resource consumption in home care. In
an effort to maximize the clinical utility and explanatory power of the
patient classification model, the project team experimented with many
variations of each dimension, adding and removing items and examining
their effect on the way the models functioned.
The Clinical Severity Dimension. The clinical severity in the final
model incorporates three diagnostic categories: Neurologic, Orthopedic,
and Diabetes. Specific diagnoses comprising each group were reviewed to
ensure that diagnoses used on highly heterogeneous groups of patients
would not be included. Inclusion of these diagnoses could weaken the
predictive power of the case-mix adjuster. The diagnoses in each group
are shown in Table 9. The diagnosis code comes from OASIS item number
M230. The clinical dimension also includes the following OASIS items as
indicators of clinical severity: status of wounds and ulcers (M0460,
M0476, M0488); vision status (M0390); pain frequency (M0420); presence
of a bowel ostomy; (M0550) use of parenteral and enteral nutrition, and
intravenous therapy or infusion therapy (M0250); dyspnea (M0490);
urinary and bowel incontinence (M0530, M0540); and behavioral problems
(M0610).
Early versions of the clinical model did not include measures of
cognitive, sensory and behavioral impairment which might affect
resource use, primarily because statistical analysis did not suggest
they were useful in explaining variation. Based upon subsequent review,
we determined this was a serious omission from the model, so we renewed
attempts to integrate cognition and related indicators into the model.
An additional dimension consisting solely of the OASIS neurological,
cognitive, sensory, and behavioral (NCSB) variables was created, which
produced a minor variance reduction in the overall sample of only .015.
Furthermore, the highest degree of cognitive impairment was not
consistently related to the highest mean costs.
Since increasing levels of severity of the NCSB variables as a
group are not consistently associated with increased resource use, we
did not attempt to use them as an independent dimension. Using data
from regression analysis, however, we were able to integrate M0390
(vision) and M0610 (behaviors) into the Clinical Severity dimension in
a way that did not produce counter-intuitive cost groupings.
Further technical discussion of the statistical results on each
variable is found in Abt Associates, Second Interim Report, August
1999, Chapter 3.
The Functional Status dimension. As in the development of the
clinical severity dimension, we began by selecting assessment items
considered to be potential predictors of increased resource use,
focusing on the extent of assistance the patient required with
activities of daily living. Early exploration with the available
functional indicators suggested OASIS items were equivalent in
explanatory power to the supplemental items we tested. We tested
restricting the ADLs to late loss ADLs (that is, those ADLs likely to
be lost late in life: eating, transferring, toileting, and bed
mobility) to see whether the restricted list better predicted resource
use in the home-bound elderly, as is the case among the elderly which
reside in nursing homes (Williams, Brent C., Brant E. Fries, and
William J. Foley, ``Activities of Daily Living and Costs in Nursing
Homes,'' Health Care Financing Review, 15 (4):117-134 (Summer 1994)).
This was not supported. We also experimented with cognition-related
variables, based on findings in the literature (Torres, H. A., L.
Fratiglioni, Z. Guo, M. Viitanen, E. von Strauss, and B. Winblad,
``Dementia is the Major Cause of Functional Dependence in the Elderly:
3-Year Follow-up Data from a Population-based Study,'' American Journal
of Public Health, 88:1452-1456 (1998).
In the version of the dimension ultimately used in the Clinical
model, ambulation locomotion was integrated and both early-loss and
late-loss ADLs were included (while cognitive factors were incorporated
into the Clinical Dimension). We dropped the eating and grooming ADLs
because they were statistically redundant when the other items
(dressing (M0650, M0660), bathing (M0670), toileting (M0680),
transferring (M0690), and locomotion (M0700)) were included. M0650
(Dressing Upper body) and M0660 (Dressing lower body) were found to
have a significant degree of interaction and therefore were combined.
Additional experimentation with the functional status dimension
involved testing different schemes for ordering the variables and
partitioning subgroups of patients in accordance with measurements on
the variables.
None of the variables in the Functional Status Dimension was
eliminated due to reliability-related or incentive concerns. Some home
health clinicians who reviewed the model in October 1998 commented on
the potential of functional status items to be manipulated by
providers, who would have an incentive to make patients seem as
functionally impaired as possible on admission to home care. However,
because the functional status items make an important contribution in
predicting home health resource use, and because they are integral to
clinical decisionmaking for the home care benefit, they were retained.
Furthermore, under the planned Outcome-Based Quality Improvement system
for home care, beyond the initial assessment, quality assurance
monitoring may help counteract any tendency to overstate the functional
dependency of patients. We are soliciting suggestions for approaches,
new assessment items, procedures, or other mechanisms that might help
guard against mismeasurement of functional status items due to payment
incentives.
The Service Utilization Dimension
The Service Utilization dimension contains variables related to
services the patient received both before and during the episode of
home care. To measure utilization before the start of home care, OASIS
item M0170 collects information about inpatient discharges during the
14 days before the assessment. In the analysis of costs associated with
pre-admission location, we examined how
[[Page 58185]]
responses to M0170 were related to mean resource cost. It should be
noted that a Medicare SNF stay is always preceded by an acute care
hospital stay, so if a patient has a long SNF stay (exceeding 14 days)
the acute care stay probably would not be measured by this item. A
similar censoring of an acute care event may also occur with
rehabilitation stays, although there is no Medicare requirement that
such stays be preceded by an acute care hospital stay. On the other
hand, if both an acute care stay and a SNF or rehabilitation inpatient
discharge occurred within the previous 14 days, it seems likely that
the SNF stay or rehabilitation stay was relatively short. We found that
patients who are admitted to home care directly from the community are
on average more resource-intensive for home care providers than
patients who were recently discharged from an acute care hospital and
had no evidence from M0170 that they used post-acute institutional
care. Patients experiencing both a hospital and SNF/rehabilitation stay
within the past 14 days are about as resource-intensive as the patients
with no pre-admission stay. Finally, patients for whom only a SNF/
rehabilitation hospital stay is observable within the past 14 days are
the most expensive. We theorize that they tended to have relatively
long SNF or rehabilitation stays of (at least 14 days), which may
suggest that the definition of this group using M0170 is a marker for
clinically complicated cases with intensive care needs.
The other variable in the service utilization dimension measures
home health therapy hours totaling 8 hours or more during the 60-day
episode. In developing the patient classification models, we sought to
focus on variables that predicted care needed by the patient, as
opposed to care furnished by providers. Ideally, we sought a case-mix
adjustor that creates as little incentive as possible for providers to
enhance revenues by providing unnecessary services. However, including
a variable measuring the receipt of a significant amount of home health
therapy (physical, occupational, or speech/language) improved the R-
squared of our models by about .20. The RUG-III system for SNF case-mix
measurement also includes an indicator for receipt of therapy. An
advantage of paying differentially for therapy cases in the case-mix
adjuster is that it will help to maintain access to therapy among home
health patients who need it. The threshold of 8 hours targets
additional payments for home health therapy to patients with a clear
need for therapy. We believe this decision rule will motivate home
health providers to efficiently plan therapy evaluation visits and
therapy delivery for patients who need little or no therapy.
Additional variables were tested for the services utilization
dimension. We decided not to use a variable for previous home health
utilization in the past 90 days because, under the influence of payment
incentives, it carried the potential to encourage readmissions to home
care within the 90-day window. The predictive value of the service
utilization was lowered by only .0059 as a result. We also tested the
value of including inpatient stay events during the episode. This
intervening-stay variable modestly improved the total R-squared for the
model. However, as discussed above, it may present substantial data
collection burdens for providers.
Scoring Patient Variables and Developing Severity Categories
Variables within the clinical and functional dimensions have
differing impacts on resource cost. Before the final refinement phase
of model development, we assigned a score to each outcome on each
variable based on the increase in mean resource cost associated with
each outcome. Within each dimension, the sum of scores for the
component variables is correlated with resource consumption in home
care. This is consistent with our conceptualization of the clinical,
functional, and service utilization components as dimensions along
which patients can be classified in accordance with their home health
resource consumption.
During the refinement phase of model development, we used
regression-adjusted mean resource cost to re-examine the scores. The
purpose of the regression was to control for all case-mix variables
simultaneously to get a more accurate picture of their respective
independent contribution to resource use. Having quantified their
contribution via the regression, we could derive more accurate scores
for the variables. In addition, we looked for results that could signal
redundancy among the variables and tested several interaction terms in
the regression. (Interaction terms capture potential synergy among
variables.) Both the improved scoring and the interaction terms could
potentially improve the explanatory power of the case-mix system. The
results of the regression analyses changed some of the scoring and
resulted in the merging of some items. A few items were eliminated
after examining the regressions, which suggested they were redundant.
The next step in model development was to find score intervals
along the clinical dimension and the functional dimension that would
define patient groups of relative severity along the respective
dimension. Whenever possible, we used ``natural breaks'' in the array
of scores in the sample to define the intervals. When partitioning the
functional dimension scores, we examined the types of dependencies that
would be captured in the intervals, particularly at the low and high
end of the functional dimension. We determined the number of intervals
also in light of the number of groups that would ultimately be created
as more intervals are defined. The R-squared does not improve
substantially when one or two more breaks are defined, but the number
of groups increases greatly, adding to the complexity of the system.
For the clinical dimension, we classified patients into four levels
of impact (minimal, low, moderate, and high), and for the functional
dimension, five levels of impact (minimal, low, moderate, high, and
maximum). The service utilization dimension is actually comprised of
categorical variables that partition patients into four groups of
increasing impact on resource use. We assigned scores to each of these
four groups in accordance with the increasing impact.
Case-mix Groups. Each dimension contains four or five impact levels
or intervals (for example, high, moderate, minimum, and low). For every
combination of intervals, there is a case-mix group. For example,
patients who are high on the clinical dimension, moderate on the
functional dimension, and low on the services utilization dimension are
grouped together. Since there are four clinical levels, five functional
levels, and four service utilization levels, the case-mix system
comprises a total of 80 groups. Half of the groups involve patients
with therapy use of at least 8 hours.
In the case-mix research sample, the number of patients in each
group varies widely, from few or no patients to between 1,000 and 1,500
in several of the groups (unweighted data). The therapy groups comprise
a minority of patients in the sample-- 15 percent (unweighted).
Approximately 30 percent of the sample fell into the minimal clinical
level, 30 percent into the low clinical level, 23 percent into the
moderate clinical level, and 17 percent into the high clinical level.
Approximately 15 percent of the sample fell into the minimal functional
level, 30 percent into the low functional level, 36
[[Page 58186]]
percent into the moderate functional level, 11 percent into the high
functional level, and 7 percent into the maximal functional level.
III. Audited Cost Report Data Sample Methodology
Audited Cost Report Data
Section 1895(b)(1) of the Act requires the prospective payment
amount to include all services covered and paid on a reasonable cost
basis under the Medicare home health benefit, including medical
supplies. Section 1895(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act requires the computation
of a standard prospective payment amount to be initially based on the
most recent audited cost report data available to the Secretary. Under
section 1895(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act, the primary data source in
developing the cost basis for the 60-day episode payments was the
audited cost report sample of HHAs whose cost reporting periods ended
in fiscal year 1997 (that is, ended on or after October 1, 1996 through
September 30, 1997).
In February 1998, we directed our fiscal intermediaries (FIs) to
conduct comprehensive audits of the cost reports submitted by a sample
of HHAs whose cost reporting periods ended in FFY 1997. Each FI
received a list of agencies to audit and instructions on how to conduct
the audits and report the data obtained.
The sample was designed to be representative of the home health
industry in several respects: provider-based versus freestanding,
census region, urban versus rural location, and large versus small
agencies. Because we anticipated that many agencies in the sample would
not be audited because their records were unavailable for a variety of
reasons or their cost reporting periods were less than 12 months long,
the sample size was adjusted upward by 15 to 20 percent to allow for
attrition.
To create national HHA PPS rates, each observation in the final
data set is weighted to reflect the national Medicare home health
payment experience. For example, the estimates will reflect differences
across census regions and urban versus rural areas.
Audit Sample Methodology
To meet these objectives, a statistical sample begins with a list
of all HHAs that submit cost reports. The list is referred to as a
frame. Considerable effort went into the process of developing the
frame for HHAs and identifying units to be included. The frame for this
sample excludes all HHAs that are incidental providers (too small) or
not likely to yield a full year of cost reporting for the audit period.
Once a frame was developed, we selected a sample. The sample for
the HHAs was selected by choosing samples for each provider type
(freestanding not-for-profit, freestanding for-profit, freestanding
governmental, and provider-based). The provider types are referred to
as strata in sampling terms. The design of the sample took into account
the number of providers and the variation in cost and beneficiaries in
each stratum. The sample was designed to produce estimates from key
elements of the audit data with a reasonable level of precision.
A sample selection assumes the frame is complete and each sampling
unit appears once and only once in the frame. Unfortunately, after the
sample was drawn and fieldwork begun, we found that this assumption was
not strictly true for the governmental units.
The problem arises from the fact that multiple providers, referred
to as subunits, report under a single cost report. In some cases,
multiple providers' numbers corresponding to a single cost report
appear on the frame, while in other cases a provider number is a parent
possibly with multiple subunits. We then considered the subunits
associated with a single cost report as the appropriate sampling unit
because there is no way to accurately distribute costs among subunits.
The subunits on the frame associated with a single cost report were
identified and the listings of individual subunits were regarded as if
the appropriate sampling unit had been included a known number of times
on the frame list.
This somewhat changed the sample composition. When the sample was
drawn for a stratum so that each unit on the list has the same
probability of selection (as among the governmental units), the
probability that the multiply-listed unit be included in the sample was
higher. The higher probability of representation is in proportion to
the number of inclusions on the frame list. This is like a drawing in
which an individual enters his name (or his family members' names)
multiple times to enhance his (or his family's) odds of winning. When
one analyzes data from a sample that is biased by giving a higher
probability of selection to some units, these units need to be given
smaller weights if the estimates are to correctly represent the
population that the frame should have enumerated.
That is, the analysis of the sample data must take into account the
sampling probabilities by assigning each sampling unit a weight that is
less if the probability of inclusion is higher. Indeed, the sample may
include the same subunit multiple times, and we retained the values for
each time the unit appears in the sample when the proper weights are
used.
For purposes of this example, n equals the number of governmental
subunits reporting under a single cost report in the frame. Therefore,
a governmental cost report is n-times more likely to appear in the
sample, and the weights for each occurrence in the sample are reduced
by dividing by n. A description of a similar situation involving a
household survey based on samples drawn from children in school is
described in Morris H. Hansen, William N. Hurwitz, and William G.
Madow, Sample Survey Methods and Theory, vol. 1 (NY: Wiley, 1953) 59-
65. Because households with large families will have a higher
probability of being included in the sample, households with large
families will be over-represented in the sample unless some adjustment
is made. That adjustment can be done, as we did here, by providing
weights in the analysis that give less weight to the households that
are more likely to be included in the sample.
From the frame we have known totals for the number of units in the
cells. Weights were adjusted so that corresponding totals based on the
sample match these known cell totals. Even if all units in the sample
were successfully audited, the process described above ensures that
correct cell totals are obtained from the analysis.
However, when audits are not obtained as intended and the missed
units are not in the sample as intended, the weights must be adjusted
so that the sample data reproduce the known totals from the frame for
key subgroups or cells. The process assigns a larger weight to audited
units in the sample similar (in the same cell) to those missed. In the
case of the HHA, the cells were defined by the urban or rural area; the
four census regions of Northeast, Midwest, South, and West; and
provider type. Therefore, the weights were adjusted for the missed
sample units to ensure that the units obtained most closely represent
the missed units cell by cell.
Summary of the Missing Audits in the Home Health Audit Sample and
Results Used to Develop Weights for the Sample
In the home health audit sample design we assumed there would be
nonresponse or missing audits for a variety of reasons. The reasons
included situations such as the following: the provider no longer
existed in order to do the audit, the provider was under
[[Page 58187]]
investigation, or the provider filed a short cost report, that is, a
cost reporting period less than 12 months. The chart below shows the
original sample sizes for each provider type and the oversampling
cushion associated with each one. Because we rounded numbers up in the
sample size calculations and selection algorithms, the actual
oversampling factors exceed 13 percent, as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
True sample Oversample
Stratum size Oversample percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freestanding nonprofit........... 161 31 19.3
Freestanding for profit.......... 148 23 15.5
Freestanding government.......... 141 20 14.2
Provider-based................... 98 23 23.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
After examining the data for missing cases, we found the actual
number of missing cases as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sample Percent Percent of
Stratum size Actual missed target
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freestanding nonprofit......... 192 171 10.9 107.5
Freestanding for profit........ 171 142 17 98.0
Freestanding government........ 161 159 1.2 114.2
Provider-based................. 121 95 21.5 98.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From this it is evident that the sample actually obtained generally
was within range or close to the specifications. The percent of target
is based on the sample size without the allowance for anticipated
missed audits.
Freestanding for Non-Profit Summaries
Distribution of Sample and Frame for Freestanding for Nonprofit by Urban/
Rural and Census Region
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area Audits Missed Frame
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MW--Rural.................................... 12 0 58
MW--Urban.................................... 40 4 195
NE--Rural.................................... 9 1 59
NE--Urban.................................... 46 3 260
SO--Rural.................................... 20 6 112
SO--Urban.................................... 25 2 148
WS--Rural.................................... 5 3 49
WS--Urban.................................... 14 2 74
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freestanding For-Profit Summaries
Distribution of Sample and Frame for Freestanding For-Profit by Urban/
Rural and Census Region
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area Audits Missed Frame
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MW--Rural.................................... 6 0 131
MW--Urban.................................... 19 6 520
NE \1\--Urban................................ 18 0 263
SO--Rural.................................... 21 2 458
SO--Urban.................................... 54 15 1311
WS--Rural.................................... 7 1 102
WS--Urban.................................... 17 5 489
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No sample was obtained in the NE Rural category for this group. This
cell was combined with NE Urban in obtaining weights.
Freestanding Governmental Summaries
Distribution of Sample and Frame for Freestanding Governmental by Urban/
Rural and Census Region
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area Audits Missed Frame
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MW--Rural.................................... 53 1 222
MW--Urban.................................... 11 0 36
NE--Rural.................................... 8 0 29
NE--Urban.................................... 9 0 42
SO--Rural.................................... 49 1 193
SO--Urban.................................... 20 0 69
WS--Rural.................................... 8 0 25
WS--Urban.................................... 1 0 11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provider-Based Summaries
Distribution of Sample and Frame for Provider-Based by Urban/Rural and
Census Region
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area Audits Missed Frame
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MW--Rural.................................... 15 2 450
MW--Urban.................................... 13 0 293
NE--Rural.................................... 2 0 31
NE--Urban.................................... 9 3 196
SO--Rural.................................... 26 4 567
SO--URBAN.................................... 13 11 485
WS--Rural.................................... 10 3 195
WS--Urban.................................... 7 3 241
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determination of the Weights for the Actual Sample
The weights would essentially be equal for each HHA within a type
if all HHAs in the sample had been successfully audited. The weights
would be the ratio of the frame to sample size for each type because
the units were drawn with equal probability within provider type.
However, as noted above, some of the proposed sample units were not
successfully audited. Therefore, the numbers for the distribution in
the frame given above were used as known control totals. Then the known
control totals were used to adjust the weights to the frame control
totals. The ratio of the frame to the corresponding sample totals is
used as the weight for the corresponding cases in the sample, provided
the audits are not missing. If the HHA was not audited and therefore
missing, the weight was zero. This process gives more weight to the
audited HHA in a cell to account for the missing audits within the
cell. This is equivalent to imputing the weighted average of the
audited HHAs in the cell to the missed HHAs within the same cell. In
one case noted above, cells were combined because there were no
providers in the sample in the relatively small NE Rural cell for
freestanding for-profit providers.
Weight Adjustment Factors to Account for Governmentals
In the case of the governmental HHAs, the adjustment process was
modified to account for the multiple subunits included on the frame.
First, it was necessary to examine the provider numbers on the frame
for the governmental HHAs. Providers that are subunits have the last
four digits in the range 7800-7999. We also used the last four digits
to identify parent units. Parents have the last four digits in the
ranges 7000-7299 or 7400-7799 or 8000-8499 or 9000-9999. The following
[[Page 58188]]
list shows the distribution of subunits and parents on the frame by
State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Provider Subunits Parents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AL........................................ 61 60 1
AR........................................ 62 62 0
AZ........................................ 5 0 5
CA........................................ 7 0 7
CO........................................ 8 0 8
CT........................................ 8 0 8
DE........................................ 1 0 1
FL........................................ 2 0 2
GA........................................ 3 1 2
IA........................................ 56 0 56
ID........................................ 2 0 2
IL........................................ 29 0 29
IN........................................ 3 0 3
KS........................................ 21 0 21
KY........................................ 18 0 18
LA........................................ 6 0 6
MA........................................ 3 0 3
MD........................................ 10 9 1
MI........................................ 18 0 18
MN........................................ 31 0 31
MO........................................ 26 0 26
MS........................................ 16 16 0
MT........................................ 4 0 4
NC........................................ 39 0 39
ND........................................ 2 0 2
NE........................................ 2 1 1
NH........................................ 2 0 2
NJ........................................ 6 0 6
NM........................................ 2 0 2
NV........................................ 2 0 2
NY........................................ 50 0 50
OH........................................ 30 0 30
OR........................................ 3 0 3
PR........................................ 1 0 1
SC........................................ 13 13 0
SD........................................ 1 0 1
TN........................................ 4 0 4
TX........................................ 2 0 2
UT........................................ 1 0 1
VA........................................ 9 0 9
VI........................................ 1 0 1
WI........................................ 39 0 39
WV........................................ 16 15 1
WY........................................ 2 1 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
An examination of the data for the few cases with multiple subunits
from the same State confirmed that parent numbers were from a single
cost report, and subunits, as in Alabama, all had a single cost report
but a different parent.
Although there are various possible approaches regarding this
issue, the approach taken here is consistent with the HCFA numbering
conventions and the data examined to the extent we were able to confirm
them from the sample. Therefore, a number of units was assigned to each
HHA in the frame for the governmental HHAs. The number of units
assigned is one for each parent and the sum of the number of subunits
within a State for each subunit within the corresponding State. The
same unit numbers were also assigned to the HHAs in the sample.
When totals are computed for the reciprocal of the unit numbers,
the result is the number of cost reports. To see how this works,
consider the State of Alabama. There are 60 subunits each assigned a
unit count of 60, and there is 1 parent assigned a unit count of 1. The
sum of the reciprocal of the unit numbers for the 60 subunits is 60
times \1/60\ or 1, and the sum of the reciprocal of the unit number of
1 for the parent is 1. Therefore, there would be two cost reports if
all of the HHAs from Alabama were audited.
The following summary by State shows the number of governmental
providers on the frame and the number of cost reports or audits one
would expect to find for each State if all governmental providers on
the frame were audited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost
State Provider reports
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AL............................................ 61 2
AR............................................ 62 1
AZ............................................ 5 5
CA............................................ 7 7
CO............................................ 8 8
CT............................................ 8 8
DE............................................ 1 1
FL............................................ 2 2
GA............................................ 3 3
IA............................................ 56 56
ID............................................ 2 2
IL............................................ 29 29
IN............................................ 3 3
KS............................................ 21 21
KY............................................ 18 18
LA............................................ 6 6
MA............................................ 3 3
MD............................................ 10 2
MI............................................ 18 18
MN............................................ 31 31
MO............................................ 26 26
MS............................................ 16 1
MT............................................ 4 4
NC............................................ 39 39
ND............................................ 2 2
NE............................................ 2 2
NH............................................ 2 2
NJ............................................ 6 6
NM............................................ 2 2
NV............................................ 2 2
NY............................................ 50 50
OH............................................ 30 30
OR............................................ 3 3
PR............................................ 1 1
SC............................................ 13 1
SD............................................ 1 1
TN............................................ 4 4
TX............................................ 2 2
UT............................................ 1 1
VA............................................ 9 9
VI............................................ 1 1
WI............................................ 39 39
WV............................................ 16 2
WY............................................ 2 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frame totals for possible audits were obtained by using the
assigned unit numbers for each HHA in the governmental stratum.
Therefore, the following control totals apply to the governmental
stratum.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area HHAs Audits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MW--Rural..................................... 222 222.00
MW--Urban..................................... 36 36.00
NE--Rural..................................... 29 29.00
NE--Urban..................................... 42 42.00
SO--Rural..................................... 193 61.31
SO--Urban..................................... 69 31.69
WS--Rural..................................... 25 25.00
WS--Urban..................................... 11 11.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that a summary by State yields whole numbers for the audits.
However, both the urban and rural classifications occur within a State.
Therefore, a single audit may apply to providers within each category.
The corresponding sample totals are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area Providers Audits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MW--Rural..................................... 54 54.00
MW--Urban..................................... 11 11.00
NE--Rural..................................... 8 8.00
NE--Urban..................................... 9 9.00
SO--Rural..................................... 50 12.18
SO--Urban..................................... 20 8.45
WS--Rural..................................... 8 8.00
WS--Urban..................................... 1 1.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
These totals are used to obtain the adjusted weights so that the
sample totals for audits will match the frame totals. This is as if 458
audits are needed to audit the frame of 627 HHA providers because a
single audit covers multiple provider numbers or subunits.
Final Weight Factor Calculations
The weight adjustment was applied to the cells defined by the four
major census regions and the Urban/Rural classification. The weight
adjustments used the control totals from the frame. Each weight was
modified so that the weighted totals using the providers actually
audited for each cell matched the corresponding control totals. The
adjustment was a simple ratio adjustment. This corrected for the
imbalance associated with sampling and the imbalance that arose from
the distribution of missed audits.
After completing the weight adjustments, a file was created with
the resulting weights, the provider number, provider type, Census 4
(four census regions), and Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) code.
This file can be merged with the data from the cost reports for the
audited providers to compute weighted values for costs and visits in
order to compute the average cost-per-visit ratios by discipline. As a
check on the computations, the following table is the result of a
summary by provider type that agrees with the frame totals.
[[Page 58189]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frame
Type Sample No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FS/F.............................................. 142 3290
FS/G.............................................. 159 458
FS/N.............................................. 171 955
Provider.......................................... 95 2458
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final audit sample contained 567 audited cost reports which
were the basis of the HHA PPS rate calculations.
IV. HHA PPS Framework--How the System Works
We are proposing the following policy framework; however,
refinements will be made based on comments, additional national data,
and efficiencies realized in the development of the final rule.
As discussed earlier in this regulation, we are proposing a 60-day
episode as the ordinary unit of payment for home health PPS. The new
60-day episode begins with the start of care date, which is the first
billable service date, and includes the 60th day from start of care
date. The 60-day episode payment covers one individual for 60 days of
care regardless of the number of days of care actually provided during
the 60-day period unless there is a PEP adjustment, SCIC adjustment,
LUPA, additional outlier payment, or medical review determination.
The 60-day episode payment will be case-mix adjusted using the
OASIS assessment (as mandated by HHA conditions of participation
regulations published in the Federal Register on January 25, 1999 at 65
FR 3747 and 65 FR 3764) supplemented, as applicable, by one additional
patient-specific item regarding projected number of therapy hours
received in the 60-day episode period (see section II.C. and IV.L of
this regulation). The total case-mix-adjusted 60-day episode payment is
based on the initial OASIS assessment and the supplemental item
regarding projected therapy hours received submitted at the start of
the 60-day episode and the confirmation of projected therapy use
submitted via the line-item date visit information reported on the
final claim at the end of the 60-day episode.
A. Start of Care
The HHA establishes the plan of care and the patient will be
grouped into the appropriate case-mix category via the OASIS assessment
and the additional item regarding projected number of therapy hours
received in a 60-day episode at the HHA. We are exploring the approach
that would allow grouper software at the HHA to interface with the
HAVEN software used for State transmission of OASIS quality data. The
OASIS assessment supplemented by one additional treatment-specific item
on projected therapy use is fed into the grouper logic, and the grouper
logic selects the OASIS elements needed to establish the case-mix group
and determines the appropriate case-mix category for the patient. The
grouper logic generates a code. The code corresponds to the appropriate
case-mix category and is placed on the initial claim. The HHA must have
all physician orders in the plan of care and a physician's signature
for the plan of care before billing. The physician's orders for therapy
services will be a key focus of medical review.
The initial claim with the appropriate code is submitted to the
RHHI for payment. The pricer computes the initial percentage payment
equal to 50 percent of the 60-day case-mix adjusted payment for that
HHRG category. The pricer also adjusts the payment by the appropriate
wage index corresponding to the site of service delivery. The clean
claim is processed, and the initial 50 percent payment is issued to the
HHA.
The HHA that initially establishes the plan of care is responsible
for billing for all home health services provided under the plan of
care, including nonroutine medical supplies and durable medical
supplies in a 60-day episode. If a patient transfers during a 60-day
episode, the responsibility for consolidating billing moves to the
transfer HHA.
The Use of Clinical Model ``Grouper'' Software
As discussed at the beginning of this section, all data necessary
to classify a patient to one of the 80 HHRG categories are contained on
the OASIS-B supplemented, as applicable, by one additional item
regarding projected therapy use in a given 60-day episode period. Under
this PPS, HHAs are required to use the collection reporting
requirements for the data elements in the Federal Register on January
25, 1999, supplemented by one additional item regarding projected
therapy use in a given 60-day episode period for classification of
patients for case mix. We expect that the software programs that use
OASIS-B supplemented by projected therapy use to assign patients to the
appropriate groups, called grouper software, will be available from
many software vendors. The version we use will be available at no cost
from our future HCFA website on PPS. We are proposing an option to
build the grouper logic into the HAVEN software, which is used for
transmission of OASIS-B data for purposes of quality via the State
system. We may refine the grouper logic with experience and the onset
of 15-minute increment billing data in the future.
B. End of Episode
The final claim may contain all of the line-item date visit
information for the entire 60-day episode period. As discussed above,
the confirmation of actual therapy hours received in the previous 60-
day episode period will be captured with a utilization proxy based on
the line-item date visit information reported on the final claim. The
final claim will be sent to the RHHI and the pricer will compute the
final payment equal to 50 percent of the actual case-mix-adjusted
episode payment and wage index adjusts the payment. If the actual
therapy use does not correspond to the code submitted for the episode,
a correction will be necessary.
C. Recertification of 60-Day Episode Period
At the end of the 60-day episode a decision must be made to
recertify the patient for another 60-day episode period. An eligible
beneficiary who qualifies for a continuous 60-day episode would start
the continuous 60-day episode on Day 61. A new OASIS is performed as
part of the overall approach to assessment and to determine the
appropriate case-mix category for the next episode. The physician's
orders for services in the plan of care and the physician's
certification of eligibility are required before the HHA submits a bill
for the next 60-day episode period.
D. Determining Whether a Beneficiary Is Under an Established Plan of
Care
Episodes must be tracked to ensure the case-mix adjusted episode
payment is allocated to the appropriate HHA. This tracking requirement,
which is needed for payments, proration, and consolidated billing,
entails both an ability for internal RHHI systems to inquire and
establish the status of HHAs providing services under a home health
plan of care in a given 60-day episode period, as well as an external
ability for HHAs to query the system to determine whether a beneficiary
is already under an established home health plan of care in a given 60-
day episode period. The national episode history by beneficiary must be
created and maintained that contains beneficiary identification,
provider identification, dates of service, utilization, case-mix
classification codes, and discharge and transfer status indicators.
HCFA is proposing to develop a tracking system available to both
providers and RHHIs that would provide information on whether a
[[Page 58190]]
beneficiary is under an established home health plan of care.
E. Medical Review
Section 1816 of the Act requires our contractors to conduct audits
of providers' records, as needed, to ensure that payments are
appropriate for the items or services furnished. Payments under this
HHA PPS are per episode prospective payment rates based on the
patient's condition as determined by classification into one of the 80
HHRGs. This classification system uses patient assessment data from the
OASIS-B supplemented, as applicable, by one additional patient-specific
item regarding the amount of therapy hours received in the 60-day
episode period. HHAs must complete the OASIS assessment according to an
assessment schedule specifically designed for Medicare payment (see
section IV.L. of this regulation). HHAs will send each patient's OASIS-
B (including, as indicated, projected therapy use) to the State and
claims for Medicare payment to the RHHI.
The total case-mix-adjusted 60-day episode payment is based on the
initial OASIS assessment and, if applicable, a supplemental item
indicating the projected therapy (that is, physical, speech-language
pathology, and occupational therapy in any combination) hours to be
received in a 60-day episode submitted at the start of the 60-day
episode (note: we are proposing to use therapy visit data as a proxy
for time). The projected number of therapy hours reported at the start
of the 60-day episode (that is, on the initial claim) is confirmed by
the actual receipt of therapy identified on the final claim (that is,
line-item visit information) at the end of the 60-day episode. The
initial claim for each 60-day episode may not contain visit information
and may only include the code corresponding to the appropriate case-mix
category/HHRGs. The final claim for the 60-day episode may include all
of the line-item visit information for the previous 60 days. Adjustment
to the HHRG payment is the confirmation of actual therapy use and
coverage determinations based on medical review of the claim. These
adjustments are in lieu of the partial episode, low-utilization, and
outlier payment adjustments (see sections I.D., II.A.4., and II.A.5. of
this regulation) discussed in the earlier sections of this proposal.
The medical review process for HHA PPS bills must be consistent
with the new total case-mix-adjusted 60-day episode payment process and
billing information available on the initial and final claims for each
60-day episodes. Considering the limited information available on the
initial claim, prepayment medical review of the initial claim would
probably be limited to the technical eligibility for home health
services and overall medical necessity of care. For example, the RHHI
would determine if the patient is homebound (HCFA=Pub. 11, Sec. 204.1),
whether a plan of treatment is established (HCFA=Pub. 11, Sec. 204.2),
and skilled services are needed. For the final claim for the 60-day
episode, line-item date visit information for the previous 60 days will
be considered in confirming actual therapy use and medical necessity
coverage determinations. For continuous 60-day episode periods, any
payment adjustments (for example, recovery of overpayments) would be
made on an ensuing 60-day episode claim for that or other patients. At
this time, specific to final closeout claims (see section IV.B. of this
regulation), we anticipate no change in the current process for
recovering overpayments from an HHA.
Because all Medicare-participating HHAs will be transitioned onto
the new payment system on a particular calender date (see section IV.H.
of this regulation), the initial medical review strategy for HHA PPS
bills will be a parallel approach of random and focused medical review.
The purpose of the random review is to get a cross-sectional overview
of trends in beneficiary care and utilization of services. The
information gained will support HCFA's and RHHI's data needs and aid in
developing focused medical review (FMR) criteria that may be unique to
a particular RHHI's provider population. In addition to the random
review, RHHIs will continue to monitor specific claims or services
historically known for potential areas of abuse. As with current
medical review guidelines, RHHIs will be required to validate suspected
problems before targeting medical review efforts.
After a few months of HHA PPS experience, HCFA and the RHHIs should
be able to gain the information needed to identify and study trends in
beneficiary care and utilization of services. At that time, medical
review efforts will return to a data-driven approach targeting on those
areas with the most potential for inappropriate billing,
overutilization, and abuse (that is, FMR). Review efforts may be claim
specific and driven by patterns of case-mix upcoding or the medical
need for the episode(s) of care and technical eligibility. As with
current Medicare medical review practice, HCFA will allow RHHIs to
supplement their primary prepayment review activities with a limited
amount of postpayment review.
Prepayment and postpayment review activity will continue with the
capability to deny claims in total or adjust payment to correct case
mix. Also, because this case-mix classification system can be
supplemented by the amount of therapy hours received in a 60-day
episode period, if applicable to the claim, medical review should
ensure that the therapy was actually furnished and intensity (for
example, time) of those services were reasonable and necessary for the
beneficiary's condition. Information, such as the patient's OASIS,
medical records, and the billing history will be considered in
determining payment for covered services. This same review strategy
will also be used to determine the coverage of medical supplies and DME
under a home health plan of care (that is, consolidated billing).
Finally, if during the review of HHA PPS claims the RHHI becomes
suspicious of poor health and safety conditions, case referrals will be
made to HCFA staff who will in turn alert the applicable State
Agencies. Beneficiary quality of care concerns will also be referred to
the applicable Peer Review Organization.
To accomplish this new perspective on medical review of HHA claims,
the RHHIs need to have timely information on patients to determine, for
example, whether the HHRG rate to be paid is appropriate and accurately
reflects the beneficiary's clinical condition. The HHA PPS Inquiry
System (see section III.E. of this regulation) will provide the RHHIs
with the internal and external real-time query capability to access the
information as establishing the status of an HHA providing services
under a home health plan of care in a given 60-day episode period,
beneficiary identification, provider identification, dates of service,
utilization, case-mix classification codes, and discharge and transfer
status indicator codes. Also, RHHI access into the national HCFA
Repository should help facilitate the data matching and analysis of
beneficiary-specific OASIS-B and billing information used to support
program integrity functions.
F. Overpayments and Adjustments
If it is determined from proration, medical review, etc. that the
preliminary case-mix-adjusted episode payment exceeds the amount
ultimately due to an HHA, the overpayment may be offset against future
episode payments due to the HHA for the same or other agency patients.
[[Page 58191]]
G. Implementation Effective Date for PPS
OCESAA requires all HHAs to be paid under PPS effective upon
implementation of the system October 1, 2000. There is no transition by
cost reporting period; therefore, all HHAs begin PPS on the same
implementation date (October 1, 2000). We are aware that most cost
reporting periods do not end with the statutory implementation date of
PPS. Rather than requiring the close-out of cost reports with short
period cost reports, we are exploring the use of a supplemental
schedule in the cost report to allocate costs and limits between pre-
and post-PPS.
H. Claims Processing Transition
Under the October 1, 2000 PPS implementation date, all HHAs must
bill for all eligible Medicare beneficiaries under a home health plan
of care under the PPS. If an HHA has beneficiaries already under an
established plan of care, all open bills for services provided
September 30, 2000 or earlier will need to be closed as of September
30, 2000.
I. Quality System
Under the Medicare COPs, HHAs must develop, implement, maintain,
and evaluate an effective, data-driven quality assessment and
performance improvement program. The program must reflect the
complexity of the HHA's organization and services, including those
services provided directly or under arrangement. The HHA must take
actions that result in improvements in the HHA's performance across the
spectrum of care. An integral part of this approach is the additional
COP requirement that HHAs use a standard core assessment data set, the
Outcome and Assessment Information Set (OASIS), when evaluating
patients. The OASIS is a set of valid, reliable measures, developed to
assess patient outcomes to care provided in the home.
The use of a uniform patient assessment in home health is part of a
broader HCFA goal to develop outcome measures for all provider types.
The OASIS is expected to become one of the most important aspects of
the HHA's quality assessment and performance improvement efforts. By
integrating a core standard assessment data set into its own more
comprehensive assessment system, an HHA can use this data set as the
foundation for valid and reliable information for patient assessment,
care planning, and service delivery, as well as to build a strong and
effective quality assessment and performance improvement program.
As a part of the COP, Medicare-certified HHAs are required to
collect, and report to the States, OASIS data on all adult home health
patients served by the agency with the following exceptions: (1)
Maternity patients; (2) those under 18; and (3) those receiving other
than personal care services or health services, for example,
housekeeping and chore services. We will regularly collect OASIS data
from the States for storage in a national OASIS repository. Information
from the repository will be used to generate national OASIS outcome
reports for dissemination through the States to the HHAs to be used for
outcome based quality improvement (OBQI).
The general framework for OBQI is a two-stage process of continuous
quality improvement. Data are collected at regular time intervals for
all adult patients. Outcome measures are computed using the OASIS data
reported by the HHAs. Risk adjustment is undertaken, and outcome
reports are produced for specific patient conditions (focused reports)
and for all adult patients (global reports). These outcome reports are
provided to the participating HHAs and are used to determine which
outcomes are inferior, thereby providing a focus for agency staff to
target problematic care. Exemplary care is also investigated in order
to reinforce positive care behaviors. A plan of action allows the
agency to monitor the changes in care behavior and through the next
round of data collection, determine if targeted outcomes have improved
and if reinforcement activities have maintained exemplary outcomes.
HHAs are expected to integrate this information into the development of
their OBQI programs to care for all home health patients.
The State Agencies will be responsible for disseminating the
national aggregate information, generating and disseminating State
aggregate information, and providing individual reports for each HHA in
their State. Each HHA will have regular access to outcome reports based
on its own OASIS data submissions and comparative State and national
aggregate reports. Eventually, the individual HHA reports will include
case-mix-adjusted outcomes from the HHA's current year and previous
year. In addition, through the States, the HHA will have continuous on-
line access to case-mix, tabular, and adverse event reports based on
its own reported OASIS data.
We will provide support to the States and HHAs to ensure the
continuous reporting of OASIS data, the generation of OBQI reports, and
the development and use of OBQI programs by HHAs. To assist in the
effective use of OBQI, HHAs will be expected to participate in a
program specified by the Secretary that involves the targeting of State
or specific national quality outcomes for improvement.
J. Illustrative Examples
1. 60-day Episode--No Recertification
In a 60-day episode, a patient is assessed and assigned to HHRG10
by HHA-A. The patient is under a physician certified plan of care with
a predicted end date of Day 30. The patient meets the treatment goals
and is discharged on Day 30. The patient does not experience a
significant change in condition from Day 1-30. The patient does not
return to HHA-A during Day 31-60 of the 60-day episode and does not
transfer to another HHA during Day 31-60 of the 60-day episode. Even
though HHA-A only served the patient from Day 1-30, HHA-A receives the
total 60-day episode payment for the patient.
BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28OC99.007
2. 60-Day Episode with Recertification
An eligible home health patient is certified for a 60-day episode
period including the start of care date October 1 through and including
the last day of the episode November 29. The patient is grouped into
HHRG W. No therapy is required for the patient. The corresponding
payment amount for
[[Page 58192]]
HHRG W is $800. The HHA has obtained a signed plan of care before
billing. The HHA submits the initial claim with the code associated
with HHRG W to the RHHI. The pricer computes the 50 percent payment for
HHRG W, and the RHHI processes the $400 payment to the HHA.
The 60-day payment covers the patient for the 60-day period
covering October 1 (the first billable service date) through November
29. At the end of the episode, the HHA reassesses the patient via the
OASIS and in conjunction with the physician determines the need for
continued home care. At the end of the episode, the HHA submits the
final claim for the residual 50 percent payment for HHRG W. The HHA
submits the final claim to the RHHI. The pricer computes the 50 percent
residual payment and processes the clean claim. The HHA receives the
$400 residual payment for the patient.
At the end of the episode, the HHA also completes a follow-up OASIS
for purposes of recertification of the 60-day episode. The reassessment
OASIS is fed into the grouper logic at the HHA, and a different HHRG
code is generated. The HHRG U is placed on the claim, and the HHA will
submit an initial claim for the next 60-day episode. The cycle repeats.
As discussed above, the recertification of subsequent episodes for
continuous home care spans the start of care date plus 60 days. Unlike
the PEP adjustment, continuous episode recertifications for eligible
beneficiaries do not begin with the first billable visit.
3. Partial Episode Payment Adjustment Examples
The following specific intervening events--
a beneficiary elected transfer; or
a discharge and return to the same HHA start a new 60-day
episode clock for purposes of payment, OASIS assessment, and physician
certification of the plan of care. The original 60-day episode payment
is proportionally adjusted to reflect the length of time the
beneficiary remained under the agency's care prior to the intervening
event. The proportional payment is called the PEP adjustment.
The PEP adjustment is based on the span of days including the
start-of-care date (first billable service date through and including
the last billable service date) under the original plan of care prior
to the intervening event. The PEP adjustment is calculated using the
span of days (first billable service date through and including the
last billable service date) under the original plan of care as a
proportion of 60. The proportion is multiplied by the original case mix
and wage adjusted 60-day episode payment.
Beneficiary Elected Transfer
In a 60-day episode, a patient is assigned to HHRG10=$3000 by HHA-1
and is discharged on Day 20. Day 18 is the last day of the current 60-
day episode with a physician ordered/billable visit. The patient
transfers to HHA-2 on Day 40. HHA-2 assesses the patient and obtains
physician orders for a new plan of care. The first ordered service/
billable service is Day 43. Day 43 becomes Day 1 of the new 60-day
episode for HHA-2. The PEP adjustment for HHA-1 would equal $3000 * 18/
60. The triggering date for the end of the partial episode is the last
physician ordered service/billable visit date for the HHA. The
triggering date for the new 60-day episode is the first ordered service
in the new plan of care corresponding to the new 60-day episode due to
the beneficiary elected transfer or transfer to a new HHA that is not
under common ownership with original HHA-1.
BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28OC99.008
Discharge and Return to the Same HHA During the 60-Day Episode
In a 60-day episode, a patient is discharged on Day 20 and returns
to the same HHA on Day 35. The patient met the treatment goals in the
original plan of care. The original plan of care was terminated with no
anticipated need for home care during the balance of the 60-day
episode. The initial percentage payment would be adjusted to recognize
the 20 days served by the HHA under the initial case-mix category. The
last ordered visit was under the original plan of care coincidentally
furnished on Day 20 of the initial 60-day episode. For example, the
patient is assigned to HHRG10=3000 episode payment, is discharged on
Day 20, and returns to the same HHA on Day 35. The HHA would reassess
the patient on or about Day 35 and start a new 60-day clock for
physician recertification, OASIS, and case-mix assignment for payment.
The start of the new payment clock corresponds to the first physician
ordered service/billable service in the new plan of care. For purposes
of this example, the first physician ordered service in the new plan of
care for the new 60-day episode payment is Day 40. Day 40 of the
original episode becomes Day 1 of the new certified period.
The adjusted payment for the partial episode spans the start of
care date (Day 1-first physician ordered service) through and including
the last day of the 60-day episode that includes the last physician
ordered service furnished/billable visit prior to the intervening event
as a proportion of 60 days. The adjusted payment for the partial
episode spans Day 1 through and including Day 20. Day 20 is the last
day of the original episode that includes a physician ordered/billable
service. The PEP adjustment would equal $3000 times 20/60. The
triggering date that closes the original episode with a PEP adjustment
is the last date of service with a physician ordered/billable service
prior to the intervening event. The triggering date for the new episode
is the first ordered service in the new plan of care corresponding to
the new 60-day episode due to discharge and return to the HHA in same
episode.
[[Page 58193]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28OC99.009
4. Significant Change in Condition Payment Adjustment Examples
As discussed above, we are proposing that the third intervening
event over a course of a 60-day episode of home health care that could
trigger a change in payment level would be a significant change in the
patient's condition. We are proposing the significant change in
condition payment adjustment (SCIC Adjustment) to be the proportional
payment adjustment reflecting the time both prior and after the patient
experienced a significant change in condition during the 60-day
episode. The proposed SCIC adjustment occurs when a beneficiary
experiences a significant change in condition during a 60-day episode
that was not envisioned in the original plan of care. In order to
receive a new case mix assignment for purposes of payment during the
60-day episode, the HHA must complete an OASIS assessment and obtain
the necessary physician change orders reflecting the significant change
in treatment approach in the patient's plan of care.
As discussed above, the SCIC adjustment occurs in two parts during
the 60-day episode. The first part of the SCIC adjustment uses the span
of days of the first billable service date through the last billable
service date prior to the intervening event of the patient's
significant change in condition that warrants a new case mix assignment
for payment. The second part of the SCIC adjustment is determined by
taking the span of days (first billable service date through the last
billable service date) after the patient experiences the significant
change in condition through the balance of the 60-day episode as a
proportion of 60 multiplied by the new episode payment level resulting
from the significant change. The initial percentage payment provided at
the start of the 60-day episode will be adjusted at the end of the
episode to reflect the first and second parts of the SCIC adjustment
(or any applicable medical review or LUPA) determined at the final
billing of the 60-day episode .
For example, an HHA assigns a patient to a HHRG that equals $2,000
and would be paid the initial 50 percent equaling $1,000 at the start
of the episode. The patient's first billable service date is Day 1. The
patient experiences a significant change in condition on Day 19. The
last billable service date prior to the significant change in condition
is Day 20. The HHA completes the OASIS assessment, obtains the
necessary physician change orders to alter the course of treatment in
the plan of care, and changes the case mix assignment for payment
reflecting the patient's change in condition. The HHA has all of the
necessary information to begin rendering services under the revised
plan of care and at the new case mix level of a HHRG that equals $4,000
on Day 25. The span of days that are used to calculate the first part
of the SCIC adjustment are Day 1 through Day 20. Day 25 is the first
billable service date under the second part of the SCIC adjustment. Day
60 is the last billable service date at the case mix level HHRG that
equals $4,000 prior to the end of the 60-day episode.
The first part of the SCIC adjustment is:
(Day 1-Day 20) 20/60 x $2,000 = $666.67
The second part of the SCIC adjustment is:
(Day 25-Day 60) 36/60 x $4,000 = $2,400.00
Total SCIC Adjustment= $3,066.67
The original $1,000 payment (50 percent of the HHRG=$2,000) would be
adjusted with $2,066.67. to pay the balance of the total SCIC
Adjustment of $3,066.67 unless there is any applicable medical review
or LUPA determined at the final billing for the 60-day episode.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28OC99.010
[[Page 58194]]
BILLING CODE 4120-01-C
K. Required Schedule for Completing OASIS Supplemented by One
Additional Case-Mix Item
As discussed above, sections 1895(b)(4)(A)(i) and (b)(4)(B) of the
Act require the Secretary to establish and make appropriate case-mix
adjustments to the units of payment in a manner that explains a
significant amount of the variation in cost among different units of
service. Section 1895(b)(2) of the Act requires the Secretary to
provide a general system design for the HHA PPS that provides for
continued access to quality services. Further, section 4602(e) of the
BBA, effective for cost reporting periods beginning on or after October
1, 1997, the Secretary may require all HHAs to submit additional
information that the Secretary considers necessary for the development
of a reliable case-mix system.
Required Schedule for Completion of OASIS Supplemented by One
Additional Case-Mix Item
As discussed above, the initial OASIS assessment completed at the
start of care and the assessment at every subsequent follow-up
recertification for beneficiaries who continue to be eligible for home
health services will be the only assessments recognized for purposes of
payment for the 60-day episode. The start of care OASIS must be
completed at the beginning of each 60-day episode. An HHA may not bill
for the initial percentage episode payment without the grouper-
generated code corresponding to the complete OASIS assessment
supplemented, as necessary, by the additional therapy variable for that
60-day episode. We are proposing to amend the current bimonthly
completion time frames published in the January 25, 1999 conditions of
participation (COP) final rule (64 FR 3764) by revising 42 CFR 484.55,
``Condition of participation: Comprehensive assessment of patients,''
paragraph (d)(1), to state that the standard for the update of the
comprehensive assessment would be every 60 days beginning with the
start of care date, unless there is an intervening beneficiary elected
transfer, a significant change in condition resulting in a new case mix
assignment, or a discharge and return to the same HHA during the 60-day
episode. We are using discrete 60-day episodes for purposes of payment
under PPS, so it is necessary to replace references to the current
``bimonthly period'' to ``every 60 days unless there is an intervening
beneficiary elected transfer, a significant change in condition
resulting in a new case mix assignment, or a discharge and return to
the same HHA during the 60-day episode.'' The initial OASIS assessment
completed at the start of care is updated every 60 days. The initial
OASIS and subsequent follow-up OASIS supplemented, as applicable, by
the treatment variable regarding therapy use will also be updated on a
60-day timetable. Each 60-day follow-up OASIS supplemented by the
treatment variable regarding therapy will be the basis for case-mix
adjusting each subsequent 60-day episode period for purposes of
payment.
One modification to the current OASIS schedule for the follow-up
assessment is necessary in order for the case-mix adjustment of each
subsequent 60-day episode recertification. The current follow-up
assessment schedule does not now include data elements MO230 Primary
Home Care Diagnosis and MO390 Vision. Both are necessary elements of
the case-mix adjustment methodology. The schedule for follow-up
assessments must be modified to include these two case-mix variables.
Each follow-up assessment is used as the basis for updating the
comprehensive assessment and case-mix adjusting subsequent 60-day
episodes for payment purposes. The follow-up assessment schedule must
include all 19 OASIS items that have been determined to be necessary
for case-mix adjustment.
As discussed above in section IV.A. of this regulation, we are
proposing that the grouper logic will be located at the provider level.
The grouper logic at the HHA will select and categorize the relevant
OASIS items and one treatment variable regarding therapy use necessary
to establish a case-mix category for payment purposes. As stated above,
under section 4602(e) of the BBA, effective for cost reporting periods
beginning on or after October 1, 1997, the Secretary may require all
HHAs to submit additional information that the Secretary considers
necessary for the development of a reliable case-mix system. Therapy
use (physical therapy, speech-language pathology services, and
occupational therapy) during the 60-day episode is a significant
explanatory variable in the clinical case-mix model. Since actual
therapy use cannot be determined until the end of the 60-day episode,
we are proposing the projection of therapy use at the start of the 60-
day episode and the confirmation of the therapy use at the end of the
60-day episode. As discussed in section II.C. of this regulation, the
research has developed a utilization proxy for time. As stated above,
10 therapy visits equate to 8 or more therapy hours during a 60-day
episode. We will use the line-item date information from the close-out
bill to confirm the projected therapy use incorporated into the code
placed on the start of care bill.
The additional case-mix item regarding therapy use during a 60-day
episode will be effective October 1, 2000 with the date of PPS
implementation.
L. Relationship Between Payment and OASIS
As explained above, each Medicare home health patient is classified
into an HHRG group for each 60-day episode period. The group to which
the patient is classified is based on the information about the
patient's clinical resource needs as reported on the OASIS-B as part of
the approach to overall comprehensive assessment as required by 42 CFR
484.55 in the HHA COPs, and the services ordered in the patient's home
health plan of care, including but not limited to, a physician's orders
for therapy services.
M. Transition of Assessment and Certification Dates for Beneficiaries
Under an Established Home Health Plan of Care
For eligible beneficiaries under an established home health plan of
care on October 1, 2000, we are providing transition alternatives.
1. Use of Current OASIS Assessment for Purposes of Case-Mix
Classification
If a beneficiary is under an established home health plan of care
before October, 1, 2000 and the HHA has completed a Start of Care or
Follow-Up OASIS earlier than September 1, 2000, the HHA must complete a
one-time additional Follow-Up OASIS within 5 days before October 1,
2000 for purposes of case-mix classification. If a beneficiary is under
an established home health plan of care before October 1, 2000 and the
HHA completed a Start of Care or Follow-Up OASIS on or after September
1, 2000 and does not wish to do a one-time OASIS at the inception of
PPS, the HHA may use that earlier version of the OASIS. This is a one-
time grace period.
2. Physician Certification Dates for Beneficiaries Under an Established
Home Health Plan of Care
If a beneficiary is under an established home health plan of care
before October 1, 2000 and the certification date is earlier than
September 1, 2000, the HHA in conjunction with a certifying physician
must complete a one-time additional recertification of the plan of care
before the inception of PPS on October 1, 2000.
[[Page 58195]]
If a beneficiary is under an established home health plan of care
before October 1, 2000 and the certification date is on or after
September 1, 2000 and the HHA in conjunction with a certifying
physician does not wish to do a one-time additional recertification of
the plan of care at the inception of PPS, the HHA may use the
recertification date (September 1, 2000 through September 30, 2000)
from the earlier version of the plan of care. This is a one-time grace
period.
V. Consolidated Billing
A. Background
Under the HHA Consolidated Billing requirement established by
sections 4603(c)(2)(B) and (c)(2)(C) of the BBA, the HHA that
establishes the home health plan of care has the Medicare billing
responsibility for all of the Medicare-covered home health services
listed in section 1861(m) of the Act that the patient receives and are
ordered by the physician in the plan of care.
B. HHA Consolidated Billing Legislation
Specific Provisions of the Legislation
Sections 4603(c)(2)(B) and (c)(2)(C) of the BBA amend sections
1842(b)(6) and 1862(a) of the Act, respectively, to require a new
consolidated billing and bundling of all home health services while a
beneficiary is under the plan of care. The statute now requires payment
for all items and services to be made to an agency.
Specifically, the law requires, ``in the case of home health
services furnished to an individual who (at the time the item or
service is furnished) is under the plan of care of a home health
agency, payment shall be made to the agency (without regard to whether
or not the item or service was furnished by the agency, by others under
arrangement with them made by the agency, or when any other contracting
or consulting arrangement, or otherwise).''
However, the statute also provides for separate payment amounts for
home health care and services currently provided under the DME fee
schedule. As discussed above in section I.D.1.a. of this regulation,
under the HHA PPS, DME covered as a home health service as part of the
Medicare home health benefit will continue to be paid under the DME fee
schedule. We believe a separate payment amount in addition to the
prospective payment amount for home health services will be made for
DME currently covered as a home health service under the PPS.
Nevertheless, payment for home health services can only be made to the
HHA that establishes the individual's home health plan of care. This
requirement would apply even in circumstances in which the services are
not provided directly or under arrangement. For example, this would
require the HHA to bill when the plan of care specifies DME and an
outside supplier provides it.
C. Types of Services That Are Subject to the Provision
Under the consolidated billing requirement, we require that the HHA
must submit all Medicare claims for the home health services included
in 1861(m) of the Act while the beneficiary is under the home health
plan of care established by a physician and is eligible for the home
health benefit. The home health services included in consolidated
billing are:
Part-time or intermittent skilled nursing care.
Part-time or intermittent home health aide services.
Physical therapy.
Speech-language pathology.
Occupational therapy, medical social services.
Routine and nonroutine medical supplies.
A covered osteoporosis drug (as defined in section
1861(kk) of the Act--(not paid under PPS rate, see 1833(a)(2)(A)), but
excluding other drugs and biologicals).
DME subject to 20 percent coinsurance whether covered
under Part A or Part B.
Medical services provided by an intern or resident-in-
training of the hospital, under an approved teaching program of the
hospital in the case of an HHA that is affiliated or under common
control with a hospital
Services at hospitals, SNFs, or rehabilitation centers
when they involve equipment too cumbersome to bring to the home.
We are seeking comments on the operational feasibility of this
requirement.
D. Effects of This Provision
HHAs will no longer be able to ``unbundle'' services to an outside
supplier that can then submit a separate bill directly to the Part B
carrier. Instead, the HHA itself will have to furnish the home health
services either directly or under an arrangement with an outside
supplier in which the HHA itself, rather than the supplier, bills
Medicare. The outside supplier must look to the HHA rather than to
Medicare Part B for payment. This will be a change, especially
regarding nonroutine medical supplies and DME.
The consolidated billing requirement eliminates the potential for
duplicative billings for the same services to the RHHI by the HHA and
to the Part B carrier by an outside supplier. All covered home health
services listed in section 1861(m) of the Act ordered in the patient's
plan of care must be billed by the HHA. We are exploring two options
for the administrative implementation of this provision. The first
option would require that all covered home health services listed in
section 1861(m) of the Act ordered in the patient's plan of care must
be billed by the HHA to the RHHI. This would include all home health
services included in the prospective payment amount (part-time or
intermittent skilled nursing services, part-time or intermittent home
health aide services, physical therapy services, occupational therapy
services, speech-language pathology services, medical social services,
and medical supplies) and the separate additional fee schedule payment
for durable medical equipment subject to the 20 percent coinsurance
would be billed by the HHA to the RHHI. The second option would require
all covered home health services listed in section 1861(m) of the Act
ordered in the plan of care included in the prospective payment amount
(part-time or intermittent skilled nursing services, part-time or
intermittent home health aide services, physical therapy services,
occupational therapy services, speech-language pathology services,
medical social services, and medical supplies) to be billed by the HHA
to the RHHI and the separate additional fee schedule payment for
durable medical equipment subject to the 20 percent coinsurance billed
by the HHA as a supplier to be billed to the Durable Medical Equipment
Regional Carrier under Part B. This means the HHA would have to
otherwise conform with supplier standards. We solicit public comment on
either of these approaches.
As discussed in section II.D.4 of this regulation, the
responsibility for consolidated billing moves to the transfer HHA. The
consolidated billing requirement enhances the HHA's capacity to meet
its existing responsibility to oversee and coordinate the Medicare-
covered home health services that each of its patients receives.
Consistent with SNF PPS consolidated billing, the beneficiary
exercises his or her freedom of choice for the entire home health
benefit of services listed in 1861(m) by choosing the HHA. Once a home
health patient chooses a particular HHA, he or she has clearly
exercised freedom of choice with respect to all items and services
included within the scope of the
[[Page 58196]]
Medicare home health benefit. The HHA's consolidated billing role
supersedes all other billing situations the beneficiary may wish to
establish for home health services covered under the scope of the home
health benefit during the certified episode.
Current law is silent regarding the specific terms of an HHA's
payment to an outside supplier, and does not authorize the Medicare
program to impose any requirements in this regard. We remain concerned,
however, over the potential for the provision of unnecessary services,
and will continue to evaluate possible legislative and other approaches
addressing this concern. One appropriate way to address any abusive
practices would be through more vigorous enforcement of existing
statutes and regulations (such as medical review procedures). Further,
since under current law, an HHA's relationship with its supplier is
essentially a private contractual matter, the terms of the supplier's
payment by the HHA must be arrived at through direct negotiations
between the two parties themselves. Accordingly, we believe that the
most effective way for a supplier to address any concerns that it may
have about the adequacy or timeliness of the HHA's payment would be for
the supplier to ensure that any terms to which it agrees in such
negotiations satisfactorily address those concerns. Finally, we note
that matters relating to the enforcement of the statutory anti-kickback
provisions lie exclusively within the purview of the Office of the
Inspector General, and any questions or concerns in this area should be
directed to the attention of that agency.
E. Effective Date for Consolidated Billing
The effective date for consolidated billing is October 1, 2000.
VI. Provisions of the Proposed Rule
We are proposing to make a number of revisions to the regulations
in order to implement both the prospective payment system and the HHA
Consolidated Billing provision. We propose to make conforming changes
in 42 CFR parts 409, 424, and 484 to synchronize all timeframes for the
plan of care certification, OASIS resumption of care assessment, and
episode payments to reflect a 60-day period. In addition, we are
proposing to add a new subpart in part 484 to set forth our new payment
system for HHAs. These revisions and others are discussed in detail
below.
First, we are proposing to revise part 409, subpart E, which
discusses the requirements that must be met for Medicare to make
payment for home health services. We are proposing to make a conforming
change in Sec. 409.43 regarding the plan of care requirements.
Specifically, we propose to revise the frequency for review in
paragraph (e) of this section by replacing the phrase ``62 days'' with
``60 days unless there is--
An intervening beneficiary elected transfer;
A significant change in condition resulting in a new case
mix assignment; or
A discharge and return to the same HHA during the 60-day
episode that warrants a new 60-day episode payment and a new physician
certification of the new plan of care.''
In addition, we are proposing to revise subpart H of this part
regarding payments of hospital insurance benefits. We are proposing to
revise paragraph (a) in Sec. 409.100, which discusses payment for
services, to specify the conditions under which Medicare may pay
hospital insurance benefits for home health services. We are proposing
to provide introductory text to paragraph (a) and to redesignate the
current paragraph (a) as paragraph (a)(1). Proposed paragraph (a)(2) of
this section would require that Medicare may pay hospital insurance
benefits for the home health services specified at section 1861(m) of
the Act, when furnished to an individual who at the time the item or
service is furnished is under a plan of care of an HHA, to the HHA
(without regard to whether the item or service is furnished by the HHA
directly, under arrangement with the HHA, or under any other
contracting or consulting arrangement).
We are proposing to make similar changes in part 410, subpart I,
which deals with payment of benefits under Part B. We propose to add a
new paragraph (b)(19) to Sec. 410.150 to specify the conditions under
which Medicare Part B pays for home health services. Specifically,
proposed paragraph (b)(19) would specify that Medicare Part B pay a
participating HHA, for home health services furnished to an individual
who at the time the item or service is furnished is under a plan of
care of an HHA (without regard to whether the item or service is
furnished by the HHA directly, under arrangement with the HHA, or under
any other contracting or consulting arrangement).
We also propose to revise part 411 subpart A, which discusses
excluded services. We propose to add a new paragraph (q) to Sec. 411.15
to specify the conditions under which HHA services are excluded from
coverage. Proposed paragraph (q) would specify that a home health
service as defined in section 1861(m) of the Act furnished to an
individual who is under a plan of care of an HHA is excluded from
coverage unless that HHA has submitted a claim for payment for such
services.
We are also proposing to simplify the authority citation for part
413. In Sec. 413.1 in the introduction to the section on principles of
reasonable cost reimbursement, we are proposing to add a new paragraph
(h) to include the timeframe under which home health services will be
paid prospectively. Paragraph (h) under this section would specify that
the amount paid for home health services as defined in section 1861(m)
of the Act that are furnished beginning on or after October 1, 2000 to
an eligible beneficiary under a home health plan of care is determined
according to the prospectively determined payment rates for HHAs set
forth in part 484, subpart E of this chapter. In addition, we propose
to amend Sec. 413.64 concerning payments to providers. Specifically, we
propose to amend paragraph (h)(1) of this section by removing Part A
and Part B HHA services from the periodic interim payment method.
We also propose to revise part 424, which explains the conditions
for Medicare payment. We are proposing to revise Sec. 424.22 regarding
the certification requirements as a condition for payment. We are
proposing to add a new paragraph (a)(1)(v) that would specify that as a
condition for payment of home health services under Medicare Part A or
Medicare Part B, a physician must certify that the individual is
correctly assigned to one of the HHRGs. We are also proposing to make a
conforming change at paragraph (b)(1) of this section regarding the
timing of the recertification. Specifically, we propose to amend
Sec. 424.22(b) by replacing the phrase ``at least every 2 months'' with
``at least every 60 days,'' and adding the following sentence: ``The
recertification is required at least every 60 days unless there is a
beneficiary elected transfer, or a discharge and return to the same HHA
during the 60-day episode that warrants a new 60-day episode payment
and a new physician certification of the new plan of care.''
We are proposing to add a new statutory authority, section 1895 of
the Act, to paragraph (a) of Sec. 484.200, ``Basis and scope.'' Section
1895 provides for the implementation of a prospective payment system
for HHAs for portions of cost-reporting periods occurring on or after
October 1, 2000.
We are proposing to revise the regulations in 42 CFR part 484,
which deal with the conditions that an HHA must meet in order to
participate in
[[Page 58197]]
Medicare. First, we are proposing to revise the part heading from
``Conditions Of Participation: Home Health Agencies'' to the more
generic heading ``Home Health Services.'' We are proposing to make a
conforming change in Sec. 484.18(b) by replacing the phrase ``62 days''
with ``60 days unless there is--
A beneficiary elected transfer;
A significant change in condition resulting in a change in
the case-mix assignment; or
A discharge and return to the same HHA during the 60-day
episode.''
Also, we propose to revise Sec. 484.55(d)(1) by replacing ``every
second calendar month'' with language that reflects the 60-day episode
and possible PEP adjustment or SCIC adjustment. We are proposing to
require that the comprehensive assessment be updated and revised as
frequently as the patient's condition warrants but not less frequently
than every 60 days beginning with the start-of-care date unless there
is--
A beneficiary elected transfer;
A significant change in condition resulting in a change in
the case-mix assignment; or
A discharge and return to the same HHA during the 60-day
episode.
In addition, we are proposing to add and reserve a new subpart D,
then add a new subpart E, ``Prospective Payment System for Home Health
Agencies.'' This new subpart would set forth the regulatory framework
of the new prospective payment system. It specifically discusses the
development of the payment rates, associated adjustments, and related
rules. In Sec. 484.202, ``Definitions,'' we are proposing the following
definitions for purposes of this new subpart:
As used in this subpart--
Case-mix index means a scale that measures the relative difference
in resource intensity among different groups in the clinical model.
Clinical model means a system for classifying Medicare-eligible
patients under a home health plan of care into mutually exclusive
groups based on clinical, functional, and intensity-of-service
criteria. The mutually exclusive groups are defined as Home Health
Resource Groups (HHRGs).
Discipline means one of the six home health disciplines covered
under the Medicare home health benefit (skilled nursing services, home
health aide services, physical therapy services, occupational therapy
services, speech-language pathology services, and medical social
services).
Market basket index means an index that reflects changes over time
in the prices of an appropriate mix of goods and services included in
home health services.
In proposed Sec. 484.205 ``Basis of payment,'' we discuss the
Medicare payment to providers of services. Proposed Sec. 484.205(a)
describes the method by which the provider will receive payment.
Specifically, Sec. 484.205(a)(1) provides that an HHA receives a
national 60-day episode payment of a predetermined rate for a home
health service paid on a reasonable cost basis. We determine this
national 60-day episode payment under the methodology set forth in
Sec. 484.215. Paragraph (a)(2) would specify that an HHA may receive a
low-utilization payment adjustment (LUPA) of a predetermined per-visit
rate. We determine the LUPA under the methodology set forth in
Sec. 484.230. Paragraph (a)(3) of this section provides that an HHA may
receive a PEP adjustment due to an intervening event during an existing
60-day episode that initiates the start of a new 60-day episode payment
and a new patient plan of care. We determine the PEP adjustment under
the methodology set forth in Sec. 484.235. Paragraph (a)(4) of this
section specifies that a HHA may receive a significant change in
condition payment adjustment (SCIC) adjustment due to the intervening
event defined as a significant change in the patient's condition during
an existing 60-day episode. We determine the SCIC adjustment under a
methodology set forth in Sec. 484.237.
Proposed paragraph (b) discusses the 60-day episode payment and
circumstances surrounding adjustments to the payment method. This
paragraph proposes that the national 60-day episode payment represents
payment in full for all costs associated with furnishing a home health
service paid on a reasonable cost basis as of August 5, 1997 (the date
of the enactment of the BBA) unless the national 60-day episode payment
is subject to a low-utilization payment adjustment as set forth in
Sec. 484.230, a partial episode payment adjustment as set forth in
Sec. 484.235, a significant change in condition payment adjustment set
forth in Sec. 484.237 or an additional outlier payment as set forth in
Sec. 484.240. All payments under this system may be subject to a
medical review adjustment. DME provided as a home health service as
defined in section 1861(m) of the Act continues to be paid the fee
schedule amount.
In paragraph (c) of this section, we propose the low-utilization
payment adjustment to the 60-day episode payment. We would require that
an HHA receive a national 60-day episode payment of a predetermined
rate for home health services paid on a reasonable cost basis as of
August 5, 1997, unless we determine at the end of the 60-day episode
that the HHA furnished minimal services to a patient during the 60-day
episode. We determine a low-utilization payment adjustment under the
methodology set forth in Sec. 484.230.
In paragraph (d), we discuss the partial episode payment adjustment
(PEP). We describe that an HHA receives a national 60-day episode
payment of a predetermined rate for home health services paid on a
reasonable cost basis as of August 5, 1997, unless there is an
intervening event that warrants the initiation of a new 60-day episode
payment and a new physician certification of the new plan of care. The
initial HHA receives a PEP adjustment reflecting the length of time the
patient remained under its care. The PEP adjustment would not apply in
situations of transfers among HHAs of common ownership. Further, the
discharge and return to the same HHA is only recognized in those
circumstances when a beneficiary reached the goals in the original plan
of care. The original plan of care must have been terminated with no
anticipated need for additional home health services for the balance of
the 60-day episode. We determine a partial episode payment adjustment
under the methodology set forth in Sec. 484.235.
In paragraph (e), we discuss the significant change in condition
adjustment. We discuss that the HHA receives a national 60-day episode
payment of a predetermined rate for home health services paid on a
reasonable cost basis as of August 5, 1997, unless HCFA determines an
intervening event defined as a beneficiary experiencing a significant
change in condition during a 60-day episode that was not envisioned in
the original plan of care. In order to receive a new case mix
assignment for purposes of payment during the 60-day episode, the HHA
must complete an OASIS assessment and obtain the necessary physician
change orders reflecting the significant change in the treatment
approach in the patient's plan of care. The significant change in
condition payment adjustment is a proportional payment adjustment
reflecting the time both before and after the patient experienced a
significant change in condition during the 60-day episode.
In paragraph (f), we discuss how we treat payment for outliers. In
this paragraph we would provide that an HHA receives a national 60-day
episode payment of a predetermined rate for
[[Page 58198]]
home health services paid on a reasonable-cost basis as of August 5,
1997, unless the estimated cost of the 60-day episode exceeds a
threshold amount. The outlier payment is defined to be a proportion of
the estimated costs beyond the threshold. An outlier payment is a
payment in addition to the national 60-day episode payment. The total
of all outlier payments is limited to 5 percent of total outlays under
the HHA PPS. We determine an outlier payment under the methodology set
forth in Sec. 484.240.
In the proposed Sec. 484.210, we would specify the data used for
the calculation of the national prospective 60-day episode payment.
These data include the following:
Medicare cost data on the most recent audited cost report
data available.
Utilization data based on Medicare claims.
An appropriate wage index to adjust for area wage
differences.
The most recent projections of increases in costs from the
HHA market basket index.
OASIS assessment data and other data that account for the
relative resource utilization for different HHA Medicare patient case-
mix.
In Sec. 484.215, paragraphs (a) through (e) would specify the
methodology used for the calculation of the national 60-day episode
payment. Proposed paragraph (a) would specify that in calculating the
initial unadjusted national 60-day episode payment applicable for a
service furnished by an HHA using data on the most recent available
audited cost reports, we determine each HHA's costs by summing its
allowable costs for the period. We determine the national mean cost per
visit.
Proposed paragraph (b) of this section would specify that in
calculating the initial unadjusted national 60-day episode payment, we
determine the national mean utilization for each of the six disciplines
using home health claims data.
Proposed paragraph (c) of this section would specify that we use
the HHA market basket index to adjust the HHA cost data to reflect cost
increases occurring between October 1, 1996 through September 30, 2001.
For each fiscal year from 2002 or 2003, we update the cost data by a
factor equivalent to the annual market basket index percentage minus
1.1 percentage points.
Proposed paragraph (d) of this section would describe how we
calculate the unadjusted national average prospective payment amount
for the 60-day episode. Specifically, we would calculate this payment
amount by--
Computing the mean national cost per visit;
Computing the national mean utilization for each
discipline;
Multiplying the mean national cost per visit by the
national mean utilization summed in the aggregate for each discipline;
then
Adding to this amount, amounts for nonroutine medical
supplies and an OASIS adjustment for estimated ongoing reporting costs.
Proposed paragraph (e) regarding standardization of the data for
variation in area wage levels and case-mix would specify that we
standardize the cost data described in paragraph (a) of this section to
remove the effects of geographic variation in wage levels and variation
in case mix. We standardize the cost data for geographic variation in
wage levels using the hospital wage index. We standardize the cost data
for HHA variation in case mix using the case-mix indices and other data
that indicate HHA case mix.
Proposed Sec. 484.220 would describe how we calculate the national
adjusted prospective 60-day episode payment rate for case-mix and area
wage levels. This section would specify that we adjust the national
prospective 60-day episode payment rate to account for HHA case mix
using a case-mix index to explain the relative resource utilization of
different patients. We also adjust the national prospective 60-day
episode payment rate to account for geographic differences in wage
levels using an appropriate wage index.
In proposed Sec. 484.225, we explain our methods for annually
updating the national adjusted prospective 60-day episode payment rates
for inflation. This update is handled in the following manner:
We update the unadjusted national 60-day episode payment
rate on a fiscal year basis.
For FY 2001, the unadjusted national 60-day episode
payment rate is adjusted using the latest available market basket
factors.
For fiscal year 2002 or 2003, the unadjusted national 60-
day episode payment rate is equal to the rate for the previous period
or fiscal year increase by a factor equal to the HHA market basket
minus 1.1 percentage point.
For any subsequent fiscal years, the unadjusted national
rate is equal to the rate for the previous fiscal year increased by the
applicable HHA market basket index amount.
In proposed Sec. 484.230, we explain the methodology we use for the
calculation of the low-utilization payment adjustment. In this section,
we would specify that in calculating the low-utilization payment
adjustment an episode with four or fewer visits is paid the national
average standardized per-visit amount by discipline for each visit
type. We would also specify that the national average standardized per-
visit amount is determined by using cost data set forth in
Sec. 484.210(a) and adjusting by the appropriate wage index.
Proposed Sec. 484.235 illustrates the methodology we used to
calculate the partial episode payment adjustment. The intervening event
of a beneficiary elected transfer, or discharge and return to the same
HHA during the 60-day episode warrants a new 60-day episode payment and
a new physician certification of a new plan of care. The original 60-
day episode payment is adjusted with a partial episode payment that
reflects the length of time the beneficiary remained under the care of
the original HHA. The partial episode payment is calculated using the
actual days served by the original HHA as a proportion of 60 multiplied
by the initial 60-day episode payment.
Proposed Sec. 484.237 illustrates the methodology we used to
calculate the significant change in condition payment adjustment. The
intervening event, here a beneficiary experiencing a significant change
in condition during a 60-day episode that was not envisioned in the
original plan of care, initiates the significant change in condition
payment adjustment. The significant change in condition adjustment is
calculated in two parts. The first part of the SCIC adjustment reflects
the adjustment to the level of payment prior to the significant change
in the patient's condition during the 60-day episode. The second part
of the SCIC adjustment reflects the adjustment to the level of payment
after the significant change in the patient's condition occurs during
the 60-day episode. The first part of the SCIC adjustment is determined
by taking the span of days prior to the patient's significant change in
condition as a proportion of 60 multiplied by the original episode
amount. The original episode payment level is proportionally adjusted
using the span of time the patient was under the care of the HHA prior
to the significant change in condition that warranted an OASIS
assessment, physician change orders indicating the need for a
significant change in the course of the treatment plan, and the new
case mix assignment for payment at the end of the 60-day episode. The
second part of the SCIC adjustment is a proportional payment adjustment
reflecting the time the patient will be under the care of the HHA after
the significant change in condition and continuing until the end
[[Page 58199]]
of the 60-day episode. The second part of the SCIC adjustment is
determined by taking the span of days (first billable service date
through the last billable service date) after the patient experiences
the significant change in condition through the balance of the 60-day
episode as a proportion of 60 multiplied by the new episode payment
level resulting from the significant change. The initial percentage
payment provided at the start of the 60-day episode will be adjusted at
the end of the episode to reflect the first and second parts of the
SCIC adjustment.
Proposed Sec. 484.240 describes the methodology we used to
calculate the outlier payment. This methodology for the calculation of
the outlier payment involves the following:
We make an outlier payment for an episode whose estimated
cost exceeds a threshold amount for each case-mix group.
The outlier threshold for each case-mix group is the
episode payment amount for that group, the PEP adjustment amount for
the episode or the total significant change in condition adjustment for
the episode plus a fixed dollar loss amount that is the same for all
case-mix groups.
The outlier payment is a proportion of the amount of
estimated cost beyond the threshold.
We estimate the cost for each episode by applying the
standard per-visit amount to the number of visits by discipline
reported on claims.
The fixed dollar loss amount and the loss-sharing
proportion are chosen so that the estimated total outlier payment is no
more than 5 percent of total episode payment.
Proposed Sec. 484.250 relates to data that must be submitted for
the development of a reliable case mix. Specifically, we would require
an HHA to submit the OASIS data described at the current
Sec. 484.55(b)(1) and (d)(1) (that we propose to revise in this rule)
to administer the payment rate methodologies described in Sec. 484.215
(methodology used for the calculation of the national 60-day episode
payment), Sec. 484.230 (methodology used for the calculation of the
LUPA), Sec. 484.235 (methodology used for the calculation of the PEP
adjustment), and Sec. 484.237 (methodology used for the calculation of
the SCIC adjustment.
Proposed Sec. 484.260 discusses the limitation for review with
regard to our new payment system. In this section, we specify that
judicial or administrative review under sections 1869 or 1878 of the
Act, or otherwise, is prohibited with regard to the establishment of a
payment unit including the national 60-day episode payment rate and the
LUPA. This prohibition includes the establishment of the transition
period, definition and application of the unit of payments, the
computation of initial standard prospective payment amounts, the
establishment of the adjustment for outliers, and the establishment of
case-mix and area wage adjustment factors.
VII. Response to Comments
Because of the large number of items of correspondence we normally
receive on Federal Register documents published for comment, we are not
able to acknowledge or respond to them individually. We will consider
all comments we receive by the date and time specified in the DATES
section of this preamble, and, when we proceed with a subsequent
document, we will respond to the comments in the preamble to that
document.
VIII. Collection of Information Requirements
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, we are required to
provide 60-day notice in the Federal Register and solicit public
comment before a collection of information requirement is submitted to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. In
order to fairly evaluate whether an information collection should be
approved by OMB, section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires that we
solicit comment on the following issues:
The need for the information collection and its usefulness
in carrying out the proper functions of our agency.
The accuracy of our estimate of the information collection
burden.
The quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected.
Recommendations to minimize the information collection
burden on the affected public, including automated collection
techniques.
We are soliciting public comment on each of these issues for the
information collection requirements (ICRs) as summarized and discussed
below.
Section 484.55 Condition of Participation: Comprehensive Assessment of
Patients
Section 484.55(d)(1), ``Update of the comprehensive assessment,''
requires entities to complete OASIS every 60 days beginning with the
start of care date. This proposed requirement will revise the current
requirement referenced in Sec. 484.55(d)(1) by replacing ``every second
calendar month'' with ``every 60 days'' and adding language to address
the possible PEP adjustment or SCIC adjustment. The new language would
require that the comprehensive assessment be updated and revised as
frequently as the patient's condition warrants but not less frequently
that every 60 days beginning with the start-of-care date, unless there
is--
A beneficiary elected transfer;
A significant change in condition resulting in a new case-
mix assignment; or
A discharge and return to the same HHA during the 60-day
episode that warrants a new 60-day episode payment and a new physician
certification of the new plan of care. We believe the 60-day episode
provides an appropriate time frame for purposes of prospective payment
for many reasons. The 60-day episode period is the basic time frame
under which HHAs have historically been required to manage and project
home health care needs of beneficiaries in order to comply with current
plan of care certification requirements for Medicare home health plans
of care. The 60-day episode period basically matches the reassessment
schedule for OASIS, and this parallel time frame will permit case-mix
adjustment of each episode. As discussed above in section I.C., the 60-
day episode captures the majority of stays experienced in the per-
episode HHA PPS Demonstration.
We do not believe the change in reporting from at least every 62
days to 60 days imposes any additional burden on HHAs. However, we
explicitly solicit comments on this revision of reporting requirements.
We are specifically seeking comments on the potential burden
associated with the PEP adjustment in terms of acquiring a new
physician certification and new plan of care in order to receive a new
60-day episode payment when a patient is discharged and returns to the
same HHA during the 60-day episode or a beneficiary elects to transfer
to a new HHA during the 60-day episode. We do not believe there is any
new burden associated with requiring a new physician certification and
new plan of care when a patient elects to transfer to a new HHA during
a 60-day episode, as these are current requirements. We also believe
the SCIC adjustment reflects the current practice of notifying the
physician when the patient's condition changes and obtaining necessary
physician change orders to reflect a change in the course of treatment
in the beneficiary's existing plan of care. We are, however, seeking
comments on the proposal.
Each episode must be identified to establish that a beneficiary is
under a plan of care at that primary HHA. The primary HHA is
responsible for coordinating the beneficiary's care and
[[Page 58200]]
billing for all covered home health services ordered in the plan of
care for the 60-day episode. The primary HHA must provide this
information to HCFA. Consistent with the patients' rights provisions in
the HHA conditions of participation regulation, the HHA must advise
patients that as their primary HHA, all covered home health services
provided during the episode must be furnished directly or under
arrangement with the agency unless the beneficiary elects to transfer
to another primary HHA. The acknowledgment that this information has
been provided should be retained by the HHA. We do not envision a new
specific form requirement for the primary HHA designation. We are
specifically seeking comments on the industry's ability to
operationally comply with this requirement.
We have submitted a copy of this proposed rule to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for its review of the information
collection requirements described above. These requirements are not
effective until they have been approved by OMB.
If you comment on any of these information collection and record
keeping requirements, please mail copies directly to the following:
Health Care Financing Administration, Office of Information Services,
Security and Standards Group, Division of HCFA Enterprise Standards,
Room N2-14-26, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850, Attn:
John Burke, HCFA-1059-P
and
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC
20503, Attn: Allison Eydt, HCFA Desk Officer.
IX. Regulatory Impact Statement
Section 804(2) of title 5, United States Code (as added by section
251 of Public Law 104-121), specifies that a ``major rule'' is any rule
that the Office of Management and Budget finds is likely to result in--
An annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more;
A major increase in costs or prices for consumers,
individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or
geographic regions; or
Significant adverse effects on competition, employment,
investment productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States
based enterprises to compete with foreign based enterprises in domestic
and export markets.
We estimate, based on a simulation model, that the redistributional
effects on HHAs participating in the Medicare program associated with
this proposed rule would range from a positive $650 million for
freestanding not-for-profit agencies to a negative $983 million for
freestanding for-profit agencies in FY 2001. Therefore, this rule is a
major rule as defined in Title 5, United States Code, section 804(2).
We have examined the impacts of this proposed rule as required by
Executive Order 12866, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995,
(Public Law 104-4), and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (Public
Law 96-354). Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all 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, distributive impacts, and equity). A regulatory
impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules with
economically significant effects ($100 million or more annually).
Section 1895(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act requires that the total amounts
payable under the HHA PPS be equal to the total amount that would have
been paid if this system had not been in effect. Section
1895(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act requires the standard prospective payment
amounts to be budget neutral to the FY 2001 home health interim payment
system limits reduced by 15 percent. Section 4603(e) requires that the
15 percent reduction in interim payment system limits takes place if
the PPS is not implemented. Section 5101(d)(2) of OCESAA adds a new
section 1895(b)(3)(B)(ii) to the Act to require the standard
prospective payment amounts to be increased by a factor equal to the
home health market basket minus 1.1 percentage points for FY 2002 or
2003. In addition, for subsequent fiscal years, the law requires the
rates to be increased by the applicable home health market basket index
change. Thus, subject to these adjustments, the statutory construction
of this proposed rule is budget neutral. However, we are aware that
there would be a number of organizational accommodations that must be
made by HHAs in order to make the transition from the cost-based/
interim payment system environment to a prospective payment environment
that would result in costs to these entities. On that basis, we are
preparing this RIA.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires
that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits
for any rule that may result in an expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million in any given year. We believe that the costs associated with
this proposed rule that apply to these governmental sectors would fall
below this threshold. Therefore, the law does not apply and we have not
prepared an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits of this
proposed rule.
The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief
of small businesses. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include
small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and governmental agencies.
Most HHAs are considered small entities, either by nonprofit status or
by having revenues of $5 million or less annually. Table 10 illustrates
the distribution of HHAs by provider type participating in Medicare as
of April 13, 1999.
Table 10.--Number of HHAs by Provider Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HHA provider type Number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visiting Nurse Association................................... 484
Combination Government and Voluntary......................... 34
Official Health Agency....................................... 1,067
Rehab Facility Based......................................... 2
Hospital Based............................................... 2,486
Skilled Nursing Facility Based............................... 174
Other........................................................ 4,612
----------
Total.................................................... 8,859
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: HCFA--On Line Survey Certification and Reporting System Standard
Report 10--4/13/99.
The following RIA/RFA analysis, together with the rest of this
preamble, explains the rationale for and purposes of this rule,
analyzes alternatives, and presents the measures we propose to minimize
the burden on small entities.
A. Background
1. General
This proposed rule sets forth a prospective payment system for all
costs of home health services under section 1895(b) of the Act. Section
5101(c)(2) of OCESAA amended the statute to require that all HHAs be
paid under HHA PPS effective October 1, 2000. Section I. of the
preamble details the requirements of the BBA and OCESAA for the
development of the HHA PPS. Below we summarize a number of those areas
that specifically apply to the impact.
Section 1895(b)(1) of the Act provides for a transition of
not longer than 4 years during which a portion of the prospective
payment amount may be agency-specific as long as the blend
[[Page 58201]]
does not exceed budget-neutrality targets.
Section 1895(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act requires that the
prospective payment amounts be standardized to eliminate the effects of
case mix and wage levels among HHAs.
Section 1895(b)(3)(C) of the Act provides for outlier
payments. Section 1895(b)(5) of the Act states that total outlier
payments cannot exceed 5 percent of either projected or estimated total
HHA PPS payments.
Section 1895(b) of the Act allows us broad authority in the
establishment of several key elements of the system. Most of these
elements, and the alternatives that were considered, are discussed in
detail earlier in the preamble of this proposed rule. Several that
warrant additional discussion are the length of episode for payment
purposes, the case-mix methodology, and proration of prospective
payment amounts.
2. 60-Day Episode Definition and Payment Rate
As we explain in section II. of the preamble, we are proposing that
the prospective payment unit of payment under the HHA PPS be based on a
60-day episode of Medicare-covered home health care as OASIS data will
be captured on a 60-day cycle. Current Medicare plan-of-care
certification requirements are also done bimonthly, and most episodes
in the HHA per-episode PPS demonstration ended in 60 days or less.
As we explain in section II. of the preamble, the 60-day episode
payment rate includes all costs of home health services covered and
paid for on a reasonable-cost basis and would be based on the most
recently available audited cost-report data. It would be standardized
to eliminate the effects of case mix and wage levels among HHAs. It
must be budget neutral to the current HHA interim payment system
limitation amounts reduced by 15 percent at the inception of the HHA
PPS on October 1, 2000. As amended by section 5101(d)(2) of OCESAA,
sections 1895(b)(3)(B)(i) and (b)(3)(B)(ii) of the Act require that the
standard prospective payment amounts are to be increased by a factor
equal to the home health market basket minus 1.1 percentage points for
fiscal year 2002 or 2003. Also, it incorporates adjustments to account
for provider case mix using a clinical classification system that
accounts for the relative resource utilization of different patient
types. The classification system used, the Clinical Model from Abt,
uses the OASIS patient data set supplemented, as applicable, by one
additional patient-specific item regarding number of therapy hours/
visits received in the 60-day episode period.
3. Case Mix
The goal of a case-mix payment system is to measure the intensity
of care and services required for each patient and translate it into an
appropriate payment level. Case-mix adjustment takes into account the
relative resource use of different patient types served by an HHA. As
we explain in section II. of the preamble, sections 1895(b)(4)(A)(i)
and (b)(4)(B) of the Act require us to establish and make appropriate
case-mix adjustments to the episode payment amounts in a manner that
explains a significant amount of the variation in cost among different
units of services. The patient classification system used under the HHA
PPS is the Clinical Model from Abt, an 80-group patient classification
system, that provides the basis for the case-mix payment indices used
both for standardization of the 60-day episode payments and
subsequently to establish the case-mix adjustments to the 60-day
episode payment for patients with different home health service needs.
B. Alternatives Considered
Several alternatives have been considered in our development of the HHA
PPS.
1. Unit of Payment
Section 1895(b)(2) of the Act requires the Secretary in defining a
prospective payment amount to consider an appropriate unit of service
and the number, type, and duration of visits provided within the unit;
and potential changes in the mix of services provided within that unit
and their cost. As discussed in section II. of this preamble, we are
proposing a 60-day episode for the unit of payment under the HHA PPS.
The proposed system provides for a low-utilization payment adjustment
(LUPA) and a partial episode payment adjustment (PEP) adjustment. The
proposed payment system also provides for a separate cost outlier
payment in addition to the 60-day episode payment. Outlier payment
alternatives are discussed below.
a. 60-Day National Episode Payment
Recognizing that (1) OASIS data will be captured on a 60-day cycle,
(2) current Medicare plan of care certification requirements govern a
bimonthly period of time, and (3) most episodes of care will be
concluded in 60 days or less in the HHA PPS demonstration, we are
proposing a 60-day episode as the unit of payment for HHA PPS. We are
proposing that the 60-day episode begins with the start-of-care date as
day 1 (first billable date) and ends on and includes the 60th day from
start of care. The next continuous episode period would begin on day 61
as the start-of-care date and end on and include day 120. We are
proposing the requirement that the 60-day episode payment covers one
individual for 60 days of care regardless of the number of days of care
actually provided during the 60-day period, unless there is a low-
utilization payment adjustment, partial episode payment adjustment,
additional outlier payment, or medical review determination. An HHA
that accepts a Medicare-eligible beneficiary for home health care for
the 60-day episode period and submits a bill for payment may not refuse
to treat an eligible beneficiary who has been discharged from the HHA
during the 60-day episode, but later requires Medicare-covered home
health services during the same 60-day episode period and elects to
return to the same HHA.
In order to address the needs of longer stay patients, at this time
we are proposing not to limit the number of 60-day episode
recertifications in a given fiscal year. There is the potential for
unlimited consecutive episodes if eligibility and coverage rules
continue to be satisfied. Recertification of and payment for
consecutive 60-day episodes is, of course, dependent on OASIS
assessment and the patient's eligibility and need for continued
medically necessary Medicare home health services. We believe
consecutive 60-day episode recertification and payment would ensure
continued access to the Medicare home health benefit without exceeding
the statutory budget-neutrality targets.
We believe the 60-day episode provides an appropriate time frame
for purposes of prospective payment for many reasons. The 60-day
episode period is the basic time frame that HHAs have historically been
required to manage and project home health care needs of beneficiaries
in order to comply with current plan of care certification requirements
for Medicare home health plans of care. The 60-day episode period also
matches the reassessment schedule for OASIS, and this parallel time
frame would permit case-mix adjustment of each episode.
We considered the option of a 120-day episode payment under the
national HHA PPS. As discussed in section I. of this preamble, the HHA
per-episode PPS demonstration tested a 120-day episode payment. In the
HHA per-episode PPS demonstration, the 120-day episode payment was
calculated using agency-specific costs in a given base-year
[[Page 58202]]
period. The calculation used for the 120-day episode payment in the HHA
per-episode PPS demonstration was mean agency-specific cost per
discipline multiplied by mean agency-specific utilization per
discipline summed in the aggregate. The 60-day national episode payment
methodology set forth in this rule parallels the general formula of
mean cost multiplied by mean utilization summed in the aggregate.
However, the 60-day episode payment for the national system is based on
national mean cost and national mean utilization from the audited cost
report sample database. The HHA per-episode PPS demonstration reflected
an agency-specific methodology.
Another feature of the HHA per-episode PPS demonstration that was
not adopted in the national PPS proposal is a prospective per-visit
payment approach after completion of the 120-day episode. In the HHA
per-episode PPS demonstration, agencies were paid a prospective per-
visit amount for beneficiaries who required home health care after the
120-day episode had elapsed. Under the national HHA PPS, we are
proposing continuous 60-day case-mix and wage-adjusted episode payments
for beneficiaries who continue to be eligible for Medicare-covered home
health services.
Based on the HHA per-episode PPS demonstration findings, the 60-day
episode captured the majority of stays experienced in the HHA per-
episode PPS demonstration. About 60 percent of the HHA per-episode PPS
demonstration patients completed their episodes within 60 days. One
criterion for the appropriate episode length is that it capture a
majority of the patients. We now have evidence from the HHA per-episode
PPS demonstration that a 60-day episode will do so. A 120-day episode,
as tested in the HHA per-episode PPS demonstration, also meets this
criterion, but we do not gain significantly larger completion
percentage by lengthening the episode to 120 days. Moreover, a 120-day
episode would result in more inequity in payments because of the larger
risk of a change in a patient's condition over the span of the longer
episode. We are specifically soliciting comments on the utility of a
60-day episode period for purposes of prospective payment and the
efficacy of unlimited consecutive episode recertifications for eligible
beneficiaries in a given fiscal year. We are also proposing a low-
utilization payment adjustment (LUPA).
b. Low-Utilization Payment Adjustment
As discussed in section I. of the preamble, the statute requires
that the definition of the unit of payment or episode must take into
consideration the number, type, duration, mix, and cost of visits
provided within the unit of payment. As a result of our analysis, we
determined the need to also recognize a low-utilization payment under
the HHA PPS. Low-utilization payment would reduce the 60-day episode
payments, the partial episode payment adjustment, or the significant
change in condition adjustments to those HHAs that provide minimal
services to patients during the time the beneficiary is under their
care. A reduced payment for low-utilization episodes would moderate the
financial incentive for extreme skimping on services provided within an
episode. It would also reduce the incentive to obtain an additional
episode payment beyond a current episode by providing a bare minimum of
additional services. It also redistributes monies to episodes
reflecting higher service intensity.
Episodes with four or fewer visits would be paid the national
average standardized per-visit amount times the number of visits
actually provided during the episode. Based on analysis of our episode
database, we concluded approximately 15 percent of current episodes
constitute four or fewer visits. We explored the option of a six-visit
threshold for low-utilization payments, but found approximately 20
percent of episodes in our episode database contain six or fewer
visits. However, we are soliciting comments on the six or fewer visit
threshold as discussed above in section I.D. of this regulation.
c. Partial Episode Payment Adjustment
We are proposing that the 60-day episode payment covers one
beneficiary for 60 days of care regardless of the number of the days of
care actually furnished during the 60-day episode unless one of the
following intervening events occurs during the 60-day episode:
A beneficiary elected transfer, or
A discharge and return to the same HHA.
The intervening event described above restarts the 60-day episode
clock for purposes of payment, OASIS assessment, and new physician
certification of the new plan of care. The original 60-day episode
payment is proportionally adjusted to reflect the actual length of time
the beneficiary remained under the agency's care prior to the
intervening event. The proportional payment is called the partial
episode payment adjustment (PEP) adjustment.
The PEP adjustment is based on the span of days including the start
of care date (first billable service date through and including the
last billable service date) under the original plan of care prior to
the intervening event. The PEP adjustment is calculated using the span
of days (first billable service date through and including the last
billable service date) under the original plan of care as a proportion
of 60. The proportion is multiplied by the original case mix and wage
adjusted 60-day episode payment. For example, a patient is assigned to
a 60-day episode payment of $3000. Day 1 through Day 30 the patient is
served by HHA-1. Day 1 is the first billable service date and Day 30 is
the last billable service provided by HHA-1 under the original plan of
care. The beneficiary elects to transfer to HHA-2 on Day 35. The first
ordered service for the beneficiary under the new plan of care is Day
38. Day 38 starts a new 60-day episode clock for purposes of payment,
OASIS assessment, and physician certification of the plan of care. Day
38 becomes Day 1 of the new 60-day episode. The final payment to HHA-1
is proportionally adjusted to reflect the length of time the
beneficiary remained under its care. HHA-1 would receive a PEP
adjustment of 30/60 * $3000 = $1500.
d. Significant Change in Condition Adjustment
We are proposing the requirement that the 60-day episode payment
covers the individual for 60 days of care unless one of three
intervening events occurs. The PEP adjustment described above
encompasses the two intervening events defined as a beneficiary elected
transfer or a discharge and return to the same HHA over the course of a
60-day episode of home health care. We are proposing that the third
intervening event over a course of a 60-day episode of home health care
that could trigger a change in payment level would be a significant
change in the patient's condition. The proposed SCIC adjustment occurs
when a beneficiary experiences a significant change in condition during
a 60-day episode that was not envisioned in the original plan of care.
In order to receive a new case mix assignment for purposes of SCIC
payment during the 60-day episode, the HHA must complete an OASIS
assessment and obtain the necessary physician change orders reflecting
the significant change in the treatment approach in the patient's plan
of care.
The SCIC adjustment is calculated in two parts. The first part of
the SCIC adjustment reflects the adjustment to the level of payment
prior to the significant change in the patient's condition during the
60-day episode. The second part of the SCIC adjustment reflects the
adjustment to the level of
[[Page 58203]]
payment after the significant change in the patient's condition occurs
during the 60-day episode. The first part of the SCIC adjustment uses
the span of days of the first billable service date through the last
billable service date prior to the intervening event of the patient's
significant change in condition that warrants a new case mix assignment
for payment. The first part of the SCIC adjustment is determined by
taking the span of days prior to the patient's significant change in
condition as a proportion of 60 multiplied by the original episode
payment amount. The original episode payment level is proportionally
adjusted using the span of time the patient was under the care of the
HHA prior to the significant change in condition that warranted an
OASIS assessment, physician change orders indicating the need for a
significant change in the course of the treatment plan, and the new
case mix assignment for payment at the end of the 60-day episode.
The second part of the SCIC adjustment reflects the time the
patient is under the care of the HHA after the patient experienced the
significant change in condition during the 60-day episode that
warranted the new case mix assignment for payment purposes. The second
part of the SCIC adjustment is a proportional payment adjustment
reflecting the time the patient will be under the care of the HHA after
the significant change in condition and continuing until the end of the
60-day episode. Once the HHA completes the OASIS, obtains the necessary
physician change orders reflecting the need for a new course of
treatment in the plan of care, and assigns a new case mix level for
payment, the second part of the SCIC adjustment begins. The second part
of the SCIC adjustment is calculated by using the span of days of the
first billable service date through the last billable service date
during the balance of the 60-day episode. The second part of the SCIC
adjustment is determined by taking the span of days (first billable
service date through the last billable service date) after the patient
experiences the significant change in condition through the balance of
the 60-day episode as a proportion of 60 multiplied by the new episode
payment level resulting from the significant change. The initial
percentage payment provided at the start of the 60-day episode will be
adjusted at the end of the episode to reflect the first and second
parts of the SCIC adjustment (or any applicable medical review or LUPA
discussed below) determined at the final billing for the 60-day
episode.
2. Outlier Payments
Section 1895(b)(5) of the Act governs the payment option for
additions or adjustments to the payments due to unusual variations in
the type or amount of medically necessary home health care under the
HHA PPS. The total amount for addition or adjustment payments during a
fiscal year may not exceed 5 percent of total payments projected or
estimated to be made based on the HHA PPS in that year.
We considered the option of a long-stay outlier payment. Because we
are proposing that successive episode payments would be made for a
beneficiary as long as the beneficiary continues to be eligible and
requires covered services, there would be no need for long-stay outlier
cases under the HHA PPS. However, we believe outlier payments for 60-
day episodes in which the HHA incurs extraordinary costs beyond the
regular episode payment amount may be desirable. Outlier payments would
provide some protection for beneficiaries whose care needs cost much
more than the prospectively determined amount of the episode payment.
They would also provide HHAs with some financial protection against
possible losses on individual beneficiaries.
As discussed in section I. of the preamble, while we are not
statutorily required to make provision for outlier payments, we are
proposing outlier payments. Outlier payments are payments made in
addition to regular 60-day case-mix-adjusted episode payments for
episodes that incur unusually large costs due to patient home health
care needs. Outlier payments would be made for episodes whose estimated
cost exceeds a threshold amount for each HHRG. The outlier threshold
for each HHRG would be the 60-day episode payment amount for that group
plus a fixed dollar loss amount that is the same for all case-mix
groups. Outlier payments would be made for 60-day episode payments that
have been adjusted by a PEP adjustment or SCIC adjustment. The outlier
threshold for the PEP adjustment equals the PEP adjustment plus a fixed
dollar loss amount that is the same for all case-mix groups. The
outlier threshold for the SCIC adjustment is the total SCIC payment
plus a fixed dollar loss amount that is the same for all case mix
groups. The outlier payment would be a proportion of the amount of
estimated costs beyond the threshold. Costs would be estimated for each
episode by applying standard per-visit amounts to the number of visits
by discipline reported on claims. The fixed dollar loss amount and the
loss-sharing proportion would be chosen so that estimated total outlier
payments are no more than 5 percent of total episode payments. As
discussed above, there is no need for a long-stay outlier payment
because we are not limiting the number of continuous episode payments
in a fiscal year that may be made for Medicare home health care to
eligible beneficiaries. As described above, the proposed outlier option
is a fixed dollar loss of 1.07 times the standard episode payment
amount and a loss sharing ratio of .60. The proposed option results in
7.5 percent of total estimated episodes receiving outlier payment,
while holding total estimated outlier outlays to the required 5
percent.
3. Transition
Section 1895(b)(1) of the BBA provides discretion on providing for
a transition from the current cost-based interim payment system to a
full prospective payment system by permitting a blended PPS payment
amount. Under such a transition, the law allows us to provide for a PPS
amount, with a portion of payments based on agency-specific costs. The
law provides for this blended PPS amount for up to 4 years in a budget-
neutral manner.
Blending options provides significant practical obstacles. We could
in theory blend what would have been paid under the current reasonable-
cost reimbursement system and the PPS. A percentage of the payment
would be based on reasonable costs building off the current interim
payment system and a percentage would be based on the national PPS
amount.
While other PPS systems have used a blended agency and national
payment amount, the complexities of blending payments under such
dissimilar payment methodologies for home health are so great, that we
believe it is not a viable option. Moreover, OCESAA requires that we
implement the PPS on the same date for all providers, regardless of
their cost-report year. This break in cost-report year would further
encourage continued use of the cost-based system. Recent legislation
also reflects Congressional interest in expediting the transition from
the interim payment system to the PPS. We believe proceeding with a
highly complicated blended percentage payment system based on
historical data from the cost-based interim payment system would not be
in the best interest of the industry.
Section 1895(b)(3) also provides the option to recognize regional
differences or differences based upon whether the
[[Page 58204]]
services or agency are in an urbanized area. We are proposing a
national system of payment rates upon PPS implementation. The wage-
index adjustment based on site of service reflects the regional
differences in wages across urban and rural areas.
4. Operational Options
As discussed above, we envision two claims per beneficiary per 60-
day episode. The initial claim submitted at the start of care will
contain the appropriate HHRG code for purposes of partial payment for
the 60-day episode and the final claim will be submitted at the end of
the 60-day episode. The final claim may contain all of the line-item
data visit information for the 60-day period and permit payment for the
balance due for the episode. We do not believe this billing approach
would impose any additional burden on the industry. We are proposing to
require that the HHA identify itself as the primary HHA for the
beneficiary during the 60-day episode. This is necessary to establish
the HHA to which payment is made during the episode. We do not envision
a new specific form requirement for this requirement.
5. Consolidated Billing
The requirement to consolidate all durable medical equipment (DME)
with the billing for home health services is expected to have a number
of positive benefits. By making the HHA accountable for all services
furnished to a Medicare patient, the HHA is in a better position to
coordinate all aspects of the care being provided. This ensures that
the responsibility for managing both the services and the DME needed
for the patient's care is located in one place. The coordination will
reduce the possibility of duplicate billings for DME and the
opportunities for abusive billing practices. Moreover, the patient does
not have to deal with two or more entities involved in the patient's
care--one providing the skilled care and one or more entities supplying
the DME during the time the HHA is in charge of caring for the patient.
However, we are concerned that because the statute requires an HHA
to assume responsibility for all DME while the patient is under the
care of the HHA, problems may occur for patients who already have a
relationship with their current DME supplier. The impact of the
consolidated billing provision with regard to DME takes effect when an
HHA takes over the care of a patient, the HHA has no agreement with the
patient's DME supplier, and the patient's existing relationship with
the DME supplier ends. The HHA's DME supplier will replace the previous
supplier and the patient will be required to receive his or her
equipment from the new DME supplier. When a patient is discharged from
the HHA, a similar situation could arise. Unless the patient chooses to
continue receiving his or her DME from the HHA's DME supplier, when the
patient is discharged, he or she will have to find a new supplier or
reestablish contact with the previous supplier.
The problem of switching suppliers as a result of the consolidated
billing requirement could be especially acute for a patient who must
maintain a long term relationship with a DME supplier. Patients who
might be most affected by the consolidated billing requirement include
those who need oxygen equipment or complex equipment such as motorized
wheelchairs that require periodic maintenance. Switching between DME
suppliers could be confusing for patients and could affect a patient's
treatment and well being. Currently we have no immediate solutions to
these difficulties under the current statutory language and invite
public comment.
C. Effects of This Proposed Rule
This proposed rule would establish requirements for the new
prospective payment system for home health agencies as required by
section 4603 of the BBA, as amended by section 5101 of OCESAA. These
include the implementation of a prospective payment system for home
health agencies, consolidated billing requirements, and a number of
other related changes. The prospective payment system described in this
rule replaces the retrospective reasonable cost-based system currently
used by Medicare for the payment of home health services subject to
interim payment system limits under Part A and Part B.
Section 1895(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act requires the computation of a
standard prospective payment amount to be initially based on the most
recent audited cost-report data available to the Secretary. In
accordance with this section of the Act, the primary data source in
developing the cost basis for the 60-day episode payments was the
audited cost-report sample of HHAs whose cost reporting periods ended
in fiscal year 1997 (that is, ending on or after October 1, 1996
through September 30, 1997).
However, Table 11 below illustrates the proportion of HHAs that are
likely to be affected.
This table reflects how agencies would be paid under PPS versus how
they would be paid under the interim payment system (IPS) with the 15
percent reduction in limits required in FY 2001. The limits under IPS
were determined by updating the per-visit limits in effect for FY 2000
by the market basket minus 1.1 percent updating each agency's per-
beneficiary cap for FY 2000 by this same percentage. Each of these
limits was then reduced by 15 percent. For each agency in the audited
cost report data set, we updated their costs from FY 1997 to FY 2001 by
our best estimate of HHA cost increases during this period. We then
compared each agency's FY 2001 costs to the IPS limits to determine
their IPS payment in FY 2001. To determine each agency's payment under
PPS, we translated the cost report data into 60-day episodes and used
the average case mix for urban/rural and provider type as a proxy. We
extrapolated the audited cost report data to reflect the total Medicare
HHA distribution. We obtained average case-mix values based on the type
of provider and whether the HHA was urban or rural from the Abt data
set. We then multiplied the agency's expected number of episodes in FY
2001 by the wage-adjusted and case-mix-adjusted episode payment to
obtain the agency's expected PPS payment. The PPS payment was then
compared to the IPS payment.
Table 11.--Impact of the Home Health Prospective Payment Amounts on Home
Health Agencies by Type and Location for the 567 Audited Cost Report
Sample Agencies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage
Change from
Type of agency (IPS--15%)
to PPS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALL AGENCIES 0.0
By Urban/Rural and Provider Type
Rural:
Freestanding:
For-Profit............................................. -17.0
Governmental........................................... 46.4
Non-Profit............................................. 13.7
Provider Based10.1.......................................
Urban:
Freestanding:
For-Profit............................................. -18.4
Governmental........................................... 50.9
Non-Profit............................................. 20.5
Provider Based........................................... 2.1
By Provider Type
Freestanding:..............................................
For-Profit............................................... -18.1
Governmental............................................. 47.9
Non-Profit............................................... 19.4
Provider Based............................................. 3.8
[[Page 58205]]
By Urban/Rural
Rural Agencies............................................. 4.2
Urban Agencies............................................. -0.4
By Region
Midwest States............................................. 21.8
Northeast States........................................... 21.4
Southern States............................................ -15.5
Western States............................................. -1.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 11 represents the projected effects of the HHA PPS and is
based on the 567 providers in the audited cost-report sample weighted
to the national total of HHAs. This sample has been adjusted by the
most recent market basket factors to reflect the expected cost
increases occurring between the cost-reporting periods for the data
contained in the database and September 30, 2001.
This impact table compares the effect on categories of HHAs in
moving from the interim payment system limits minus 15 percent payment
methodology to the PPS payment methodology and thus already factors in
the effects of the interim payment system minus 15 percent limits.
These cost limits have already had the effect of reducing many extremes
in the cost of the system; therefore, as a result of the interim
payment system, a majority of HHA providers are currently held at the
median national cost per beneficiary or below. It should be noted that
HHAs will have had 2 or more years experience under this system before
PPS implementation.
Column one of this table divides HHAs by a number of
characteristics including provider type, region, and urban versus rural
location. For purposes of this impact table four regions have been
defined: Northeast, South, Midwest, and West. The Northeast Region
consists of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, Vermont, and
the Virgin Islands. The South Region consists of Alabama, Arkansas, the
District of Columbia, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. The Midwest Region
consists of Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota,
Missouri, North Dakota, Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.
The West Region consists of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado,
Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington,
and Wyoming.
Column two shows the percentage change in Medicare payments a
particular category of HHAs would experience in moving from the interim
payment system limits minus 15 percent payment methodology to the
proposed PPS payment methodology. Because the statute requires
aggregate payments under the HHA PPS and HHA interim payment system
minus 15 percent payment methodology to be budget neutral, the effect
on agencies in the aggregate is zero.
Rural freestanding for-profit HHAs experience a 17.0 percent
decrease in moving from the interim payment system limits minus 15
percent payment methodology to the PPS payment methodology. Rural
freestanding governmental HHAs experience a 46.4 percent increase in
moving from the interim payment system limits minus 15 percent payment
methodology to the PPS payment methodology. Rural freestanding
nonprofit HHAs experience a 13.7 percent increase in moving from the
interim payment system limits minus 15 percent payment methodology to
the PPS payment methodology. Rural provider-based HHAs, in the
aggregate, experience a 10.1 percent increase in moving from the
interim payment system limits minus 15 percent methodology to the PPS
payment methodology. Rural agencies, in the aggregate, experience a 4.2
percent increase in moving from the interim payment system limits minus
15 percent payment methodology to the PPS payment methodology.
Urban freestanding for-profit HHAs experience an 18.4 percent
decrease in moving from the interim payment system limits minus 15
percent payment methodology to the PPS payment methodology. Urban
freestanding governmental HHAs experience a 50.9 percent increase in
moving from the interim payment system limits minus 15 percent payment
methodology to the PPS payment methodology. Urban freestanding
nonprofit HHAs experience a 20.5 percent increase in moving from the
interim payment system limits minus 15 percent payment methodology to
the PPS payment methodology. Urban provider-based HHAs, in the
aggregate, experience a 2.1 percent increase in moving from the interim
payment system limits minus 15 percent payment methodology to the PPS
payment methodology. Urban agencies, in the aggregate, experience a -
0.4 percent decrease in moving from the interim payment system limits
minus 15 percent payment methodology to the PPS payment methodology.
The current cost limits have been criticized as providing better
financial treatment of urban providers relative to rural providers. The
HHA PPS system, which is based on patient characteristics, tends to
level the playing field; thus, rural providers, in general, fare
relatively better than urban providers. The largest impact on urban
providers is in the urban freestanding for-profit category where it can
be argued that historical costs have been disproportionately high
compared to other providers for reasons unrelated to the relative needs
of the patients they serve.
Freestanding for-profit HHAs, in the aggregate, experience an 18.1
percent decrease in moving from the interim payment system limits minus
15 percent payment methodology to the PPS payment methodology.
Freestanding governmental HHAs, in the aggregate, experience a 47.9
percent increase in moving from the interim payment system limits minus
15 percent payment methodology to the PPS payment methodology.
Freestanding nonprofit HHAs, in the aggregate, experience a 19.4
percent increase in moving from the interim payment system limits minus
15 percent payment methodology to the PPS payment methodology.
Provider-based HHAs, in the aggregate, experience a 3.8 percent
increase in moving from the interim payment system limits minus 15
percent payment methodology to the PPS payment methodology.
It should be noted that governmental providers fare relatively
better under the HHA PPS system than other types of providers. In part,
this is because the HHA PPS system is driven primarily by the needs of
patients rather than utilization incentives. Thus, governmental
providers are less affected by the interim payment system limits minus
15 percent payment methodology because their costs have been
historically lower and visit utilization per episode is much lower. On
average, governmental agencies have reported lower average costs per
visit as well as fewer visits per episode. It should be noted that this
category of HHAs accounts for only 2.6 percent of total home health
expenditures and therefore the large increase attributed to them has
little impact in the aggregate system costs. Although provider-based
agencies tended to have, as a group, higher per-
[[Page 58206]]
visit costs, the payment differential reflected in this impact table
for provider-based agencies is relatively modest and in a positive
direction. This can be attributed to the fact that the reduction in the
per-visit limit under interim payment system limits minus 15 percent
payment methodology has the effect of reducing this cost-per-visit
differential, and thus provider-based HHAs actually gain slightly under
PPS.
HHAs in the Midwest region experience a 21.8 percent increase in
moving from the interim payment system limits minus 15 percent payment
methodology to the PPS payment methodology. HHAs in the Northeast
region experience a 21.4 percent increase in moving from the interim
payment system limits minus 15 percent payment methodology to the PPS
payment methodology. HHAs in the South region experience a 15.4 percent
decrease in moving from the interim payment system limits minus 15
percent payment methodology to the PPS payment methodology. HHAs in the
West region experience a 1.3 percent decrease in moving from the
interim payment system limits minus 15 percent payment methodology to
the PPS payment methodology.
We would have preferred to provide an impact table with more
regions; however, the limitations of our data prevented us from
obtaining provider data at a lower level than the four major regions.
However, this regional breakdown does reflect what one might expect in
moving from our current interim payment system cost limitations payment
methodology to a national PPS payment methodology. Medicare payments
have historically varied by region without regard to the relative
needs/conditions of patients; therefore, those regions that had the
highest unexplained costs for home health services are the most
impacted areas (South region followed by the West region). In contrast,
the Northeast region and the Midwest region fare relatively well by
comparison. It must be noted that in a payment methodology system that
is legislatively required to achieve budget neutrality, any effort to
increase payments to those regions more affected by a national payment
system necessarily results in a reduction of payments to those regions
that have historically restrained costs under home health.
D. Rural Hospital Impact Statement
Section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare a regulatory
impact analysis if a rule may have a significant impact on the
operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This
analysis must conform to the provisions of section 603 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 and has fewer than 50 beds.
We have not prepared a rural impact statement since we have
determined, and the Secretary certifies, that this rule would not have
a significant economic impact on the operations of a substantial number
of small rural hospitals.
In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this
regulation was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. We have
reviewed this proposed rule under the threshold criteria of Executive
Order 13132, Federalism. We have determined that the proposed rule
would not have substantial direct effects on the rights, roles, and
responsibilities of States.
List of Subjects
42 CFR Part 409
Health facilities, Medicare.
42 CFR Part 410
Health facilities, Health professions, Kidney diseases,
Laboratories, Medicare, Rural areas, X-rays.
42 CFR Part 411
Kidney diseases, Medicare, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
42 CFR Part 413
Health facilities, Kidney diseases, Medicare, Puerto Rico,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 CFR Part 424
Emergency medical services, Health facilities, Health professions,
Medicare.
42 CFR Part 484
Health facilities, Health professions, Medicare, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 42 CFR chapter IV would
be amended as follows:
PART 409--HOSPITAL INSURANCE BENEFITS
A. Amend part 409 as set forth below:
1. The authority citation for part 409 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 1102 and 1871 of the Social Security Act
(U.S.C. 1302 and 1395hh).
2. In Sec. 409.43, revise paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 409.43 Plan of care requirements.
* * * * *
(e) Frequency of review. (1) The plan of care must be reviewed by
the physician (as specified in Sec. 409.42(b)) in consultation with
agency professional personnel at least every 60 days unless there is
a--
(i) Beneficiary elected transfer;
(ii) Significant change in condition resulting in a change in the
case-mix assignment; or
(iii) Discharge and return to the same HHA during the 60-day
episode that warrants a new 60-day episode payment and a new physician
certification of the new plan of care.
(2) Each review of a beneficiary's plan of care must contain the
signature of the physician who reviewed it and the date of review.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 409.100, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 409.100 To whom payment is made.
(a) Basic rule. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this
section--
(1) Medicare pays hospital insurance benefits only to a
participating provider.
(2) For home health services furnished to an individual who at the
time the item or service is furnished is under a plan of care of an
HHA, payment is made to the HHA (without regard to whether the item or
service is furnished by the HHA directly, under arrangement with the
HHA, or under any other contracting or consulting arrangement).
* * * * *
PART 410--SUPPLEMENTARY MEDICAL INSURANCE (SMI) BENEFITS
B. Amend part 410 as set forth below:
1. The authority citation for part 410 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 1102 and 1871 of the Social Security Act
(U.S.C. 1302 and 1395hh).
2. In Sec. 410.150, republish the introductory text to paragraph
(b) and add new paragraph (b)(19) to read as follows:
Sec. 410.150 To whom payment is made.
* * * * *
(b) Specific rules. Subject to the conditions set forth in
paragraph (a) of this section, Medicare Part B pays as follows:
* * * * *
(19) To a participating HHA, for home health services furnished to
an individual who at the time the item or service is furnished is under
a plan of care of an HHA (without regard to whether the item or service
is furnished by the HHA directly, under arrangement with the HHA, or
under any other contracting or consulting arrangement).
[[Page 58207]]
PART 411--EXCLUSIONS FROM MEDICARE AND LIMITATIONS ON MEDICARE
PAYMENT
C. Amend part 411 as set forth below:
1. The authority citation for part 411 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 1102 and 1871 of the Social Security Act
(U.S.C. 1302 and 1395hh).
2. In Sec. 411.15, republish the introductory text to the section,
and add a new paragraph (q) to read as follows:
Sec. 411.15 Particular services excluded from coverage.
The following services are excluded from coverage:
* * * * *
(q) A home health service as defined in section 1861(m) of the Act
furnished to an individual who is under a plan of care of an HHA,
unless that HHA has submitted a claim for payment for such services.
PART 413--PRINCIPLES OF REASONABLE COST REIMBURSEMENT; PAYMENT FOR
END-STAGE RENAL DISEASE SERVICES; OPTIONAL PROSPECTIVELY DETERMINED
PAYMENT RATES FOR SKILLED NURSING FACILITIES
D. Amend part 413 as set forth below:
1. Revise the authority citation for part 413 to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 1102, 1861(v)(1)(A), and 1871 of the Social
Security Act (U.S.C. 1302, 1395x(v)(1)(A), and 1395hh).
2. In Sec. 413.1, add a new paragraph (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 413.1 Introduction.
* * * * *
(h) Payment for services furnished by HHAs. The amount paid for
home health services as defined in section 1861(m) of the Act that are
furnished beginning on or after October 1, 2000 to an eligible
beneficiary under a home health plan of care is determined according to
the prospectively determined payment rates for HHAs set forth in part
484, subpart E of this chapter.
Sec. 413.64 [Amended]
3. In Sec. 413.64, in paragraph (h)(1), remove the phrase ``and for
both Part A and Part B HHA services'' at the end of the paragraph.
PART 424--CONDITIONS FOR MEDICARE PAYMENT
E. Amend part 424 as set forth below:
1. The authority citation for part 424 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 1102 and 1871 of the Social Security Act
(U.S.C. 1302 and 1895hh).
2. In Sec. 424.22, republish the introductory text to paragraph
(a)(1), add a new paragraph (a)(1)(v), and revise paragraph (b)(1) to
read as follows:
Sec. 424.22 Requirements for home health services.
* * * * *
(a) Certification--(1) Content of certification. As a condition of
payment of home services under Medicare Part A or Medicare Part B, a
physician must certify as follows:
* * * * *
(v) The individual is correctly assigned to one of the Home Health
Resource Groups.
* * * * *
(b) Recertification. (1) Timing and signature of recertification.
Recertification is required at least every 60 days, preferably at the
time the plan is reviewed, and must be signed by the physician who
reviews the plan of care. The recertification is required at least
every 60 days unless there is a--
(i) Beneficiary elected transfer; or
(ii) Discharge and return to the same HHA during the 60-day
episode.
* * * * *
PART 484--HOME HEALTH SERVICES
F. Amend part 484 as set forth below:
1. The authority citation for part 484 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 1102 and 1871 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1302 and 1395(hh).
2. Revise the heading for part 484 to read as set forth above.
Sec. 484.18 [Amended]
3. In Sec. 484.18, in paragraph (b), remove the phrase ``62 days''
and in its place add the phrase ``60 days unless there is a beneficiary
elected transfer; a significant change in condition resulting in a
change in the case-mix assignment; or a discharge and return to the
same HHA during the 60-day episode.''
4. In Sec. 484.55, revise paragraph (d)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 484.55 Condition of participation: Comprehensive assessment of
patients.
* * * * * *
(d) Standard: Update of the comprehensive assessment. * * *
(1) Every 60 days beginning with the start-of-care date, unless
there is a--
(i) Beneficiary elected transfer;
(ii) Significant change in condition resulting in a new case-mix
assignment; or
(iii) Discharge and return to the same HHA during the 60-day
episode.
* * * * *
5. Add and reserve a new subpart D.
6. Add a new subpart E, consisting of Secs. 484.200, 484.202,
484.205, 484.210, 484.215, 484.220, 484.225, 484.230, 484.235, 484.237,
484.240, 484.250, and 484.260 to read as follows:
Subpart E--Prospective Payment System for Home Health Agencies
Sec.
484.200 Basis and scope.
484.202 Definitions.
484.205 Basis of payment.
484.210 Data used for the calculation of the national prospective
60-day episode payment.
484.215 Methodology used for the calculation of the national 60-day
episode payment.
484.220 Calculation of the national adjusted prospective 60-day
episode payment rate for case mix and area wage levels.
484.225 Annual update of the national adjusted prospective 60-day
episode payment rate.
484.230 Methodology used for the calculation of the low-utilization
payment adjustment.
484.235 Methodology used for the calculation of the partial episode
payment adjustment
484.237 Methodology used for the calculation of the significant
change in condition payment adjustment
484.240 Methodology used for the calculation of the outlier
payment.
484.250 Patient assessment data.
484.260 Limitation on review.
Subpart E--Prospective Payment System for Home Health Agencies
Sec. 484.200 Basis and scope.
(a) Basis. This subpart implements section 1895 of the Act, which
provides for the implementation of a prospective payment system (PPS)
for HHAs for portions of cost reporting periods occurring on or after
October 1, 2000.
(b) Scope. This subpart sets forth the framework for the HHA PPS,
including the methodology used for the development of the payment
rates, associated adjustments, and related rules.
Sec. 484.202 Definitions.
As used in this subpart--
Case-mix index means a scale that measures the relative difference
in resource intensity among different groups in the clinical model.
Clinical model means a system for classifying Medicare-eligible
patients under a home health plan of care into mutually exclusive
groups based on clinical, functional, and intensity-of-service
criteria. The mutually exclusive groups are defined as Home Health
Resource Groups (HHRGs).
[[Page 58208]]
Discipline means one of the six home health disciplines covered
under the Medicare home health benefit (skilled nursing services, home
health aide services, physical therapy services, occupational therapy
services, speech-language pathology services, and medical social
services).
Market basket index means an index that reflects changes over time
in the prices of an appropriate mix of goods and services included in
home health services.
Sec. 484.205 Basis of payment.
(a) Method of payment. (1) An HHA receives a national 60-day
episode payment of a predetermined rate for a home health service paid
on a reasonable cost basis. HCFA determines this national 60-day
episode payment under the methodology set forth in Sec. 484.215.
(2) An HHA may receive a low-utilization payment adjustment (LUPA)
of a predetermined per-visit rate. HCFA determines the LUPA under the
methodology set forth in Sec. 484.230.
(3) An HHA may receive a partial episode payment adjustment (PEP)
adjustment due to an intervening event defined as a beneficiary elected
transfer or a discharge and return to the same HHA during the 60-day
episode that warrants a new 60-day episode payment during an existing
60-day episode, that initiates the start of a new 60-day episode
payment and a new physician certification of the new plan of care. HCFA
determines the PEP adjustment under the methodology set forth in
Sec. 484.235.
(4) An HHA may receive a significant change in condition payment
adjustment (SCIC Adjustment) due to the intervening event defined as a
significant change in the patient's condition during an existing 60-day
episode. The SCIC adjustment occurs when a beneficiary experiences a
significant change in condition during a 60-day episode that was not
envisioned in the original plan of care. We determine the SCIC
Adjustment under a methodology set forth in Sec. 484.237.
(b) Episode payment. The national 60-day episode payment represents
payment in full for all costs associated with furnishing a home health
service paid on a reasonable cost basis as of August 5, 1997 unless the
national 60-day episode payment is subject to a low-utilization payment
adjustment set forth in Sec. 484.230, a partial episode payment
adjustment set forth at Sec. 484.235, or an additional outlier payment
set forth in Sec. 484.240. All payments under this system may be
subject to a medical review adjustment. DME provided as a home health
service as defined in section 1861(m) of the Act continues to be paid
the fee schedule amount.
(c) Low-utilization payment. An HHA receives a national 60-day
episode payment of a predetermined rate for home health services paid
on a reasonable cost basis as of August 5, 1997, unless HCFA determines
at the end of the 60-day episode that the HHA furnished minimal
services to a patient during the 60-day episode. HCFA determines a low-
utilization payment adjustment under the methodology set forth in
Sec. 484.230.
(d) Partial episode payment adjustment. An HHA receives a national
60-day episode payment of a predetermined rate for home health services
paid on a reasonable cost basis as of August 5, 1997, unless HCFA
determines an intervening event, defined as a beneficiary elected
transfer, or discharge and return to the same HHA during a 60-day
episode, warrants a new 60-day episode payment. The PEP adjustment
would not apply in situations of transfers among HHAs of common
ownership. The discharge and return to the same HHA during the 60-day
episode is only recognized in those circumstances when a beneficiary
reached the goals in the original plan of care. The original plan of
care must have been terminated with no anticipated need for additional
home health services for the balance of the 60-day episode. If the
intervening event warrants a new 60-day episode payment and the new
physician certification of a new plan of care, the initial HHA receives
a partial episode payment adjustment reflecting the length of time the
patient remained under its care. HCFA determines a partial episode
payment adjustment under a methodology set forth in Sec. 484.235.
(e) Significant change in condition adjustment. The HHA receives a
national 60-day episode payment of a predetermined rate for home health
services paid on a reasonable cost basis as of August 5, 1997, unless
HCFA determines an intervening event defined as a beneficiary
experiencing a significant change in condition during a 60-day episode
that was not envisioned in the original plan of care occurred. In order
to receive a new case mix assignment for purposes of payment during the
60-day episode, the HHA must complete an OASIS assessment and obtain
the necessary physician change orders reflecting the significant change
in the treatment approach in the patient's plan of care. The total
significant change in condition payment adjustment is a proportional
payment adjustment reflecting the time both prior and after the patient
experienced a significant change in condition during the 60-day
episode.
(f) Outlier payment. An HHA receives a national 60-day episode
payment of a predetermined rate for a home health service paid on a
reasonable cost basis as of August 5, 1997, unless the estimated cost
of the 60-day episode exceeds a threshold amount. The outlier payment
is defined to be a proportion of the estimated costs beyond the
threshold. An outlier payment is a payment in addition to the national
60-day episode payment. The total of all outlier payments is limited to
5 percent of total outlays under the HHA PPS. HCFA determines an
outlier payment under the methodology set forth in Sec. 484.240.
Sec. 484.210 Data used for the calculation of the national prospective
60-day episode payment.
To calculate the national prospective 60-day episode payment, HCFA
uses the following:
(a) Medicare cost data on the most recent audited cost report data
available.
(b) Utilization data based on Medicare claims.
(c) An appropriate wage index to adjust for area wage differences.
(d) The most recent projections of increases in costs from the HHA
market basket index.
(e) OASIS assessment data and other data that account for the
relative resource utilization for different HHA Medicare patient case
mix.
Sec. 484.215 Methodology used for the calculation of the national 60-
day episode payment.
(a) Determining an HHA's costs. In calculating the initial
unadjusted national 60-day episode payment applicable for a service
furnished by an HHA using data on the most recent available audited
cost reports, HCFA determines each HHA's costs by summing its allowable
costs for the period. HCFA determines the national mean cost per visit.
(b) Determining HHA utilization. In calculating the initial
unadjusted national 60-day episode payment, HCFA determines the
national mean utilization for each of the six disciplines using home
health claims data.
(c) Use of the market basket index. HCFA uses the HHA market basket
index to adjust the HHA cost data to reflect cost increases occurring
between October 1, 1996 through September 30, 2001.
(d) Calculation of the unadjusted national average prospective
payment amount for the 60-day episode. HCFA
[[Page 58209]]
calculates the national unadjusted 60-day episode payment in the
following manner:
(1) By computing the mean national cost per visit.
(2) By computing the national mean utilization for each discipline.
(3) By multiplying the mean national cost per visit by the national
mean utilization summed in the aggregate for the six disciplines.
(4) By adding to this amount, amounts for nonroutine medical
supplies and an OASIS adjustment for estimated ongoing reporting costs.
(e) Standardization of the data for variation in area wage levels
and case mix. HCFA standardizes the cost data described in paragraph
(a) of this section to remove the effects of geographic variation in
wage levels and variation in case mix. HCFA standardizes the cost data
for geographic variation in wage levels using the hospital wage index.
HCFA standardizes the cost data for HHA variation in case mix using the
case-mix indices and other data that indicate HHA case mix.
Sec. 484.220 Calculation of the national adjusted prospective 60-day
episode payment rate for case mix and area wage levels.
HCFA adjusts the national prospective 60-day episode payment rate
to account for HHA case mix using a case-mix index to explain the
relative resource utilization of different patients. HCFA also adjusts
the national prospective 60-day episode payment rate to account for
geographic differences in wage levels using an appropriate wage index.
Sec. 484.225 Annual update of the national adjusted prospective 60-day
episode payment rate.
(a) HCFA updates the unadjusted national 60-day episode payment
rate on a fiscal year basis.
(b) For fiscal year 2001, the unadjusted national 60-day episode
payment rate is adjusted using the latest available market basket
factors.
(c) For fiscal year 2002 or 2003, the unadjusted national 60-day
episode payment rate is equal to the rate for the previous period or
fiscal year increase by a factor equal to the HHA market basket minus
1.1 percentage point.
(d) For subsequent fiscal years, the unadjusted national rate is
equal to the rate for the previous fiscal year increased by the
applicable HHA market basket index amount.
Sec. 484.230 Methodology used for the calculation of the low-
utilization payment adjustment.
An episode with four or fewer visits is paid the national average
standardized per-visit amount by discipline for each visit type. The
national average standardized per-visit amount is determined by using
cost data set forth in Sec. 484.210(a) and adjusting by the appropriate
wage index.
Sec. 484.235 Methodology used for the calculation of the partial
episode payment adjustment.
(a) HCFA makes a partial episode payment adjustment to the original
60-day episode payment that is interrupted by an intervening event
described in Sec. 484.205(d).
(b) The original 60-day episode payment is adjusted to reflect the
length of time the beneficiary remained under the care of the original
HHA.
(c) The partial episode payment is calculated by determining the
actual days served by the original HHA as a proportion of 60 multiplied
by the initial 60-day episode payment.
Sec. 484.237 Methodology used for the calculation of the significant
change in condition payment adjustment.
(a) HCFA makes a significant change in condition payment adjustment
to the original 60-day episode payment that is interrupted by the
intervening event defined in Sec. 484.205(e).
(b) The SCIC adjustment is calculated in two parts.
(1) The first part of the SCIC adjustment reflects the adjustment
to the level of payment prior to the significant change in the
patient's condition during the 60-day episode. The first part of the
SCIC adjustment is determined by taking the span of days prior to the
patient's significant change in condition as a proportion of 60
multiplied by the original episode amount.
(2) The second part of the SCIC adjustment reflects the adjustment
to the level of payment after the significant change in the patient's
condition occurs during the 60-day episode. The second part of the SCIC
adjustment is calculated by using the span of days of the first
billable service date through the last billable service date during the
balance of the 60-day episode.
(c) The initial percentage payment provided at the start of the 60-
day episode will be adjusted at the end of the episode to reflect the
first and second parts of the total SCIC adjustment determined at the
end of the 60-day episode.
Sec. 484.240 Methodology used for the calculation of the outlier
payment.
(a) HCFA makes an outlier payment for an episode whose estimated
cost exceeds a threshold amount for each case-mix group.
(b) The outlier threshold for each case-mix group is the episode
payment amount for that group, the PEP adjustment amount for the
episode or the total significant change in condition adjustment amount
for the episode plus a fixed dollar loss amount that is the same for
all case-mix groups.
(c) The outlier payment is a proportion of the amount of estimated
cost beyond the threshold.
(d) HCFA estimates the cost for each episode by applying the
standard per-visit amount to the number of visits by discipline
reported on claims.
(e) The fixed dollar loss amount and the loss sharing proportion
are chosen so that the estimated total outlier payment is no more than
5 percent of total episode payment.
Sec. 484.250 Patient assessment data.
HCFA requires an HHA to submit the OASIS data described at
Sec. 484.55(b)(1) and (d)(1) to administer the payment rate
methodologies described in Secs. 484.215, 484.230, 484.235, and
484.237.
Sec. 484.260 Limitation on review.
Judicial or administrative review under sections 1869 or 1878 of
the Act, or otherwise, is prohibited with regard to the establishment
of the payment unit, including the national 60-day episode payment rate
and the LUPA. This prohibition also includes the establishment of the
transition period, definition and application of the unit of payments,
the computation of initial standard prospective payment amounts, the
establishment of the adjustment for outliers, and the establishment of
case-mix and area wage adjustment factors.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.773,
Medicare--Hospital Insurance; and Program No. 93.774, Medicare--
Supplementary Medical Insurance Program)
Dated: May 4, 1999.
Nancy-Ann Min DeParle,
Administrator, Health Care Financing Administration.
Dated: July 21, 1990.
Donna E. Shalala,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 99-27864 Filed 10-27-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4120-01-P