[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 128 (Wednesday, July 3, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55312-55425]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-14254]
[[Page 55311]]
Vol. 89
Wednesday,
No. 128
July 3, 2024
Part II
Department of Health and Human Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
42 CFR Parts 424, 483, and 484
Medicare Program; Calendar Year (CY) 2025 Home Health Prospective
Payment System (HH PPS) Rate Update; HH Quality Reporting Program
Requirements; HH Value-Based Purchasing Expanded Model Requirements;
Home Intravenous Immune Globulin (IVIG) Items and Services Rate Update;
and Other Medicare Policies; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 2024 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 55312]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
42 CFR Parts 424, 483, and 484
[CMS-1803-P]
RIN 0938-AV28
Medicare Program; Calendar Year (CY) 2025 Home Health Prospective
Payment System (HH PPS) Rate Update; HH Quality Reporting Program
Requirements; HH Value-Based Purchasing Expanded Model Requirements;
Home Intravenous Immune Globulin (IVIG) Items and Services Rate Update;
and Other Medicare Policies
AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would set forth routine updates to the
Medicare home health payment rates; the payment rate for the disposable
negative pressure wound therapy (dNPWT) devices; and the intravenous
immune globulin (IVIG) items and services payment rate for CY 2025 in
accordance with existing statutory and regulatory requirements. In
addition, it proposes changes to the Home Health Quality Reporting
Program (HH QRP) requirements and provides an update on potential
approaches for integrating health equity in the Expanded Health Value
Based Purchasing (HHVBP) Model. It also proposes a new standard for
acceptance to service policy in the HH conditions of participation
(CoPs) and includes requests for information (RFIs) soliciting input on
permitting rehabilitative therapists to conduct the initial and
comprehensive assessment and the factors that may influence the patient
referral and intake processes. Lastly, it proposes updates to provider
and supplier enrollment requirements and changes to the long-term care
reporting requirements for acute respiratory illnesses.
DATES: To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of
the addresses provided in the ADDRESSES section, no later than 5 p.m.
EDT on August 26, 2024.
ADDRESSES: In commenting, please refer to file code CMS-1803-P. Because
of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by
facsimile (FAX) transmission. Comments, including mass comment
submissions, must be submitted in one of the following three ways
(please choose only one of the ways listed):
1. Electronically. You may (and we encourage you to) submit
electronic comments on this regulation to https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions under the ``submit a comment'' tab.
2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments to the following
address ONLY:
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and
Human Services, Attention: CMS-1803-P, P.O. Box 8013, Baltimore, MD
21244-8013.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received
before the close of the comment period.
3. By express or overnight mail. You may send written comments via
express or overnight mail to the following address ONLY:
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and
Human Services, Attention: CMS-1803-P, Mail Stop C4-26-05, 7500
Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.
For information on viewing public comments, we refer readers to the
beginning of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Slater, (410) 786-5229, for home
health and home IVIG payment inquiries.
For general information about the Home Health Prospective Payment
System (HH PPS), send your inquiry via email to
[email protected].
For information about the Home Health Quality Reporting Program (HH
QRP), send your inquiry via email to [email protected].
For more information about the expanded Home Health Value-Based
Purchasing Model, please visit the Expanded HHVBP Model web page at
https://innovation.cms.gov/innovation-models/expanded-home-health-value-based-purchasing-model.
Frank Whelan (410) 786-1302, for Medicare provider and supplier
enrollment inquiries.
Mary Rossi-Coajou at [email protected] or Molly
Anderson at [email protected], for more information about the
home health conditions of participation (HH CoPs).
Kim Roche ([email protected]), for more information about the
long-term care requirements for participation.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Inspection of Public Comments: All comments received before the
close of the comment period are available for viewing by the public,
including any personally identifiable or confidential business
information that is included in a comment. We post all comments
received before the close of the comment period on the following
website as soon as possible after they have been received: https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the search instructions on that website to
view public comments.
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose and Legal Authority
B. Summary of the Provisions of This Proposed Rule
C. Summary of Costs, Transfers, and Benefits
II. Home Health Prospective Payment System
A. Overview of the Home Health Prospective Payment System
B. Monitoring the Effects of the Implementation of PDGM
C. Proposed CY 2025 Payment Adjustments Under the HH PPS
D. Proposed CY 2025 Home Health Low Utilization Payment
Adjustment (LUPA) Thresholds, Functional Impairment Levels,
Comorbidity Sub-Groups, Case-Mix Weights, and Reassignment of
Specific ICD-10-CM Codes Under the PDGM
III. Home Health Quality Reporting Program (HH QRP)
A. Background and Statutory Authority
B. Summary of the Provision of This Proposed Rule
C. Quality Measures Currently Adopted for the CY 2024 HH QRP
D. Proposal To Collect Four New Items as Standardized Patient
Assessment Data Elements and Modify One Item Collected as a
Standardized Patient Assessment Data Element Beginning With the CY
2027 HH QRP
E. Proposal To Update OASIS All-Payer Data Collection
F. Form, Manner, and Timing of Data Submission Under the HH QRP
G. HH QRP Quality Measure Concepts Under Consideration for
Future Years--Request for Information (RFI)
IV. The Expanded Home Health Value Based Purchasing (HHVBP) Model
A. Background
B. Request for Information on Future Performance Measure
Concepts for the Expanded HHVBP Model
C. Future Approaches to Health Equity in the Expanded HHVBP
Model
D. Social Risk Factors
E. Approaches to a Potential Health Equity Adjustment for the
Expanded HHVBP Model
F. Other Health Equity Measures
V. Medicare Home Intravenous Immune Globulin (IVIG) Items and
Services
A. General Background
B. Scope of Expanded IVIG Benefit
C. Home IVIG Administration Items and Services Payment
D. Home IVIG Items and Services Payment Rate
[[Page 55313]]
VI. Home Health CoP Changes and Long Term (LTC) Requirements for
Acute Respiratory Illness Reporting
A. Home Health CoP Changes
B. Long-term Care (LTC) Requirements for Acute Respiratory
Illness Reporting
VII. Provider Enrollment--Provisional Period of Enhanced Oversight
A. Background
B. Proposed Provisions--Provisional Period of Enhanced Oversight
(PPEO)
VIII. Collection of Information Requirements
A. Statutory Requirement for Solicitation of Comments
B. Information Collection Requirements (ICRs)
IX. Regulatory Impact Analysis
A. Statement of Need
B. Overall Impact
C. Detailed Economic Analysis
D. Regulatory Review Cost Estimation
E. Alternatives Considered
F. Accounting Statements and Tables
G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
I. Federalism
J. Conclusion
X. Response to Comments
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose and Legal Authority
1. Home Health Prospective Payment System (HH PPS)
As required under section 1895(b) of the Social Security Act (the
Act), this proposed rule would update the CY 2025 payment rates for
home health agencies (HHAs) and the CY 2025 payment rate for the
disposable negative pressure wound therapy (dNPWT) device. In this
proposed rule, we include analysis on home health utilization, as well
as analysis determining the difference between assumed versus actual
behavior change on estimated aggregate expenditures for home health
payments as result of the change in the unit of payment to 30 days and
the implementation of the Patient Driven Groupings Model (PDGM) case-
mix adjustment methodology. This rule proposes a crosswalk for mapping
the Outcome and Assessment Information Set-D (OASIS-D) data elements to
the equivalent OASIS-E data elements for use in the methodology to
analyze the difference between assumed versus actual behavior change on
estimated aggregate expenditures and proposes a permanent prospective
behavior adjustment to the CY 2025 home health payment rate. In
addition, this rule proposes to recalibrate the PDGM case-mix weights
and to update the low-utilization payment adjustment (LUPA) thresholds,
functional impairment levels, and comorbidity adjustment subgroups
under section 1895(b)(4)(A)(i) and (b)(4)(B) of the Act for 30-day
periods of care in CY 2025; proposes to adopt the most recent Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA)
delineations for the home health wage index; and proposes an
occupational therapy (OT) LUPA add-on factor and updates to the
physical therapy (PT), speech-language pathology (SLP), and skilled
nursing (SN) LUPA add-on factors. Additionally, this rule proposes to
update the CY 2025 fixed-dollar loss ratio (FDL) for outlier payments
(so that outlier payments as a percentage of estimated total payments
are projected not to exceed 2.5 percent, as required by section
1895(b)(5)(A) of the Act).
2. Home Health (HH) Quality Reporting Program (QRP)
In accordance with the statutory authority at section
1895(b)(3)(B)(v) of the Act, we are proposing updated policies. We are
proposing to add four new assessment items and to modify one assessment
item on the OASIS, an update to the removal of the suspension of OASIS
all-payer data collection, and we are seeking information on future HH
QRP quality measure (QM) concepts.
3. Expanded Home Health Value-Based Purchasing (HHVBP) Model
In accordance with the statutory authority at section 1115A of the
Act, we are doing the following for the expanded HHVBP Model: (1)
providing an update on potential approaches for integrating health
equity that are being considered; and (2) including a request for
information (RFI) related to future performance measure concepts.
4. Home Intravenous Immune Globulin (IVIG) Items and Services
In section V.D.1. of this proposed rule, we propose a rate update
for the CY 2025 IVIG items and services payment under the home
intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) benefit.
5. Home Health CoP Changes
In section VI. A. of this proposed rule, we are proposing to add a
new standard at Sec. 484.105(i) that would require HHAs to develop,
consistently apply, and maintain an acceptance to service policy,
including specified factors, that would govern the process for
accepting patients to service. We also propose that HHAs would be
required to make specified information about their services and service
limitations available to the public. Section VI.B. of this proposed
rule includes an RFI to obtain information from stakeholders on whether
CMS should shift its longstanding policy and permit rehabilitative
therapists to conduct the initial and comprehensive assessment for
cases that have both therapy and nursing services ordered as part of
the plan of care. In addition, we are seeking public comments on other
factors that influence the patient referral and intake processes.
6. Provider and Supplier Enrollment Requirements
In accordance with section 1866(j)(3)(A) of the Act, we are
proposing to revise our requirements in 42 CFR 424.527(a) regarding the
application of provisional periods of enhanced oversight (PPEO).
Section 1866(j)(3)(A) of the Act states that the Secretary shall
establish procedures to provide for a provisional period of between 30
days and 1 year during which new providers and suppliers--as the
Secretary determines appropriate, including categories of providers or
suppliers--will be subject to enhanced oversight. We are proposing to
expand the definition of ``new provider or supplier'' (solely for
purposes of applying a PPEO) to include providers and suppliers that
are reactivating their Medicare enrollment and billing privileges.
7. Long-Term Care (LTC) Requirements for Acute Respiratory Illness
Reporting
Sections 1819(d)(3) and 1919(d)(3) of the Act explicitly require
that LTC facilities develop and maintain an infection control program
that is designed, constructed, equipped, and maintained in a manner to
protect the health and safety of residents, personnel, and the general
public. In addition, sections 1819(d)(4)(B) and 1919(d)(4)(B) of the
Act explicitly authorize the Secretary to issue any regulations he
deems necessary to protect the health and safety of residents. As such,
we are proposing streamlined weekly data reporting requirements for
certain respiratory illnesses. We are also proposing additional,
related data elements that could be activated in the event of a future
acute respiratory illness public health emergency (PHE).
B. Summary of the Provisions of This Proposed Rule
1. Home Health Prospective Payment System (HH PPS)
In section II.B.1. of this proposed rule, we provide monitoring and
data analysis on PDGM utilization.
In section II.C.1 of this proposed rule, we propose a permanent
adjustment to the base payment rate under the HH PPS. Additionally, we
propose a
[[Page 55314]]
crosswalk for mapping the OASIS-D data elements to the equivalent
OASIS-E data elements for use in the methodology to analyze the
difference between assumed versus actual behavior change on estimated
aggregate expenditures.
In section II.D. of this proposed rule, we discuss a proposal to
recalibrate the CY 2025 home health LUPA thresholds, case-mix weights,
and co-morbidity subgroups. Additionally, we discuss providers'
suggestions regarding the reassignment of specific ICD-10-CM diagnosis
codes under the PDGM.
In section II.E. of this proposed rule, we propose to update the
home health wage index and adopt the new labor market delineations from
the July 21, 2023, OMB Bulletin No. 23-01 based on data collected from
the 2020 Decennial Census. This section includes the CY 2025 national,
standardized 30-day period payment rate update, the updated CY 2025
national per-visit payment amounts by the home health payment update
percentage, and the OT LUPA add-on factor and PT, SLP, and SN add-on
factor updates. The proposed home health payment update percentage for
CY 2025 is 2.5 percent. Additionally, this rule proposes the CY 2025
FDL ratio to ensure that aggregate outlier payments are projected not
to exceed 2.5 percent of the total aggregate payments, as required by
section 1895(b)(5)(A) of the Act.
In section II.F.4. of this proposed rule, we propose the CY 2025
payment rate update for dNPWT devices.
2. Home Health Quality Reporting Program (HH QRP)
In section III. of this proposed rule, we are proposing to collect
four new items as standardized patient assessment data elements in the
social determinants of health (SDOH) category and modify one item
collected as a standardized patient assessment data element in the SDOH
category beginning with the CY 2027 HH QRP. The four assessment items
proposed for collection are: one Living Situation item, two Food items,
and one Utilities item. We also propose modifying the current
Transportation item beginning with the CY 2027 HH QRP. We are also
proposing an update to the removal of the suspension of OASIS all-payer
data collection to change all-payer data collection to begin with the
start of care OASIS data collection timepoint instead of discharge
timepoint. Lastly, we seek input on future HH QRP measure concepts.
3. Expanded Home Health Value Based Purchasing (HHVBP) Model
In section IV. of this proposed rule, we include an RFI related to
future measure concepts for the expanded HHVBP Model. We are also
including an update to the RFI, Future Approaches to Health Equity in
the Expanded HHVBP Model, that was published in the CY 2023 HH PPS
final rule (87 FR 66874, November 4, 2022) and subsequently updated in
the CY 2024 HH PPS final rule (88 FR 77687, November 13, 2023).
4. Home Intravenous Immune Globulin (IVIG) Items and Services
In section V.D.1. of this proposed rule, we propose a rate update
for CY 2025 IVIG items and services payment under the home intravenous
immune globulin (IVIG) benefit.
5. Home Health CoP Changes
In section VI.A. of this proposed rule, we are proposing to add a
new standard at Sec. 484.105(d) that would require HHAs to develop,
implement, and maintain an acceptance to service policy that is applied
consistently to each prospective patient referred for home health care.
We also propose that the policy must address, at minimum, the following
criteria related to the HHA's capacity to provide patient care: the
anticipated needs of the referred prospective patient, the HHA's case
load and case mix, the HHA's staffing levels, and the skills and
competencies of the HHA staff. We also propose that HHAs would be
required to make specified information available to the public that is
reviewed at least annually. Section VI.B. of this proposed rule we
include an RFI to obtain information from stakeholders on whether CMS
should shift its longstanding policy and permit rehabilitative
therapists to conduct the initial and comprehensive assessment for
cases that have both therapy and nursing services ordered as part of
the plan of care. Specifically, we are seeking information regarding
the training and education of rehabilitative therapists that is
relevant to conducting the initial and comprehensive assessments and
any additional information on any patient health and safety benefits or
unintended consequences of expanding the category of clinicians that
can conduct the initial and comprehensive assessments. In addition, we
are seeking public comments on other factors that influence the patient
referral and intake processes.
6. Provider and Supplier Enrollment Requirements
Section 1866(j)(3)(A) of the Act states that the Secretary shall
establish procedures to provide for a provisional period of between 30
days and 1 year during which new providers and suppliers--as the
Secretary determines appropriate, including categories of providers or
suppliers--will be subject to enhanced oversight. We are proposing to
expand the definition of ``new provider or supplier'' (solely for
purposes of applying a PPEO) to include providers and suppliers that
are reactivating their Medicare enrollment and billing privileges.
7. Long-Term Care (LTC) Requirements for Acute Respiratory Illness
Reporting
The current LTC requirements for reporting COVID-19 related data
expire on December 31, 2024, except for reporting COVID-19 resident and
staff vaccination status. Given the utility of LTC facility data, we
propose to replace these requirements with streamlined continued data
reporting requirements for certain respiratory illnesses. We are also
proposing additional, related data elements that could be activated in
the event of a future acute respiratory illness PHE.
C. Summary of Costs, Transfers, and Benefits
BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
[[Page 55315]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.000
[[Page 55316]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.001
BILLING CODE 4120-01-C
II. Home Health Prospective Payment System
A. Overview of the Home Health Prospective Payment System
1. Statutory Background
Section 1895(b)(1) of the Act requires the Secretary to establish a
Home Health Prospective Payment System (HH PPS) for all costs of home
health services paid under Medicare. Section 1895(b)(2) of the Act
requires that, in defining a prospective payment amount, the Secretary
will consider an appropriate unit of service and the number, type, and
duration of visits provided 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.
In accordance with the statute, as amended by the Balanced Budget Act
of 1997 (BBA) (Pub. L. 105-33), we issued a final rule which appeared
in the July 3, 2000, Federal Register (65 FR 41128) to implement the HH
PPS legislation.
Section 5201(c) of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) (Pub. L.
109-171, enacted February 8, 2006) added new section 1895(b)(3)(B)(v)
to the Act, requiring home health agencies (HHAs) to submit data for
purposes of measuring health care quality, and linking the quality data
submission to the annual applicable home health payment update
percentage increase. This data submission requirement is applicable for
CY 2007 and each subsequent year. If an HHA does not submit quality
data, the home health market basket percentage increase is reduced by 2
percentage points. In the November 9, 2006, Federal Register (71 FR
65935), we issued a final rule to implement the pay-for-reporting
requirement of the DRA, which was codified at Sec. 484.225(h) and (i)
in accordance with the statute. The pay-for-reporting requirement was
implemented on January 1, 2007.
Section 51001(a)(1)(B) of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (BBA of
2018) (Pub. L. 115-123) amended section 1895(b) of the Act to require a
change to the home health unit of payment to 30-day periods beginning
January 1, 2020. Section 51001(a)(2)(A) of the BBA of 2018 added a new
subclause (iv) under section 1895(b)(3)(A) of the Act, requiring the
Secretary to calculate a standard prospective payment amount (or
amounts) for 30-day units of service furnished that end during the 12-
month period beginning January 1, 2020, in a budget neutral manner,
such that estimated aggregate expenditures under the HH PPS during CY
2020 are equal to the estimated aggregate expenditures that otherwise
would have been made under the HH PPS during CY 2020 in the absence of
the change to a 30-day unit of service. Section 1895(b)(3)(A)(iv) of
the Act requires that the calculation of the standard prospective
payment amount (or amounts) for CY 2020 be made before the application
of the annual update to the standard prospective payment amount as
required by section 1895(b)(3)(B) of the Act.
Additionally, section 1895(b)(3)(A)(iv) of the Act requires that in
calculating the standard prospective payment amount (or amounts), the
Secretary must make assumptions about behavior changes that could occur
as a result of the implementation of the 30-day unit of service under
section 1895(b)(2)(B) of the Act and case-mix adjustment factors
established under section 1895(b)(4)(B) of the Act. Section
1895(b)(3)(A)(iv) of the Act further requires the Secretary to provide
a description of the behavior assumptions made in notice and comment
rulemaking. CMS finalized these behavior assumptions in the CY 2019 HH
PPS final rule with comment period (83 FR 56461).
Section 51001(a)(2)(B) of the BBA of 2018 also added a new
subparagraph (D) to section 1895(b)(3) of the Act. Section
1895(b)(3)(D)(i) of the Act requires the Secretary annually to
determine the impact of differences between assumed behavior changes,
as described in section 1895(b)(3)(A)(iv) of the Act, and actual
behavior changes on estimated
[[Page 55317]]
aggregate expenditures under the HH PPS with respect to years beginning
with 2020 and ending with 2026. Section 1895(b)(3)(D)(ii) of the Act
requires the Secretary, at a time and in a manner determined
appropriate, through notice and comment rulemaking, to provide for one
or more permanent increases or decreases to the standard prospective
payment amount (or amounts) for applicable years, on a prospective
basis, to offset for such increases or decreases in estimated aggregate
expenditures, as determined under section 1895(b)(3)(D)(i) of the Act.
Additionally, section 1895(b)(3)(D)(iii) of the Act requires the
Secretary, at a time and in a manner determined appropriate, through
notice and comment rulemaking, to provide for one or more temporary
increases or decreases to the payment amount for a unit of home health
services for applicable years, on a prospective basis, to offset for
such increases or decreases in estimated aggregate expenditures, as
determined under section 1895(b)(3)(D)(i) of the Act. Such a temporary
increase or decrease shall apply only with respect to the year for
which such temporary increase or decrease is made, and the Secretary
shall not take into account such a temporary increase or decrease in
computing the payment amount for a unit of home health services for a
subsequent year. Finally, section 51001(a)(3) of the BBA of 2018 amends
section 1895(b)(4)(B) of the Act by adding a new clause (ii) to require
the Secretary to eliminate the use of therapy thresholds in the case-
mix system for CY 2020 and subsequent years.
Division FF, section 4136 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2023 (CAA, 2023) (Pub. L. 117-328) amended section 1834(s)(3)(A) of the
Act to require that, beginning with 2024, the separate payment for
furnishing negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) be for just the
device and not for nursing and therapy services. Payment for nursing
and therapy services are to be included as part of payments under the
HH PPS. The separate payment for 2024 was required to be equal to the
supply price used to determine the relative value for the service under
the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (as of January 1, 2022) for the
applicable disposable device updated by the percentage increase in the
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U). The separate
payment for 2025 and each subsequent year is to be the payment amount
for the previous year updated by the percentage increase in the CPI-U
(United States city average) for the 12-month period ending in June of
the previous year reduced by the productivity adjustment as described
in section 1886(b)(3)(B)(xi)(II) of the Act for such year. The CAA,
2023 also added section 1834(s)(4) of the Act to require that beginning
with 2024, as part of submitting claims for the separate payment, the
Secretary shall accept and process claims submitted using the type of
bill that is most commonly used by home health agencies to bill
services under a home health plan of care.
2. Current System for Payment of Home Health Services
For home health periods of care beginning on or after January 1,
2020, Medicare makes payment under the HH PPS on the basis of a
national, standardized 30-day period payment rate that is adjusted for
case-mix and area wage differences in accordance with section
51001(a)(1)(B) of the BBA of 2018. The national, standardized 30-day
period payment rate includes payment for the six home health
disciplines (skilled nursing, home health aide, physical therapy,
speech-language pathology, occupational therapy, and medical social
services). Payment for non-routine supplies (NRS) is also part of the
national, standardized 30-day period rate. Durable medical equipment
(DME) provided as a home health service, as defined in section 1861(m)
of the Act, is paid the fee schedule amount or is paid through the
competitive bidding program and such payment is not included in the
national, standardized 30-day period payment amount. Additionally, the
30-day period payment rate does not include payment for certain
injectable osteoporosis drugs and disposable negative pressure wound
therapy (dNPWT) devices, but such drugs and devices must be billed by
the HHA while a patient is under a home health plan of care, as the law
requires consolidated billing of osteoporosis drugs and dNPWT devices.
To better align payment with patient care needs and to better
ensure that clinically complex and ill beneficiaries have adequate
access to home health care, in the CY 2019 HH PPS final rule with
comment period (83 FR 56406), we finalized case-mix methodology
refinements through the Patient-Driven Groupings Model (PDGM) for home
health periods of care beginning on or after January 1, 2020. The PDGM
did not change eligibility or coverage criteria for Medicare home
health services, and as long as the individual meets the criteria for
home health services as described at 42 CFR 409.42, the individual can
receive Medicare home health services, including therapy services. For
more information about the role of therapy services under the PDGM, we
refer readers to the Medicare Learning Network (MLN) Matters article
SE20005 available at https://www.cms.gov/regulations-and-guidanceguidancetransmittals2020-transmittals/se20005. To adjust for
case-mix for 30-day periods of care beginning on and after January 1,
2020, the HH PPS uses a 432-category case-mix classification system to
assign patients to a home health resource group (HHRG) using patient
characteristics and other clinical information from Medicare claims and
the Outcome and Assessment Information Set (OASIS) assessment
instrument. These 432 HHRGs represent the different payment groups
based on five main case-mix categories under the PDGM, as shown in
figure 1. Each HHRG has an associated case-mix weight that is used in
calculating the payment for a 30-day period of care. For periods of
care with visits less than the low-utilization payment adjustment
(LUPA) threshold for the HHRG, Medicare pays national per-visit rates
based on the discipline(s) providing the services. Medicare also
adjusts the national standardized 30-day period payment rate for
certain intervening events that are subject to a partial payment
adjustment. For certain cases that exceed a specific cost threshold, an
outlier adjustment may also be available.
Under this case-mix methodology, case-mix weights are generated for
each of the different PDGM payment groups by regressing resource use
for each of the five categories (admission source, timing, clinical
grouping, functional impairment level, and comorbidity adjustment)
using a fixed effects model. A detailed description of each of the
case-mix variables under the PDGM have been described previously, and
we refer readers to the CY 2021 HH PPS final rule (85 FR 70303 through
70305).
BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
[[Page 55318]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.002
B. Monitoring the Effects of the Implementation of PDGM
1. Routine PDGM Monitoring
CMS routinely analyzes Medicare home health benefit utilization,
including but not limited to, overall total 30-day periods of care and
average periods of care per HHA user; distribution of the type of
visits in a 30-day period of care; the percentage of periods that
receive the LUPA; estimated costs; the percentage of 30-day periods of
care by clinical group, comorbidity adjustment, admission source,
timing, and functional impairment level; and the proportion of 30-day
periods of care with and without any therapy visits, nursing visits,
and/or aide/social worker visits. For the monitoring included in this
proposed rule, we examine simulated data for CYs 2018 and 2019 and
actual data for CYs 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023 for 30-day periods of
care. For CYs 2018 and 2019, because the HH PPS accounted for care in
60-dayepisodes, before the transition to 30-day periods of care
beginning in 2020, this actual data was simulated to reflect 30-day
periods of care. We refer readers to the CY 2022 HH PPS final rule (86
FR 35881) for further discussion about simulated data for CYs 2018 and
2019. In this proposed rule, we are also including monitoring of home
health visits using telecommunications technology and remote patient
monitoring, which we began collecting on claims submitted voluntarily
beginning January 1, 2023, and which was required beginning July 1,
2023.
a. Utilization
Table 2 shows the overall utilization of home health. The data
indicate the average number of 30-day periods of care per unique HHA
user is similar per 30-day periods of care between CY 2022 and CY 2023.
The data also show a decreasing trend in the overall number of 30-day
periods of care between CY 2018 and CY 2023. Table 2 shows utilization
of visits per 30-day period of care by home health discipline over
time. Table 2 shows the proportion of 30-day periods of care that are
LUPAs and the average number of visits per discipline of those LUPA 30-
day periods of care over time. The data show a
[[Page 55319]]
decreasing trend in the average number of visits per 30-day period and
average number of visits per discipline for LUPA 30-day periods of care
between CY 2018 and CY 2023.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.004
[[Page 55320]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.005
b. Analysis of 2022 Cost Report Data for 30-Day Periods of Care
In the CY 2024 HH PPS proposed rule (88 FR 43664), we provided a
summary of analysis on FY 2021 HHA cost report data, as this was the
most recent and complete cost report data at the time of rulemaking,
and CY 2022 claims to estimate 30-day period of care costs. Our
analysis showed that the CY 2022 national, standardized 30-day period
payment rate of $2,031.64 was approximately 45 percent more than the
estimated CY 2022 estimated 30-day period cost of $1,402.27.
Using this same process in this proposed rule to compare home
health payment to costs, we examined 2022 HHA Medicare cost reports, as
this is the most recent and complete cost report data at the time of
rulemaking, and CY 2023 home health claims, to estimate 30-day period
of care costs. We excluded LUPAs and visits with partial episode
payments (PEPs) when calculating the average number of visits. The 2022
average NRS costs per visit is $4.38. To update the estimated 30-day
period of care costs, we begin with the 2022 average costs per visit
with NRS for each discipline and multiply that amount by the CY 2023
home health payment update factor of 1.04. That amount for each
discipline is then multiplied by the 2023 average number of visits by
discipline to determine the 2023 Estimated 30-day Period Costs. Table 5
shows the estimated average costs for 30-day periods of care by
discipline with NRS and the total estimated 30-day period of care costs
with NRS for CY 2023.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.006
[[Page 55321]]
The CY 2023 national standardized 30-day period payment rate was
$2,010.69, which is approximately 32 percent more than the estimated CY
2023 30-day period average facility cost of $1,527.23. In its March
2024 Report to Congress, MedPAC assumed costs will increase by only
0.55 percent, the average of the increases in costs per 30-day period
for 2021 and 2022.\1\ Furthermore, MedPAC noted that for more than a
decade, payments under the HH PPS have significantly exceeded HHAs'
costs. MedPAC also noted an increase of 4.0 percent in the costs per
30-day period for freestanding HHAs in 2022, a reversal of the trend
for 2021, where costs per 30-day period decreased by 2.9 percent. This
increase in 2022 was due to higher costs per visit, but it was offset
by a reduction in the number of in-person visits per 30-day period. As
shown in table 5 in this proposed rule, HHAs have reduced visits under
the PDGM in CY 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Report to Congress, Medicare Payment Policy. Home Health
Care Services, Chapter 7. MedPAC. March 2024 (https://www.medpac.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Ch7_Mar24_MedPAC_Report_To_Congress_SEC.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Clinical Groupings and Comorbidities
Each 30-day period of care is grouped into one of 12 clinical
groups, which describe the primary reason for which a patient is
receiving home health services under the Medicare home health benefit.
The clinical grouping is based on the principal diagnosis reported on
the home health claim. Table 6 shows the distribution of the 12
clinical groups over time.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.007
Thirty-day periods of care will receive a comorbidity adjustment
category based on the presence of certain secondary diagnoses reported
on home health claims. These diagnoses are based on a home health
specific list of clinically and statistically significant secondary
diagnosis subgroups with similar resource use. We refer readers to
section II.B.4.c. of this proposed rule and the CY 2020 final rule with
comment period (84 FR 60493) for further information on the comorbidity
adjustment categories. Home health 30-day periods of care can receive a
low or a high comorbidity adjustment, or no comorbidity adjustment.
Table 7 shows the distribution of 30-day periods of care by comorbidity
adjustment category for all 30-day periods.
[[Page 55322]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.008
d. Admission Source and Timing
Each 30-day period of care is classified into one of two admission
source categories--community or institutional--depending on what
healthcare setting was utilized in the 14 days prior to receiving home
health care. Thirty-day periods of care for beneficiaries with any
inpatient acute care hospitalizations, inpatient psychiatric facility
(IPF) stays, skilled nursing facility (SNF) stays, inpatient
rehabilitation facility (IRF) stays, or long-term care hospital (LTCH)
stays within 14 days prior to a home health admission will be
designated as institutional admissions. The institutional admission
source category will also include patients that had an acute care
hospital stay during a previous 30-day period of care and within 14
days prior to the subsequent, contiguous 30-day period of care and for
which the patient was not discharged from home health and readmitted.
Thirty-day periods of care are classified as ``early'' or ``late''
depending on when they occur within a sequence of 30-day periods of
care. The first 30-day period of care is classified as early and all
subsequent 30-day periods of care in the sequence (second or later) are
classified as late. A subsequent 30-day period of care would not be
considered early unless there is a gap of more than 60 days between the
end of one previous period of care and the start of another.
Information regarding the timing of a 30-day period of care comes from
Medicare home health claims data and not the OASIS assessment to
determine if a 30-day period of care is ``early'' or ``late''. Table 8
shows the distribution of 30-day periods of care by admission source
and timing.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.009
e. Functional Impairment Level
Each 30-day period of care is placed into one of three functional
impairment levels (low, medium, or high) based on responses to certain
OASIS functional items associated with grooming, bathing, dressing,
ambulating, transferring, and risk for hospitalization. The specific
OASIS items that are used for the functional impairment level are found
in table 8 in the CY 2020 HH PPS final rule with comment period (84 FR
60490).\2\ Responses to these OASIS items are grouped together into
response categories with similar resource use and each response
category has associated points. A more detailed description as to how
these response categories were established can be found in the
technical report, ``Overview of the Home Health Groupings Model''
posted on the HHA web page.\3\ The sum of these points results in a
functional
[[Page 55323]]
impairment score used to group 30-day periods of care into a functional
impairment level with similar resource use. The scores associated with
the functional impairment levels vary by clinical group to account for
differences in resource utilization. A patient's functional impairment
level will remain the same for the first and second 30-day periods of
care unless there is a significant change in condition that warrants an
``other follow-up'' assessment prior to the second 30-day period of
care. For each 30-day period of care, the Medicare claims processing
system will look for occurrence code 50 on the claim to correspond to
the M0090 date of the applicable assessment. Table 9 shows the
distribution of 30-day periods by functional impairment level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ CMS continues to use the M1800-1860 items to determine
functional impairment level for case mix purposes while we continue
to analyze the relationship between the analogous GG items (required
as standardized patient assessment data) and the M1800 items used
for payment.
\3\ https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/HomeHealthPPS/HH-PDGM.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.010
f. Therapy Visits
Beginning in CY 2020, section 1895(b)(4)(B)(ii) of the Act
eliminated the use of therapy thresholds in calculating payments for CY
2020 and subsequent years. Prior to implementation of the PDGM, HHAs
could receive an adjustment to payment based on the number of therapy
visits provided during a 60-day episode of care. We examined the
proportion of actual 30-day periods of care with and without therapy
visits. To be covered as skilled therapy, the services must require the
skills of a qualified therapist (that is, PT, OT, or SLP) or qualified
therapist assistant and must be reasonable and necessary for the
treatment of the patient's illness or injury.\4\ As shown in table 10,
we monitor the number of visits per 30-day period of care by each home
health discipline. Any 30-day period of care can include both therapy
and non-therapy visits. If any 30-day period of care consisted of only
visits for PT, OT, and/or SLP, then this 30-day period of care is
considered ``therapy only''. If any 30-day period of care consisted of
only visits for skilled nursing, home health aide, or social worker,
then this 30-day period of care is considered ``no therapy''. If any
30-day period of care consisted of at least one therapy visit and one
non-therapy, then this 30-day period of care is considered ``therapy +
non-therapy''. Table 10 shows the proportion of 30-day periods of care
with only therapy visits, at least one therapy visit and one non-
therapy visit, and no therapy visits. Figure 2 shows the proportion of
30-day periods of care by the number of therapy visits (excluding zero)
provided during 30-day periods of care.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Medicare Benefit Policy Manual, Chapter 7 Home Health
Services, Section 40.2 Skilled Therapy Services (https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Manuals/Downloads/bp102c07.pdf).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.011
[[Page 55324]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.012
Both table 10 and figure 2, as previously discussed, indicate there
have been changes in the distribution of both therapy and non-therapy
visits in CY 2023 compared to CY 2022. For example, the percent of 30-
day periods with one through seven therapy visits during a 30-day
period increased in CY 2023 compared to CY 2022. Comparing therapy
utilization from before the PDGM (CYs 2018 and 2019) to after the
implementation of the PDGM (CYs 2020-2023), we have also seen a decline
in therapy visits across all clinical groups, as shown in figure 2.
[[Page 55325]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.013
We also examined the proportion of 30-day periods of care with and
without skilled nursing, social work, or home health aide visits. Table
12 shows the number of 30-day periods of care with only skilled nursing
visits, at least one skilled nursing visit and one other visit type
(therapy or non-therapy), and no skilled nursing visits. Table 12 shows
the number of 30-day periods of care with and without home health aide
and/or social worker visits.
[[Page 55326]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.015
g. Home Health Services Using Telecommunications Technology
As discussed in the CY 2023 final rule (87 FR 66858), we began
collecting data on the use of telecommunications technology used during
a home health period using three new G-codes reported on home health
claims. Collecting data on services furnished via telecommunications
technology on claims allows CMS to analyze the characteristics of
patients using services provided remotely and have a broader
understanding of the social determinants that affect who benefits most
from these services, including what barriers may potentially exist for
certain subsets of patients. The monitoring discussion illustrates
which services are most frequently furnished via telecommunication
technology and generally how long remote patient monitoring is
utilized.
We began collecting this information from HHAs on January 1, 2023,
on a voluntary basis and have required this information to be reported
on claims starting on July 1, 2023 (87 FR 66858). The three new G-codes
help identify when home health services are furnished using synchronous
telemedicine rendered via a real-time two-way audio and video
telecommunications system (G320); synchronous telemedicine rendered via
telephone or other real-time interactive audio-only telecommunications
system (G0321); and the collection of physiologic data digitally stored
and/or transmitted by the patient to the home health agency, that is,
remote patient monitoring (G0322). We capture the usage and length of
remote patient monitoring using the start date of the remote patient
monitoring and the number of days of monitoring indicated on the claim.
We also looked at the disciplines most often providing remote patient
monitoring. We examined the utilization of telecommunications
technology device during a home health period and remote patient
monitoring by looking at home health claims that included the three G-
codes. Tables 14 and 15 shows that the use of telecommunications
services reported on CY 2023 home health claims are low (roughly 1
percent of all CY 2023 claims) and are mainly associated with skilled
nursing.
[[Page 55327]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.017
BILLING CODE 4120-01-C
We will continue to monitor the provision of home health services,
including any changes in the number and duration of home health visits,
composition of the disciplines providing such services,
telecommunications technology used during home health periods, and
overall home health payments to determine if refinements to the case-
mix adjustment methodology or other policies may be needed in the
future.
C. Proposed CY 2025 Payment Adjustments Under the HH PPS
1. Proposed Behavior Assumption Adjustments Under the HH PPS
a. Background
As discussed in section II.A.1. of this proposed rule, starting in
CY 2020, the Secretary was statutorily required by section
1895(b)(2)(B) of the Act, to change the unit of payment under the HH
PPS from a 60-day episode of care to a 30-day period of care. CMS was
also required to make assumptions about behavior changes that could
occur as a result of the implementation of the 30-day unit of payment
and the case-mix adjustment factors that eliminated the use of therapy
thresholds. In the CY 2019 HH PPS final rule with comment period (83 FR
56455), we finalized three behavior change assumptions which were also
described in the CY 2022 and 2023 HH PPS rules (86 FR 35890, 87 FR
37614, and 87 FR 66795 through 66796). In the CY 2020 HH PPS final rule
with comment period (84 FR 60519), we included these behavioral change
assumptions in the calculation of the 30-day budget neutral payment
amount for CY 2020, finalizing a negative 4.36 percent behavior change
assumption adjustment (``assumed behaviors''). We did not propose any
changes for CYs 2021 and 2022 relating to the behavior assumptions
finalized in the CY 2019 HH PPS final rule with comment period, or to
the negative 4.36 percent behavior change assumption adjustment,
finalized in the CY 2020 HH PPS final rule with comment period.
In the CY 2023 HH PPS final rule (87 FR 66796), we stated, based on
our annual monitoring at that time, the three
[[Page 55328]]
assumed behavior changes did occur as a result of the implementation of
the PDGM and that other behaviors, such as changes in the provision of
therapy and changes in functional impairment levels also occurred. We
also reminded readers that in the CY 2020 HH PPS final rule with
comment period (84 FR 60513) we stated we interpret actual behavior
changes to encompass both behavior changes that were previously
outlined as assumed by CMS, and other behavior changes not identified
at the time the budget-neutral 30-day payment rate for CY 2020 was
established. In the CY 2023 HH PPS final rule (87 FR 66796) we provided
supporting evidence that indicated the number of therapy visits
declined in CYs 2020 and 2021, as well as a slight decline in therapy
visits beginning in CY 2019 after the finalization of the removal of
therapy thresholds, but prior to implementation of the PDGM. In section
II.B.1. of this proposed rule, our analysis continues to show overall
the actual 30-day periods are similar to the simulated 30-day periods
and there continues to be a decline in therapy visits, indicating that
HHAs changed their behavior to reduce therapy visits. Although the
analysis demonstrates evidence of individual behavior changes (for
example, in the volume of visits for LUPAs, therapy sessions, etc.), we
use the entirety of the behaviors in order to calculate estimated
aggregate expenditures. The law instructs us to ensure that estimated
aggregate expenditures under the PDGM are equal to the estimated
aggregate expenditures that otherwise would have been made under the
prior system.
Section 4142(a) of the CAA, 2023, required CMS to present, to the
extent practicable, a description of the actual behavior changes
occurring under the HH PPS from CYs 2020-2026. This subsection of the
CAA, 2023, also required CMS to provide datasets underlying the
simulated 60-day episodes and discuss and provide time for stakeholders
to provide input and ask questions on the payment rate development for
CY 2023. CMS complied with these requirements by posting online both
the supplemental limited data set (LDS) and descriptive files and the
description of actual behavior changes that affected CY 2023 payment
rate development. Additionally, on March 29, 2023, CMS conducted a
webinar entitled Medicare Home Health Prospective Payment System (HH
PPS) Calendar Year (CY) 2023 Behavior Change Recap, 60-Day Episode
Construction Overview, and Payment Rate Development. The webinar was
open to the public and discussed the actual behavior changes that
occurred upon implementation of the PDGM, our approach used to
construct simulated 60-day episodes using 30-day periods, payment rate
development for CY 2023, and information on the supplemental data files
containing information on the simulated 60-day episodes and actual 30-
day periods used in calculating the permanent adjustment to the payment
rate. Materials from the webinar, including the presentation and the CY
2023 descriptive statistics from the supplemental LDS files, containing
information on the number of simulated 60-day episodes and actual 30-
day periods in CY 2021 that were used to construct the permanent
adjustment to the payment rate, as well as information such as the
number of episodes and periods by case-mix group, case-mix weights, and
simulated payments, can be found on the Home Health Patient-Driven
Groupings Model web page at https://www.cms.gov/medicare/medicare-fee-
for-service-payment/homehealthpps/hh-pdgm.
b. Method to Annually Determine the Impact of Differences Between
Assumed Behavior Changes and Actual Behavior Changes on Estimated
Aggregate Expenditures
In the CY 2023 HH PPS final rule (87 FR 66804), we finalized the
methodology to evaluate the impact of the differences between assumed
and actual behavior changes on estimated aggregate expenditures. In the
CY 2024 HH PPS final rule (88 FR 77687 through 77688) we provided an
overview of the methodology with detailed instructions for each step.
The overall methodology as finalized remains the same for evaluating
the impact of behavior changes as required by law; however, due to an
update of the Outcome and Assessment Information Set (OASIS)
instrument, we need to update two minor technical parts and are
proposing to add new assumptions in the first step (creating simulated
60-day episodes from 30-day periods These new assumptions are described
in this section.
Section 1895(b)(3)(B)(v) of the Act requires HHAs to report certain
quality data. As described in regulation at 42 CFR 484.250(a), this
data is required to be reported using the OASIS instrument. Under the
prior 153-group system (and the first three years for assessments
associated with the PDGM completed prior to CY 2023), HHAs submitted
the OASIS-D version. However, OMB approved an updated version of the
OASIS instrument, OASIS-E, on November 30, 2022, effective January 1,
2023. Thus, OASIS-E is the current version of the OASIS instrument
used. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is
0938-1279.
There are 13 items from the OASIS-D used in the 153-group system
that are included in the OASIS-E; however, the responses for these
items are now only recorded at the start of care (SOC) or resumption of
care (ROC) assessments in the OASIS-E and not at all for follow-up
assessments as shown in the following figure 3.
BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
[[Page 55329]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.018
Three items in the OASIS-E differ slightly from the OASIS-D by
incorporating more specific questions and responses than in the OASIS-
D. These three items, as shown in figure 4, ask about therapies
(M1030), vision (M1200), and the frequency of pain interfering with
activity (M1242). Additionally, these three items are only asked at
SOC/ROC and not follow-up.
[[Page 55330]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.019
The differences in these three items from what is included in
OASIS-E necessitate a mapping methodology to impute the OASIS-D
responses using OASIS-E to create simulated 60-day episodes under the
153-group case mix system from 30-day periods under the PDGM. For each
of the three items, we considered the clinical relationship between the
responses in the OASIS-E items that differ from the OASIS-D items. CMS
also considered the response distribution between the OASIS-D and
OASIS-E items when creating the mapping of the responses.
CMS believes the following two proposals on assumptions are the
most appropriate to address the changes from the OASIS-D to the OASIS-E
to continue to create simulated 60-day episodes from 30-day periods.
If the simulated 60-day episode matches to a SOC or ROC
assessment then we are proposing not to impute the 13 items. If the
simulated 60-day episode matches to a follow-up assessment, then we are
proposing to look back for the most recent 30-day period that is linked
to a SOC or ROC assessment and impute the 13 responses for follow-up
using the responses at the most recent SOC or ROC assessment. We would
limit the look back period to the beginning of the calendar year that
precedes the calendar year for the claim. For example, a simulated 60-
day episode with a follow-up assessment on June 1, 2023, would have a
look-back period for a 30-day period linked to a SOC or ROC assessment
that began on or after January 1, 2022. If we cannot find a SOC or ROC
assessment in that time period, we are proposing to exclude the claim
from analysis because we would not have sufficient timely data to
impute responses.
If the simulated 60-day episode matches to an OASIS-D
assessment, then we are proposing to use the OASIS-D for responses. If
the simulated 60-day episode matches to an OASIS-E assessment, we are
proposing to apply the following mapping for the therapies, vision, and
pain items to impute responses as these responses are required for
accurate payment calculation under the prior 153-group system. We are
also proposing to apply the look-back period as described in the
assumption earlier when necessary.
[[Page 55331]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.020
Note, if an OASIS-E assessment has a response of ``no'' to all
three items (O0110H--IV medication, K0520--Parenteral/IV feeding, and
K0520--Feeding Tube), as shown in figure 5, then the mapping for M1030
would be a response of ``none of the above''.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.021
[[Page 55332]]
On the OASIS-D there was one pain item (M1242--Frequency of Pain
Interfering with patient's activity or movement) used for payment
policy. There are three pain related items on the OASIS-E (J0510--pain
effect on sleep, J0520--pain interference with therapy activities, and
J0530--pain interference with day-to-day activities) that correspond to
the one OASIS-D pain item used for calculating payments. Therefore, we
believe using the response from J0510, J0520, or J0530 that reflects
the maximum severity would be the most appropriate for mapping back to
the OASIS-D. For example, if J0510 (pain effect on sleep) has a
response of ``rarely'', J0520 (pain interference with therapy
activities) has a response of ``frequently'', and J0530 has a response
of ``occasionally'', then we would use the response from J0520
(``frequently'') for mapping as this is the most severe response.
Figure 7 shows the proposed mapping based on the maximum severity
response for any of the three pain items.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.022
BILLING CODE 4120-01-C
As this overall methodology was previously finalized in the CY 2023
HH PPS final rule (87 FR 66804) and we are just proposing technical
updates based on the updated OASIS instrument, CMS will continue to
ensure that estimated aggregate expenditures under the PDGM are equal
to the estimated aggregate expenditures that otherwise would have been
made under the prior system for assessing behavior changes as required
by law. We refer readers to the CY 2024 HH PPS final rule (88 FR 77687
through 77688) for an overview of the methodology with detailed
instructions for each step. We are soliciting comments on these new
proposed assumptions related to mapping of the OASIS-E items.
c. Calculating Permanent and Temporary Payment Adjustments
To offset prospectively for such increases or decreases in
estimated aggregate expenditures as a result of the impact of
differences between assumed behavior changes and actual behavior
changes, in any given year, we calculate a permanent prospective
adjustment by calculating the percent change between the actual 30-day
base payment rate and the recalculated 30-day base payment rate. This
percent change is converted into an adjustment factor and applied in
the annual rate update process.
To offset retrospectively for such increases or decreases in
estimated aggregate expenditures as a result of the impact of
differences between assumed behavior changes and actual behavior
changes in any given year, we calculate a temporary prospective
adjustment by calculating the dollar amount difference between the
estimated aggregate expenditures from all 30-day periods using the
recalculated 30-day base payment rate, and the aggregate expenditures
for all 30-day periods using the actual 30-day base payment rate for
the same year. In other words, when determining the temporary
retrospective dollar amount, we use the full dataset of actual 30-day
periods using both the actual and recalculated 30-day base payment
rates to ensure that the utilization and distribution of claims are the
same. In accordance with section 1895(b)(3)(D)(iii) of the Act, the
temporary adjustment is to be applied on a prospective basis and shall
apply only with respect to the year for which such temporary increase
or decrease is made. Therefore, after we determine the dollar amount to
be reconciled in any given year, we calculate a temporary adjustment
factor to be applied to the base payment rate for that year. The
temporary adjustment factor is based on an estimated number of 30-day
periods in the next year using historical data trends, and as
applicable, we control for a permanent adjustment factor, case-mix
weight recalibration neutrality factor, wage index budget neutrality
factor, and the home health payment update. The temporary adjustment
factor is applied last. We refer readers to the CY 2024 HH PPS final
rule (88 FR 77689 through 77694) for analysis for CYs 2020 through 2022
claims. Additionally, at the end of this section we provide a summary
table for the permanent adjustment and temporary dollar amounts
calculated for each year.
d. CY 2023 Preliminary Claims Results
We will continue the practice of using the most recent complete
home health claims data available at the time of rulemaking. While the
CY 2023 analysis presented in this proposed rule is the most complete
data available at the time of this proposed rule, it is considered
preliminary and, as more data become available from the latter half of
CY 2023, we will update our results in the final rule. The CY 2025
final rule will utilize the CY 2023 finalized data for determining any
permanent adjustment needed to the CY 2025 payment rate. However, while
the claims data and the
[[Page 55333]]
permanent and temporary adjustment results will be considered complete,
any adjustments to future payment rates may be subject to additional
considerations such as permanent adjustments taken in previous years.
The claims data used in rulemaking is released twice each year in
the HH PPS Limited Data Set (LDS) file, one for the proposed and one
for the final. Accordingly, the HH PPS LDS file released with this
proposed rule includes two files: the actual CY 2023 30-day periods and
the CY 2023 simulated 60-day episodes.
We remind readers a data use agreement (DUA) is required to
purchase the CY 2025 proposed HH PPS LDS file. Access will be granted
for both the 30-day periods and the simulated 60-day episodes under one
DUA. Visit the HH PPS LDS web page for more information.\5\ In
addition, the proposed CY 2025 Home Health Descriptive Statistics from
the LDS Files spreadsheet is available on the HH PPS Regulations and
Notices webpage,\6\ does not require a DUA, and is available at no cost
to interested parties. The spreadsheet contains information on the
number of simulated 60-day episodes and actual 30-day periods in CY
2023 that were used to determine the adjustments. The spreadsheet also
provides information such as the number of episodes and periods by
case-mix group, case-mix weights, and simulated payments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/files-for-order/limiteddatasets/home_health_pps_lds.
\6\ https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/HomeHealthPPS/Home-Health-Prospective-Payment-System-Regulations-and-Notices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Applying the Methodology to CY 2023 Data To Determine the CY 2025
Permanent and Temporary Adjustments
Using the methodology finalized in the CY 2023 HH PPS final rule
and described most recently in the CY 2024 HH PPS final rule (88 FR
77687 through 77688), as well as the two new assumptions related to the
OASIS-E mapping, we simulated 60-day episodes using actual CY 2023 30-
day periods to determine what the permanent and temporary payment
adjustments should be to offset for such increases or decreases in
estimated aggregate expenditures as a result of the impact of
differences between assumed behavior changes and actual behavior
changes.
Using the preliminary CY 2023 dataset, we began with 8,133,377 30-
day periods of care and dropped 452,253 30-day periods of care that had
claim occurrence code 50 date after October 31, 2023. We also excluded
866,293 30-day periods of care that had claim occurrence code 50 date
before January 1, 2023, to ensure the 30-day period would not be part
of a simulated 60-day episode that began in CY 2022. Applying the
additional exclusions and assumptions as described in the finalized
methodology (87 FR 66804), an additional 12,906 30-day periods were
excluded.
Additionally, we excluded 166,441 simulated 60-day episodes of care
where no OASIS information was available in the CCW VRDC, a recent SOC/
ROC OASIS was not available, or the episode could not be grouped to a
HIPPS due to a missing primary diagnosis or other reason. Our simulated
60-day episodes of care produced a distribution of two 30-day periods
of care (68.9 percent) and single 30-day periods of care (31.1 percent)
that was similar to what we found when we simulated two 30-day periods
of care for implementation of the PDGM. After all exclusions and
assumptions were applied, the final dataset for this proposed rule
included 6,494,947 actual 30-day periods of care and 3,845,954
simulated 60-day episodes of care for CY 2023.
Using the preliminary dataset for CY 2023 (6,494,947 actual 30-day
periods which made up the 3,845,954 simulated 60-day episodes) we
determined the estimated aggregate expenditures under the pre-PDGM HH
PPS were lower than the actual estimated aggregate expenditures under
the PDGM HH PPS. This indicates that aggregate expenditures under the
PDGM were higher than if the 153-group payment system was still in
place in CY 2023 and therefore, we determined the CY 2023 30-day base
payment rate should have been $1,873.17 based on actual behavior, as
shown in table 16 As stated in the CY 2024 final rule (88 FR 77693) we
determined for CYs 2020 through CY 2022 a total of -5.779 percent
permanent adjustment was needed (after accounting for the -3.925
percent applied to the CY 2023 payment rate). In order to determine
behavior changes for only CY 2023, we simulated what the CY 2023 base
payment rate would have been if the full -5.779 percent adjustment that
we determined using CY 2022 claims data had been implemented.
Using the recalculated CY 2022 base payment rate of $1,839.10 (88
FR 77693), multiplied by the CY 2023 case-mix weights recalibration
neutrality factor (0.9904), the CY 2023 wage index budget neutrality
factor (1.0001) and the CY 2023 home health payment update factor
(1.040), the CY 2023 base payment rate for assumed behavior would have
been $1,894.49. For the CY 2023 annual permanent adjustment, we
calculated the percent change between the two payment rates for only CY
2023 (assuming the -5.779 percent adjustment was already taken). For
the temporary adjustment we calculated the difference in aggregate
expenditures in dollars for all CY 2023 PDGM 30-day claims using the
actual payment rate ($2,010.69) and recalculated payment ($1,873.17).
This difference is shown as the retrospective dollar amount needed to
offset payment in a future year. Our results for the CY 2023 annual
(single year) permanent and temporary adjustment calculations using CY
2023 preliminary claims data are shown in table 16.
[[Page 55334]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.023
As shown in table 16, a permanent prospective adjustment of -1.125
percent to the CY 2025 30-day payment rate (assuming the -5.779 percent
adjustment was already taken) for CY 2023 would be required to offset
for such increases in estimated aggregate expenditures in future years.
To illustrate this calculation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.024
Additionally, we determined that our initial estimate of the base
payment rate ($2,010.69) resulted in excess expenditures of
approximately $966 million in CY 2023. This would require a temporary
adjustment, where the dollar amount ($966 million) would be converted
to a factor when implemented, to offset for such increases in estimated
aggregate expenditures for CY 2023.
f. Proposed CY 2025 Permanent Adjustment and Temporary Adjustment
Calculations
In the preceding section we describe how we annually analyzed CY
2023 preliminary data to determine the effects of actual behavior
change on estimated aggregate expenditures. Again, that analysis
included simulations that assumed that the full payment adjustment (-
5.779 percent) was already taken. We note that CMS did not implement
the full payment adjustment, so the calculations set forth later in
this section reflect the lagging adjustments that are still needed.
That is, the calculation in this section includes any of the
remaining adjustments not applied in previous years (that is, CYs 2020
to 2022), as well as the adjustment needed to account for CY 2023
claims. In calculating the full permanent adjustment needed to the CY
2025 30-day payment rate, we compare estimated aggregate expenditures
under the PDGM and the prior system. Unlike the annual adjustments
described in table 16, we do not assume the full adjustment from prior
years had been taken.
As discussed in section II.C.1.d. of this proposed rule, using the
preliminary dataset for CY 2023 (6,494,947 actual 30-day periods which
made up the 3,845,954 simulated 60-day episodes) we determined the CY
2023 30-day base payment rate should have been $1,873.17 based on
actual behavior, rather than the actual CY 2023 30-day base payment
rate ($2,010.69) based on assumed behaviors. The percent change, as
shown in table 17, between the actual CY 2023 base payment rate of
$2,010.69 (based on assumed behaviors and included a -3.925 percent
adjustment applied to the CY 2023 payment rate) and the CY 2023
recalculated base payment rate of $1,873.17 (based on actual behaviors)
is the total permanent adjustment need for CYs 2020 through 2023.
[[Page 55335]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.025
As shown in table 17, a permanent prospective adjustment of -6.839
percent to the CY 2025 30-day payment rate for CYs 2020 through 2023
would be required to offset for such increases in estimated aggregate
expenditures in future years. To illustrate this calculation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.026
As we stated in the CY 2024 HH PPS final rule (88 FR 77697),
applying a -2.890 percent permanent adjustment to the CY 2024 30-day
payment rate would not adjust the rate fully to account for differences
in behavior changes on estimated aggregate expenditures in CYs 2020,
2021, and 2022. Using CY 2023 claims data, as shown in table 17, a
permanent prospective adjustment of -6.839 percent to the CY 2025 30-
day payment rate would be required to offset for such increases in
estimated aggregate expenditures for CYs 2020 through 2023. We remind
readers adjustment factors are multiplied in this payment system and
therefore, individual numbers (that is, percentages) cannot be added or
subtracted together to determine the final adjustment. Therefore, we
cannot determine the CY 2025 proposed permanent adjustment, which would
include estimated aggregate expenditures in CY 2023, by simply
subtracting the -2.890 percent applied in CY 2024 from the total
permanent adjustment of -6.839 percent.
Instead, we account for the permanent adjustment applied in CY 2024
of -2.890 percent when we calculate the CY 2025 permanent adjustment by
solving the following equation (1-0.0289) x (1-[chi]) = (1-0.06839). To
illustrate this calculation we used the following approach.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.027
We are required by law \7\ to annually analyze data from CY 2020
through CY 2026 and offset any increases or decreases in estimated
aggregate expenditures at a time and manner determined appropriate. We
now have 4 years of claims data under the PDGM, as well as 1 year with
a partial permanent adjustment applied. In previous years' rules, we
provided the permanent adjustment calculated for each discrete year of
claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Sections 1895(b)(3)(D)(i) and 1895(b)(3)(D)(ii) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permanent Adjustments Calculated:
CY 2020 Claims = -6.52% (87 FR 66805)
CY 2021 Claims = -1.42% (87 FR 66806)
CY 2022 Claims = -1.767% (88 FR 77692)
CY 2023 Claims = -1.125% (Table 16)
Permanent Adjustments Applied:
CY 2023 Rate = -3.925% (88 FR 66808)
CY 2024 Rate = 2.890% (88 FR 77697)
Accounting for the previous permanent adjustments applied to the
30-day payment rate in CYs 2023 and 2024, we can simulate the permanent
adjustment calculation with the simulated annual permanent adjustment
percentage shown previously for CY 2025:
(1-0.0652)(1-0.0142)(1-0.01767)(1-0.01125) = (1-0.03925)(1-0.0289)(1-
x).
Solving, x = 4.067%.
In table 18 we provide the base payment rate for assumed behaviors
(simulates all prior adjustments were taken), the recalculated base
payment rate for actual behaviors, the annual permanent adjustments
calculated (assuming prior adjustments had been taken), the cumulative
permanent adjustments calculated in each year, the final permanent
adjustments implemented in rulemaking, and the temporary adjustment
dollar amount based on actual payment rates.
BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
[[Page 55336]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.029
BILLING CODE 4120-01-C
In both the CY 2023 and 2024 final rules (87 FR 66790, 88 FR
77696), we acknowledged that the full permanent adjustment may be
burdensome for some providers. In those final rules, we finalized only
half of the permanent adjustment percentages (-3.925 percent in CY 2023
and -2.890 percent in CY 2024). However, in this proposed rule, we are
proposing to apply the full current remaining permanent adjustment of -
4.067 percent in CY 2025, as this would satisfy the statutory
requirements at section 1895(b)(3)(D) of the Act to offset any
increases or decreases on the impact of differences between assumed
behavior and actual behavior changes on estimated aggregate
expenditures, reduce the need for any future large permanent
adjustments, and help slow the accrual of the temporary payment
adjustment amount. In addition, we explained in the CY 2023 HH PPS
final rule (87 FR 66808) and the CY 2024 HH PPS final rule (88 FR
77697) that when we applied a reduced permanent adjustment in CY 2023
and CY 2024, that we would need to continue to implement a reduction in
future years to satisfy the statutory requirements. Therefore, we
believe that CMS has been clear through notice and
[[Page 55337]]
comment rulemaking that the remainder of these permanent adjustments
would be applied, thereby giving HHAs adequate notice to prepare for
this year's proposed rate reduction. Accordingly, we are proposing to
apply the full remaining permanent adjustment of -4.067 percent to the
CY 2025 home health base payment rate, noting that we will update this
percentage using more complete claims data in the final rule.
We stated in the CY 2023 HH PPS final rule (87 FR 66804), the CY
2024 HH PPS proposed rule (88 FR 43674) and in this proposed rule, that
after we determine the total dollar amount to be reconciled, we will
calculate a temporary adjustment factor to be applied to the base
payment rate for the year in which it is implemented. That is, the
temporary adjustment dollar amount (currently estimated at $4.5
billion) will be converted to a factor to be applied to the payment
rate in a time and manner determined appropriate. As we noted in the CY
2023 HH PPS proposed rule (87 FR 37682) and CY 2024 HH PPS proposed
rule (88 FR 43678), we recognize that implementing both the permanent
and temporary adjustments in the same year may adversely affect HHAs.
Given that the magnitude of both the temporary and permanent
adjustments together for CY 2025 rate setting may result in a
significant reduction of the payment rate, we are not proposing to take
the temporary adjustment in CY 2025. In future year rulemaking, we will
propose a temporary adjustment factor to the national, standardized
base payment rate in a time and manner determined appropriate. As noted
previously, we will update these permanent and temporary adjustments in
the final rule to reflect more complete claims data for CY 2023. We
solicit comments on the proposal to apply a -4.067 percent permanent
adjustment to the CY 2025 base payment rate.
D. Proposed CY 2025 Home Health Low Utilization Payment Adjustment
(LUPA) Thresholds, Functional Impairment Levels, Comorbidity Sub-
Groups, Case-Mix Weights, and Reassignment of Specific ICD-10-CM Codes
Under the PDGM
1. Proposed CY 2025 PDGM LUPA Thresholds
Under the HH PPS, LUPAs are paid when a certain visit threshold for
a payment group during a 30-day period of care is not met. In the CY
2019 HH PPS final rule with comment period (83 FR 56492), we finalized
a policy setting the LUPA thresholds at the 10th percentile of visits
or two visits, whichever is higher, for each payment group. This means
the LUPA threshold for each 30-day period of care varies depending on
the PDGM payment group to which it is assigned. If the LUPA threshold
for the payment group is met under the PDGM, the 30-day period of care
will be paid the full 30-day period case-mix adjusted payment amount
(subject to any partial payment adjustment or outlier adjustments). If
a 30-day period of care does not meet the PDGM LUPA visit threshold,
then payment will be made using the per-visit payment amounts as
described in section II.C.4.f.2 of this proposed rule. For example, if
the LUPA visit threshold is four, and a 30-day period of care has four
or more visits, it is paid the full 30-day period payment amount; if
the period of care has three or fewer visits, payment is made using the
per-visit payment amounts.
In the CY 2019 HH PPS final rule with comment period (83 FR 56492),
we finalized our policy that the LUPA thresholds for each PDGM payment
group would be reevaluated every year based on the most current
utilization data available at the time of rulemaking. However, as CY
2020 was the first year of the new case-mix adjustment methodology, we
stated in the CY 2021 HH PPS final rule (85 FR 70305, 70306) that we
would maintain the LUPA thresholds that were finalized and shown in
table 17 of the CY 2020 HH PPS final rule with comment period (84 FR
60522) for CY 2021 payment purposes. We stated that at that time, we
did not have sufficient CY 2020 data to reevaluate the LUPA thresholds
for CY 2021.
In the CY 2022 HH PPS final rule with comment period (86 FR 62249),
we finalized the proposal to recalibrate the PDGM case-mix weights,
functional impairment levels, and comorbidity subgroups while
maintaining the LUPA thresholds for CY 2022. We stated that because
there are several factors that contribute to how the case-mix weight is
set for a particular case-mix group (such as the number of visits,
length of visits, types of disciplines providing visits, and non-
routine supplies) and the case-mix weight is derived by comparing the
average resource use for the case-mix group relative to the average
resource use across all groups, we believe the COVID-19 PHE would have
impacted utilization within all case-mix groups similarly. Therefore,
the impact of any reduction in resource use caused by the PHE on the
calculation of the case-mix weight would be minimized since the impact
would be accounted for both in the numerator and denominator of the
formula used to calculate the case-mix weight. However, in contrast,
the LUPA thresholds are based on the number of overall visits in a
particular case-mix group (the threshold is the 10th percentile of
visits or 2 visits, whichever is greater) instead of a relative value
(like what is used to generate the case-mix weight) that would control
for the impacts of the COVID-19 PHE. We noted that visit patterns and
some of the decrease in overall visits in CY 2020 may not be
representative of visit patterns in CY 2022. Therefore, to mitigate any
potential future and significant short-term variability in the LUPA
thresholds due to the COVID-19 PHE, we finalized the proposal to
maintain the LUPA thresholds finalized and displayed in table 17 in the
CY 2020 HH PPS final rule with comment period (84 FR 60522) for CY 2022
payment purposes.
For CY 2024, we proposed to update the LUPA thresholds using CY
2022 Medicare home health claims (as of March 17, 2023) linked to OASIS
assessment data. We believed that CY 2022 data will be more indicative
of visit patterns in CY 2024 rather than continuing to use the LUPA
thresholds derived from the CY 2018 data pre-PDGM. Therefore, we
finalized a policy to update the LUPA thresholds for CY 2024 using data
from CY 2022.
For CY 2025, we are proposing to update the LUPA thresholds using
CY 2023 home health claims utilization data (as of March 19, 2024), in
accordance with our policy to annually recalibrate the case-mix weights
and update the LUPA thresholds, functional impairment levels and
comorbidity subgroups. After reviewing the CY 2023 home health claims
utilization data, we determined that LUPA visit patterns in 2023 were
similar to visits in 2021. The proposed LUPA thresholds for the CY 2025
PDGM payment groups with the corresponding Health Insurance Prospective
Payment System (HIPPS) codes and the case-mix weights are listed in
table 20. We solicit public comments on the proposed updates to the
LUPA thresholds for CY 2025. The proposed LUPA thresholds will be
updated based on more complete CY 2023 claims data in the final rule.
2. Proposed CY 2025 Functional Impairment Levels
Under the PDGM, the functional impairment level is determined by
responses to certain OASIS items associated with activities of daily
living and risk of hospitalization; that is, responses to OASIS items
M1800-M1860 and M1033. A home health period of care receives points
based on
[[Page 55338]]
each of the responses associated with these functional OASIS items,
which are then converted into a table of points corresponding to
increased resource use. The sum of all these points results in a
functional impairment score which is used to group home health periods
into a functional level with similar resource use. That is, the higher
the points, the more the response is associated with increased resource
use, or increased impairment. The three functional impairment levels of
low, medium, and high were designed so that approximately one-third of
home health periods from each clinical group falls within each level.
This means home health periods in the low impairment level have
responses for the functional OASIS items that are associated with the
lowest resource use, on average. Home health periods in the high
impairment level have responses for the functional OASIS items that are
associated with the highest resource use on average.
For CY 2025, we propose to use CY 2023 claims data to update the
functional points and functional impairment levels by clinical group.
The CY 2018 HH PPS proposed rule (82 FR 35320) and the technical report
from December 2016, posted on the Home Health PPS Archive web page
located at: https://www.cms.gov/medicare/home-health-pps/home-health-pps-archive, provides a more detailed explanation as to the
construction of these functional impairment levels using the OASIS
items. We are proposing to use the same methodology previously
finalized to update the functional impairment levels for CY 2025. The
updated OASIS functional points table and the table of functional
impairment levels by clinical group for CY 2025 are listed in tables 20
and 21, respectively. We solicit public comments on the updates to
functional points and the functional impairment levels by clinical
group.
BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.030
[[Page 55339]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.031
3. Proposed CY 2025 Comorbidity Subgroups
Thirty-day periods of care receive a comorbidity adjustment
category based on the presence of certain secondary diagnoses reported
on home health claims. These diagnoses are based on a home-health
specific list of clinically and statistically significant secondary
diagnosis subgroups with similar resource use, meaning the diagnoses
have at least as high as the median resource use and are reported in
more than 0.1 percent of 30-day periods of care. Home health 30-day
periods of care can receive a comorbidity
[[Page 55340]]
adjustment under the following circumstances:
High comorbidity adjustment: There are two or more
secondary diagnoses on the home health-specific comorbidity subgroup
interaction list that are associated with higher resource use when both
are reported together compared to when they are reported separately.
That is, the two diagnoses may interact with one another, resulting in
higher resource use.
Low comorbidity adjustment: There is a reported secondary
diagnosis on the home health-specific comorbidity subgroup list that is
associated with higher resource use.
No comorbidity adjustment: A 30-day period of care
receives no comorbidity adjustment if no secondary diagnoses exist or
do not meet the criteria for a low or high comorbidity adjustment.
In the CY 2019 HH PPS final rule with comment period (83 FR 56406),
we stated that we would continue to examine the relationship of
reported comorbidities on resource utilization and make the appropriate
payment refinements to help ensure that payment is in alignment with
the actual costs of providing care. For CY 2025, we propose to use the
same methodology used to establish the comorbidity subgroups to update
the comorbidity subgroups using CY 2023 home health data with linked
OASIS data (as of March 19, 2024).
For CY 2025, we propose to update the comorbidity subgroups to
include 22 low comorbidity adjustment subgroups as identified in table
22 and 90 high comorbidity adjustment interaction subgroups as
identified in table 23. The proposed CY 2025 low comorbidity adjustment
subgroups and the high comorbidity adjustment interaction subgroups
including those diagnoses within each of these comorbidity adjustments
will also be posted on the HHA Center web page at https://www.cms.gov/Center/Provider-Type/Home-Health-Agency-HHA-Center.
We invite comments on the proposed updates to the low comorbidity
adjustment subgroups and the high comorbidity adjustment interactions
for CY 2025.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.032
[[Page 55341]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.033
[[Page 55342]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.034
[[Page 55343]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.035
[[Page 55344]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.036
[[Page 55345]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.037
[[Page 55346]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.038
[[Page 55347]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.039
BILLING CODE 4120-01-C
[[Page 55348]]
4. Proposed CY 2025 PDGM Case-Mix Weights
As finalized in the CY 2019 HH PPS final rule with comment period
(83 FR 56502), the PDGM places patients into meaningful payment
categories based on patient and other characteristics, such as timing,
admission source, clinical grouping using the reported principal
diagnosis, functional impairment level, and comorbid conditions. The
PDGM case-mix methodology results in 432 unique case-mix groups called
home health resource groups (HHRGs). We also finalized a policy in the
CY 2019 HH PPS final rule with comment period (83 FR 56515) to annually
recalibrate the PDGM case-mix weights using a fixed effects model with
the most recent and complete utilization data available at the time of
annual rulemaking. Annual recalibration of the PDGM case-mix weights
ensures that the case-mix weights reflect, as accurately as possible,
current home health resource use and changes in utilization patterns.
To generate the proposed recalibrated CY 2025 case-mix weights, we used
CY 2023 home health claims data with linked OASIS data (as of March 19,
2024). These data are the most current and complete data available at
this time. We believe that recalibrating the case-mix weights using
data from CY 2023 would be reflective of PDGM utilization and patient
resource use for CY 2025. The proposed recalibrated case-mix weights
will be updated based on more complete CY 2023 claims data in the final
rule.
The claims data provide visit-level data and data on whether non-
routine supplies (NRS) were provided during the period and the total
charges of NRS. We determine the case-mix weight for each of the 432
different PDGM payment groups by regressing resource use on a series of
indicator variables for each of the categories using a fixed effects
model as described in the following steps:
Step 1: Estimate a regression model to assign a functional
impairment level to each 30-day period. The regression model estimates
the relationship between a 30-day period's resource use and the
functional status and risk of hospitalization items included in the
PDGM, which are obtained from certain OASIS items. We refer readers to
table 18 for further information on the OASIS items used for the
functional impairment level under the PDGM. We measure resource use
with the cost-per-minute + NRS approach that uses information from 2022
home health cost reports. We use 2022 home health cost report data
because it is the most complete cost report data available at the time
of rulemaking. Other variables in the regression model include the 30-
day period's admission source, clinical group, and 30-day period
timing. We also include home health agency level fixed effects in the
regression model. After estimating the regression model using 30-day
periods, we divide the coefficients that correspond to the functional
status and risk of hospitalization items by 10 and round to the nearest
whole number. Those rounded numbers are used to compute a functional
score for each 30-day period by summing together the rounded numbers
for the functional status and risk of hospitalization items that are
applicable to each 30-day period. Next, each 30-day period is assigned
to a functional impairment level (low, medium, or high) depending on
the 30-day period's total functional score. Each clinical group has a
separate set of functional thresholds used to assign 30-day periods
into a low, medium or high functional impairment level. We set those
thresholds so that we assign roughly a third of 30-day periods within
each clinical group to each functional impairment level (low, medium,
or high).
Step 2: A second regression model estimates the relationship
between a 30-day period's resource use and indicator variables for the
presence of any of the comorbidities and comorbidity interactions that
were originally examined for inclusion in the PDGM. Like the first
regression model, this model also includes home health agency level
fixed effects and includes control variables for each 30-day period's
admission source, clinical group, timing, and functional impairment
level. After we estimate the model, we assign comorbidities to the low
comorbidity adjustment if any comorbidities have a coefficient that is
statistically significant (p-value of 0.05 or less) and which have a
coefficient that is larger than the 50th percentile of positive and
statistically significant comorbidity coefficients. If two
comorbidities in the model and their interaction term have coefficients
that sum together to exceed $150 and the interaction term is
statistically significant (p-value of 0.05 or less), we assign the two
comorbidities together to the high comorbidity adjustment.
Step 3: After Step 2, each 30-day period is assigned to a clinical
group, admission source category, episode timing category, functional
impairment level, and comorbidity adjustment category. For each
combination of those variables (which represent the 432 different
payment groups that comprise the PDGM), we then calculate the 10th
percentile of visits across all 30-day periods within a particular
payment group. If a 30-day period's number of visits is less than the
10th percentile for their payment group, the 30-day period is
classified as a Low Utilization Payment Adjustment (LUPA). If a payment
group has a 10th percentile of visits that is less than two, we set the
LUPA threshold for that payment group to be equal to two. That means if
a 30-day period has one visit, it is classified as a LUPA and if it has
two or more visits, it is not classified as a LUPA.
Step 4: Take all non-LUPA 30-day periods and regress resource use
on the 30-day period's clinical group, admission source category,
episode timing category, functional impairment level, and comorbidity
adjustment category. The regression includes fixed effects at the level
of the home health agency. After we estimate the model, the model
coefficients are used to predict each 30-day period's resource use. To
create the case-mix weight for each 30-day period, the predicted
resource use is divided by the overall resource use of the 30-day
periods used to estimate the regression.
The case-mix weight is then used to adjust the base payment rate to
determine each 30-day period's payment. Table 24 shows the coefficients
of the payment regression used to generate the weights, and the
coefficients divided by average resource use.
BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
[[Page 55349]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.040
[[Page 55350]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.041
The case-mix weights proposed for CY 2025 are listed in table 25
and will also be posted on the HHA Center web page \8\ upon display of
this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ HHA Center web page: https://www.cms.gov/Center/Provider-Type/Home-Health-Agency-HHA-Center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 55351]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.042
[[Page 55352]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.043
[[Page 55353]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.044
[[Page 55354]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.045
[[Page 55355]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.046
[[Page 55356]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.047
[[Page 55357]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.048
[[Page 55358]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.049
[[Page 55359]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.050
[[Page 55360]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.051
BILLING CODE 4120-01-C
Changes to the PDGM case-mix weights are implemented in a budget
neutral manner by multiplying the CY 2025 national standardized 30-day
[[Page 55361]]
period payment rate by a case-mix budget neutrality factor. Typically,
the case-mix weight budget neutrality factor is also calculated using
the most recent, complete home health claims data available. For CY
2025, we will continue the practice of using the most recent complete
home health claims data at the time of rulemaking, which is CY 2023
data. The case-mix budget neutrality factor is calculated as the ratio
of 30-day base payment rates such that total payments when the CY 2025
PDGM case-mix weights (developed using CY 2023 home health claims data)
are applied to CY 2023 utilization (claims) data are equal to total
payments when CY 2024 PDGM case-mix weights (developed using CY 2022
home health claims data) are applied to CY 2023 utilization data. This
produces a case-mix budget neutrality factor for CY 2025 of 1.0035.
We invite public comments on the CY 2025 proposed case-mix weights
and proposed case-mix weight budget neutrality factor.
5. Suggested Reassignment of Specific ICD-10-CM Codes Under the PDGM
a. Background
The 2009 final rule, ``HIPAA Administrative Simplification:
Modifications to Medical Data Code Set Standards To Adopt ICD-10-CM and
ICD-10-PCS'' (74 FR 3328, January 16, 2009), set October 1, 2013, as
the compliance date for all covered entities under the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) to use the
International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical
Modification (ICD-10-CM) and the International Classification of
Diseases, 10th Revision, Procedure Coding System (ICD-10-PCS) medical
data code sets. The ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes are granular and specific
and provide HHAs a better opportunity to report codes that best reflect
the patient's conditions that support the need for home health
services. However, as stated in the CY 2019 HH PPS final rule with
comment period (83 FR 56473), because the ICD-10-CM is comprehensive,
it also contains many codes that may not support the need for home
health services. For example, diagnosis codes that indicate death as
the outcome are Medicare covered codes but are not relevant to home
health. In addition, diagnosis and procedure coding guidelines may
specify the sequence of ICD-10-CM coding conventions. For example, the
underlying condition must be listed first (for example, Parkinson's
disease must be listed prior to Dementia if both codes were listed on a
claim). Therefore, not all the ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes are
appropriate as principal diagnosis codes for grouping home health
periods into clinical groups or to be placed into a comorbidity
subgroup when listed as a secondary diagnosis. As such, each ICD-10-CM
diagnosis code is assigned, including those diagnosis codes designated
as ``not assigned'' (NA), to a clinical group and comorbidity subgroup
within the HH PPS grouper software (HHGS). We reminded readers the ICD-
10-CM diagnosis code list is updated each fiscal year with an effective
date of October 1st and therefore, the HH PPS is generally subject to a
minimum of two HHGS releases, one in October and one in January of each
year, to ensure that claims are submitted with the most current code
set available. Likewise, there may be new ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes
created (for example, codes for emergency use) or a new or revised edit
in the Medicare Code Editor (MCE) so an update to the HHGS may occur on
the first of each quarter (January, April, July, October). We encourage
readers to check the HHGS routinely at these times, as we do not
anticipate posting changes to the home health web page.
b. Methodology for ICD-10-CM Diagnosis Code Assignments
Although it is not our intent to review all ICD-10-CM diagnosis
codes each year, we recognize that occasionally some ICD-10-CM
diagnosis codes may require changes to their assigned clinical group
and/or comorbidity subgroup. For example, there may be an update to the
MCE unacceptable principal diagnosis list, or we receive public
comments from interested parties requesting specific changes. Any
addition or removal of a specific diagnosis code to the ICD-10-CM code
set (for example, three new diagnosis codes, Z28.310, Z28.311 and
Z28.39, for reporting COVID-19 vaccination status were effective April
1, 2022) or minor tweaks to a descriptor of an existing ICD-10-CM
diagnosis code generally could be implemented as appropriate and may
not be discussed in rulemaking.
We rely on the expert opinion of our clinical reviewers (for
example, nurse consultants and medical officers) and current ICD-10-CM
coding guidelines to determine if the ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes under
review for reassignment are significantly similar or different to the
existing clinical group and/or comorbidity subgroup assignment. As we
stated in the CY 2018 HH PPS proposed rule (82 FR 35313), the intent of
the clinical groups is to reflect the reported principal diagnosis,
clinical relevance, and coding guidelines and conventions. Therefore,
for the purposes of assignment of ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes into the
PDGM clinical groups we would not conduct additional statistical
analysis as such decisions are clinically based and the clinical groups
are part of the overall case-mix weights.
As we noted in the CY 2019 HH PPS final rule with comment period
(83 FR 56486), the home health-specific comorbidity list is based on
the principles of patient assessment by body systems and their
associated diseases, conditions, and injuries to develop larger
categories of conditions that identified clinically relevant
relationships associated with increased resource use, meaning the
diagnoses have at least as high as the median resource use and are
reported in more than 0.1 percent of 30-day periods of care. If
specific ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes are to be reassigned to a different
comorbidity subgroup (including NA), we will first evaluate the
clinical characteristics (as discussed previously for clinical groups)
and if the ICD-10-CM diagnosis code does not meet the clinical
criteria, then no reassignment will occur. However, if an ICD-10-CM
diagnosis code does meet the clinical criteria for a comorbidity
subgroup reassignment, then we will evaluate the resource consumption
associated with the ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes, the current assigned
comorbidity subgroup, and the proposed (reassigned) comorbidity
subgroup. This analysis is to ensure that any reassignment of an ICD-
10-CM diagnosis code (if reported as secondary) in any given year would
not significantly alter the overall resource use of a specific
comorbidity subgroup. For resource consumption, we use non-LUPA 30-day
periods to evaluate the total number of 30-day periods for the
comorbidity subgroup(s) and the ICD-10-CM diagnosis code, the average
number of visits per 30-day periods for the comorbidity subgroup(s) and
the ICD-10-CM diagnosis code, and the average resource use for the
comorbidity subgroup(s) and the ICD-10-CM diagnosis code. The average
resource use measures the costs associated with visits performed during
a home health period and was previously described in the CY 2019 HH PPS
final rule with comment period (83 FR 56450).
[[Page 55362]]
c. Request for ICD-10-CM Diagnosis Code Reassignments to a PDGM
Clinical Group or Comorbidity Subgroup--Renal 3 Comorbidity Subgroup
We received questions from interested parties regarding the ICD-10-
CM diagnosis codes N30.00- (acute cystitis) and the ICD-10-CM diagnosis
code N39.0 (urinary tract infection, site not specified). Specifically,
CMS received a request to reassign N30.00 to the same clinical and
comorbidity group as N39.0. The ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes N30.00-
(acute cystitis) are currently assigned to clinical group J (MMTA--
Gastrointestinal tract and Genitourinary system) when listed as a
primary diagnosis and not assigned to a comorbidity subgroup when
listed as a secondary diagnosis. The ICD-10-CM diagnosis code N39.0
(urinary tract infection, site not specified) is currently assigned to
clinical group J (MMTA--Gastrointestinal tract and Genitourinary
system) when listed as a primary diagnosis and assigned to the renal 3
comorbidity subgroup when listed as a secondary diagnosis.
We reviewed the ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes related to cystitis
(N30.-) and determined all 14 of the codes are not assigned to a
comorbidity subgroup when listed as a secondary diagnosis. Our clinical
reviewers advised that cystitis, including N30.00- (acute cystitis), is
to report inflammation of the urinary bladder; whereas N39.0 (urinary
tract infection, site not specified) is to report the presence of the
infectious microorganisms in the urinary tract system. In addition, we
evaluated resource consumption related to the comorbidity subgroup
renal 3, as well as diagnosis codes N30.00- (acute cystitis) and N39.0
(urinary tract infection, site not specified) and found that acute
cystitis on average has a lower resource use than urinary tract
infection. As described earlier, based on clinical review and resources
use analysis, the ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes N30.00- (acute cystitis)
are currently assigned to the most appropriate comorbidity group, not
assigned. Therefore, we are not proposing a reassignment of N30.00-
(acute cystitis) at this time.
E. Proposed CY 2025 Home Health Payment Rate Updates
1. Proposed CY 2025 Home Health Market Basket Update for HHAs
Section 1895(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires that the standard
prospective payment amounts for home health be increased by a factor
equal to the applicable home health market basket update for those HHAs
that submit quality data as required by the Secretary. In the CY 2024
HH PPS final rule (88 FR 77726), we finalized a rebasing of the home
health market basket to reflect 2021 cost report data. We also
finalized a policy for CY 2024 and subsequent years that the labor-
related share would be 74.9 percent and the non-labor-related share
would be 25.1 percent. A detailed description of how we rebased the HHA
market basket and labor-related share is available in the CY 2024 HH
PPS final rule (88 FR 77726 through 77742).
In the CY 2015 HH PPS final rule (79 FR 38384), we finalized our
methodology for calculating and applying the multifactor productivity
adjustment. As we explained in that rule, section 1895(b)(3)(B)(vi) of
the Act, requires that, in CY 2015 (and in subsequent calendar years,
except CY 2018 (under section 411(c) of the Medicare Access and CHIP
Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) (Pub. L. 114-10, enacted April 16,
2015)), the market basket percentage under the HH PPS as described in
section 1895(b)(3)(B) of the Act be annually adjusted by changes in
economy-wide productivity. Section 1886(b)(3)(B)(xi)(II) of the Act
defines the productivity adjustment to be equal to the 10-year moving
average of change in annual economy-wide private nonfarm business
multifactor productivity (as projected by the Secretary for the 10-year
period ending with the applicable fiscal year, calendar year, cost
reporting period, or other annual period). The Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) publishes the official measures of productivity for
the United States economy. We note that previously the productivity
measure referenced in section 1886(b)(3)(B)(xi)(II) of the Act was
published by BLS as private nonfarm business multifactor productivity.
Beginning with the November 18, 2021, release of productivity data, BLS
replaced the term ``multifactor productivity'' with ``total factor
productivity'' (TFP). BLS noted that this is a change in terminology
only and will not affect the data or methodology. As a result of the
BLS name change, the productivity measure referenced in section
1886(b)(3)(B)(xi)(II) of the Act is now published by BLS as ``private
nonfarm business total factor productivity''. We refer readers to
https://www.bls.gov for the BLS historical published TFP data. A
complete description of IGI's TFP projection methodology is available
on the CMS website at https://www.cms.gov/data-research/statistics-trends-and-reports/medicare-program-rates-statistics/market-basket-research-and-information.
The proposed home health update percentage for CY 2025 is based on
the estimated home health market basket percentage increase, specified
at section 1895(b)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act, of 3.0 percent (based on IHS
Global Inc.'s first quarter 2024 forecast with historical data through
fourth-quarter 2023). The estimated CY 2025 home health market basket
percentage increase of 3.0 percent is then reduced by a productivity
adjustment, in accordance with section 1895(b)(3)(B)(vi) of the Act.
Based on IGI's first quarter 2024 forecast, the proposed productivity
adjustment is currently estimated to be 0.5 percentage point for CY
2025. Therefore, the proposed productivity-adjusted CY 2025 home health
market basket update is 2.5 percent (3.0 percent market basket
percentage increase, reduced by a 0.5 percentage point productivity
adjustment). Furthermore, we propose that if more recent data
subsequently become available (for example, a more recent estimate of
the market basket and/or productivity adjustment), we would use such
data, if appropriate, to determine the CY 2025 market basket percentage
increase and productivity adjustment in the final rule.
Section 1895(b)(3)(B)(v) of the Act requires that the home health
percentage update be decreased by 2 percentage points for those HHAs
that do not submit quality data as required by the Secretary. For HHAs
that do not submit the required quality data for CY 2025, the proposed
home health payment update percentage is 0.5 percent (2.5 percent minus
2 percentage points).
We invite public comment on our proposals for the CY 2025 home
health market basket percentage increase and productivity adjustment.
2. Proposed Adoption of the CBSA Delineations for Wage Index
In general, OMB issues major revisions to statistical areas every
10 years, based on the results of the decennial census. However, OMB
occasionally issues minor updates and revisions to statistical areas in
the years between the decennial censuses.
On February 28, 2013, OMB issued Bulletin No. 13-01, announcing
revisions to the delineations of MSAs, Micropolitan Statistical Areas,
and CBSAs, and guidance on uses of the delineation of these areas. In
the CY 2015 HH PPS final rule (79 FR 66085 through 66087), we adopted
OMB's area delineations using a 1-year transition.
[[Page 55363]]
On August 15, 2017, OMB issued Bulletin No. 17-01 in which it
announced that one Micropolitan Statistical Area, Twin Falls, Idaho,
now qualifies as a Metropolitan Statistical Area. The new CBSA (46300)
comprises the principal city of Twin Falls, Idaho in Jerome County,
Idaho and Twin Falls County, Idaho. The CY 2025 HH PPS wage index value
for CBSA 46300, Twin Falls, Idaho, will be 0.8555. Bulletin No. 17-01
is available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/legacy_drupal_files/omb/bulletins/2017/b-17-01.pdf.
On April 10, 2018, OMB issued OMB Bulletin No. 18-03, which
superseded the August 15, 2017, OMB Bulletin No. 17-01. On September
14, 2018, OMB issued OMB Bulletin No. 18-04 which superseded the April
10, 2018, OMB Bulletin No. 18-03. These bulletins established revised
delineations for Metropolitan Statistical Areas, Micropolitan
Statistical Areas, and Combined Statistical Areas, and provided
guidance on the use of the delineations of these statistical areas. A
copy of OMB Bulletin No. 18-04 may be obtained at: https://www.bls.gov/bls/omb-bulletin-18-04-revised-delineations-of-metropolitan-statistical-areas.pdf.
On March 6, 2020, OMB issued Bulletin No. 20-01, which provided
updates to and superseded OMB Bulletin No. 18-04 that was issued on
September 14, 2018. The attachments to OMB Bulletin No. 20-01 provided
detailed information on the update to statistical areas since September
14, 2018, and were based on the application of the 2010 Standards for
Delineating Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas to Census
Bureau population estimates for July 1, 2017, and July 1, 2018. (For a
copy of this bulletin, we refer readers to https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Bulletin-20-01.pdf.) In OMB Bulletin No. 20-
01, OMB announced one new Micropolitan Statistical Area, one new
component of an existing Combined Statistical Area and changes to New
England City and Town Area (NECTA) delineations. In the CY 2021 HH PPS
final rule (85 FR 70298), we stated that if appropriate, we would
propose any updates from OMB Bulletin No. 20-01 in future rulemaking.
After reviewing OMB Bulletin No. 20-01, we have determined that the
changes in Bulletin 20-01 encompassed delineation changes that would
not affect the Medicare home health wage index for CY 2022.
Specifically, the updates consisted of changes to NECTA delineations
and the re-designation of a single rural county into a newly created
Micropolitan Statistical Area. The Medicare home health wage index does
not utilize NECTA definitions, and, as most recently discussed in the
CY 2021 HH PPS final rule (85 FR 70298) we include hospitals located in
Micropolitan Statistical areas in each State's rural wage index. In
other words, these OMB updates did not affect any geographic areas for
purposes of the HH PPS wage index calculation.
In the CY 2021 HH PPS final rule (85 FR 70298), we finalized our
proposal to adopt the revised OMB delineations with a 5-percent cap on
wage index decreases in CY 2021. As described in the CY 2023 HH PPS
final rule (87 FR 66851 through 66853), we finalized a policy that the
CY HH PPS wage index would include a 5-percent cap on wage index
decreases for CY 2023 and each subsequent year. Specifically, we
finalized for CY 2023 and subsequent years, the application of a
permanent 5-percent cap on any decrease to a geographic area's wage
index from its wage index in the prior year, regardless of the
circumstances causing the decline. That is, we finalized a policy
requiring that a geographic area's wage index for CY 2023 would not be
less than 95 percent of its final wage index for CY 2022, regardless of
whether the geographic area is part of an updated CBSA, and that for
subsequent years, a geographic area's wage index would not be less than
95 percent of its wage index calculated in the prior CY. Previously
this methodology was applied to all the counties that make up a CBSA or
statewide rural area. However, as discussed in section II.E.2. of this
proposed rule, if we adopt the proposed revised OMB delineations, we
are also proposing that this methodology would also be applied to
individual counties.
On July 21, 2023, OMB issued Bulletin No. 23-01, which updates and
supersedes OMB Bulletin No. 20-01, issued on March 6, 2020. OMB
Bulletin No. 23-01 establishes revised delineations for the MSAs,
Micropolitan Statistical Areas, Combined Statistical Areas, and
Metropolitan Divisions, collectively referred to as Core Based
Statistical Areas (CBSAs). According to OMB, the delineations reflect
the 2020 Standards for Delineating Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs)
(the ``2020 Standards''), which appeared in the Federal Register (86 FR
37770 through 37778) on July 16, 2021, and application of those
standards to Census Bureau population and journey-to-work data (for
example, 2020 Decennial Census, American Community Survey, and Census
Population Estimates Program data). A copy of OMB Bulletin No. 23-01 is
available online at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/OMB-Bulletin-23-01.pdf.
The July 21, 2023, OMB Bulletin No. 23-01 contains a number of
significant changes. For example, there are new CBSAs, urban counties
that have become rural, rural counties that have become urban, and
existing CBSAs that have been split apart. We believe it is important
for the HH PPS wage index to use the latest OMB delineations available
in order to maintain a more accurate and up-to-date payment system that
reflects the reality of population shifts and labor market conditions.
We further believe that using the most current OMB delineations would
increase the integrity of the HH PPS wage index by creating a more
accurate representation of geographic variation in wage levels. We are
proposing to implement the new OMB delineations as described in the
July 21, 2023, OMB Bulletin No. 23-01 for the HH PPS wage index
effective beginning in CY 2025. This proposal is also consistent with
the proposals to adopt the revised OMB delineations in the IPPS and
other post-acute care payment systems.
a. Micropolitan Statistical Areas
As discussed in the CY 2006 HH PPS proposed rule (70 FR 40788) and
final rule (70 FR 68132), CMS considered how to use the Micropolitan
statistical area definitions in the calculation of the wage index. At
the time, OMB defined a ``Micropolitan Statistical Area'' as a ``CBSA''
associated with at least one urban cluster that has a population of at
least 10,000, but less than 50,000 (75 FR 37252). We referred to these
as Micropolitan Areas. After extensive impact analysis, consistent with
the treatment of these areas under the IPPS as discussed in the FY 2005
IPPS final rule (69 FR 49029 through 49032), we determined the best
course of action would be to treat Micropolitan Areas as ``rural'' and
include them in the calculation of each state's home health rural wage
index (see 70 FR 40788 and 70 FR 68132). Thus, the HH PPS statewide
rural wage index is determined using IPPS hospital data from hospitals
located in non-Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs). In the CY 2021 HH
PPS final rule (85 FR 70298), we finalized a policy to continue to
treat Micropolitan Areas as ``rural'' and to include Micropolitan Areas
in the calculation of each state's rural wage index.
The OMB ``2020 Standards'' continue to define a ``Micropolitan
Statistical Area'' as a CBSA with at least one urban area that has a
population of at least
[[Page 55364]]
10,000, but less than 50,000. The Micropolitan Statistical Area
comprises the central county or counties containing the core, plus
adjacent outlying counties having a high degree of social and economic
integration with the central county, or counties as measured through
commuting (86 FR 37778). Overall, there are the same number of
Micropolitan Areas (542) under the new OMB delineations based on the
2020 Census as there were using the 2010 Census. We note, however, that
a number of urban counties have switched status and have joined or
become Micropolitan Areas, and some counties that once were part of a
Micropolitan Area, and thus were treated as rural, have become urban
based on the 2020 Decennial Census data. We believe that the best
course of action would be to continue our established policy and
include Micropolitan Areas in each state's rural wage index as these
areas continue to be defined as having relatively small urban cores
(populations of 10,000 to 49,999). Therefore, in conjunction with our
proposal to implement the new OMB labor market delineations beginning
in CY 2025, and consistent with the treatment of Micropolitan Areas
under the IPPS, we are also proposing to continue to treat Micropolitan
Areas as ``rural'' and to include Micropolitan Areas in the calculation
of each state's rural wage index.
b. Change to County-Equivalents in the State of Connecticut
In a June 6, 2022, Notice (87 FR 34235-34240), the Census Bureau
announced that it was implementing the State of Connecticut's request
to replace the eight counties in the State with nine new ``Planning
Regions.'' Planning regions are included in OMB Bulletin No. 23-01 and
now serve as county-equivalents within the CBSA system. We have
evaluated the change and are proposing to adopt the planning regions as
county equivalents for wage index purposes. We believe it is necessary
to adopt this migration from counties to planning region county-
equivalents in order to maintain consistency with our established
policy of adopting the most recent OMB updates. We are providing the
following crosswalk in table 26 for counties located in Connecticut
with the current and proposed Federal Information Processing Series
(FIPS) county and county-equivalent codes and CBSA assignments.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.052
c. Urban Counties That Would Become Rural
Under the revised OMB statistical area delineations (based upon OMB
Bulletin No. 23-01), a total of 53 counties (and county equivalents)
that are currently considered urban would be considered rural beginning
in CY 2025. Table 27 lists the 53 counties that would become rural if
we adopt as final our proposal to implement the revised OMB
delineations.
BILLING CODE 4210-01-P
[[Page 55365]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.053
[[Page 55366]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.054
d. Rural Counties That Would Become Urban
Under the revised OMB statistical area delineations (based upon OMB
Bulletin No. 23-01), a total of 54 counties (and county equivalents)
that are currently located in rural areas would be considered located
in urban areas under the revised OMB delineations beginning in CY 2025.
Table 28 lists the 54 counties that would be urban if we adopt as final
our proposal to implement the revised OMB delineations.
[[Page 55367]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.055
e. Urban Counties That Would Move to a Different Urban CBSA Under the
Revised OMB Delineations
In addition to rural counties becoming urban and urban counties
becoming rural, several urban counties would shift from one urban CBSA
to a new or existing urban CBSA under our proposal to adopt the revised
OMB delineations. In other cases, applying the new OMB delineations
would involve a change only in CBSA name or number, while the CBSA
would continue to encompass the same constituent counties. For example,
CBSA 35154 (New Brunswick-Lakewood, NJ) would experience both a change
to its number and its name and become CBSA 29484 (Lakewood-New
Brunswick, NJ), while all three of its constituent counties would
remain the same. In other cases, only the name of the CBSA would be
modified. Table 29 lists CBSAs that would change in name and/or CBSA
number only, but the
[[Page 55368]]
constituent counties would not change (except in instances where an
urban county became rural or a rural county became urban, as discussed
in the previous section).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.056
[[Page 55369]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.057
In some cases, all urban counties from a CY 2024 CBSA would be
moved and subsumed by another CBSA in CY 2025. Table 30 lists the CBSAs
that, under our proposal to adopt the revised OMB statistical area
delineations, would be subsumed by another CBSA.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.058
In other cases, if we adopt the new OMB delineations, some counties
would shift between existing and new CBSAs, changing the constituent
makeup of the CBSAs. In another type of change, some CBSAs have
counties that would split off to become part of, or to form entirely
new labor market areas. For example, the District of Columbia, DC,
Charles County, MD and Prince Georges County, MD would move from CBSA
47894 (Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV) into CBSA 47764
(Washington, DC-MD). Calvert County, MD would move from CBSA 47894
(Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV) into CBSA 30500
(Lexington Park, MD). The remaining counties that currently make up
47894 (Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV) would move into
CBSA 11694 (Arlington-Alexandria-Reston, VA-WV). Finally, in some
cases, a CBSA would lose counties to another existing CBSA if we adopt
the new OMB delineations. For example, Grainger County, TN would move
from CBSA 34100 (Morristown, TN) into CBSA 28940 (Knoxville, TN). Table
31 lists the 73 urban counties that would move from one urban CBSA to a
new or modified urban CBSA if we adopt the revised OMB delineations.
[[Page 55370]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.059
[[Page 55371]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.060
[[Page 55372]]
BILLING CODE 4120-01-C
f. Proposed Transition Period
In the past we have provided for transition periods when adopting
changes that have significant payment implications, particularly large
negative impacts, in order to mitigate the potential impacts of
proposed home health policies. For example, we have proposed and
finalized budget-neutral transition policies to help mitigate negative
impacts on HHAs following the adoption of the new CBSA delineations
based on the 2010 Decennial Census data in the CY 2015 HH PPS final
rule (79 FR 66032). Specifically, we implemented a 1-year 50/50 blended
wage to the new OMB delineations. We applied a blended wage index for 1
year (CY 2015) for all geographic areas that would consist of a 50/50
blend of the wage index values using OMB's old area delineations and
the wage index values using OMB's new area delineations. That is, for
each county, a blended wage index was calculated equal to 50 percent of
the CY 2015 wage index using the old labor market area delineation and
50 percent of the CY 2015 wage index using the new labor market area
delineation, which resulted in an average of the two values.
Additionally, in the CY 2021 HH PPS final rule (85 FR 70312), we
proposed and finalized a transition policy to apply a 5-percent cap on
any decrease in a geographic area's wage index value from the wage
index value from the prior CY. This transition allowed the effects of
our adoption of the revised CBSA delineations from OMB Bulletin 18-04
to be phased in over 2 years, where the estimated reduction in a
geographic area's wage index was capped at five percent in CY 2021
(that is, no cap was applied to the reduction in the wage index for the
second year (CY 2022)). We explained that we believed a 5-percent cap
on the overall decrease in a geographic area's wage index value would
be appropriate for CY 2021, as it provided predictability in payment
levels from CY 2020 to CY 2021 and additional transparency because it
was administratively simpler than our prior one-year 50/50 blended wage
index approach.
In the CY 2023 HH PPS final rule (87 FR 66851 through 66853), we
adopted a permanent 5-percent cap on wage index decreases beginning in
CY 2023 and each subsequent year. The policy applies a permanent 5-
percent cap on any decrease to a geographic area's wage index from its
wage index in the prior year, regardless of the circumstances causing
the decline, so that a geographic area's wage index would not be less
than 95 percent of its wage index calculated in the prior CY.
For CY 2025, we believe that the permanent 5-percent cap on wage
index decreases would be sufficient to mitigate any potential negative
impact caused by adopting the revised OMB delineations and that no
further transition is necessary. Previously, the 5-percent cap had been
applied at the CBSA or statewide rural area level, meaning that all the
counties that make up the CBSA or rural area received the 5-percent
cap. However, for CY 2025, to mitigate any potential negative impact
caused by the adoption of the revised delineations, we propose that in
addition to the 5-percent cap being calculated for an entire CBSA or
statewide rural, the cap would also be calculated at the county level,
so that individual counties moving to a new delineation would not
experience more than a 5 percent decrease in wage index from the
previous calendar year. Specifically, we are proposing for CY 2025,
that the 5-percent cap would also be applied to counties that would
move from a CBSA or statewide rural area with a higher wage index value
into a new CBSA or rural area with a lower wage index value, so that
the county's CY 2025 wage index would not be less than 95 percent of
the county's CY 2024 wage index value under the old delineation despite
moving into a new delineation with a lower wage index.
Due to the way that we propose to calculate the 5-percent cap for
counties that experience an OMB designation change, some CBSAs and
statewide rural areas could have more than one wage index value because
of the potential for their constituent counties to have different wage
index values. Specifically, some counties that change OMB designations
would have a wage index value that is different than the wage index
value assigned to the other constituent counties that make up the CBSA
or statewide rural area that they are moving into because of the
application of the 5-percent cap. However, for home health claims
processing, each CBSA or statewide rural area can have only one wage
index value assigned to that CBSA or statewide rural area.
Therefore, HHAs that serve beneficiaries in a county that would
receive the cap would need to use a number other than the CBSA or
statewide rural area number to identify the county's appropriate wage
index value on home health claims in CY 2025. We are proposing that
beginning in CY 2025, counties that have a different wage index value
than the CBSA or rural area into which they are designated after the
application of the 5-percent cap would use a wage index transition
code. These special codes are five digits in length and begin with
``50'' and the remaining digits are unique for that code. We are using
Xs to show how the transition codes could be labeled. The 50XXX \9\
wage index transition codes would be used only in specific counties;
counties located in CBSAs and rural areas that do not correspond to a
different transition wage index value will still use the CBSA number.
For example, FIPS county 13171 Lamar County, GA is currently part of
CBSA 12060 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Alpharetta. However, for CY 2025 we
are proposing that Lamar County would be redesignated into the Rural
Georgia Code 99911. Because the wage index value of rural Georgia is
more than a 5-percent decrease from the wage index value that Lamar
County previously received under CBSA 12060, the CY 2025 wage index for
Lamar County would be capped at 95 percent of the CY 2024 wage index
value for CBSA 12060. Additionally, because rural Georgia can only have
one wage index value assigned to code 99911, in order for Lamar County
to receive the capped wage index for CY 2025, transition code 50003
would be used on a home health claim instead of rural Georgia code
99911.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The remaining 3 characters of the code to be determined if
finalized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are also proposing that the 5-percent cap would apply to a
county that corresponds to a different wage index value than the wage
index value in the CBSA or rural area in which they are designated due
to a delineation change until the county's new wage index is more than
95 percent of the wage index from the previous calendar year.
Therefore, in order to capture the correct wage index value, an HHA
would continue to use the assigned 50XXX transition code for the county
until the county's wage index value calculated for that calendar year
using the new OMB delineations is not less than 95 percent of the
county's capped wage index from the previous calendar year. Thus, in
the example mentioned earlier, claims for Lamar County would use
transition code 50003 until the wage index in its revised designation
of Rural Georgia is equal to or more than 95 percent of its wage index
value from the previous calendar year. The counties that will require a
transition code and the corresponding 50XXX codes are shown in table 32
and will also be shown in the last column of the CY 2025 HH PPS wage
index file.
BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
[[Page 55373]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.061
BILLING CODE 4120-01-C
The proposed wage index file applicable to CY 2025 provides a
crosswalk between the CY 2025 wage index using the current OMB
delineations and the CY 2025 wage index using the proposed revised OMB
delineations that would be in effect in CY 2025 if these proposed
changes are finalized. This file shows each state and county and its
corresponding proposed wage index along with the previous CBSA number,
the proposed CBSA number or proposed transition code, and the proposed
CBSA name. The proposed HH PPS wage index file applicable for CY 2025
(January 1, 2025, through December 31, 2025) is available on the CMS
website at: https://www.cms.gov/medicare/enrollment-renewal/providers-suppliers/home-health-agency-center.
3. Proposed CY 2025 Home Health Wage Index
Sections 1895(b)(4)(A)(ii) and (b)(4)(C) of the Act require the
Secretary to provide appropriate adjustments to the proportion of the
payment amount under the HH PPS that account for area wage differences,
using adjustment factors that reflect the relative level of wages and
wage-related costs applicable to the furnishing of home health
services. Since the inception of the HH PPS, we have used inpatient
hospital wage data in developing a wage index to be applied to home
health payments. We propose to continue this practice for CY 2025, as
it is our belief that, in the absence of home health-specific wage data
that accounts for area differences, using inpatient hospital wage data,
including any changes made by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
to Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) definitions, is appropriate and
reasonable for the HH PPS. The appropriate wage index value is applied
to the labor portion of the HH PPS rates based on the site of service
for the beneficiary (defined by section 1861(m) of the Act as the
beneficiary's place of residence).
For CY 2025, we propose to base the HH PPS wage index on the FY
2025 hospital pre-floor, pre-reclassified wage index for hospital cost
reporting periods beginning on or after October 1, 2020, and before
October 1, 2021 (FY 2021 cost report data), with the revised OMB
delineations. The proposed CY 2025 HH PPS wage index would not take
into account any geographic reclassification of hospitals, including
those in accordance with section 1886(d)(8)(B) or 1886(d)(10) of the
Act but would include the 5-percent cap on wage index decreases.
There exist some geographic areas where there are no hospitals, and
thus, no hospital wage data on which to base the calculation of the HH
PPS wage index. To address those geographic areas in which there are no
inpatient hospitals, and thus, no hospital wage data on which to base
the calculation of the CY 2025 HH PPS wage index, we propose to
continue to use the same
[[Page 55374]]
methodology discussed in the CY 2007 HH PPS final rule (71 FR 65884) to
address those geographic areas in which there are no inpatient
hospitals.
For urban areas without inpatient hospitals, we use the average
wage index of all urban areas within the State as a reasonable proxy
for the wage index for that CBSA. For CY 2025, the only urban area
without inpatient hospital wage data is Hinesville, GA (CBSA 25980).
Using the average wage index of all urban areas in Georgia as a proxy,
we propose the CY 2025 wage index value for Hinesville, GA, would be
0.8608.
For rural areas that do not have inpatient hospitals, we propose to
use the average wage index from all contiguous Core Based Statistical
Areas (CBSAs) as a reasonable proxy. The term ``contiguous'' means
sharing a border (72 FR 49859). For CY 2025, as part of our proposal to
adopt the revised OMB delineations discussed further in section
III.E.2. of this proposed rule, we are proposing that rural North
Dakota would now become a rural area without a hospital from which
hospital wage data can be derived. Therefore, in order to calculate the
wage index for rural area 99935, North Dakota, we are proposing to use
as a proxy, the average pre-floor, pre-reclassified hospital wage data
from the contiguous CBSAs: CBSA 13900-Bismark, ND, CBSA 22020-Fargo,
ND-MN, CBSA 24220-Grand Forks, ND-MN, and CBSA 33500, Minot, ND, which
results in a proposed CY 2025 HH PPS wage index of 0.8334 for rural
North Dakota.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.062
Previously, the only rural area without a hospital from which
hospital wage data could be derived was in Puerto Rico. However, for
rural Puerto Rico, we did not apply this methodology due to the
distinct economic circumstances that exist there (for example, due to
the proximity of one another of almost all of Puerto Rico's various
urban and non-urban areas, this methodology would produce a wage index
for rural Puerto Rico that is higher than that in half of its urban
areas). Instead, we used the most recent wage index previously
available for that area, which was 0.4047. For CY 2025, due to our
proposal to adopt the revised OMB delineations discussed previously,
there is now a hospital in rural Puerto Rico from which hospital wage
data can be derived. Therefore, we are proposing that the wage index
for rural Puerto Rico would now be based on the hospital wage data for
the area instead of the previously available wage index of 0.4047. The
unadjusted CY 2025 proposed wage index for rural Puerto Rico would
equal 0.2520. However, because 0.2520 is more than a 5 percent decline
in the CY 2024 wage index, the 5-percent cap would be applied. We are
proposing that the CY 2025 5-percent cap adjusted wage index for rural
Puerto Rico would be set equal to 95 percent of the CY 2024 wage index,
which results in a proposed wage index value of 0.3845.
Finally, due to the proposal to adopt the revised OMB delineations,
Delaware, which was previously an all-urban state, would now have one
rural area with a hospital from which hospital wage data can be
derived. As such, the proposed CY 2025 wage index for rural Delaware
would be 1.0429.
The complete proposed CY 2025 wage index is available on the CMS
website at: https://www.cms.gov/Center/Provider-Type/Home-Health-Agency-HHA-Center.
4. Proposed CY 2025 Home Health Payment Update
a. Background
The HH PPS has been in effect since October 1, 2000. As set forth
in the July 3, 2000, final rule (65 FR 41128), the base unit of payment
under the HH PPS was a national, standardized 60-day episode payment
rate. As finalized in the CY 2019 HH PPS final rule with comment period
(83 FR 56406), and as described in the CY 2020 HH PPS final rule with
comment period (84 FR 60478), the unit of home health payment changed
from a 60-day episode to a 30-day period effective for those 30-day
periods beginning on or after January 1, 2020.
As set forth in Sec. 484.220, we adjust the national, standardized
prospective payment rates by a case-mix relative weight and a wage
index value based on the site of service for the beneficiary. To
provide appropriate adjustments to the proportion of the payment amount
under the HH PPS to account for area wage differences, we apply the
appropriate wage index value to the labor portion of the HH PPS rates.
In the CY 2024 HH PPS final rule (88 FR 77676), we finalized the
rebasing of the home health market basket to reflect 2021 Medicare cost
report data. We also finalized that for CY 2024 and subsequent years
the labor-related share would be 74.9 percent and the non-labor-related
share would be 25.1 percent. The following are the steps we take to
compute the case-mix and wage-adjusted 30-day period payment amount for
CY 2025:
Multiply the national, standardized 30-day period rate by
the patient's applicable case-mix weight.
Divide the case-mix adjusted amount into a labor (74.9
percent) and a non-labor portion (25.1 percent).
Multiply the labor portion by the applicable wage index
based on the site of service of the beneficiary.
Add the wage-adjusted portion to the non-labor portion,
yielding the case-mix and wage adjusted 30-day period payment amount,
subject to any additional applicable adjustments. We provide annual
updates of the HH PPS rate in accordance with section 1895(b)(3)(B) of
the Act. Section 484.225 sets forth the specific annual percentage
update methodology. In accordance with section 1895(b)(3)(B)(v) of the
Act
[[Page 55375]]
and Sec. 484.225(i), for an HHA that does not submit home health
quality data, as specified by the Secretary, the unadjusted national
prospective 30-day period rate is equal to the rate for the previous
calendar year increased by the applicable home health payment update
percentage, minus 2 percentage points. Any reduction of the percentage
change would apply only to the calendar year involved and would not be
considered in computing the prospective payment amount for a subsequent
calendar year. The final claim that the HHA submits for payment
determines the total payment amount for the period and whether we make
an applicable adjustment to the 30-day case-mix and wage-adjusted
payment amount. The end date of the 30-day period, as reported on the
claim, determines which calendar year rates Medicare will use to pay
the claim. We may adjust a 30-day case-mix and wage-adjusted payment
based on the information submitted on the claim to reflect the
following:
A LUPA is provided on a per-visit basis as set forth in
Sec. Sec. 484.205(d)(1) and 484.230.
A partial payment adjustment as set forth in Sec. Sec.
484.205(d)(2) and 484.235.
An outlier payment as set forth in Sec. Sec.
484.205(d)(3) and 484.240.
(b) CY 2025 National, Standardized 30-Day Period Payment Amount
Section 1895(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act requires that the standard
prospective payment rate and other applicable amounts be standardized
in a manner that eliminates the effects of variations in relative case-
mix and area wage adjustments among different home health agencies in a
budget-neutral manner. To determine the CY 2025 national, standardized
30-day period payment rate, we will continue our practice of using the
most recent, complete utilization data at the time of rulemaking; that
is, we are using CY 2023 claims data for CY 2025 payment rate updates.
We apply a permanent adjustment factor, a case-mix weights
recalibration budget neutrality factor, a wage index budget neutrality
factor, and the home health payment update percentage to update the CY
2025 payment rate. As discussed in section II.C.1. of this proposed
rule, we are proposing to implement a permanent adjustment of -4.067
percent to ensure that payments under the PDGM do not exceed what
payments would have been under the 153-group payment system as required
by law. The proposed permanent adjustment factor is 0.95933. As
discussed previously, to ensure the changes to the PDGM case-mix
weights are implemented in a budget neutral manner, we apply a case-mix
weight budget neutrality factor to the CY 2025 national, standardized
30-day period payment rate. The proposed case-mix weight budget
neutrality factor for CY 2025 is 1.0035.
Additionally, we apply a wage index budget neutrality factor to
ensure that wage index updates and revisions are implemented in a
budget neutral manner. To calculate the wage index budget neutrality
factor, we first determine the payment rate needed for non-LUPA 30-day
periods using the CY 2025 wage index (with the proposed revised
delineations and the 5-percent cap) so those total payments are
equivalent to the total payments for non-LUPA 30-day periods using the
CY 2024 wage index (with the old delineations and the 5-percent cap)
and the CY 2024 national standardized 30-day period payment rate
adjusted by the case-mix weights recalibration neutrality factor. Then,
by dividing the payment rate for non-LUPA 30-day periods using the CY
2025 wage index (with the proposed revised delineations and a 5-percent
cap on wage index decreases) by the payment rate for non-LUPA 30-day
periods using the CY 2024 wage index (with the old delineations and a
5-percent cap on wage index decreases), we obtain a wage index budget
neutrality factor of 0.9985. We then apply the wage index budget
neutrality factor of 0.9985 to the 30-day period payment rate.
Next, we propose to update the 30-day period payment rate by the
proposed CY 2025 home health payment update percentage of 2.5 percent.
The CY 2025 national standardized 30-day period payment rate is
calculated in table 34.
BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.063
The CY 2025 national standardized 30-day period payment rate for an
HHA that does not submit the required quality data is updated by the
proposed CY 2025 home health payment update percentage of 0.5 percent
(2.5 percent minus 2 percentage points) and is shown in table 35.
[[Page 55376]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.064
c. CY 2025 National Per-Visit Rates for 30-Day Periods of Care
The national per-visit rates are used to pay LUPAs and are also
used to compute imputed costs in outlier calculations. The per-visit
rates are paid by type of visit or home health discipline. The six home
health disciplines are as follows:
Home health aide (HH aide).
Medical Social Services (MSS).
Occupational therapy (OT).
Physical therapy (PT).
Skilled nursing (SN).
Speech-language pathology (SLP).
To calculate the proposed CY 2025 national per-visit rates, we
started with the CY 2024 national per-visit rates. Then we applied a
wage index budget neutrality factor to ensure budget neutrality for
LUPA per-visit payments. We calculated the wage index budget neutrality
factor by simulating total payments for LUPA 30-day periods of care
using the CY 2025 wage index with the new delineations and the 5-
percent cap on wage index decreases and comparing it to simulated total
payments for LUPA 30-day periods of care using the CY 2024 wage index
with the old delineations and the 5-percent cap. By dividing the total
payments for LUPA 30-day periods of care using the CY 2025 wage index
by the total payments for LUPA 30-day periods of care using the CY 2024
wage index, we obtained a wage index budget neutrality factor of
0.9991. We apply the wage index budget neutrality factor in order to
calculate the CY 2025 national per-visit rates.
The LUPA per-visit rates are not calculated using case-mix weights.
Therefore, no case-mix weight budget neutrality factor is needed to
ensure budget neutrality for LUPA payments. Additionally, we are not
applying the permanent adjustment to the per visit payment rates but
only to the case-mix adjusted 30-day payment rate. Lastly, the per-
visit rates for each discipline are updated by the proposed CY 2025
home health payment update percentage of 2.5 percent. The national per-
visit rates are adjusted by the wage index based on the site of service
of the beneficiary. The per-visit payments for LUPAs are separate from
the LUPA add-on payment amount, which is paid for episodes that occur
as the only episode or initial episode in a sequence of adjacent
episodes. The CY 2025 national per-visit rates for HHAs that submit the
required quality data are updated by the proposed CY 2025 home health
payment update percentage of 2.5 percent and are shown in table 36.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.065
The CY 2025 per-visit payment rates for HHAs that do not submit the
required quality data are updated by the proposed CY 2025 home health
payment update percentage of 2.5 percent minus 2 percentage points and
are shown in table 37.
[[Page 55377]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.066
BILLING CODE 4120-01-C
d. LUPA Add-On Factors
Prior to the implementation of the 30-day unit of payment, LUPA
episodes were eligible for a LUPA add-on payment if the episode of care
was the first or only episode in a sequence of adjacent episodes. As
stated in the CY 2008 HH PPS final rule, the average visit lengths in
these initial LUPAs are 16 to 18 percent higher than the average visit
lengths in initial non-LUPA episodes (72 FR 49848). LUPA episodes that
occur as the only episode or as an initial episode in a sequence of
adjacent episodes are adjusted by applying an additional amount to the
LUPA payment before adjusting for area wage differences.
In the CY 2014 HH PPS final rule (78 FR 72305), we changed the
methodology for calculating the LUPA add-on amount, whereby we
finalized the approach of multiplying the per-visit payment amount for
the first skilled nursing (SN), physical therapy (PT), or speech
language pathology (SLP) visit in LUPA episodes that occur as the only
episode or an initial episode in a sequence of adjacent episodes by 1 +
the proportional increase in minutes for an initial visit over non-
initial visits. Specifically, we updated the analysis using 100 percent
of LUPA episodes and a 20 percent sample of non-LUPA first episodes
from CY 2012 claims data. The analysis showed that the average excess
of minutes for the first visit in LUPA episodes that were the only
episode or an initial LUPA in a sequence of adjacent episodes are 37.27
minutes for the first visit if SN, 31.69 minutes for the first visit if
PT, and 31.56 minutes for the first visit if SLP. The average minutes
for all non-first visits in non-LUPA episodes were 44.10 minutes for
SN, 47.30 minutes for PT, and 50.37 minutes for SLP. To determine the
final LUPA add-on factors for each discipline, we calculated the ratio
of the average excess minutes for the first visits in LUPA claims to
the average minutes for all non-first visits in non-LUPA claims. (Of
note, the average excess minutes for the first visit in LUPA add-on
claims equal, for each discipline, is equal to the average minutes for
the first visit in LUPA add-on claims minus the average minutes for
non-first visits in LUPA add-on claims.) We then added one to these
ratios to obtain the respective finalized add on factors: 1.8451 for
SN; 1.6700 for PT; and 1.6266 for SLP. In the CY 2019 HH PPS final rule
with comment period (83 FR 56440), in addition to finalizing a 30-day
unit of payment, we finalized our policy of continuing to multiply the
per-visit payment amount for the first SN, PT, or SLP visit in LUPA
periods that occur as the only period of care or the initial 30-day
period of care in a sequence of adjacent 30-day periods of care by the
appropriate add-on factor (using the already established LUPA add-on
factors of 1.8451 for SN, 1.6700 for PT, and 1.6266 for SLP) to
determine the LUPA add-on payment amount for 30-day periods of care
under the PDGM.
At this time, in an effort to enhance the accuracy and relevance of
LUPA add-on factors to reflect current healthcare practices and costs,
CMS is proposing to update the LUPA add-on factors for PT, SN, and SLP,
which have not been revised since the CY 2014 HH PPS final rule, during
which CY 2012 data was used. For this proposed rule, we are proposing
to use the same methodology used to establish the LUPA add-on amount
for CY 2014, using updated claims data.
Specifically, we are proposing to update the LUPA add-on factors by
using 100 percent of LUPA periods and a 100 percent sample of non-LUPA
first periods from CY 2023 claims data. In doing so, the analysis
demonstrates that the average excess of minutes for the first visit in
LUPA periods that were the only period or an initial LUPA in a sequence
of adjacent periods are 30.00 minutes for the first visit if SN, 28.18
minutes for the first visit if PT, and 31.59 minutes for the first
visit if SLP. The average minutes for all non-first visits in non-LUPA
episodes are 41.51 minutes for SN, 45.11 minutes for PT, and 47.13
minutes for SLP. The following table 38 shows the average excess
minutes for the first visit in LUPA periods, the average minutes for
all non-first visits in non-LUPA episodes, as well as the current LUPA
add-on factors, the proposed LUPA add-on factors, and the percent
change between the current and the proposed LUPA add-on factors. This
table also shows the proposed OT LUPA add-on factor outlined in section
II.4.e. of this proposed rule as follows:
[[Page 55378]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.067
To determine the LUPA add-on factors for each discipline in
relation to the aforementioned proposed LUPA add-on factor updates, we
calculate the ratio of the average excess minutes for the first visits
in LUPA claims to the average minutes for all non-first visits in non-
LUPA claims. We then add one to these ratios to obtain the proposed add
on factors: 1.7227 for SN; 1.6247 for PT; and 1.6703 for SLP. As an
example of the application of the proposed add-on factors for CY 2025,
for LUPA periods that occur as the only episode or an initial period in
a sequence of adjacent periods, if the first skilled visit is SN, the
payment for that visit would be $297.03 (1.7227 multiplied by $172.42).
The proposed LUPA add-on factors will be updated based on more complete
CY 2023 claims data in the final rule. As such, we solicit comments on
the proposals to update the LUPA factors using the 2014 methodology and
based on these updated numbers, re-price the LUPA payment amounts.
e. Occupational Therapy LUPA Add-On Factor
In order to implement Division CC, section 115, of the
Consolidation Appropriations Act (CAA), 2021, CMS finalized changes to
regulations at Sec. 484.55(a)(2) and (b)(3) that allowed occupational
therapists to conduct initial and comprehensive assessments for all
Medicare beneficiaries under the home health benefit when the plan of
care does not initially include skilled nursing care, but included OT,
as well as either PT or SLP (86 FR 62351). This change necessitated the
establishment of a LUPA add-on factor for calculating the LUPA add-on
payment amount for the first skilled OT visit in LUPA periods that
occurs as the only period of care or the initial 30-day period of care
in a sequence of adjacent 30-day periods of care. However, at the time
of the implementation, as we stated in the CY 2022 HH PPS final rule
(86 FR 62289), there was not sufficient data regarding the average
excess of minutes for the first visit in LUPA periods when the initial
and comprehensive assessments are conducted by occupational therapists.
Therefore, we finalized that we would use the PT LUPA add-on factor of
1.6700 as a proxy. We also stated in the CY 2022 final rule that we
would use the PT LUPA add-on factor as a proxy until we have CY 2022
data to establish a more accurate OT add-on factor for the LUPA add-on
payment amounts (86 FR 62289). Ultimately, we refrained from using CY
2022 data (and instead utilized the PT LUPA add-on factor as a proxy
for the OT LUPA add-on factor), as we marked the first year that
occupational therapists were permitted to conduct the initial
assessment. Therefore, we wanted to extend our analysis to ensure we
had sufficient data to reflect OT time spent conducting initial
assessments to establish a discrete OT LUPA add-on factor (86 FR
62240). Accordingly, we continued analyzing claims data and have opted
to utilize CY 2023 data to make this proposal.
With sufficient recent claims data available, and to establish
equitable compensation for all home health services, CMS is now
proposing to establish a definitive OT-specific LUPA add-on factor and
discontinue the temporary use of the PT LUPA add-on factor as a proxy.
For this proposal, we are using the same methodology used to establish
the LUPA add-on amount for CY 2014, as also described previously for
the SN, PT and SLP add-on factors. Specifically, we are updating the
analysis using 100 percent of LUPA periods and a 100 percent sample of
non-LUPA first periods from CY 2023 claims data. The analysis shows
that the average excess of minutes for the first OT visit in LUPA
periods that were the only period or an initial LUPA in a sequence of
adjacent periods is 33.40 minutes for the first visit. The average
number of minutes for all non-first visits in non-LUPA periods is 45.97
minutes for OT.
To determine the LUPA add-on factors for OT to adequately adjust
LUPA payments to account for the excess minutes during the first visit
in a LUPA period, we are proposing to calculate the ratio of the
average excess minutes for the first visits in LUPA claims to the
average minutes for all non-first visits in non-LUPA claims. We are
proposing to then add one to this ratio to obtain the proposed add on
factor: 1.7266 for OT. As an example of the application of the proposed
add-on factor, for LUPA periods that occur as the only period or as an
initial period in a sequence of adjacent periods, if the first skilled
visit is OT, the payment for that visit will be $327.62 (1.7266
multiplied by $189.75). Table 38 shows the current LUPA add-on factors
and the proposed LUPA add-on factors. The proposed OT LUPA add-on
factor will be updated based on more complete CY 2023 claims data in
the final rule. As such, we solicit comments on the proposed use of OT
data to determine the OT LUPA add-on factor, as well as the proposed
methodology to determine this OT LUPA add-on factor.
f. Payments for High-Cost Outliers Under the HH PPS
(1) Background
Section 1895(b)(5) of the Act allows for the provision of an
addition or adjustment to the home health payment amount otherwise made
in the case of outliers because of unusual variations in the type or
amount of medically necessary care. Under the HH PPS and the previous
unit of payment (that is, 60-day episodes), outlier payments were made
for 60-day episodes whose estimated costs exceed a threshold amount for
each HHRG. The episode's estimated cost was established as the sum of
the national wage-adjusted per visit payment amounts delivered during
the episode. The outlier threshold for each case-mix group or PEP
adjustment defined as the 60-day episode payment or PEP adjustment for
that group plus a fixed-dollar loss (FDL) amount. For the purposes of
the HH PPS, the FDL amount is calculated by multiplying the home health
FDL ratio by a case's wage-adjusted national, standardized 60-day
episode payment rate, which yields an FDL dollar amount for the case.
The outlier threshold amount is the sum of
[[Page 55379]]
the wage and case-mix adjusted PPS episode amount and wage-adjusted FDL
amount. The outlier payment is defined to be a proportion of the wage-
adjusted estimated cost that surpasses the wage-adjusted threshold. The
proportion of additional costs over the outlier threshold amount paid
as outlier payments is referred to as the loss-sharing ratio.
As we noted in the CY 2011 HH PPS final rule (75 FR 70397 through
70399), section 3131(b)(1) of the Affordable Care Act amended section
1895(b)(3)(C) of the Act to require that the Secretary reduce the HH
PPS payment rates such that aggregate HH PPS payments were reduced by 5
percent. In addition, section 3131(b)(2) of the Affordable Care Act
amended section 1895(b)(5) of the Act by redesignating the existing
language as section 1895(b)(5)(A) of the Act and revised the language
to state that the total amount of the additional payments or payment
adjustments for outlier episodes could not exceed 2.5 percent of the
estimated total HH PPS payments for that year. Section 3131(b)(2)(C) of
the Affordable Care Act also added section 1895(b)(5)(B) of the Act,
which capped outlier payments as a percent of total payments for each
HHA for each year at 10 percent.
As such, beginning in CY 2011, we reduced payment rates by 5
percent and targeted up to 2.5 percent of total estimated HH PPS
payments to be paid as outliers. To do so, we first returned the 2.5
percent held for the target CY 2010 outlier pool to the national,
standardized 60-day episode rates, the national per visit rates, the
LUPA add-on payment amount, and the NRS conversion factor for CY 2010.
We then reduced the rates by 5 percent as required by section
1895(b)(3)(C) of the Act, as amended by section 3131(b)(1) of the
Affordable Care Act. For CY 2011 and subsequent calendar years we
targeted up to 2.5 percent of estimated total payments to be paid as
outlier payments, and apply a 10-percent agency-level outlier cap.
In the CY 2017 HH PPS proposed and final rules (81 FR 43737 through
43742 and 81 FR 76702), we described our concerns regarding patterns
observed in home health outlier episodes. Specifically, we noted the
methodology for calculating home health outlier payments may have
created a financial incentive for providers to increase the number of
visits during an episode of care in order to surpass the outlier
threshold; and simultaneously created a disincentive for providers to
treat medically complex beneficiaries who require fewer but longer
visits. Given these concerns, in the CY 2017 HH PPS final rule (81 FR
76702), we finalized changes to the methodology used to calculate
outlier payments, using a cost-per-unit approach rather than a cost-
per-visit approach. This change in methodology allows for more accurate
payment for outlier episodes, accounting for both the number of visits
during an episode of care and the length of the visits provided. Using
this approach, we now convert the national per-visit rates into per 15-
minute unit rates. These per 15-minute unit rates are used to calculate
the estimated cost of an episode to determine whether the claim will
receive an outlier payment and the amount of payment for an episode of
care. In conjunction with our finalized policy to change to a cost-per-
unit approach to estimate episode costs and determine whether an
outlier episode should receive outlier payments, in the CY 2017 HH PPS
final rule we also finalized the implementation of a cap on the amount
of time per day that would be counted toward the estimation of an
episode's costs for outlier calculation purposes (81 FR 76725).
Specifically, we limit the amount of time per day (summed across the
six disciplines of care) to 8 hours (32 units) per day when estimating
the cost of an episode for outlier calculation purposes.
In the CY 2017 HH PPS final rule (81 FR 76724), we stated that we
did not plan to re-estimate the average minutes per visit by discipline
every year. Additionally, the per unit rates used to estimate an
episode's cost were updated by the home health update percentage each
year, meaning we would start with the national per visit amounts for
the same calendar year when calculating the cost-per-unit used to
determine the cost of an episode of care (81 FR 76727). We will
continue to monitor the visit length by discipline as more recent data
becomes available and may propose to update the rates as needed in the
future.
In the CY 2019 HH PPS final rule with comment period (83 FR 56521),
we finalized a policy to maintain the current methodology for payment
of high-cost outliers upon implementation of PDGM beginning in CY 2020
and calculated payment for high-cost outliers based upon 30-day period
of care. Upon implementation of the PDGM and 30-day unit of payment, we
finalized the FDL ratio of 0.56 for 30-day periods of care in CY 2020.
Given that CY 2020 was the first year of the PDGM and the change to a
30-day unit of payment, we finalized maintaining the same FDL ratio of
0.56 in CY 2021 as we did not have sufficient CY 2020 data at the time
of CY 2021 rulemaking to propose a change to the FDL ratio for CY 2021.
In the CY 2022 HH PPS final rule with comment period (86 FR 62292), we
estimated that outlier payments would be approximately 1.8 percent of
total HH PPS final rule payments if we maintained an FDL of 0.56 in CY
2022. Therefore, in order to pay up to, but no more than, 2.5 percent
of total payments as outlier payments we finalized an FDL of 0.40 for
CY 2022. In the CY 2023 HH PPS final rule (87 FR 66875), using CY 2021
claims utilization data, we finalized an FDL of 0.35 in order to pay up
to, but no more than, 2.5 percent of the total payment as outlier
payments in CY 2023. In the CY 2024 HH PPS final rule (88 FR 77749),
using CY 2022 claims utilization data, we finalized an FDL of 0.27 for
CY 2024.
(2) Proposed FDL Ratio for CY 2025
For a given level of outlier payments, there is a trade-off between
the values selected for the FDL ratio and the loss-sharing ratio. A
high FDL ratio reduces the number of periods that can receive outlier
payments but makes it possible to select a higher loss-sharing ratio,
and therefore, increase outlier payments for qualifying outlier
periods. Alternatively, a lower FDL ratio means that more periods can
qualify for outlier payments, but outlier payments per period must be
lower.
The FDL ratio and the loss-sharing ratio are selected so that the
estimated total outlier payments do not exceed the 2.5 percent
aggregate level (as required by section 1895(b)(5)(A) of the Act).
Historically, we have used a value of 0.80 for the loss-sharing ratio,
which, we believe, preserves incentives for agencies to attempt to
provide care efficiently for outlier cases. With a loss-sharing ratio
of 0.80, Medicare pays 80 percent of the additional estimated costs
that exceed the outlier threshold amount. Using CY 2023 claims data (as
of March 19, 2024) and given the statutory requirement that total
outlier payments do not exceed 2.5 percent of the total payments
estimated to be made under the HH PPS, we are proposing an FDL ratio of
0.38 for CY 2025 which is higher than the finalized CY 2024 FDL of
0.27. CMS will update the FDL, if needed, in the final rule once we
have more complete CY 2023 claims data.
F. Annual Rate Update for Disposable Negative Pressure Wound Therapy
(dNPWT) Device
1. Background
Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is a medical procedure in
which a vacuum dressing is used to enhance and promote healing in
acute, chronic, and burn wounds. The therapy
[[Page 55380]]
involves using a sealed wound dressing attached to a pump to create a
negative pressure environment in the wound. The therapy can be
administered using the conventional NPWT system, classified as durable
medical equipment (DME), or can be administered using a disposable
device. A disposable NPWT (dNPWT) device is a single-use integrated
system that consists of a non-manual vacuum pump, a receptacle for
collecting exudate, and wound dressings. Unlike conventional NPWT
systems classified as DME, dNPWT devices have preset continuous
negative pressure, no intermittent setting, are pocket-sized and easily
transportable, and are generally battery-operated with disposable
batteries. In order for a beneficiary to receive dNPWT under the home
health benefit, the beneficiary must qualify for the home health
benefit in accordance with existing eligibility requirements.
2. Payment Policies for dNPWT Devices
Prior to CY 2024, the separate payment amount for dNPWT included
the furnishing of services as well as the dNPWT device. The separate
payment amount was set equal to the amount of the payment that would be
made under the Medicare Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System
(OPPS) using the CPT codes 97607 and 97608. Payment for visits where
the sole purpose of a home health visit was to furnish dNPWT was not
made under the HH PPS. Therefore, visits performed solely for the
purpose of furnishing a new dNPWT device were not reported on the HH
PPS claim (TOB 32x), instead HHAs submitted these claims on a TOB 34x.
However, if a home health visit included the provision of other home
health services in addition to, and separate from, furnishing dNPWT,
the HHA submitted both a TOB 32x and TOB 34x--the TOB 32x for other
home health services and the TOB 34x for furnishing NPWT using a
disposable device.
Beginning in CY 2024, Division FF, section 4136 of the CAA, 2023
(Pub. L. 117-328) amended section 1834 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m(s))
and mandated several amendments to the Medicare separate payment for
dNPWT. These changes included--
For CY 2024, the separate payment amount for an applicable
dNPWT device was set equal to the supply price used to determine the
relative value for the service under the Physician Fee Schedule (PFS)
under section 1848 as of January 1, 2022 (CY 2022), updated by the
percent increase in the CPI-U for the 12-month period ending with June
of the preceding year reduced by m the productivity adjustment
described in section 1886(b)(3)(B)(xi)(II) of the Act for such year;
For 2025 and each subsequent year, the separate payment
amount was to be set equal to the payment amount established for the
device in the previous year, updated by the percent increase in the
CPI-U for the 12-month period ending with June of the preceding year
reduced by the productivity adjustment described in section
1886(b)(3)(B)(xi)(II) for such year.
The separate payment amount for applicable devices
furnished on or after January 1, 2024, would no longer include payment
for nursing or therapy services described in section 1861(m) of the Act
so that payment for such nursing or therapy services are now made under
the HH PPS, and is no longer separately billable.
Claims for the separate payment amount of an applicable
dNPWT device are now accepted and processed on claims submitted using
the type of bill (TOB) 32X.
In the CY 2024 HH PPS final rule (88 FR 77676), we finalized our
proposal to codify these changes to dNPWT payments mandated by the CAA,
2023. Beginning January 1, 2024, the separate payment for a dNPWT
device is made to an HHA for an individual who is under a home health
plan of care using Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS)
code A9272. The code HCPCS A9272 is defined as a wound suction,
disposable, includes dressing, all accessories and components, any
type, each. The HHA reports the HCPCS code A9272 for the device only on
the home health TOB 32X. The services related to the application of the
device are included in the home health payment and are excluded from
the separate payment amount for the device. The CY 2024 single payment
amount for a dNPWT device for individuals under a home health plan of
care was set equal to $270.09, which equaled the supply price of an
applicable device under the Medicare PFS (as of January 1, 2022) of
$263.25 updated by the 2.6 percent increase in the CPI-U for the 12-
month period ending in June of 2023, minus the productivity adjustment.
3. CY 2025 Separate Payment Amount for dNPWT Device
For CY 2025, we are proposing that the separate payment amount for
a dNPWT device would be set equal to the CY 2024 payment amount of
$270.09 updated by the CPI-U for June 2024, minus the productivity
adjustment, as mandated by the CAA, 2023. The application of the
productivity adjustment may result in a net update that may be less
than 0.0 for a year and may result in the separate payment amount for
an applicable device for a year being less than such separate payment
amount for such device for the preceding year. We note that the CPI-U
for the 12-month period ending in June of 2024 is not available at the
time of this proposed rulemaking. Therefore, the CY 2025 payment
amount, as well as the CPI-U for the 12-month period ending in June of
2024, and the corresponding productivity adjustment will be updated in
the final rule.
For CY 2026 and subsequent years, if CMS does not intend to propose
changes to its established methodology for calculating dNPWT payments,
payment rates will be updated using CMS's established methodology via
the Home Health Prospective Payment System Rate Update Change Request
and posted on the HHA Center website at https://www.cms.gov/medicare/enrollment-renewal/providers-suppliers/home-health-agency-center. For
more in-depth information regarding the finalized policies associated
with the scope of the payment for dNPWT and conditions for payment, we
refer readers to the CY 2024 HH PPS final rule (88 FR 77749 through
77752).
III. Home Health Quality Reporting Program (HH QRP)
A. Background and Statutory Authority
The HH QRP is authorized by section 1895(b)(3)(B)(v) of the Act.
Section 1895(b)(3)(B)(v)(II) of the Act requires that, for 2007 and
subsequent years, each home health agency (HHA) submit to the Secretary
in a form and manner, and at a time, specified by the Secretary, such
data that the Secretary determines are appropriate for the measurement
of health care quality. To the extent that an HHA does not submit data
in accordance with this clause, the Secretary shall reduce the home
health market basket percentage increase applicable to the HHA for such
year by 2 percentage points. As provided at section 1895(b)(3)(B)(vi)
of the Act, depending on the market basket percentage increase
applicable for a particular year, as further reduced by the
productivity adjustment (except in 2018 and 2020) described in section
1886(b)(3)(B)(xi)(II) of the Act, the reduction of that increase by 2
percentage points for failure to comply with the requirements of the HH
QRP may result in the home health market basket percentage increase
being less than 0.0 percent for a year, and may result in payment rates
under the Home
[[Page 55381]]
Health PPS for a year being less than payment rates for the preceding
year. Section 1890A of the Act requires that the Secretary establish
and follow a pre-rulemaking process, in coordination with the
consensus-based entity (CBE) with a contract under section 1890 of the
Act, to solicit input from certain groups regarding the selection of
quality and efficiency measures for the HH QRP. The HH QRP regulations
can be found at 42 CFR 484.245 and 484.250.
Based on feedback from patients and stakeholders, CMS has launched
an effort to update and shorten the Home Health Consumer Assessment of
Healthcare Providers and Systems (HHCAHPS) survey. In 2023 CMS tested a
shortened survey across a variety of different types of HHAs. We are
reviewing the findings of the field test and plan to propose in the
future updates to the survey with the intent to shorten it.
B. Summary of the Provision of This Proposed Rule
In this proposed rule, we are proposing to add four new items and
to modify one assessment item on the OASIS. Second, we propose an
update to the removal of the suspension of OASIS all-payer data
collection. Third, we are seeking information on future HH QRP quality
measure concepts. These proposals are further specified in the
following sections.
For a detailed discussion of the considerations, we historically
use for measure selection for the HH QRP quality, resource use, and
other measures, we refer readers to the CY 2016 HH PPS final rule (80
FR 68695 through 68696). In the CY 2019 HH PPS final rule with comment
period (83 FR 56548 through 56550) we finalized the factors we consider
for removing previously adopted HH QRP measures.
C. Quality Measures Currently Adopted for the CY 2024 HH QRP
The HH QRP currently includes 21 measures for the CY 2024 program
year, as described in table 39.
BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
[[Page 55382]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.068
[[Page 55383]]
BILLING CODE 4120-01-C
D. Proposal To Collect Four New Items as Standardized Patient
Assessment Data Elements and Modify One Item Collected as a
Standardized Patient Assessment Data Element Beginning With the CY 2027
HH QRP
In this proposed rule, we are proposing to add four new items \10\
to be collected as standardized patient assessment data elements under
the social determinants of health (SDOH) category HH QRP: Living
Situation (one item); Food (two items); and Utilities (one item). We
are also proposing to modify one of the current items collected as
standardized patient assessment data under the SDOH category (the
Transportation item) as described in section III.D.5. of this proposed
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Items may also be referred to as ``data elements.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Definition of Standardized Patient Assessment Data
Section 1895(b)(3)(B)(v) of the Act requires that for CY 2007 and
subsequent years, HHAs submit quality data to the Secretary. Section
1899B(a)(1)(C) of the Act requires, in part, the Secretary to modify
the post-acute care (PAC) assessment instruments for PAC providers,
including HHAs, to submit standardized patient assessment data under
the Medicare program. Section 1899B(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires PAC
providers to submit standardized patient assessment data under
applicable reporting provisions (which, for HHAs, is the HH QRP) for
the admission (start and resumption of care) and discharge of an
individual (and more frequently as the Secretary deems appropriate).
Section1899B(b)(1)(B) of the Act defines standardized patient
assessment data as data required for at least the quality measures
described in section 1899B(c)(1) of the Act and that is concerning the
following categories: (1) functional status, such as mobility and self-
care at admission to a PAC provider and before discharge from a PAC
provider; (2) cognitive function, such as ability to express ideas and
to understand, and mental status, such as depression and dementia; (3)
special services, treatments, and interventions, such as need for
ventilator use, dialysis, chemotherapy, central line placement, and
total parenteral nutrition; (4) medical conditions and comorbidities,
such as diabetes, congestive heart failure, and pressure ulcers; (5)
impairments, such as incontinence and an impaired ability to hear, see,
or swallow, and (6) other categories deemed necessary and appropriate
by the Secretary.
2. Social Determinants of Health (SDOH) Collected as Standardized
Patient Assessment Data Elements
Section 1899B(b)(1)(B)(vi) of the Act authorizes the Secretary to
collect standardized patient assessment data elements with respect to
other categories deemed necessary and appropriate. Accordingly, we
finalized the creation of the SDOH category of standardized patient
assessment data elements in the CY 2020 HH PPS final rule (84 FR 60597
through 60608). SDOH are the socioeconomic, cultural, and environmental
circumstances in which individuals live that impact their health.\11\
According to the World Health Organization research shows that the SDOH
can be more important than health care or lifestyle choices in
influencing health, accounting for between 30-55% of health
outcomes.\12\ This is a part of a growing body of research that
highlights the importance of SDOH on health outcomes. Subsequent to the
CY 2020 HH PPS final rule, we expanded our definition of SDOH: SDOH are
the conditions in the environments where people are born, live, learn,
work, play, worship and age that affect a wide range of health,
functioning, and quality-of-life outcomes and risks.13 14 15
This expanded definition aligns our definition of SDOH with the
definition used by HHS agencies, including OASH, the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the White House Office of
Science and Technology Policy.16 17 We currently collect
seven items in this SDOH category of standardized patient assessment
data elements: ethnicity, race, preferred language, interpreter
services, health literacy, transportation, and social isolation (84 FR
60597 through 60608).\18\ In accordance with our authority under
section 1899B(b)(1)(B)(vi) of the Act, we similarly finalized the
creation of the SDOH category of standardized patient assessment data
elements for skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) in the FY 2020 SNF PPS
final rule (84 FR 38805 through 38817), for Inpatient Rehabilitation
Facilities (IRFs) in the FY 2020 IRF PPS final rule (84 FR 39149
through 39161), and for Long Term Acute Hospitals (LTCHs) in the FY
2020 LTCH PPS final rule (84 FR 42577 through 42579). We also collect
the same seven SDOH items in these PAC providers' respective patient/
resident assessment instruments (84 FR 38817, 39161, and 42577,
respectively).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and
Evaluation (ASPE). Second Report to Congress on Social Risk and
Medicare's Value-Based Purchasing Programs. June 28, 2020. Available
at: https://aspe.hhs.gov/reports/second-report-congress-social-risk-medicares-value-based-purchasing-programs.
\12\ World health Organization. Social determinants of health.
Available at: https://www.who.inte/health-topics/social-determinants-of-health#tab=tab_1.
\13\ Using Z Codes: The Social Determinants of Health (SDOH).
Data Journey to Better Outcomes.
\14\ Improving the Collection of Social Determinants of Health
(SDOH) Data with ICD-10-CM Z Codes. https://www.cms.gov/files/document/cms-2023-omh-z-code-resource.pdf.
\15\ CMS.gov Measures Management System (MMS). CMS Focus on
Health Equity. Health Equity Terminology and Quality Measures.
https://mmshub.cms.gov/about-qulaity-quality-at-CMS/goals/cms-focus-on-health-equity/health-equity-terminology.
\16\ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Social
Determinants of Health (SDOH) and PLACES Data.
\17\ ``U.S. Playbook to Address Social Determinants of Health''
from the White House Office Of Science And Technology Policy
(November 2023).
\18\ These SDOH data are also collected for purposes outlined in
section 2(d)(2)(B) of the Improving Medicare Post-Acute Care
Transitions Act (IMPACT Act). For a detailed discussion on SDOH data
collection under section 2(d)(2)(B) of the IMPACT Act, see the CY
2020 HH PPS final rule (84 FR 60597 through 60608).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adding access to standardized data relating to SDOH on a national
level permits us to conduct periodic analyses, and to assess their
appropriateness as risk adjustors or in future quality measures. Our
ability to perform these analyses and to make adjustments relies on
existing data collection of SDOH items from PAC settings. We adopted
these SDOH items using common standards and definitions across the four
PAC providers to promote interoperable exchange of longitudinal
information among these PAC providers, including HHAs, and other
providers. We believe this information may facilitate coordinated care,
improve patient focused care planning, and allow for continuity of the
discharge planning process from PAC settings.
We noted in our CY 2020 HH PPS final rule that each of the items
was identified in the 2016 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
and Medicine (NASEM) report as impacting care use, cost, and outcomes
for Medicare beneficiaries (84 FR 60598 through 60602). At that time,
we acknowledged that other items may also be useful to understand. The
SDOH items we are proposing to collect as standardized patient
assessment data elements under the SDOH category in this proposed rule
were also identified
[[Page 55384]]
in the 2016 NASEM report \19\ or the 2020 NASEM report \20\ as
impacting care use, cost and outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries. These
items have the potential to affect treatment preferences and goals of
patients and their caregivers. Identification of the SDOH items may
also help HHAs be in a position to offer assistance, by connecting
patients and their caregivers with these associated needs to social
support programs, as well as inform our understanding of patient
complexity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Social Determinants of Health. Healthy People 2020. https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/gopics-objectives/topic/social-determinnats-of-health. February 2019.
\20\ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
2020. Leading Health Indicators 2030: Advancing Health, Equity, and
Well-Being. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/1017226/25682.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Health-related social needs (HRSNs) are the resulting effects of
SDOH, which are individual-level, adverse social conditions that
negatively impact a person's health or health care.\21\ Examples of
HRSN include lack of access to food, housing, or transportation, and
these have been associated with poorer health outcomes, greater use of
emergency departments and hospitals, and higher health care
costs.22 23 Certain HRSNs can lead to unmet social needs
that directly influence an individual's physical, psychosocial, and
functional status.\24\ This is particularly true for food security,
housing stability, utilities security, and access to
transportation.\25\ Evidence supports the positive impact on health
outcomes of interventions aimed at addressing HRSNs.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. ``A Guide to
Using the Accountable Health Communities Health-Related Social Needs
Screening Tool: Promising Practices and Key Insights.'' August 2022.
Available at https://www.cms.gov/priorities/innovation/media/document/ahcm-screeningtool-companion.
\22\ Berkowitz, S.A., T.P. Baggett, and S.T. Edwards,
``Addressing Health-Related Social Needs: Value-Based Care or
Values-Based Care?'' Journal of General Internal Medicine, vol. 34,
no. 9, 2019, pp. 1916-1918, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-05087-3.
\23\ Whitman A, De Lew N, Chappel A, Aysola V, Zuckerman R, &
Sommers B D. Addressing social determinants of health: Examples of
successful evidence-based strategies and current federal efforts.
ASPE (Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation) Office of
Health Policy. Report HP-2022-12 April 1, 2022. SDOH-Evidence-
Review.pdf (hhs.gov). Accessed 3/1/2024.
\24\ Hugh Alderwick and Laura M. Gottlieb, ``Meanings and
Misunderstandings: A Social Determinants of Health Lexicon for
Health Care Systems: Milbank Quarterly,'' Milbank Memorial Fund,
November 18, 2019, https://www.milbank.org/quarterly/articles/meanings-and-misunderstandings-a-social-determinants-of-health-lexicon-for-health-care-systems/.
\25\ Hugh Alderwick and Laura M. Gottlieb, ``Meanings and
Misunderstandings: A Social Determinants of Health Lexicon for
Health Care Systems: Milbank Quarterly,'' Milbank Memorial Fund,
November 18, 2019, https://www.milbank.org/quarterly/articles/meanings-and-misunderstandings-a-social-determinants-of-health-lexicon-for-health-care-systems/.
\26\ Whitman A, De Lew N, Chappel A, Aysola V, Zuckerman R, &
Sommers B D. Addressing social determinants of health: Examples of
successful evidence-based strategies and current federal efforts.
ASPE (Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation) Office of
Health Policy. Report HP-2022-12 April 1, 2022. SDOH-Evidence-
Review.pdf (hhs.gov). Accessed 5/29/2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are proposing to require HHAs collect and submit four new items
in the OASIS as standardized patient assessment data elements under the
SDOH category because these items would collect information not already
captured by the current SDOH items. Specifically, we believe the
ongoing identification of SDOH would have three significant benefits.
First, promoting screening for SDOH could serve as evidence-based
building blocks for supporting healthcare providers in actualizing
their commitment to address disparities that disproportionately impact
underserved communities. Second, screening for SDOH advances health
equity through identifying potential social needs so the HHA may
address those with the patient, their caregivers, and community
partners during the home health episode and discharge planning process,
if indicated.\27\ Third, these SDOH items would support ongoing HH QRP
initiatives by providing data with which to stratify HHAs' performance
on current and future quality measures to improve care quality across
different populations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ American Hospital Association (2020). Health Equity,
Diversity & Inclusion Measures for Hospitals and Health System
Dashboards. December 2020. Accessed: January 18, 2022. Available at:
https://ifdhe.aha.org/system/files/media/file/2020/12/ifdhe_inclusion_dashboard.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional collection of SDOH items would permit us to continue
developing the statistical tools necessary to maximize the value of
Medicare data and improve the quality of care for all beneficiaries.
For example, we recently developed and released the Health Equity
Confidential Feedback Reports, which provided data to HHAs on whether
differences in quality measure outcomes are present for their patients
by dual-enrollment status and race and ethnicity.\28\ We note that
advancing health equity by addressing the health disparities that
underlie the country's health system is one of our strategic pillars
\29\ and a Biden-Harris Administration priority.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ In October 2023, we released two new annual Health Equity
Confidential Feedback Reports to HHAs: The Discharge to Community
(DTC) Health Equity Confidential Feedback Report and the Medicare
Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) Health Equity Confidential Feedback
Report. The PAC Health Equity Confidential Feedback Reports
stratified the DTC and MSPB measures by dual-enrollment status and
race/ethnicity. For more information on the Health Equity
Confidential Feedback Reports, please refer to the Education and
Outreach materials available here: https://www.cms.gov/medicare/quality/snf-quality-reporting-program/training.
\29\ Brooks-LaSure, C. (2021). My First 100 Days and Where We Go
from Here: A Strategic Vision for CMS. Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid. Available at: https://www.cms.gov/blog/my-first-100-days-and-where-we-go-here-strategic-vision-cms.
\30\ The White House. The Biden-Harris Administration Immediate
Priorities. https://www.whitehouse.gov/priorities/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Proposal to Collect Four New Items as Standardized Patient
Assessment Data Elements Beginning January 1, 2027, for the CY 2027 HH
QRP Program Year \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Per the authority for the OASIS assessment instrument under
1891(d)(1), Home Health Conditions of Participation [42 U.S.C.
1395bbb].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are proposing to require HHAs collect four new items as
standardized patient assessment data elements under the SDOH category
using the OASIS: one item for living situation, as described in
III.D.3.a. of this proposed rule; two items for food, as described in
section III.D.3.b. of this proposed rule; and one item for utilities,
as described in section III.D.3.c of this proposed rule.
We selected the proposed SDOH items from the Accountable Health
Communities (AHC) HRSN Screening Tool developed for the AHC Model. The
AHC HRSN Screening Tool is a universal, comprehensive screening for
HRSNs that was developed by a technical expert panel (TEP) in July 2016
to discuss opportunities and challenges involved in screening for
HRSNs, consider and pare down CMS' list of evidence-based screening
questions, and recommend a short list of questions for inclusion in the
final tool.32 33 The TEP agreed to prioritize the inclusion
of five SDOH domains as follows: (1) housing instability (for example,
homelessness, poor housing quality); (2) food insecurity; (3)
transportation difficulties; (4) utility assistance needs; and (5)
interpersonal safety concerns (for example, intimate-
[[Page 55385]]
partner violence, elder abuse, child maltreatment).\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. ``A Guide to
Using the Accountable Health Communities Health-Related Social Needs
Screening Tool: Promising Practices and Key Insights.'' August 2022.
Available at https://www.cms.gov/priorities/innovation/media/document/ahcm-screeningtool-companion.
\33\ Billioux, A., K. Verlander, S. Anthony, and D. Alley. 2017.
Standardized screening for health-related social needs in clinical
settings: The accountable health communities screening tool.
Discussion Paper, National Academy of Medicine, Washington, DC.
https://nam.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Standardized-Screening-for-Health-Related-Social-Needsin-Clinical-Settings.pdf.
\34\ More information about the AHC HRSN Screening Tool is
available on the website at https://innovation.cms.gov/Files/worksheets/ahcm-screeningtool.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe that requiring HHAs to report new items that are
currently included in the AHC HRSN Screening Tools would further
standardize the screening of SDOH across patient assessment instruments
and the various quality reporting programs. For example, our proposal
would align, in part, with the requirements of the Hospital Inpatient
Quality Reporting (IQR) Program and the Inpatient Psychiatric Facility
Quality Reporting (IPFQR) Program. As of January 2024, hospitals are
required to report whether they have screened patients for the
standardized SDOH categories of housing stability, food security, and
access to transportation to meet the Hospital IQR Program
requirements.\35\ Beginning January 2025, IPFs will also be required to
report whether they have screened patients for the same set of SDOH
categories.\36\ As we continue to standardize data collection across
PAC settings, we believe using common standards and definitions for new
items is important to ensure the interoperable exchange of longitudinal
information between HHAs and other providers to facilitate coordinated
care, continuity in care planning, and the discharge planning process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, FY2023 IPPS/LTCH
PPS final rule (87 FR 49191 through 49194).
\36\ Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, FY 2024 Inpatient
Psychiatric Prospective Payment System--Rate Update (88 FR 51107
through 51121).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the following section we describe each of the four proposed
items in more detail.
a. Living Situation
Healthy People 2030 prioritizes economic stability as a key SDOH,
of which housing stability is a component.37 38 Lack of
housing stability encompasses several challenges, such as having
trouble paying rent, overcrowding, moving frequently, or spending the
bulk of household income on housing.\39\ These experiences may
negatively affect physical health and make it harder to access health
care. Lack of housing stability can also lead to homelessness, which is
housing deprivation in its most severe form.\40\ On a single night in
2023, roughly 653,100 people, or 20 out of every 10,000 people in the
United States, were experiencing homelessness.'' \41\ Rates of chronic
disease and premature mortality are higher among the unsheltered
homeless relative to the sheltered.\42\ Older adults (aged 65 years and
older) have lower rates of experiencing any housing instability
compared to younger people (8.8% versus 18.7%), but low-income older
adults may be more at risk for housing instability if they lack the
resources necessary to secure and/or maintain structurally sound
housing.\43\ Adults (aged 18-64 years) with disabilities experience
challenges to securing stable housing including affordability and
accessibility.\44\ We believe that HHAs can use information obtained
from the Living Situation assessment item during a patient's initial
assessment as well as in discharge planning. For example, HH social
workers can work with patients experiencing housing instability to
ensure patients are referred to available community resources, such as
supportive housing programs. HHAs could work in partnership with
community care hubs and community-based organizations to establish new
care transition workflows, including referral pathways, contracting
mechanisms, data sharing strategies, and implementation training that
can track both health and social needs outcomes to ensure unmet needs,
such as housing, are successfully addressed through closed loop
referrals and follow-up.\45\ HHAs could also take action to help
alleviate a patient's other related costs of living, like food, by
referring patients to community-based organizations that would allow
patients' additional resources to be allocated towards housing without
sacrificing other needs.\46\ Finally, HHAs could use the information
obtained from the Living Situation assessment item to better coordinate
with other PAC facilities and agencies during transitions of care, so
that referrals to address a patient's housing stability are not lost
during vulnerable transition periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ https://health.gov/healthypeople/priority-areas/social-determinants-health.
\38\ Healthy People 2030 is a long-term, evidence-based effort
led by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that
aims to identify nationwide health improvement priorities and
improve the health of all Americans.
\39\ Kushel, M. B., Gupta, R., Gee, L., & Haas, J.S. (2006).
Housing instability and food insecurity as barriers to health care
among low-income Americans. Journal of General Internal Medicine,
21(1), 71-77. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.00278.x
\40\ Homelessness is defined as ``lacking a regular nighttime
residence or having a primary nighttime residence that is a
temporary shelter or other place not designed for sleeping.''
Crowley, S. (2003). The affordable housing crisis: Residential
mobility of poor families and school mobility of poor children.
Journal of Negro Education, 72(1), 22-38. doi: 10.2307/3211288.
\41\ The 2023 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to
Congress. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 2023.
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/2023-AHAR-Part-1.pdf.
\42\ Richards J, & Kuhn R. Unsheltered homelessness and health:
A Literature Review. AJPM focus 2023; 2(1):100043. American Journal
of Preventive Medicine. Unsheltered Homelessness and Health: A
Literature Review (sciencedirectassets.com). Accessed 3/1/2024.
\43\ Bhat, Aarti C., David M. Almeida, Andrew Fenelon, and
Alexis R. Santos-Lozada. ``A longitudinal analysis of the
relationship between housing insecurity and physical health among
midlife and aging adults in the United States.'' SSM-Population
Health 18 (2022): 101128.
\44\ Popkin SJ, Hermans A, Oneto AD, Farrell L, Connery M, &
Cannington A. 2022. People with Disabilities Living in the US Face
Urgent Barriers to Housing: Federal Programs are not Meeting the
Housing Needs of Disabled People. Urban Institute. People with
Disabilities Living in the US Face Urgent Barriers to Housing_0.pdf
(urban.org). Accessed 5/29/2024.
\45\ U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), Call to
Action, ``Addressing Health Related Social Needs in Communities
Across the Nation.'' November 2023. https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/3e2f6140d0087435cc6832bf8cf32618/hhs-call-to-action-health-related-social-needs.pdf.
\46\ Henderson, K.A., Manian, N., Rog, D.J., Robison, E., Jorge,
E., AlAbdulmunem, M. ``Addressing Homelessness Among Older Adults''
(Final Report). Washington, DC: Office of the Assistant Secretary
for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. October 26, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to the potential negative impacts housing instability can have
on a patient's health, we are proposing to adopt the Living Situation
assessment item as a new standardized patient assessment data element
under the SDOH category. This Living Situation assessment item is
currently collected in the AHC HRSN Screening Tool 47 48 and
was adapted from the Protocol for Responding to and Assessing Patients'
Assets, Risks, and Experiences (PRAPARE) tool.\49\ The proposed Living
Situation item asks, ``What is your living situation today?'' The
proposed response options are: (1) I have a steady place to live; (2) I
have a place to live today, but I am worried about losing it in the
future; (3) I do not have a steady place to live; (4) Patient unable to
respond; and (5) Patient declines to respond. A draft of the proposed
Living Situation item can be found in the Downloads section of the HH
QRP Quality Measures web page at https://
[[Page 55386]]
www.cms.gov/medicare/quality/home-health/home-health-quality-measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ More information about the AHC HRSN Screening Tool is
available on the website at https://innovation.cms.gov/Files/worksheets/ahcm-screeningtool.pdf.
\48\ The AHC HRSN Screening Tool Living Situation item includes
two questions. In an effort to limit HHA burden, we are only
proposing the first question.
\49\ National Association of Community Health Centers and
Partners, National Association of Community Health Centers,
Association of Asian Pacific Community Health Organizations,
Association OPC, Institute for Alternative Futures. ``PRAPARE.''
2017. https://prapare.org/the-prapare-screening-tool/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Food
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Economic Research
Service defines a lack of food security as a household-level economic
and social condition of limited or uncertain access to adequate
food.\50\ Adults who are food insecure may be at an increased risk for
a variety of negative health outcomes and health disparities. For
example, a study found that food-insecure adults may be at an increased
risk for obesity.\51\ Nutrition security is also an important component
that builds on and complements long standing efforts to advance food
security. The USDA defines nutrition security as ``consistent and
equitable access to healthy, safe, affordable foods essential to
optimal health and well-being.'' \52\ While having enough food is one
of many predictors for health outcomes, a diet low in nutritious foods
is also a factor.\53\ Studies have shown that older adults struggling
with food security consume fewer calories and nutrients and have lower
overall dietary quality than those who are food secure, which can put
them at nutritional risk. Older adults are also at a higher risk of
developing malnutrition, which is considered a state of deficit,
excess, or imbalance in protein, energy, or other nutrients that
adversely impacts an individual's own body form, function, and clinical
outcomes. About 50% of older adults are affected by malnutrition, which
is further aggravated by a lack of food security and poverty.\54\ We
believe that adopting items to collect and analyze information about a
patient's food security at home could provide additional insight into
their health complexity and help facilitate coordination with other
healthcare providers, facilities, and agencies during transitions of
care, so that referrals to address a patient's food security are not
lost during vulnerable transition periods. For example, an HHA's
registered nurse (RN) or other clinically qualified nutrition
professional could work with the patient to plan healthy, affordable
food choices prior to discharge.\55\ HHAs could also refer any patient
that indicates lack of food security to government initiatives such as
home delivered meals programs provided by Area Agencies on Aging,\56\
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and food
pharmacies (programs to increase access to healthful foods by making
them affordable), initiatives that have been associated with lower
health care costs and reduced hospitalization and emergency department
visits.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service
(n.d.). Definitions of food security. Retrieved March 10, 2022, from
https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-u-s/definitions-of-food-security/.
\51\ Hernandez, D. C., Reesor, L. M., & Murillo, R. (2017). Food
insecurity and adult overweight/obesity: Gender and race/ethnic
disparities. Appetite, 117, 373-378.
\52\ Food and Nutrition Security (n.d.). USDA. https://www.usda.gov/nutrition-security.
\53\ National Center for Health Statistics. (2022, September 6).
Exercise or Physical Activity. Retrieved from Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/exercise.htm.
\54\ Food Research & Action Center (FRAC). ``Hunger is a Health
Issue for Older Adults: Food Security, Health, and the Federal
Nutrition Programs.'' December 2019. https://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/hunger-is-a-health-issue-for-older-adults-1.pdf.
\55\ Schroeder K, Smaldone A. Food Insecurity: A Concept
Analysis. Nurse Forum. 2015 Oct-Dec;50(4):274-84. doi: 10.1111/
nuf.12118. Epub 2015 Jan 21. PMID: 25612146; PMCID: PMC4510041.
\56\ Administration for Community Living. Nutrition Services.
Last updated 02/02/2024. Accessed 04/19/2024. https://acl.gov/programs/health-wellness/nutrition-services.
\57\ Tsega M, Lewis C, McCarthy D, Shah T, Coutts K. Review of
Evidence for Health-Related Social Needs Interventions. July 2019.
The Commonwealth Fund. https://www.commwealthfund.org/sites/default/files/2019-07/ROI-EVIDENCE-REVIEW-FINAL-VERSION.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are proposing to adopt two new food-related standardized patient
assessment data elements under the SDOH category. These proposed items
are based on the Food data elements currently collected in the AHC
Screening Tool and were adapted from the U.S. Department of Agriculture
18-item Household Food Security Survey (HFSS).\58\ The first proposed
Food item states, ``Within the past 12 months, you worried that your
food would run out before you got money to buy more.'' The second
proposed Food item states, ``Within the past 12 months, the food you
bought just didn't last and you didn't have money to get more.'' We
propose the same response options for both items: (1) Often true; (2)
Sometimes true; (3) Never True; (4) Patient declines to respond; and
(5) Patient unable to respond. A draft of the proposed Food items to be
adopted as standardized patient assessment data elements under the SDOH
category can be found in the Downloads section of the HH QRP Quality
Measures web page at https://www.cms.gov/medicare/quality/home-health/home-health-quality-measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ More information about the HFSS tool can be found at
https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-u-s/survey-tools/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Utilities
A lack of energy (utility) security can be defined as an inability
to adequately meet basic household energy needs.\59\ According to the
Department of Energy, one in three households in the U.S. are unable to
adequately meet basic household energy needs.\60\ The median energy
burden for rural households of older adults is considerably higher than
that for households without older adults.\61\ The consequences
associated with a lack of utility security are represented by three
primary dimensions: economic, physical, and behavioral. Patients with
low incomes are disproportionately affected by high energy costs, and
they may be forced to prioritize paying for housing and food over
utilities. Among older adults, food insecurity and high energy costs
together are prevalent.\62\ Some patients with low incomes may face
limited housing options and be at increased risk of living in lower-
quality physical conditions with malfunctioning heating and cooling
systems, poor lighting, and outdated plumbing and electrical systems.
Finally, patients with a lack of utility security may use concerning
behavioral approaches to cope, such as using stoves and space heaters
for heat.\63\ In addition, data from the Department of Energy's U.S.
Energy Information Administration confirm that a lack of energy
security disproportionately affects certain populations, such as low-
income and African American households.\64\ The effects of a lack of
utility security include vulnerability to environmental exposures such
as dampness, mold, and thermal discomfort in the home, which
[[Page 55387]]
have direct effect on patients' health.\65\ For example, research has
shown associations between a lack of energy security and respiratory
conditions as well as mental health-related disparities and poor sleep
quality in vulnerable populations such as the elderly, children, the
socioeconomically disadvantaged, and the medically vulnerable.\66\ We
believe adopting an item to collect information about a patient's
utility security upon start or resumption of care in HHAs would
facilitate the identification of patients who may not have utility
security and who may benefit from engagement efforts. For example, HHAs
could use the information on utility security to help connect
identified patients in need, such as older adults, to programs that can
help pay for home energy (heating/cooling) costs, like the Low-Income
Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) \67\ or receive broadband
internet service through the Affordable Connectivity Program.\68\ HHAs
can also partner with community care hubs and community-based
organizations to assist patients in applying for these and other local
utility assistance programs, as well as helping them navigate the
enrollment process.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ Hern[aacute]ndez D. Understanding 'energy insecurity' and
why it matters to health. Soc Sci Med. 2016 Oct; 167:1-10. doi:
10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.08.029. Epub 2016 Aug 21. PMID: 27592003;
PMCID: PMC5114037.
\60\ U.S. Energy Information Administration. ``One in Three U.S.
Households Faced Challenges in Paying Energy Bills in 2015.'' 2017
Oct 13. https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/reports/2015/energybills/.
\61\ Simes, Miranda, Farzana Khan, and Diana Hern[aacute]ndez.
``Energy Insecurity and Social Determinants of Health.'' In Handbook
of Social Sciences and Global Public Health, pp. 2119-2137. Cham:
Springer International Publishing, 2023.
\62\ Simes, Miranda, Farzana Khan, and Diana Hern[aacute]ndez.
``Energy Insecurity and Social Determinants of Health.'' In Handbook
of Social Sciences and Global Public Health, pp. 2119-2137. Cham:
Springer International Publishing, 2023.
\63\ Hern[aacute]ndez D. ``What `Merle' Taught Me About Energy
Insecurity and Health.'' Health Affairs, VOL.37, NO.3: Advancing
Health Equity Narrative Matters. March 2018. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2017.1413.
\64\ U.S. Energy Information Administration. ``One in Three U.S.
Households Faced Challenges in Paying Energy Bills in 2015.'' 2017
Oct 13. https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/reports/2015/energybills/.
\65\ Shahrestanaki, S.K., Rafii, F., Najafi Ghezeljeh, T. et al.
Patient safety in home health care: a grounded theory study. BMC
Health Serv Res 23, 467 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-09458-9.
\66\ Siegel, Eva Laura, Kathryn Lane, Ariel Yuan, Lauren A.
Smalls-Mantey, Jennifer Laird, Carolyn Olson, and Diana
Hern[aacute]ndez. ``Energy Insecurity Indicators Associated With
Increased Odds Of Respiratory, Mental Health, And Cardiovascular
Conditions: Study examines energy insecurity and health
conditions.'' Health Affairs 43, no. 2 (2024): 260-268.
\67\ Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) [verbar]
The Administration for Children and Families (hhs.gov) (https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ocs/programs/liheap).
\68\ https://www.fcc.gov/broadbandbenefit.
\69\ National Council on Aging (NCOA). ``How to Make It Easier
for Older Adults to Get Energy and Utility Assistance.'' Promising
Practices Clearinghouse for Professionals. Jan 13, 2022. https://www.ncoa.org/article/how-to-make-it-easier-for-older-adults-to-get-energy-and-utility-assistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are proposing to adopt a new item, Utilities, as a new
standardized patient assessment data element under the SDOH category.
This proposed item is based on the Utilities item currently collected
in the AHC HRSN Screening Tool and was adapted from the Children's
Sentinel Nutrition Assessment Program (C-SNAP) survey.\70\ The proposed
Utilities item asks, ``In the past 12 months, has the electric, gas,
oil, or water company threatened to shut off services in your home?''
The proposed response options are: (1) Yes; (2) No; (3) Already shut
off; (4) Patient unable to respond; and (5) Patient declines to
respond. A draft of the proposed Utilities item to be adopted as a
standardized patient assessment data element under the SDOH category
can be found in the downloads section of the HH QRP Quality Measures
web page at https://www.cms.gov/medicare/quality/home-health/home-health-quality-measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ This validated survey was developed as a clinical indicator
of household energy security among pediatric caregivers. Cook, J.T.,
D.A. Frank., P.H. Casey, R. Rose-Jacobs, M.M. Black, M. Chilton, S.
Ettinger de Cuba, et al. ``A Brief Indicator of Household Energy
Security: Associations with Food Security, Child Health, and Child
Development in US Infants and Toddlers.'' Pediatrics, vol. 122, no.
4, 2008, pp. e874-e875. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2008-0286.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Stakeholder Input
We developed our proposal after considering the feedback we
received when we proposed the creation of the SDOH category of
standardized patient assessment data elements in the CY 2020 HH PPS
proposed rule (84 FR 34677 through 34684). Commenters were generally in
favor of the concept of collecting SDOH data elements and stated that
if implemented appropriately the data could be useful in identifying
and addressing health care disparities, as well as refining the risk
adjustment of outcome measures. We incorporated this input into the
development of this proposal.
We invite comment on the proposal to adopt four new items as
standardized patient assessment data elements under the SDOH category
beginning with the CY 2027 HH QRP: one living situation item; two food
items; and one utilities item.
5. Proposal To Modify the Transportation Item Beginning With the CY
2027 HH QRP Program Year
Beginning January 1, 2023, HHAs began collecting seven standardized
patient assessment data elements under the SDOH category on the OASIS
Version E. One of these items, A1250. Transportation collects data on
whether a lack of transportation has kept a patient from getting to and
from medical appointments, meetings, work, or from getting things they
need for daily living. This item was adopted as a standardized patient
assessment data element under the SDOH category in the CY 2020 HH PPS
final rule (84 FR 60478). As we discussed in the CY 2020 HH PPS final
rule, we continue to believe that access to transportation for ongoing
health care and medication access needs, particularly for those with
chronic diseases, is essential to successful chronic disease management
and the collection of a Transportation item would facilitate the
connection to programs that can address identified needs.
As part of our routine item and measure monitoring work, we
continue to assess the implementation of the new SDOH items. We have
identified an opportunity to improve the data collection for A1250.
Transportation by aligning it with the Transportation category
collected in our other programs. Specifically, we are proposing to
modify the current Transportation item so that it aligns with a
Transportation item collected on the AHC HRSN Screening Tool available
to the IPFQR and IQR Programs. A1250. Transportation currently
collected in the OASIS asks, ``Has lack of transportation kept you from
medical appointments, meetings, work, or from getting things needed for
daily living?'' The response options are: (A) Yes, it has kept me from
medical appointments or from getting any medications; (B) Yes, it has
kept me from non-medical meetings, appointments, work, or from getting
things that I need; (C) No; (X) Patient unable to respond; and (Y)
Patient declines to respond. The Transportation item collected in the
AHC HRSN Screening Tool asks, ``In the past 12 months, has lack of
reliable transportation kept you from medical appointments, meetings,
work or from getting things needed for daily living?'' The two response
options are: (1) Yes; and (2) No. Consistent with the AHC HRSN
Screening Tool, we are proposing to modify the A1250. Transportation
item currently collected in the OASIS in two ways: (1) revise the look-
back period for when the patient experienced lack of reliable
transportation; and (2) simplify the response options.
While the current Transportation assessment item uses a look-back
period of six to 12 months, we believe the distinction of a 12-month
lookback period will reduce ambiguity for both patients and clinicians,
and therefore improve the validity of the data collected. Second, we
are proposing to simplify the response options. Currently, HHAs
separately collect information on whether a lack of reliable
transportation has kept the patient from medical appointments or from
getting medications, and whether a lack of transportation has kept the
patient from non-medical meetings, appointments, work, or from getting
things they need. Although transportation barriers can directly affect
a person's ability to attend medical appointments and obtain
medications, a lack of transportation can also affect a person's health
in other
[[Page 55388]]
ways, including accessing goods and services, obtaining adequate food
and clothing, and social activities.\71\ The proposed modified
Transportation item would collect information on whether a lack of
reliable transportation has kept the patient from medical appointments,
meetings, work or from getting things needed for daily living, rather
than collecting the information separately. As discussed previously, we
believe reliable transportation services are fundamental to a person's
overall health, and as a result, the burden of collecting this
information separately outweighs its potential benefit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ Victoria Transport Policy Institute (2016, August 25).
Basic access and basic mobility: Meeting society's most important
transportation needs. Retrieved from http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm103.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the reasons stated, we are proposing to modify A1250.
Transportation based on the Transportation item adopted for use in the
AHC HRSN Screening Tool and adapted from the PRAPARE tool. The proposed
Transportation item asks, ``In the past 12 months, has a lack of
reliable transportation kept you from medical appointments, meetings,
work or from getting things needed for daily living?'' The proposed
response options are: (0) Yes; (1) No; (7) Patient declines to respond;
and (8) Patient unable to respond. A draft of the proposed
Transportation item to be adopted as a standardized patient assessment
data element under the SDOH category can be found on the HH QRP Quality
Measures web page at https://www.cms.gov/medicare/quality/home-health/home-health-quality-measures/downloads.
We invite comment on this proposal to modify the current
Transportation item previously adopted as a standardized patient
assessment data element under the SDOH category beginning January 1,
2027, with the CY 2027 HH QRP.
E. Proposal To Update OASIS All-Payer Data Collection
In the CY 2023 HH PPS final rule CMS finalized the end of the
temporary suspension of OASIS data collection on non-Medicare/non-
Medicaid HHA patients and the requirement for HHAs to submit all-payer
OASIS data for purposes of the HH QRP, beginning with the CY 2027
Program Year (87 FR 66862 through 66865). Consistent with the two-
quarter phase-in that we typically use when changing data submission
items or requirements, HHAs will have an opportunity to begin
submitting this data for patients discharged between January 1, 2025,
through June 30, 2025, but we will not use that phase-in data to make a
compliance determination. We noted that the new all-payer OASIS data
reporting will be required beginning with the CY 2027 program year,
with data for that program year required for patients discharged
between July 1, 2025, and June 30, 2026. For HHAs to operationalize
this requirement, CMS determined that further details would be needed
to clarify OASIS data collection and submission for non-Medicare/non-
Medicaid patients. The CY23 final rule referenced discharge as the time
point to identify when all-payer data collection would start but did
not address the other data collection time points.
To clarify expectations around the start of OASIS all-payer data
collection we are proposing to establish a change from data collection
beginning with the OASIS discharge time point to using the start of
care (SOC) time point. The SOC is the first assessment that can be
submitted for a non-Medicare/non-Medicaid patient, either on or after
January 1, 2025, for the phase-in (voluntary) period or on or after
July 1, 2025, for the mandatory period. We will use the M0090 Date
Assessment Completed date of the SOC assessment to identify non-
Medicare/non-Medicaid patient assessments in the phase-in and mandatory
periods.
Using the SOC time point ensures agency demographics (for example,
Agency's CMS Certification Number (CCN), State and Branch ID#s) and
patient demographics (for example, patient name, State, zip code,
Social Security number (SSN), gender, date of birth (DOB), payment
source) are collected for each non-Medicare/non-Medicaid patient
assessment at the start of all-payer OASIS data collection. After these
are collected and submitted with the SOC assessment, they are
resubmitted with each subsequent OASIS submission (that is, ROC,
recert, other follow up, transfer, discharge, death at home). Using the
SOC time point would ensure that baseline data is available for use in
calculating or risk-adjusting quality measures, and in linking to prior
OASIS assessments. The data would also be available for matching
purposes to support use of the current quality assessments only (QAO)
metric used in the annual payment update (APU) calculation.
The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act
of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-173; December 8, 2003) finalized the temporary
suspension of OASIS requirements for collection of data on non-
Medicare/non-Medicaid patients.\72\ The CY 2023 HH PPS final rule ends
this temporary suspension of OASIS data collection for non-Medicare/
non-Medicaid patients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ E:\PUBLAW\PUBL173.108 (congress.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CMS is providing a voluntary phase-in period for HHAs to begin
OASIS data collection and submission for all non-Medicare/non-Medicaid
patients.
Prior to January 1, 2025--Per the HH CoPs and OASIS
guidance, HHAs are required to collect and submit OASIS assessments for
all skilled Medicare and/or Medicaid patients, with some exemptions.
OASIS assessment time points include start of care, resumption of care,
recertification, other follow-up, transfer, discharge, and death at
home. The criteria for patients exempt from OASIS data collection are
not changing and will continue to include patients under 18, patients
receiving maternity services, and patients receiving only personal
care, housekeeping or chore services.
January 1, 2025, through June 30, 2025--For non-Medicare/
non-Medicaid patients who are not exempt from OASIS data collection,
and who begin receiving home health care services with an OASIS SOC
M0090 date from January 1, 2025, through June 30, 2025, OASIS data
collection and submission are voluntary. When OASIS data collection and
submission are started for a non-Medicare/non-Medicaid patient with the
SOC OASIS assessment, HHAs may but are not required to complete all
subsequent OASIS time point assessments related to the patient's home
health stay (that is, resumption of care, recertification, other follow
up, transfer, discharge, and death at home) including assessments
completed on or after July 1, 2025.
Beginning July 1, 2025--For patients with any pay source
who are not exempt from OASIS data collection, and who begin receiving
home health care services with an OASIS SOC M0090 date on or after July
1, 2025, OASIS data collection and submission to the internet Quality
Improvement Evaluation System (iQIES) are required. This includes the
SOC OASIS as well as any subsequent OASIS time point assessments
relevant to the patient's home health stay (that is, resumption of
care, recertification, other follow up, transfer, discharge, and death
at home).
We invite comment on this proposal to update requirements for OASIS
all-payer data collection beginning January 1, 2025.
[[Page 55389]]
F. Form, Manner, and Timing of Data Submission Under the HH QRP
1. Background
We refer readers to the regulatory text at Sec. 484.45 for
information regarding the current policies for reporting HH QRP data.
2. Proposed Reporting Schedule for the Submission of SDOH Assessment
Items Beginning January 1, 2027, With the CY 2027 HH QRP
As discussed in section III.D.3. of this proposed rule, we are
proposing to adopt four new items as standardized patient assessment
data elements in the SDOH category: one living situation item, two food
items, and one utilities item, and to modify the transportation item in
section III.D.5. of this proposed rule beginning January 1, 2027, with
the CY 2027 HH QRP.
We are proposing that HHAs would be required to report these new
assessment items using the OASIS beginning with patients admitted on
January 1, 2027, for purposes of the CY 2027 HH QRP program year.
Starting in CY 2027, HHAs would be required to submit data for the
entire calendar year, corresponding to the CY 2028 HH QRP program year
with respect to OASIS submission requirements.
We are also proposing that HHAs that submit the living situation,
food, utilities, and transportation items with respect to start or
resumption of care would be deemed to have submitted those assessment
items with respect to both start or resumption of care and discharge,
because it is unlikely that the assessment of those items at start or
resumption of care will differ from the assessment of the same item at
discharge. A draft of the proposed assessment items is available in the
Downloads section of the HH QRP Quality Measures web page at https://www.cms.gov/medicare/quality/home-health/home-health-quality-measures.
As we noted in section III.D.5 of this proposed rule, we continue to
assess the implementation of the new items in the SDOH category,
including A1250. Transportation, as part of our routine assessment item
and measure monitoring work. We analyzed the data home health agencies
reported from January 1, 2023, through September 30, 2023 (Q1 2023-Q3
2023) and found that home health patient responses do not significantly
change from admission to discharge. Specifically, the proportion of
patients who responded ``Yes'' to the A1250 transportation item at
start of care or resumption of care (8.87 percent) versus at discharge
to community (5.71 percent) differed by only 3.16 percentage points
during this period. We find these results convincing, and therefore are
proposing to require HHAs to submit the proposed item, transportation,
at the start and resumption of care only.
We invite public comment on our proposal to collect data on the
following items in the SDOH category start or resumption of care
beginning January 1, 2027 with the CY 2027 HH QRP program year: one
Living Situation item as described in section III.D.3.a of this
proposed rule; two Food items, as described in section III.D.3.b of
this proposed rule; one Utilities item as described in section
III.D.3.c of this proposed rule; and one Transportation item as
described in section III.D.5 of this proposed rule.
G. HH QRP Quality Measure Concepts Under Consideration for Future
Years--Request for Information (RFI)
We are seeking input on the importance, relevance, appropriateness,
and applicability of each of the following concepts under consideration
for future years in the HH QRP: vaccinations, depression, pain
management, and substance use disorders. In the CY 2024 HH PPS proposed
rule (88FR 43738 through 43740), we published a request for information
(RFI) on a set of principles for selecting and prioritizing HH QRP
measures, identifying measurement gaps, and suitable measures for
filling these gaps. Within this proposed rule, we also sought input on
data available to develop measures, approaches for data collection,
perceived challenges or barriers, and approaches for addressing
identified challenges. We refer readers to the CY 2024 HH PPS final
rule (88 FR 77772 through 77774) for a summary of the public comments
we received in response to the RFI.
Subsequently, our measure development contractor convened a TEP on
December 15, 2023 to obtain input on the future measure concepts that
could fill the measurement gaps identified in our CY 2024 RFI.\73\ The
TEP discussed the alignment of PAC and Hospice measures with CMS'
``Universal Foundation'' of quality measures.\74\ The Universal
Foundation aims to focus provider attention, reduce burden, identify
disparities in care, prioritize development of interoperable, digital
quality measures, allow for comparisons across programs, and help
identify measurement gaps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ The Post-Acute Care (PAC) and Hospice Quality Reporting
Program Cross-Setting TEP summary report will be published in early
summer or as soon as technically feasible. IRFs can monitor the
Partnership for Quality Measurement website at https://mmshub.cms.gov/get-involved/technical-expert-panel/updates for
updates.
\74\ Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Aligning Quality
Measures Across CMS--the Universal Foundation. November 17, 2023.
https://www.cms.gov/aligning-quality-measures-across-cms-universal-foundation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In consideration of the feedback, we received from interested
parties through these activities, we are seeking input on four concepts
for the HH QRP. One is a composite of vaccinations,\75\ which could
represent overall immunization status of patients such as the Adult
Immunization Status measure \76\ in the Universal Foundation. A second
concept on which we are seeking feedback is the concept of depression
for the HH QRP, similar to the Clinical Screening for Depression and
Follow-up measure \77\ in the Universal Foundation. Third, we are
seeking feedback on the concept of pain management. Finally, we seek
input on a measure concept relating to substance use disorders, such as
the Initiation and Engagement of Substance Use Disorder Treatment
measure \78\ included in the Universal Foundation of Quality Measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ A composite measure can summarize multiple measures through
the use of one value or piece of information. More information can
be found at https://www.cms.gov/medicare/quality-initiatives-patient-assessment-instruments/mms/downloads/composite-measures.pdf.
\76\ CMS Measures Inventory Tool. Adult immunization status
measure found at https://cmit.cms.gov/cmit/#/FamilyView?familyId=26.
\77\ Preventative Care and Screening: Screening for Depression
and Follow Up measure found at https://qpp.cms.gov/docs/QPP_quality_measure_specifications/CQM-Measures/2023_Measure_134_MIPSCQM.pdf.
\78\ Initiation and Engagement of Substance Use Disorder
Treatment measure found at https://ecqi.healthit.gov/ecqm/ec/2023/cms0137v11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While we will not be responding to specific comments in response to
this RFI in the CY 2025 HH PPS final rule, we invite public comment on
these four measure concepts and intend to use this input to inform our
future measure development efforts.
IV. The Expanded Home Health Value-Based Purchasing (HHVBP) Model
A. Background
As authorized by section 1115A of the Act and finalized in the CY
2016 HH PPS final rule (80 FR 68624), the Center for Medicare and
Medicaid Innovation (Innovation Center) implemented the Home Health
Value-Based Purchasing (HHVBP) Model (``original Model'') in nine
states on January 1, 2016. The design of the original HHVBP Model
leveraged the successes and lessons learned from other CMS value-based
purchasing programs and demonstrations to shift from volume-based
payments to a model designed to
[[Page 55390]]
promote the delivery of higher quality care to Medicare beneficiaries.
The specific goals of the original HHVBP Model were to--
Provide higher incentives for better quality care with
greater efficiency;
Study new potential quality and efficiency measures for
appropriateness in the home health setting; and
Enhance the current public reporting process.
The original HHVBP Model resulted in an average 4.6 percent
improvement in HHAs' total performance scores (TPS) and an average
annual savings of $141 million to Medicare without evidence of adverse
risks.\79\ The evaluation of the original Model also found reductions
in unplanned acute care hospitalizations and skilled nursing facility
(SNF) stays, resulting in reductions in inpatient and SNF spending. The
U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services determined that expansion
of the original HHVBP Model would further reduce Medicare spending and
improve the quality of care. In October 2020, the CMS Chief Actuary
certified that expansion of the HHVBP Model would produce Medicare
savings if expanded to all States.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ https://innovation.cms.gov/data-and-reports/2020/hhvbp-thirdann-rpt.
\80\ https://www.cms.gov/files/document/certificationhome-health-value-based-purchasing-hhvbpmodel.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 8, 2021, CMS announced the certification of the HHVBP
Model for expansion nationwide, as well as the intent to expand the
Model through notice and comment rulemaking.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/press-releases/cms-takes-action-improve-home-health-care-seniors-announces-intent-expand-home-health-value-based.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the CY 2022 HH PPS final rule (86 FR 62292 through 62336) we
finalized the decision to expand the HHVBP Model to all Medicare
certified HHAs in the 50 States, territories, and District of Columbia
beginning January 1, 2022. CY 2022 was a pre-implementation year. The
first payment year is CY 2025 based on the first performance year which
was CY 2023. Our codified policies for the expanded HHVBP Model can be
found in our regulations at 42 CFR part 484, subpart F, Sec. Sec.
484.300 through 484.375.
B. Request for Information on Future Performance Measure Concepts for
the Expanded HHVBP Model
The expanded HHVBP Model provides an opportunity to examine a broad
array of quality measures that address critical gaps in care. A
comprehensive review of the Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) experience,
conducted by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and
Evaluation (ASPE), identified several objectives for HHVBP
measures.\82\ The recommended objectives emphasize measuring patient
outcomes and functional status; appropriateness of care; and incentives
for providers to build infrastructure to facilitate measurement within
the quality framework. The study identified the following seven
objectives which served as guiding principles for the development of
performance measures used in the original HHVBP Model:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) (2014).
Measuring Success in Health Care Value-Based Purchasing Programs.
Cheryl L. Damberg et al. on behalf of RAND Health.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use a broad measure set that captures the complexity of
the HHA service provided.
Incorporate the flexibility to include Improving Medicare
Post-Acute Care Transformation (IMPACT) Act of 2014 measures that are
cross-cutting amongst post-acute care settings.
Develop second-generation measures of patient outcomes,
health and functional status, shared decision making, and patient
activation.
Include a balance of process, outcome, and patient
experience measures.
Advance the ability to measure cost and value.
Add measures for appropriateness or overuse.
Promote infrastructure investments.
A central driver of the process used to select measures for the
original HHVBP Model was incorporating innovative thinking from the
field while simultaneously drawing on evidence-based literature and
documented best practices. Broadly, measures were selected based on
their impact on care delivery and to support the goal of improving
health outcomes, quality, safety, efficiency, and experience of care
for patients.
As we continue to leverage our value-based purchasing initiatives
to improve the quality of care furnished across healthcare settings, we
are interested in considering new performance measures for inclusion in
the expanded HHVBP Model. We specifically request public comments on
several specific performance measures as well as general comments on
other future model concepts that may be considered for inclusion in the
expanded HHVBP Model. These measures are based on input from the HHVBP
Technical Expert Panel (TEP), which met in Fall 2023. The TEP included
experts from the home health setting specializing in quality assurance,
patient advocacy, clinical work, and measure development. The meeting
included a discussion of potential measures for inclusion in the
expanded HHVBP Model. These include a combination of new measure
concepts (for example, family caregiver measure), already developed
measures that are not currently in the measure set for the expanded
HHVBP Model (for example, Medicare Spending per Beneficiary (MSPB)),
and new OASIS-based and claims-based measures.
Family caregiver measure: Generally, TEP members were very
supportive of future development of a family caregiver measure. One TEP
member encouraged CMS to ``think outside the box'' to find ways of
including the caregiver's voice in quality reporting. The TEP discussed
OASIS items that provide information related to the patient's caregiver
status. While acknowledging that the focus of the Medicare home health
benefit is the patient, not the caregiver, they recommended that CMS
consider the caregiver as a partner and measure caregivers' needs and
not just the needs as they relate to the beneficiary. The TEP noted
that the caregivers are often the reason patients are even able to be
at home (vs. receiving care in the more costly nursing home setting).
CMS intends to develop a patient-reported outcome performance measure
(PRO-PM) to assess caregiver burden in the Guiding an Improved Dementia
Experience (GUIDE) Model that may be a useful example for caregiver
measures that may be developed for HHVBP.\83\ Creating one or more
measures based on an HHA's ability to meet caregiver needs would permit
measurement of changes in caregiver quality-of-life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ For more details on the GUIDE Model, see the Model web page
(https://www.cms.gov/priorities/innovation/innovation-models/guide).
For more details on the caregiver measures being developed for
GUIDE, see the Request for Applications (https://www.cms.gov/files/document/guide-rfa.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Falls with injury (claims-based): Several TEP members
suggested that CMS explore a claims-based measure of falls with injury.
One TEP member noted an Office of Inspector General (OIG) study that
found that HHAs failed to report 55 percent of falls leading to major
injuries and hospitalizations on their OASIS data.\84\ While it may not
be possible to identify all falls from claims data, a claims-based
measure may be more accurate, although, as with other claims-based
measures, data would only be available for Fee for Service patients.
Due to the high rate of non-reporting, the OASIS-based falls measure
may not
[[Page 55391]]
provide accurate information about the incidence of these falls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/OEI-05-22-00290.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medicare spending per Beneficiary: The TEP also discussed
potentially adding the MSPB measure to the HHVBP applicable measure
set. This cross-setting measure is part of the Home Health Quality
Reporting Program and is currently publicly reported on Care Compare.
MSPB may be a valid tool for measuring the value of the care that HHAs
provide that may be appropriate for use in the expanded HHVBP Model.
The measure would provide information on the efficiency of home health
providers, as measured by Medicare payments for their patients.
Function measures to complement existing cross-setting
Discharge (DC) Function measure: Several TEP members raised a concern
that the measure does not include the full self-care/activities of
daily living elements (for example, bathing, dressing), which they
noted as critically important for home health patients and caregivers.
Another TEP member indicated that patients often already have capacity
to do things like roll and sit up when they enter home health care but
may not be able to bathe or get dressed without assistance. The TEP
emphasized the importance of functional cognition, which is included in
OASIS item GG0100 as part of prior functional status but is not
included as part of the current DC Function measure.
As we continue to explore refinements to the expanded HHVBP Model,
we request comments related to adding the potential performance
measures described previously to the HHVBP Measure Set. We also request
comments about other potential performance measures that we should
consider for the expanded HHVBP Model.
C. Future Approaches to Health Equity in the Expanded HHVBP Model
In alignment with the President's Executive orders \85\ to support
underserved communities, CMS is working to advance health equity by
designing, implementing, and operationalizing policies and programs
that support health for all the people served by our programs,
eliminating avoidable differences in health outcomes experienced by
people who are disadvantaged or underserved, and providing the care and
support that our enrollees need to thrive. As we continue to leverage
our value-based purchasing initiatives to improve the quality of care
furnished across healthcare settings, we are interested in exploring
the role of health equity in creating better health outcomes for all
populations in our programs and models. In the CY 2023 HH PPS final
rule, we stated that we are committed to achieving equity in health
care outcomes for beneficiaries by supporting providers in quality
improvement activities to reduce health disparities, enabling
beneficiaries to make more informed decisions, and promoting provider
accountability for health care disparities.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ Executive Orders 13985, ``Advancing Racial Equity and
Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal
Government,'' and 14091, ``Executive Order on Further Advancing
Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through The
Federal Government.''
\86\ https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/QualityInitiativesGenInfo/Downloads/CMS-Quality-Strategy.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CY 2023 HH PPS rule (87 FR 66874 through 66876) included an
RFI, ``Future Approaches to Health Equity in the expanded HHVBP
Model.'' The RFI requested feedback on policy changes that we should
consider on the topic of health equity and specific actions the
expanded HHVBP Model should take to address healthcare disparities and
advance health equity. We specifically requested comments on whether we
should consider incorporating adjustments into the expanded HHVBP Model
to reflect the varied patient populations that HHAs serve around the
country and tie health equity outcomes to the payment adjustments we
make based on HHA performance under the Model. One possible approach is
to make adjustments at the measure level such as stratification by
which additional points are provided to HHAs that provide care to
underserved communities (for example, based on dual status or other
metrics).\87\ Payment adjustments could also be incorporated at the
scoring level in forms such as modified benchmarks, points adjustments,
or modified payment adjustment percentages (for example, peer
comparison groups based on whether the HHA includes a high proportion
of dual eligible beneficiaries). We requested commenters' views on
which of these adjustments, if any, would be most effective for the
expanded HHVBP Model. Commenters shared that relevant data collection
and appropriate stratification are very important in addressing any
health equity gaps. While not suggesting specific approaches, these
commenters noted that CMS should consider potential stratification of
health outcomes. Stakeholders, including providers, also shared their
strategies for addressing health disparities, noting that this was an
important commitment for many health provider organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ CMS defines an ``underserved community'' as ``individuals
who share a particular characteristic--demographic, geographic
(urban or rural), or other factor--that results in them being
systemically denied full opportunity to participate in aspects of
economic, social, and civic life. (Source: https://www.cms.gov/priorities/innovation/key-concepts/health-equity).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several previous studies have found that historically underserved
communities, including Medicare beneficiaries who are dually enrolled
in Medicaid, live in a low-income neighborhood, or are Black, receive
lower quality home health care relative to communities not historically
underserved.\88\ Previous studies have found that patients from
underserved communities have higher rates of hospital readmissions, are
more likely to be discharged without functional improvement,\89\ are
less likely to receive care from high-quality HHAs, and have worse
patient-reported care experiences. Improving the quality of care for
these underserved communities is an important quality improvement goal
under the expanded HHVBP Model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ Joynt Maddox, K.E., Chen, L.M., Zuckerman, R., & Epstein,
A.M. (2018). Association Between Race, Neighborhood, and Medicaid
Enrollment and Outcomes in Medicare Home Health Care. Journal of the
American Geriatrics Society, 66(2), 239-246. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.15082.
\89\ Fashaw-Walters, S.A., Rahman, M., Jarr[iacute]n, O.F., Gee,
G., Mor, V., Nkimbeng, M., & Thomas, K.S. (2023). Getting to the
root: Examining within and between home health agency inequities in
functional improvement. Health Services Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.14194.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disparities in health care outcomes may result from differences
within HHAs (for example, patients from underserved communities within
certain HHAs service areas are less likely to have good outcomes, such
as functional improvement, discharge to community, and avoiding
readmission to a hospital). These disparities may also result from
differences across HHAs. That is, patients from underserved communities
are less likely than other patients to receive care from good quality
HHAs and thus at higher risk of poor outcomes.\90\ The literature is
mixed on the sources of these disparities. One study found that
differences in readmission rates for underserved communities were
primarily within, rather than across, HHAs.\91\ Another study found
that
[[Page 55392]]
differences both within and across HHAs contribute to the overall
disparities in patients' functional improvement.\92\ This same study
found that roughly half of observed individual-level disparities in the
use of high-quality home health agencies was attributable to
neighborhood-level factors.\93\ Differences in care experience for
underserved communities were explained by differences both within and
across HHAs, but the within-HHA variations more often accounted for a
greater proportion of the differences.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ Fashaw-Walters, S.A., Rahman, M., Gee, G., Mor, V., White,
M., & Thomas, K.S. (2022). Out Of Reach: Inequities in the Use of
High-Quality Home Health Agencies. Health Affairs (Project Hope),
41(2), 247-255. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2021.01408.
\91\ Joynt Maddox, K.E., Chen, L.M., Zuckerman, R., & Epstein,
A.M. (2018). Association Between Race, Neighborhood, and Medicaid
Enrollment and Outcomes in Medicare Home Health Care. Journal of the
American Geriatrics Society, 66(2), 239-246. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.15082.
\92\ Fashaw-Walters, S.A., Rahman, M., Jarr[iacute]n, O.F., Gee,
G., Mor, V., Nkimbeng, M., & Thomas, K.S. (2023). Getting to the
root: Examining within and between home health agency inequities in
functional improvement. Health Services Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.14194.
\93\ Fashaw-Walters SA, Rahman M, Gee G, Mor V, White M, Thomas
KS. Out Of Reach: Inequities In The Use Of High-Quality Home Health
Agencies. Health Aff (Millwood). 2022 Feb;41(2):247-255. doi:
10.1377/hlthaff.2021.01408. PMID: 35130066; PMCID: PMC8883595.
\94\ Joynt Maddox, K.E., Chen, L.M., Zuckerman, R. and Epstein,
A.M. (2018), Association Between Race, Neighborhood, and Medicaid
Enrollment and Outcomes in Medicare Home Health Care. J Am Geriatr
Soc, 66: 239-246. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.15082.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have been exploring several potential approaches for integrating
health equity concepts into the expanded HHVBP Model. Considerations
for evaluating these approaches include the following:
Effectiveness: Does the approach further the model test?
What would its impact on underserved communities be?
Feasibility: How long would it take to implement the
approach? Are the necessary data currently being collected? How many
HHAs would be included?
Reliability: Does the approach allow for reliable
measurement of health equity within HHAs?
Alignment: Is this approach aligned with other Medicare
quality and VBP Programs?
D. Social Risk Factors
As part of our work developing potential equity measures, we are
exploring potential definitions to use for defining historically
underserved communities. Building on feedback from the CY 2024 SNF VBP
proposals, our analyses have focused on three potential social risk
factors Dual eligible status (DES), Area Deprivation Index (ADI), and
Medicaid as sole payment source that can serve as a proxy to identify
the underserved. Note that we also examined low-income subsidy (LIS) as
a potential measure of equity but did not include it in further
analyses, because the correlation for the Dual Eligible Status (DES)
proportion and the LIS eligibility proportion is above 0.98. have not
yet examined low-income subsidy (LIS) eligibility. We also plan to
assess disparities between rural and urban home health providers and
patients when analyzing social risk factors, perhaps measuring rurality
using the rural-urban commuting area (RUCA) codes, which classify U.S.
census tracts using measures of population density, urbanization, and
daily commuting.
E. Approaches to a Potential Health Equity Adjustment for the Expanded
HHVBP Model
One of the approaches that we have explored is the Health Equity
Adjustment (HEA) that will begin in the Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF)
VBP starting with the FY 2027 program year. The HEA is calculated using
a methodology that considers a SNF's performance on the SNF VBP quality
measures and the proportion of the SNF's residents with DES. Under the
HEA, SNFs that perform well on the SNF VBP quality measures and serve a
higher proportion of residents with DES will earn HEA bonus points are
added to normalized sum of all points a SNF is awarded for each
measure. That sum is then the final SNF Performance Score. More
information on the HEA can be found in the FY 2024 SNF PPS final rule
(88 FR 53304).
We used the HEA methodology that was finalized for the SNF VBP to
simulate how that methodology would impact the expanded HHVBP Model,
using the current measure set for the Model and July 2023 Interim
Performance Report (IPR) data. A limitation of using the July 2023 IPR
data for these analyses is that the TPS for the July 2023 IPRs was
mainly based on achievement points--there are no improvement points for
the claims-based and HHCAHPS measures (due to lags in the data for
these measures) and only small improvement points for the OASIS-based
measures. This may distort results of the equity implications of the
HEA methodology, but we believe that using the more current data is
preferable to using earlier data from prior to the public health
emergency. We used data on the proportion of HHA patients who are
dually eligible at any point during the performance year. The HEA
methodology is fully described in the FY 2024 Skilled Nursing Facility
Prospective Payment System final rule (88 FR 53307 through 53316) that
included--
Determine number of measures for which HHA is a top tier
performer;
Calculate measure performance scaler;
Calculate underserved multiplier;
Calculate HEA Bonus Points; and
Add HEA Bonus Points to the Normalized Sum of all Points
Awarded for Each Measure.
Using the original TPS and a TPS measure that includes the HEA
bonus points), we simulated payment adjustment amounts with and without
the HEA. We examined the change in payment adjustment percentage for
HHAs based on their dual eligibility status (for example, decile in
terms of percentage of dual eligible patients) and HEA bonus points.
Of the 10,218 active HHAs in the July 2023 quarterly monitoring
analytic file, 9,591 (93.9 percent) have information on the number of
beneficiaries with dual eligible status (DES) that were served by the
HHA in the performance year. Of these HHAs, a TPS was calculated for
7,556. Because the HEA operates by adding points to the TPS, it is only
possible to calculate a TPS including the HEA for these 7,556 HHAs that
had a valid TPS.
We found that the average TPS was higher for HHAs in the highest
decile in terms of share of beneficiaries with DES than for HHAs in any
other decile, before applying the HEA. Applying the HEA primarily
increased TPS for these HHAs that were already high performing, which
increased the gap in the average payment adjustment for these HHAs and
the average payment adjustment for HHAs serving a lower share of
beneficiaries with DES. As a result, we concluded that the HEA using
DES as the proxy for the underserved, as designed for SNF VBP, may not
the best approach for the home health setting. In contrast, the average
TPS was higher for HHAs with a relatively low share of beneficiaries
living in a neighborhood with a high ADI.
We also plan to consider how changes to the definition of the
underserved population, as codified in the SNF VBP reg text at Sec.
413.338(a) would alter the effects of the HEA. In contrast to the
results for dual eligibility, we have found that average TPS was lower
for HHAs serving a high share of beneficiaries living in a neighborhood
with a high ADI. We also found that HHAs in the highest ADI quintile
and highest DES quintile had lower average TPS than other groups. These
results suggest that defining the underserved population using ADI or a
combination of ADI and DES would alter the effects of the HEA. We are
also examining measures of the underserved population that are based on
the percentage of
[[Page 55393]]
patients with Medicaid as the only payment source.
F. Other Health Equity Measures
We are also exploring other health equity measures that would more
directly focus on certain disparities. These could be structured in
several different ways:
Measure(s) for particular underserved communities:
Performance on one or more measures for specific underserved
communities (for example, based on DES).
Measure(s) based on within-provider differences in
performance for underserved communities (for example, based on DES):
This type of measure could be based on a single outcome or multiple
outcomes (that is, a composite measure).
Measure(s) based on the worst performing group: Calculate
performance scores for multiple patient groups and set the measure
performance equal to the score for the worst performing group.
We have examined the reportability of these other health equity
measures and have found that several HHAs will not have a sufficient
number of DES beneficiaries for these measures to be calculated. Our
analyses of data used for the July 2023 IPRs found that, overall, 25.4
percent of HHAs served fewer than 12 beneficiaries with DES. This
suggests that roughly one-fourth of HHAs may not serve enough
beneficiaries with DES to calculate a performance measure using only
beneficiaries with DES. The percentage of HHAs that served fewer than
12 beneficiaries with DES or fewer than 12 beneficiaries without DES
was 36.5 percent. Although the reportability for these measures do
exclude some smaller HHAs that serve fewer underserved patients, the
reportability level will be closely aligned to the current SNF VBP HEA.
As the 25.4 percent proportion that are not reported is not that much
more than is currently being excluded on the SNF VBP HEA where SNFs in
the bottom 20 percent of proportion duals are excluded. The impact or
reportability of a potential HHVBP HEA needs more analysis for future
consideration.
Looking forward, we recognize that the exact structure of the
current SNF VBP HEA may not be the most efficient approach for the
unique attributes of care being provided in the home versus care in the
SNF. However, CMS is committed to and working towards the establishment
of an HHVBP HEA that rewards HHAs that provide high quality care to
underserved communities. We will continue to explore the addition of
other measures, using other proxies for identifying the underserved and
possibly adjusting the scoring mechanism to be more effective at
addressing the issue.
As a reminder, we stated in the CY 2024 HH PPS final rule (88 FR
77790), we will gather at least 2 years of performance data, and study
effects of the expanded Model on health equity outcomes before
incorporating any potential changes to the expanded Model regarding
health equity.
V. Medicare Home Intravenous Immune Globulin (IVIG) Items and Services
A. General Background
1. Statutory Background
Division FF, section 4134 of the CAA, 2023 added coverage and
payment of items and services related to administration of IVIG in a
patient's home of a patient with a diagnosed primary immune deficiency
disease furnished on or after January 1, 2024. Division FF, section
4134(a) of the CAA, 2023 amended the existing IVIG benefit category at
section 1861(s)(2)(Z) of the Act by adding coverage for IVIG
administration items and services in a patient's home of a patient with
a diagnosed primary immune deficiency disease. This benefit covers
items and services related to administration of IVIG in a patient's
home of a patient with a diagnosed primary immune deficiency disease.
In addition, section 4134(b) of Division FF of the CAA, 2023 amended
section 1842(o) of the Act by adding a new paragraph (8) that
established the payment for IVIG administration items and services.
Under the CAA, 2023 provision, payment for these IVIG administration
items and services is required to be a bundled payment separate from
the payment for the IVIG product, made to a supplier for all items and
services related to administration of IVIG furnished in the home during
a calendar day.
2. Overview
Primary immune deficiency diseases (PIDD) are conditions triggered
by genetic defects that cause a lack of and/or impairment in antibody
function, resulting in the body's immune system not being able to
function in a normal way. Immune globulin (Ig) therapy is used to
temporarily replace some of the antibodies (that is, immunoglobulins)
that are missing or not functioning properly in people with PIDD.\95\
The goal of Ig therapy is to use Ig obtained from normal donor plasma
to maintain a sufficient level of antibodies in the blood of
individuals with PIDD to fight off bacteria and viruses. Ig is
formulated for both intravenous and subcutaneous administration (SCIg).
Clinicians can prescribe either product to the beneficiary with PIDD
according to clinical need and preference, and beneficiaries can switch
between intravenous and subcutaneous administration of Ig.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ Perez EE, Orange JS, Bonilla F, et al. (2017) Update on the
use of immunoglobulin in human disease: A review of evidence;
Journal Allergy Clin Immunol. 139(3S): S1-S46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Legislative Summary
Section 642 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and
Modernization Act of 2003 (Pu Law 108-173) amended section 1861 of the
Act to provide Medicare Part B coverage of the IVIG product for the
treatment of PIDD in the home, but not the items and services involved
with administration.
Section 101 of the Medicare IVIG Access and Strengthening Medicare
and Repaying Taxpayers Act of 2012 (Medicare IVIG Access Act) (Pub. L.
112-242) mandated the establishment, implementation, and evaluation of
a 3-year Medicare Intravenous Immune Globulin (IVIG) Demonstration
Project (the Demonstration) under Part B of title XVIII of the Act. The
Demonstration was implemented to evaluate the benefits of providing
coverage and payment for items and services needed for the home
administration of IVIG for the treatment of PIDD, and to determine if
it would improve access to home IVIG therapy for patients with PIDD.
The Medicare IVIG Access Act mandated that Medicare would establish a
per visit payment amount for the items and services necessary for the
home administration of IVIG therapy for beneficiaries with specific
PIDD diagnoses. The Demonstration did not include Medicare payment for
the IVIG product which continues to be paid under Part B in accordance
with sections 1842(o) and 1847(A) of the Act. The Demonstration covered
and paid a per visit payment amount for the items and services needed
for the administration of IVIG in the home. Items may include infusion
set and tubing, and services include nursing services to complete an
infusion of IVIG lasting on average three to five hours.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ Updated Interim Report to Congress: Evaluation of the
Medicare Patient Intravenous Immunoglobulin Demonstration Project,
2022: https://innovation.cms.gov/data-and-reports/2022/ivig-updatedintrtc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 28, 2017, Congress passed the Disaster Tax Relief and
Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2017 (Pub. L. 115-63). Section 302
of Public Law 115-63 extended the
[[Page 55394]]
Demonstration through December 31, 2020.
Division CC, section 104, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2021 (CAA, 2021) (Pub. L. 116-260), further extended the Demonstration
for another 3 years through December 31, 2023.
Division FF, section 4134 of the CAA, 2023 (CAA, 2023) (Pub. L.
117-328) mandated that CMS establish permanent coverage and payment for
items and services related to administration of IVIG in a patient's
home of a patient with PIDD. The permanent home IVIG items and services
payment is effective for home IVIG administration furnished on or after
January 1, 2024. Payment for these items and services is required to be
a separate bundled payment made to a supplier for all administration
items and services furnished in the home during a calendar day. The
statute provides that payment amount may be based on the amount
established under the Demonstration. The standard Part B coinsurance
and the Part B deductible is required to apply. In addition, that
statute states that the separate bundled payment for these IVIG
administration items and services does not apply for individuals
receiving services under the Medicare home health benefit. The CAA,
2023 provision clarifies that a supplier who furnishes these services
meet the requirements of a supplier of medical equipment and supplies.
4. Demonstration Overview
Under the Demonstration, Medicare provided a bundled payment under
Part B, that is separate from the IVIG product, for items and services
that are necessary to administer IVIG in the home to enrolled
beneficiaries who are not otherwise homebound and receiving services
under the home health benefit. The Demonstration only applied to
situations where the beneficiary required IVIG for the treatment of
certain PIDD diagnoses or was receiving SCIg to treat PIDD and wished
to switch to IVIG.
Services covered under the Demonstration were required to be
provided and billed by specialty pharmacies, enrolled as durable
medical equipment (DME) suppliers, that provided the Medicare Part B-
covered Ig. The covered items and services under the Demonstration were
paid as a single bundle and subject to coinsurance and deductible in
the same manner as other Part B services. HHAs were not eligible to
bill for services covered under the Demonstration but could bill for
services related to the administration of IVIG if the patient was
receiving services under a home health episode of care, in which case
the home health payment covered the items and services.
In order to participate in the Demonstration, beneficiaries must
have met the following requirements:
Be eligible to have the IVIG paid for at home under Part B
FFS.
Have a diagnosis of PIDD.
Not be enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan.
Cannot be in a home health episode of care on the date of
service (in such circumstances, the home health payment covers the
services).
Must receive the service in their home or a setting that
is ``home like''.
To participate in the Demonstration, the beneficiary was required
to submit an application, signed by their physician.
DME suppliers billing for the items and services covered under the
Demonstration must have met the following requirements:
Meet all Medicare, as well as other national, state, and
local standards and regulations applicable to the provision of services
related to home infusion of IVIG.
Be enrolled and current with the National Supplier
Clearinghouse.
Be able to bill the DME Medicare Administrative
Contractors (MACs).
CMS implemented a bundled per visit payment amount under the
Demonstration, statutorily required to be based on the national per
visit low-utilization payment adjustment (LUPA) for skilled nursing
services used under the Medicare HH PPS established under section 1895
of the Act. The payment amount was subject to coinsurance and
deductible.
For billing under the Demonstration, CMS established a ``Q'' code
for services, supplies, and accessories used in the home:
Q2052--(Long Description)--Services, supplies, and
accessories used in the home under Medicare Intravenous immune globulin
(IVIG) Demonstration.
Q2052--(Short Description)--IVIG demo, services/supplies.
Suppliers billed Q2052 as a separate claim line on the same claim
for the IVIG product.
B. Scope of Expanded IVIG Benefit
As discussed previously, Division FF, section 4134 of the CAA,
2023, added coverage of items and services related to the
administration of IVIG in a patient's home, to the existing IVIG
benefit category at section 1861(s)(2)(Z) of the Act, effective January
1, 2024. IVIG is covered in the home under Part B if all the following
criteria are met:
It is an approved pooled plasma derivative for the
treatment of primary immune deficiency disease.
The patient has a diagnosis of primary immune deficiency
disease.
The IVIG is administered in the home.
The treating practitioner has determined that
administration of the IVIG in the patient's home is medically
appropriate.
Therefore, as section 4134(a)(1) of the CAA, 2023, adds the items
and services (furnished on or after January 1, 2024) related to the
administration of IVIG to the benefit category defined under section
1861(s)(2)(Z) of the Act (the Social Security Act provision requiring
coverage of the IVIG product in the home), the same beneficiary
eligibility requirements for the IVIG product apply for the IVIG
administration items and services. Subpart B of part 410 of the
regulations set out the medical and other health services requirements
under Part B. The regulations at Sec. 410.10 identify the services
that are subject to the conditions and limitations specified in this
subpart. Section 410.10(y) includes intravenous immune globulin
administered in the home for the treatment of primary immune deficiency
diseases. Section 410.12 outlines general basic conditions and
limitations for coverage of medical and other health services under
Part B, as identified in Sec. 410.10. Section 410.12(a) includes the
conditions that must be met for these services to be covered, and
include the following:
When the services must be furnished. The services must be
furnished while the individual is in a period of entitlement.
By whom the services must be furnished. The services must
be furnished by a facility or other entity as specified in Sec. Sec.
410.14 through 410.69.
Physician certification and recertification requirements.
If the services are subject to physician certification requirements,
they must be certified as being medically necessary, and as meeting
other applicable requirements, in accordance with subpart B of part
424.
As the definition of IVIG at section 1861(zz) of the Act now
includes the items and services necessary to administer IVIG in the
home, in the CY 2024 HH PPS final rule (88 FR 77793), we finalized the
amendment to the regulation at Sec. 410.10(y) to add ``items and
services''. Furthermore, sub-regulatory guidance documents (that is,
IVIG LCD (33610) \97\ and IVIG Policy
[[Page 55395]]
Article (A52509) \98\) provide direction on coding and coverage for the
IVIG product at home. Through the Local Coverage Determination (LCD)
for Intravenous Immune Globulin (L33610),\99\ the Durable Medical
Equipment Medicare administrative contractors (DME MACs) specify the
Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes for which IVIG
derivatives are covered under this benefit. Therefore, a beneficiary
must be receiving one of the IVIG derivatives specified under the LCD
for IVIG to qualify to receive the items and services covered under
section 1861(s)(2)(Z) of the Act. Furthermore, for any item (including
IVIG) to be covered by Medicare, it must (1) be eligible for a defined
Medicare benefit category, (2) be reasonable and necessary for the
diagnosis or treatment of illness or injury or to improve the
functioning of a malformed body member, and (3) meet all other
applicable Medicare statutory and regulatory requirements. Policy
guidance for the LCD for IVIG \100\ identifies the ICD-10-CM codes that
support medical necessity for the provision of IVIG in the home. These
diagnosis codes are listed in table 40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ https://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/view/lcd.aspx?LCDId=33610.
\98\ https://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/view/article.aspx?articleId=52509.
\99\ Local Coverage Determination (LCD): IVIG (L33610) https://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/view/lcd.aspx?LCDId=33610&ContrId=389.
\100\ https://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/view/article.aspx?articleId=52509.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.069
In accordance with this guidance, a beneficiary must be diagnosed
with one of the primary immune deficiencies identified by the ICD-10-CM
codes, set out in table 40 and as updated in subregulatory guidance, to
qualify to receive the items and services covered under section
1861(s)(2)(Z) of the Act. This policy guidance is revised as needed by
the DME MACs. And finally, to qualify to receive IVIG in the home,
section 1861(zz) of the Act requires that a treating practitioner must
have determined that administration of the IVIG in the patient's home
is medically appropriate. Accordingly, we updated the sub-regulatory
guidance pursuant to the CAA, 2023 to reflect the expansion of the
benefit to the items and services related to the home administration of
IVIG. Leveraging the existing regulations and sub-regulatory guidance
maintains one set of standards across the entire IVIG benefit (that is,
for the product and for the related items and services needed for home
administration).
1. Items and Services Related to the Home Administration of IVIG
Section 101(c) of the Medicare IVIG Access Act established coverage
for items and services needed for the in-home administration of IVIG
for the treatment of primary immunodeficiencies under a Medicare
demonstration program. In the CY 2024 HH PPS final rule, we stated that
we interpreted section 4134 of the CAA, 2023 to make permanent coverage
of the same items and services under the existing IVIG Demonstration to
promote
[[Page 55396]]
continuous and comprehensive coverage for beneficiaries who choose to
receive home IVIG therapy (88 FR 77794). Under the Demonstration, the
bundled payment for the items and services necessary to administer the
drug intravenously in the home included the infusion set and tubing,
and nursing services to complete an infusion of IVIG lasting on average
three to five hours.\101\ Although ``items and services'' are not
explicitly defined under section 4134 of the CAA, 2023, we stated in
the CY 2024 HH PPS proposed rule (88 FR 43755) that we believed the
items and services covered under the Demonstration are inherently the
same items and services that would be covered under the payment added
to the benefit category at section 1861(s)(2)(Z) of the Act. We also
did not enumerate a list of services that must be included in the
separate bundled payment; however, we stated that we anticipated the
nursing services would include such professional services as IVIG
administration, assessment and site care, and education (88 FR 43755).
Moreover, we stated that it is up to the provider to determine the
services and supplies that are appropriate and necessary to administer
the IVIG for each individual, and this may or may not include the use
of a pump. Because IVIG does not have to be administered through a pump
(although it can be), external infusion pumps are not covered under the
DME benefit for the administration of IVIG. An external infusion pump
is only covered under the DME benefit if the infusion pump is necessary
to safely administer the drug. The Local Coverage Determination (LCD)
for External Infusion Pumps identify the drugs and biologicals that the
DME Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) have determined require
the use of such pumps and cannot be administered via a disposable
elastomeric pump or the gravity drip method.\102\ As such, under the
IVIG Demonstration, coverage did not extend to the DME pump, and
thereby, is not covered separately under the home IVIG items and
services payment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ Updated Interim Report to Congress: Evaluation of the
Medicare Patient Intravenous Immunoglobulin Demonstration Project,
August 2022 found at: https://innovation.cms.gov/data-and-reports/2022/ivig-updatedintrtc.
\102\ https://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/view/lcd.aspx?LCDId=33794.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Home IVIG Items and Services and the Relationship to/Interaction
With Home Health and Home Infusion Therapy Services
Prior to enactment of the CAA, 2023, IVIG administration items and
services were explicitly excluded from coverage under the Part B IVIG
benefit. However, if a beneficiary was considered homebound and
qualified for the home health benefit, the items and services needed to
administer IVIG in the home could be covered as home health services.
Section 4134(b) of the CAA, 2023 excludes the IVIG items and services
bundled payment in the case of an individual receiving home health
services under section 1895 of the Act. Therefore, we clarified in the
CY 2024 HH PPS final rule that a beneficiary does not have to be
considered confined to the home (that is, homebound) in order to be
eligible for the home IVIG benefit; however, homebound beneficiaries
requiring items and services related to the administration of home
IVIG, and who are receiving services under a home health plan of care,
may continue to receive services related to the administration of home
IVIG as covered home health services (88 FR 77794). We also clarified
that the items and services related to the administration of IVIG in
the home, and as identified on the home health plan of care, would be
included in the payment for the 30-day home health period payment. HHAs
must provide home health items and services included on the plan of
care either directly or under arrangement and must bill and be paid
under the HH PPS for such covered home health services. If an HHA is
unable to furnish the items and services related to the administration
of IVIG (as indicated in the plan of care) in the home, they are
responsible for arranging these services (including arranging for
services in an outpatient facility) and are required to bill these
services as home health services under the HH PPS (88 FR 77795).
Regarding the home infusion therapy (HIT) services benefit, we
reminded readers that Medicare payment for home infusion therapy
services is for services furnished in coordination with the furnishing
of intravenous and subcutaneous infusion drugs and biologicals
specified on the DME LCD for External Infusion Pumps (L33794),\103\
with the exception of insulin pump systems and certain drugs and
biologicals on a self-administered drug exclusion list (88 FR 77794).
For the drugs and biologicals to be covered under the Part B DME
benefit they must require infusion through an external infusion pump.
If the drug or biological can be infused through a disposable pump or
by a gravity drip, it does not meet this criterion. IVIG does not
require an external infusion pump for administration purposes and
therefore, is explicitly excluded from the DME LCD for External
Infusion Pumps. However, subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIg) is covered
under the DME LCD for External Infusion Pumps, and items and services
for administration of SCIg in the home are covered under the HIT
services benefit. While a DME supplier and a HIT supplier (or a DME
supplier also enrolled as a HIT supplier) could not furnish services
related to the administration of immunoglobulin (either IVIG or SCIg)
to the same beneficiary on the same day, a beneficiary could
potentially receive services under both benefits for services related
to the infusion of different drugs. For example, a DME supplier also
accredited and enrolled as a HIT supplier, could furnish HIT services
to a beneficiary receiving intravenous acyclovir as well as IVIG, and
bill both the IVIG and the HIT services benefits on the same date of
service. We also recognize that a beneficiary may, on occasion, switch
from receiving immunoglobulin subcutaneously to intravenously and vice
versa, and as such, utilize both the HIT services and the IVIG benefits
within the same month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ Local Coverage Determination (LCD): External Infusion
Pumps (L33794) https://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/view/lcd.aspx?LCDId=33794.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Home IVIG Administration Items and Services Payment
Section 101 of the Medicare IVIG Access Act established the
authority for a Demonstration providing payment for items and services
needed for the in-home administration of IVIG. In the CY 2024 HH PPS
final rule, we stated that we believed the provisions established under
that law serve as the basis for the conditions for payment with respect
to the requirements that must be met for Medicare payment to be made to
suppliers for the items and services covered under section
1861(s)(2)(Z) of the Act and clarified that the relevant regulations
and subregulatory guidance also apply.
1. Home IVIG Administration Items and Services Supplier Type
Section 4134(b) of the CAA, 2023 amends section 1842(o) of the Act
by adding a new paragraph (8) that establishes a separate bundled
payment to the supplier for all items and services related to the
administration of such intravenous immune globulin, described in
section 1861(s)(2)(Z) of the Act to such individual in the patient's
home during a calendar day. Section 4134(c) of the CAA, 2023 amends
section
[[Page 55397]]
1834(j)(5) of the Act, which are a requirement for supplier of medical
equipment and supplies, by adding a new subparagraph (E), clarifying
with respect to payment, that items and services related to the
administration of intravenous immune globulin furnished on or after
January 1, 2024, as described in section 1861(zz) of the Act, are
included in the definition of medical equipment and supplies. This
means that suppliers that furnish IVIG administration items and
services must meet the existing DMEPOS supplier requirement for payment
purposes under this benefit. Suppliers of IVIG administration items and
services must enroll as a DMEPOS supplier and comply with the Medicare
program's DMEPOS supplier standards (found at 42 CFR 424.57(c)) and
DMEPOS quality standards to become accredited for furnishing medical
equipment and supplies. Further, to receive payment for home IVIG items
and services, the supplier must also meet the requirements under
subpart A of part 424, Conditions for Medicare Payment. The DMEPOS
supplier may subcontract with a provider to meet the professional
services identified in section V.B.1. of this proposed rule. All
professionals who furnish services directly, under an individual
contract, or under arrangement with a DMEPOS supplier to furnish
services related to the administration of IVIG in the home, must be
legally authorized (licensed, certified, or registered) in accordance
with applicable Federal, State, and local laws, and must act only
within the scope of their State license or State certification, or
registration. A supplier may not contract with any entity that is
currently excluded from the Medicare program, any State health care
programs or from any other Federal procurement or non-procurement
programs.
2. Home IVIG Administration
Section 1861(s)(2)(Z) of the Act defines benefit coverage of
intravenous immune globulin for the treatment of primary immune
deficiency diseases in the home. Under the IVIG Demonstration,
beneficiaries are eligible to participate if they receive IVIG services
in ``their home or a setting that is `home like' ''.\104\ Section
410.12(b) identifies the supplier types who can furnish the services
identified at Sec. 410.10. Section 410.38 provides the conditions for
payment for DME suppliers and identifies the institutions that may not
qualify as the patient's home. As such, the home administration of IVIG
items and services must be furnished in the patient's home, defined as
a place of residence used as the home of an individual, including an
institution that is used as a home. An institution that is used as a
home may not be a hospital, critical access hospital (CAH), or SNF as
defined in Sec. 410.38(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ Intravenous Immune Globulin Demonstration MLN Fact Sheet:
https://www.cms.gov/files/document/mln3191598-intravenous-immune-globulin-demonstration.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Home IVIG Items and Services Payment Rate
1. Proposed Payment Rate Update for Home IVIG Items and Services for CY
2025
Section 1842(o) of the Act provides the authority for the
development of a separate bundled payment for Medicare-covered items
and services related to the administration of intravenous immune
globulin to an individual in the patient's home during a calendar day,
in an amount that the Secretary determines to be appropriate. This
section of the Act also states payment may be based on the payment
established pursuant to section 101(d) of the Medicare IVIG Access Act.
Section 4134(d) of the CAA, 2023, amends section 1833(a)(1) of the Act
to provide that, with respect to items and services related to the
administration of IVIG furnished on or after January 1, 2024, as
described in section 1861(zz) of the Act, the amounts paid shall be the
lesser of the 80 percent of the actual charge or the payment amount
established under section 1842(o)(8) of the Act.
In accordance with section 101(d) of the Medicare IVIG Access Act,
the Secretary established a per visit Demonstration payment amount for
the items and services needed for the in-home administration of IVIG
based on the national per visit low-utilization payment amount (LUPA)
under the prospective payment system for home health services
established under section 1895 of the Social Security Act. Under the
Demonstration, the bundled payment amount for services needed for the
home administration of IVIG included infusion services provided by a
skilled nurse. Therefore, the bundled payment was based on the LUPA
amount for skilled nursing, based on an average 4-hour infusion. The
initial payment rate for the first year of the Demonstration, was based
on the full skilled nursing LUPA for the first 90 minutes of the
infusion and 50 percent of the LUPA for each hour thereafter for an
additional 3 hours. Thereafter, the payment rate was annually updated
based on the nursing LUPA rate for such year. The service was subject
to coinsurance and deductibles similar to other Part B services.
We stated in the CY 2024 HH PPS proposed rule (88 FR 43755), we
believed payment under section 1861(s)(2)(Z) of the Act covers the same
items and services covered under the IVIG Demonstration. We also agreed
that the professional services needed to safely administer IVIG in the
home would be services furnished by a registered nurse (88 FR 43756).
Therefore, we stated that setting the CY 2024 payment rate for the home
IVIG items and services under section 1861(s)(2)(Z) of the Act, based
on the CY 2023 payment amount established under the Demonstration was
appropriate. However, we noted the Demonstration used the LUPA rate,
which is annually adjusted by the wage index budget neutrality factor,
as well as the home health payment rate update percentage, and stated
that we believed it was appropriate to update the CY 2023 IVIG services
Demonstration rate by only the CY 2024 home health payment rate update
percentage. We stated that we would not include the wage index budget
neutrality factor, as the IVIG items and services payment rate is not
statutorily required to be geographically wage adjusted. Further,
although section 1842(o) of the Act states that payment is for the
items and services furnished to an individual in the patient's home
during a calendar day, we stated that, as the statute aligns the
payment amount with such amount determined under the Demonstration, we
believed the best reading of ``calendar day'' is ``per visit.''
Additionally, we stated that we would expect a supplier to furnish only
one visit per calendar day (88 FR 43756).
In the CY 2024 HH PPS final rule, we established a new subpart R
under the regulations at 42 CFR part 414 to incorporate payment
provisions for the implementation of the IVIG items and services
payment in accordance with section 1842(o) of the Act for home IVIG
items and services furnished on or after January 1, 2024. We finalized
a policy at Sec. 414.1700(a), that a single payment amount is made for
items and services furnished by a DMEPOS supplier per visit. We
finalized a policy at Sec. 414.1700(b), setting the initial payment
amount equivalent to the CY 2023 ``Services, Supplies, and Accessories
Used in the home under the Medicare IVIG Demonstration'' payment
amount, updated by the CY 2024 home health update percentage of 3.0
percent. We also finalized a policy at Sec. 414.1700(c) to annually
update the CY 2025 home IVIG items and services payment rate and
subsequent years, by
[[Page 55398]]
the home health payment rate update percentage for such year.
Therefore, the proposed CY 2025 home IVIG items and services payment
rate would be the CY 2024 IVIG items and services payment rate of
$420.48 updated by the proposed home health payment update percentage
of 2.5 percent ($420.48 * 1.025 = $430.99).
The updated home intravenous immune globulin items and services
payment rate will be posted in the Billing and Rates section of the
CMS' Home Infusion Therapy (HIT) web page (found at https://www.cms.gov/medicare/payment/fee-for-service-providers/home-infusion-therapy) once this rate is finalized. In subsequent years, if CMS does
not intend to propose changes to its established methodology for
calculating the IVIG items and services payment, this payment rate will
be updated using CMS' established methodology via the Home Health
Prospective Payment System Rate Update Change Request and posted on the
CMS HIT/Home IVIG Services web page.\105\ For more in-depth information
regarding the finalized policies associated with the scope of the home
IVIG items and services payment, we refer readers to the CY 2024 HH PPS
final rule (88 FR 77791).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ https://www.cms.gov/medicare/payment/fee-for-service-providers/home-infusion-therapy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Home Health CoP Changes and Long Term (LTC) Requirements for Acute
Respiratory Illness Reporting
A. Home Health CoP Changes
1. Background and Statutory Authority
CMS has broad statutory authority to establish health and safety
standards for most Medicare- and Medicaid-participating provider and
supplier types. The Secretary gives CMS the authority to enact
regulations that are necessary in the interest of the health and safety
of individuals who are furnished services in an institution, while
other laws, as outlined later, give CMS the authority to prescribe
regulations as may be necessary to carry out the administration of the
program. Sections 1861(o) and 1891 of the Act authorize the Secretary
to establish the requirements that an HHA must meet to participate in
the Medicare Program, and these conditions of participation (CoPs) are
set forth in regulations at 42 CFR part 484.
The CoPs apply to the HHA as an entity, as well as to the services
furnished to each individual patient under the care of the HHA. In
accordance with section 1861(o) of the Act, the Secretary is
responsible for establishing additional CoPs besides those set out in
the statute that are adequate to protect the health and safety of the
individuals under HHA care. Section 1891(c)(2) of the Act establishes
the requirements for surveying HHAs to determine whether they meet the
CoPs.
2. Proposed Updates to the Home Health Agency CoPs To Require HHAs To
Establish an Acceptance to Service Policy (Sec. 484.105(i))
Admission to HHA services is a critical step in the process of
patients receiving timely, appropriate care to meet their needs. In
accordance with the requirements of Sec. 484.105(f)(1), each HHA must
furnish skilled nursing services and at least one other therapeutic
service (physical therapy, speech-language pathology, occupational
therapy, medical social services, or home health aide services) on a
visiting basis and in a place of residence that is used as a patient's
home. As such, the services provided by each HHA vary, creating
challenges for individuals seeking to find the right HHA to meet their
unique care needs. Likewise, the unique mix of services provided by an
HHA also necessitates an HHA-specific approach to accepting referrals
for care to ensure that the HHA is capable of meeting the needs of the
referred patient, in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 484.60.
This CoP states that patients are accepted for treatment on the
reasonable expectation that an HHA can meet the patient's needs in his
or her place of residence. Thus, a timely, appropriate admission
process serves both prospective patients seeking care and ensures that
HHAs accept for treatment only those patients for whom there is a
reasonable expectation of being able to meet the patient's care needs.
Researchers have found that timely admission to home health, and in
turn the initiation of services are key to good home health patient
outcomes. Timely initiation of home health care lowers the risk of 30-
day hospital readmissions.\107\ According to one study published in
2021, when the initiation of home health services is significantly
delayed (that is, from 8 to14 days after discharge), the odds of
rehospitalization for diabetic patients were four times greater than
among patients receiving home health service initiation within 2
days.\106\ Yet the rate of timely initiation of home health care varies
significantly, indicating that the referral and acceptance process is
in need of improvement. In a study of initiation of home health care
for individuals diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease and related
dementia,\107\ only 57.3 percent of patients discharged from the
hospital began home health services within 48 hours of discharge, while
21.6 percent of patients had care initiated between 3 and 7 days post-
discharge, another 8.4 percent had care initiated between 8-10 days
post-discharge, and 12.8 percent experienced a delay of 11 to 14 days
between discharge and home health care initiation. The 42.7 percent of
patients in the study who waited 3 or more days after discharge for
initiation of home health services were more likely to be dually
enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid, live in rural areas, have
experienced longer hospital stays, experienced a hospital acquired
condition, or experienced an intensive care unit stay. Additionally,
this population was more likely to have been discharged with a lower
functional status and were more likely to live alone. In another study
of Medicare beneficiaries,\108\ only 54 percent of patients discharged
from the hospital to home health care received home health care
services within 14 days of discharge. The rate of patients receiving
home health services within 14 days of discharge with a home health
referral was even lower among Black and Hispanic patients, those who
were dually enrolled in both Medicare and Medicaid, and patients who
lived in high-poverty, high unemployment zip codes. This research
brings attention to vulnerable populations at risk of poor outcomes
associated with delays in the timely initiation of home health care
services.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8197411/,
date accessed 5-7-24.
\107\ Amol M. Karmarkar, Indrakshi Roy, Taylor Lane, Stefany
Shaibi, Julie A. Baldwin & Amit Kumar (2023), Home health services
for minorities in urban and rural areas with Alzheimer's and related
dementia, Home Health Care Services Quarterly, 42:4, 265-281, DOI:
10.1080/01621424.2023.2206368.
\108\ Assessment of Receipt of the First Home Health Care Visit
After Hospital Discharge Among Older Adults. Jun Li, Ph.D., Mingyu
Qi, MS, and Rachel M. Werner, Ph.D., MD. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Sep;
3(9): e2015470. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.15470:10.1001/
jamanetworkopen.2020.15470.
\109\ https://alz-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/alz.13139, date accessed 5-08-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timely initiation of home health care services is also
intrinsically linked to the home health referral process, whereby
connections are made between referral sources and HHAs. Patient
referral sources are varied, with some patients and caregivers
conducting their own searches for care, known as self-referrals, while
others are referred by a community-based practitioner or an acute care
provider such as a hospital. Patients that begin HHA care without an
[[Page 55399]]
immediate prior hospitalization, those who are self-referrals or
referred by a community-based practitioner, tend to be Medicaid
recipients, have cognitive impairments, and are more socially
vulnerable (defined as the gap between patient needs and the patient's
available resources) than patients admitted from acute care.
Additionally, they tend to have received 80 or more hours per month of
family caregiver assistance prior to their acceptance to HHA
services.\110\ This population has unique needs and circumstances needs
that may make finding the right HHA a challenging process, and they may
not have access to information needed to target their search for an HHA
in an effective and efficient manner. Given the significant delays in
home health care initiation described earlier and the role that this
information plays in facilitating care initiation, we are concerned
about this lack of public transparency and whether referral sources,
including patients and caregivers searching for HHA services, currently
have access to sufficient and timely information necessary to locate an
HHA that is capable of meeting each specific patient's needs. Without
such information, care delays are likely to occur, placing patients at
higher risk of poor outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ Social Vulnerability and Medical Complexity Among Medicare
Beneficiaries Receiving Home Health Without Prior Hospitalization,
Julia G. Burgdorf, Ph.D., Tracy M. Mroz, OTR/L, Ph.D., and Jennifer
L. Wolff, Ph.D. Innovation in Aging, 2020, Vol. 4, No. 6, 1-9
doi:10.1093/geroni/igaa049.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the challenges of finding the right HHA and
resultant potential delays in the timely initiation of home health
care, we are also concerned that HHAs are at higher risk of
overextending their available resources when accepting new patients to
HHA services. Delays in service initiation may indicate not only that
referral sources have difficulty locating an appropriate HHA, but also
that HHAs are accepting patients when and for whom they are not capable
of delivering timely care. We are aware of anecdotal reports of home
care agencies not providing care to meet patient needs
111 112 and reports by agencies of challenges maintaining
appropriate staff caseloads to continue delivering care to patients
that have been accepted for service. We acknowledge that these
challenges may be related to workforce shortages. HHAs are expected to
discharge patients for whom the HHA is unable to deliver care to meet
patient needs, and to adhere to the HHA discharge requirements at Sec.
484.58. Such discharges create transition of care burdens for patients
and their caregivers that may be prevented by consistently applying an
admission to service policy that includes the elements proposed in this
rule to ensure the correct match of an HHA's available patient care
resources and the anticipated needs of the patients accepted for
service by that HHA. In line with this HHA proposal, CMS recently
published a final rule titled ``Ensuring Access to Medicaid Services''
(89 FR 40542, May 10, 2024), which requires States to report how they
establish and maintain Home and Community Based Services (HCBS) wait
lists, assess wait times, and report on quality measures. That final
rule aims to increase transparency and accountability and standardize
data and monitoring, with the goal of improving access to care.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ Pandemic-Fueled Shortages of Home Health Workers Strand
Patients Without Necessary Care, February 3, 2022, KFF Health News.
https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/pandemic-fueled-home-health-care-shortages-strand-patients/. Accessed March 12, 2024.
\112\ Caregiver Needed: How the Nation's Workforce Shortages
Make it Harder to Age Well at Home, September 2022, USAging. https://www.usaging.org/Files/Workforce-Issues_508.pdf. Accessed March 14,
2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address these dual concerns regarding the referral and
acceptance process and their implications for prospective and current
patients, we propose to add a new standard at Sec. 484.105(i) that
would require HHAs to develop, implement, and maintain an acceptance to
service policy that is applied consistently to each prospective patient
referred for home health care. We propose to require that the policy be
reviewed annually and address, at minimum, the following criteria
related to the HHA's capacity to provide patient care: the anticipated
needs of the referred prospective patient, the HHA's case load and case
mix, the HHA's staffing levels, and the skills and competencies of the
HHA staff. It is our understanding, based on information provided by
HHA accrediting organizations and the largest HHA trade association,
that HHAs typically have acceptance to service policies that are
categorical in nature, meaning that the policies address entire
categories of diagnosis or service types that they are or are not
capable of providing care for. This proposed rule would not prevent
HHAs from maintaining these existing policies and is intended to
complement them. We also understand that an HHA's case load, case mix,
and staffing levels may change over time, and that an HHA may choose to
pre-establish methodologies that take into account such fluctuations as
part of their acceptance to service policy to ensure consistency and
minimize administrative efforts in maintaining the policy.
We propose, at Sec. 484.105(i)(1)(i) through (iv), that HHAs would
be required to include information regarding the HHA's case load and
case mix (that is, the volume and complexity of the patients currently
receiving care from the HHA), anticipated needs of the referred
prospective patient, the HHA's current staffing levels, and the skills
and competencies of the HHA staff. These proposed elements are designed
to inform an HHA's assessment of its capacity and determine its
suitability to meet the anticipated needs of the prospective patient
that has been referred for HHA services. While all of a prospective
patient's needs may not be known at the time of referral, general
information regarding the patient's diagnosis and recent
hospitalization (as appropriate), and specific orders from the
patient's medical provider would provide a reasonable basis for HHAs to
anticipate the overall needs of the patient and determine whether, in
light of the described factors, the prospective patient is or is not
appropriate for the HHA to accept for service. In accordance with Sec.
484.60, HHAs may only accept those patients for whom there is a
reasonable expectation that the HHA will be able to meet the patient's
needs.
We therefore propose that the patient acceptance to service policy
be applied consistently to ensure that HHAs only accept those patients
for whom there is a reasonable expectation that the HHA can meet the
referred patient's needs. Not only would consistent application of the
acceptance to service policy help to ensure that HHAs only accept
referrals for care that they can deliver, it would also ensure that
HHAs apply their acceptance policy based on clinical and operational
factors (those criteria included in proposed Sec. 484.105(i)(1)(ii)
through (iv)) that impact patient health and safety. While Medicare-
participating HHAs may choose to accept other, non-Medicare sources of
payment, we expect that HHAs would apply their acceptance to service
policy consistently in a manner that is neutral to the source(s) of
payment for a referral. That is, if an HHA accepts payment from both
Medicare and another payment source, ``source X,'' the HHA's referral
policy should be applied consistently to referrals for patients having
Medicare or ``source X'' as a payment source. It is our position that
HHAs should accept or decline patient referrals based solely on
clinical considerations and the capacity of the HHA to safely and
effectively deliver care to meet patient needs,
[[Page 55400]]
rather than on financial factors related to the perceived adequacy of
the payment rate that the HHA has already voluntarily agreed to accept
upon establishment of relationships with its payment sources.
We also propose, at Sec. 484.105(i)(2), that HHAs make public
accurate information regarding the services offered by the HHA and any
limitations related to the types of specialty services, service
duration, or service frequency, and that HHAs review that information
annually or as necessary. As previously discussed, HHAs have the
flexibility to choose the services that they provide and the geographic
areas that they serve. As such, each HHA may provide a different mix of
services or offer different specialty services. Likewise, each HHA has
different geographical boundaries for its service area. Knowing which
areas are served by an HHA and which services an HHA does and does not
provide would assist referral sources and self-referrals alike in
identifying HHAs that provide the services needed by the patient.
Likewise, each HHA has unique staffing levels and staffing competencies
affecting its capacity to deliver patient care, and those may change
over time. To the extent that these variations in staffing impact the
capacity of an HHA to provide its typically offered services, we would
require that HHAs make public such limitations on specialty services,
service duration, and service frequency to further inform the search
efforts of all referral sources.
In short, making information regarding the services offered by the
HHA and any limitations related to the types of specialty services,
service duration, or service frequency available to the public, such as
sharing it on the HHA's website and providing the same information upon
request for those without access to the website, would facilitate the
search for an HHA to meet a patient's needs, both from clinical
referral sources such as hospitals and physician offices, and from
patients and caregivers directly seeking care. The goal of this
proposal is to reduce the delay between the time when a patient is
identified as needing home health care and the time when the patient
begins receiving such care by making key information readily available,
thus improving identification of HHAs capable of meeting patient needs.
Reducing the time delay would improve patient outcomes, as longer
delays between referral and the initiation of HHA care are more likely
to result in 30-day rehospitalizations and may place vulnerable
populations at risk for various other adverse outcomes.
We request public comment on these proposals. Specifically, we
request comment on alternative ways to address the delay of home health
care initiation, barriers for patients with complex needs to find and
access HHAs, and other opportunities to improve transparency regarding
home health patient acceptance policies to better inform referral
sources. We also request public comment regarding other ways to improve
the referral process for referral sources, patients, and HHAs.
3. Requests for Information
a. RFI Regarding Rehabilitative Therapists Conducting the Initial and
Comprehensive Assessment
The current CoPs at Sec. 484.55(a)(1) require the registered nurse
to conduct an initial assessment visit to determine the immediate care
and support needs of the patient within 48 hours of referral, within 48
hours of the patient's return home, or on the physician allowed
practitioner-ordered start of care date. The initial assessment
establishes a patient's eligibility for coverage under the Medicare
home health benefit. The clinician conducting the initial visit should
determine the patient's homebound status, primary physician, and
skilled services required. Section 484.55(b) further requires that the
comprehensive assessment must be completed in a timely manner by a
registered nurse, but no later than 5 calendar days after the start of
care. However, when therapy services are the sole services ordered by
the physician or allowed practitioner, the initial and comprehensive
assessments can be conducted by rehabilitation professionals
(specifically occupational therapists (OT), physical therapists (PT),
or speech-language pathologists (SLP)), subject to certain limitations,
as specified by Sec. 484.55(a)(2) and (b)(3).
Section 484.55(c) establishes the minimum content of the
comprehensive assessment, which must accurately reflect the patient's
status and include the patient's current health, psychosocial,
functional, and cognitive status. The comprehensive assessment must
also reflect the patient's strengths, goals, and care preferences,
including information that may be used to demonstrate the patient's
progress towards the achievement of the goals identified by the patient
and the measurable outcomes identified by the HHA. Additionally, the
comprehensive assessment must include a determination of the patient's
continuing need for home care, and their medical, nursing,
rehabilitative, social, and discharge planning needs. Further, the
comprehensive assessment must also include a review of the patient's
medication and identify the patient's primary caregiver(s) or patient
representative. Lastly, the comprehensive assessment must incorporate
the current version of the Outcome and Assessment Information Set
(OASIS) items. HHAs must complete data collection for the comprehensive
assessment within 5 days of the start of care.
At the beginning of the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (PHE), CMS
waived the requirements at Sec. 484.55(a)(2) and (b)(3) and thus
permitted rehabilitation professionals to perform the initial and
comprehensive assessment in instances when both nursing and therapy
services are ordered. This temporary blanket waiver reflected the
unique circumstances of the PHE, with its acute pressures on the
nursing workforce, and allowed rehabilitation professionals to perform
the initial and comprehensive assessment for patients receiving therapy
services as part of the broader nursing and therapy care plan, to the
extent permitted under State law, regardless of whether the therapy
service established patient eligibility to receive home care.
Subsequently, Division CC, section 115 of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act (CAA) of 2021 (Pub. L. 116-260), permitted OTs to
conduct the initial and comprehensive assessments only when OT is on
the home health plan of care with either PT or speech therapy, and
skilled nursing services are not initially on the plan of care. CMS
proposed changes to Sec. 484.55(a)(3) and (b)(2) in the CY 2022 Home
Health PPS proposed rule (86 FR 35874), and finalized the changes in
the CY 2022 Home Health PPS final rule (86 FR 62240).
However, some groups continue to advocate for CMS to permanently
allow therapists to perform the initial and comprehensive assessment in
the home health setting when both therapy and nursing services are
ordered. While CMS received limited feedback during the CY 2022 Home
Health PPS proposed rule from several commenters supporting a change of
this type, we are interested in obtaining additional feedback on this
specific potential change.
The three types of rehabilitative therapists (OT, PT, and SLP) have
different education requirements for entry into to practice. Currently,
entry-level education for OT is either a Master's degree or Doctorate
of Occupational Therapy. Education programs are accredited by the
Accreditation Council for Occupational
[[Page 55401]]
Therapy Education (ACOTE) of the American Occupational Therapy
Association (AOTA). The ACOTE establishes, approves, and administers
educational standards to evaluate occupational therapy educational
programs. Graduates of ACOTE-accredited programs are eligible to take
the National Board for Certification in Occupational Therapy (NBCOT)
certification exam and apply for State licensure.
Physical therapy entry-level education requires a Doctor of
Physical Therapy degree. The Commission on Accreditation in Physical
Therapy Education (CAPTE) of American Physical Therapy Association
(APTA) accredits entry-level physical therapist education programs.
Graduates of these programs are then eligible to take the National
Physical Therapy Examination and apply for State licensure.
Speech Language Pathologists must obtain a Certificate of Clinical
Competence in Speech-Language Pathology (CCC-SLP) as well as state
licensure. This requires graduation from a program accredited by the
Council on Academic Accreditation in Audiology and Speech-Language
Pathology (CAA) of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
(ASHA). Individuals applying for certification in speech-language
pathology must have been awarded a master's, doctoral, or other
recognized post-baccalaureate degree. Once students complete all
academic coursework and a graduate student clinical practicum, they
must also complete a clinical fellowship under the supervision of a SLP
mentor. The clinical fellowship requires working at least 36 weeks and
1,260 hours and is intended to transition the fellow from a student
enrolled in a communication sciences and disorders (CSD) program to an
independent provider of speech-language pathology clinical services.
The APTA has indicated that the accreditation standards for entry-
level certification programs for physical therapy have evolved over
time, with major changes occurring between 1996 and 2024, and that
contemporary PT education programs are now required to include content
for students on broader health care issues to promote team-based and
interdisciplinary practice. The association states that the current
criteria reflect that PT education has shifted significantly since the
initial and comprehensive assessments were codified into the home
health CoPs, preparing any PT to perform these assessments safely. APTA
further contends that education standards have shifted from an initial
focus on physical sciences to expressly incorporate interdisciplinary
care topics, including pharmacology and psychosocial, and clinical
educational experience in practice settings common to PTs (for example,
HHAs, skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), and inpatient rehabilitation
facility (IRFs)). The curricular requirements include the general
clinical skills required to conduct the initial and comprehensive
assessments, both in the identification of immediate care and support
needs, as well as the assessment of the patient's general health,
psychosocial, functional, cognitive, and pharmacological status.
Given recent input from stakeholders, including therapy
professional organizations, we seek public comments regarding whether
CMS should shift its longstanding policy and permit all classes of
rehabilitative therapists (PTs, SLPs, and OTs) to conduct the initial
assessment and comprehensive assessment for cases that have both
therapy and nursing services ordered as part of the plan of care. We
ask the public for data, detailed analysis, academic studies, or any
other information to support their comments that provide a direct link
to patient health and safety. Specifically, we solicit comment
regarding the following:
What types of mentorships, preceptorship, or training do
these disciplines have qualifying them to conduct the initial
assessment and comprehensive assessment?
How do HHAs currently assign staff to conduct the initial
assessment and comprehensive assessment? Do HHAs implement specific
skill and competency requirements?
Do the education requirements for entry-level
rehabilitative therapist provide them with the skills to perform both
the initial assessment and comprehensive assessment? Is this consistent
across all the therapy disciplines? How does this compare with entry-
level education for nursing staff?
What, if any, potential education or skills gaps may exist
for rehabilitative therapists in conducting the initial assessment and
comprehensive assessment?
What challenges did HHAs and therapists that conducted
these assessments under the PHE waiver experience that may have
impacted the quality of these assessments?
For the HHAs and therapists that conducted the initial
assessment and comprehensive assessment under the PHE waiver, what were
the benefits and were there any unintended consequences of this on
patient health and safety?
What challenges, barriers, or other factors, such as
workforce shortages, particularly in rural areas, impact rehabilitative
therapists and nurses in meeting the needs of patients at the start of
care and early in the plan of care?
b. Plan of Care Development and Scope of Services Home Health Patients
Receive
In an effort to improve the HHA referral process, ensure the timely
delivery of home health care, and ensure that home health care is
delivered in a manner that meets patient needs and achieves the
measurable outcomes and goals set forth in each patient's
individualized plan of care, we are requesting public comment on
policies related to these goals. Anecdotally, CMS has received an
increasing number of beneficiary complaints related to the difficulty
of finding a HHA to accept them for service. Beneficiaries complain
that in some instances, HHA services are being altered or diminished
from the original plan of care without an accompanying reduction in
patient needs or achievement of the measurable outcomes and goals set
forth in the plan of care. We seek to better understand these issues to
inform future policy decisions, consistent with our statutory authority
to ensure the health and safety of home health patients.
In CY 2022 Home Health PPS proposed rule, we solicited comments
seeking information about the adequacy of aide staffing (86 FR 35874,
July 7, 2021). However, only a few commenters provided information
specific to the questions we posed in our request. This information was
not sufficient to gain insight to the factors that may be impacting the
decline in aide services. No further development action was taken due
to the lack of substantive data and response from stakeholders.
The number of referrals to HHAs continue to increase. Patient
acuity is also increasing 113 114 with the evolving practice
of direct discharge of intensive care unit (ICU) patients, a practice
borne out of resource constrained health care infrastructure.\115\
Compared to 2019 averages, patients are 6 percent more acute at
discharge. Patients with higher acuity typically have more complex care
needs and a higher risk of
[[Page 55402]]
complications.116 117 The overall aging of the U.S.
population contributes to overall higher patient acuity. The U.S.
Census Bureau estimated that by 2023 73 million baby boomers in the
U.S. will be 65 or older. Chronic conditions are more common in older
adults and can contribute to higher acuity.118 119 In
addition, procedures that were once traditionally done in hospitals are
migrating to the outpatient setting and patients are being discharged
on the same day as the procedure. Specifically, surgical procedures
within the U.S. are increasingly shifting to outpatient or non-hospital
locations, as seen in the expected 4 percent annual expansion rate of
the ambulatory surgery center (ASC) market over the 10-year period from
2017 to 2027.\120\ For example, the incidence of total knee
arthroplasty (TKA) surgery performed in the outpatient setting has
increased as a result of improved perioperative recovery protocols and
challenges brought by the COVID-19 pandemic on health systems.\121\
Further, literature shows that factors like the pandemic and ``acuity
creep'' have resulted in HHAs accepting for service much more
complicated patients. ``As the demand for home-based care continues to
rise, so does the need for more intensive care plans as patients
continue to be sicker and more complex.'' \122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ The evolution of care: An annual care delivery report,
from CarePort, powered by WellSky, 2023.
\114\ https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/providers/hospitals-
struggling-discharge-patients-post-acute-care-settings-wellsky-
report#:~:text=Patients%20in%20the%20hospital%20are,post%2Dacute%20se
ttings%20more%20difficult.
\115\ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9750104/.
\116\ The evolution of care: An annual care delivery report,
from CarePort, powered by WellSky, 2023.
\117\ https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/providers/hospitals-
struggling-discharge-patients-post-acute-care-settings-wellsky-
report#:~:text=Patients%20in%20the%20hospital%20are,post%2Dacute%20se
ttings%20more%20difficult.
\118\ https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/providers/hospitals-
struggling-discharge-patients-post-acute-care-settings-wellsky-
report#:~:text=Patients%20in%20the%20hospital%20are,post%2Dacute%20se
ttings%20more%20difficult.
\119\ https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2019/12/by-2030-all-baby-boomers-will-be-age-65-or-older.html.
\120\ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10562071/
#:~:text=Surgical%20procedures%20within%20the%20United,In%202018%2C%2
0Young%20et%20al.
\121\ https://josr-online.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13018-023-03750-4.
\122\ https://homehealthcarenews.com/2024/01/home-health-agencies-grapple-with-acuity-creep-as-patient-needs-become-more-complex/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We acknowledge that there may be additional factors, such as the
shortage of health care practitioners (nurses and aides) across various
health care sectors, and HHA business operations and practices that
also influence an HHA's care planning and delivery of services. We seek
to understand the changes in practice that have occurred since
publication of the January 13, 2017 ``Medicare and Medicaid Program:
Conditions of Participation for Home Health Agencies'' final rule that
revised the home health agency CoPs (82 FR 4504) and review any
potential CoP revisions that should be considered. In order to protect
the health and safety of all HHA patients, we seek to understand how
the services offered and business operations of the HHA may influence
the development and implementation of care plans. We are also seeking
additional information on how HHAs communicate with patients' ordering
physicians and allowed practitioners regarding the frequency and
duration of services.
We are seeking public comments on factors that influence the
services HHAs provide, the referral process, limitations on patients
being able to obtain HHA service, such as rural location and
availability of staff, plan of care development, and the HHA's
communication with patients' ordering physicians and allowed
practitioners. We ask the public for data, detailed analysis, academic
studies, or any other information to support their comments that
provide a direct link to patient health and safety. Specifically, we
solicit comment regarding the following questions:
What factors influence an HHA's decision on what services
to offer as part of its business model and how often do HHAs change the
service mix?
What are the common reasons for an HHA to not accept a
referral?
How do physicians and allowed practitioners use their role
in establishing and reviewing the plan of care to ensure patients are
receiving the right mix, duration, and frequency of services to meet
the measurable outcomes and goals identified by the HHA and the
patient?
To what extent do physicians rely on HHA clinician
evaluations and reports in establishing the mix of services, service
frequency, and service duration included in the plan of care?
What are the patient and caregiver experiences in
receiving nursing, aide, and therapy services when under the care of a
home health agency?
What additional evidence is available regarding negative
outcomes or adverse events that may be attributable to the mix,
duration, and service frequency provided by HHAs, including, but not
limited to, avoidable hospitalizations?
In what ways can referring providers and HHAs improve the
referral process?
What other factors may influence the provision of services
that impact the timeliness of services and service initiation?
What additional areas should CMS consider to address HHA
patient health and safety concerns?
B. Long-Term Care (LTC) Requirements for Acute Respiratory Illness
Reporting
1. Background
Under sections 1866 and 1902 of the Act, providers of services
seeking to participate in the Medicare or Medicaid program,
respectively, must enter into an agreement with the Secretary or the
State Medicaid agency, as appropriate. Long-term care (LTC) facilities
seeking to be Medicare and Medicaid providers of services must be
certified as meeting Federal participation requirements. LTC facilities
include skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) for Medicare and nursing
facilities (NFs) for Medicaid. The Federal participation requirements
for SNFs, NFs, and dually certified facilities, are set forth in
sections 1819 and 1919 of the Act and codified in the implementing
regulations at 42 CFR part 483, subpart B.
Sections 1819(d)(3) and 1919(d)(3) of the Act explicitly require
that LTC facilities develop and maintain an infection control program
that is designed, constructed, equipped, and maintained in a manner to
protect the health and safety of residents, personnel, and the general
public. In addition, sections 1819(d)(4)(B) and 1919(d)(4)(B) of the
Act explicitly authorize the Secretary to issue any regulations he
deems necessary to protect the health and safety of residents.
Continuous and systematic collection of data is an essential component
of any infection control program, as the data provides information
about potential health threats and enables prevention planning to
mitigate severe health outcomes. LTC residents are vulnerable to
infection from SARS-CoV-2 because of chronic health conditions,
immunosenesence, and residence in a communal living setting.
Vaccination provides protection against infection but does not
eliminate the risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2. Epidemiologic data from the
CDC's National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) indicate that weekly
COVID-19 cases continue to follow the general surge patterns of 2020 to
2023, despite the vaccination status of the nursing home population.
Additionally, the U.S. population remains at risk of increased
infection incidence and adverse outcomes as additional SARS-CoV-2
strains continue to emerge, and immunity induced by COVID-19 vaccines
wane. As such, in alignment with the sections 1819(d)(3), 1919(d)(3),
1819(d)(4)(B), and 1919(d)(4)(B) of the
[[Page 55403]]
Act, the policy proposed in this regulation to establish the ongoing
collection of the proposed set of data elements is necessary to quickly
identify threats to resident health and safety and initiate requisite
responses. The data proposed in this regulation for ongoing collection
would support facility, State, and Federal-level public health actions
that protect the health and safety of residents and ongoing response
efforts. In addition, the data collected would continue to be supplied
directly to LTC facilities, State health departments, the CDC, and CMS
to detect infection outbreaks, monitor the impact of infection
prevention strategies, and vaccination uptake (sections VI.B.2. through
B.5. of this proposed rule outline specific benefits because of the
proposed data collections).
Infection prevention and control in LTC facilities was especially
important during the COVID-19 PHE. Under the explicit instructions of
Congress, existing regulations at Sec. 483.80 require facilities to,
among other things, establish and maintain an infection prevention and
control program (IPCP) designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and
comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and
transmission of communicable diseases and infections. The COVID-19 PHE
placed enormous strain on the Nation's healthcare systems, requiring
LTC facilities nationwide to take extraordinary measures in the face of
staff shortages, and the scarcity of personal protective equipment
(PPE) and critical supplies. Protecting residents in these
circumstances demanded that we have better visibility and data on the
spread and impact of COVID-19 in the Nation's LTC facilities. In
response, CMS issued an evolving series of requirements to obtain those
data through several interim final rules with comment period (IFC)
during the height of the PHE and subsequent final rules to support
ongoing efforts to monitor and protect residents against COVID-19. When
the CDC started collecting COVID-19 case data on a national scale in
LTC facilities we began to understand the epidemiological trends of
COVID-19 disease in LTC residents. The data highlighted how LTC
facilities played a large role in viral transmission and that LTC
residents were disproportionally impacted by COVID-19 compared to
community dwelling adults. Even after the end of the PHE, national data
collected in LTC facilities has shown that LTC residents continue to be
impacted by COVID-19 at higher rates than older adults in the community
and are more likely to develop severe outcomes. Continuing to
understand trends of COVID-19 and other significant respiratory
diseases (for example, RSV, Influenza) in the LTC population is
critical to understanding the burden of respiratory viruses on the
country.
First, on May 8, 2020, we issued a IFC titled ``Medicare and
Medicaid Programs, Basic Health Program, and Exchanges; Additional
Policy and Regulatory Revisions in Response to the COVID-19 Public
Health Emergency and Delay of Certain Reporting Requirements for the
Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program'' (85 FR 27550),
which revised the infection prevention and control requirements for LTC
facilities to more effectively respond to the specific challenges posed
by the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, this May 2020 IFC added
provisions to require facilities to electronically report information
related to confirmed or suspected COVID-19 cases to the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and required facilities to inform
residents and their representatives of confirmed or suspected COVID-19
cases in the facility among residents and staff.
Second, on September 2, 2020, we issued a IFC titled ``Medicare and
Medicaid Programs, Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA),
and Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Additional Policy and
Regulatory Revisions in Response to the COVID-19 Public Health
Emergency'' (85 FR 54873). This September 2020 IFC set out provisions
regarding testing for COVID-19 in LTC facilities, including
documentation requirements and protocols specifying actions to be taken
if a resident or staff member tests positive. On May 13, 2021, we
issued another IFC titled ``Medicare and Medicaid Programs; COVID-19
Vaccine Requirements for Long-Term Care (LTC) Facilities and
Intermediate Care Facilities for Individuals with Intellectual
Disabilities (ICFs-IID) Residents, Clients, and Staff'' (86 FR 26306),
which further revised the infection control requirements that LTC
facilities and intermediate care facilities for individuals with
intellectual disabilities (ICFs-IID) must meet to participate in the
Medicare and Medicaid programs. This May 2021 IFC aimed to reduce the
spread of SARS-CoV-2 infections, the virus that causes COVID-19, by
requiring education about COVID-19 vaccines for LTC facility residents,
ICF-IID clients, and staff serving both populations, and by requiring
that such vaccines, when available, be offered to all residents,
clients, and staff. It also required LTC facilities to report COVID-19
vaccination status of residents and staff to CDC.
To retain the data reporting requirements after the end of the PHE,
on November 9, 2021, we subsequently published a final rule titled ``CY
2022 Home Health Prospective Payment System Rate Update; Home Health
Value-Based Purchasing Model Requirements and Model Expansion; Home
Health and Other Quality Reporting Program Requirements; Home Infusion
Therapy Services Requirements; Survey and Enforcement Requirements for
Hospice Programs; Medicare Provider Enrollment Requirements; and COVID-
19 Reporting Requirements for Long-Term Care Facilities'' (86 FR
62421), which finalized the COVID-19 data reporting requirements from
the May 2020 and May 2021 IFCs. Specifically, in this November 2021
final rule, we revised the requirements at Sec. 483.80(g)(1)(i)
through (ix), to reduce the burden on the LTC facilities by allowing
for a reduced frequency of reporting (weekly unless the Secretary
specifies a lesser frequency) and modified the specific data elements
to be reported. The rule states that until December 31, 2024,
facilities must electronically report, in a standardized format
specified by the Secretary, information on suspected and confirmed
COVID-19 infections among residents and staff, including residents
previously treated for COVID-19, total deaths and COVID-19 deaths among
residents and staff, personal protective equipment and hand hygiene
supplies in the facility, ventilator capacity and supplies available in
the facility, resident beds and census, access to COVID-19 testing
while the resident is in the facility, and staffing shortages. In
addition, on an ongoing basis with no sunset date, facilities are
required to report information on resident and staff vaccination status
for COVID-19.
Finally, on June 5, 2023, we issued a final rule titled ``Medicare
and Medicaid Programs' Policy and Regulatory Changes to the Omnibus
COVID-19 Health Care Staff Vaccination Requirements; Additional Policy
and Regulatory Changes to the Requirements for LTC Facilities and ICF-
IIDs to Provide COVID-19 Vaccine Education and Offer Vaccinations to
Residents, Clients, and Staff; Policy and Regulatory Changes to the LTC
Facility COVID-19 Testing Requirements'' (88 FR 36485).\123\ This June
2023 final rule
[[Page 55404]]
removed expired language addressing COVID-19 testing requirements
issued in the September 2020 IFC, withdrew requirements mandating
COVID-19 vaccinations for staff (see 86 FR 61555 for details regarding
the IFC that issued the requirements),\124\ and finalized requirements
issued in the May 2021 IFC for facilities to provide education about
vaccines and to offer COVID-19 vaccines to residents and staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ June 2023 Final Rule. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-06-05/pdf/2023-11449.pdf.
\124\ COVID-19 Health Care Staff Vaccination Interim Final Rule.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/05/2021-23831/medicare-and-medicaid-programs-omnibus-covid-19-health-care-staff-vaccination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The Benefits of and Ongoing Need for LTC Facility Respiratory
Illness and Vaccination Data
There are over 1.3 million older adults aged 65 years and older
living in LTC facilities in the United States; and while LTC facility
residents make up less than 0.5 percent of the population in the U.S.,
they were estimated to account for between 23 percent and 40 percent of
deaths due to COVID-19 in the first two years of the COVID-19
PHE.125 126 Older residents are at greater risk for both
developing COVID-19 and other respiratory illnesses (for example,
influenza, RSV) and for developing a protracted course of disease.\127\
Age-associated changes in immune function (that is, immunosenecense)
can increase susceptibility to infection and decrease response to
vaccination. Additionally, older adults often have multiple co-
morbidities leading to increased morbidity and mortality when coupled
with a respiratory tract infection.\128\ The congregate setting of LTC
facilities can also increase risk of disease transmission given the
proximity of residents. In addition, providing care for residents often
involves close-contact activities (for example, dressing, bathing) and
the same health care personnel provide care to residents across
different rooms and shared spaces. This readily facilitates
transmission of respiratory viruses in this setting.\129\ Furthermore,
LTC facility staffing shortages and consistent staff turnover, that are
ever-present, but were greatly exacerbated during the COVID-19 PHE,
make it even more challenging to provide quality care and to implement
infection practices effectively and consistently, demonstrating the
need for timely and actionable surveillance.\130\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\125\ Grabowski DC, Mor V. Nursing Home Care in Crisis in the
Wake of COVID-19. JAMA. 2020;324(1):23. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.8524.
\126\ Chidambaram P. Over 200,000 Residents and Staff in Long-
Term Care Facilities Have Died From COVID-19. Kaiser Family
Foundation. Published online February 3, 2022. https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/over-200000-residents-and-staff-in-long-term-care-facilities-have-died-from-covid-19/.
\127\ The New York Times. Nearly One-Third of U.S. Coronavirus
Deaths Are Linked to Nursing Homes. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-nursing-homes.html. Published June
1, 2021.
\128\ Vital and Health Statistics, Series 3, Number 47 (cdc.gov)
(https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_03/sr03-047.pdf).
\129\ MMWR, Rates of COVID-19 Among Residents and Staff Members
in Nursing Homes--United States, May 25-November 22, 2020 (cdc.gov)
(https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7002e2-H.pdf).
\130\ Infection prevention and control in nursing homes during
COVID-19: An environmental scan--PMC (nih.gov) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8810224/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The COVID-19 PHE highlighted the value and potential utility of
greater integration between public health and health care, particularly
when data are available to direct collaborative actions that support
patient, resident, and public health and safety. Data from health care
providers, including LTC facilities, remain a key driver to identify
and respond to patient, resident, and public health threats, yet health
care and public health data systems have long persisted on separate,
often poorly compatible tracks.\131\ The COVID-19 PHE also highlighted
the importance of taking a broader view of patient and resident
safety--one that recognizes patient and resident safety is determined
not only by what is happening at the bedside, but also what is
happening, in the facility as a whole, in neighboring facilities (for
example, individuals moving between hospitals and LTC facilities and
health care providers working in multiple facilities), and across the
region, State, and county. The value of this broader view was
particularly evident from the experience of LTC facilities, where
systematic communicable disease and vaccination surveillance had never
been integrated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ Vital and Health Statistics, Series 3, Number 47 (cdc.gov)
(https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_03/sr03-047.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the first time, during the COVID-19 PHE, the nation had a real-
time comprehensive picture of a disease, its vaccine, and its impact in
the nearly 16,000 U.S. LTC facilities because of data reported to the
CDC's NHSN application. Ultimately, access to this information proved
critical to providing resources and supporting coordinated action by
facilities, health systems, communities and jurisdictions in responding
to the PHE and protecting the health, safety and lives of LTC facility
residents.
3. Benefits of Data Collection at the Facility and Local Level
The resources made available during the PHE response helped build
resilience in some parts of the health care system, but the pandemic
also exacerbated sources of fragility that continue to leave the United
States underprepared to respond to surges--even relatively typical
ones. Efforts to support the LTC community and facility infrastructure
include the CMS final rule titled ``Medicare and Medicaid Programs;
Minimum Staffing Standards for Long-Term Care Facilities and Medicaid
Institutional Payment Transparency Reporting,'' published on May 10,
2024 (89 FR 40876).\132\ This final rule established a consistent floor
(baseline) for nurse staffing across all LTC facilities in an effort to
reduce the variability in nurse staffing. The final rule policies aim
to advance equitable, safe, and quality care for all residents
receiving care from the Nation's Medicare and Medicaid participating
LTC facilities. The finalized minimum staffing standards coupled with
the respiratory illness data reporting requirements proposed in this
rule would support targeted high-quality care for residents. For
example, timely and actionable surveillance at the facility and local
level would support efforts to identify and allocate resources to
maintain the appropriate care needed to keep residents safe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-05-10/pdf/FR-2024-05-10.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data collected from LTC facilities is used by local health
departments to provide specific outreach to individual facilities. This
can include interventions such as site visits from health departments,
providing additional supplies such as PPE and/or testing supplies,
recommendations for testing protocols and individualized advice for
infection prevention and control practices to protect the health and
safety of residents within individual facilities. LTC facilities care
for some of the most vulnerable older adults who are disproportionally
impacted by respiratory viruses and severe outcomes, such as
hospitalizations and death. Ongoing data collection as part of a
facility infection prevention and control program helps each facility
to promptly identify a respiratory viral outbreak so that containment
and important interventions, such as early anti-viral treatment (SARS-
CoV-2, Influenza) and anti-viral prophylaxis (Influenza), can minimize
the severity of an outbreak and protect residents' health and safety.
Identifying strategies to provide early
[[Page 55405]]
antiviral treatments for COVID-19 and influenza may also help prevent
more serious outcomes in individual residents.
Like other settings where health care is delivered, LTC facilities
are part of an ecosystem caring for individuals in their community.
This interdependency is especially highlighted during times of health
care system strain. Insight into LTC facility capacity helps ensure
capabilities are available to meet health care needs with quality care
through enhanced planning, technical assistance, resource allocation,
and coordination.\133\ Health care coalitions (HCCs) are one example of
local health care partners working together to increase local health
care resilience during respiratory illness surges and more.\134\ HCCs
plan and respond together, sharing real-time information and providing
technical assistance to support their partners.\135\ Collaborative,
data-driven approaches have helped to inform and direct action
throughout the health care ecosystem, ultimately improving resident
care and outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\133\ https://aspr.hhs.gov/HealthCareReadiness/StoriesfromtheField/Pages/Stories/Kentucky-Collaborates-Community.aspx.
\134\ https://aspr.hhs.gov/HealthCareReadiness/HealthCareReadinessNearYou/Documents/HCC-FactSheet-April2021-508.pdf.
\135\ https://aspr.hhs.gov/HealthCareReadiness/HealthCareReadinessNearYou/Documents/HCC-FactSheet-April2021-508.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data from LTC facilities is an important component to understanding
potential bottlenecks in the health care ecosystem and ways to address
them. During the COVID-19 PHE, hospitals struggled with being able to
discharge patients to post-acute care, specifically LTC facilities. The
availability of LTC facility capacity data helped to inform their
response by monitoring triggers for patient load balancing, allocations
of scarce resources, and requests for additional resources or mutual
aid.\136\ LTC facilities, hospitals, and other health care partners
also use the information for planning purposes, identifying how their
facility may be impacted and preparing accordingly.\137\ Information
sharing across the health care ecosystem helps the health care
community to prepare for, and effectively respond to, respiratory
illness surges in ways that maintain the safety and availability of
critical care services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\136\ Mitchell SH, Rigler J, Baum K. Regional Transfer
Coordination and Hospital Load Balancing During COVID-19 Surges.
JAMA Health Forum. 2022;3(2):e215048. doi:10.1001/
jamahealthforum.2021.5048. https://aspr.hhs.gov/HealthCareReadiness/StoriesfromtheField/Pages/Stories/HCC-Regional-Approach-Illinois.aspx.
\137\ https://aspr.hhs.gov/HealthCareReadiness/StoriesfromtheField/Pages/Stories/Maryland-HCC-covid19.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, since the start of the PHE, data reported under our
requirements at Sec. 483.80(g)(1) through (3) have been used by LTC
facilities and their local health systems to take actions aimed at
protecting residents. Facilities can view all reported data and
generate reports within the CDC's NHSN application. This allows
facilities to review their data in real time and implement any
applicable mitigation strategies/infection control practices, based on
the counts they are seeing to help reduce outbreak occurrences. LTC
facilities have used the CDC's NHSN dashboards and reports to track new
cases and up-to-date vaccination status of residents in the facility
and take action by identifying areas where they need to strengthen
infection and control practices, explore vaccination progress, and
consider targeted quality improvement activities as part of their
Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) initiatives. LTC
facilities can use NHSN to create custom data reports and analyses,
tailoring the information for purposes and improvements that best meet
their needs for protecting the residents in their care.\138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\ Coverage with Influenza, Respiratory Syncytial Virus, and
Updated COVID-19 Vaccines Among Nursing Home Residents--National
Healthcare Safety Network, United States, December 2023 [verbar]
MMWR (cdc.gov) (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7251a3.htm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Benefits of Data Collection at the Regional and State Levels
COVID-19 and other respiratory illness case, hospitalization, and
vaccination data together provide critical situational awareness for
regional and State leadership to inform a national strategy in response
to the ongoing public health threat that respiratory illnesses
including COVID-19 pose to residents. At the State and regional levels,
public health departments and Quality Improvement Organizations (QIOs)
have used these data to provide outreach and technical support directly
to LTC facilities with high case and hospitalization counts and offer
additional resources and support. QIOs use COVID-19 case and
vaccination data to identify LTC facility outbreaks, provide 1:1
infection control assistance, and direct any other COVID-19 reduction
assistance requested by those nursing homes. These data will continue
to be critical to support the ongoing work of the QIOs. They will plan
and provide technical assistance and training to LTC facilities
identified by CMS for performance improvement based on quality
measurement and enforcement data. The QIOs will also work on
strengthening the quality management systems in LTC facilities,
leadership and governance, culture of safety, workforce planning and
focused clinical outcomes. Additionally, resident vaccination data
direct the education and assistance efforts of partners like the QIOs
and LTC associations to improve vaccination uptake in facilities with
the lowest up-to-date vaccination rates among residents and staff. For
example, the Nursing Home Command Center, in charge of directing QIOs,
reviews NHSN COVID-19 case and vaccination data daily and considers
NHSN data to be the best source to identify nursing homes in need of
assistance to improve resident outcomes.\139\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\139\ Report to Congress, November 2023, for Fiscal Year 2022,
The Administration, Cost, and Impact of the Quality Improvement
Organization Program for Medicare Beneficiaries (https://www.cms.gov/files/document/final-fy-2022-qio-rtc.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In July 2020, the Federal Government launched a strike team
initiative to address COVID-19 outbreaks in LTC facilities. This
initiative relied upon data reported by LTC facilities to focus
response efforts on the facilities with the highest number of cases.
The Federal strike team initiative highlighted significant challenges
faced by facilities and was foundational in identifying areas of
infection prevention and control need, such as education for front line
nursing staff, staffing shortages, and coordination among Federal State
and local entities.\140\ These efforts further emphasized that without
data to direct assistance to places with the greatest need, response
efforts and the limited resources, especially in non-emergency times of
typical disease transmission, would be dispersed and far less
effective. Building upon the 2020 Federal strike team efforts, a total
of $500 million, was made available in 2021, through Sections 9402 and
9818 of the American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act of 2021, Public Law 117-2,
to State and local health departments through the CDC's Epidemiology
and Laboratory Capacity (ELC) Cooperative Agreement (CK19-1904), as the
``Nursing Home & Long-term Care Facility Strike Team and Infrastructure
Project.'' This funding allowed States to continue dedicated support to
LTC facilities and was used to build and maintain the infection
prevention infrastructure necessary to
[[Page 55406]]
support resident, visitor, and facility healthcare personnel safety.
State and local strike teams illustrated the power of public health and
healthcare stakeholders working together to share data and information
and collaborate effectively respond to respiratory illness surges.
Between August 2021 and July 2022, health departments conducted over
26,000 Nursing Home COVID-19 responses, including more than 5,000
onsite assessments and more than 5,000 investigations that included
staff supported specifically by Strike Team funding. For example,
States like Massachusetts have lauded the value of the strike team
investments and asserted that improved State and Federal data
infrastructure is needed to respond to future outbreaks and protect
nursing home residents.\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\140\ Protecting Nursing Home Residents from Covid-19: Federal
Strike Team Findings and Lessons Learned [verbar] NEJM Catalyst
(https://catalyst.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/CAT.21.0144).
\141\ https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.18402.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Benefits of Data Collection at the Federal Level
At the Federal level, the CDC actively uses weekly NHSN data
reports to provide direct outreach to LTC facilities with >8 COVID-19
hospitalizations and >20 cases. These weekly reports are sent to State
health departments to provide actionable data including confirmed
COVID-19 cases among residents and staff, COVID-19 related deaths among
residents, COVID-19 hospitalizations among residents, vaccine coverage
among residents and staff, and COVID-19 potential outbreak alerts among
other data elements. CDC also monitors downloads of these reports and
provides ongoing support to States and facilities with these data,
showing that the data are actively being used and are found to be
valuable to direct response and vaccination efforts to the LTC
facilities that most need support and intervention. For example,
vaccination data are critical for decision making, targeting outreach
for vaccination campaigns efforts, insights into vaccination
disparities \142\ and for vaccine effectiveness studies.\143\ The
availability of vaccination data from LTC facilities, not only provides
a window into national efforts for improving access to vaccines for the
LTC industry, but also can indicate the effectiveness of vaccination
training and education efforts with residents and families, that
promote the benefits of vaccination to help ensure that residents will
achieve the best outcome possible if infected with the SARS-CoV-2
virus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\ Haanschoten E, Dubendris H, Reses HE, Barbre K, Meng L,
Benin A, Bell JM. Disparities in COVID-19 Vaccination Status Among
Long-Term Care Facility Residents--United States, October 31, 2022-
May 7, 2023. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023 Oct 6;72(40):1095-1098.
doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7240a4. PMID: 37796756; PMCID: PMC10564329.
\143\ Wong E, Barbre K, Wiegand RE, Reses HE, Dubendris H,
Wallace M, Dollard P, Edwards J, Soe M, Meng L, Benin A, Bell JM.
Effectiveness of Up-to-Date COVID-19 Vaccination in Preventing SARS-
CoV-2 Infection Among Nursing Home Residents--United States,
November 20, 2022-January 8, 2023. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023
Jun 23;72(25):690-693. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7225a4. PMID: 37347711;
PMCID: PMC10328477.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHSN data has also been used by the CDC and QIOs to contact
facilities with high vaccination coverage to understand the successful
strategies they employed and promote these strategies to other nursing
homes via webinars and the development of tools and resources.
Information from this outreach was used to identify and respond to
vaccination barriers by creating tools and resources, such as the
Healthcare Provider Toolkit, to help nursing homes educate their staff,
residents, and families to remove barriers to vaccination.
Furthermore, COVID-19, influenza, and RSV vaccination data continue
to be used for establishing policies that promote better protection for
residents and staff. These data continue to serve as supporting
evidence to make and revise recommendations regarding vaccination to
improve the safety of residents and staff while balancing the burden to
facilities to report. For example, early in the PHE, increasing staff
vaccination rates was associated with lower incidence of COVID-19 cases
and deaths among residents and staff in LTC facilities. However, as
newer, more infectious, and transmissible variants of the virus
emerged, increasing staff vaccination rates of the original 2-dose
regimen of the COVID-19 vaccine as recommended in December 2020, was no
longer associated with lower rates of adverse COVID-19 outcomes in
nursing homes, resulting in updated recommendations to the public.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\144\ Sinha S, Konetzka RT. Association of COVID-19 Vaccination
Rates of Staff and COVID-19 Illness and Death Among Residents and
Staff in US Nursing Homes. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(12):e2249002.
doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.49002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Proposed Continuation of Respiratory Illness Reporting for LTC
Facilities
Given the value of respiratory illness and vaccination reporting
during the COVID-19 PHE in supporting resident health and safety, we
are considering the continued utility of LTC facility respiratory
illness data to monitor and protect residents against respiratory
illnesses and the ongoing need for such data in the ``new normal'' of
diverse respiratory disease threats. While the COVID-19 PHE has ended,
SARS-CoV-2 continues to circulate throughout the globe and although
epidemic waves are less severe than those of 2020 through early 2022,
there was no epidemiologic bright line associated with the end of the
PHE. While COVID-19 hospital admissions were modestly lower in January
2024 than they were at the July 2022 or December 2022 peaks,\145\
adults 65 years and older represented more than half of COVID-19
hospitalizations during October 2023 to December 2023.\146\
Additionally, during the 2023-2024 fall/winter respiratory virus
season, COVID-19-associated hospitalizations among LTC facility
residents peaked at a weekly rate that was more than eight times higher
than the peak weekly rate among all U.S. adults aged >=70 years.\147\
At the same time, other respiratory viruses have also seen a
resurgence, and the moderate COVID-19 burden coinciding with resurgent
influenza and RSV has led to an overall hospitalization burden larger
than observed during severe influenza and RSV seasons prior to the
COVID-19 pandemic.\148\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\145\ https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#trends_weeklyhospitaladmissions_select_00.
\146\ CDC COVID Data Tracker: Hospital Admissions (https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#datatracker-home).
\147\ Franklin D, Barbre K, Rowe TA, Reses HE, Massey J, Meng L,
Dollard P, Dubendris H, Stillions M, Robinson L, Clerville JW,
Jacobs Slifka K, Benin A, Bell JM. COVID-19 vaccination coverage and
rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19-associated
hospitalization among residents in nursing homes. MMWR Morb Mortal
Wkly Rep 2024;73:339-344. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7315a3.
\148\ Respiratory Disease Season Outlook (cdc.gov) (https://www.cdc.gov/forecast-outbreak-analytics/about/season-outlook.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The elevated risks of respiratory viruses in the post-PHE era
present ongoing threats, both direct and indirect, to resident health
and safety. The result of this ``new normal'' will be more burdensome
respiratory virus seasons for the foreseeable future, which promises to
threaten the health and safety of LTC facility residents across the
Nation.\149\ In response to this changed landscape, public health
agencies, such as the CDC, have shifted prevention and control
strategies from a focus on specific viruses to an approach that
addresses the threats presented by the broader respiratory virus
season, including focused efforts to mitigate impacts on nursing home
residents and staff.\150\ Likewise, we believe it is vital
[[Page 55407]]
to maintain national surveillance of these emerging and evolving
respiratory illnesses as a means of guiding infection control
interventions to keep residents safe. As such, we propose to continue
some of the reporting requirements finalized in November 2021 and set
to expire in December 2024. Specifically, we propose to revise the
infection prevention and control requirements for LTC facilities to
extend reporting in NHSN for a limited subset of the current COVID-19
elements and also require reporting for data related to influenza and
RSV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\149\ Respiratory Disease Season Outlook (cdc.gov) (https://www.cdc.gov/forecast-outbreak-analytics/about/season-outlook.html).
\150\ See https://www.cdc.gov/respiratory-viruses/index.html and
data summaries of respiratory virus burden at https://www.cdc.gov/respiratory-viruses/data-research/dashboard/snapshot.html and
https://www.cdc.gov/respiratory-viruses/whats-new/track-hospital-capacity.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, we propose to replace the existing reporting
requirements for LTC facilities at Sec. 483.80(g)(1)(i) through (ix)
and (g)(2) with new requirements to report information addressing
respiratory illnesses. Beginning on January 1, 2025, facilities would
be required to electronically report information about COVID-19,
influenza, and RSV in a standardized format and frequency specified by
the Secretary. Currently, we propose to continue weekly reporting
through the CDC's NHSN. To the extent to be determined by the
Secretary, through this rulemaking cycle, we propose that the data
elements for which reporting would be required include all of the
following:
Facility census (defined as the total number of residents
occupying a bed at this facility for at least 24 hours during the week
of data collection).
Resident vaccination status for a limited set of
respiratory illnesses including but not limited to COVID-19, influenza,
and RSV.
Confirmed, resident cases of a limited set of respiratory
illnesses including but not limited to COVID-19, influenza, and RSV
(overall and by vaccination status).
Hospitalized residents with confirmed cases of a limited
set of respiratory illnesses including but not limited to COVID-19,
influenza, and RSV (overall and by vaccination status).
These proposals are scaled back and tailored from the current post-
COVID-19 PHE requirements, continuing the collection of the minimal
necessary data to maintain a level of situational awareness that would
protect resident health and safety in LTC facilities across the country
while reducing reporting burden on those facilities. We are also
interested in the utility of additional reporting on limited
demographic data and solicit public comment on whether the collection
of data regarding race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status should be
explicitly included as part of these proposed requirements for ongoing
reporting beginning on January 1, 2025. We are particularly interested
in comments that address the ways these additional data elements could
be used to better protect resident and community health and safety both
during and outside of a declared PHE. In addition, we are interested in
comments on how to protect resident privacy within demographic groups
and how to best use the data to inform public health efforts without
stigmatizing demographic groups.\151\ Lastly, we welcome comments that
address system readiness and capacity to collect and report these data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\151\ Landers S, Kapadia F, Tarantola D. Monkeypox, After HIV/
AIDS and COVID-19: Suggestions for Collective Action and a Public
Health of Consequence, November 2022. Am J Public Health. 2022
Nov;112(11):1564-1566. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2022.307100. PMID:
36223580; PMCID: PMC9558195. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9558195/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining the data elements to propose for ongoing reporting,
we considered the data elements that proved most actionable and
informative over the course of the COVID-19 PHE, with evidence of
protecting health and safety, as well as more recent lessons that have
emerged during the 2023-2024 respiratory virus
response.152 153 We also considered ways to balance the
burden of reporting on LTC facilities with the need to maintain a level
of situational awareness that will benefit residents, their families,
and their communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\152\ https://emergency.cdc.gov/han/2023/han00503.asp, https://emergency.cdc.gov/han/2023/han00498.asp.
\153\ Coverage with Influenza, Respiratory Syncytial Virus, and
Updated COVID-19 Vaccines Among Nursing Home Residents--National
Healthcare Safety Network, United States, December 2023 [verbar]
MMWR (cdc.gov) (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7251a3.htm#F1_down).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the absence of a declared national PHE for an acute respiratory
illness, we propose that LTC facilities would continue to report these
data on a weekly basis through a format specified by the Secretary with
continued reporting through the CDC's NHSN. Sustained data collection
and reporting outside of emergencies would help ensure that LTC
facilities maintain a functional reporting capacity that could be
mobilized quickly when a new threat emerges to inform and direct
response efforts (for example, resource allocations) that protect
residents and their communities. These data collections would also
provide the baseline information necessary to forecast, detect,
quantify and, ultimately, direct responses to signals of strain within
regions and LTC facilities.
Unlike the previous and sunsetting LTC reporting requirements, the
requirements proposed in this rule are not tied to a specific PHE
declaration. PHE declarations are valuable tools for marshalling nimble
and fast emergency responses. However, there are many respiratory
disease threats to LTC facility operations and resident safety that
would not necessarily be subject to a PHE declaration nor have
significant potential to become a PHE. In those instances, routine data
about cases and hospitalizations due to respiratory viruses like COVID-
19, influenza, and RSV are critical to inform technical assistance,
infection prevention and control support, and resource allocations to
support LTC facilities and safeguard their residents.
We welcome public comments on our proposals, and on ways that
reporting burden can be minimized while still providing adequate data.
We also welcome feedback on any challenges of collecting and reporting
these data; ways that CMS could reduce reporting burden for facilities;
and alternative reporting mechanisms or quality reporting programs
through which CMS could instead effectively and sustainably incentivize
reporting. Finally, we welcome comments on the value of these data in
protecting the health and safety of individuals receiving care and
treatment and working in LTC facilities.
7. Proposed Collection of Additional Data Elements During a PHE
The COVID-19 PHE strained the healthcare system substantially,
introducing new safety risks and negatively impacting patient and
resident safety in the normal delivery of care. Data from the pandemic
showed that the incidence of healthcare-associated infections would
increase when COVID-19 hospitalizations were high,\154\ a feedback loop
between increased stress on hospitals, LTC facilities, illness in the
community, and patient and resident health and safety.
[[Page 55408]]
Degradation in other measures of resident safety, including pressure
ulcers and falls, further demonstrate how the strains associated with
surge response adversely affect routine safety practices.\155\ \156\
Specifically in LTC facilities, the significant adverse health impacts
on residents caused by COVID-19 went far beyond the direct effects of
COVID-19 morbidity and mortality.\157\ Given the unprecedented impacts
of, and learnings derived from, the COVID-19 PHE, we believe that it is
imperative to enhance preparedness and resiliency to improve health
system responses to future threats, including pandemics that pose
catastrophic risks to resident safety. As such, we propose additional
data reporting that would be required in the event of an acute
respiratory illness PHE, or after the Secretary's determination that a
significant threat of one exists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\154\ Continued increases in the incidence of healthcare-
associated infection (HAI) during the second year of the coronavirus
disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic [verbar] Infection Control &
Hospital Epidemiology [verbar] Cambridge Core; https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2118285; The impact of coronavirus disease
2019 (COVID-19) on healthcare-associated infections in 2020: A
summary of data reported to the National Healthcare Safety Network--
PubMed (nih.gov) (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34473013/); Impact
of COVID-19 pandemic on central-line-associated bloodstream
infections during the early months of 2020, National Healthcare
Safety Network--PubMed (nih.gov) (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33719981/).
\155\ Falls Risk in Long-Term Care Residents With Cognitive
Impairment: Effects of COVID-19 Pandemic--PubMed (nih.gov) (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38104633/).
\156\ https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2118285.
\157\ The Adverse Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Nursing
Home Resident Well-Being--PMC (nih.gov) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7980137/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, we propose that during a declared national, State, or
local PHE for a respiratory infectious disease (or if the Secretary
determines a significant threat for one exists) the Secretary may
require facilities to report:
Data up to a daily frequency without additional notice and
comment rulemaking.
Additional or modified data elements relevant to the PHE,
including relevant confirmed infections among staff, supply inventory
shortages, staffing shortages, and relevant medical countermeasures and
therapeutic inventories, usage, or both.
If the Secretary determines that an event is significantly
likely to become a PHE for an infectious disease, the Secretary may
require LTC facilities to report additional or modified data elements
without notice and comment rulemaking.
We invite comments on if, during a PHE, there should be limits to
the data the Secretary can require without notice and comment
rulemaking, such as limits on the duration of additional reporting or
the scope of the jurisdiction of reporting (that is, State or local
PHEs). We also seek comments on whether and how the Secretary should
still seek stakeholder feedback on additional elements during a PHE
without notice and comment rulemaking and how HHS should notify LTC
facilities of new required infectious disease data. Furthermore, we
invite comments on the evidence HHS should provide to demonstrate
that--(1) an event is ``significantly likely to become a PHE''; or (2)
the increased scope of required data will be used to protect resident
and community health and safety. We also invite comments on the utility
and burden of specifically staffing and supply shortage data we propose
to collect during national, State, or local PHE for a respiratory
infectious disease (or if the Secretary determines a significant threat
for one exists). Based on LTC facilities experience with the COVID-19
PHE, how could HHS collect this data specifically in a way that would
be beneficial to LTC facilities?
8. Collaboration
To further reduce burden in the short term, we are working with the
CDC to ensure LTC facilities can continue to use existing, established
systems to report data in the interim. CDC will continue increasing the
automation capabilities of the surveillance systems like NHSN and its
ability to connect with other data submission techniques, vendors, and
systems.\158\ CDC is collaborating with LTC partner organizations and
State health departments to pilot projects aimed at streamlining and
modernizing vaccination data reporting. This includes efforts to
automate reporting of LTC facility vaccination data from electronic
health records to NHSN and to connect person-level vaccination data in
NHSN to State Immunization Information Systems (IIS). These
modernization efforts should reduce the reporting burden on facilities
over time. In addition, CDC provides users with technical assistance,
targeted data quality outreach and webinars, and continues to actively
collaborate with users and partners to improve system design and
functionality. For example, the development of the NHSN person-level
vaccination forms allowed for complex definitions that change over time
(for example, up to date with COVID-19 vaccines) to be applied
automatically to and aggregate resident-level data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\158\ For more information about USCDI+ https://www.healthit.gov/topic/interoperability/uscdi-plus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CMS, CDC, and the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and
Response (ASPR) recognize the immense value of partnerships with LTC
facilities, State, Tribal, Local, and Territorial (STLT) health
systems, associations, and other partners. Throughout the COVID-19 PHE,
partners at all levels worked alongside CMS, CDC, and ASPR to provide
additional context, insight, and feedback based on conditions on the
ground. This context helped data collections be more effective and
helped provide a fuller picture than data alone. CMS, CDC, and ASPR are
grateful for the many collaborations with partners on data and beyond.
CDC, ASPR, and the Office of the National Coordinator for Health
Information Technology (ONC) will explore opportunities to codify
continued partnerships to prepare for and respond to incidents such as
respiratory illnesses more effectively. We welcome public comment on
ways that all public agencies involved in these types of data
collections can be good partners.
VII. Provider Enrollment--Provisional Period of Enhanced Oversight
A. Background
1. Overview of Medicare Provider Enrollment
Section 1866(j)(1)(A) of the Act requires the Secretary to
establish a process for the enrollment of providers and suppliers into
the Medicare program. The overarching purpose of the enrollment process
is to help confirm that providers and suppliers seeking to bill
Medicare for services and items furnished to Medicare beneficiaries
meet all applicable Federal and State requirements to do so. The
process is, to an extent, a ``gatekeeper'' that prevents unqualified
and potentially fraudulent individuals and entities from entering and
inappropriately billing Medicare. Since 2006, we have undertaken
rulemaking efforts to outline our enrollment procedures. These
regulations are generally codified in 42 CFR part 424, subpart P
(currently Sec. Sec. 424.500 through 424.575 and hereafter
occasionally referenced as subpart P). They address, among other
things, requirements that providers and suppliers must meet to obtain
and maintain Medicare billing privileges.
As outlined in Sec. 424.510, one such requirement is that the
provider or supplier must complete, sign, and submit to its assigned
Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) the appropriate enrollment
form, typically the Form CMS-855 (OMB Control No. 0938-0685). The Form
CMS-855, which can be submitted via paper or electronically through the
internet-based Provider Enrollment, Chain, and Ownership System (PECOS)
process (System of Records notice (SORN): 09-70-0532, PECOS), collects
important information about the provider or supplier. Such data
includes, but is not limited to, general identifying
[[Page 55409]]
information (for example, legal business name), licensure and/or
certification data, ownership information, and practice locations. The
application is used for a variety of provider enrollment transactions,
including the following:
Initial enrollment--The provider or supplier is--(1)
enrolling in Medicare for the first time; (2) enrolling in another
Medicare contractor's jurisdiction; or (3) seeking to enroll in
Medicare after having previously been enrolled.
Change of ownership--The provider or supplier is reporting
a change in its ownership.
Revalidation--The provider or supplier is revalidating its
Medicare enrollment information in accordance with Sec. 424.515.
(Suppliers of durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics, and
supplies (DMEPOS) must revalidate their enrollment every 3 years; all
other providers and suppliers must do so every 5 years.)
Reactivation--The provider or supplier is seeking to
reactivate its Medicare enrollment and billing privileges after it was
deactivated in accordance with Sec. 424.540.
Change of information--The provider or supplier is
reporting a change in its existing enrollment information in accordance
with Sec. 424.516.
After receiving the provider's or supplier's initial enrollment
application, CMS or the MAC reviews and confirms the information
thereon and determines whether the provider or supplier meets all
applicable Medicare requirements. We believe this screening process has
greatly assisted CMS in executing its responsibility to prevent
Medicare fraud, waste, and abuse.
As previously discussed, over the years we have issued various
final rules pertaining to provider enrollment. These rules were
intended not only to clarify or strengthen certain components of the
enrollment process but also to enable us to take action against
providers and suppliers: (1) engaging (or potentially engaging) in
fraudulent or abusive behavior; (2) presenting a risk of harm to
Medicare beneficiaries or the Medicare Trust Funds; or (3) that are
otherwise unqualified to furnish Medicare services or items. Consistent
with this, and as we discuss in section VIII.B. of this proposed rule,
we are proposing a change to our existing Medicare provider enrollment
regulations.
2. Legal Authorities
There are two principal categories of legal authorities for our
proposed Medicare provider enrollment provisions:
Section 1866(j) of the Act furnishes specific authority
regarding the enrollment process for providers and suppliers.
Sections 1102 and 1871 of the Act provide general
authority for the Secretary to prescribe regulations for the efficient
administration of the Medicare program.
B. Proposed Provisions--Provisional Period of Enhanced Oversight (PPEO)
1. Background
Section 1866(j)(3)(A) of the Act states that the Secretary shall
establish procedures to provide for a provisional period of between 30
days and 1 year during which new providers and suppliers--as the
Secretary determines appropriate, including categories of providers or
suppliers--will be subject to enhanced oversight. (Per section
1866(j)(3)(A) of the Act, such oversight can include, but is not
limited to, prepayment review and payment caps.) As authorized by
section 1866(j)(3)(B) of the Act, we previously implemented such
procedures through subregulatory guidance with respect to newly
enrolling HHAs' requests for anticipated payments (RAP).\159\ More
recently, in July 2023 we began placing new hospices located in
Arizona, California, Nevada, and Texas in a provisional period of
enhanced oversight. (See https://www.cms.gov/files/document/mln7867599-period-enhanced-oversight-new-hospices-arizona-california-nevada-texas.pdf for more information.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\159\ CMS eliminated the use of RAPs for HHAs; beginning January
1, 2022, CMS replaced RAP submissions with a Notice of Admission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the PPEO involving HHA RAPs, CMS received several
stakeholder requests for clarification regarding the PPEO's scope. One
of these concerned the meaning of the term ``new'' for purposes of
applying a PPEO. While section 1866(j)(3)(B) of the Act states that we
may implement procedures by program instruction, we finalized new Sec.
424.527(a) in the CY 2024 HH PPS final rule to address this issue.
Specifically, new Sec. 424.527(a)(1) through (3) defined a ``new''
provider or supplier (again, exclusively for purposes of our PPEO
authority under section 1866(j)(3) of the Act) as any of the following:
A newly enrolling Medicare provider or supplier. (This
includes providers that must enroll as a new provider per the change in
majority ownership provisions in Sec. 424.550(b).)
A certified provider or certified supplier undergoing a
change of ownership consistent with the principles of 42 CFR 489.18.
(This includes providers that qualify under Sec. 424.550(b)(2) for an
exception from the change in majority ownership requirements in Sec.
424.550(b)(1) but which are undergoing a change of ownership under 42
CFR 489.18.)
A provider or supplier (including an HHA or hospice)
undergoing a 100 percent change of ownership via a change of
information request under Sec. 424.516.
We included these transactions within this definition because they
have historically involved the effective establishment of a new
provider or supplier for purposes of Medicare enrollment. For this
reason, we have also received recent inquiries as to whether a
reactivation should fall within the scope of Sec. 424.527(a).
Under Sec. 424.540 and the definition of ``deactivate'' in Sec.
424.502, a deactivated provider's or supplier's enrollment and billing
privileges are ``stopped but can be restored upon the submission of
updated information.'' This restoration, or reactivation, generally
involves: (1) the completion of a full Form CMS-855 application; and
(2) a CMS or MAC determination as to whether the provider or supplier
meets all enrollment requirements. These two steps generally mirror
what occurs with the initial and change of ownership applications
referenced in Sec. 424.527(a). Although a deactivation does not rise
to the level of a revocation of Medicare enrollment and billing
privileges under Sec. 424.535--for a revocation bars the provider or
supplier from reenrolling in Medicare for a period of 1 to 10 years
(with certain exceptions)--a deactivated provider or supplier cannot
resume billing Medicare until the requirements for reactivation are
met. It has, in effect, been blocked from the Medicare program. Indeed,
as with a provider or supplier that voluntarily terminated its Medicare
enrollment and now seeks to rejoin the program via an initial, new
enrollment application, a reactivating provider, too, is requesting to
rejoin the program. Described otherwise, a reactivating provider or
supplier is resuming its involvement in the Medicare program after a
stoppage (which, at least for practical and operational purposes,
amounts to a loss) of Medicare enrollment and billing privileges. From
this standpoint, we thus believe that a reactivating provider or
supplier is no less ``new'' (for provider enrollment purposes) than one
that is initially enrolling or undergoing a change of ownership.
Our interpretation is also supported by the fact that a significant
number of our grounds for deactivation under
[[Page 55410]]
Sec. 424.540(a) involve conduct or inaction in which the provider or
supplier--as with a revocation--is not adhering to Medicare enrollment
requirements. These include, for example, the provider or supplier--
Failing to report a change to the information supplied on
the enrollment application within the required timeframe (Sec.
424.540(a)(2));
Failing to timely respond to a revalidation request (Sec.
424.540(a)(3));
Failing to maintain compliance with all enrollment
requirements (Sec. 424.540(a)(4)); and
Having a non-operational or otherwise invalid practice
location (Sec. 424.540(a)(5)).
The provider or supplier can also be revoked under Sec. 424.535(a)
on any of these bases (for instance, under Sec. 424.535(a)(1) relating
to noncompliance). Because these bases are overlapping, it is CMS'
principled view that reactivating providers and suppliers that were
deactivated for any of these reasons should be subject to the same PPEO
scrutiny. CMS has a legitimate oversight interest that the prior non-
compliance has been corrected and that adherence will continue after
their reactivation, which would be satisfied through the post-
enrollment monitoring the PPEO affords.
Concerning our other deactivation grounds, Sec. 424.540(a)(1)
permits CMS to deactivate a provider or supplier that has not billed
Medicare for 6 consecutive months. We recognize that there may be a
legitimate reason for which a provider or supplier ceases billing
Medicare for an extended period. (For example, a provider enrolls in
Medicare strictly to enroll in and bill another health care program.)
At the same time, a reactivation request after months of billing
inactivity raises questions as to whether--
The provider or supplier is and will remain compliant with
Medicare enrollment requirements once reactivated following such a
period of non-billing;
Another party has compromised the provider's or supplier's
deactivated enrollment and billing privileges and seeks to fraudulently
bill Medicare via the latter's reactivated enrollment; or
The provider or supplier had secured multiple billing
numbers, one of which was revoked for improper activity, another was
deactivated for non-billing, and the provider or supplier now seeks to
reactivate the latter number to bill for services that were previously
furnished under the revoked number.
CMS has indeed identified such scenarios in its program integrity
oversight activities. We believe that using a PPEO to closely monitor
reactivated providers or suppliers that had been deactivated under
Sec. 424.540(a)(1) would help prevent improper activity and help
ensure program integrity where the PPEO applies.
Deactivation can also occur under Sec. 424.540 if: (1) the
provider or supplier is voluntarily withdrawing from the Medicare
program (that is, voluntarily terminating its Medicare enrollment)
(Sec. 424.540(a)(7)); (2) the provider is the seller (and is hence
leaving the Medicare program) in an HHA change in majority ownership
under Sec. 424.550(b) (Sec. 424.540(a)(8)); or (3) an individual
provider or supplier is deceased (Sec. 424.540(a)(6)). The same
concerns we expressed regarding reactivations following a Sec.
424.540(a)(1) deactivation apply to these three deactivation bases. If
a reactivation request arrives after the provider or supplier was
deactivated upon departing the Medicare program, the provider's or
supplier's former enrollment may have been compromised by an
unscrupulous party. Even if no improper conduct is involved and the
voluntarily terminated provider or supplier simply wishes to reenter
and resume billing Medicare, they are effectively returning to the
program as a new provider or supplier after having departed. This
situation is not appreciably different from that where the provider or
supplier is enrolling in Medicare for the first time. Given this, we
believe that providers and suppliers that are reactivating their
enrollment after having left the Medicare program should be subject to
the same PPEO analysis as other providers and suppliers who are treated
as an initial enrollee for Medicare provider enrollment purposes, for
consistency and uniformity.
For all the foregoing reasons, we propose to add a new paragraph
(a)(4) to Sec. 424.527 that includes providers and suppliers that are
reactivating their enrollment and billing privileges under Sec.
424.540(b). We have elected to address this issue via rulemaking in
proposed Sec. 424.527(a)(4). However, we retain the authority under
section 1866(j)(3)(B) of the Act to establish and implement PPEO
procedures via subregulatory guidance.
VIII. Collection of Information Requirements
A. Statutory Requirement for Solicitation of Comments
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are required to
provide a 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 Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 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.
B. Information Collection Requirements (ICRs)
In the CY 2024 HH PPS rule, we solicited public comment on each of
these issues for the following sections of this document that contain
information collection requirements (ICRs).
1. ICRs for HH QRP
As discussed in section III.D.3. of this proposed rule, we are
proposing to collect four additional items as standardized patient
assessment data elements and replace one item collected as a
standardized patient assessment data element beginning with the CY 2027
HH QRP. The four assessment items proposed for collection are (1)
Living Situation, (2) Food Runs Out, (3) Food Doesn't Last, and (4)
Utilities. We also propose replacing the current Access to
Transportation item with a revised Transportation (Access to
Transportation) item beginning with the CY 2027 HH QRP as outlined in
section III.D.5. of this proposed rule. All elements discussed will be
collected at the start of care timepoint. We assumed the Living
Situation and Utilities data elements require 0.3 minutes each of
clinician time to complete. We assume the Food Runs Out and Food
Doesn't Last data elements require 0.15 minutes each of clinician time
to complete. We assume the replacement of the current Access to
Transportation item with a revised Transportation will not result in a
change in burden. Therefore, we estimated that there will be an
increase
[[Page 55411]]
in clinician burden per OASIS assessment of 0.9 minutes at start of
care.
As stated in section III.E. of this proposed rule, CMS is also
proposing an update to the removal of the suspension of OASIS all-payer
data collection to change all-payer data collection beginning with the
start of care OASIS data collection timepoint instead of discharge
timepoint. There is no associated change in burden resulting from this
proposal as burden for collection of for non-Medicare/non-Medicaid
patients at all OASIS data collection timepoints was estimated in the
CY 2023 HH PPS final rule.
The net effect of these proposals is an increase in four data
elements collected at the start of care for the OASIS implemented on
January 1, 2027.
For purposes of calculating the costs associated with the
information collection requirements, we obtained median hourly wages
for these from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' May 2023 National
Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates (https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm). To account for other indirect costs such as
overhead and fringe benefits (100 percent), we have doubled the hourly
wage. These amounts are detailed in table 41.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.070
The OASIS is completed by RNs or PTs, or very occasionally by
occupational therapists (OT) or speech language pathologists (SLP/ST).
Data from 2021 show that the SOC/ROC OASIS is completed by RNs
(approximately 77.14 percent of the time), PTs (approximately 22.16
percent of the time), and other therapists, including OTs and SLP/STs
(approximately 0.7 percent of the time). Based on this analysis, we
estimated a weighted clinician average hourly wage of $85.73, inclusive
of fringe benefits, using the hourly wage data in table 41 0.7714 x
82.76+0.2216 x 95.98 + 0.007 x 89.26 = 85.74. Individual providers
determine the staffing resources necessary.
For purposes of estimating burden, we compare the item-level burden
estimates for the OASIS that will be released on January 1, 2027, to
the OASIS-E1 as anticipated for implementation as of January 1, 2025,
and finalized in CY2024 HH PPS Final Rule. The first component needed
to calculate burden is the total estimated assessments for each year in
question. Table 42 shows the total number of OASIS assessments that
HHAs completed in CY 2023 at start of care and resumption of care. It
also outlines the estimated assessments that are expected to be
collected in 2025 based on a thirty percent increase in completed
assessments required for all payer data submission requirements for
(CY23 assessment total + CY23 assessment total *0.3 = Estimated CY25
Assessment total based on all payer data collection).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.071
The totals from table 42 are used to calculate the hourly burden
estimates in table B3 based on the following calculations:
Start of Care
Estimated time spent per each 2025 OASIS-E1 SOC Assessment/Patient
= 56.4 clinician minutes
200 data elements x (range of 0.15 to 0.3) minutes per data element
= 56.4 minutes of clinical time spent to complete data entry for the
OASIS-E1 SOC assessment.
21 data elements counted as 0.15 minutes/data element (3.15
minutes)
9 data elements counted as 0.25 minutes/data element (2.25
minutes)
170 data elements counted as 0.30 minutes/data element (51
minutes)
Clinician Estimated hourly burden for all HHAs (11,904) for 2025
OASIS-E1 SOC assessments = 8,099,309 hours
56.4 clinician minutes per SOC assessment x 8,616,286 assessments =
485,958,530 minutes/60 minutes per hour = 8,099,309 hours for all HHAs
Estimated time spent per each 2027 OASIS SOC Assessment/Patient =
57.3 clinician minutes
204 data elements x (range of 0.15 to 0.3) minutes per data element
= 57.3 minutes of clinical time spent to complete data entry for the
OASIS SOC assessment.
[[Page 55412]]
23 data elements counted as 0.15 minutes/data element (3.45
minutes)
9 data elements counted as 0.25 minutes/data element (2.25
minutes)
172 data elements counted as 0.30 minutes/data element (51.6
minutes)
Clinician Estimated hourly burden for all HHAs (11,904) for 2027
OASIS SOC assessments = 8,228,553 hours
57.3 clinician minutes per SOC assessment x 8,616,286 assessments =
493,713,188 = minutes/60 minutes per hour = 8,228,553 hours for all
HHAs
Resumption of Care
Estimated time spent per each 2025 OASIS-E1 ROC Assessment/Patient
= 47.1 minutes
169 data elements x (range of 0.15 to 0.3) minutes per data element
= 47.1 minutes of clinical time spent to complete data entry for the
OASIS-E1 ROC assessment
19 data elements counted as 0.15 minute/data element (2.85
minutes)
9 data elements counted as 0.25 minute/data element (2.25
minutes)
140 data elements counted as 0.30 minute/data element (42
minutes)
Clinician Estimated Hourly Burden for all HHAs for 2025 OASIS-E1
ROC assessments = 823,310 hours
47.1 clinician minutes per ROC assessment x 1,184,618 ROC
assessments = 55,795,508 minutes/60 minutes = 929,925hours for all HHAs
Estimated time spent per each 2027 OASIS ROC Assessment/Patient =
48 minutes
173 data elements x (range of 0.15 to 0.3) minutes per data element
= 48 minutes of clinical time spent to complete data entry for the
OASIS ROC assessment
21 data elements counted as 0.15 minute/data element (3.15
minutes)
9 data elements counted as 0.25 minute/data element (2.25
minutes)
142 data elements counted as 0.30 minute/data element (42.6
minutes)
Clinician Estimated Hourly Burden for all HHAs for 2027 OASIS ROC
assessments = 947,694 hours
48 clinician minutes per ROC assessment x 1,184,618 ROC assessments
= 56,861,664 minutes/60 minutes = 947,694 hours for all HHAs
Table 43 summarizes the estimated clinician hourly burden for the
OASIS that will be implemented in 2027 with this proposed rule's
changes of an increase in four data elements at start of care and
resumption of care compared to the anticipated 2025 OASIS-E1 burden.
This is calculated by multiplying the total number of assessments by
the increase in assessment time required. We calculate the 2025 and
2027 burden estimate in minutes and then calculate an hourly burden
shown in table 43. We estimated a net increase of 147,013 hours of
clinician burden across all HHAs or 12.35 hours (147,013/11,904) for
each of the 11,904 active HHAs.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.072
Table 44 summarizes the estimated clinician costs for the 2025
OASIS-E1 and the 2027 OASIS with the net addition of four data elements
at start of care using CY 2023 BLS wage inputs. Total clinician cost
for 2025 and 2027 is estimated by multiplying total hourly burden for
each year as reported in table 43 by the weighted clinician average
hourly wage of $85.74. We then calculate the difference in clinician
estimated costs between 2027 and 2025. This calculates the estimated
increase in costs associated with adding the four data elements at
start of care and resumption of care. We estimate an increase in
clinician costs $12,604,894.62 between 2027 and 2025 related to the
implementation of the proposals outlined in this proposed rule across
all HHAs or a $1,058.88 increase (12,604,894.62/11,904) for each of the
11,904 active HHAs. This increase in burden will begin with the January
1, 2027, OASIS assessments.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.073
2. ICRs for the Expanded HHVBP Model
The RFI and the health equity update for the expanded HHVBP Model
included in section IV. of this proposed rule do not result in an
increase in costs to HHAs. Section 1115A(d)(3) of the Act exempts
Innovation Center model tests and expansions, which include the
expanded HHVBP Model, from the provisions of the PRA. Specifically,
this section provides that the provisions of the PRA do not apply to
the testing and evaluation of Innovation Center models or to the
expansion of such models.
3. ICRs Related to Conditions of Participation (CoPs): Organization and
Administration of Services (Sec. 484.105)
[[Page 55413]]
In section VII.A. of this proposed rule, we discuss our proposal to
add a new standard at Sec. 484.105(i), which would set forth a
requirement for HHAs to establish an ``acceptance to service'' policy.
This new standard would require the HHA to develop, implement, and
maintain through an annual review a patient acceptance to service
policy that addressed criteria related to the HHA's capacity to provide
patient care, including, but not limited to, anticipated needs of the
referred prospective patient, case load and case mix of the HHA,
staffing levels of the HHA, and competencies and skills of the HHA
staff. In addition, we propose the HHA would have to make public
accurate information about the services offered by the HHA and any
limitations related to the types of specialty services, service
duration, and service frequency. We believe that most HHAs already have
a policy related to the admission to service. The burden associated
with this requirement is the burden required to develop, implement, and
maintain an updated policy that would meet the requirements of this
proposed rule, and the burden associated with making specified
information available to the public.
Section 1861(o)(2) of the Act requires HHAs to have policies
established by a group of professional personnel (associated with the
agency or organization), including one or more physicians and one or
more registered professional nurses. Therefore, we expect the HHA to
utilize a physician and nurse to create and update the HHA's policies.
We estimate there are 9,565 Medicare-certified HHAs and that this
proposed new requirement would take 1 hour each of a physician and a
registered nurse's time on a one-time basis, for an HHA to develop an
acceptance to service policy at a cost of $321.84 per HHA ($82.76 +
$239.08) and $3,078,400 for all HHA's ($791,599 + $2,286,800). We also
estimate the HHA nurse would review the acceptance to service policy on
an annual basis. This annual review would take 5 minutes for an HHA
nurse at a cost of $7 per HHA ($82.76 x 5/60 minute = $6.90) or $65,999
for all HHAs ($6.90 x 9,565 = $65,999) to fulfill this requirement.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.075
In addition, we estimate this proposed new requirement would take
15 minutes on a one-time basis for an HHA to the specified information
public at a cost of $10.43 per HHA or $99,763 for all HHA's, based on
the assumption that the HHA administrative professional will process
this task. The average hourly rate for an administrative employee is
$41.70, therefore it is $10.43 per HHA ($41.70 hour x 15/60 minutes =
$10.43) or $99,763 for all HHA's ($10.43 x 9,565) to fulfill the
requirement. We also estimate the HHA administrative professional would
review this website annually to assure the continued accuracy of the
posted information. This annual review would take 5 minutes at a cost
of $3.48 per HHA ($41.70 x 5/60 minute = $3.48) or $33,286 for all
HHA's (3.48 x 9,565 = $33,286) to fulfill this requirement.
Administrative professional: https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes436013.htm.
4. ICRs for Provider Enrollment Provisions
Section 1866(j)(3)(A) of the Act states that the Secretary shall
establish procedures to provide for a provisional period of between 30
days and 1 year during which new providers and
[[Page 55414]]
suppliers--as the Secretary determines appropriate, including
categories of providers or suppliers--will be subject to enhanced
oversight. These procedures have been codified in Sec. 424.527. As
explained in section VII. of this proposed rule, we are proposing to
expand the definition of ``new provider or supplier'' in Sec.
424.527(a) (solely for purposes of applying a provisional period of
enhanced oversight (PPEO)) to include providers and suppliers that are
reactivating their Medicare enrollment and billing privileges under
Sec. 424.540(b). We do not anticipate any ICR burdens associated with
this provision, for we are merely expanding an existing regulatory
definition.
5. ICRs Related to LTC Requirements for Acute Respiratory Illness
Reporting Sec. 483.80(g)
The ICR burden currently associated with Sec. 483.80(g) is
included under OMB control number 0938-1363; expiration date: April 30,
2026.
In section VII.B. of this proposed rule we discuss our proposals
related to LTC requirements for acute respiratory illness reporting. At
Sec. 483.80(g)(1)(i) through (ix) and (g)(2), we propose to replace
the existing reporting requirements for LTC facilities with new
requirements to report information addressing respiratory illnesses.
Beginning on January 1, 2025, facilities would be required to
electronically report information about COVID-19, influenza, and RSV in
a standardized format and frequency specified by the Secretary. To the
extent to be determined by the Secretary, through this rulemaking
cycle, we propose that the data elements for which reporting would be
required include--
Facility census;
Resident vaccination status for a limited set of
respiratory illnesses including but not limited to COVID-19, influenza,
and RSV;
Confirmed, resident cases of a limited set of respiratory
illnesses including but not limited to COVID-19, influenza, and RSV
(overall and by vaccination status); and
Hospitalized residents with confirmed cases of a limited
set of respiratory illnesses including but not limited to COVID-19,
influenza, and RSV (overall and by vaccination status.).
In the absence of a declared national PHE for an acute respiratory
illness, we propose that LTC facilities would continue to report these
data on a weekly basis through a format specified by the Secretary and
specifically we intend to continue reporting through the CDC's NHSN.
There may be instances in which the Secretary may determine a need to
change reporting frequency, such as during a future PHE, and we would
provide appropriate notice and guidance at that time.
These proposals are scaled back and tailored from the current post-
COVID-19 PHE requirements, continuing the collection of the minimal
necessary data to maintain a level of situational awareness that would
protect resident health and safety in LTC facilities across the country
while reducing reporting burden on those facilities. However, during a
declared Federal, state, or local PHE for a respiratory infectious
disease we also propose that the Secretary may require facilities to
report:
Data up to a daily frequency without additional notice and
comment rulemaking.
Additional or modified data elements relevant to the PHE,
including relevant confirmed infections among staff, supply inventory
shortages, and relevant medical countermeasures and therapeutics
inventories, usage, or both, and additional demographic factors.
Since the infection prevention and control program (IPCP) is the
responsibility of the infection preventionist (IP), we anticipate that
the IP would be responsible for reviewing and updating the policies and
procedures for the facility's IPCP to comply with these new proposals.
We estimate that it would require 2 hours of the IP's time to update
the facility's policies and procedures to ensure that they reflect the
proposed requirements. In analyzing the ICRs related to this proposal
we obtained salary information from the May 2023 National Occupational
Employment and Wage Estimates, BLS at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm. We have calculated the estimated hourly rate for an IP
using the occupation code for a registered nurse (29-1141) based on the
national mean salary increased by 100 percent to account for overhead
costs and fringe benefits ($45.42 x 2= $90.84 (rounded to $91).
According to CMS, there are currently 14,926 LTC facilities as of April
2024.\160\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\160\ https://qcor.cms.gov/active_nh.jsp?which=0&report=active_nh.jsp, report ran 4/24/2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on this salary information and facility data, we estimate
that total annual burden hours for all LTC facilities to review and
update their current policies and procedures would be 29,852 hours (2
hours x 14,926 facilities) at a cost of $2,716,532 (29,852 x $91) or
$182 ($91 x 2 hours) per facility annually.
In addition, LTC facilities will need to continue locating the
required information and electronically reporting in the frequency
specified to the NHSN. Currently, the ICR associated with this
reporting requirement under OMB control #0938-1363 estimates a total
burden cost of $55,972,800 (1 hour x 52 weeks x $69 (IP 2022 salary) x
15,600 LTC facilities as of 2022) based on weekly reporting. While the
number of required data elements for ongoing reporting have decreased
from the current post-COVID-19 PHE reporting requirements set to expire
December 2024, we acknowledge that the data elements and reporting
frequency could increase or decrease due to what the Secretary deems
necessary based on changes in circumstance or given another PHE and
these changes would impact this burden estimate. For instance, weekly
data reporting could be decreased to bi-weekly reporting or the
increased reporting of additional data elements during a PHE could be
activated and remain active for less than or more than a year depending
on the circumstances. Since we cannot predict with certainty how often
the Secretary would require data reporting for a future PHE, we are
including two burden estimates to cover a range in frequency of
reporting. The lower range is based on weekly reporting and the higher
range is based on daily reporting.
Based on the assumption of a weekly reporting frequency and 1 hour
of the IP's time to locate and electronically report the information,
we estimate that total annual burden hours for all LTC facilities to
comply would be 776,152 hours (1 hour x 52 weeks x 14,926 facilities)
at a cost of $70,629,832 (776,152 total hours x $91) or $4,732 ($91 x 1
hour x 52 weeks) per facility annually.
Based on the assumption of a daily reporting frequency, we estimate
that total annual burden hours for all LTC facilities to comply would
be 5,447,990 hours (1 hour x 365 days a year x 14,926 facilities) at a
cost of $495,767,090 (5,447,990 total hours x $91) or $33,215 ($91 x 1
hour x 365 days a year) per facility annually.
In summary the total annual burden for all LTC facilities for these
proposed ICRs is 806,004 to 5,477,842 hours at an estimated cost of
$73,346,364 to $498,483,622 or 54 to 367 hours at an estimated cost of
$4,914 to $33,397 per
[[Page 55415]]
facility annually. We will submit the revised information collection
request to OMB for approval under OMB control number 0938-1363.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.076
We welcome public comments on our ICR burden estimates, and on ways
that reporting burden can be minimized while still providing adequate
data. We also welcome feedback on any challenges of collecting and
reporting these data; ways that CMS could reduce reporting burden for
facilities; and alternative reporting mechanisms or quality reporting
programs through which CMS could instead effectively and sustainably
incentivize reporting. Lastly, we welcome comments that address system
readiness and capacity to collect and report these data.
C. Submission of PRA-Related Comments
We have submitted a copy of this final rule to OMB for its review
of the rule's information collection requirements. The requirements are
not effective until they have been approved by OMB.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms
for the proposed collections, as previously discussed, please visit the
CMS website at https://www.cms.hhs.gov/PaperworkReductionActof1995, or
call the Reports Clearance Office at 410-786-1326.
We invite public comments on these potential information collection
requirements.
IX. Regulatory Impact Analysis
A. Statement of Need
1. HH PPS
Section 1895(b)(1) of the Act requires the Secretary to establish a
HH PPS for all costs of home health services paid under Medicare. In
addition, section 1895(b) of the Act requires: (1) the computation of a
standard prospective payment amount include all costs for home health
services covered and paid for on a reasonable cost basis and that such
amounts be initially based on the most recent audited cost report data
available to the Secretary; (2) the prospective payment amount under
the HH PPS to be an appropriate unit of service based on the number,
type, and duration of visits provided within that unit; and (3) the
standardized prospective payment amount be adjusted to account for the
effects of case-mix and wage levels among HHAs. Section 1895(b)(3)(B)
of the Act addresses the annual update to the standard prospective
payment amounts by the home health applicable percentage increase.
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 requires the standard
prospective payment amount be adjusted for case-mix and geographic
differences in wage levels. Section 1895(b)(4)(B) of the Act requires
the establishment of appropriate case-mix adjustment factors for
significant variation in costs among different units of services.
Lastly, 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 home health services furnished in a
geographic area compared to the applicable national average level.
Section 1895(b)(3)(B)(iv) of the Act provides the Secretary with
the authority to implement adjustments to the standard prospective
payment amount (or amounts) for subsequent years to eliminate the
effect of changes in aggregate payments during a previous year or years
that were the result of changes in the coding or classification of
different units of services that do not reflect real changes in case-
mix. Section 1895(b)(5) of the Act provides the Secretary with the
option to make changes to the payment amount otherwise paid in the case
of outliers because of unusual variations in the type or amount of
medically necessary care. Section 1895(b)(3)(B)(v) of the Act requires
HHAs to submit data for purposes of measuring health care quality and
links the quality data submission to the annual applicable percentage
increase.
Sections 1895(b)(2) and 1895(b)(3)(A) of the Act, as amended by
sections 51001(a)(1) and 51001(a)(2) of the BBA of 2018 respectively,
required the Secretary to implement a 30-day unit of service, for 30-
day periods beginning on and after January 1, 2020. Section
1895(b)(3)(D)(i) of the Act, as added by section 51001(a)(2)(B) of the
BBA of 2018, requires the Secretary to annually determine the impact of
differences between assumed behavior changes, as described in section
1895(b)(3)(A)(iv) of the Act, and actual behavior changes on estimated
aggregate expenditures under the HH PPS with respect to years beginning
with 2020 and ending with 2026. Section 1895(b)(3)(D)(ii) of the Act
requires the Secretary, at a time and in a manner determined
appropriate, through notice and comment rulemaking, to provide for one
or more permanent increases or decreases to the standard prospective
payment amount (or amounts) for applicable years, on a prospective
basis, to offset for such increases or decreases in estimated aggregate
expenditures, as determined under section 1895(b)(3)(D)(i) of the Act.
Additionally, 1895(b)(3)(D)(iii) of the Act requires the Secretary, at
a time and in a manner determined appropriate, through notice and
comment rulemaking, to provide for one or more temporary increases or
decreases to the payment amount for a unit of home health services for
applicable years, on a prospective basis, to offset for such increases
or decreases in estimated aggregate expenditures, as determined under
section 1895(b)(3)(D)(i) of the Act. The HH PPS wage index utilizes the
wage adjustment factors used by the Secretary for purposes of sections
1895(b)(4)(A)(ii) and (b)(4)(C) of the Act for hospital wage
adjustments.
2. HH QRP
Section 1895(b)(3)(B)(v) of the Act authorizes the HH QRP, which
requires
[[Page 55416]]
HHAs to submit data in accordance with the requirements specified by
CMS. Failure to submit data required under section 1895(b)(3)(B)(v) of
the Act with respect to a program year will result in the reduction of
the annual home health market basket percentage increase otherwise
applicable to an HHA for the corresponding calendar year by 2
percentage points.
3. Expanded HHVBP Model
In the CY 2022 HH PPS final rule (86 FR 62292 through 62336) and
codified at 42 CFR part 484, subpart F, we finalized our policy to
expand the HHVBP Model to all Medicare certified HHAs in the 50 States,
territories, and District of Columbia beginning January 1, 2022. CY
2022 was a pre-implementation year. CY 2023 was the first performance
year in which HHAs individual performance on the applicable measures
will affect their Medicare payments in CY 2025. In this proposed rule,
we include a request for information (RFI) related to the future
measure concepts for the expanded HHVBP Model. We also provide an
update on potential future approaches for integrating health equity
that are being considered for the expanded HHVBP Model.
4. Home IVIG Items and Services
Division FF, section 4134 of the CAA, 2023 (Pub. L. 117-328)
mandated that CMS establish a permanent, bundled payment for items and
services related to administration of IVIG in a patient's home. The
permanent, bundled home IVIG items and services payment is effective
for home IVIG infusions furnished on or after January 1, 2024. Payment
for these items and services is required to be a separate bundled
payment made to a supplier for all items and services furnished in the
home during a calendar day. This payment amount may be based on the
amount established under the Demonstration. The standard Part B
coinsurance and the Part B deductible apply. The separate bundled
payment does not apply for individuals receiving services under the
Medicare home health benefit. The CAA, 2023 provision clarifies that a
supplier who furnishes these services meet the requirements of a
supplier of medical equipment and supplies.
5. HHA CoP Changes: Establishing an Acceptance to Service Policy
In sections 1861(o) and 1891 of the Act, the Secretary has
established in regulations the requirements that an HHA must meet to
participate in the Medicare program. These requirements are set forth
in regulations at 42 CFR part 484, Home Health Services, and
regulations at 42 CFR 440.70(d) specify that HHAs participating in the
Medicaid program must also meet the Medicare Conditions of
Participation (CoPs). Section 1861(o)(6) of the Act requires that an
HHA must meet the CoPs specified in section 1891(a) of the Act, and
other CoPs as the Secretary finds necessary in the interest of the
health and safety of patients. The CoPs for HHAs protect all
individuals under the HHA's care, unless a requirement is specifically
limited to Medicare beneficiaries. As explained in section VI.A. of
this proposed rule, we are proposing to add a new standard at Sec.
484.105(i) that would require HHAs to develop, consistently apply, and
maintain an acceptance to service policy, including specified factors,
that would govern the process for accepting patients to service. We
also propose that HHAs would be required to make specified information
about their services and service limitations available to the public.
In this proposed rule, we include a request for information (RFI) to
obtain information from stakeholders on whether CMS should shift its
longstanding policy and permit rehabilitative therapists to conduct the
initial and comprehensive assessment for cases that have both therapy
and nursing services ordered as part of the plan of care. In addition,
we are seeking public comments on other factors that influence the
patient referral and intake processes.
6. Provider Enrollment Provisions
Section 1866(j)(3)(A) of the Act states that the Secretary shall
establish procedures to provide for a provisional period of between 30
days and 1 year during which new providers and suppliers--as the
Secretary determines appropriate, including categories of providers or
suppliers--will be subject to enhanced oversight. These procedures have
been codified in 42 CFR 424.527. As explained in section VII. of this
proposed rule, we are proposing to expand the definition of ``new
provider or supplier'' in Sec. 424.527(a) (solely for purposes of
applying a provisional period of enhanced oversight (PPEO) to include
providers and suppliers that are reactivating their Medicare enrollment
and billing privileges under Sec. 424.540(b).
7. LTC Requirements for Acute Respiratory Illness Reporting
Sections 1819(d)(3) and 1919(d)(3) of the Act explicitly require
that LTC facilities develop and maintain an infection control program
that is designed, constructed, equipped, and maintained in a manner to
protect the health and safety of residents, personnel, and the general
public. In addition, sections 1819(d)(4)(B) and 1919(d)(4)(B) of the
Act explicitly authorize the Secretary to issue any regulations he
deems necessary to protect the health and safety of residents. As such,
we are proposing streamlined weekly data reporting requirements for
certain respiratory illnesses. We are also proposing additional,
related data elements that could be activated in the event of a future
acute respiratory illness PHE.
B. Overall Impact
We have examined the impacts of this proposed rule as required by
Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review (September 30,
1993), Executive Order 13563 on Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review (January 18, 2011), Executive Order 14094 on Modernizing
Regulatory Review (April 6, 2023), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
(September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96 354), section 1102(b) of the Act,
section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (March 22,
1995; Pub. L. 104-4), Executive Order 13132 on Federalism (August 4,
1999), and the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 14094 amends section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 to define a
``significant regulatory action'' as an action that is likely to result
in a rule: (1) having an annual effect on the economy of $200 million
or more in any 1 year, or adversely affect in a material way the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities; (2) creating a serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3)
materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user
fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or (4) raising legal or policy issues for which centralized
review would meaningfully further the President's priorities or the
principles set forth in this Executive order.
A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for significant
rules.
[[Page 55417]]
Based on our estimates, OMB'S Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs has determined this rulemaking is significant per section
3(f)(1) as measured by the $200 million or more in any 1 year.
Accordingly, we have prepared a regulatory impact analysis that to the
best of our ability presents the costs and benefits of the rulemaking.
Therefore, OMB has reviewed this proposed rule, and the Departments
have provided the following assessment of their impact. We solicit
comments on the regulatory impact analysis provided.
C. Detailed Economic Analysis
1. Effects of the Proposed Changes for the CY 2025 HH PPS
This rule proposes to update Medicare payments under the HH PPS for
CY 2025. The net transfer impact related to the changes in payments
under the HH PPS for CY 2025 is estimated to be -$280 million (-1.7
percent). The $280 million decrease in estimated payments for CY 2025
reflects the effects of the proposed CY 2025 home health payment update
percentage of 2.5 percent ($415 million increase), an estimated 3.6
percent decrease that reflects the effects of the permanent adjustment
($595 million decrease), and an estimated 0.6 percent decrease that
reflects the effects of an updated FDL ($100 million decrease).
We use the latest data and analysis available. However, we do not
adjust for future changes in such variables as number of visits or
case-mix. This analysis incorporates the latest estimates of growth in
service use and payments under the Medicare home health benefit, based
primarily on Medicare claims data for periods that ended on or before
December 31, 2023. We note that certain events may combine to limit the
scope or accuracy of our impact analysis, because such an analysis is
future-oriented and, thus, susceptible to errors resulting from other
changes in the impact time period assessed. Some examples of such
possible events are newly-legislated general Medicare program funding
changes made by the Congress or changes specifically related to HHAs.
In addition, changes to the Medicare program may continue to be made as
a result of new statutory provisions. Although these changes may not be
specific to the HH PPS, the nature of the Medicare program is such that
the changes may interact, and the complexity of the interaction of
these changes could make it difficult to predict accurately the full
scope of the impact upon HHAs.
Table 48 represents how HHA revenues are likely to be affected by
the proposed policy changes for CY 2025. For this analysis, we used an
analytic file with linked CY 2023 OASIS assessments and home health
claims data for dates of service that ended on or before December 31,
2023. The first column of table 48 classifies HHAs according to a
number of characteristics including provider type, geographic region,
and urban and rural locations. The second column shows the number of
facilities in the impact analysis. The third column shows the payment
effects of the permanent assumption adjustment on all payments. The
aggregate impact of the permanent adjustment reflected in the third
column does not equal the proposed -4.067 percent permanent adjustment
because the adjustment only applies to the national, standardized 30-
day period payments and does not impact payments for 30-day periods
which are LUPAs. The fourth column shows the payment effects of the
recalibration of the case-mix weights offset by the case-mix weights
budget neutrality factor. The fifth column shows the payment effects of
updating the CY 2025 wage index (that is, the FY 2025 hospital pre-
floor, pre-reclassified wage index for hospital cost reporting periods
beginning on or after October 1, 2020, and before October 1, 2021 (FY
2021 cost report data)) with the revised OMB delineations and a 5-
percent cap on wage index decreases. The aggregate impact of the
changes in the fifth column is zero percent, due to the wage index
budget neutrality factor. The sixth column shows the payment impacts of
the proposed update to the LUPA add-on factors. The seventh column
shows the payment effects of the proposed CY 2025 home health payment
update percentage. The eighth column shows the payment effects of the
revised FDL, and the last column shows the combined effects of all the
proposed provisions.
Overall, it is projected that aggregate payments in CY 2025 would
decrease by 1.7 percent which reflects the 3.6 percent decrease from
the permanent adjustment, the 2.5 payment update percentage increase,
and the 0.6 percent decrease from increasing the FDL. As illustrated in
table 48, the combined effects of all changes vary by specific types of
providers and by location. We note that some individual HHAs within the
same group may experience different impacts on payments than others due
to the distributional impact of the CY 2025 wage index, the percentage
of total HH PPS payments that were subject to the LUPA or paid as
outlier payments, and the degree of Medicare utilization.
BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
[[Page 55418]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.077
[[Page 55419]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.078
BILLING CODE 4120-01-C
[[Page 55420]]
2. Effects of the Proposed Changes for the HH QRP for CY 2027
Failure to submit HH QRP data required under section
1895(b)(3)(B)(v) of the Act with respect to a program year will result
in the reduction of the annual home health market basket percentage
increase otherwise applicable to an HHA for the corresponding calendar
year by 2 percentage points. For the CY 2023 program year, 820 of the
11,549 active Medicare-certified HHAs, or approximately 7.1 percent,
did not receive the full annual percentage increase because they did
not meet assessment submission requirements. The 820 HHAs that did not
satisfy the reporting requirements of the HH QRP for the CY 2023
program year represent $149 million in home health claims payment
dollars during the reporting period out of a total $16.4 billion for
all HHAs.
This proposed rule proposes to collect four additional items as
standardized patient assessment data elements and replace one item
collected as a standardized patient assessment data element beginning
with the CY 2027 HH QRP. The four assessment items proposed for
collection are (1) Living Situation, (2) Food Runs Out, (3) Food
Doesn't Last, and (4) Utilities. We also propose replacing the current
Access to Transportation item with a revised Transportation (Access to
Transportation) item beginning with the CY 2027 HH QRP. CMS is also
proposing an update to the removal of the suspension of OASIS all-payer
data collection to change all-payer data collection beginning with the
start of care OASIS data collection timepoint instead of discharge
timepoint. The net effect of these proposals is an increase of four
data elements at the start of care time point and a net increase in
burden.
Section VIII.B.1. of this proposed rule provides a detailed
description of the net increase in burdens associated with the proposed
changes. We proposed that additions of data elements associated with
the HH QRP proposals would begin with January 1, 2027, discharges. The
cost impact of these proposed changes was estimated to be a net
increase of $12,604,894.62 in annualized cost to HHAs, discounted at 2
percent relative to year 2023, over a perpetual time horizon beginning
in CY 2027. We described the estimated burden and cost reductions for
these measures in section VIII. of this proposed rule. In summary, the
implementation of proposals outlined in this proposed rule for the HH
QRP is estimated to increase the burden on HHAs by $1,058.88 per HHA
annually, or $12,604,894.62 for all HHAs annually.
3. Effects of the Expanded HH VBP Model
There are no proposed changes to the expanded HHVBP Model for CY
2025. Therefore, we assume there are no impacts resulting from this
proposed rule. Furthermore, the public comments received related to the
Request for Information on Future Performance Measure Concepts for the
Expanded HHVBP Model and the update on Future Approaches to Health
Equity in the Expanded HHVBP Model, included in section IV. of this
proposed rule, will be summarized in the final rule and may inform
proposals through future rulemaking.
4. Impacts of Home IVIG Items and Services
The following analysis applies to the home IVIG items and services
payment rate as set forth in section V.D.1. of this proposed rule as
added by section 4134 of the CAA, 2023 and accordingly, describes the
impact for CY 2025 only. Table 49 represents the estimated aggregate
costs of home IVIG users for CY 2025. We used CY 2023 data to identify
beneficiaries actively enrolled in the IVIG demonstration (that is,
beneficiaries with Part B claims that contain the Q2052 HCPCS code) to
estimate the number of potential CY 2025 active enrollees in the new
benefit, which are shown in column 2. In column 3, CY 2023 claims for
IVIG visits under the Demonstration were again used to estimate
potential utilization under the new benefit in CY 2025. Column 4 shows
the proposed CY 2025 home IVIG items and services rate. The fifth
column estimates the cost to Medicare for CY 2025 ($9,435,233). Table
50 represents the estimated impacts of the home IVIG items and services
payment for CY 2025 by census region.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.079
[[Page 55421]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.080
5. HHA CoP Changes: Establishing an Acceptance to Service Policy
We propose to add a new standard Sec. 484.105(i), which sets forth
a requirement for HHAs to establish an acceptance to service policy.
All cost associated with this policy are located in the section VIII.
of this proposed rule (Collection of Information). There are no
transfers associated with this requirement.
6. Provider Enrollment Provisions
For purposes of applying a PPEO, we are proposing to expand the
definition of ``new provider or supplier'' in Sec. 424.527(a) to
include providers and suppliers that are reactivating their Medicare
enrollment and billing privileges under Sec. 424.540(b). However, we
are unable to establish an estimate of any potential burden associated
with this provision for two main reasons. First, we do not have
sufficient data upon which we can formulate a burden projection.
Second, we cannot predict the scope, extent, and length of any future
PPEO or the provider or supplier type(s) to which it may apply.
Accordingly, we solicit public comment from stakeholders on the
potential burden of our expansion of Sec. 424.527(a).
7. Effects of the Proposed LTC Requirements for Acute Respiratory
Illness Reporting
We propose to update the requirements related to reporting acute
respiratory illnesses for LTC facilities at Sec. 483.80(g). All cost
associated with this policy are located in the section IX. of this
proposed rule (Collection of Information). There are no transfers
associated with this requirement. We welcome public comments on our
estimates, and on ways that reporting burden can be minimized while
still providing adequate data. We also welcome feedback on any
challenges of collecting and reporting these data; ways that CMS could
reduce reporting burden for facilities; and alternative reporting
mechanisms or quality reporting programs through which CMS could
instead effectively and sustainably incentivize reporting. Lastly, we
welcome comments that address system readiness and capacity to collect
and report these data.
D. Regulatory Review Cost Estimation
If regulations impose administrative costs on private entities,
such as the time needed to read and interpret this proposed rule, we
should estimate the cost associated with regulatory review. Due to the
uncertainty involved with accurately quantifying the number of entities
that will review the rule, we assume that the total number of unique
commenters on last year's proposed rule will be the number of reviewers
of this proposed rule. We acknowledge that this assumption may
understate or overstate the costs of reviewing this proposed rule. It
is possible that not all commenters reviewed last year's rule in
detail, and it is also possible that some reviewers chose not to
comment on the proposed rule. For these reasons we thought that the
number of past commenters would be a fair estimate of the number of
reviewers of this proposed rule. We welcome any comments on the
approach used in estimating the number of entities reviewing this
proposed rule.
We recognize that different types of entities are in many cases
affected by mutually exclusive sections of this proposed rule.
Therefore, for the purposes of our estimate we assume that each
reviewer reads approximately 50 percent of the rule. Finally, in our
estimates, we have used the 948 number of timely pieces of
correspondence on the CY 2024 HH PPS proposed rule as our estimate for
the number of reviewers of this proposed rule. We continue to
acknowledge the uncertainty involved with using this number, but we
believe it is a fair estimate due to the variety of entities affected
and the likelihood that some of them choose to rely (in full or in
part) on press releases, newsletters, fact sheets, or other sources
rather than the comprehensive review of preamble and regulatory text.
We seek comments on this assumption. Using the median hourly wage
information from the BLS for medical and health service managers (Code
11-9111), we estimate that the cost of reviewing the proposed rule is
$106.42 per hour, including overhead and fringe benefits (https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm). Assuming an average reading
speed, we estimate that
[[Page 55422]]
it would take approximately 2.77 hours for the staff to review half of
this proposed rule. For each entity that reviews this proposed rule,
the estimated cost is $294.78 (2.77 hours x $106.42). Therefore, we
estimate that the total cost of reviewing this proposed rule is
$279,451 ($294.78 x 948 reviewers).
E. Alternatives Considered
1. HH PPS
For the CY 2025 HH PPS proposed rule, we considered alternatives to
the provisions articulated in section II.C. of this proposed rule. As
described in section II.C.1.b. of this proposed rule, we proposed a
mapping of three OASIS items (therapies, vision, and pain) in order to
impute the responses from the OASIS-E to the OASIS-D to create
simulated 60-day episodes from 30-day periods. We considered not
proposing the mapping methodology; however, to continue with the best
reading of the law and the finalized methodology for assessing behavior
changes we proposed the OASIS mapping.
As described in section II.C.1.g. of this proposed rule, to achieve
appropriate payments, we calculated a permanent adjustment by
determining what the 30-day base payment amount should have been in CYs
2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023 in order to achieve the same estimated
aggregate expenditures as obtained from the simulated 60-day episodes.
One alternative to the proposed -4.067 percent permanent adjustment
included halving the proposed permanent adjustment similar to how we
finalized the permanent adjustment for CY 2024. Another alternative
would be a phase-in approach, where we could reduce the permanent
adjustment, by spreading out the CY 2025 permanent adjustment over a
specified period of years, rather than halving the adjustment in CY
2025. Another alternative would be to delay the permanent adjustment to
a future year. However, we believe that a reduction, a phase-in
approach, or delay in the permanent adjustment would not be
appropriate, as reducing, phasing in, or delaying the permanent
adjustment would further impact budget neutrality and likely lead to a
compounding effect creating the need for a larger reduction to the
payment rate in future years.
We also considered proposing to implement the one-time temporary
adjustment to reconcile retrospective overpayments in CYs 2020, 2021,
2022, and 2023. However, as stated previously in this proposed rule, we
believe that implementing both the permanent and temporary adjustments
to the CY 2025 payment rate may adversely affect HHAs given the
magnitude of the adjustment to the payment rate in a single year.
Likewise, section 1895(b)(3)(D)(iii) of the Act gives CMS the authority
to make any temporary adjustment in a time and manner appropriate
though notice and comment rulemaking. Therefore, we believe it is best
to propose only the implementation of the permanent decrease of 4.067
percent to the CY 2025 base payment rate.
Finally, we considered not proposing to adopt the OMB delineations
listed in OMB Bulletin 23-01. However, we have historically adopted the
latest OMB delineations in subsequent rulemaking after a new OMB
Bulletin is released.
2. Home IVIG Items and Services
For the CY 2025 HH PPS proposed rule, we did not consider
alternatives to implementing the home IVIG items and services payment
for CY 2025 because section 1842(o)(8) of the Act requires the
Secretary to establish a separate bundled payment to the supplier for
all items and services related to the administration of intravenous
immune globulin to an individual in the patient's home during a
calendar day effective January 1, 2024.
F. Accounting Statements and Tables
1. HH PPS
As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/legacy_drupal_files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf), in table 51, we have prepared an accounting
statement showing the classification of the transfers and benefits
associated with the CY 2025 HH PPS provisions of this proposed rule.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.081
2. HH QRP
As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/legacy_drupal_files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf), in table 52, we have prepared an accounting
statement showing the classification of the costs associated with the
ICRs for the proposed HH QRP provisions in CY 2027.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.082
[[Page 55423]]
3. Home IVIG Items and Services
As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/legacy_drupal_files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf), in table 53, we have prepared an accounting
statement showing the classification of the transfers and benefits
associated with the CY 2025 IVIG provisions of this proposed rule.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.083
G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief
of small entities, if a rule has a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. For purposes of the RFA, small entities
include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions. In addition, HHAs are small entities, as
that is the term used in the RFA. Individuals and States are not
included in the definition of a small entity.
The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) was
adopted in 1997 and is the current standard used by the Federal
statistical agencies related to the U.S. business economy. We utilized
the NAICS U.S. industry title ``Home Health Care Services'' and
corresponding NAICS code 621610 in determining impacts for small
entities. The NAICS code 621610 has a size standard of $19 million
\161\ and approximately 96 percent of HHAs are considered small
entities. Table 54 shows the number of firms, revenue, and estimated
impact per home health care service category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\161\ https://www.sba.gov/sites/sbagov/files/2023-03/Table%20of%20Size%20Standards_Effective%20March%2017%2C%202023.xlsx.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY24.084
The economic impact assessment is based on estimated Medicare
payments (revenues) and HHS's practice in interpreting the RFA is to
consider effects economically ``significant'' only if greater than 5
percent of providers reach a threshold of 3 to 5 percent or more of
total revenue or total costs. The majority of HHAs' visits are Medicare
paid visits and therefore the majority of HHAs' revenue consists of
Medicare payments. Based on our analysis, we conclude that the policies
proposed in this rule would result in an estimated total impact of 3 to
5 percent or more on Medicare revenue for greater than 5 percent of
HHAs. Therefore, the Secretary has determined that this HH PPS proposed
rule will have significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Specifically, we estimate that the net impact of the
policies in this proposed rule will have a significant impact on
hospices in the
[[Page 55424]]
New England, Mid Atlantic, and Pacific regions, which is reflected in
the last column in table 48 as a greater than 33 percent decrease in
expenditures when comparing CY 2025 payments to estimated CY 2024
payments. The reason for the net decrease in CY 2025 is mostly driven
by the impact of the permanent adjustment reflected in the third column
of table 48. Further detail is presented in table 48, by HHA type and
location.
Regarding options for regulatory relief, we note that section
1895(b)(3)(D)(i) of the Act requires CMS to annually determine the
impact of differences between the assumed behavior changes finalized in
the CY 2019 HH PPS final rule with comment period (83 FR 56455) and
actual behavior changes on estimated aggregate expenditures under the
HH PPS with respect to years beginning with 2020 and ending with 2026.
Additionally, section 1895(b)(3)(D)(ii) and (iii) of the Act requires
us to make permanent and temporary adjustments to the payment rate to
offset for such increases or decreases in estimated aggregate
expenditures through notice and comment rulemaking. While we find that
the -4.067 percent permanent adjustment, described in section II.C.1.g.
of this proposed rule, is necessary to offset the increase in estimated
aggregate expenditures for CYs 2020 through 2023 based on the impact of
the differences between assumed behavior changes and actual behavior
changes, we will also continue to reprice claims, per the finalized
methodology, and make any additional adjustments at a time and manner
deemed appropriate in future rulemaking. As discussed previously, we
also explored alternatives to the proposed -4.067 percent permanent
adjustment including a phase-in approach, where we could reduce the
permanent adjustment, by spreading out the CY 2025 permanent adjustment
over a period of years. Another alternative would be to delay the
permanent adjustment to a future year. However, we believe that a
reduction to the permanent adjustment, a phase-in approach, or delay in
the permanent adjustment would not be appropriate, as reducing, phasing
in, or delaying the permanent adjustment would further impact budget
neutrality and likely lead to a compounding effect creating the need
for a larger reduction to the payment rate in future years. We also
considered proposing to implement the one-time temporary adjustment to
reconcile retrospective overpayments in CYs 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023.
However, as stated previously in this proposed rule, we recognize that
applying the full permanent and temporary adjustments to the CY 2025
payment rate may adversely affect HHAs, including small entities. We
are soliciting comments on the overall HH PPS RFA analysis.
Among the over 7,500 HHAs that are estimated to qualify to compete
in the expanded HHVBP Model, we estimate that the percent payment
adjustment resulting from this proposed rule would be larger than 3
percent, in magnitude, for about 28 percent of competing HHAs
(estimated by applying the proposed 5-percent maximum payment
adjustment under the expanded Model to CY 2019 data). As a result, more
than the RFA threshold of 5-percent of HHA providers nationally would
be significantly impacted. We refer readers to tables 43 and 44 in the
CY 2022 HH PPS final rule (86 FR 62407 through 62410) for our analysis
of payment adjustment distributions by State, HHA characteristics, HHA
size, and percentiles.
In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare an
RIA if a rule may have a significant impact on the operations of a
substantial number of small rural hospitals. This analysis must conform
to the provisions of section 603 of 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 100 beds. This proposed rule is not applicable to hospitals.
Therefore, the Secretary has certified that this proposed rule would
not have a significant economic impact on the operations of small rural
hospitals.
H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
Section 202 of UMRA of 1995 UMRA also requires that agencies assess
anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates
require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated
annually for inflation. In 2024, that threshold is approximately $183
million. This proposed rule would not impose a mandate that will result
in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $183 million in any
one year.
I. Federalism
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an
agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent
final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State
and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has federalism
implications. We have reviewed this proposed rule under these criteria
of Executive Order 13132 and have determined that it would not impose
substantial direct costs on State or local governments.
J. Conclusion
In conclusion, we estimate that the provisions in this proposed
rule will result in an estimated net decrease in home health payments
of 1.7 percent for CY 2025 (-$280 million). The $280 million decrease
in estimated payments for CY 2025 reflects the effects of the proposed
CY 2025 home health payment update percentage increase of 2.5 percent
($415 million increase), a 0.6 percent decrease in payments due to the
new higher FDL ratio, which will decrease outlier payments in order to
target to pay no more than 2.5 percent of total payments as outlier
payments ($100 million decrease), and an estimated 3.6 percent decrease
in payments that reflects the effects of the permanent behavior
adjustment ($595 million decrease). In addition, the estimated
aggregate impacts of the home IVIG items and services payment for CY
2025 is $9.4 million. Lastly, the implementation of the HH QRP proposed
policy is estimated to increase the costs to HHAs by $1,058.88 per HHA
annually, or $12,604,894.62 in the aggregate for HHAs annually.
X. Response to Comments
Because of the large number of public comments we normally receive
on Federal Register documents, we are not able to acknowledge or
respond to them individually. We will consider all comments we receive
by the date and time specified in the DATES section of this preamble,
and, when we proceed with a subsequent document, we will respond to the
comments in the preamble to that document.
Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, Administrator of the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services, approved this document on June 12, 2024.
List of Subjects
42 CFR Part 424
Emergency medical services, Health facilities, Health professions,
Medicare, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 CFR Part 483
Grant programs--health, Health facilities, Health professions,
Health records, Medicaid, Medicare, Nursing
[[Page 55425]]
homes, Nutrition, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety.
42 CFR Part 484
Health facilities, Health professions, Medicare, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Centers for Medicare
& Medicaid Services proposes to amend 42 CFR chapter IV as follows:
PART 424--CONDITIONS FOR MEDICARE PAYMENT
0
1. The authority for part 424 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1302 and 1395hh.
0
2. Section 424.527 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(4) to read as
follows:
Sec. 424.527 Provisional period of enhanced oversight.
(a) * * *
(4) A provider or supplier reactivating the provider's or
supplier's Medicare enrollment and billing privileges in accordance
with Sec. 424.540(b).
* * * * *
PART 483--REQUIREMENTS FOR STATES AND LONG TERM CARE FACILITIES
0
3. The authority citation for part 483 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1302, 1320a-7, 1395i, 1395hh and 1396r.
0
4. Section 483.80 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read as
follows:
Sec. 483.80 Infection control.
* * * * *
(g) Respiratory illness reporting--(1) Ongoing reporting. The
facility must electronically report information on acute respiratory
illnesses, including influenza, SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19, and RSV.
(i) The report must be in a standardized format and frequency
specified by the Secretary.
(ii) To the extent as required by the Secretary, this report must
include all of the following data elements:
(A) Facility census (defined as the total number of residents
occupying a bed at this facility for at least 24 hours during the week
of data collection).
(B) Resident vaccination status for a limited set of respiratory
illnesses, including but not limited to the following:
(1) Influenza.
(2) SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19.
(3) RSV.
(C) Confirmed, resident cases of a limited set of respiratory
illnesses, including but not limited to the following:
(1) Influenza.
(2) SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19.
(3) RSV.
(D) Hospitalized residents with confirmed cases of a limited set of
respiratory illnesses, including but not limited to the following:
(1) Influenza.
(2) SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19.
(3) RSV.
(2) Public health emergency (PHE) reporting. In the event that the
Secretary has declared a national, State, or local PHE for an acute
infectious illness or determined that a significant threat for one
exists, the facility must also electronically report all of the
following data elements in a standardized format and frequency
specified by the Secretary:
(i) Relevant confirmed infections for staff.
(ii) Supply inventory shortages.
(iii) Staffing shortages.
(iv) Relevant medical countermeasures and therapeutic inventories,
usage, or both.
PART 484--HOME HEALTH SERVICES
0
5. The authority citation for part 484 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1302 and 1395hh.
0
6. Section 484.105 is amended by adding paragraph (i) to read as
follows:
Sec. 484.105 Condition of participation: Organization and
administration of services.
* * * * *
(i) HHA acceptance to service. An HHA must do both of the
following:
(1) Develop, implement, and maintain through an annual review, a
patient acceptance to service policy that is applied consistently to
each prospective patient referred for home health care, which addresses
criteria related to the HHA's capacity to provide patient care,
including, but not limited to, all of the following:
(i) Anticipated needs of the referred prospective patient.
(ii) Case load and case mix of the HHA.
(iii) Staffing levels of the HHA.
(iv) Skills and competencies of the HHA staff.
(2) Make available to the public accurate information regarding the
services offered by the HHA and any limitations related to types of
specialty services, service duration, or service frequency. The
information is reviewed at least annually.
Xavier Becerra,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
[FR Doc. 2024-14254 Filed 6-26-24; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4120-01-P