Section 1886(j)(3)(A)(v) of the Act confers broad authority upon the Secretary to adjust the per unit payment rate “by such . . . factors as the Secretary determines are necessary to properly reflect variations in necessary costs of treatment among rehabilitation facilities.” Under this authority, we currently adjust the federal prospective payment amount associated with a CMG to account for facility-level characteristics such as an IRF’s LIP, teaching status, and location in a rural area, if applicable, as described in §412.624(e).
Based on the substantive changes to the facility-level adjustment factors that were
adopted in the FY 2014 final rule (78 FR 47860, 47868 through 47872), in the FY 2015 final rule (79 FR 45872, 45882 through 45883) we froze the facility-level adjustment factors at the
FY 2014 levels for FY 2015 and all subsequent years (unless and until we propose to update them again through future notice and comment rulemaking). For FY 2016, we will continue to hold the adjustment factors at the FY 2014 levels as we continue to monitor the most current IRF claims data available and continue to evaluate and monitor the effects of the FY 2014 changes. VI. FY 2016 IRF PPS Payment Update
A. Background
Section 1886(j)(3)(C) of the Act requires the Secretary to establish an increase factor that reflects changes over time in the prices of an appropriate mix of goods and services included in the covered IRF services, which is referred to as a market basket index. According to section 1886(j)(3)(A)(i) of the Act, the increase factor shall be used to update the IRF federal
prospective payment rates for each FY. Section 1886(j)(3)(C)(ii)(I) of the Act requires the application of a productivity adjustment, as described below. In addition, sections
1886(j)(3)(C)(ii)(II) and 1886(j)(3)(D)(iv) of the Act require the application of a 0.2 percentage point reduction to the market basket increase factor for FY 2016. Thus, in the FY 2016 IRF PPS proposed rule (80 FR 23341), we proposed to update the IRF PPS payments for FY 2016 by a market basket increase factor based upon the most current data available, with a productivity adjustment as required by section 1886(j)(3)(C)(ii)(I) of the Act, and a 0.2 percentage point reduction as required by sections 1886(j)(3)(C)(ii)(II) and 1886(j)(3)(D)(iv) of the Act.
We have utilized various market baskets through the years in the IRF PPS program. When we implemented the IRF PPS in January 2002, it used the Excluded Hospital with Capital market basket (which was based on 1992 Medicare cost reports for Medicare participating IRFs, IPFs, LTCHs, cancer hospitals, and children’s hospitals) as an “input price index” (66 FR 41427 through 41430). Although ‘‘market basket’’ technically describes the mix of goods and services used in providing health care at a given point in time, this term is also commonly used to denote the input price index (that is, cost category weights and price proxies) derived from that market basket. Accordingly, the term ‘‘market basket,’’ as used in this document, refers to an input price index.
Beginning with the FY 2006 IRF PPS final rule (70 FR 47908), we adopted a 2002-based RPL market basket for the IRF PPS. This market basket reflected the operating and capital cost structures for freestanding IRFs, freestanding IPFs, and LTCHs. Cancer and children’s hospitals were excluded from the RPL market basket because their payments are based entirely on
reasonable costs subject to rate-of-increase limits established under the authority of section 1886(b) of the Act and not through a PPS. Also, the 2002 cost structures for cancer and
children’s hospitals were noticeably different than the cost structures of freestanding IRFs, freestanding IPFs, and LTCHs. See the FY 2006 IRF PPS final rule (70 FR 47908) for a complete discussion of the 2002-based RPL market basket.
In the FY 2010 IRF proposed rule (74 FR 21062), we expressed an interest in exploring the feasibility of creating a stand-alone IRF, or IRF-specific, market basket that reflects the cost structures of only IRF providers. But, as we noted in that discussion, Medicare cost report data revealed differences between cost levels and cost structures for freestanding and hospital-based IRF facilities. As we were unable at that time to fully understand these differences even after reviewing explanatory variables such as geographic variation, case mix, urban/rural status, share of low income patients, teaching status, and outliers (short stay and high-cost), we noted that we would continue to research ways to reconcile the differences and solicited public comment for additional information that might help us to better understand the reasons for the observed variations (74 FR 21062). We summarized the public comments we received and our responses in the FY 2010 IRF PPS final rule (74 FR 39762, 39776 through 39778). Despite receiving comments from the public on this issue, however, we were still unable to sufficiently reconcile the observed variations, and, therefore, were unable to establish a stand-alone IRF market basket at that time.
Beginning with the FY 2012 IRF PPS, we used a rebased RPL market basket, which was named the 2008-based RPL market basket, reflecting the updated operating and capital cost structures for freestanding IRFs, freestanding IPFs, and LTCHs (76 FR 47849 through 47860). In doing so, we updated the base year from 2002 to 2008; adopted a more specific composite chemical price proxy; broke the professional fees cost category into two separate categories (Labor-related and Nonlabor-related); and added two additional cost categories (Administrative
and Business Support Services and Financial Services), which were previously included in the residual All Other cost category. The FY 2012 IRF PPS proposed rule (76 FR 24229 through 24241) and FY 2012 IRF PPS final rule (76 FR 47849 through 47860) contain a complete discussion of the development of the 2008-based RPL market basket.
In the meantime, as stated in the FY 2016 IRF PPS proposed rule, we have continued to work to address our concerns regarding the development of a stand-alone IRF market. For the reasons described below, we believe using data from hospital-based and freestanding providers to derive IRF-specific market basket cost weights is appropriate, despite differences in facility versus unit cost levels and cost structures. Therefore, for FY 2016, we proposed to create and adopt a 2012-based IRF-specific market basket, using both freestanding and hospital-based IRF Medicare cost report data.
We received a total of 17 comments on our proposal to adopt an IRF-specific market basket. Several commenters supported the proposed stand-alone IRF market basket; while several other commenters raised concerns regarding the data and methodologies used to derive the proposed IRF-specific market basket. In particular, several commenters stated that CMS was using a flawed methodology for allocating overhead costs to hospital-based IRF units. In
support of this comment, one of these commenters attached an analytic report they had commissioned. This report outlined how the commenters came to believe that there were overhead costs allocation errors, and what could be done to fix those errors. Other commenters, on the overhead cost allocation issue, suggested that CMS continue using the RPL market basket, or make changes to the calculation of the proposed IRF-specific market basket cost weights. Several of these latter commenters requested that CMS allow for an additional round of comments on the revised IRF-specific market basket.
The commissioned report was authored by Dobson DaVanzo & Associates, LLC
(Dobson DaVanzo).1 Dobson DaVanzo’s analysis replicated the CMS methodology described in the FY 2016 proposed rule to determine the major cost category weights for the proposed IRF- specific market basket using Medicare Cost Reports (form CMS-2552-10). As many of the commenters on the IRF-specific market basket referenced the Dobson DaVanzo report, the report and its conclusions regarding the allocation issue were clearly available to a significant segment of the industry.
The Dobson DaVanzo report raised two main concerns with the proposed cost weight methodology proposed in the FY 2016 IRF proposed rule (80 FR 23341). Their first concern was in regards to the proposed methodology for calculating wages and salaries for hospital-based IRFs – they asserted that CMS erroneously omitted overhead wages and salaries allocated to ancillary departments. Having identified this issue, Dobson DaVanzo then suggested a method to fix the methodology to account for these omitted costs. The second concern regarded the proposed use of certain IRF-specific data in the calculation of employee benefits and contract labor costs instead of the IPPS hospital data that had been used in both of the RPL market baskets. We provide a more detailed description of these concerns in section VI.C.1.a.i. through section VI.C.1.a.iii of this final rule.
Based on the public comments regarding flaws in the proposed methodology, and the suggested means of fixing those flaws as reflected in the Dobson DaVanzo report, we performed a detailed review of the entire proposed methodology for allocating overhead costs to hospital- based units, as well as Dobson DaVanzo’s suggested fixes for deriving overhead wages and
1 “Analysis of CMS Proposed Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility Specific Market Basket”, submitted to HealthSouth Corporation by Dobson|DaVanzo, May 22, 2015. The public reference for this comment letter is: CMS-2015-0053-0004, and can be retrieved from the following link:
salaries attributable to the ancillary cost centers for hospital-based IRFs. In doing so, we confirmed that the proposed methodology only calculated overhead wages and salaries
attributable to the routine inpatient hospital-based IRF unit; we agree with the commenters that the proposed method inadvertently omitted the overhead wages and salaries attributable to ancillary departments. In analyzing Dobson DaVanzo’s suggestions to fix this error, we
identified two related data errors that had not been specifically identified by Dobson DaVanzo. The first data-related error was in regard to the ratio of overhead wages and salaries to total overhead costs for the total facility, and the second related to the inclusion of capital costs in total overhead costs that are then allocated to overhead wages and salaries. To address these data errors, we effected slight technical modifications to their suggested corrections for the proposed methodology. The additional data errors that we identified, and the technical corrections to address those errors are described in detail in section VI.C.1.a.i. through section VI.C.1.a.ii of this final rule.
As amended, we believe that the final methodology fully addresses commenters concerns, as well as the technical errors that we discovered while considering commenters’ proposed solutions to the inadvertent omission of the overhead wages and salaries attributable to ancillary departments. Having addressed these technical errors, we do not believe there is a need to seek further public comment, or a reason to further delay implementation of an IRF-specific market basket.
We summarize general comments about the proposed methodology below. Specific technical comments are summarized and responded to in the relevant sections of this final rule.
Comment: Several commenters supported the adoption of a stand-alone IRF market basket and considered the stand-alone market basket to be an improvement over the RPL market
basket. While supportive, however, some of these commenters noted concerns with the proposed methodology for deriving some of the hospital-based costs. Many of these commenters cited the Dobson DaVanzo report, which replicated CMS’s calculation of the proposed IRF-specific market basket and highlighted two concerns regarding the proposed methodologies’ allocation of overhead costs to hospital-based IRFs. One concern was that there was an insufficient number of IRF Medicare cost reports to calculate reliable Employee Benefits and Contract Labor cost weights. The other concern, as noted above, was in regard to the omission of overhead wages and salaries attributable to ancillary cost centers for hospital-based IRFs. These commenters requested that CMS review the Dobson DaVanzo report findings and the suggested solution to the attribution of the overhead wage problem, and revise the proposed methodology for
calculating the market basket accordingly. Our responses to these specific concerns raised by the commenters as presented in the Dobson DaVanzo report are discussed in greater detail in section VI.C.1.a.i through section VI.C.1.a.iii of this final rule.
Additionally, one commenter stated that a stand-alone IRF market basket is an integral step that must be taken as we move toward the goal of implementing the Improving Medicare Post-Acute Care Transformation Act of 2014 (IMPACT Act) (Pub. L. 113-185, enacted on October 6, 2014). The commenter stated that a stand-alone IRF market basket will help to more accurately capture the costs and resources for inpatient rehabilitation services. The commenter also believes that the creation of a stand-alone IRF market basket is an integral step in any plan to create site-neutral payments for IRFs and SNFs as discussed by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), as well as the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health, and the President’s Budget. However, the commenter noted that they remain concerned about the disparities in costs and resources between freestanding and hospital-based IRFs and
urged CMS to stay vigilant by monitoring and analyzing cost differences between these two types of IRFs after the IRF market basket is implemented. The commenter requested that any significant data derived from CMS analysis be shared with stakeholders in periodic reports and notices of proposed rulemaking for feedback on how the IRF market basket and payment system should be refined.
Response: We appreciate the commenters’ support. As always, we will continue to evaluate our methodology and its effects over time. If we identify problems that need to be addressed, we will notify the public of our findings and our proposed solutions through the rulemaking process. And, as noted above, we address the commenter’s specific concerns regarding our proposed methodology’s allocation of overhead costs to hospital-based IRFs and concerns about the number of IRF Medicare cost reports that are available for use in the
calculation of the Employee Benefits and Contract Labor cost weights in section VI.C.1.a.i through section VI.C.1.a.iii of this final rule.
Comment: Some commenters recommended that CMS continue to use the RPL market basket methodology for deriving the Employee Benefits and Contract Labor cost weights until there are sufficient data for all IRFs, so as to more accurately represent the costs IRFs incur for these cost categories. One commenter also recommended that CMS continue to encourage all providers to report these data on the Medicare cost report. In addition, the commenters
recommended that CMS develop educational materials related to the Medicare cost reports to help providers understand the importance of completing the reports, what the data are utilized for, and how to complete the reports.
Response: We address the commenters’ specific concerns regarding the calculation of the cost weights in section VI.C.1 of this final rule. We have encouraged and will continue to
encourage all providers to report data completely and accurately on the Medicare cost report. Furthermore, the commenter may be interested in Change Request 6132, which was published on August 1, 2008 (https://www.cms.gov/Outreach-and-Education/Medicare-Learning-Network-
MLN/MLNMattersArticles/downloads/MM6132.pdf). This Change Request directed Medicare contractors to educate Medicare providers regarding the specific ways that CMS uses Medicare cost report data. In this Change Request, we noted that the Medicare cost reports play a central role in the development of the market baskets used to update PPS payments, as well as in the evaluation of Medicare payment adequacy. We also indicated that Medicare contractors were to supply information to providers regarding how we use the Medicare cost report data to update future PPS payments. We also stated that it is crucial that Medicare providers fill out these reports with complete and valid data. Finally, we would also note that complete instructions for the Hospital Medicare cost report (CMS Form 2552-10) are available in Chapter 40 of the Provider Reimbursement Manual on the CMS website (https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and- Guidance/Guidance/Manuals/Paper-Based-Manuals-Items/CMS021935.html).
Comment: One commenter supported CMS’ use of an IRF-specific market basket, but stated that because of the cost disparity between hospital-based and freestanding facilities, CMS should develop separate market basket update percentages for each of those two groups. The commenter stated that patients treated in hospital-based units have more complex medical conditions and require more resources to treat than those in freestanding units. The commenter stated that combining these two facilities for the purpose of establishing one market basket update could result in underpayments for Medicare patients treated in hospital-based facilities.
Response: We respectfully disagree with the suggestion that we should provide separate market basket updates for freestanding and hospital-based IRFs. In particular, the base payment
rate reflects costs for both freestanding and hospital-based facilities. Thus, we believe it is appropriate for the IRF market basket to also reflect the data for both facility types.
Comment: Several commenters suggested that CMS should postpone implementation of a new IRF-specific market basket until CMS can ensure that the IRF-specific market basket accurately reflects costs for freestanding and hospital-based IRFs. Most of these commenters cited the two main concerns noted in the Dobson DaVanzo report regarding our proposed methodology’s allocation of overhead costs to hospital-based IRFs and concerns about the number of IRF Medicare cost reports that are available for use in the calculation of the Employee Benefits and Contract Labor cost weights. The commenters stated that until these two concerns are addressed, and calculations are corrected by CMS, the implementation of the IRF-specific market basket should be postponed. The commenters also asked that IRFs be provided with an opportunity to analyze and comment on the recalculated cost weights prior to CMS’
implementation of the IRF-specific market basket.
Response: We respectfully disagree with the commenters’ request to postpone
implementation of the IRF market basket. The primary data sources for the IRF market basket cost weights are the Medicare cost reports for both freestanding and hospital-based IRFs. We proposed specific methodologies for deriving the cost weights using these Medicare cost reports in the proposed rule. Commenters provided valuable feedback on those specific methodologies and, as discussed above, and in greater detail below, we are making modifications to the methodology based on these comments in this final rule (detailed discussion can be found in section VI.C.1 of this final rule). In sum, we believe that using IRF facilities’ (freestanding and hospital-based) cost report data to establish an IRF-specific market basket is a technical
improvement from the current 2008-based RPL market basket, which is based on 2008 data for freestanding IRFs, freestanding IPFs, and LTCHs.
In addition, as discussed in sections VI.C.1.a.i. through section VI.C.1.a.ii of this final rule, we evaluated the comments provided on the proposed rule, and based on these comments, we are making technical corrections to errors in our proposed methodology for deriving the Wages and Salaries and Employee Benefits cost weights. As described in those sections, these modifications are made either at the suggestion of comments, or in response to errors identified in the course of our considering commenters’ suggested solutions to the issues that were raised