For many years, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC)
has reported that the Medicare program overpays skilled nursing
facilities (SNFs) for rehabilitation services and underpays SNFs for
certain residents needing specialized services and skilled nursing
care. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has similarly
reported that the prospective payment system (PPS) significantly
overpays SNFs for rehabilitation services for residents. Final
regulations implementing Medicare payment rules for SNFs, published
by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in August
2009,[1]
and based on long-standing MedPAC and GAO recommendations, make
significant changes to Medicare payment policy and rein in wasteful
spending and overpayments.[2]
Medicare Provides Free-Standing For-Profit SNFs with Excessive
Profits
In March 2009, as in previous years, MedPAC recommended that
Congress not increase Medicare SNF rates for fiscal year 2010.[3]
MedPAC reported that "the aggregate Medicare margin for
freestanding" skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) was 14.5% in 2007;
that for the seventh consecutive year, the aggregate Medicare
margins exceeded 10%; and a one quarter of SNFs show profit margins
of at least 24.8%.[4]
How
Medicare Overpays SNFs, and CMS's Response
Medicare's prospective payment system (PPS), implemented for SNFs in
1998, was intended to reduce the overpayments that occurred under
the prior fee-for-service payment system.[5]
PPS has not achieved this result, but has, instead, led to new and
different SNF practices leading to overpayments. For example:
1.
SNFs are paid for services they do not provide.
- PPS pays SNFs a daily rate based on the assessed needs
of the resident. Originally, PPS for SNFs used 44 different
resident assessment categories, called Resource Utilization
Groups (RUGs). The GAO found that while SNFs quickly
shifted their assessment practices to assign residents to
the rehabilitation RUGs-III categories that gave them the
most favorable payment rates, many residents were not
provided with the number of minutes of therapy they required
in order to be placed into those assessment categories.[6]
In addition, the GAO reported that two years after PPS was
implemented, "[T]he patients categorized into the two most
common (high and medium) rehabilitation payment group
categories typically received 30 minutes less therapy during
their first week of care, a 22 percent decline."[7]
SNFs did not provide the amount of rehabilitation services
they were paid to provide and rehabilitation services
actually provided to residents under PPS decreased. In the
August 2009 regulations, CMS revised the method of paying
for therapy in order to ensure more accurate payment for
therapy services that are actually provided.[8]
- SNFs have been permitted to base resident assessment
classifications on services provided solely during the
resident's prior stay in the acute care hospital under the
so-called "look-back" period. At least since 2005, CMS has
been questioning the validity of the look-back period.[9]
In the final regulations issued in August, CMS confirmed
that the look-back period is not a proxy for medical
complexity and that beginning in fiscal year 2011, it will
pay only for services that are actually provided in the SNF.[10]
Overpayments to SNFs for assessments using "look-back" over
the past decade will not be collected.
-
CMS
intended that the expansion of resident assessment categories
from 44 to 53 for fiscal year 2006, which was designed to
account for the highest-cost residents needing both extensive
nursing care and rehabilitation, would be budget-neutral.
Instead, SNFs placed more residents in the (new) highest
assessment categories, resulting in overpayments of
approximately a billion dollars each year from fiscal years 2006
through 2009. CMS has now recalibrated the rates to achieve
budget neutrality prospectively, beginning in fiscal year 2010
(October 1, 2009). CMS is not recouping the billions of dollars
of overpayments from the previous four years.[11]
-
SNFs
have shifted from one-on-one therapy to "concurrent" therapy, a
method by which one professional therapist works with multiple
residents on different therapy tasks at the same time, but SNFs
still bill Medicare as if each resident received 100% of the
therapist's attention. For example, SNF Medicare reimbursement
rules have allowed a therapist treating four patients
concurrently during the course of one hour to bill Medicare for
four full hours of therapy. CMS reports that more than a
quarter (28.26%) of therapy provided in SNFs is now concurrent.
CMS will close this loophole in fiscal year 2011, when it
implements revisions to the Medicare SNF PPS, RUGs-IV, by
requiring allocation of concurrent therapy time and by limiting
concurrent therapy to two residents.[12]
While changing payment policy prospectively, CMS is not
recouping overpayments for the many past years of "concurrent
therapy."
-
When
several large multi-state nursing home chains filed for
bankruptcy protection in the late 1990s and (unfairly and
inaccurately, according to the GAO[13])
blamed their bankruptcies on PPS, Congress responded by
increasing Medicare reimbursement rates for SNFs in multiple
ways.[14]
Although Congress increased the nursing component of all SNF
rates by 16.66%,[15]
SNFs did not spend the billion-dollar rate increase on nurse
staffing, as Congress intended but did not explicitly require.
The GAO found, "in the aggregate, SNFs' nurse staffing ratios
changed little after the increase in the nursing component of
the Medicare payment rate took effect. Overall, SNFs' average
nursing time increased by 1.9 minutes per patient day."[16]
-
In
the absence of a SNF-specific wage index, CMS uses the hospital
wage index to adjust SNF rates annually. Use of the hospital
wage overpays SNFs because, as confirmed by the federal Bureau
of Labor Statistics, SNF salaries are lower than those paid to
hospital workers. CMS is considering MedPAC's recommendation to
develop a SNF-specific wage index.[17]
Health
Reform Will Do More to Rein in Medicare Waste
The
health reform bills passed by the three committees in the House of
Representatives all address waste in the Medicare SNF payment system
(PPS). If the House language concerning SNF reimbursement is
enacted into law, Congress would freeze the market basket, as MedPAC
recommended; incorporate productivity improvement; and change the
recalibration factor to retain the budget neutrality that CMS
intended when it expanded the number of resident classifications
under PPS from 44 to 53. While making these reductions, the House
bills also recognize the need for increased reimbursement, under
certain circumstances. H.R. 3200 specifically recognizes the need
for upward adjustments in non-therapy ancillary costs for certain
very high-cost residents (such as those needing ventilators) and,
for the first time in the SNF PPS, includes an outlier payment
system for very high costs that exceed the existing payment scale.
Conclusion
CMS has
taken strong steps to eliminate some of the waste and overpayments
to SNFs that have been well-documented by MedPAC and the GAO for
many years. In the final regulations published in August, CMS
eliminated the look-back period; recalibrated the rates to maintain
budget neutrality; revised the rules for concurrent therapy; and is
considering development of a SNF-specific wage index. These changes
and the changes included in H.R. 3200 should not result in reduced
staffing and quality of care, as suggested by the nursing home
industry. Instead, they will improve the integrity of the Medicare
program by ensuring that SNFS are reimbursed accurately and fairly
for the services they actually provide.
[1] 74 Federal
Register 40,288 (Aug. 11, 2009), as corrected by 74 Fed.
Reg. 48,865 (Sep. 25, 2009). The proposed rules, 74 Fed.
Reg. 22,207 (May 12, 2009), were discussed in the Center’s
Weekly Alert “Undoing Skilled Nursing Facility Overpayment
and Abuse” (May 14, 2009),
http://medicareadvocacy.org/SNF_09_05.14.UndoingOverpayment.htm.
[2] As discussed
below, the health care reform bills passed by three
Committees of the House of Representatives, H.R. 3200, would
also address some of the MedPAC and GAO payment concerns.
[3] MedPAC, Report
to the Congress: Medicare Payment Policy, Section 2D
(Skilled Nursing Facility Services) (March 2009),
http://www.medpac.gov/chapters/Mar09_Ch02D.pdf (“The
Congress should eliminate the update to payment rates for
skilled nursing facility services for fiscal year 2010.”).
[4] Id. 160-161.
See also MedPAC, A Data Book: Healthcare spending and the
Medicare program, page 131 (June 2009),
http://medpac.gov/chapters/Jun09DataBookSec9.pdf.
MedPAC reports that for-profit SNFs showed the greatest
Medicare margins, ranging from a low of 13.9% in 2003 to a
high of 19.9% in both 2001 and 2002; in contrast,
not-for-profit facilities showed margins from a low of 1.5%
in 2003 to a high of 10.3% in 2001.
[8] 74 Fed. Reg.
40,288, at 40,346-40,394 (Aug. 11, 2009).
[9] 70 Fed.
Reg.29,070, at 29,079-29,080 (May 19, 2005). CMS wrote that
a public comment in 1999 had questioned the appropriateness
of using the look-back period. 65 Fed. Reg. 41,644, at
41,668-41,669 (July 30, 1999).
[10] 74 Federal
Register 40,288, at 40,322-40,324 (Aug. 11, 2009).
[11] 74 Federal
Register 40,288, at 40,297 (Aug. 11, 2009), as corrected by
74 Fed. Reg. 48,865 (Sep. 25, 2009) (“[W]e have proposed to
correct, on a prospective basis, an overpayment situation
that has been in effect since January 2006. To avoid
possible negative consequences, we have decided not to go
back and recoup the excess expenditures made to SNFs ever
since January 2006. Instead, we are limiting the scope of
the recalibration to restoring the intended SNF PPS payment
levels on a prospective basis only, effective October 1,
2009.”)
[12] 74 Fed. Reg.
40,288, at 40,315-40,319 (Aug. 11, 2009).
[13] The GAO found
that PPS was not the cause of facilities’ bankruptcies.
GAO, Skilled Nursing Facilities: Medicare Payment Changes
Require Provider Adjustments But Maintain Access,
GAO/HEHS-00-23 (Dec. 1999),
http://www.gao.gov/archive/2000/he00023.pdf.
[14], In the
Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Balanced Budget Refinement Act
of 1999 (BBRA), Congress raised daily rates by 20% for 15
high-cost resident categories, beginning in April 2000, Pub.
L. No. 106-113, App. F, §101, 113 Stat. 1501, 1501A-324; and
increased the daily rate for all facilities by 4% for fiscal
years 2001and 2002. In 2000, Congress made additional
revisions to SNF payments in the Medicare, Medicaid, and
SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 (BIPA);
see note 16, infra. See GAO, Skilled Nursing Facilities:
Available Data Show Average Nursing Staff Time Changed
Little after Medicare Payment Increase at 6, notes 17-19,
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03176.pdf.
[15] Medicare,
Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act
of 2000 (BIPA), Pub. L. No. 106-554, App. F, §312(a), 114
Stat. 2763, 2763A-498.
[17] 74 Fed. Reg.
40,288, at 40,300-40,301 (Aug. 11, 2009).
|