| 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).
|