Per diem payments for the care provided to eligible veterans evacuated from a state home as a result of an emergency. Final rule

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) amends its regulations concerning per diem payments to States to permit continuation of such payments in some situations for veterans who have been evacuated from a State home as a result of an emergency. Per diem is the daily rate paid by VA to a State for providing a specified level of care to eligible veterans in a facility that is officially recognized and certified by VA. This final rule authorizes VA to continue to pay per diem when veterans for whom VA is paying per diem are evacuated as a result of an emergency from a State home to a facility that is not recognized by VA as a State home. The rule requires, in order for per diem payments to continue while the veteran is relocated due to an emergency, that an appropriate VA official determine whether an emergency exists and whether the facility to which veterans may be evacuated (evacuation facility) complies with certain minimum standards. The rule establishes the minimum standards that facilities to which veterans are evacuated must meet in order for States to continue receiving per diem for relocated veterans. These standards also apply to evacuation facilities when veterans are evacuated from contract nursing homes.     

Per diem for nursing home care of veterans in State homes. Department of Veterans Affairs. Final rule

This document amends regulations regarding the payment of per diem to State homes that provide nursing home care to eligible veterans. The intended effect of the final rule is to ensure that veterans receive high quality care in State homes.     

Expansion of state home care for parents of a child who died while serving in the armed forces. Final rule

This document amends Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regulations concerning the payment of per diem to a State for providing nursing home care to eligible veterans. The amendments remove a restriction on VA's payment of per diem, which required all non-veteran residents of a State home to be spouses of veterans, or parents of veterans all of whose children died while serving in the Armed Forces of the United States. Under this final rule, non-veteran residents of the State home must be spouses of veterans, or parents of veterans any of whose children died while serving in the Armed Forces.     

Fiscal year 1993 state home per diem rates for domiciliary, nursing home, and hospital care--DVA. Notice of state home program per diem rates for FY 1993

Public Law 100-322, section 134(a)(2) provides for an increase in per diem rates for domiciliary, nursing home, and hospital care in State Veterans Homes. The VA is giving notice of increases for State home per diem for FY 1993 as follows: Domiciliary care--$11.79, nursing home care--$27.61, and hospital care--$27.61.     

VA homeless providers grant and per diem program--VA. Final rule

We are, with changes, adopting as a final rule the provisions of an interim final rule promulgated pursuant to The Homeless Veterans Comprehensive Service Programs Act of 1992. The Act authorizes the Department of Veterans Affairs to assist public or nonprofit private entities in establishing new programs to furnish supportive services and supportive housing for homeless veterans through grants. The Act also authorizes VA to provide per diem payments, or in-kind assistance in lieu of per diem payments, to eligible entities that established programs after November 10, 1992 that provide supportive services or supportive housing for homeless veterans, or service centers providing supportive services. This rule contains criteria and requirements relating to the awarding of grants and relating to per diem payments. Accordingly, this rule is necessary so that grants can be awarded and per diem payments can be made.     

Protecting nursing home companies: limiting liability through corporate restructuring

Nursing homes face two potential risks: exclusion from the Medicare and Medicaid programs; and financial liability through Medicare and Medicaid overpayments, false claims, and negligence actions. Given the current budget crisis and the scrutiny of nursing homes, the magnitude of these risks is only expected to increase. The authors address the increasing risks that nursing homes face and propose the creation of single-purpose ownership entities and single-purpose operating entities to minimize risk. In addition, they examine recent cases to show what factors the courts use to allow the United States and private plaintiffs to pierce the corporate veil. The authors conclude by showing how restructuring can reduce the unnecessary risks of exclusion and financial liability.     

Medicare program; prospective payment system and consolidated billing for skilled nursing facilities--update. Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), HHS. Final rule

This final rule sets forth updates to the payment rates used under the prospective payment system (PPS) for skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), for fiscal year 2001. Annual updates to the PPS rates are required by section 1888(e) of the Social Security Act, as amended by the Medicare, Medicaid and State Child Health Insurance Program Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999, related to Medicare payments and consolidated billing for SNFs. In addition, this rule sets forth certain conforming revisions to the regulations that are necessary in order to implement amendments made to the Act by section 103 of the Medicare, Medicaid and State Child Health Insurance Program Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999.     

Medicare program; reduction in Medicare Part B premiums as additional benefits under Medicare+Choice plans. Final rule

This final rule revises the regulations to provide for a Medicare+Choice organization to offer a reduction in the standard Medicare Part B premium as an additional benefit under one or more Medicare+Choice (M+C) plans. The legislation specifies that the reduction to the Medicare Part B premium cannot exceed the standard Medicare Part B premium amount and cannot be applied to surcharges. Surcharges are increased premiums for late enrollment and for reenrollment. The Medicare Part B premium may be collected by a variety of methods: Paid directly to the Centers of Medicare & Medicaid Services by the beneficiary; collected as an adjustment to any Social Security, Railroad Retirement, or Civil Service Retirement benefits; paid by an employer as part of an annuity package; or, paid by the State for individuals enrolled in a qualifying State Medicaid program. This legislation applies to benefits under Medicare M+C plans offered by an M+C organization electing this option, beginning January 1, 2003. This final rule revises the regulations to set out the basic rules under section 606 of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement Protection Act of 2000 (BIPA) for adjustment and payment of the Medicare Part B premium.     

Medicare and Medicaid programs; survey, certification and enforcement of skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities--HCFA. Final rule

This final rule implements certain provisions of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, as further amended by subsequent 1988, 1989, and 1990 legislation. These provisions make significant changes in the process of surveying skilled nursing facilities under Medicare and nursing facilities under Medicaid and in the process for certifying that these facilities meet the Federal requirements for participation in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. They also set forth a number of alternative remedies which may be imposed on facilities that do not comply with the Federal participation requirements (instead of or in addition to termination), and specify remedies for State survey agencies that do not meet surveying requirements.     

Case mix reimbursement for nursing homes

Nursing home care is growing in importance as the population ages and as Medicare's prospective payment system encourages earlier discharges from acute care settings to nursing homes. Nursing home reimbursement policy is primarily a Medicaid issue, since Medicaid pays for about half the nation's nursing home care. The research reviewed in this article suggests a strong association between case mix and cost, and a weaker but still positive association between quality and cost. The research also implies that traditional nursing home reimbursement methodologies may impede access and may lower quality for Medicaid (and Medicare) recipients. To offset these problems, several states have recently begun to incorporate case mix directly into the reimbursement process. These systems deserve careful policy consideration.     

VA homeless providers grant and per diem program clarification of per diem eligibility--VA. Final rule

This document amends the regulations implementing the VA Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program concerning per diem assistance by: Establishing more detailed criteria for determining which entities are eligible for obtaining per diem assistance; establishing a priority for funding eligible entities: Clarifying the requirements for continued receipt of per diem payments; and clarifying the maximum amount payable for per diem assistance. This rule is designed to ensure that the appropriate entities receive the appropriate amount of per diem assistance under fair and objective procedures.     

Medicare program; schedule of limits for skilled nursing facility inpatient routine service costs--HCFA. Final notice with comment period

This final notice with comment period sets forth an updated schedule of limits on skilled nursing facility routine service costs for which payment may be made under the Medicare program. Section 1888(a) of the Social Security Act requires that for cost reporting periods beginning on or after October 1, 1992, and every two years thereafter, the Secretary update the per diem cost limits for skilled nursing facility routine service costs.     

Medicare and Medicaid programs; civil money penalties for nursing homes. Final Rule

This final rule will revise and expand current Medicare and Medicaid regulations regarding the imposition and collection of civil money penalties by CMS when nursing homes are not in compliance with Federal participation requirements in accordance with section 6111 of the Affordable Care Act of 2010.     

Medicare and Medicaid programs; surety bond and capitalization requirements for home health agencies--HCFA. Final rule with comment period

The Balanced Budget Act of 1997-(BBA '97) requires each home health agency (HHA) to secure a surety bond in order to participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. This requirement applies to all participating Medicare and Medicaid HHAs, regardless of the date their participation began. This final rule with comment period requires that each HHA participating in Medicare must obtain from an acceptable authorized Surety a surety bond that is the greater of $50,000 or 15 percent of the annual amount paid to the HHA by the Medicare program, as reflected in the HHA's most recently accepted cost report. The BBA '97 also requires that provider agreements be amended to incorporate the surety bond requirement; this rule deems such agreements to be amended accordingly. The BBA '97 prohibits payment to a State for home health services under Medicaid unless the HHA has furnished the State with a surety bond that meets Medicare requirements. This final rule with comment period requires that, in order to participate in Medicaid, each HHA must obtain from an acceptable authorized Surety, a surety bond that is the greater of $50,000 or 15 percent of the annual Medicaid payments made to the HHA by the Medicaid agency for home health services for which Federal Financial Participation (FFP) is available. In addition to the surety bond requirement, an HHA entering the Medicare or Medicaid program on or after January 1, 1998 must demonstrate that it actually has available sufficient capital to start and operate the HHA for the first 3 months. Undercapitalized providers represent a threat to the quality of patient care.     

Medicaid program; deadline for submitting moratorium state plan amendments--HCFA. Notice

This notice announces the deadline for Medicaid State agencies to submit State plan amendments requesting moratorium protection under section 2373(c) of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, as amended by the Medicare and Medicaid Patient and Program Protection Act of 1987. Section 2373(c) initiated a moratorium period during which HCFA cannot take any compliance, disallowance, penalty or other regulatory action against a State agency whose State plan contains an income or resource methodology or standard for determining eligibility for medically needy and certain categorically needy groups that is less restrictive than the required standard or methodology. This notice provides formal notification to States that plan amendments requesting moratorium protection will not be accepted after the last day of the first full calendar quarter following publication of this notice in the Federal Register.     

The impact of prospective payment: a multi-dimensional analysis of New Jersey's SHARE program

The SHARE program, which set per diem prospective rates for New Jersey hospitals during the period 1975-1982, is evaluated. Analysis suggests that this program did contain hospital cost increase. However, the program threatened the viability of most inner-city hospitals. Indirect evidence suggests that there was cost-shifting in response to this program, which regulated payment for only Blue Cross and Medicaid patients. Structural features of this program and its successor, the New Jersey DRG program, are analyzed; and implications for the Medicare prospective payment system are examined.     

Long-term care under fire: a case for rational enforcement

Despite reforms to ensure that nursing homes maintain compliance with federal quality standards, one-fourth of all homes nationwide continue to be cited for deficiencies that either caused actual harm to residents or carried the potential for death or serious injury. This pattern has not changed since the July 1995 reforms were implemented. Although the reforms equipped federal and state regulators with many alternatives and tools to help promote sustained compliance with Medicare and Medicaid standards, the way in which states and HCFA have applied them appears to have resulted in little headway against the pattern of serious and repeated noncompliance. Such performance may do little to dispel concerns over the health and safety of frail and dependent nursing home residents.     

Eligibility for health care benefits for certain Filipino veterans in the United States. Final rule

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical regulations describe veterans who are eligible to receive health care from VA in the United States. This document amends VA medical regulations to provide eligibility for VA hospital care, nursing home care, and outpatient services for any Filipino Commonwealth Army veteran, including those recognized by authority of the U.S. Army as belonging to organized Filipino guerilla forces, and for any veteran of the new Philippine Scouts, provided that any such veteran resides in the U.S. and is either a citizen of the U.S. or is lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence. Under this regulatory provision, these certain veterans are eligible for VA hospital care, nursing home care, and outpatient medical services in the United States in the same manner and subject to the same terms and conditions as apply to U.S. veterans.     

Medicare, Medicaid, and Children's Health Insurance Programs; additional screening requirements, application fees, temporary enrollment moratoria, payment suspensions and compliance plans for providers and suppliers. Final rule with comment period

This final rule with comment period will implement provisions of the ACA that establish: Procedures under which screening is conducted for providers of medical or other services and suppliers in the Medicare program, providers in the Medicaid program, and providers in the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP); an application fee imposed on institutional providers and suppliers; temporary moratoria that may be imposed if necessary to prevent or combat fraud, waste, and abuse under the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and CHIP; guidance for States regarding termination of providers from Medicaid and CHIP if terminated by Medicare or another Medicaid State plan or CHIP; guidance regarding the termination of providers and suppliers from Medicare if terminated by a Medicaid State agency; and requirements for suspension of payments pending credible allegations of fraud in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. This final rule with comment period also discusses our earlier solicitation of comments regarding provisions of the ACA that require providers of medical or other items or services or suppliers within a particular industry sector or category to establish compliance programs. We have identified specific provisions surrounding our implementation of fingerprinting for certain providers and suppliers for which we may make changes if warranted by the public comments received. We expect to publish our response to those comments, including any possible changes to the rule made as a result of them, as soon as possible following the end of the comment period. Furthermore, we clarify that we are finalizing the adoption of fingerprinting pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth herein.     

Case-mix payment for nursing home care: lessons from Maryland

Even before Medicare adopted case-based payments for hospitals, some state Medicaid programs employed case-mix payment systems for nursing home care. Their purpose was less to promote cost containment than to improve access to nursing homes for the most costly patients. This paper evaluates one such system, adopted by the state of Maryland in 1983 as part of an overall reimbursement reform. Using data on nursing home patient characteristics, costs, and staffing, as well as interviews with officials and various providers of care, the article shows that Maryland's system was successful in shifting nursing home service away from light-care and toward heavy-care patients. Furthermore, the shift occurred without inducing readily measurable declines in quality of care and with little additional administrative cost (partly because the state built its case-mix system on preexisting patient review activities). Although states could learn from and improve upon Maryland's experience--most notably in offering incentives to improve quality of care and in targeting community care on the light-care patients that nursing homes become less willing to serve--Maryland demonstrates that case-mix payment can change nursing home behavior in desired directions without substantial negative consequences.