Month / Year
Subject

Category: Medicare

FFY2021 Medicare IPPS Proposed Rule & Other Recently Published Rules

IPPS Proposed Rule – FFY2021

CMS-1735-P drafted on 5/11/2020; Published in the Federal Register on 5/29/2020

On May 11, 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) proposed a rule that focuses the agency’s efforts on a singular objective:  transforming the healthcare delivery system through competition and innovation to provide patients with better value and results.  The proposed rule updates Medicare payment policies and rates for hospitals under the Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) and the Long-Term Care Hospital (LTCH) Prospective Payment System (PPS), effective for discharges on or after October 1, 2020.

The policies in the IPPS and LTCH PPS proposed rule would bring significant changes to MS-DRG weights, along with associated cost report changes, as well as tightening of Medicare bad debt policies, standardization of data collection periods for quality programs, and easing of GME program closure policies.

Overall, the proposed rule is projected to result in an estimated increase of $2.0B (or 1.6%) in payments to providers, with smaller increases for urban, Medicare-dependent hospitals and larger increases for Mid-Atlantic and Pacific region hospitals.

Comments must be sent to CMS no later than 5pm EDT on July 10, 2010 at the applicable address provided in each section of the Proposed Rule or submitted electronically at http://www.regulations.gov.  When commenting, please refer to file code CMS-1735-P.


Medicare IPPS Base Rates

CMS is proposing a base rate increase of 3.2% for hospitals, mostly driven by a market basket increase of 3.0% and the reversal of the MACRA coding adjustment of 0.5%.  A new budget-neutrality factor adjustment was introduced this year to account for the change in Allogeneic Stem Cell Acquisition reimbursement to cost-based.

Click here for the full base rate calculation table and comparison to prior year.


MS-DRG v38 Changes

CMS has proposed their annual recalibration of the MS-DRG weights for FFY2021.  Transplants and one extensive burn DRG (927) have once again received the largest increases, while other heart assist devices and intracranial vascular procedures with hemorrhages have experienced significant reductions in weighting.  A listing of the largest changes in weighting between MS-DRGs v37 and v38 are noted below:

Click here for a table of the MS-DRG v37 to v38 comparison.

In addition, CMS has proposed the following new DRGs for FFY2021, some of which were further subdivisions of previous DRGs:

Note:  New MS-DRGs 521 and 522 will both be subject to the special transfer payment adjustment.

The proposed fixed-loss outlier threshold for FFY2021 is $30,006.


Proposed Market-Based MS-DRG Weights Beginning in FFY2024

In an effort to reduce the cost of healthcare, CMS has proposed a radical shift in how it hopes to compute the weighting for MS-DRGs in FFY2024 and beyond.  CMS believes that by moving from the cost-based DRG weight methodology that was introduced in FFY2007 to the proposed weighting methodology that would reflect the relative market value for inpatient services, it can reduce its reliance on hospital chargemasters for determining DRG reimbursement.

Building on the Hospital Price Transparency Rule (84 FR 65538, 11/27/2019), CMS believes that hospitals will be able to calculate median payer-specific negotiated charges for each MS-DRG, as they will already be required to gather and publish much of this data.  CMS recognizes that this cost report data would become publicly accessible, but because only the de-identified median values would be reported, any proprietary information would not be exposed.

CMS has proposed to begin gathering this data from hospitals by making changes to the Medicare cost report forms for cost reporting periods ending on or after January 1, 2021.  Hospitals will be required to tabulate and report for each MS-DRG the median payer-specific negotiated charges for all Medicare Advantage payers and for all combined third-party payers.  The required cost reporting changes will be proposed in more detail in the Information Collection Request approved under OMB No. 0938-0050.

CMS is seeking comment on this proposed weighting change and its relative burden of calculating, as well as other issues that may address payers that don’t pay under MS-DRGs and whether or not a transition period to these new market-based MS-DRGs should be provided.  Hospitals that do not negotiate payment rates, such as federally-owned facilities, Indian Health Service facilities, Critical Access Hospitals (CAHs), and hospitals located in Maryland, would be exempted from this proposed data collection.


Cost-based Reimbursement for Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Acquisition Costs

CMS is proposing to begin reimbursing on a reasonable cost basis the acquisition costs associated with allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplants (i.e., when stem cells are obtained from a donor rather than the recipient).  Currently, these costs are included within the MD-DRG payment.  The proposed cost reimbursement will be similar to the methodology in which the acquisition costs for solid organs are reimbursed.  Providers will be billed and paid for these costs on an interim payment basis as a “pass-through” item.

Effective for cost reporting periods beginning on or after October 1, 2020, hospitals that provide these services will need to begin following these procedures:

  1. Gather and report acquisition costs on Line 77 of the Medicare cost report
    • (Note: This has been a requirement for services rendered on or after January 1, 2017.)
    • Acquisition costs include registry fees, tissue typing, donor evaluation, costs associated with the collection procedure, post-procedure evaluation of the donor, and the preparation and processing of stem cells
    • Overhead allocations associated with these costs will also be allowed. CMS is developing a worksheet similar to Worksheet D-4 to allow providers to capture these costs, as well as to report charges by routine and ancillary cost centers.
  2. Formulate a standard acquisition charge, and include this charge on the inpatient hospital bill for the MS-DRG using Revenue Code 815
  3. Tabulate the hospital’s Medicare share of costs by developing a ratio of the number of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplants furnished to Medicare beneficiaries to the total number of those same procedures furnished to all patients

Toyon’s Take:  Because these amounts will now be reimbursed on a reasonable cost basis, it is important that hospitals verify that they are properly capturing all of these costs and statistics in order to ensure adequate reimbursement. 

For additional information or assistance with calculating these amounts, please contact Robert Howey at robert.howey@toyonassociates.com.


Clarification of Long-Standing Medicare Bad Debt Policies

In an effort to clarify the rules related to the demonstration of a reasonable collection effort, CMS is clarifying the policies related to claiming Medicare Bad Debts:

  • Similar Collection Efforts: CMS is stressing that the reasonable collection effort required for a non-indigent Medicare beneficiary must be similar to the effort made by the provider and/or collection agency acting on the provider’s behalf, puts forth to collect comparable amounts from non-Medicare patients.  The hospital needs to have a consistent collection policy for all payers.  Hospitals should be prepared for the MAC to sample and review both Medicare and non-Medicare patients during audits.
  • Timely Beneficiary Bills: A provider must issue a bill to the beneficiary or party responsible for the beneficiary’s personal financial obligations on or before 120 days after
    1. The date of the Medicare remittance advice; OR
    2. The date of the remittance advice from the beneficiary’s secondary payer, if any, whichever is latest

(Note:  Reasonable collection efforts include subsequent billings, collection letters and telephone calls, or personal contacts constituting a genuine collection effort.)

  • Determining Uncollectibility: A provider must make reasonable and customary attempts to collect a bill for at least 120 days from (and including) the date the first bill is mailed to the beneficiary.  If the debt remains unpaid on the 121st day from the date the first bill is mailed, the provider can cease collection efforts and write off the unpaid balance.  If a partial payment is received within the 120-day collection effort period, the 120-day time period resets on the date the partial payment is received.  The hospital must continue to bill the beneficiary for 120 days.
  • QMB Liability: For Qualified Medicare Beneficiaries (QMB), the State Medicaid program must be billed.  If the State does not provide a Medicaid RA, CMS is considering adopting a policy that the provider could obtain and submit to its MAC some form of alternative documentation to evidence a State’s Medicare cost-sharing liability (or absence thereof).  CMS welcomes suggestions from stakeholders regarding the best alternative documentation to the Medicaid RA that a provider could obtain and submit.
  • Write-Off Procedures: All Medicare bad debt, including Medicare/Medicaid crossover claims, must not be written off to a contractual allowance account but must be charged to an expense account for uncollectible accounts (e.g., bad debt or implicit price concession).  This would be effective for cost reports beginning on or after October 1, 2020.  CMS had previously stated that this would be effective for cost reports beginning on or after October 1, 2019, so it appears that providers will be granted additional time to implement these internal procedures.
  • Presumptive Charity: CMS is also proposing clarification to the definition of presumptive charity.  For a hospital to define an indigent non-dual eligible beneficiary, the provider must apply its customary methods under the following requirements:
    1. The beneficiary’s indigence must be determined by the provider;
    2. The provider must take into account a beneficiary’s total resources, which include but are not limited to, an analysis of assets (i.e., only those convertible to cash and unnecessary for daily living), liabilities, and income and expenses (Note: Extenuating circumstances affecting the determination of the beneficiary’s indigence must also be considered.); AND
    3. The provider must determine that no source other than the beneficiary would be legally responsible for the beneficiary’s medical bill (e.g., legal guardian).

Toyon’s Take: The provider must maintain and be ready to provide documentation describing the method by which indigence was determined.  Once indigence is determined and there has been no improvement in the beneficiary’s status, the bad debt may be deemed uncollectible without applying a collection effort.  Providers should review their Financial Assistance Policy, and if presumptive charity is being used as a method to determine indigence, we recommend sending a comment to ensure that CMS will allow this as a reasonable method in determining indigence.

For additional information, please contact Dylan Chinea at dylan.chinea@toyonassociates.com


Changes to Wage Index

Based on the CMS proposed changes for FFY2021, the occupational-mix adjusted national average hourly wage is estimated to be $45.07, representing an increase of 2.10% from the prior year.

CMS proposed and finalized a policy in FFY2020 to reduce wage index high-to-low disparities by increasing the values for low wage index hospitals below the 25th percentile (or a WIF of 0.8420 in FFY2021). In FFY2020, CMS anticipated that it would continue this policy for at least four years, acknowledging that providers in these lower-quartile states would improve employee compensation within four years as a result of the higher wage index. Accordingly, CMS is proposing to continue this policy in FFY2021. Consistent with the finalized policy in FFY2020, in FFY2021 CMS will “fund” this policy by applying a uniform budget neutrality adjustment. The proposed low wage index hospital policy budget neutrality factor is 0.998241 (compared to 0.997987 in FFY2020).

In FFY2020, CMS also proposed and finalized a change to the rural floor calculation by removing urban-to-rural reclassifications from the statewide rural floor. CMS is proposing to continue this policy in FFY2021 so that state rural floors would be calculated without including the wage data of urban hospitals that have reclassified as rural.

As a result of the policy changes noted above, CMS finalized a cap of 5% on the decrease of any hospital’s wage index from FFY2019 to FFY2020. While this cap was set to expire in FFY2020, CMS is proposing to continue to apply this cap in FFY2021 and apply a budget neutrality adjustment for this proposed transition policy in the same manner as FFY2020. The reason for the cap in FFY2021 is a result of the Office of Budget & Management (OMB) updates noted below.

CMS Proposed Changes to Core-Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs)

The wage index is calculated and assigned to hospitals on the basis of the labor market in which the hospital is located, based on OMB-established CBSAs. The current OMB delineations are based on OMB Bulletin No. 13-01 issued on February 28, 2013, which revised a number of CBSAs starting with FFY2015 due to changes in 2010 Census data. Normally, Census data only impacts CBSA delineations every 10 years; however, OMB Bulletin No. 18-04 issued on September 14, 2018, contained material changes to the OMB statistical area delineations. Specifically, under these revised OMB delineations, new CBSAs would be created, urban counties would become rural counties, rural continues would become urban counties, and some existing CBSAs would be split apart. In addition, the revised OMB delineations affect various hospital reclassifications, the out-migration adjustment (accounting for employee commuting patterns), and the treatment of hospitals located in certain rural counties known as “Lugar” hospitals.

CMS is proposing to incorporate the revised OMB delineations from OMB Bulletin No. 18-04 in FFY2021 to “increase the integrity of the IPPS wage index system by creating a more accurate representation of geographic variations in wage levels.”

The proposed changes to current CBSA designations due the revised OMB delineations include the following:

  1. Urban counties that would become rural
  2. Rural counties that would become urban
  3. Urban counties that would move to a different urban CBSA

Click here for tables listing the proposed changes to the counties noted in #1 – 3 above.

As mentioned above, and to mitigate any potential impact to a CBSA’s wage index due to the revised OMB delineations, CMS is proposing a transition policy to apply a 5% cap on any decrease to a hospital’s proposed FFY2021 wage index from the hospital’s final wage index from FFY2020. This policy would be made budget neutral consistent with the last fiscal period in which revised OMB delineations were applied (FFY2015). The proposed budget neutrality as a result of this transition policy is 0.998580.

Click here for a comparison of current and prior WIFs for each hospital, which includes the proposed transition policy cap of 5%.

Toyon’s Take:  The transition policy as proposed by CMS to apply the revised OMB delineations is appropriate and consistent with past year’s where CMS had to apply similar revisions to the CBSA designations. The impact to urban hospitals as a result of the revised OMB delineations is minimal with the exception of hospitals in the Northeast, primarily New York-New Jersey, as a number of counties were redefined to new CBSA designations and “moved out” of New York City which historically has produced a higher wage index for such hospitals. The impact to these hospitals specifically will be mitigated in FFY2021 as proposed due to the transition policy; however, beyond FFY2021 the impact could be significant. Hospitals in these areas need to pay close attention to their wage index filings and consider any reclassification opportunities, and also, if a hospital in these areas has an existing MGCRB reclassification, it should review the reassignment policy as proposed by CMS to ensure the hospital is reclassified to the expected geographic area.

Other Proposed Changes Impacting Wage Index

  • CMS acknowledges an increase in the number of wage index appeals relating to MACs’ disallowance of wages and hours that hospitals believe are associated with Part A administrative physician time but which the MACs believe are not properly documented as such, or are associated with Part B billable activities, which would not be allowable for wage index reporting.
    • While CMS does not propose any changes to how hospitals are to document Part A administrative physician time, it provides clarification and specific instructions as stated in the PRM.
  • CMS is proposing changes to existing regulations to allow MGCRB appeals to be submitted electronically, by fax, or by other electronic means.
  • Applications to the MGCRB for FFY2022 reclassifications, as well as cancellations and terminations, are due by September 3, 2020. All applications and supporting documents must be submitted via the Office of Hearings Case and Document Management System (OH CDMS) consistent with FFY2021 applications.
  • A new measurement of occupational mix is required for FFY2022. The Calendar Year (CY) 2019 Occupational Mix Survey was originally due July 1, 2020 via email attachment or overnight delivery to hospitals’ MACs; however, CMS is granting an extension until August 3, 2020 for hospitals nationwide. Refer to the final CY 2019 Occupational Mix Survey Hospital Reporting Form available on the CMS website at: https://www.cms.gov/medicaremedicare-fee-service-paymentacuteinpatientppswage-index-files/2019-occupational-mix-survey-hospital-reporting-form-cms-10079-wage-index-beginning-fy-2022

For additional information regarding wage index changes or updates, please contact Ryan Sader at ryan.sader@toyonassociates.com.


UC DSH Payments

CMS is proposing a decrease to Medicare UC DSH payments by $534M (or 6.4%), to $7.8B in FFY2021.  This decrease is driven by a $1.2B decrease in CMS’s estimation of national DSH payments for FFY2021, as compared to FFY2020.  National DSH payments are calculated under the former “empirical” method without accounting for changes from the ACA (i.e., Medicare UC DSH) in the determination of Factor 1 for UC DSH payments.

CMS has four significant proposals for UC DSH in FFY2021:

  • The most recent available single year of audited W/S S-10 will be used for Medicare DSH UC payments for all subsequent fiscal years. CMS proposed to add a new paragraph regarding this change under 42 CFR 412.106, “Special Treatment: Hospitals that serve a disproportionate share of low-income patients.”
  • Hospital UC DSH payments (Factor 3) are determined from one base-year of W/S S-10 UC costs from FFY2017 cost reports
  • To avoid the duplication of UC costs, hospitals acquired under a merger partway through the surviving hospital’s cost reporting period will not have their respective W/S S-10 UC cost data annualized
  • The trim methodology for all-inclusive rate providers (AIRP) will be modified. CMS proposes to recalculate UC costs for AIRPs, with UC costs greater than 50% of total operating costs, by applying a cost-to-charge ratio from the most recent available prior year cost report whereby UC costs are not greater than 50% of total operating costs.

Toyon is in the process of updating our national analysis to assist our clients with the evaluation of FFY2017 data used for FFY2021 UC DSH payments.  We will be providing this analysis over the coming weeks.

Toyon’s Take:  CMS’s projection of the uninsured population for Factor 2 includes insurance enrollment estimates through 2018.  Given the extraordinary events of COVID-19, projecting national uninsured rates may necessitate a more recent consideration of the timeliness of these estimates.

CMS’s proposal to use a single year of UC cost as the basis of UC DSH payments (Factor 3) is a significant change to the UC DSH reimbursement system.  Including this year’s audit of FFY2018 data (likely to be used for FFY2022 UC DSH payments), CMS and its MACs audited UC cost from W/S S-10 the last three years.

It is anticipated these audits will be an annual cycle of reported UC cost on the Medicare cost report.  The UC cost audits are also aligned when hospitals are preparing UC DSH listings on current year cost reports.  While annual audits are in place, Toyon recommends hospitals report current year UC DSH listings with the intent of amending these listings before or during the W/S S-10 audit. Moreover, from our work with MACs, it is Toyon’s understanding amended cost reports are NOT required to revise UC costs (rather this data is being documented independently resulting from the MAC audit schedules into the CMS HCRIS database).  

CMS’s use of FFY2017 data for FFY2021 payments also indicates the Agency’s decision to bypass the use of UC cost data from FFY2016.  As providers submit UC DSH listings for FFY2018 and subsequent years, Toyon recommends hospitals consider the appropriateness of reporting reversals related to FFY2016 UC cost write-offs.  In other words, it may not be appropriate to remove cost that CMS did not use in the development of UC DSH payments.

Click here for the DSH Supplemental PUF data.

Click here for the Analysis of UCC DSH Factor 1.

For additional information, please contact Fred Fisher at fred.fisher@toyonassociates.com.


High Percentage ESRD Discharge Hospitals

As noted previously, CMS proposed three new MS-DRGs for kidney transplant services with hemodialysis (MS-DRG 019, 650, and 651).  Accordingly, CMS has proposed to add these three MS-DRGs to the list of excluded MS-DRGs set forth in 42 CFR 412.104(a) when tabulating the additional payment for hospitals that have a higher percentage of Medicare ESRD beneficiaries.  In addition, CMS will be removing from the list of excluded MS-DRGs two DRGs that are no longer applicable.

An updated table of the excluded MS-DRGs is shown below:


Graduate Medical Education Changes for Residents in Closed Programs

To address concerns from stakeholders that their policy for allowing hospitals to seamlessly absorb displaced medical residents from closed programs is too restrictive, CMS is proposing to ease the current policy to match actual industry practice more closely.  The current CMS policy is that the definition of a displaced resident is one that is physically present at the hospital training on the day prior to or the day of the hospital or program closure.

In reality, residents begin their searches and programs begin accepting those residents soon after announcements are made that the hospital or program will be closing.  This allows residents to transfer to their new programs at a mutually convenient time with minimal disruption to their training.

CMS is proposing that the key day would now be the day that the closure was publicly announced (e.g., via a press release or formal notice to the ACGME), rather than the actual day of closure.  CMS is also proposing that the definition of a displaced resident be expanded to include individuals who have matched with the closed program but have not yet started training.  The revised definition of displaced residents is summarized in the table below:

These proposed changes would apply to the FTE cap transfer for displaced residents as well.  It is unclear when CMS intends this new policy to be effective, but presumably it would be effective immediately.

As an additional effort to reduce the amount of personally identifiable information (PII) in resident cap transfer agreements, CMS is also proposing to no longer require the full social security number of each resident but rather only the reporting of the last four digits.

For additional information, please contact Tom Hubner at tom.hubner@toyonassociates.com.


Rate Updates for Sole Community Hospitals (SCH) and Medicare-Dependent Hospitals (MDH)

CMS is proposing that the hospital-specific rates for SCHs and MDHs be updated by the following percentages, depending on the hospital’s ability to meet the different qualifying criteria:


Rural Referral Center (RRC) Annual Qualifying Data

Hospitals have different options to meet the RRC criteria set forth at 42 CFR 412.96.  For those that do not qualify under the 275-bed rule, other optional factors must be met.  Some of those factors are updated annually by CMS and include the following proposed amounts:


PRRB Procedural Flexibility

Since mid-2018, providers have been able to file appeal documents electronically with the Office of Hearings Case and Document Management System (OH CDMS).  Over 65 percent of all new appeals are now filed electronically, and CMS is proposing the following changes to enhance these numbers and reduce the administrative burden on the PRRB.

Proposed Changes:

  • “Date of Receipt” to be changed to mean date of electronic delivery for applicable documents
    • PRRB will continue to apply to receipts the presumed 5 days after the date of issuance
  • “In writing or written” defined to mean either hard copy or electronic submission
  • No earlier than FFY2021, the PRRB may update the Board instructions to require that all new submissions for new and pending appeals be filed electronically using OH CDMS
  • Subpoenas must now be sent via certified mail to ensure accordance with existing laws

For additional information, please contact Karen Kim at karen.kim@toyonassociates.com.


Changes to Quality Programs

While CMS is proposing several changes to the hospital quality reporting and payment programs, none of these changes represent significant structural or procedural changes to the programs.

Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting (IQR)

CMS is proposing to progressively increase, over a 3-year period, the number of quarters for which hospitals are required to report eCQM data, from the current requirement of one self-selected quarter of data to four quarters of data.

In addition, CMS has proposed reducing the number of hospitals selected for validation from up to 800 to up to 400 hospitals.

Furthermore, CMS is proposing to require the use of electronic file submissions via a CMS-approved secure file transmission process for chart abstracted measure validation.  This proposal would nullify the existing submission of paper copies of medical records or copies on digital portable media, such as CDs, DVDs, or flash drives.

Hospital Value Based Purchasing (HVBP)

CMS is not proposing to add or remove any measures for the FY2023 and FY2024 program years. 

Hospital Readmission Reduction (HRR)

CMS is not proposing to remove or adopt any additional measures at this time.  However, in an effort to simplify rulemaking, CMS is proposing the automatic adoption of applicable periods beginning with the FFY2023 program year.  The period of data collection will become a rolling three-year period applicable to the FFY payments two years after the applicable period ends, as noted below:

Hospital Acquired Conditions (HAC)

Similar to the HRR program, CMS is proposing the automatic adoption of applicable periods beginning with the FFY2023 program year, as noted below:


Other Rules, Transmittals, and Articles Recently Published

Inpatient Psych Facility PPS FFY2021 Proposed Rule [CMS-1731-P]

(Display Copy available 4/10/2020; FR Publish Date 4/14/2020)

Fact Sheet Link

Federal Register Link

  • Per diem base rate increase from $798.55 to $817.59.
  • Will apply the most recent CBSA delineations and will have a 2-year transition for all providers negatively impacted by WIF changes.

 

Inpatient Rehab Facility PPS FFY2021 Proposed Rule [CMS-1729-P]

(Display Copy available 4/19/2020; FR Publish Date 4/21/2020)

Fact Sheet Link

Federal Register Link

  • Standard payment conversion factor increase from $16,489 to $16,847.
  • Will apply the most recent CBSA delineations and will have a 2-year transition for all providers negatively impacted by WIF changes.

Long-Term Care Hospital PPS Proposed Rule [CMS-1735-P]

(Display Copy available here 5/11/2020; FR Publish Date 5/29/2020) – Published as part of the IPPS Acute Care Hospital Proposed Rule

Fact Sheet Link

Federal Register Link

  • LTCH-PPS payments expected to increase by 0.9% or $36M.
  • Payments for cases that will complete the statutory transition to the lower payment rates under the dual rate system are expected to decrease by approximately 20%. This accounts for the LTCH site neutral payment rate cases that will no longer be paid a blended payment rate with the end of the statutory transition period, which represent 25% of all LTCH cases.

 

Skilled Nursing Facility FFY2021 PPS Proposed Rule [CMS-1737-P]

(Display Copy available 4/10/2020; FR Publish Date 4/15/2020)

Fact Sheet Link

Federal Register Link

  • Increase in unadjusted Federal per diem rates of 2.3%
  • Proposal to update the SNF VBP program and to change code mappings for case-mix groups

 

Back to top

Toyon’s COVID-19 Healthcare Leadership Forum Insights

In early May, Toyon Associates, Inc. hosted a group of industry leaders from hospitals and healthcare systems across the country to discuss current and anticipated funding requirements from the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) COVID-19 emergency funding.  Please find below a summary of the key notes and insights provided during the discussion.

I. Significant COVID-19 Challenges

1. Revenue losses, specifically from decline in patients and elective procedures stopping (doctors are especially impacted from the decline in elective procedures). • Health systems reported volume decreases of 80%. Prospectively, it is difficult estimating future volumes of patients. • The surge of current COVID-19 patients appears to be in certain areas of the country, but not in many other areas. These providers are dealing with the harsh financial hits related to patient declines, etc. • Some health systems reported furloughing staff and enforcing PTO.

2. Advanced payments are helping, but providers are concerned about ability of these payment recoupments this fall.
     • One provider noted they were working with the MAC to receive PIP and outlier payments.

3. Multi-state providers noted they will be affected differently depending on when states open up from stay at home mandates, etc.

4. Supply shortages, as providers are concerned about PPE. Providers are relying on supply chain management systems to evaluate their PPE.

5. Telehealth increase, providers reporting increases from 100 to 6,000 per day in telehealth encounters with many constant challenges. Also, providers reported Ambulatory surgery centers being closed, converted to video only visits.

6. Post-acute patients, as providers reported patients ready to be discharged to post-acute providers (i.e., SNF), however SNFs will not accept patients from acute care hospitals. The patient is not ready to go home, so hospitals have to keep them in house.

7. Process coordination, as more effort spent ensuring hospital teams are coordinated in provider implemented response processes.

8. Teamwork while working from home was reported as challenging by a number of providers. There was interest from the group on achieving productivity levels, especially for employees not accustomed to working from home. On-boarding new employees was noted a new issue.

II. COVID-19 Funding

1. HHS funding specifics were noted as overall challenging to follow.

2. Advanced payments are difficult in determining the split of provider (Part A) vs. professional (Part B) funding.

3. Retention of funding is considered primarily related to the quantification of lost revenue.

4. FEMA funding balanced with other grants is anticipated to be a challenge.

5. Managed care advanced payments were discussed as potential revenue stream. However, in large part managed care plans are not currently allocating advanced payments.

6. Second tranche of general CARES funds was less than expected for some hospitals.
     • This is due to the first allocation going out using Medicare revenue as the basis for funding.
     • Providers are not receiving more than 2% of net patient service revenue as funding from the $50bn general fund.
     • Concerns over potential recoupment of funds were noted on call and one person noted the Secretary mentioned funds could be recouped on a national provider call. Others noted they are not concerned about recoupment due to HHS language stating this money is not a loan.

7. Preparation for HHS requests was noted as important. During the request for beds and cases, providers reported a scramble to locate who at the hospital(s) received the HHS email and has access to the portal.

8. The provider relief portal requires 2018 information based on Tax Return data. It was noted that once this data is provided, it may affect funding and distributions. One provider noted there is speculation the tax information could result in more funding for outliers. Providers noted funds from “tranche 2” require information from IRS 990, however 990s do not align up to individual hospital amounts for many health systems.

9. Hundreds of tax IDs are being assembled by health systems for purposes of receiving/tracking funding amounts. Tax IDs can be regional, and some hospitals may have more than one tax ID. Providers are also challenged with decentralized PECOs, PTANs, and NPIs. The IDs are all needed for varying portions of the funding.

10. Interacting with HHS/OPTUM submissions requires the user to be very specific (i.e., the hospital’s payment needs to tie down to the penny). If the user does not enter in correctly, the system errors out.

11. Hospitals under previous ownership may have the funding sent to the prior owner by HHS. It was reported this may occur when prior owner billed Medicare during ownership transition.

12. Field hospital discharges were discussed as using code 69 (discharge for disaster) for discharges from field hospital.

III. COVID-19 Terms Conditions (T&Cs) and Attestation

1. Deal-breaking T&C language is being requested by hospital counsel from finance leadership. Perspective from finance is to ensure fair recognition of revenue losses and comprehension of HHS funding methodologies.

2. Out of network patients are noted as risks in inadvertently violating T&Cs. To account for this, providers noted
     • Holding patient bills;
     • Pro-actively writing-off patient copayments as underpayments; and/or
     • Applying new codes to track these patients and transaction/payment types.

3. T&Cs require quarterly reports (due 10 days after close of the quarter) and are anticipated to start with the July 1st quarter. Concerns were raised about consequences of missing the July quarterly report and providers are waiting further instructions from HHS.

4. Attesting second payments requires attesting first payments.

5. Partial attestations for individual hospital units do not appear to be an available option. Attestation is all or nothing for funding amounts.

IV. Tracking Revenue Loss and COVID-19 Expenses

1. Revenue loss amounts to HHS, including quarterly reports, have providers estimating revenue losses by assessing the following information for the July quarterly report:
     • Budget to Actual using budgeted revenue during March and April compared to the same actual period had COVID-19 not appeared.
    • Year over year comparisons using actual revenue received during March and April compared to same period last year.
     • Hybrid methods best suited for the respective hospital(s). For instance, under a hybrid methodology, providers noted:
          o Different estimates depending on the region of their hospital(s);
          o Assessing historical data/trends, against unique activity for 2020 increasing costs. For instance, consideration of what was purchased, and “ramped-up” as a result of COVID-19.
          o Insurance recoveries as factors that may be applied as a factor revenue loss estimation.
          o Tracking additional staffing. For instance, med/surg now has more staff then typical.
          o Other unique circumstances, such as cost of retaining patients (i.e., SNF) ready to be discharged to post-acute care, but still at the hospital.
     • Ultimately, providers reported looking for something that can be proven out, audited, and well substantiated.

2. New departments are being created to track expenses and revenue. The new COVID-19 departments include:
     • Costs such as labor and materials, PPE and alternative care sites. The group discussed allocating costs associated with overhead related to COVID-19 expenses. One provider noted about 95% of time in the past month was related to COVID-19 related activity.
     • Modified payroll systems to track COVID-19 pay categories and salaries. This effort helps understand the time and resources allocated to COVID-19 time and patients.
     • Systems to track funding across health-system services.
     • Some providers are reporting information from these departments to their respective State(s) on a daily basis.
     • It was discussed the use of a payor code or transaction code may be useful regarding patients for the HRSA uninsured program and WS S-10 uncompensated care reporting.

3. New department challenges include:
     • The extension of existing departments, like the emergency department.
     • PPE reporting, allocations and price mark up.
          o PPE may be currently sitting on the balance sheet, as it has not been used.
          o PPE will be allocated to disaster response and providers are placing strict guidelines around what can be coded as PPE in these departments.
          o Providers need to consider PPE like face masks that are purchased for surgery – but related to COVID-19 patients.
     ▪ The group discussed that if PPE is purchased in bulk, it may be attributed to disaster response. The definition of patient care vs. disaster recovery is a separate issue.

4. Previous emergencies, such as earthquakes have provided some insight on funding and revenue loss recording to certain providers with this experience.

5. Tracking FEMA revenue with other grants is anticipated to be challenging and it is hopeful the assignment of revenue and costs to these departments will be helpful.

6. Different funding sources are elements providers are looking to tie into new departments, which may be different depending on the state for systems spanning across multiple states and regions. Costs/revenue from varying sources are eligible for different funding programs. Providers need a comprehensive tracking method.

Toyon Associates greatly values and appreciates the input provided by our industry friends and colleagues around emerging issues like COVID-19.  If you have any additional questions regarding the topics discussed above, please feel free to contact robert.howey@toyonassociates.com.

We also look forward to conducting more leadership forums around current issues affecting our industry in the future.  Thank you.

Back to top

COVID-19 Estimates of CARES Act Hospital Relief Payments

Toyon is pleased to provide this interactive model estimating hospital relief payments from the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund (PHSSEF). These hospital relief payment estimates are for discussion purposes only. This model includes estimated amounts from the $50bn general allocation, $12bn High Impact (with estimated hospital admissions and DSH portion isolated) and rural hospital funding.   HHS is dispersing actual funds using tax documentation and is collecting information from Sole Proprietor/Disregarded Entities (LLC). HHS published a user guide here.  
 
Please find below the estimates by CCN number, hospital type, state, county, and city (county and city are only provided with available data, some providers are not listed by county and/or city).  Provided amounts are for hospital estimates only and include acute care, critical access, skilled nursing, psychiatric, rehabilitation, LTCH, cancer, children’s hospitals as well as outpatient dialysis providers and rural health clinics.  Non-hospital providers (i.e., physicians), home health, community health medical centers and federal qualified health centers are not included in this analysis.
 
Please contact Robert Howey at 925.685.9312, ext. 3147 / robert.howey@toyonassociates.com with any questions. 
 
There are 7 distinct pages of analytics that can be navigated via the arrows at the bottom center of the visuals. For best viewing, we recommend expanding analysis to full screen by selecting the expansion arrows in the lower right-hand corner.

 

Data Sources:
 – Medicare FY 2019/2020 IPPS DRG Impact File (Updated for Correction Notice) 
 – FFY 2019 Final Rule Standard Operating (Labor and Non-Labor) and Capital Rates 
 – FFY 2019 Final Rule Post-Reclassified Wage Index Factor 
 – Medicare discharges from Medicare cases for the provider from the FY 2018 MedPAR, March 2019 update 
 – Medicare case mix index from the transfer adjusted Case Mix Index under Grouper V37 and FY 2020 Post-Acute Transfer Policy 
 – All add-ons and adjustments from this file (DSH, IME, etc) are included and be turned “on and off” on tab 2 “File Notes” 

2. Estimated Outpatient Payments for Acute Care Hospitals
    
– Worksheet E Series settlement data for Sub-providers and all other hospital types: critical access, skilled nursing, psychiatric, rehabilitation, cancer, children’s hospitals, dialysis and rural health clinics  
 – Net Patient Service Revenue from worksheet G-3, line 3, column 1
 – Total Patient Days from worksheet S-3, Part I, column 8.
 
 
Back to top
Toyon Associates Healthcare Finance

Here TO HELP

Receive a no obligation consultation on how Toyon can help make your cost reporting simpler, easier, and trusted.