• News New Blog Banner

  • Final Outpatient Payment Rule From CMS Eases Supervision, Moves Ahead With 'Site Neutral' Payment Despite Lawsuit

    In this review: Medicare Program: Changes to Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment and Ambulatory Surgical Center Payment Systems and Quality Reporting Programs (final rule)
    Effective date: January 1, 2020
    CMS Fact Sheet

    The big picture: Continued trends toward easing supervision burdens, and a contested effort to reduce payment variation (that doesn't really affect PTs)
    The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is pushing for an outpatient environment in which overall payments vary less according to who owns a facility, according to the final Medicare outpatient payment system rule set to go into effect on January 1, 2020.

    The rule moves ahead with CMS efforts to establish a "site neutral" payment model in its payment for physician services, doing away with a system that pays so-called "off campus" hospital-owned facilities more than it does their independent equivalents. The plan hit a recent snag when a federal judge refused to impose a stay on a court ruling in September in favor of plaintiffs, including the American Hospital Association, that sought to block the rollout of the site-neutral plan. CMS stated in the final rule’s fact sheet that they do not believe “it is appropriate at this time to make a change to the second year of the two-year phase-in of the clinic visit policy. The government has appeal rights, and is still evaluating the rules and considering, at the time of this writing, whether to appeal from the final judgment.” Because physical therapy services in outpatient settings are paid under the CMS physician fee schedule, PTs aren't affected by CMS' hoped-for change.

    The final rule also includes an APTA-supported move toward easing supervision burdens placed on hospitals by way of changed supervision requirements for outpatient therapeutic services in all hospitals. Beginning January 1, the requirements will move from "direct" supervision to "general" supervision, meaning that while a given procedure may be furnished under a physician's overall direction and control, the physician's physical presence no longer will be required during the performance of the procedure. The change is viewed as a particularly positive one for critical-access hospitals and other facilities in underserved areas.

    Also notable in the final rule

    • Payment rates for outpatient hospitals and ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs) will increase by 2.7%.
    • CMS said it will consider the stakeholder feedback it received on its proposal to add 4 safety measures to the Outpatient Quality Reporting Program (Hospital OQR Program) in the future. These measures already are required of ASCs: patient falls, patient burns, wrong site/side/procedure/implant, and all-cause hospital transfers/admissions.
    • CMS recognized that it received over 1,400 comments regarding its proposal to require hospitals to make their standard charges public for all items and services, and stated that it would summarize and respond to these comments in a future final rule.

    Worth watching: prior authorization
    Prior authorization also figures into the new rule, which requires preapproval for 5 cosmetic procedures including vein ablation. While this doesn't directly affect services associated with physical therapy, APTA advocates in general against prior authorization requirements that slow the delivery of care and limit patient access to appropriate interventions. APTA regulatory affairs staff will continue to pay particular attention to future rulemaking in this area.

    Comments

    • I am very confused as to how “easing supervision requirements” for hospitals is a win for physical therapists?

      Posted by Bill on 11/9/2019 8:47 AM

    • This article is confusing. What does the “refusal to issue a stay in favor of plaintiffs mean? What was the original case about? Would a stay mean that the court’s ruling would not be imposed because of CMS’ rule change in favor of “site-neutral payments? Who is the plaintiff? How was the ruling considered to be in favor of the plaintiff? What was the plaintiff’s claim?

      Posted by Bill on 11/9/2019 8:57 AM

    • @Bill. Yes, the court happenings are a bit convoluted. Here's a pretty good piece that supplies more detail: https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2019/10/23/site-neutral

      Posted by APTA Staff on 11/9/2019 2:56 PM

    Leave a comment
    Name *
    Email *
    Homepage
    Comment