CMS Abandons Payment Cut Imposed By Two-Midnight Rule

20 April 2016 Health Care Law Today Blog

In the Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) final rule, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) revised its Medicare policy for determining whether hospital encounters will be considered appropriately inpatient or outpatient. The status distinction has important consequences for both the provider and the beneficiary, including differences in co-insurance and deductibles, and what items and services are billable and the level of reimbursement paid to providers.

Under the so-called “two-midnight” rule, an inpatient admission is generally appropriate if the physician (or other qualified practitioner) admits the patient based upon the reasonable expectation that the patient will need hospital care that crosses at least two midnights, regardless of the intensity of the services provided. In promulgating the two-midnight rule, CMS estimated that Medicare Part A (Part A) expenditures would increase by approximately $220 million in FY 2014 due to CMS’ predicted increase of 40,000 inpatient admissions. In order to offset this projected increase in Part A expenditures, CMS imposed an across-the-board reduction of 0.2% to the standardized amounts (and, where applicable, the hospital-specific payment rates) for discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2013. Hospitals brought suit in five cases in the District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging the payment cut as without statutory authority, procedurally defective, and arbitrary and capricious. The cases were consolidated under the name of Shands Jacksonville Med. Ctr. v. Burwell, No. CV 14-1477 (Shands).

In a September 21, 2015 order (__ F. Supp. 3d __, 2015 WL 5579653 (D.D.C. Sept. 21, 2015)), the court in Shands held that the agency had statutory authority to make an across-the-board payment adjustment. However, it also held that the payment reduction was procedurally invalid because CMS did not explain adequately in the proposed rule its methodology for arriving at its conclusion that the revised two-midnight rule would result in a net increase of 40,000 inpatient cases and thus did not give the public a meaningful opportunity to comment. Over the plaintiffs’ objections, the court remanded the rule to CMS instead of vacating it. Because the court held that the rule should be remanded to give CMS an opportunity to cure the procedural defects, it did not then address the plaintiffs’ argument that the rule was arbitrary and capricious.

The court issued a schedule directing CMS to issue an initial notice by December 1, 2015, explaining its methodology for its prediction of an increase in inpatient admissions and soliciting comments, and to issue a final notice by March 18, 2016. On December 1, 2015, per the court’s order, CMS published a notice with comment period in the Federal Register that discussed CMS’ explanation for its belief that the two-midnight rule would result in an increase of approximately 40,000 inpatient admissions for FY 2014 and the basis for the 0.2% reduction, along with its underlying assumptions. Subsequently, while the final notice was already at the Office of Management and Budget for its review, CMS requested and was granted an extension from the court to prepare the final notice.

In the FY 2017 IPPS proposed rule, CMS stated that whereas it still believes that its assumptions underlying the 0.2% reduction to the payment rates were reasonable at the time it made them in 2013, it also believes that it is appropriate to rescind the 0.2% payment reduction both prospectively and retroactively. Therefore, CMS has proposed to increase the payment rates prospectively, beginning in FY 2017, by 0.2%, as well as to make a one-time positive adjustment of 0.6% in order to reverse the effects of the 0.2% payment cut for FYs 2014, 2015, and 2017. The proposed rule states that its discussion and proposals concerning the reversals of the payment cuts constitute the final notice required by the court in Shands.

Originally, this article was an alert sent to the American Health Lawyers Association’s (AHLA) Regulation, Accreditation and Payment; Academic Medical Centers and Teaching Hospitals; and Hospitals and Health Systems Practice Group Members. For more information, visit AHLA’s website.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services