In FY 2019, hospital performance in the HRRP will be assessed relative to hospitals within the same peer groups.
Since 2013, Medicare has penalized hospitals that have an “excessive” number of readmissions under a program called the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, or HRRP. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) measures hospital performance in the HRRP by calculating excess readmission ratios (ERRs) for each of the six program measures. An ERR is the ratio of predicted to expected readmissions for a given measure.
The payment adjustment factor formula is used to calculate the size of the payment reduction. Payment reductions were capped at 1 percent (i.e. a minimum payment adjustment factor of 0.99 percent) for FY 2013, then 2 percent for FY 2014 (i.e. a minimum payment adjustment factor of 0.98 percent), and 3 percent (i.e. a minimum payment adjustment factor of 0.97 percent) for FY 2015 and onward. Payment reductions are applied to all Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) base operating DRG payments for the fiscal year. The payment adjustment factor for FY 2013-FY 2018 is:
In this formula, dx is any one of the six measure cohorts. The excess readmission ratio (ERR) is a hospital’s performance on that measure.
For FY 2018, the HRRP cohorts includes six measures:
There was a problem yielding a common complaint among certain types of hospitals with the penalty computations. According to an article published in the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) in 2013, certain types of hospitals bore the brunt of the penalties:
“Similarly, we found that major teaching hospitals are more likely to be highly penalized than nonteaching hospitals (44 percent [n = 118] versus 33 percent [n = 979], respectively) and less likely to not be penalized (19 percent [n = 50] versus 35 percent [n = 1043]). Safety-net hospitals are more likely to be highly penalized than non-SNHs (44 percent [n = 337] versus 30 percent [n = 760], respectively), and only 20 percent (n = 157) will not be penalized. In multivariate analyses, we found that the adjusted odds of being highly penalized are greatest for SNHs (odds ratio, 2.38 [95 percent CI, 1.91-2.96]; P < .001).”
JAMA. 2013;309(4):342-343. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.94856
In December 2016, the 21st Century Cures Act (Cures Act) was signed into law. The legislation requires that CMS assess penalties based on a hospital’s performance relative to that of other hospitals with a similar proportion of patients that are dually eligible for Medicare and full-benefit Medicaid. The legislation further requires that estimated payments under the new methodology equal payments under the old design, also known as budget neutrality.
There is a rub with this neutrality provision, as with all such provisions. Medicare runs on a “prospective payment” methodology. The neutrality never actually works, out as it is based only on a guess. CMS came up with a new formula:
Beginning in FY 2019, hospital performance in the HRRP will be assessed relative to the performance of hospitals within the same peer groups. Hospitals will be stratified into five peer groups, or quintiles, based on their proportion of dual-eligible stays. A hospital’s dual proportion is the proportion of Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) and Medicare Advantage stays wherein the patient was dually eligible for Medicare and full-benefit Medicaid.
Conclusions?
Is the new method fair? Is it really true that hospitals with larger Medicaid populations face a more difficult readmission situation? Is it fair to increase reimbursement to hospitals with high Medicaid case mixes when they already get an add-on for Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payments? These are policy issues that will continue to be debated. We have no opinion and take no sides.
While we need to wait and see what the peer group data will show, there is no doubt that hospitals with smaller Medicaid populations will bear much more of the readmission penalty burden. These new regulations will tend to pit hospitals within peer groups against each other in the fight against the penalties. It will also impact Medicare Advantage reimbursement for contracted and non-contracted services.
With little fanfare, last week the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced another Review Choice Demonstration Project. Joining the ongoing Review Choice Demonstration
Last week I wrote about the ongoing issue of Medicare Advantage (MA) denials related to appropriate transfer to a skilled nursing facility (SNF) and the
Please log in to your account to comment on this article.
Dr. Ronald Hirsch provides tried-and-true strategies and insight into outpatient in hospital bed stays including determining the applicable definition, who uses it, and when and how to bill for this circumstance, solidified with concrete case examples and expert insight.
Practical solutions for CDM departments to protect your hospital’s revenue.
This webcast teaches hospitals how to comply with CMS price transparency rules and compare their rates with peer hospitals. It covers creating a compliant machine-readable file, comparing negotiated rates, and improving pricing decisions.
The No Surprises Act (NSA) presents a challenge for hospitals and providers who must provide Good Faith Estimates (GFEs) for all schedulable services for self-pay and uninsured patients. Compliance is necessary, but few hospitals have been able to fully comply with the requirements despite being a year into the NSA. This webcast provides an overview of the NSA/GFE policy, its impact, and a step-by-step process to adhere to the requirements and avoid non-compliance penalties.
This expert-guided webcast will showcase tips for providers to ensure appropriate capture of the work performed for a visit. Comprehensive examples will be given that demonstrate documentation gaps and how to educate providers on the documentation necessary to appropriately assign a level of service. You will gain clarification on answers regarding emergency department and urgent care coding circumstances as well as a review of how/when it is appropriate to code for E&M in radiology and more.
Set yourself up for financial and compliance success with expert guidance that breaks down the impactful changes including MS-DRG methodology, surgical hierarchy updates, and many new technology add-on payments (NTAPs). Identify areas of potential challenge ahead of time and master solutions for all 2024 Proposed IPPS changes.
Do you struggle with selecting and appending the correct modifier for your medical claims? Join our must-attend webinar, “Mastering Modifier Usage: Preventing Denials and Ensuring Compliance” to reduce claim denials and improve your reimbursement rates.
Kay Piper reviews the guidance and updates coders and CDISs on important information in the AHA’s fourth quarter 2023 ICD-10-CM/PCS Quarterly Coding Clinic in an easy to access on-demand webcast.
Copyright © 2022 RACmonitor. Powered by MedLearn Media.
