[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 124 (Tuesday, June 30, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31183-31196]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15345]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
42 CFR Parts 431, 433, 440 and 441
[CMS-2287-F2; CMS-2213-F2; CMS 2237-F]
RIN 0938-AP75
Medicaid Program: Rescission of School-Based Administration/
Transportation Final Rule, Outpatient Hospital Services Final Rule, and
Partial Rescission of Case Management Interim Final Rule
AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule finalizes our proposal to rescind the December 28,
2007 final rule entitled, ``Elimination of Reimbursement under Medicaid
for School Administration Expenditures and Costs Related to
Transportation of School-Age Children Between Home and School;'' the
November 7, 2008 final rule entitled, ``Clarification of Outpatient
Hospital Facility (Including Outpatient Hospital Clinic) Services
Definition;'' and certain provisions of the December 4, 2007 interim
final rule entitled, ``Optional State Plan Case Management Services.''
These regulations have been the subject of Congressional moratoria and
have not yet been implemented (or, with respect to the case management
interim final rule, have only been partially implemented) by CMS. In
light of concerns raised about the adverse effects that could result
from these regulations, in particular, the potential restrictions on
services available to beneficiaries and the lack of clear evidence
demonstrating that the approaches taken in the regulations are
warranted, CMS is rescinding the two final rules in full, and partially
rescinding the interim final rule. Rescinding these provisions will
permit further opportunity to determine the best approach to further
the objectives of the Medicaid program in providing necessary health
benefits coverage to needy individuals.
DATES: Effective Date: These regulations are effective on July 1, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon Brown (410) 786-0673 or Judi
Wallace (410) 786-3197, for issues related to the School-Based
Administration/Transportation final rule.
Jeremy Silanskis (410) 786-1592, for issues related to the
Outpatient Hospital Services final rule.
Jean Close (410) 786-2804 or Melissa Harris (410) 786-3397, for
issues related to the Case Management interim final rule.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Elimination of Reimbursement Under Medicaid for School
Administration Expenditures and Costs Related to Transportation of
School-Age Children Between Home and School
Under the Medicaid program, Federal payment is available for the
costs of administrative activities as found necessary by the Secretary
for the proper and efficient administration of the State plan. On
December 28, 2007, we published a final rule entitled, ``Elimination of
Reimbursement under Medicaid for School Administration Expenditures and
Costs Related to Transportation of School-Age Children Between Home and
School'' (hereinafter referred to as the School-Based Administration/
Transportation final rule (72 FR 73635)), to eliminate Federal Medicaid
payment for the costs of certain school-based administrative and
transportation activities based on a Secretarial finding that these
activities are not necessary for the proper and efficient
administration of the Medicaid State plan and are not within the
definition of the optional transportation benefit. Under the final
rule, Federal Medicaid payments were not available for administrative
activities performed by school employees or contractors, or anyone
under the control of a public or private educational institution, or
for transportation between home and school. Federal financial
participation (FFP) remained available for covered services furnished
at or through a school that are included in a child's individualized
education program (IEP), and for transportation from school to a
provider in the community for a covered service. FFP also remained
available for the costs of school-based Medicaid administrative
activities conducted by employees of the State or local Medicaid
agency, and for transportation to and from a school for children who
are not yet school age but are receiving covered direct medical
services at the school.
The December 28, 2007, School-Based Administration/Transportation
final rule became effective on February 26, 2008. Subsequent to
publication of the final rule, section 206 of the Medicare, Medicaid,
and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-173) imposed a moratorium
until June 30, 2008, that precluded CMS from imposing any restrictions
contained in the rule that are more stringent than those applied as of
July 1, 2007. Section 7001(a)(2) of the Supplemental Appropriations Act
of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-252) extended this moratorium until April 1, 2009;
and section 5003(b) of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (the Recovery Act) (Pub. L. 111-5) further extended the moratorium
until July 1, 2009.
[[Page 31184]]
B. Clarification of Outpatient Hospital Facility (Including Outpatient
Hospital Clinic) Services Definition
Outpatient hospital services are a required service under Medicaid.
On November 7, 2008, we published a final rule entitled,
``Clarification of Outpatient Hospital Facility (Including Outpatient
Hospital Clinic) Services Definition'' (hereinafter referred to as
Outpatient Hospital Services final rule), to introduce new limitations
on which treatments could be billed and paid as an outpatient hospital
service, thereby altering the pre-existing definition of ``outpatient
hospital services.'' The final rule became effective on December 8,
2008. Section 5003(c) of the Recovery Act precludes CMS from taking any
action to implement the final rule with respect to services furnished
between December 8, 2008 and June 30, 2009.
C. Optional State Plan Case Management Services
On December 4, 2007, we published an interim final rule entitled,
``Optional State Plan Case Management Services'' (hereinafter referred
to as the Case Management interim final rule (72 FR 68077)), that
revised current Medicaid regulations to incorporate changes made by
section 6052 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) (Pub. L. 109-
171). In addition, we placed new limitations on the services and
activities that could be covered and paid as an optional targeted case
management (TCM) service or optional case management service.
The interim final rule became effective on March 3, 2008. Section
7001(a)(3)(B)(I) of the Supplemental Appropriations Act imposed a
partial moratorium until April 1, 2009, precluding CMS from taking any
action to impose restrictions on case management services that were
more restrictive than those in effect on December 3, 2007. The law
contained an exception for the portion of the regulation as it related
directly to implementing the definition of case management services and
targeted case management services. That partial moratorium was extended
by section 5003(a) of the Recovery Act until July 1, 2009.
II. Provisions of the Proposed Regulation and Response to Comments
Since the publication of these final regulations, we have received
additional public input about the adverse effects that could result
from these regulations. In addition, the statutory moratoria indicate
strong concern in Congress about the effects of these regulations. In
particular, we have become aware that the provisions of these rules
could result in restrictions on services available to beneficiaries and
there is a lack of clear evidence demonstrating that the approaches
taken in the regulations are warranted at this time.
On May 6, 2009, we published a proposed rule (74 FR 21230) in the
Federal Register to rescind the November 7, 2008 Outpatient Hospital
Services final rule; the December 28, 2007 School-Based Administration/
Transportation final rule; and certain provisions of the December 4,
2007 Case Management interim final rule. The May 6, 2009 proposed rule
solicited public comments on our proposal to rescind these rules and to
aid our consideration of the many complex questions surrounding these
issues and the need for regulation in these areas.
We received a total of 556 timely comments from State officials,
school districts and consortia, educational organizations, child
advocacy groups, health care organizations, school nurses, parents,
teachers, school officials, providers, and other interested
individuals. All comments were reviewed and analyzed. After associating
like comments, we placed them in categories based on subject matter.
The commenters were overwhelmingly supportive of our proposal to
rescind the School-Based Administration/Transportation final rule, the
Outpatient Hospital Services final rule, and portions of the Case
Management interim final rule. Summaries of the public comments and our
responses to those comments are set forth under the appropriate
headings below.
A. Elimination of Reimbursement Under Medicaid for School
Administration Expenditures and Costs Related to Transportation of
School-Age Children Between Home and School
We proposed to rescind the December 28, 2007 School-Based
Administration/Transportation final rule in its entirety. The proposed
rescission was based on concerns that the adverse consequences of the
final rule may be more significant than previously assumed, and that
the consideration of alternative approaches may be warranted. Since
issuing the School-Based Administration/Transportation final rule, we
became aware that the limitations on Federal Medicaid funding under the
final rule could adversely affect State outreach and enrollment efforts
in schools, and therefore limit services for families in need. We had
previously assumed that, since such activities were within the scope of
the overall mission of the schools, the activities would continue with
funding from other sources available for educational activities.
Conversely, we thought that State Medicaid agencies had sufficient
resources to outsource its employees in schools to absorb these
functions. In summary, we were concerned that the assumptions
underlying the promulgation of the rule may have been invalid, and that
implementation of the rule could adversely affect Medicaid
beneficiaries. We requested comments on this issue.
Moreover, we were concerned that there is insufficient evidence on
the need for the particular approach taken by the final rule. The
oversight reviews that we cited in issuing the final rule, indicating
some deficiencies in procedures for claiming school-based
administrative expenditures and necessary transportation, were several
years old and based on data collected more than 5 years ago. These
claims did not reflect CMS guidance issued after the review data was
collected; nor did they reflect the greater administrative oversight
and technical assistance that we have made available more recently.
Moreover, since CMS has tools at its disposal to address inappropriate
claiming that could arise in any setting, we would continue to monitor
claims and evaluate the efficacy of these tools in addressing any
claiming issues even in the absence of this rule.
In light of these concerns, we proposed to rescind the provisions
of the final rule while we further review the underlying issues and
determine whether a different approach is necessary, and revise the
regulations to remove the regulatory provisions added by the December
28, 2007 final rule. We proposed to apply the policies in effect before
the December 28, 2007 final rule became effective, as set forth in the
May 2003 Medicaid School-Based Administrative Claiming Guide which
provides guidance to States on school-based administrative claiming and
school transportation.
Specifically, we proposed to revise Sec. 431.53(a) and Sec.
440.170(a) to remove language indicating that, for purposes of Medicaid
reimbursement, transportation does not include transportation of
school-age children from home to school and back when a child is
receiving a Medicaid-covered service at school. In addition, we
proposed to remove Sec. 433.20, which provides that Federal financial
participation (FFP) under Medicaid is not available for expenditures
for administrative activities by school employees, school contractors,
or anyone under the control of a public or private educational
institution.
[[Page 31185]]
Comment: Many commenters applauded CMS' decision to reconsider the
merits of the School-Based Administration/Transportation final rule.
Commenters stated that the final rule was ``bad public policy'' and
that efforts to rescind the rule are an acknowledgment of the impact
the final rule would have had on a myriad of stakeholders.
Response: We appreciate the commenters' support of our proposal to
rescind the School-Based Administration/Transportation final rule.
After careful consideration of the concerns raised by commenters, we
agree that the final rule should be rescinded.
Comment: The largest number of comments in support of rescinding
the School-Based Administration/Transportation final rule focused on
funding issues, noting that rescission will enable school districts and
many others to continue receiving the desperately needed Federal funds
to support school-based outreach, enrollment assistance, and improved
access to medical and transportation services. Many commenters stated
that students who receive specialized transportation and medical needs
require schools to expend large sums of money and that reducing or
eliminating Medicaid funds would have had a major impact on their
ability to serve this population. The majority of commenters who
supported the proposed rescission stated that the loss of funds would
have been devastating to the school district and to the students
served. The commenters also indicated that staff and services would
have been cut due to loss of funding.
Many commenters cited the economy in supporting the proposed
rescission. ``In light of the recent budget problems,'' one commenter
stated, ``school districts need all the resources they can get.''
Another commenter stated that it is especially important during this
time of dire budget constraints to maintain the ability of school staff
to provide outreach and continue to be able to be reimbursed. In
addition, the commenters believe that this reimbursement is a wise
investment.
Response: Since issuing the School-Based Administration/
Transportation final rule, we have become aware that limitations on
Federal Medicaid funding would have adversely affected State outreach
and enrollment efforts in schools, therefore limiting services for
families in need. We previously assumed that, since such activities
were within the scope of the overall mission of the schools, the
activities would continue with funding from other sources available for
educational activities.
We agree that rescission of the School-Based Administration/
Transportation final rule is necessary to ensure that Medicaid
administrative activities in schools, and certain transportation
services, will continue to be provided in schools with Federal Medicaid
funding. We will continue to apply the policies set forth in guidance
issued prior to that rule, including the 1999 letter to State Medicaid
Directors concerning school-based transportation services and the 2003
Medicaid School-Based Administrative Claiming Guide.
We will continue to evaluate the efficacy of these tools in
addressing school-based claiming issues and collaborate with education
and Medicaid stakeholder groups to discuss ways to improve such tools.
Comment: Some commenters applauded the proposed rescission of the
School-Based Administration/Transportation final rule because it would
allow their school district to continue to help identify students that
are in need of proper medical attention, as a service to the community,
and provide needed services to eligible students. Other commenters
stated that Medicaid funding not only leads to an increase in the
number of children receiving health insurance, but also increases the
number of students who receive vital health services. One commenter
stated that the final rule would have only served to reduce school
efforts to bring health services to medically compromised children in
schools across the nation.
Response: We agree that rescission of the School-Based
Administration/Transportation final rule is necessary to ensure that
Medicaid administrative activities in schools, and certain
transportation services, will continue to be provided in schools with
Federal Medicaid funding. We will continue to apply the policies set
forth in guidance issued prior to that rule, including the 1999 letter
to State Medicaid Directors concerning school-based transportation
services and the 2003 Medicaid School-Based Administrative Claiming
Guide.
We will continue to evaluate the efficacy of these tools in
addressing school-based claiming issues and collaborate with education
and Medicaid stakeholder groups to discuss ways to improve such tools.
Comment: Some commenters stated that the proposed rescission will
make it easier for States to fulfill requirements under the Early and
Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) benefit specified
in section 1905(a) of Social Security Act (the Act). They believe that
the School-Based Administration/Transportation final rule contradicted
Medicaid's requirements for EPSDT and CMS' previous guidance. The
commenter indicated that this mandate requires States to inform
families about the availability of EPSDT services and assist them in
accessing services. In addition, commenters stated that many school
systems have contracted with States so that school nurses and staff may
inform families about EPSDT. Since schools are mandated to provide
certain services for students with special needs, one commenter stated,
the funds that support these services must not be cut off.
Commenters cited the State Medicaid Manual as not only encouraging
State Medicaid agencies to coordinate EPSDT administrative activities
with ``school health programs of State and local health agencies,'' but
also offering FFP to cover the costs to public agencies of providing
direct support to the Medicaid agency in administering the EPSDT
program.
Response: We agree that rescission of the School-Based
Administration/Transportation final rule is necessary to ensure that
Medicaid administrative activities, and certain transportation
services, will continue to be provided in schools with Federal Medicaid
funding. We will instead reinforce the policies that preceded the
issuance of that final rule.
Comment: Some commenters stated that the School-Based
Administration/Transportation final rule would have had a negative
impact on Medicaid outreach activities in schools. One commenter
stated, ``* * * the practical effect of the final rule would [have
been] to eradicate the successful efforts made by schools to identify
and enroll low-income children with disabilities into Medicaid.'' A
substantial number of commenters stated that schools provide a unique
opportunity to enroll children in Medicaid because the bulk of the
eligible that are uninsured children attend schools. Other commenters
stated that schools serve as a safe haven and gateway to health care
for some of the State's most vulnerable residents, special education
students, and children in families whose circumstances have limited
their access to health care.''
Another commenter stated that reimbursing schools for Medicaid
administrative activities and health related services is an efficient
and effective way of ensuring that Federal funds are directed to those
schools that need them the most. Other commenters recommended that CMS
continue its support for school-based Medicaid
[[Page 31186]]
administrative activities because it can be an effective way to reach
children in need of services and to ensure adequate medical care for
disabled students and their families, who are often low-income and
uninsured.
Some commenters referenced the May 2003 CMS Medicaid School-Based
Administrative Claiming Guide, which states that ``* * * the school
setting provides a unique opportunity to enroll * * * and to assist''
Medicaid eligible children ``access the benefits available to them'' as
evidence that school-based Medicaid administrative claims should remain
eligible for FFP.
Response: We appreciate the commenters' support of our proposal to
rescind the School-Based Administration/Transportation final rule, and
of the policies set out in the 2003 CMS Medicaid School-Based
Administrative Claiming Guide. After careful consideration of the
concerns raised by commenters, we agree that the final rule should be
rescinded, and the policies set out in the Medicaid School-Based
Administrative Claiming Guide, will be reinforced.
Comment: Some commenters stated that, in supporting the proposed
rescission of the School-Based Administration/Transportation final
rule, asking outside agencies to provide the services that schools
currently provide would be more costly to the State. Other commenters
stated that, even if employees of State or local Medicaid agencies were
given this task, it would be far less efficient and effective than the
current approach to outreach and enrollment activities, which is
valuable specifically because staff and employees of schools are
familiar to and trusted by families.
Response: We agree that rescission of the School-Based
Administration/Transportation final rule is necessary to ensure that
needed Medicaid administrative activities and related funding will
continue in school settings. We will reinforce the policies that
preceded the issuance of that final rule.
Comment: Some commenters supported the proposed rescission of the
School-Based Administration/Transportation final rule because they
believe their State's claiming practices have improved considerably
since the early 2000's and that the rationale for developing the final
rule was based on old data and old practices. As one commenter
indicated, the main reason cited by CMS was the concern that school-
based administrative expenditures are recognized and claimed properly,
consistent with Federal law. One commenter indicated that there have
been no published audit findings to gauge States' compliance with the
2003 guidelines issued by CMS. Medicaid administrative funding for all
schools should not have been eliminated for all schools due to the
problems of a few schools, they concluded. The commenter believes CMS
should focus its efforts on working with States to ensure proper
claiming. The commenter also stated that CMS knows that schools provide
critical administrative services to children in Medicaid.
Response: We agree that rescission of the School-Based
Administration/Transportation final rule is necessary to ensure that
needed Medicaid administrative activities and related funding will
continue. We intend to provide additional guidance and greater
administrative oversight and technical assistance. We will also focus
on program and fiscal integrity to provide guidance and direction to
avoid duplication and improper claiming.
Comment: Some commenters focused on alternative approaches to meet
the objectives of the School-Based Administration/Transportation final
rule in ensuring valid Medicaid claiming procedures. In support of the
proposed rescission, several commenters suggested measures that could
achieve the objectives set out in the final rule, to include: issuance
of one national standard for claiming developed in conjunction with
public school officials; one national office to provide clear,
consistent guidance; consistency of regulation implementation for
administrative claiming among all regional CMS offices; annual national
training of State officials overseeing school claiming to ensure
compliance; individual States to determine how to process claims and
audit; and a national committee to study the best methods to deliver
information and services to families in need.
Other commenters applauded CMS' decision to explore alternatives
and use existing tools to address inappropriate claiming to the extent
that any questionable practices continue. Commenters stated that there
was insufficient evidence to support the approach of the final rule and
encourage CMS to investigate other, more appropriate methods of
fulfilling its oversight role. These commenters believe that CMS can
accomplish this objective without eliminating critically needed Federal
funding of school-based Medicaid administrative and transportation
services. The commenters stated that CMS has already increased its
administrative oversight following reports of improper claiming.
Many commenters recommended that CMS further promote sound Medicaid
program operation through clear guidance and technical assistance
specifically addressing the unique settings and circumstances in which
school-based services are delivered. Several commenters recommended
that CMS should simplify claiming for school-based administrative and
direct medical services provided in the school setting. The commenters
also stated that methodologies that allow schools to access funds
legitimately available for Medicaid program services and administrative
activities will provide the most effective means of serving
beneficiaries while ensuring proper and efficient program
administration.
Response: In the proposed rescission, we specifically requested
alternative approaches from the public that would allow us to achieve
the objectives of the School-Based Administration/Transportation final
rule without eliminating funding for allowable school-based
expenditures. We agree that consideration of alternative approaches
with stakeholder input and transparency is warranted. We further agree
that we already have tools at our disposal to address inappropriate
claiming that could arise in any setting, including schools. We will
continue to evaluate the efficacy of these tools in addressing school-
based claiming issues and collaborate with education and Medicaid
stakeholder groups to discuss ways to improve such tools.
B. Clarification of Outpatient Hospital Facility (Including Outpatient
Hospital Clinic) Services Definition
We proposed to rescind the November 7, 2008 Outpatient Hospital
Services final rule in its entirety. While we previously had perceived
the rule as having little impact (because it affected only the
categorization of covered services), we became aware that this
perception may have been based on inaccurate assumptions. In
particular, we assumed that, to the extent that covered services were
no longer within the outpatient hospital benefit category, those
services could be easily shifted to other benefit categories. However,
after publication of the final rule, we received input indicating that
such shifts may be difficult in light of the complexity of State
funding and payment methodologies and health care service State
licensure and certification limits. As a result, we became concerned
that the Outpatient Hospital Services final rule could have an adverse
impact on the availability of covered services for beneficiaries.
[[Page 31187]]
Therefore, we proposed to rescind the November 7, 2008 Outpatient
Hospital Services final rule in its entirety and reinstate the
regulatory definition of ``outpatient hospital services'' at Sec.
440.20 that existed before the final rule became effective.
Specifically, we proposed to remove the provisions at Sec.
440.20(a)(4)(i), which define Medicaid outpatient hospital services to
include those services recognized under the Medicare outpatient
prospective payment system (defined under Sec. 419.2(b)) and those
services paid by Medicare as an outpatient hospital service under an
alternate payment methodology. We also proposed to remove the
requirement at Sec. 440.20(a)(4)(ii) that services be furnished by an
outpatient hospital facility or a department of an outpatient hospital
as described at Sec. 413.65. Finally, we proposed to remove the
provision at Sec. 440.20(a)(4)(iii) that limits the definition of
outpatient services to exclude services that are covered and reimbursed
under the scope of another Medicaid service category under the Medicaid
State plan.
In addition, we proposed to withdraw Sec. 447.321 of the proposed
rule published on September 28, 2007 (72 FR 55158) upon which we
reserved action in the final rule. These provisions contained
regulatory guidance on the calculation of the outpatient hospital and
clinic services upper payment limit (UPL).
Overall, many commenters offered general support for the rescission
of the Clarification of Outpatient Hospital Facility (Including
Outpatient Hospital Clinic) Services Definition as part of comments
that specifically addressed other aspects of Outpatient Hospital
Services final rule.
Comment: One commenter explained that the Outpatient Hospital
Services final rule could result in access and quality issues for
Medicaid physical therapy services. The commenter reasoned that since
outpatient hospital services are a mandatory Medicaid benefit and
physical therapy services are optional, outpatient hospital settings
offer ``a bridge to care for thousands of physical therapy patients
under their State Medicaid program'' in States that offered a limited
physical therapy benefit. The commenter stated that removing physical
therapy services from the definition of outpatient hospital services
would cause access and quality of care to suffer.
Response: We understand the commenters' concerns. However, we never
intended to restrict access to physical therapy services and States
have some flexibility in defining optional Medicaid benefits. The
provisions of the Outpatient Hospital Services final rule should not
have limited the access to and the quality of physical therapy
services. This action rescinding the Outpatient Hospital Services final
rule will eliminate this confusion.
Comment: Several commenters stated that the clarification of
Medicaid outpatient hospital services failed to recognize services that
may be unique to individuals served under Medicaid, in particular
services covered in children's hospitals. These commenters stated that
the Medicare outpatient hospital definition is too restrictive to meet
the needs of those served under the Medicaid program.
Response: The Outpatient Hospital Services final rule did not
restrict the services which States could provide in outpatient hospital
facilities or to individuals covered under the Medicaid program. The
rule merely clarified which of those services could be defined as and
reimbursed under ``outpatient hospital services.'' States would have
continued to be able to reimburse for other services provided in the
outpatient hospital facility, if those services were authorized under
the State's approved Medicaid State plan. This final rule should
alleviate any potential concerns with coverage limitations by
reinstating the regulatory definition of ``outpatient hospital
services'' at Sec. 440.20 that existed before the previous final rule
became effective.
Comment: A number of commenters offered concerns that the
Outpatient Hospital Services final rule placed limitations on payment
for Medicaid services or restricted States' abilities to move services
from costly inpatient settings to less costly outpatient settings.
Response: The Outpatient Hospital Services final rule did not place
restrictions on States' abilities to reimburse Medicaid providers, set
payment rates within applicable upper payment limits, or provide
services in outpatient settings. Medicaid outpatient hospital services
are limited to a reasonable estimate of what Medicare would pay for
Medicaid equivalent services in accordance with Sec. 447.321. This is
an aggregate test for State government-owned or operated, non-State
government-owned or operated and private facilities. The rescission
does not impact the UPL requirements for outpatient hospital or clinic
services that are currently in the regulations.
We are fully supportive of States' efforts to provide quality
services in low-cost settings. This final rule to rescind the previous
rule should eliminate any potential issues with shifting services from
more costly to less costly hospital settings.
Comment: A few commenters supported the proposal to withdraw the
outpatient hospital and clinic UPL requirements that were proposed in
our Outpatient Hospital Services proposed rule (CMS reserved action on
these provisions as part of Outpatient Hospital Services final rule).
These commenters explained that the proposed UPL requirements were
overly restrictive and excluded several Medicaid costs typically paid
by States through the outpatient hospital benefit.
Response: CMS appreciates the support of these commenters. However,
we note that we will continue to require States to demonstrate that
Medicaid outpatient hospital and clinic service payments, in the
aggregate for State government-owned or operated, non-State government-
owned or operated and private facilities, do not exceed a reasonable
estimate of the amount that would be paid for the services furnished by
the group of facilities under Medicare payment principles. To do so,
States will need to show that they are comparing the same scope of
covered services.
Comment: Many rural health clinics commented that the Outpatient
Hospital Services final rule would result in individuals seeking
services through emergency departments ``at a higher cost to
taxpayers.'' These providers also stated that excluding rehabilitative,
school-based, and practitioner services from the outpatient hospital
benefit would cut funding and services. Many of the rural health clinic
providers were concerned that the final rule would eliminate the
clinics' costs from a hospital's disproportionate share hospital (DSH)
calculations. Several other commenters also raised concern that the
clarification of the outpatient hospital services definition would
reduce hospital DSH costs.
Response: The Outpatient Hospital Services final rule did not
require any shifting of services to more costly settings or cut funding
for Medicaid covered services. Rather, the Outpatient Hospital Services
rule was limited to requiring States to distinctly define outpatient
hospital facility services and other Medicaid benefits in the Medicaid
State plan. This final rule should eliminate the concerns expressed by
the clinics and other providers by reinstating the regulatory
definition of ``outpatient hospital services'' at Sec. 440.20 that
existed before the final rule became effective.
Comment: One commenter stated concerns that the assumptions
[[Page 31188]]
acknowledged by CMS as inaccurate with respect to the Outpatient
Hospital Services final rule were carried over into other Medicaid
rulemaking. The commenter referenced the December 19, 2008 DSH
reporting and auditing requirements final rule (73 FR 77904). The
commenter did not specify which provisions of the rulemaking were
carried over from the Outpatient Hospital Services final rule to the
Medicaid DSH Auditing and Reporting final rule. However, the commenter
requested that CMS clarify that States are not bound by any of the
provisions or policies reflected in the subject outpatient hospital
regulations when determining the uncompensated costs of services for
DSH purposes.
Response: The Outpatient Hospital Services final rule addressed
different policies than those discussed under the Medicaid DSH Auditing
and Reporting final rule. The rescission of the Outpatient Hospital
Services final rule has no impact on the provisions of the DSH Auditing
and Reporting final rule. The DSH rule provides guidance to States on
those outpatient hospital service costs that should be included in DSH
calculations, which is independent from the outpatient hospital service
clarification provided in the Outpatient Hospital Services final rule.
For further discussion of the DSH Auditing and Reporting provisions, we
refer readers to the December 19, 2008 final rule (73 FR 77904). Any
concerns over the potential impact of the Outpatient Hospital Services
final rule on DSH should be alleviated by restoring the regulatory
definition of ``outpatient hospital services'' at Sec. 440.20 that
existed before the Outpatient Hospital Services final rule became
effective.
Comment: One commenter supports the rescission of the Outpatient
Hospital Services final rule because the clarification to the
outpatient definition resulted in an administrative burden to States
and offered no real policy purpose.
Response: The proposed rescission acknowledged that we initially
believed the Outpatient Hospital Services final rule would result in
little administrative burden on States based on information we received
through the State plan review process. Based on additional information
from stakeholders, these assumptions appear inaccurate. The rescission
should alleviate the concerns of the commenter by restoring the
regulatory definition of ``outpatient hospital services'' at Sec.
440.20 that existed before the Outpatient Hospital Services final rule
became effective.
C. Optional State Plan Case Management Services
We proposed to rescind certain provisions of the December 4, 2007
Case Management interim final rule. In discussions with States about
the implementation of case management requirements, we became concerned
that certain provisions of the Case Management interim final rule may
unduly restrict beneficiary access to needed covered case management
services, and limit State flexibility in determining efficient and
effective delivery systems for case management services.
In particular, we were concerned that the Case Management interim
final rule may be overly narrow in defining individuals transitioning
to community settings. Specifically, the interim final rule contained
parameters specifying short-term and long-term stays and included
limits on days of targeted case management services associated with
these different lengths of stay. In addition, we were concerned that
States' service delivery systems would be affected by the limitations
in the interim final rule on payment methodologies, and on the
provision of case management services by other agencies or programs.
We were also concerned that the Case Management interim final rule
may have unintentionally impacted Federal Medicaid requirements with
respect to administrative claiming, as the regulation was not intended
to redefine the types of activities that are allowable as Medicaid
administrative case management.
Many of these same issues were raised by public commenters, and we
share their concern that beneficiaries and the program as a whole may
be adversely impacted if these provisions were implemented. We believe
that these same concerns were also reflected in the Congressional
moratorium on the implementation of this rule and the administrative
requirements and limitations included in the interim final rule.
Therefore, we proposed to rescind certain provisions of the Case
Management interim final rule.
Specifically, we proposed to remove Sec. 440.169(c) and Sec.
441.18(a)(8)(viii), because we were concerned that these provisions may
be overly restrictive in defining ``individuals transitioning to a
community setting,'' for whom case management services may be covered
under Sec. 440.169(a). We thought that, until we address the comments
submitted on the Case Management interim final rule, States should have
additional flexibility to provide coverage using a reasonable
definition of this term. We also proposed to remove Sec. 441.18(a)(5),
which would have required case management services to be provided on a
one-on-one basis to eligible individuals by one case manager. We
believed that this provision may unduly limit States' delivery systems
for case management services. We further proposed to remove Sec.
441.18(a)(8)(vi) because the requirement for payment methodologies in
this provision may be administratively burdensome, may result in
restrictions on available providers of case management services, and
generally may limit beneficiary access to services. For similar
reasons, in Sec. 441.18, we proposed to rescind paragraphs (c)(1),
(c)(4), and (c)(5) that limit the provision of case management
activities that are an integral component of another covered Medicaid
service, another non-medical program, or an administrative activity. On
the issues addressed by these rescinded provisions, we proposed to
continue to apply the interpretive policies in force prior to issuance
of the Case Management interim final rule.
We proposed to rescind parts of Sec. 441.18(c)(2) and (c)(3) to
remove references to programs other than the foster care program,
because we are concerned that these provisions may be overly
restrictive in defining State options for the delivery of case
management services. We proposed to consolidate the remaining
provisions of these paragraphs as paragraph (c) (see 74 FR 21237, May
6, 2009).
We proposed to retain the remaining provisions of the Case
Management interim final rule, and finalize those provisions in a
future rulemaking.
Most commenters supported the rescissions included in the Case
Management proposed rule. The following section summarizes general
comments about the rule or issues not contained in specific provisions
included in the proposed rule:
General Comments
Comment: Many commenters asked CMS to rescind all provisions of the
Case Management interim final rule. Many commenters expressed concern
that the provisions would significantly limit State flexibility in
providing case management in the most effective and efficient manner
possible. In addition, the commenters stated the provisions would pose
additional barriers and would be more burdensome for providers of case
management services. Several commenters stated the restrictions on case
management included in the interim final rule would
[[Page 31189]]
inevitably shift the financial responsibility for case management to
school districts across the nation.
Response: Under section 6052 of the DRA, the Secretary of the
Department of Health and Human Services was authorized to promulgate an
interim final regulation to define case management and targeted case
management services.
We agree with commenters that certain provisions in the interim
final rule may limit State flexibility in structuring case management
services. Therefore, we proposed to rescind certain provisions of the
Case Management interim final rule which are discussed in this
document. However, we do not have the authority to rescind the interim
final rule in its entirety, as section 6052 of the DRA amended the
statute directly by defining case management services in section
1915(g) of the Act. We disagree with comments contending that the
proposed or interim final rules regarding Medicaid case management
services would shift the financial responsibility for case management
to school districts. It is important to clarify that Medicaid
reimbursement remains available for targeted case management services
and other covered services, which are included in an eligible child's
Individualized Education Program (IEP) or Individualized Family Service
Plan, consistent with section 1903(c) of the Act.
Comment: Many commenters indicated the final regulation should not
apply to Home and Community-Based Services (HCBS) waiver programs
operated under section 1915(c) of the Act. Several commenters expressed
concern that the Case Management interim final rule would impede State
efforts to end the institutional bias in Medicaid. The commenters
expressed that it is contrary to a number of programs already
implemented by the Administration such as the Money Follows the Person
grant program and Aging and Disability Resource Centers grants, which
provided States with the tools necessary to serve frail older people in
their homes and communities. The commenters stated that States would
have to revamp their existing programs in order to adhere to the rules
set forth in the rule. The commenters stated the rule undermines State
level efforts to streamline and provide more efficient and cost-
effective targeted case management systems and home and community-based
services through the aging services network under Medicaid and works
against the Supreme Court's decision in Olmstead and the Older
Americans Act.
Response: We clarify that the rule does not apply to those
activities that HCBS waiver programs must perform to meet the statutory
assurances and other requirements of section 1915(c) of the Act. These
functions include--(1) an eligibility determination; (2) an evaluation
of need that includes both an initial evaluation and periodic re-
evaluations; (3) a written plan of care; and (4) monitoring of the plan
of care to assure the health and welfare of each individual served
through the waiver program. However, in those instances in which States
elect to offer targeted case management service as a State Plan service
under section 1915(g) of the Act to persons enrolled in a 1915(c)
waiver program, the provisions of the interim final rule would apply.
We disagree that clearly defining case management and targeted case
management services impedes State efforts to end institutional bias in
Medicaid. In addition, we disagree that the rule is contrary to the
Money Follows the Person grant program or Aging and Disability Resource
Center initiatives which CMS and the Administration on Aging have
promoted and funded. These initiatives are based on partnerships
between the Federal government, State governments, and private
organizations to serve and provide access to long-term care services
and supports for older people and people with disabilities. These
initiatives are not solely, or even primarily, dependent upon a funding
stream under the Medicaid case management benefit.
To the extent that the basis for the commenters' concerns is that
the rule restricts Medicaid beneficiaries to case management furnished
through particular providers, these concerns are inconsistent with the
Medicaid freedom of choice requirements in section 1902(a)(23) of the
Act (and the exceptions authorized to ensure qualified providers),
which provide individuals with a choice of qualified, Medicaid
providers.
Comment: Several commenters submitted comments on provisions of the
Case Management interim final rule, which were not included in the Case
Management proposed partial rescission rule.
Response: The comment period for the December 4, 2007 Case
Management Services interim final rule closed on February 4, 2008. We
appreciate the submitted comments; however, these comments are beyond
the scope of the Case Management proposed partial rescission rule. CMS
will respond to comments received on the interim final rule in a future
rulemaking document.
Comment: We received several comments in support of our proposal to
remove Sec. 440.169(c) and Sec. 441.18(a)(8)(viii), which defined
case management services for the transitioning of individuals from
medical institutions to the community as well as related State plan
requirements. Commenters indicated the provisions would have limited
services to individuals transitioning to community settings and
applauded CMS for recognizing the provisions were overly restrictive in
defining individuals transitioning to community settings. One commenter
stated that these provisions would place stricter limits on the
duration of case management services when an individual is
transitioning from a hospital or other institution to the community.
One commenter expressed concern that these provisions would have
imposed unrealistic and impractical deadlines on the amount of time
needed to assist in the safe and orderly transition of such
individuals. One commenter stated these provisions were at odds with
the Olmstead v. L.C. decision.
One commenter requested clarification about transitional Targeted
Case Management (TCM) services provided to residents of an institution
for mental disease (IMD).
A commenter stated that prohibiting Federal financial participation
(FFP) until the date individuals leave the institution would place a
significant cost burden on case management providers under Money
Follows the Person grant and waiver programs.
Response: Public comments on the rescission of Sec. 440.169(c) and
Sec. 441.18(a)(8)(viii) support our contention that the definition of
targeted case management for the purpose of assisting individuals
residing in medical institutions to community living was overly
restrictive. We agree with commenters that some target groups receiving
case management services in institutions may need a period of longer
than 60 days of services in order to successfully transition to
community living. We considered the many comments that indicated the
period for facilitating transition is impacted by individuals' changing
health status as well as behavioral challenges, which may delay or
prevent transition into the community.
Our rescissions provide States with the flexibility to determine
the duration of this service, up to 180 consecutive days, to respond to
the complexity of the needs and the current capacities of the supports
needed to successfully transition individuals to the
[[Page 31190]]
community. Guidance from the July 25, 2000 State Medicaid Directors
Letter, Olmstead Update No. 3, will continue to provide the parameters
under which States may receive reimbursement for case management
services for the purpose of transitioning from medical institutions to
the community. Specifically, TCM, as defined in section 1915(g) of the
Act, may be furnished as a service to institutionalized persons who are
about to leave the institution in order to facilitate their transition
to community services and enable them to gain access to needed medical,
social, educational and other services in the community. TCM may be
furnished during the last 180 consecutive days of a Medicaid eligible
person's institutional stay for the purpose of community transition.
States may specify a shorter time period or other conditions under
which targeted case management may be provided. FFP is not available
for any Medicaid service, including targeted case management services,
provided to persons who are receiving services in an institution for
mental disease (IMD), except for services provided to elderly
individuals and children under the age of 21 who are receiving
inpatient psychiatric services.
Comment: One commenter supported our proposal to remove Sec.
441.18(a)(4), which required that the State's plan provide that case
management services will not duplicate payments made to public agencies
or private entities under the State plan and other program authorities,
for the same purpose. (We note that this provision was included among
the provisions to be rescinded in the Case Management proposed rule's
regulation text under Part 441.18; however, the proposed rule's
preamble did not discuss this provision.)
Response: We acknowledge that this provision was included in the
proposed rule's regulation text in error. We are retaining Sec.
441.18(a)(4). While we believe that States must have flexibility in
establishing Medicaid programs that best meet their unique
circumstances as well as those of Medicaid participants, we are also
concerned that consistent guidance has not been available regarding the
circumstances under which FFP would be available. The requirement that
FFP would not be available for duplicate payments to public or private
entities for the same purpose arose from the conference report of the
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 which
accompanied the original authorization of case management under section
1915(g) of the Act. Subsequently, this guidance was reiterated in the
State Medicaid Manual (SMM) at section 4302.2(F).
Comment: One commenter stated that CMS needs to make it clear to
State Medicaid agencies that this rule does not provide a basis for
States requiring a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) to use its
section 330 grant funds to cover any portion of case management
services provided by the health center to its patients. The commenter
stated that such a requirement would be inconsistent with the long
standing recognition on the part of the Congress and the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) that Medicaid and Medicare are first
payers for Medicaid and Medicare covered services provided to Medicaid
and Medicare patients of a health center.
Response: Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) will continue
to be reimbursed in accordance with section 1902(bb) of the Act, under
which States reimburse FQHCs through either a prospective payment
system or an alternative reimbursement methodology. The Case Management
proposed rule would not have an impact on FQHC reimbursement
methodologies or grants received under section 330 of the Public Health
Service Act.
Comment: We received many comments in support of our proposal to
remove Sec. 441.18(a)(5), which would require case management services
to be provided on a one-to-one basis to eligible individuals by one
case manager. The commenters expressed concern that the provision would
limit the States' flexibility by prohibiting a State from providing a
child with more than one case manager even when the complexity of the
child's condition demands the expertise of more than one program. The
commenters recognized the importance of limiting the number of case
managers that may be involved; however, some individuals have multiple
and complex needs that intersect with several service delivery systems
of care. One commenter suggested States should be required to provide
assurances in their State plans that case management will not be
duplicative and to indicate a methodology that ensures that duplication
does not occur.
Response: We agree with the commenters and have removed Sec.
441.18(a)(5). Even though case management and targeted case management
services are comprehensive services, we believe that more than one case
manager may be responsible and accountable for facilitating access to
needed services. In rescinding this provision, we recognize that case
managers may need to draw on other practitioners with special
expertise, and may also tap the resources of a larger organization for
support and overhead. In addition, if case managers were on leave or
vacation, others could be assigned as substitutes to facilitate
continuity of care and services. In addition, we recognize that case
managers may need to rely on other practitioners to provide support for
particular tasks. That is, reimbursement would be available for
services other than case management, including direct services provided
to the individual, that may contribute to the case management process,
such as assessments furnished under the benefit for physicians'
services or psychologists' services under the rehabilitative services
benefit.
By removing the one case manager provision, we recognize the
advantages of a team approach to case management services. For example,
a lead case manager could coordinate resources and expertise from
providers of medical, education, social, or other services for the
benefit of the individual in developing a comprehensive plan of care
and facilitating access to services. To facilitate this service model,
States may set differential rates to reflect case or task complexity
that would ensure sufficient payment to reflect the costs that case
managers may incur in consulting with other practitioners. States
should ensure that differential payment methodologies are reflected in
the State's Medicaid plan.
Comment: We received a few comments in support of our proposal to
remove Sec. 441.18(a)(6), which prohibited providers of case
management services from exercising the State Medicaid agency's
authority to authorize or deny the provision of other services under
the plan. (We note that this provision was included among the
provisions to be rescinded as described in the Case Management proposed
rule's preamble; however, this provision was not listed among those to
be rescinded in the proposed rule's regulation text under Sec.
441.18.) The commenters stated this provision is administratively
burdensome and may limit beneficiary access to services. One commenter
indicated it should be left to the States to delegate the agency's
authority to authorize or deny certain services to a case manager who
is most familiar with the individual's needs.
Response: We acknowledge that this provision was included, in
error, in the Case Management proposed rule preamble. We disagree with
comments that this provision is administratively burdensome and have
retained this
[[Page 31191]]
provision to clarify that the State Medicaid agency authorizes or
denies services. The provision would not require the State Medicaid
agency to review each individual's care plan. Operating agencies or
other entities such as counties may approve service plans as part of
day-to-day operations. However, the Medicaid agency, at a minimum, must
review at least a sample of care plans retrospectively or employ other
methods to ensure that plans have been developed in accordance with
applicable policies and procedures and that the plans ensure the health
and welfare of participants. This oversight activity is a critical
element of the Medicaid agency's responsibility. Furthermore, the
function of prior authorization requires the judgment of the Medicaid
agency and may not be delegated to anyone other than a Medicaid agency
employee. Prior authorization is a legitimate function of the State
Medicaid agency, which is performed as an appropriate component of the
administration of the State plan.
Comment: We received many comments in support of our proposal to
remove Sec. 441.18(a)(8)(vi) concerning the payment methodology for
case management services. This provision would have required a payment
methodology under which case management providers would be paid at
rates calculated using a unit of service that would not exceed 15
minutes. One commenter recommended that each State be allowed to design
its own reimbursement methodology, rather than having one mandated. One
commenter expressed concern that the 15 minute unit requirement would
be seen as the minimum standard of providing the service. Many
commenters stated this provision was administratively burdensome and
may limit beneficiary access to services. One commenter stated the 15
minute unit requirement may have resulted in additional costs for the
State due to increased staffing needs, increased payments for case
management activities, fewer controls, the need to restructure
eligibility and service authorization and significant changes to
information technology systems. A few commenters recommended CMS
continue to allow flexibility in reimbursement methodologies. The
commenters indicated that per diem, daily, weekly or monthly rates
should be allowed as well as fifteen minute units.
A few commenters expressed concern that the proposed rule did not
address the prohibition on payment methodologies that bill under a
``bundled'' rate. The commenters stated the continuation of this
prohibition could lead to fragmentation in State systems, multiple
providers duplicating activities, and decreased access to home and
community based services through a single point of entry system. One
commenter expressed concern that the 15 minute unit would have required
extensive cost analysis with accompanying time studies in order to
validate rates.
Response: We agree with commenters that the payment methodologies
included in the Case Management interim final rule may be
administratively burdensome and overly restrict service models employed
by States, and therefore we are rescinding this provision. We believe
States should have the flexibility to develop payment methodologies
other than 15 minute units. By removing this provision, we are
permitting billing units of 15 or fewer minutes, as well as hourly,
daily and weekly units; however, States must continue to demonstrate
the economy and efficiency of all billing units and rates. This policy
is based on section 1902(a)(30)(A) of the Act, which requires that
States have methods and procedures to assure that payments are
consistent with efficiency, economy, and quality of care.
Specifically, States will be required to demonstrate the
development of each of the billing unit rates based on identified cost
elements, including the salaries of the professionals providing the
service, the percentage of time case managers spend on case management
activities, substantiated overhead or indirect costs and the
methodology used to allocate those costs to Medicaid. States may not
always have access to commercial provider costs, and in such
circumstances, States will be permitted to provide evidence that rates
are market-based. Evidence may include the demonstration of commercial
rates charged for case management-like services in the State or other
demonstrations of rates for like services in the local health care
market. CMS does not permit the use of fee-for-service rates paid to
providers on a monthly basis. States seeking to use monthly rates are
to meet the managed care requirements of 42 CFR part 438.
This rule does not address the issue of ``bundled'' payments. CMS
will continue to work with States on an individual basis to establish
an acceptable reimbursement methodology for TCM services.
Comment: We received a few comments specifically supporting our
proposal to remove Sec. 441.18(c)(1), which stated that case
management does not include and FFP is not available for expenditures
for services defined in Sec. 440.169 when case management activities
are an integral component of another covered Medicaid service.
Another commenter requested clarification that case management
activities provided or arranged by a provider in a Primary Care Case
Management (PCCM) program are allowable.
Response: We agree with the comments and have removed this
provision. We will continue to apply existing interpretive policies
regarding reimbursement for case management activities that are a
component of another covered Medicaid service. Existing policies are
summarized in the State Medicaid Manual at section 4302.A.1. and
4302.B. To include those activities as a separate benefit would result
in duplicate coverage and payment. This activity would not be
consistent with effective and efficient operation of the program.
To clarify, the rule does not apply to Primary Care Case Management
(PCCM) services. PCCM services remain unchanged and are defined in
Sec. 440.168 of the Medicaid regulation.
Comment: We received several comments specifically supporting or
disagreeing with our proposal to rescind parts of Sec. 441.18(c)(2)
and Sec. 441.18(c)(3) and consolidate the remaining provisions of
these paragraphs as paragraph (c). These provisions stated that case
management does not include and FFP is not available for activities
which constitute the direct delivery of underlying medical,
educational, social, or other services to which an eligible individual
has been referred, as well as activities integral to the administration
of foster care programs, such as those described in proposed Sec.
441.18(c)(1) through (c)(8). The commenters supporting the rescission
of the provisions stated that the provisions would force States to
fragment services provided to children in foster care, a situation that
is contrary to the purpose of the case management benefit. One
commenter did not support the rescission of 441.18(c)(3). The commenter
stated case management is done appropriately when it is kept separately
from the provision of direct services.
Several commenters supported the creation of the new paragraph
441.18(c). In addition, one commenter suggested the rescission of the
``making placement arrangements'' provision, found in proposed Sec.
441.18(c)(8), because including the provision in the list of activities
for which reimbursement under Medicaid would not be available would be
overly broad and restrictive.
[[Page 31192]]
Response: We agree with commenters that the provisions of Sec.
441.18(c)(2) and Sec. 441.18(c)(3) in the interim final rule may be
overly restrictive. By removing these provisions and revising the text
of paragraph (c) under Sec. 441.18, we are clarifying that case
management does not include, and FFP is not available in expenditures
for services defined in Sec. 440.169 when the case management
activities constitute the direct delivery of underlying medical,
education, social, or other services to which an eligible individual
has been referred, including, for foster care programs, services such
as, but not limited to, activities integral to the administration of
the foster care program, such as those described in proposed Sec.
441.18(c)(1) through (8).
We disagree with the commenter's characterization of the ``making
placement arrangements'' provision of Sec. 441.18(c)(8) as overly
broad and restrictive, and are retaining this provision on the list of
activities for which FFP is not available.
Comment: We received many comments in support of our proposal to
remove Sec. 441.18(c)(4), which stated that case management does not
include, and FFP is not available in expenditures for services defined
in Sec. 440.169 when the activities for which an individual may be
eligible, are integral to the administration of another non-medical
program. Many commenters stated the provision would contradict the
Medicaid statute and other laws impacting children with disabilities.
Additionally, the commenters expressed concern that the ``integral
component'' test would create a new parallel third party liability
standard. The commenters also expressed concern that this provision
would deny the rights guaranteed to children with disabilities in the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. One commenter expressed concern that the
provision would shift significant costs onto the child welfare and
foster care systems to continue to provide TCM services.
One commenter questioned the availability of FFP for TCM services
provided by State child welfare workers to children in the foster care
program. Several commenters indicated that the provision in the interim
final rule prohibiting child welfare agencies as case managers went
beyond the language in the DRA.
Another commenter questioned the availability of Medicaid
reimbursement for educational services under section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which requires school districts to provide
appropriate educational services to students with disabilities.
Response: We agree with commenters that Sec. 441.18(c)(4) may have
resulted in compromising Medicaid beneficiaries' eligibility for
medically necessary services under the State plan, including medically
necessary case management (and targeted case management) services that
are not used to administer other programs. Therefore, we are removing
this provision from the final rule. In doing so, we clarify that FFP
will be available under the Medicaid program for medically necessary
services.
When activities constitute the administration of non-medical
programs or are authorized or funded by such programs, reimbursement
under Medicaid is not also available, because it supplants or
duplicates the funding of these programs. The claiming, under Medicaid,
of the administration for non-medical programs compromises the
integrity of the Medicaid program and is not consistent with the
overall direction of section 6052 of the DRA and current policy.
Current policy as expressed in section 4302.2 of the State Medicaid
Manual indicates that payment for case management services under
section 1915(g) of the Act must not duplicate payments made to public
agencies or private entities under other program authorities for this
same purpose.
In response to the comment questioning the availability of Medicaid
reimbursement for educational services under section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, we note that these educational services are
designed to meet the individual needs of such students to the same
extent as the needs of students without disabilities. That is, such
educational services provide an equal opportunity for students with
disabilities to participate in or benefit from education aids,
benefits, or services. These educational services are not medical
assistance, nor do they meet the definition of Medicaid administration;
therefore, FFP would not be available under Medicaid.
We disagree with commenters that this provision would deny the
rights guaranteed to children with disabilities under the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). While Medicaid reimbursement
would not be available for the administration of non-medical programs
including IDEA administrative functions, reimbursement would continue
to be available for covered Medicaid services furnished to a Medicaid
eligible child and included in the child's IEP. Specifically, section
1903(a) of the Act states that payment for Medical assistance would not
be restricted for covered Medicaid services furnished to a child with a
disability because such services are included in the child's IEP or
Individual Family Service Plan (IFSP). States may choose to include
Medicaid-covered services provided in schools, such as Medicaid case
management or targeted case management services, in their State plans,
which are provided by school-based providers qualified to provide the
services.
In response to the comment regarding whether FFP would be available
for TCM services provided by State child welfare workers to children in
foster care, we clarify that the activities of child welfare programs
are separate and apart from the Medicaid program. Medicaid case
management services must not be used to fund the services of child
welfare programs. Children with medical needs who also receive child
welfare services qualify for Medicaid targeted case management services
when relevant criteria are met. Specifically, such services must meet
the definition of Medicaid case management services, and must be
provided according to a Medicaid State plan which assures participant
protections are in place, and that participants have a choice of
qualified Medicaid providers. We note that section 1915(g)(1) of the
Act allows an individual's choice of provider to be limited for
targeted groups consisting of individuals with developmental
disabilities or chronic mental illness.
Comment: We received one comment that specifically supported our
decision to remove Sec. 441.18(c)(5), which specified that activities
that meet the definition of case management services in Sec. 440.169
and under the approved State plan cannot be claimed as administrative
activities under Sec. 433.15(b).
Response: We agree with the comment and are removing Sec.
441.18(c)(5) from the final rule. By removing this provision, we are
clarifying that nothing in this regulation impacts Federal Medicaid
requirements with respect to administrative claiming, nor does this
regulation redefine the types of activities that are allowable as
Medicaid administration.
We will continue to apply the interpretive policies and statutory
provisions in force before the issuance of the interim final rule.
Specifically, section 1903(a)(7) of the Act and the implementing
regulation at Sec. 430.1 and Sec. 431.15 state that for the cost of
any activities to be reimbursable under Medicaid as administration,
they must be ``found necessary by the Secretary for the proper and
efficient administration of the plan'' (referring to the Medicaid
[[Page 31193]]
State plan). Allowable administrative activities under Medicaid are
sometimes referred to, by States and others, as ``administrative case
management'' (State Medicaid Manual section 4302 A.2. and State
Medicaid Director Letter, July 25, 2000, Olmstead Update Number 3).
Some examples of allowable administrative activities include Medicaid
eligibility determinations and re-determinations; Medicaid intake
processing; Medicaid preadmission screening for inpatient care; prior
authorization for Medicaid services; utilization review; Medicaid
outreach; training; transportation; and referral activities. These
examples are not meant to be all-inclusive, and we may make
determinations regarding whether these or other activities are
necessary for the proper and efficient administration of the State
plan.
As reflected in prior guidance (State Medicaid Director Letter,
December 20, 1994), a State may not claim costs as administration if
the activities are an integral part or extension of a direct medical
service. In addition, States may not claim as administrative activities
the costs related to general public health initiatives, overhead costs,
or operating costs of an agency whose purpose is other than the
administration of the Medicaid program. Activities directed toward
services not included under the Medicaid program, although these
services may be valuable to Medicaid beneficiaries, are not necessary
for the administration of the Medicaid program and therefore, are not
allowable administrative costs. In addition, with regard to any
allowable administrative claims, payment may only be made for the
percentage of time spent that is actually attributable to Medicaid
eligible individuals.
Payments for allowable Medicaid administrative activities must not
duplicate payments that have been, or should have been, included as
part of a direct medical service, capitation rate, or through another
State or Federal program. It is the State's responsibility to ensure
that there is no duplication of cost in a claim prior to submitting the
claim to CMS.
The allocation methodology for costs claimed for the proper and
efficient administration of the State plan must be specified in the
State's approved public assistance cost allocation plan in accordance
with subpart E of 45 CFR part 95 and ASMB C-10 (that is, the HHS
Implementation Guide for A-87).
III. Provisions of the Final Regulations
For the most part, this final rule incorporates the provisions of
the proposed rules for rescission. Two provisions of the final rule
differ from the proposed rule:
We are retaining Sec. 441.18(a)(6) under case management
regulations. This provision was included among the provisions described
in the proposed rule's preamble to be rescinded. However, this
provision was not listed among those to be rescinded in the proposed
rule's regulation text under Sec. 441.18. Section 441.18(a)(6) would
prohibit providers of case management services from exercising the
State Medicaid agency's authority to authorize or deny the provision of
other services under the State plan. Therefore, we are retaining this
provision as it would clarify that the function of prior authorization
requires the judgment of the Medicaid agency and may not be delegated
to anyone other than a Medicaid agency employee. Prior authorization is
a legitimate function of the State Medicaid agency, which is performed
as an appropriate component of the administration of the State plan.
If the provision were rescinded, case managers would have the
authority to authorize or deny services that could serve to restrict
participant protections and rights that are afforded through the rules
governing the fair hearings process under Sec. 431.200. Participants
should be free to accept or reject the advice of a provider of case
management services. Furthermore, case management services are designed
to assist eligible individuals to access needed services rather than
limit this access.
We maintain that the reference to Sec. 441.18(a)(6) in the
preamble was a drafting error. We acknowledge that error and clarify
that CMS intends to retain this provision. It states that although a
Medicaid agency may place great weight on the informed recommendation
of a case manager, it must not rely solely on case management
recommendations in making decisions about the medical necessity of
other Medicaid services that the individual may receive.
Retaining this provision clarifies that the State Medicaid agency
authorizes or denies services. The provision would not require the
State Medicaid agency to review each individual's care plan. Operating
agencies or other entities such as counties, may approve service plans
as part of day-to-day operations, and the Medicaid agency, at a
minimum, must review at least a sample of care plans retrospectively or
employ other methods to ensure that plans have been developed in
accordance with applicable policies and procedures and the plans ensure
the health and welfare of participants. This oversight activity is a
critical element of the Medicaid agency's responsibility.
The second provision of the final rule that differs from the
proposed rule concerns Sec. 441.18(a)(4), which required that a
State's plan provide that case management services will not duplicate
payments made to public agencies or private entities under the State
plan and other program authorities, for the same purpose. This
provision was included among the provisions to be rescinded in the
proposed rule's regulation text under Sec. 441.18. (We note that the
proposed rule preamble did not discuss this provision.)
CMS acknowledges that Sec. 441.18(a)(4) was included in the
proposed rule regulation text in error. We are retaining this section.
While we believe that States must have flexibility in establishing
Medicaid programs that best meet their unique circumstances as well as
those of Medicaid participants, we are also concerned that consistent
guidance has not been available regarding the circumstances under which
FFP would be available. The requirement that FFP would not be available
for duplicate payments to public or private entities for the same
purpose arose from the conference report of the Consolidated Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, which accompanied the original
authorization of case management under section 1915(g) of the Act.
Subsequently, this guidance was reiterated in the State Medicaid Manual
(SMM) at Sec. 4302.2(F).
IV. Waiver of Delay in Effective Date
We ordinarily provide a 30-day delay in the effective date of the
provisions of a notice in accordance with section 553(d) of the
Administrative Procedures Act (APA), at 5 U.S.C. 553(d). We can waive
the 30-day delay in effective date, however, if the Secretary finds,
for good cause, that it is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to
the public interest, and incorporates a statement of the finding and
the reasons in the notice.
We find there is good cause to waive the delay in the effective
date of this issuance because we find that, since the rescinded rules
have been subject to Congressional moratoria and are not currently
being implemented, it would be contrary to the public interest to
implement them briefly and then change them back. Such sudden short-
term changes would result in public confusion and administrative chaos.
Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), for good cause, we waive notice
and comment procedures.
[[Page 31194]]
V. Collection of Information Requirements
This document does not impose information collection and
recordkeeping requirements. Consequently, it need not be reviewed by
the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
VI. Regulatory Impact Analysis
A. Overall Impact
We have examined the impact of this final rule as required by
Executive Order 12866, the Congressional Review Act, the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA), section 1102(b) of the Social Security Act, the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), and Executive
Order 13132 on Federalism. Executive Order 12866 (as amended) directs
agencies to assess all costs and benefits of all available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts,
and equity). A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for
major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more
in any 1 year).
One of the three rules we proposed to rescind was estimated to save
the Federal government, by reducing its financial participation in the
Medicaid program, amounts in excess of this threshold, with
corresponding increases in costs to States (or in some cases to local
entities or to other Federal programs) that would essentially offset
these savings. That is, the primary economic effect predicted under
this rule was to change the sources of ``transfer payments'' among
government entities rather than the levels of actual services
delivered. For example, the RIA for the School-Based Administration/
Transportation final rule regarding Medicaid reimbursement for school
administration and transportation of school-aged children assumed that
localities would continue to provide such transportation even though
one source of funding was reduced. Rescission of these rules would
simply restore the status quo ante. That is, the Medicaid program would
not gain these savings and other Federal, State, or local programs
would not lose the Medicaid funding.
We acknowledge that many commenters were concerned that these three
rules would have additional and substantial adverse effects on service
provision and that the conclusions of the original RIAs did not reflect
on this point. As explained earlier in this preamble, we share some of
those concerns.) Except for portions of the Case Management interim
final rule, these rules have not yet taken ``real world'' effect
because of the Congressional moratoria on enforcement. Accordingly, we
believe that the proposed rescissions would have no economic effect,
assuming that the situation before July 1, 2009 is taken as the
``counterfactual'' case.
In the alternative, it might be argued that the appropriate
counterfactual is that rescinding these rules would create
``economically significant'' benefits and costs of the same magnitude
but exactly the opposite of those analyzed in the original RIAs. For
example, the School-Based Administration/Transportation final rule
regarding school administration expenditures and costs related to
transportation was estimated to reduce Federal Medicaid outlays by $635
million in FY 2009 and by a total of $3.6 billion over the first 5
years (FY 2009 through 2013). The proposed rescission would eliminate
these Federal savings with a corresponding offset in State, local, and
Federal funding increases that would otherwise be needed to maintain
existing services.
In the current economic climate, and with the drastic budgetary
reductions being made in most States, the assumption of an essentially
offsetting change in spending responsibilities that leaves service
provision unchanged is completely unrealistic. However, because these
rules were proposed for rescission without ever having been enforced,
no purpose would be served in re-estimating hypothetically the effects
of the original rules or in estimating hypothetically the potential
effects of more realistically estimated current responses.
Accordingly, we have decided for purposes of this rulemaking that
the most straightforward assumption to make is that we are preserving
the status quo, and that under the criteria of EO 12866 and the
Congressional Review Act this is not an economically significant (or
``major'') rule.
The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief
of small entities if final rules have a ``significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.'' For purposes of the RFA,
small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and
small governmental jurisdictions, including school districts. ``Small''
governmental jurisdictions are defined as having a population of less
than 50,000. Individuals and States are not included in the definition
of a small entity. Although many school districts have populations
below this threshold and are therefore considered small entities for
purposes of the RFA, we originally determined that the impact on local
school districts as a result of the final rule on School Administration
Expenditures and Costs Related to Transportation of School-Age Children
would not exceed the threshold of ``significant'' economic impact under
the RFA, for a number of reasons. Most simply, the estimated annual
Federal savings under this final rule were only about one eighth of one
percent of total annual spending on elementary and secondary schools,
far below the threshold of 3 to 5 percent of annual revenues or costs
used by HHS in determining whether a proposed or final rule has a
``significant'' economic impact on small entities. Accordingly,
regardless of the counterfactual, rescission of this rule would not
have a ``significant'' impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Our analyses of the final rules concluded that neither rule
would have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Accordingly, rescinding those final rules in whole or in part
and preserving the status quo ante would likewise fail to trigger the
``significant'' impact threshold. We further note that in all three
cases any impact of this rulemaking would be positive rather than
negative on affected entities. Accordingly, the Secretary certifies
that this final rule will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare a
regulatory impact analysis if a rule may have a significant impact on
the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This
analysis must conform to the provisions of section 604 of the RFA. For
purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act, we define a small rural
hospital as a hospital that is located outside of a Metropolitan
Statistical Area and has fewer than 100 beds. Of the three final rules
we are rescinding in whole or in part, only the Outpatient Hospital
Services rule would have had any possible effect on small rural
hospitals. Our analysis of that rule concluded that it would have had
no direct effect on these hospitals, and that any indirect effect as a
result of State adjustments could not be predicted. Regardless, any
effects of the proposed rescission on small rural hospitals would be
positive, not negative. Accordingly, we are not preparing an analysis
for section 1102(b) of the Act because we have determined, and the
Secretary certifies, that this final rule would not have a direct
impact on
[[Page 31195]]
the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also
requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before
issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100
million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. That threshold
level is currently approximately $133 million. This final rule contains
no mandates that will impose spending costs on State, local, or Tribal
governments in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $133
million. Our analyses of all three final rules concluded that they
would impose no mandates of this magnitude, and the rescissions create
no mandates of any kind.
Executive Order 13132 on Federalism establishes certain
requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed
rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct
requirements on State and local governments, preempts State law, or
otherwise has Federalism implications. EO 13132 focuses on the roles
and responsibilities of different levels of government, and requires
Federal deference to State policy-making discretion when States make
decisions about the uses of their own funds or otherwise make State-
level decisions. The original final rules, however much they might have
limited Federal funding, did not circumscribe States' authority to make
policy decisions regarding school-based transportation and
administration, case management, or hospital outpatient services. This
final rule will likewise not have a substantial effect on State or
local government policy discretion.
B. Anticipated Effects
As discussed above, one of the three final rules (School-Based
Administration/Transportation final rule (72 FR 73635)) was predicted
to have substantial effects on the availability of Federal Medicaid
funds for the cost of activities that were arguably not the
responsibility of Medicaid to fund. Consequently, the full rescission
of the final rules relating to outpatient hospital and school
administration and costs related to transportation of school-aged
children between home and school will have little or no immediate
fiscal impact due to the fact that the projected changes never took
place. Likewise, the partial rescission of the Case Management interim
final rule will have little or no immediate fiscal effect since certain
projected changes never occurred.
C. Alternatives
We welcomed comments not only on the proposed rescission of each
rule, in whole or in part, but also on alternatives that may more
constructively address the underlying issues and their likely impacts
on State beneficiaries of the Medicaid program. No comments were
received concerning alternatives to rescinding the Outpatient Hospital
Services rule in its entirety. Rescission of the entire rule was the
only alternative suggested with respect to the partial rescission of
the case management services interim final rule.
We received several suggestions for alternate approaches relating
to the School-Based Administration/Transportation final rule related to
transportation of school-aged children between home and school.
Alternative suggested approaches included the issuance of one national
standard for claiming developed in conjunction with public school
officials and the creation of one national office to provide clear,
consistent guidance. Other suggestions included annual national
trainings of State officials overseeing school claiming to ensure
compliance, the review of individual States to determine how to process
claims and audit, and the development of a national committee to study
best methods to deliver information and services to families in need.
The suggestions also included CMS' further promotion of sound Medicaid
program operation through clear guidance and technical assistance
specifically addressing the unique settings and circumstances in which
school-based administrative activities and services are provided.
Stakeholders also suggested that CMS simplify claiming for school-based
administrative and direct medical services provided in a school
setting. We agree that these alternate approaches merit further
consideration and will continue to explore with States how to best
assure appropriate claiming related to the provision of Medicaid
administrative, transportation, and medical services within the school
setting.
In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this
regulation was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
List of Subjects
42 CFR Part 431
Grant programs--health, Health facilities, Medicaid, Privacy,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 CFR Part 433
Administrative practice and procedure, Child support, Claims, Grant
programs--health, Medicaid, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 CFR Part 440
Grant programs--health, Medicaid.
42 CFR Part 441
Aged, Family planning, Grant programs--health, Infants and
children, Medicaid, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services amends 42 CFR chapter IV as set forth below:
PART 431--STATE ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL ADMINISTRATION
0
1. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 1102 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1302).
Subpart B--General Administrative Requirements
0
2. Section 431.53 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 431.53 Assurance of transportation.
A State plan must--
(a) Specify that the Medicaid agency will ensure necessary
transportation for recipients to and from providers; and
(b) Describe the methods that the agency will use to meet this
requirement.
PART 433--STATE FISCAL ADMINISTRATION
0
3. The authority citation for part 433 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 1102 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1302).
Sec. 433.20 [Removed]
0
4. Remove Sec. 433.20.
PART 440--SERVICES: GENERAL PROVISIONS
0
5. The authority citation for part 440 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 1102 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1302).
0
6. Section 440.20 is amended by revising the section heading and
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 440.20 Outpatient hospital services and rural health clinic
services.
(a) Outpatient hospital services means preventive, diagnostic,
therapeutic, rehabilitative, or palliative services that--
[[Page 31196]]
(1) Are furnished to outpatients;
(2) Are furnished by or under the direction of a physician or
dentist; and
(3) Are furnished by an institution that--
(i) Is licensed or formally approved as a hospital by an officially
designated authority for State standard-setting; and
(ii) Meets the requirements for participation in Medicare as a
hospital; and
(4) May be limited by a Medicaid agency in the following manner: A
Medicaid agency may exclude from the definition of ``outpatient
hospital services'' those types of items and services that are not
generally furnished by most hospitals in the State.
* * * * *
Sec. 440.169 [Amended]
0
7. Section 440.169 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (c).
0
8. Section 440.170(a)(1) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 440.170 Any other medical care or remedial care recognized under
State law and specified by the Secretary.
(a) Transportation. (1) ``Transportation'' includes expenses for
transportation and other related travel expenses determined to be
necessary by the agency to secure medical examinations and treatment
for a recipient.
* * * * *
PART 441--SERVICES: REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITS APPLICABLE TO SPECIFIC
SERVICES
0
9. The authority citation for part 441 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 1102 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1302).
0
10. Section 441.18 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs
(a)(5), and (a)(8)(vi); removing (a)(8)(viii); and revising paragraph
(c) to read as follows:
Sec. 441.18 Case management services.
* * * * *
(c) Case management does not include, and FFP is not available in
expenditures for, services defined in Sec. 441.169 of this chapter
when the case management activities constitute the direct delivery of
underlying medical, educational, social, or other services to which an
eligible individual has been referred, including for foster care
programs, services such as, but not limited to, the following:
(1) Research gathering and completion of documentation required by
the foster care program.
(2) Assessing adoption placements.
(3) Recruiting or interviewing potential foster care parents.
(4) Serving legal papers.
(5) Home investigations.
(6) Providing transportation.
(7) Administering foster care subsidies.
(8) Making placement arrangements.
* * * * *
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.773, Medical
Assistance Program.)
Dated: June 5, 2009.
Charlene Frizzera,
Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
Approved: June 17, 2009.
Kathleen Sebelius,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-15345 Filed 6-29-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4120-01-P