The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation today issued their , in which they presented a draft unified payment model for the four post-acute care settings: long-term care hospitals, inpatient rehabilitation facilities, skilled nursing facilities and home health agencies. The report includes discussion on how Medicare could pay for care provided in these four settings under a single payment system; the Medicare program currently pays for these services through four distinct payment systems.

In the report, CMS/ASPE agree that significant, additional work would be needed to complete their draft model, including possible field testing. In addition, the report highlights that the model was built mostly using data collected prior to the COVID-19 pandemic; since policymakers cannot yet predict costs of care following the pandemic, the model鈥檚 effectiveness and impact remain unknown. Further, implementation of a unified post-acute care payment system cannot be done under CMS鈥檚 existing statutory authority.
This report was required by law and utilized three technical expert panels of stakeholders, including representatives of the 黑料正能量 Association.

鈥淭oday鈥檚 draft unified payment model for post-acute care (PAC) under Medicare contains numerous fundamental flaws which render it unworkable for both patients and providers,鈥 AHA Executive Vice President Stacy Hughes said in a statement today.

鈥淚mportantly, the draft model lacks a comprehensive and reliable risk adjustment approach, which endangers access to care 鈥 particularly for the most critically ill patients. It also fails to reflect both the significant reforms that CMS itself has made to the existing PAC payment systems, as well as the fundamental and long-lasting delivery system changes created by the COVID-19 pandemic. Instead, the draft design is largely based on out-of-date patient utilization patterns and patient care protocols. Additionally, the draft model identifies patients' clinical characteristics using inconsistent definitions and guidelines.

鈥淲hile CMS and ASPE do not have the authority to implement their draft model, and, in fact, acknowledge that significant policy work remains to complete it, Congress should not consider the model put forth today viable for future action. As we have expressed to the agencies in the past, we remain concerned that the draft model fails to align payments with the costs of treating the widely varied PAC patient population 鈥 which is essential to ensure access to quality care. The agencies should go back to the drawing board to create a solution that both reflects the current health care delivery system and ensures access to care for all Medicare PAC patients.鈥
AHA members will receive a Special Bulletin tomorrow with additional details on this report, as well as an invitation to participate in a members-only virtual meeting to discuss the report and next steps.


 

Related News Articles

Headline
The AHA, joined by several other national groups representing 340B hospitals, Aug. 8 urged the Health Resources and Services Administration to extend the鈥
Headline
The AHA today filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, defending the Department of Health and Human Services鈥 decision to鈥
Headline
The Department of Health and Human Services today issued a notice announcing a 340B Rebate Model Pilot Program as a voluntary mechanism for qualifying drug鈥
Headline
Rep. Doris Matsui, D-Calif., and Sen. Peter Welch, D-Vt., today introduced the 340B Patients Act, AHA-supported legislation that would codify 340B providers'鈥
Headline
The AHA July 16 filed an amicus brief in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado in defense of the state鈥檚 340B contract pharmacy law prohibiting鈥
Headline
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri July 11 granted a motion by the state to dismiss claims by AbbVie that the state鈥檚 340B contract鈥