Notice: This CMS-approved document has been submitted - Philips ...

Notice: This CMS-approved document has been submitted - Philips ... Notice: This CMS-approved document has been submitted - Philips ...

healthcare.philips.com
from healthcare.philips.com More from this publisher
19.02.2013 Views

CMS-1403-FC imputed proposed wage index value of 1.1670 for rural Massachusetts in CY 2009. For rural Puerto Rico, we continued to apply the wage index floor in CY 2008. Because all areas in Puerto Rico that have a wage index were eligible for the ESRD wage index floor of 0.75, we applied that floor to ESRD facilities located in rural Puerto Rico. For CY 2009, all areas in Puerto Rico that have a wage index are eligible for the final ESRD wage index floor of 0.70. Therefore, we will apply the ESRD wage index floor of 0.70 to all ESRD facilities that are located in rural Puerto Rico. For Hinesville, GA (CBSA 25980), which is an urban area without specific hospital wage data, we proposed to apply the same methodology in 2009 that we used to impute a wage index value in CY 2006, CY 2007, and CY 2008. Specifically, we proposed to use the average wage index value for all urban areas within the State of Georgia. We are finalizing our proposal, which results in a CY 2009 wage index value of 0.9110 for the Hinesville-Fort Stewart GA CBSA. In the CY 2008 PFS final rule with comment period (72 FR 66283 through 66284), we stated that we would continue to evaluate existing hospital wage data and possibly wage data from other sources such as the Bureau of 186

CMS-1403-FC Labor Statistics, to determine if other methodologies might be appropriate for imputing wage index values for areas without hospital wage data for CY 2009 and subsequent years. To date, no data from other sources, superior to that currently used in connection with the IPPS wage index, have emerged. Therefore, for ESRD purposes, we continue to believe this is an appropriate policy. We received no comments on this section and are finalizing our policies for wage areas with no hospital data as proposed. iii. Evaluation of Wage Index Policies Adopted in the FY 2008 IPPS Final Rule We stated in the CY 2008 PFS final rule with comment period (72 FR 66284) that we planned to evaluate any policies adopted in the FY 2008 IPPS final rule (72 FR 47130, 47337 through 47338) that affect the wage index, including how we treat certain New England hospitals under section 601(g) of the Social Security Amendments of 1983 (Pub. L. 98-21). This is relevant for the ESRD composite payment system, because the ESRD wage index is calculated using the same urban/rural classification system and computation methodology applicable under the IPPS, except that it is not adjusted for occupational mix and does not reflect geographic classifications authorized under sections 1886(d)(8) and (d)(12) of the Act. We also 187

<strong>CMS</strong>-1403-FC<br />

Labor Statistics, to determine if other methodologies might<br />

be appropriate for imputing wage index values for areas<br />

without hospital wage data for CY 2009 and subsequent<br />

years. To date, no data from other sources, superior to<br />

that currently used in connection with the IPPS wage index,<br />

have emerged. Therefore, for ESRD purposes, we continue to<br />

believe this is an appropriate policy. We received no<br />

comments on this section and are finalizing our policies<br />

for wage areas with no hospital data as proposed.<br />

iii. Evaluation of Wage Index Policies Adopted in the FY<br />

2008 IPPS Final Rule<br />

We stated in the CY 2008 PFS final rule with comment<br />

period (72 FR 66284) that we planned to evaluate any<br />

policies adopted in the FY 2008 IPPS final rule<br />

(72 FR 47130, 47337 through 47338) that affect the wage<br />

index, including how we treat certain New England hospitals<br />

under section 601(g) of the Social Security Amendments of<br />

1983 (Pub. L. 98-21). <strong>This</strong> is relevant for the ESRD<br />

composite payment system, because the ESRD wage index is<br />

calculated using the same urban/rural classification system<br />

and computation methodology applicable under the IPPS,<br />

except that it is not adjusted for occupational mix and<br />

does not reflect geographic classifications authorized<br />

under sections 1886(d)(8) and (d)(12) of the Act. We also<br />

187

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!