search.noResults

search.searching

note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
REGULATORY REVIEW


sive—HOPD setting, or at least depriv- ing the program and its beneficiaries of substantial cost savings. For this reason, ASCA has been advocating for CMS to make changes to ASC payment policy that would arrest this growing gulf in payment amounts. Specifically, we urge CMS to discontinue use of the ASC rel- ative weight scaling, which contributes substantially to the rate divergence. ASCA believes that CMS must take steps to ensure that any budget neutral- ity calculations performed while setting ASC rates do not inadvertently discour- age ASCs from performing procedures in the ASC setting. Specifically, if CMS chooses to retain the rescaling, the agency should create a minimum ratio of ASC payment to OPPS payment for any service whose payment rate is based on OPPS payments (i.e., exclud- ing those that are based on physician fee schedule payment amounts). CMS


Track the Latest Regulatory and Legislative News for ASCs


Visit ASCA’s web site every week to stay up to date on the latest government affairs news affecting the ASC industry. Every week, ASCA’s Government Affairs Update newsletter is posted online for ASCA members to read. The weekly newsletter tracks and analyzes the latest legislative and regulatory developments concerning ASCs.


www.ascassociation.org/ GovtAffairsUpdate


should implement this relative floor in such a way that no service in an ASC is paid less than 55 percent of the compa- rable OPPS payment rate. This was the typical payment ratio


between these sites of care in CY 2014 before the creation of the Comprehen- sive APCs (C-APCs) began to cause


further divergence between the payment rates in the ASC and HOPD settings. C-APCs are more inclusive bundled outpatient codes similar to inpatient diagnosis-related groups that CMS finalized in recent years for HOPD pay- ments but not ASC payments. Since ASC payments are based on HOPD cost reports, there are concerns that codes that are still separately payable in the ASC setting but now packaged in the HOPD setting are not being accu- rately captured on HOPD cost reports. We recommend that for OPPS codes


that fall into Comprehensive APCs, this floor should be implemented rel- ative to the alternative payment rate (i.e., without C-APC status) for these codes, which CMS already calculates in the process of setting ASC rates.


Kara Newbury is ASCA’s regulatory counsel. Write her at knewbury@ascassociation.org.


30 ASC FOCUS JUNE/JULY 2017 |www.ascfocus.org


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42