Medicare Program; FY 2018 Hospice Wage Index and Payment Rate Update and Hospice Quality Reporting Requirements. Final rule.

This final rule will update the hospice wage index, payment rates, and cap amount for fiscal year (FY) 2018. Additionally, this rule includes new quality measures and provides an update on the hospice quality reporting program.

Medicare Program; FY 2017 Hospice Wage Index and Payment Rate Update and Hospice Quality Reporting Requirements. Final rule.

This final rule will update the hospice wage index, payment rates, and cap amount for fiscal year (FY) 2017. In addition, this rule changes the hospice quality reporting program, including adopting new quality measures. Finally, this final rule includes information regarding the Medicare Care Choices Model (MCCM).

Medicare program; FY 2014 hospice wage index and payment rate update; hospice quality reporting requirements; and updates on payment reform. final rule.

This final rule updates the hospice payment rates and the wage index for fiscal year (FY) 2014, and continues the phase out of the wage index budget neutrality adjustment factor (BNAF). Including the FY 2014 15 percent BNAF reduction, the total 5 year cumulative BNAF reduction in FY 2014 will be 70 percent. The BNAF phase-out will continue with successive 15 percent reductions in FY 2015 and FY 2016. This final rule also clarifies how hospices are to report diagnoses on hospice claims, and provides updates to the public on hospice payment reform. Additionally, this final rule changes the requirements for the hospice quality reporting program by discontinuing currently reported measures and implementing a Hospice Item Set with seven National Quality Forum (NFQ) endorsed measures beginning July 1, 2014, as proposed. Finally, this final rule will implement the hospice Experience of Care Survey on January 1, 2015, as proposed.

Hospice and physician-assisted death: collaboration, compliance, and complicity.

Although the overwhelming majority of terminally ill patients in Oregon who seek a physician's aid in dying are enrolled in hospice programs, hospices do not take a major role in this practice. An examination of fifty-five Oregon hospices reveals that both legal and moral questions prevent hospices from collaborating fully with physician-assisted death.

Medicare and Medicaid programs; approval of the Joint Commission for continued deeming authority for hospices. Final notice.

This final notice announces the approval of a deeming application from the Joint Commission for continued recognition as a national accreditation program for hospices that request participation in the Medicare or Medicaid programs.

Medicare program; hospice wage index for fiscal year 2010. Final rule.

This final rule will set forth the hospice wage index for fiscal year 2010. The final rule adopts a MedPAC recommendation regarding a process for certification and recertification of terminal illness. In addition, this final rule will also revise the phase-out of the wage index budget neutrality adjustment factor (BNAF), with a 10 percent BNAF reduction in FY 2010. The BNAF phase-out will continue with successive 15 percent reductions from FY 2011 through FY 2016.

Legislative priorities 2008 National Association for Home Care and Hospice.

Home care and hospice providers seek a number of legislative reforms in order to more effectively address the challenges they face. Following are the top-ranked legislative priorities for 2008, along with specific recommendations on the issues, as chosen on by the membership of the National Association for Home Care & Hospice, and voted by its board of directors at its February 2008 meeting.

Hospice Underutilization in the U.S.: The Misalignment of Regulatory Policy and Clinical Reality.

After three and a half decades of experience with the Medicare hospice benefit in the U.S., despite excellent quality outcomes in symptom management, patient and family satisfaction, and reduction in health care costs, only 12%-15% of beneficiaries' days during the last year of life are spent being cared for within the highly cost-effective interdisciplinary coordinated advanced illness care model known as hospice. Although there are many reasons for this, including difficulties in acknowledging mortality among patients, their families, and physicians, a significant cause of low overall hospice utilization and intractably low median lengths of stay, reflective of late admissions, can be attributed to increasingly difficult and highly variable prognostic determinations for most of the leading causes of death among Medicare beneficiaries. Medicare is the payer for most hospice care in the U.S. and requires certification of a prognosis of six months or less for a beneficiary to access hospice support. At the time of admission to hospice, two physicians must predict that a patient is more likely to die in the next six months than survive, based on clinical status. In addition to prognostic uncertainty constituting a barrier to timely hospice referral, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and its payer contractors have developed a robust and expensive retrospective review process that penalizes hospices when patients outlive their expected prognosis. The administratively burdensome and financially punitive review practices further delay or limit access to care for eligible patients as certifying physicians and agencies, fearful of the financial and legal repercussions of reviews and audits, are hesitant to take patients under care unless they are clearly in the dying process. This article will review pertinent history and address the core problem of access to a health care benefit built on a policy that requires far greater prognostic certainty than any clinician can reasonably ascertain and fails to take into consideration the favorable impact hospice care has on terminally ill patients in improving prognosis. This clinical conundrum that limits access of seriously ill people to high-value quality care is of profound importance to the U.S. Medicare population and also one with potential relevance to all complex and regulated health systems and to other models of care whose eligibility criteria are based on prognostication.

International Association for Hospice and Palliative Care Position Statement: Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide.

BACKGROUND: Reports about regulations and laws on Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) are becoming increasingly common in the media. Many groups have expressed opposition to euthanasia and PAS while those in favor argue that severely chronically ill and debilitated patients have a right to control the timing and manner of their death. Others argue that both PAS and euthanasia are ethically legitimate in rare and exceptional cases. Given that these discussions as well as the new and proposed laws and regulations may have a powerful impact on patients, caregivers, and health care providers, the International Association for Hospice and Palliative Care (IAHPC) has prepared this statement. PURPOSE: To describe the position of the IAHPC regarding Euthanasia and PAS. METHOD: The IAHPC formed a working group (WG) of seven board members and two staff officers who volunteered to participate in this process. An online search was performed using the terms "position statement", "euthanasia" "assisted suicide" "PAS" to identify existing position statements from health professional organizations. Only statements from national or pan-national associations were included. Statements from seven general medical and nursing associations and statements from seven palliative care organizations were identified. A working document including a summary of the different position statements was prepared and based on these, an initial draft was prepared. Online discussions among the members of the WG took place for a period of three months. The differences were reconciled by email discussions. The resulting draft was shared with the full board. Additional comments and suggestions were incorporated. This document represents the final version approved by the IAHPC Board of Directors. RESULT: IAHPC believes that no country or state should consider the legalization of euthanasia or PAS until it ensures universal access to palliative care services and to appropriate medications, including opioids for pain and dyspnea. CONCLUSION: In countries and states where euthanasia and/or PAS are legal, IAHPC agrees that palliative care units should not be responsible for overseeing or administering these practices. The law or policies should include provisions so that any health professional who objects must be allowed to deny participating.

Hospice regulatory update from CMS hospice expert panel.

At the National Association for Home Care & Hospice (NAHC) annual National Home Care & Hospice Policy Conference and Law Symposium, a panel of hospice experts from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) participated in a workshop addressing current hospice policy, survey and certification and other regulatory issues of interest. The following exchange is an excerpt from that workshop. Additional Qs & As will be featured in forthcoming issues of C4RING.

The Center for Health Care Law: the legal muscle of home care and hospice.

The Center for Health Care Law is a unique offering for a trade association. Operating as a law firm within NAHC, the Center has strengthened NAHC's advocacy efforts on all fronts. The law provides a useful structure and a rational system for behavior, provided that the law is understood. The Center brings the necessary understanding of the law to home care and hospice.

Hospice Value-Based Purchasing Program: A Model Design.

With the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, the U.S. government committed to a transition in payment policy for health care services linking reimbursement to improved health outcomes rather than the volume of services provided. To accomplish this goal, the Department of Health and Human Services is designing and implementing new payment models intended to improve the quality of health care while reducing its cost. Collectively, these novel payment models and programs have been characterized under the moniker of value-based purchasing (VBP), and although many of these models retain a fundamental fee-for-service (FFS) structure, they are seen as essential tools in the evolution away from volume-based health care financing toward a health system that provides "better care, smarter spending, and healthier people." In 2014, approximately 20% of Medicare provider FFS payments were linked to a VBP program. The Department of Health and Human Services has committed to a four-year plan to link 90% of Medicare provider FFS payments to value-based purchasing by 2018. To achieve this goal, all items and services currently reimbursed under Medicare FFS programs will need to be evaluated in the context of VBP. To this end, the Medicare Hospice benefit appears to be appropriate for inclusion in a model of VBP. This policy analysis proposes an adaptable model for a VBP program for the Medicare Hospice benefit linking payment to quality and efficiency in a manner consistent with statutory requirements established in the Affordable Care Act.