Groups criticize CMS' proposed regulations on long-term care hospitals

Share this article:

The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission said the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services proposed regulations on long-term acute-care hospitals are risky.

CMS, in what is dubbed the 25% rule, proposed that LTAC hospitals that operate under larger hospital systems not be allowed to get more than 25% of their admissions from the host hospital.

MedPAC said the rule has serious faults because it does not ensure patients receive the best care and it does not apply to free standing facilities. Such a regulation, MedPAC contends, will simply encourage companies to construct free-standing LTACs instead of hospitals within hospitals.

A group of House and Senate representatives agreed the rule "could potentially negatively impact a physician's ability to make decisions about which patients need to be transferred from the general hospital to the 'hospital-in-hospital' for more serious care."

Medicare spent $1.9 billion on LTACs in 2001, up from $398 million in 1993.  The comment period for the regulation ended Monday. The proposed regulations become final Oct. 1.

Share this article:

More in News

Expert says providers often wrongly threatened by PEPPER reports

Instead of fearing further scrutiny by federal authorities, providers should embrace the opportunity to get feedback in the form of PEPPER reports, legal experts said Monday at the LeadingAge annual meeting in Nashville.

Healthcare reform already driving diverse, dynamic long-term care models, LeadingAge leaders say

Healthcare reform already driving diverse, dynamic long-term care ...

One way to gauge the effects is healthcare reform is by looking at ongoing changes to the continuing care retirement community model, LeadingAge officials said Monday at the association's annual ...

Federal court: Nursing home can be sued for firing hairdresser who can ...

Is the ability to transport residents in their wheelchairs an essential function of a nursing home hairdresser? A federal appeals court says it's a valid question and is allowing a hairdresser to sue a facility that fired her.