New rule would crack down on payments for facility-acquired 'conditions'

Share this article:

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on Wednesday proposed a new rule that would deny states federal money—of any amount—to help cover costs associated with adverse hospital-acquired conditions.

This rule affects conditions included on Medicare's list of hospital-acquired conditions, as well as those identified by the state as preventable or adverse, regardless of the of healthcare setting where they occur. CMS also gives states authorization to decide on their own which conditions are preventable and thus not available for federal assistance, including wrong site, procedure or patient surgery. It would be up to Medicaid state plans to alter guidelines for lowering provider payments for healthcare-acquired conditions.

The proposal, which is currently being reviewed by major U.S. long-term care associations, says state plans must be able to identify what percentage of provider payments go to treating these kinds of conditions. State plans also must make sure beneficiaries have access to services.

The proposed rule is being published in today's Federal Register. Officials will be collecting stakeholder comments on it for 30 days.

Share this article:

More in News

$1.3 million settlement marks second recent deal over SNF supervision of therapy providers

$1.3 million settlement marks second recent deal over ...

A Maryland nursing home company has agreed to a $1.3 million settlement over charges that it did not prevent overbilling by its contracted therapy provider, federal authorities announced Monday. This ...

MedPAC chairman: Three-day stay requirement is 'archaic'

The government should pay for skilled nursing care without a preliminary three-day hospital stay, and the recovery auditor program should be reformed, Medicare Payment Advisory Commission members said at a meeting Friday.

Nursing homes can't carve out billing, collections in arbitration agreements, AR Supreme ...

A nursing home arbitration agreement largely reserved the provider's rights to sue residents while limiting residents' legal options, causing it to fail a "mutual obligation" requirement, the Arkansas Supreme Court recently ruled .