Thought Leadership

Why the Final CMS Rule Could Have Been Worse

October 4, 2016 Advisory

Long-term care providers and organizations involved with post-acute care will find a lot to dislike in the 713-page final rule released by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on September 28, 2016. The final rule, which applies to long-term care facilities that participate in Medicare and/or Medicaid, establishes many new requirements that will increase the cost and paperwork involved in providing care. 

While it’s small comfort, the final rule could have been worse. Based on issues raised in many of the almost 10,000 comments CMS received on the proposed rule, CMS dropped or modified a handful of problematic proposals. CMS also resisted calls from some commenters to impose even more burdensome requirements. Issues of note include:

  • Hospital transfers – The proposed rule would have required an in-person screening by a physician, physician assistant or nurse practitioner prior to any unscheduled non-emergency transfers of residents to a hospital. Commenters had raised concerns about the existing problems with access to such practitioners and the impact the proposed rule would have on efforts to recruit qualified practitioners to serve residents in facilities. CMS discussed its ongoing efforts to reduce avoidable hospitalizations and determined that it would not “finalize this requirement at this time.”
  • Physician credentialing – CMS had proposed requiring facilities to have a “professional credentialing” process for physicians caring for residents. After hearing from multiple commenters who questioned how this would be interpreted and raised concerns about consequent delays in obtaining services from the resident-selected physician, CMS withdrew the proposed requirement. 
  • Open visitation – “Immediate access to a resident” would have been required under the proposed rule for anyone visiting with the resident’s consent, “subject to reasonable clinical and safety restrictions.” Numerous comments raised safety-related concerns and discussed visitor behaviors that pose a risk to the well-being of residents. CMS did not withdraw the proposal, but added a provision requiring facilities to have visitation policies and procedures setting out reasonable restrictions based on clinical or safety concerns (42 CFR §483.10(f)(v)). Acceptable safety restrictions mentioned by CMS include locking the facility at night, requiring visitors to make prior arrangements for late night access, and denying access to visitors who have been found to have abused, exploited or coerced a resident or who are inebriated and disruptive. 
  • Staffing – CMS reported that “many commenters” requested that it establish and require minimum staffing levels as well as require 24/7 registered nurse (RN) staffing. CMS declined to do so, saying it did not agree that a “‘one size fits all’ approach is best.” CMS also expressed concern that RN supply might make such a mandate “particularly challenging” in some markets. CMS did say that it would consider one commenter’s recommendation to examine whether the current “five-star” rating system methodology could potentially be adapted to establish presumptive levels. 

Even with the changes outlined above, the final rule poses many challenges for long-term care providers and organizations involved with post-acute care. Armstrong Teasdale lawyers can assist clients with determining how they will be individually affected by the final rule and developing strategies to address the changes. 

To read the rule in its entirety, click here.

Contact Us
  • Worldwide
  • Boston, MA
  • Denver, CO
  • Edwardsville, IL
  • Jefferson City, MO
  • Kansas City, MO
  • Las Vegas, NV
  • New York, NY
  • Philadelphia, PA
  • Princeton, NJ
  • Salt Lake City, UT
  • St. Louis, MO
Worldwide
abstract image of world map
Boston, MA
225 Franklin Street
26th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Google Maps
Boston, Massachusetts
Denver, CO
4643 S. Ulster St.
Suite 800
Denver, CO 80237
Google Maps
Denver, Colorado
Edwardsville, IL
115 N. Second St.
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Google Maps
Edwardsville, Illinois
Jefferson City, MO
3405 W. Truman Boulevard
Suite 210
Jefferson City, MO 65109
Google Maps
Jefferson City, Missouri
Kansas City, MO
2345 Grand Blvd.
Suite 1500
Kansas City, MO 64108
Google Maps
Kansas City, Missouri
Las Vegas, NV
3770 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 200
Las Vegas, NV 89169
Google Maps
Las Vegas, Nevada
New York, NY
919 Third Ave., 37th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Google Maps
New York City
Philadelphia, PA
2005 Market Street
29th Floor, One Commerce Square
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Google Maps
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Princeton, NJ
100 Overlook Center
Second Floor
Princeton, NJ 08540
Google Maps
Princeton, New Jersey
Salt Lake City, UT
257 East 200 South
Suite 350
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Google Maps
Salt Lake City, Utah
St. Louis, MO
7700 Forsyth Blvd.
Suite 1800
St. Louis, MO 63105
Google Maps
St. Louis, Missouri