Skip to main content
Sister Publication Links
  • ESG: THE NEW IMPERATIVE
Subscribe
  • My Account
  • Login
  • Subscribe
  • News
    • Current News
    • COVID-19
    • Providers
    • Insurance
    • Government
    • Finance
    • Technology
    • Safety & Quality
    • Transformation
    • People
    • Regional News
    • Digital Edition (Web Version)
    • Patients
    • Operations
    • Care Delivery
    • Payment
    • Midwest
    • Northeast
    • South
    • West
  • Digital Health
  • Insights
    • ACA 10 Years After
    • Best Practices
    • Special Reports
    • Innovations
  • Data/Lists
    • Rankings/Lists
    • Interactive Databases
    • Data Points
  • Op-Ed
    • Bold Moves
    • Breaking Bias
    • Commentaries
    • Letters
    • Vital Signs Blog
    • From the Editor
  • Awards
    • Nominate/Eligibility
    • 100 Most Influential People
    • 50 Most Influential Clinical Executives
    • Best Places to Work in Healthcare
    • Excellence in Governance
    • Health Care Hall of Fame
    • Healthcare Marketing Impact Awards
    • Top 25 Emerging Leaders
    • Top 25 Innovators
    • Diversity in Healthcare
    • Women in Healthcare
    • - Luminaries
    • - Top 25 Diversity Leaders
    • - Leaders to Watch
    • - Luminaries
    • - Top 25 Women Leaders
    • - Women to Watch
  • Events
    • Conferences
    • Galas
    • Virtual Briefings
    • Webinars
    • Custom Media Event: ESG Summit
    • Transformation Summit
    • Women Leaders in Healthcare Conference
    • Social Determinants of Health Symposium
    • Leadership Symposium
    • Health Care Hall of Fame Gala
    • Top 25 Women Leaders Gala
    • Best Places to Work Awards Gala
    • Top 25 Diversity Leaders Gala
    • - Hospital of the Future
    • - Value Based Care
    • - Supply Chain Revenue Cycle
    • - Hospital at Home
    • - Workplace of the Future
    • - Strategic Marketing
    • - Virtual Health
  • Listen
    • Podcast - Next Up
    • Podcast - Beyond the Byline
    • Sponsored Podcast - Healthcare Insider
    • Video Series - The Check Up
    • Sponsored Video Series - One on One
  • MORE +
    • Advertise
    • Media Kit
    • Newsletters
    • Jobs
    • People on the Move
    • Reprints & Licensing
MENU
Transformation Hub

Where healthcare challenges find solutions

  • Patients
  • Operations
  • Care Delivery
  • Payment
Payment
July 30, 2019 02:47 PM

CMS eyes smaller 340B hospital pay cuts in case of court loss

Susannah Luthi
  • Tweet
  • Share
  • Share
  • Email
  • More
    Reprints Print

    The Trump administration hasn't given up on its 340B hospital reimbursement cuts, but officials have also come up with a smaller, alternative pay cut in case the CMS loses its ongoing court battle over the original plan.

    In the CMS' newly proposed outpatient prospective-payment system, or OPPS, rule released late Monday, the administration walked a careful line. The steep Medicare Part B cuts to 340B hospitals will continue for now, even though a federal judge has blocked them and demanded a government remedy to providers that saw the cuts.

    But stakeholders have also been asked to weigh in about a new potential payment rate for 340B hospitals that would almost undo the challenged 22.5% cut. Instead of getting reimbursed at a drug's average sales price, or ASP, plus a 6% administration fee, the 340B providers could get the average sales price plus 3%.

    "We are soliciting public comments on the appropriate OPPS payment rate for 340B-acquired drugs, including whether a rate of ASP plus 3% could be an appropriate payment amount for these drugs, both for (calendar year) 2020 and for purposes of determining the remedy for CYs 2018 and 2019," the proposed rule said.

    A federal judge demanded the "remedy" the CMS referenced earlier this summer. U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras halted the cuts for both 2018 — when they first went into effect — and in 2019.

    Instead of granting the permanent injunction against the cuts that the hospitals and hospital groups had wanted, Contreras asked HHS to take "first crack" at devising a remedy.

    The CMS made it clear in the proposed rule that the Trump administration will appeal the decision. And one hospital group—the Federation of American Hospitals, which represents investor-owned hospitals—supports the original cuts and plans to file an amicus brief in the appeal. The group filed a brief in the lawsuit earlier this side, but didn't take a side.

    The group's CEO, Chip Kahn, said the CMS' original cut is an equity issue for hospitals that aren't eligible for the steep 340B discounts because they're for-profit.

    "There's a set of issues here," Kahn said. "On the one hand Medicare patients receive full payment, and the whole point of 340B is to help hospitals for their uncompensated-care patients."

    Crucially for the 340B hospitals in question, the CMS has asked for responses on whether the remedy should be retrospective or prospective through increases to future 340B claims, "and whether there is some other mechanism that could produce a result equitable to hospitals that do not acquire drugs through the 340B program while respecting the budget-neutrality mandate."

    Hospitals don't want a remedy that makes up for past losses elsewhere. This is a major issue for Kahn and the for-profit hospitals that don't want to see a cut to any future payment as a result of the push on 340B hospitals.

    "Our position is that for remedies going forward we just want to make sure we're not required to dig back in any payment — which means going forward we believe they shouldn't make an adjustment to affect us because of a court decision," Kahn said.

    American Hospital Association General Counsel Melinda Hatton reiterated this position as well. She said the AHA doesn't deem the proposed remedy "appropriate," and referenced the group's court pleadings where the AHA argued "the government should be required to propose and implement a solution to make those hospitals that were adversely impacted whole and hold others harmless."

    If the CMS loses its appeal of the hospital lawsuit, the agency said it would likely propose the specific remedy for 2018 and 2019 and, potentially, 2020 through the 2021 outpatient prospective-payment system rulemaking process. Stakeholder comments would inform those proposals.

    The American Hospital Association, America's Essential Hospitals and the Association of American Medical Colleges each blasted the administration for trying to preserve the existing cuts.

    "With its proposed rule, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) ignores a federal court's unequivocal and explicit finding that the agency acted unlawfully when it imposed deeply damaging cuts to hospitals in the 340B drug pricing program," America's Essential Hospitals CEO Bruce Siegel said in a statement.

    The group wouldn't comment on the suggested remedy, citing ongoing litigation.

    The AHA and AAMC took a similar tack in emphasizing the court decision.

    "Now that the court has ruled that those cuts are illegal and exceeded the administration's authority, we urge CMS to refrain from doing more damage to impacted hospitals with another year of illegal cuts," AHA CEO Rick Pollack said. "Instead, as a remedy, CMS should be offering a plan to promptly restore funds to those affected by the illegal cuts."

    Ivy Baer, AAMC's senior director and regulatory counsel, also expressed disappointment "in light of our strong win in the District Court."

    Hospitals eligible for 340B include critical-access hospitals, large disproportionate-share hospitals like academic medical centers, rural referral centers, free-standing cancer hospitals and sole community hospitals.

    Hospital pay from Medicare Part B also came up last week in the Senate Finance Committee's massive proposal to lower drug costs. One provision targeted the 6% administrative fee for hospitals that both the Obama and Trump administrations have wanted to curb. Under the Senate bill, this fee would be capped at $1,000 per drug per day.

    Additionally, the off-campus hospital outpatient departments that have had their higher Part B reimbursements "grandfathered" in would lose their special status.

    Tags: Payment, This Week in Healthcare, 340B, Payment, Transformation, Transformation Hub, Legislation & Regulation, Legal
    Letter
    to the
    Editor

    Send us a letter

    Have an opinion about this story? Click here to submit a Letter to the Editor, and we may publish it in print.

    Recommended for You
    surprise-billing_0.png
    Insurers estimate No Surprises Act blocked 2M bills in two months
    hospital-money_costs_i_i.png
    Employer health plans pay hospitals 224% of Medicare
    Sponsored Content
    Get Newsletters

    Sign up for enewsletters and alerts to receive breaking news and in-depth coverage of healthcare events and trends, as they happen, right to your inbox.

    Subscribe Today
    MH Magazine Cover

    MH magazine offers content that sheds light on healthcare leaders’ complex choices and touch points—from strategy, governance, leadership development and finance to operations, clinical care, and marketing.

    Subscribe
    Connect with Us
    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • RSS

    Our Mission

    Modern Healthcare empowers industry leaders to succeed by providing unbiased reporting of the news, insights, analysis and data.

    Contact Us

    (877) 812-1581

    Email us

     

    Resources
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise with Us
    • Ad Choices Ad Choices
    • Sitemap
    Editorial Dept
    • Submission Guidelines
    • Code of Ethics
    • Awards
    • About Us
    Legal
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Privacy Request
    Modern Healthcare
    Copyright © 1996-2022. Crain Communications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
    • News
      • Current News
      • COVID-19
      • Providers
      • Insurance
      • Government
      • Finance
      • Technology
      • Safety & Quality
      • Transformation
        • Patients
        • Operations
        • Care Delivery
        • Payment
      • People
      • Regional News
        • Midwest
        • Northeast
        • South
        • West
      • Digital Edition (Web Version)
    • Digital Health
    • Insights
      • ACA 10 Years After
      • Best Practices
      • Special Reports
      • Innovations
    • Data/Lists
      • Rankings/Lists
      • Interactive Databases
      • Data Points
    • Op-Ed
      • Bold Moves
      • Breaking Bias
      • Commentaries
      • Letters
      • Vital Signs Blog
      • From the Editor
    • Awards
      • Nominate/Eligibility
      • 100 Most Influential People
      • 50 Most Influential Clinical Executives
      • Best Places to Work in Healthcare
      • Excellence in Governance
      • Health Care Hall of Fame
      • Healthcare Marketing Impact Awards
      • Top 25 Emerging Leaders
      • Top 25 Innovators
      • Diversity in Healthcare
        • - Luminaries
        • - Top 25 Diversity Leaders
        • - Leaders to Watch
      • Women in Healthcare
        • - Luminaries
        • - Top 25 Women Leaders
        • - Women to Watch
    • Events
      • Conferences
        • Transformation Summit
        • Women Leaders in Healthcare Conference
        • Social Determinants of Health Symposium
        • Leadership Symposium
      • Galas
        • Health Care Hall of Fame Gala
        • Top 25 Women Leaders Gala
        • Best Places to Work Awards Gala
        • Top 25 Diversity Leaders Gala
      • Virtual Briefings
        • - Hospital of the Future
        • - Value Based Care
        • - Supply Chain Revenue Cycle
        • - Hospital at Home
        • - Workplace of the Future
        • - Strategic Marketing
        • - Virtual Health
      • Webinars
      • Custom Media Event: ESG Summit
    • Listen
      • Podcast - Next Up
      • Podcast - Beyond the Byline
      • Sponsored Podcast - Healthcare Insider
      • Video Series - The Check Up
      • Sponsored Video Series - One on One
    • MORE +
      • Advertise
      • Media Kit
      • Newsletters
      • Jobs
      • People on the Move
      • Reprints & Licensing