Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems for Acute Care Hospitals (IPPS) and the Long-Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment System and Policy Changes and Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 Rates; Changes to the FY 2025 IPPS Rates Due to Court Decision; Requirements for Quality Programs; and Other Policy Changes; Health Data, Technology, and Interoperability: Electronic Prescribing, Real-Time Prescription Benefit and Electronic Prior Authorization gh FY 2026 are discussed later in this section and in the table titled ‘‘Factors Applied for FY 2023 through FY 2026 to Estimate Medicare DSH Expenditures Using FY 2022 Baseline.’’ For purposes of calculating Factor 1 and modeling the impact of the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule (90 FR 18255 through 18257), we used OACT’s January 2025 Medicare DSH estimates, which were based on data from the December 2024 update of the Medicare Hospital Cost Report Information System (HCRIS) and the FY 2025 IPPS/ LTCH PPS final rule IPPS Impact File, published in conjunction with the publication of the FY 2025 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule. Because SCHs that are projected to be paid under their hospital-specific rate are ineligible for empirically justified Medicare DSH payments and uncompensated care payments, they were excluded from the January 2025 Medicare DSH estimates. Because Maryland hospitals are not paid under the IPPS, they are also ineligible for empirically justified Medicare DSH payments and uncompensated care payments and were also excluded from OACT’s January 2025 Medicare DSH estimates. The 16 hospitals that CMS expects will participate in the Rural Community Hospital Demonstration and uncompensated care payments and were also excluded from OACT’s January 2025 Medicare DSH estimates. The 16 hospitals that CMS expects will participate in the Rural Community Hospital Demonstration Program in FY 2026 were also excluded from OACT’s January 2025 Medicare DSH estimates because under the payment methodology that applies during the demonstration, these hospitals are not eligible to receive empirically justified Medicare DSH payments or uncompensated care payments. For the proposed rule, using the data sources previously discussed, OACT’s January 2025 estimates of Medicare DSH payments for FY 2026 without regard to the application of section 1886(r)(1) of the Act, as corrected, was approximately $15.791 billion. (90 FR 18256 and 90 FR 23867). Therefore, also based on OACT’s January 2025 Medicare DSH estimates, the estimate of empirically justified Medicare DSH payments for FY 2026, with the application of section 1886(r)(1) of the Act, as corrected, was approximately $3.95 billion (or 25 percent of the total amount of estimated Medicare DSH payments for FY 2026). (90 FR 18256 and 90 FR 23867.) Under § 412.106(g)(1)(i), Factor 1 is the difference between these two OACT 5 billion (or 25 percent of the total amount of estimated Medicare DSH payments for FY 2026). (90 FR 18256 and 90 FR 23867.) Under § 412.106(g)(1)(i), Factor 1 is the difference between these two OACT estimates. Therefore, in the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule (90 FR 18255 through 18257), as corrected, we proposed that Factor 1 for FY 2026 would be $11.843 billion, which is equal to 75 percent of the total amount of estimated Medicare DSH payments for FY 2026 ($15.791 billion minus $3.95 billion). (90 FR 23867.) We noted that consistent with our approach in previous rulemakings, OACT intended to use more recent data that may become available for purposes of projecting the final Factor 1 estimates for the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule. In the FY2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule, we noted that the Factor 1 estimates for IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rules are generally consistent with the economic assumptions and actuarial analysis used to develop the President’s Budget estimates under current law, and Factor 1 estimates for IPPS/LTCH PPS final rules are generally consistent with those used for the Midsession Review of the President’s Budget. Consistent with historical practice, we s urrent law, and Factor 1 estimates for IPPS/LTCH PPS final rules are generally consistent with those used for the Midsession Review of the President’s Budget. Consistent with historical practice, we stated in the proposed rule that we expected the Midsession Review will have updated economic assumptions and actuarial analysis, which would be used for the development of Factor 1 estimates in the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule. For a general overview of the principal steps involved in projecting future inpatient costs and utilization, we referred readers to the ‘‘2025 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds,’’ available on the CMS website at https://www.cms.gov/oact/tr/2025.1 The actuarial projections contained in these reports are based on numerous assumptions regarding future trends in program enrollment, utilization and costs of health care services covered by Medicare, as well as other factors affecting program expenditures. In addition, although the methods used to estimate future costs based on these assumptions are complex, they are subject to periodic review by independent experts to e affecting program expenditures. In addition, although the methods used to estimate future costs based on these assumptions are complex, they are subject to periodic review by independent experts to ensure their validity and reasonableness. In the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH proposed rule (90 FR 18255 through 18257), we included information regarding the data sources, methods, and assumptions employed by OACT’s actuaries in determining our estimate of Factor 1. In summary, we indicated the historical HCRIS data update OACT used to estimate Medicare DSH payments; we explained that the most recent Medicare DSH payment adjustments provided in the IPPS Impact File were used, and we provided the components of all the update factors that were applied to the historical data to estimate the Medicare DSH payments for the upcoming fiscal year, along with the associated rationale and assumptions. The discussion also included descriptions of the ‘‘Other’’ and ‘‘Discharges’’ assumptions and provided additional information regarding how we address Medicaid expansion. We invited public comments on our proposed Factor 1 for FY 2026. Comment: A few commenters thanked CMS for the increase in the proposed Fact al information regarding how we address Medicaid expansion. We invited public comments on our proposed Factor 1 for FY 2026. Comment: A few commenters thanked CMS for the increase in the proposed Factor 1 amount for FY 2026. Some commenters requested clarification on a discrepancy between the Factor 1 estimate cited in the proposed rule’s preamble and the figure provided in the supplemental file. Response: We thank the commenters for their support. Regarding the discrepancy in Factor 1 estimates, we refer readers to the June 5, 2025 correction to the proposed rule (CMS– 1833–CN) (90 FR 23867). Comment: As in previous years, some commenters expressed concerns with and requested greater transparency in the methodology used by CMS and OACT to calculate Factor 1. A few commenters emphasized their inability to accurately replicate CMS’ calculations without clarity on how inputs, such as the effects of the COVID–19 public health emergency (PHE) on Medicare discharges, case mix, Medicaid enrollment and subsequent disenrollment through redeterminations, impact Factor 1 estimates. Some of these commenters requested that CMS provide details of its Factor 1 calculation in advance of the publi llment and subsequent disenrollment through redeterminations, impact Factor 1 estimates. Some of these commenters requested that CMS provide details of its Factor 1 calculation in advance of the publication of the IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule and in the IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule each year going forward, so that sufficient data is available to replicate CMS’ DSH payment calculations and enable commenters to provide more informed comments in future years. Another commenter requested that CMS provide detailed explanations for how the agency calculates Factor 1 to ensure safety net providers are not being disproportionately impacted. A few commenters asserted that the lack of opportunity afforded to hospitals to review the data used to estimate DSH VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00350 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 36885 payment calculations in rulemaking is in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. These commenters expressed concerns about the lack of transparency in how Factor 1 is ca s and Regulations 36885 payment calculations in rulemaking is in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. These commenters expressed concerns about the lack of transparency in how Factor 1 is calculated, arguing that hospitals cannot meaningfully comment on the Factor 1 calculation methodology given the lack of details provided by CMS in each IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule. In particular, these commenters stated that the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH proposed rule provided neither sufficient details nor a complete explanation of the treatment of Medicaid expansions in the calculation for Factor 1. Additionally, several commenters stated that CMS failed to provide sufficient details on how the ‘‘Other’’ factor, including both the overall calculation and individual inputs used to determine the estimate, is calculated. These commenters noted that although CMS indicates Medicaid enrollment is included in the ‘‘Other’’ factor, the agency does not explain its specific impact on the overall estimate. One commenter emphasized the importance of interested parties understanding how changes in Medicaid enrollment affect Medicare DSH payments, particularly considering recent, significant shifts in Medi One commenter emphasized the importance of interested parties understanding how changes in Medicaid enrollment affect Medicare DSH payments, particularly considering recent, significant shifts in Medicaid enrollment. Other commenters specifically questioned whether the ‘‘Other’’ factor accurately reflects the impact of the COVID–19 PHE. Some of these commenters requested that CMS publish a detailed methodology of its ‘‘Other’’ calculation specifying how all the components contribute to changes in its estimate from year to year. A couple commenters requested that CMS clarify why the ‘‘Other’’ factor frequently varies in successive rulemaking cycles. Some of these commenters requested that this information be provided in advance of the final rule publication and in the IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule each year going forward to ensure the data is available to replicate CMS’ DSH calculation, allowing for sufficient ability to comment in future years. Response: We thank the commenters for their input. We disagree with commenters’ assertions regarding the lack of transparency with respect to the methodology and assumptions used in the calculation of Factor 1. As explained in the FY 2026 IPPS input. We disagree with commenters’ assertions regarding the lack of transparency with respect to the methodology and assumptions used in the calculation of Factor 1. As explained in the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule (90 FR 18255–18257) and in this section of this final rule, we have been and continue to be transparent about the methodology and data used to estimate Factor 1. Regarding the commenters who reference the Administrative Procedure Act, we note that under the Administrative Procedure Act, a proposed rule is required to include either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved. In this case, the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule (90 FR 18002) included a detailed discussion of our proposed Factor 1 methodology and the data sources that would be used in making our final estimate. Accordingly, we believe commenters were able to meaningfully comment on our proposed estimate of Factor 1. To provide additional context, and as we have explained in prior rulemakings (see, for example, 89 FR 68986), we note that Factor 1 is not estimated in isolation from other projections made by OACT. The Factor 1 estimates for the p and as we have explained in prior rulemakings (see, for example, 89 FR 68986), we note that Factor 1 is not estimated in isolation from other projections made by OACT. The Factor 1 estimates for the proposed rules are generally consistent with the economic assumptions and actuarial analyses used to develop the President’s Budget estimates under current law, and the Factor 1 estimates for the final rule are the latest estimates from OACT at the time of development of this final rule. We recognize that our reliance on the economic assumptions and actuarial analyses used to develop the President’s Budget in estimating Factor 1 has an impact on hospitals, health systems, and other impacted parties that wish to replicate the Factor 1 calculation by, for example, modeling the relevant Medicare Part A portion of the President’s Budget. Yet, we believe commenters are able to meaningfully comment on our proposed estimate of Factor 1 without replicating the budget. For a general overview of the principal steps involved in projecting future inpatient costs and utilization, we refer readers to the ‘‘2025 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supp principal steps involved in projecting future inpatient costs and utilization, we refer readers to the ‘‘2025 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds,’’ available under ‘‘Downloads’’ on the CMS website at: https:// www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data- and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and- Reports/ReportsTrustFunds/index.html. We note that the annual reports of the Medicare Boards of Trustees to Congress represent the Federal Government’s official evaluation of the financial status of the Medicare Program. The actuarial projections contained in these reports are based on numerous assumptions regarding future trends in program enrollment, utilization, and costs of health care services covered by Medicare, as well as other factors affecting program expenditures. In addition, given that the methods used to estimate future costs based on these assumptions are complex, they are subject to periodic review by independent experts to ensure their validity and reasonableness. Additionally, in the FY 2026 IPPS/ LTCH PPS proposed rule and described in more detail later in this section, we included informatio by independent experts to ensure their validity and reasonableness. Additionally, in the FY 2026 IPPS/ LTCH PPS proposed rule and described in more detail later in this section, we included information regarding the data sources, methods, and assumptions employed by the actuaries to determine the OACT’s estimate of Factor 1. We explained that the most recent Medicare DSH payment adjustments provided in the IPPS Impact File were used, and we provided the components of all update factors that were applied to historical data to estimate the Medicare DSH payments for the upcoming fiscal year, along with the associated rationale and assumptions. This discussion also included a description of the ‘‘Other,’’ ‘‘Case-Mix,’’ and ‘‘Discharges’’ assumptions, as well as additional information regarding the estimated impact of the COVID–19 PHE. Regarding the commenter who expressed concern that our proposed calculation of Factor 1 would disproportionately impact safety net providers, we continue to believe that estimating Factor 1 based on the economic data and assumptions detailed in this final rule and the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule is appropriate and consistent with the requirements believe that estimating Factor 1 based on the economic data and assumptions detailed in this final rule and the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule is appropriate and consistent with the requirements of section 1886(r)(2)(A) of the Act. Comment: Some commenters requested that CMS provide additional detail on the calculations and assumptions related to the ‘‘Discharge’’ component used in the Factor 1 formula so they can evaluate the impact of Medicare Advantage (MA) growth on Medicare Fee for Service (FFS) inpatient hospital payments. These commenters noted that the continued expansion of MA has raised concerns—particularly around prior authorization requirements imposed by plans, which often create burdens for both patients and providers. The same commenters noted that these issues have prompted broader questions about the sustainability of MA growth and its implications for inpatient hospital payments, especially for hospitals serving a disproportionate share of low-income beneficiaries. The same commenters welcomed the opportunity to work with CMS in examining the impacts of MA enrollment on FFS inpatient hospital payments. Other commenters urged CMS to use more recent data and u es. The same commenters welcomed the opportunity to work with CMS in examining the impacts of MA enrollment on FFS inpatient hospital payments. Other commenters urged CMS to use more recent data and update its estimates of Medicare DSH payment amounts to reflect changes in the discharge volume more accurately. Finally, a commenter, citing the Medicare Payment and Advisory Commission’s (MedPAC) draft recommendation for 2026 and its March 2025 report to Congress, urged CMS to increase the market basket updates for VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00351 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k 36886 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 2024 through 2026 used in the FY 2026 Factor 1 ‘‘Update’’ component by at least 1 percentage point. The same commenter also requested that the market basket update be increased by at least 1.5 percentage points per MedPAC’s March 2024 report to Congress. Another commenter argued that the proposed 0.8 percent productivity adjustment used to offset the projected 3.2 percent market basket increase in the ‘‘Upda per MedPAC’s March 2024 report to Congress. Another commenter argued that the proposed 0.8 percent productivity adjustment used to offset the projected 3.2 percent market basket increase in the ‘‘Update’’ component of Factor 1 was inappropriately high, given the significant economic volatility caused by recent cost period outliers. Response: We thank the commenters for their input. Regarding commenters’ requests for additional detail on the calculations and assumptions underlying the ‘‘Discharges’’ factor, we refer the commenters to the discussion elsewhere in this section of this final rule and the relevant discussion in the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule (90 FR 18002), which detail the calculations and assumptions we used to calculate the FY 2026 ‘‘Discharges’’ factor. We also note that in updating our estimate of Factor 1 for this final rule, we considered, as appropriate, the same set of factors that we used in the FY 2025 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule and in prior rulemakings (see example, 89 FR 35934 35934 through 36649). As we stated we would do in the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule, we then updated our estimates for the FY 2026 ‘‘Discharges’’ component, and other Fa see example, 89 FR 35934 35934 through 36649). As we stated we would do in the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule, we then updated our estimates for the FY 2026 ‘‘Discharges’’ component, and other Factor 1 components, to incorporate the latest available data based on more recent economic assumptions and actuarial analyses as available to us. Regarding the comments on the impacts of MA enrollment on the Medicare FFS discharge volume, we refer commenters to the actuarial projections and assumptions regarding future trends in Medicare FFS and MA program enrollment, utilization, and costs of health care services covered by Medicare, as well as other factors affecting Medicare FFS and MA program expenditures, contained in the ‘‘2025 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds,’’ available under ‘‘Downloads’’ on the CMS website at: https://www.cms.gov/ Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/ Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/ ReportsTrustFunds/index.html. We considered these projections, assumptions, and other factors when developing our estimate of the ‘‘Discharges’’ factor for FY 2026. We also note that in s-and-Reports/ ReportsTrustFunds/index.html. We considered these projections, assumptions, and other factors when developing our estimate of the ‘‘Discharges’’ factor for FY 2026. We also note that in this final rule, consistent with prior years (see, for example, 89 FR 68986), our estimate of the ‘‘Discharges’’ component for FY 2026 incorporates only claims from the Medicare FFS program rather than claims from the MA program. Accordingly, we believe that the FY 2026 ‘‘Discharges’’ factor in this final rule accurately reflects trends in Medicare FFS discharges. Regarding the commenter who requested that CMS increase the FY 2026 Factor 1 ‘‘Update’’ component consistent with the MedPAC recommended increases to the IPPS market basket used to estimate DSH payments for FY 2024, FY 2025, and FY 2026, we note that consistent with the inpatient hospital update discussion in section VI.B of the preamble of this final rule, OACT is using the final inpatient hospital market basket update and productivity adjustment for FY 2026, based on the more recent data available for this final rule, for the final FY 2026 ‘‘Update’’ component in the Factor 1 calculation. We refer readers to the discussion uctivity adjustment for FY 2026, based on the more recent data available for this final rule, for the final FY 2026 ‘‘Update’’ component in the Factor 1 calculation. We refer readers to the discussion of the finalized inpatient hospital update for FY 2026 in section VI.B of the preamble of this final rule. Regarding the commenter expressing concern that the productivity adjustment used to offset the projected market basket was inappropriately high, we also refer to the discussion in section VI.B of the preamble of this final rule. After consideration of the public comments we received, we are finalizing, as proposed, the methodology for calculating Factor 1 for FY 2026. We discuss the resulting Factor 1 amount for FY 2026 in this final rule. Consistent with prior rulemakings, for this final rule, OACT used the most recently submitted Medicare cost report data from the March 31, 2025, update of HCRIS to identify Medicare DSH payments and the most recent Medicare DSH payment adjustments provided in the Impact File and applied update factors and assumptions for projected changes in utilization and case-mix to estimate Medicare DSH payments for the upcoming fiscal year. The June 2025 O provided in the Impact File and applied update factors and assumptions for projected changes in utilization and case-mix to estimate Medicare DSH payments for the upcoming fiscal year. The June 2025 OACT estimate for Medicare DSH payments for FY 2026, without regard to the application of section 1886(r)(1) of the Act, is approximately $16.550 billion. This estimate excluded Maryland hospitals, which participate in the Maryland Total Cost of Care Model and are not paid under the IPPS, hospitals participating in the Rural Community Hospital Demonstration, and SCHs paid under their hospital-specific payment rate. Therefore, based on this June 2025 estimate, the estimate of empirically justified Medicare DSH payments for FY 2026, with the application of section 1886(r)(1) of the Act, is approximately $4.14 billion (or 25 percent of the total amount of estimated Medicare DSH payments for FY 2026). Under § 412.106(g)(1)(i), Factor 1 is the difference between these two OACT estimates. Therefore, the final Factor 1 for FY 2026 is $12,412,500,000, which is equal to 75 percent of the total amount of estimated Medicare DSH payments for FY 2026 ($16,550,000,000 minus $4,137,500,000). OACT’s es re, the final Factor 1 for FY 2026 is $12,412,500,000, which is equal to 75 percent of the total amount of estimated Medicare DSH payments for FY 2026 ($16,550,000,000 minus $4,137,500,000). OACT’s estimates for FY 2026 for this final rule began with a baseline of $13.022 billion in Medicare DSH expenditures for FY 2022. The following table shows the factors applied to update this baseline through the current estimate for FY 2026: 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00352 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 / > H P G 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00353 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k / > H P G 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00354 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 36889 be based on data from the Census Bureau or other sources the Secretary determines appropriate. We continue to believe that the NHEA will p o. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 36889 be based on data from the Census Bureau or other sources the Secretary determines appropriate. We continue to believe that the NHEA will provide reasonable estimates for the rate of uninsurance that are available in conjunction with the IPPS rulemaking cycle. In the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule, we explained that we used the most recent available estimates from the NHEA at that time (that were released in June 2024), and we refer readers to the relevant discussion in the proposed rule and OACT’s memorandum on ‘‘Certification of Rates of Uninsured’’ prepared for the proposed rule for further details on the methodology and assumptions used in the proposed rule’s calculation of the projected uninsured rate. In brief, we indicated that our projection of the rates of uninsurance for CY 2025 and CY 2026 were from the latest NHEA historical data available and accounted for expected changes in enrollment across all categories of insurance coverage. We note, in particular, that OACT’s estimates in the proposed rule considered the expiration of the American Rescue Plan’s Marketplace enhanced premium tax credits and the late of insurance coverage. We note, in particular, that OACT’s estimates in the proposed rule considered the expiration of the American Rescue Plan’s Marketplace enhanced premium tax credits and the latest Medicaid projections publicly available at that time. In response to commenters who requested that we update the Factor 2 estimates in the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule to account for any anticipated changes in the uninsured rate using more recent or alternative data sources, in the proposed rule, we stated we may consider the use of more recent data that may become available for purposes of estimating the rates of uninsurance used in the calculation of the final Factor 2 for FY 2026. In this final rule, we are using the most recent NHEA estimates for the rate of uninsurance, which became available on June 25, 2025 and account for all updates to the CY 2025 and CY 2026 uninsured rate, and reflect current law and administrative actions as of March 25, 2025, including the legislative impacts of the expiration of the American Rescue Plan’s Marketplace enhanced premium tax credits. At this stage of the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule development, there is not an available estimat e impacts of the expiration of the American Rescue Plan’s Marketplace enhanced premium tax credits. At this stage of the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule development, there is not an available estimate of the impact of Public Law 119–21 on the uninsured rate, and there is a wide range of uncertainty associated with the demographic, economic and programmatic outcomes. Consistent with prior final IPPS/LTCH PPS rulemakings (see, for example, 89 FR 68986), we are using the updated NHEA data for the final Factor 2 calculation because we believe that it is the most appropriate measure of changes in the rate of uninsurance. Regarding the comments requesting that CMS update the Factor 2 methodology and data sources and increase Factor 2 we continue to believe that estimating Factor 2 based on the best available data is appropriate and consistent with the requirements of Section 1886(r)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act. Regarding the comments requesting that CMS issue an earlier update of the uninsured rate for the upcoming FY during each annual rulemaking cycle, we note that we use the most recent NHEA projections available at the time of developing the proposed and final rules. Comment: Several comme e for the upcoming FY during each annual rulemaking cycle, we note that we use the most recent NHEA projections available at the time of developing the proposed and final rules. Comment: Several commenters urged CMS to be transparent in the calculation of Factor 2 and how it accounts for the current coverage landscape, while others urged CMS to be transparent regarding the data sources used for calculating Factor 2 and the assumptions behind the uninsured rate. One commenter asserted that the proposed rule did not provide sufficient details nor an explanation of the treatment of Medicaid expansions in the calculation for Factor 2. A few commenters requested that CMS publish a detailed methodology on the calculation of Factor 2 and how the NHEA projections are incorporated into the estimate. Response: In response to the comments concerning transparency, we note that OACT’s updated memorandum ‘‘Certification of Rates of Uninsured’’ contains additional background describing the methods used to derive the FY 2026 rate of uninsured for this final rule. Section 1886(r)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act permits us to use a data source other than CBO estimates to determine the percent change in the rat ed to derive the FY 2026 rate of uninsured for this final rule. Section 1886(r)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act permits us to use a data source other than CBO estimates to determine the percent change in the rate of uninsurance beginning in FY 2018. As explained elsewhere in this section of this final rule, the NHEA data and methodology that were used to estimate Factor 2 for this final rule are transparent and best meet all our considerations for ensuring reasonable estimates for the rate of uninsurance that are available in conjunction with the IPPS rulemaking cycle, and we have concluded it is appropriate to update the projection of the FY 2026 rate of uninsurance using the most recent NHEA data. For additional information on the projection of the uninsured rate, see the projection’s methodology documentation. (Available on the CMS website at: https://www.cms.gov/ research-statistics-data-and-systems/ statistics-trends-and-reports/national healthexpenddata/downloads/ projectionsmethodology.pdf). After consideration of the public comments we received, we are updating the calculation of Factor 2 for FY 2026 to incorporate the most recent NHEA data. The final estimates of the percentage of un ). After consideration of the public comments we received, we are updating the calculation of Factor 2 for FY 2026 to incorporate the most recent NHEA data. The final estimates of the percentage of uninsured individuals have been certified by the Chief Actuary of CMS. The calculation of the final Factor 2 for FY 2026 using a weighted average of OACT’s updated projections for CY 2025 and CY 2026 is as follows: • Percent of individuals without insurance for CY 2013: 14.0 percent • Percent of individuals without insurance for CY 2025: 7.9 percent • Percent of individuals without insurance for CY 2026: 9.0 percent • Percent of individuals without insurance for FY 2026: (0.25 times 7.9) + (0.75 times 9.0) = 8.7 percent • Factor 2: 1-|((0.087–0.14)/0.14)| = 1– 0.3786 = 0.6214 (62.14 percent) Therefore, the final Factor 2 for FY 2026 is 62.14 percent. The final FY 2026 uncompensated care amount is $12,412,500,000 * 0.6214 = $ 7,713,127,500. 3. Calculation of Factor 3 for FY 2026 a. General Background Section 1886(r)(2)(C) of the Act defines Factor 3 in the calculation of the uncompensated care payment. As we have discussed earlier, section 1886(r)(2)(C) of the Act states that Factor 3 is ckground Section 1886(r)(2)(C) of the Act defines Factor 3 in the calculation of the uncompensated care payment. As we have discussed earlier, section 1886(r)(2)(C) of the Act states that Factor 3 is equal to the percent, for each subsection (d) hospital, that represents the quotient of: (1) the amount of uncompensated care for such hospital for a period selected by the Secretary (as estimated by the Secretary, based on appropriate data (including, in the case where the Secretary determines alternative data are available that are a better proxy for the costs of subsection (d) hospitals for treating the uninsured, the use of such alternative data)); and (2) the aggregate amount of uncompensated care for all subsection (d) hospitals that receive a payment under section 1886(r) of the Act for such period (as so estimated, based on such data). Therefore, Factor 3 is a hospital- specific value that expresses the proportion of the estimated uncompensated care amount for each subsection (d) hospital and each subsection (d) Puerto Rico hospital with the potential to receive Medicare DSH payments relative to the estimated uncompensated care amount for all hospitals estimated to receive Medi ospital and each subsection (d) Puerto Rico hospital with the potential to receive Medicare DSH payments relative to the estimated uncompensated care amount for all hospitals estimated to receive Medicare DSH payments in the fiscal year for which the uncompensated care payment VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00355 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k 36890 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations is to be made. Factor 3 is applied to the product of Factor 1 and Factor 2 to determine the amount of the uncompensated care payment that each eligible hospital will receive for FY 2014 and subsequent fiscal years. In order to implement the statutory requirements for this factor of the uncompensated care payment formula, it was necessary for us to determine: (1) the definition of uncompensated care or, in other words, the specific items that are to be included in the numerator (that is, the estimated uncompensated care amount for an individual hospital) and the denominator (that is, the estimated uncompensated care amount for all hospitals est o be included in the numerator (that is, the estimated uncompensated care amount for an individual hospital) and the denominator (that is, the estimated uncompensated care amount for all hospitals estimated to receive Medicare DSH payments in the applicable fiscal year); (2) the data source(s) for the estimated uncompensated care amount; and (3) the timing and manner of computing the quotient for each hospital estimated to receive Medicare DSH payments. The statute instructs the Secretary to estimate the amounts of uncompensated care for a period based on appropriate data. In addition, we note that the statute permits the Secretary to use alternative data in the case where the Secretary determines that such alternative data are available that are a better proxy for the costs of subsection (d) hospitals for treating individuals who are uninsured. For a discussion of the methodology, we used to calculate Factor 3 for fiscal years 2014 through 2022, we refer readers to the FY 2024 IPPS/LTCH final rule (88 FR 59001 and 59002). b. Background on the Methodology Used To Calculate Factor 3 for FY 2024 and Subsequent Years Section 1886(r)(2)(C) of the Act governs the selection of the data t CH final rule (88 FR 59001 and 59002). b. Background on the Methodology Used To Calculate Factor 3 for FY 2024 and Subsequent Years Section 1886(r)(2)(C) of the Act governs the selection of the data to be used in calculating Factor 3 and allows the Secretary the discretion to determine the time periods from which we will derive the data to estimate the numerator and the denominator of the Factor 3 quotient. Specifically, section 1886(r)(2)(C)(i) of the Act defines the numerator of the quotient as the amount of uncompensated care for a subsection (d) hospital for a period selected by the Secretary. Section 1886(r)(2)(C)(ii) of the Act defines the denominator as the aggregate amount of uncompensated care for all subsection (d) hospitals that receive a payment under section 1886(r) of the Act for such period. In the FY 2014 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (78 FR 50634 through 50647), we adopted a process of making interim payments with final cost report settlement for both the empirically justified Medicare DSH payments and the uncompensated care payments required by section 3133 of the Affordable Care Act. Consistent with that process, we also determined the time period from which to calcul ied Medicare DSH payments and the uncompensated care payments required by section 3133 of the Affordable Care Act. Consistent with that process, we also determined the time period from which to calculate the numerator and denominator of the Factor 3 quotient in a way that would be consistent with making interim and final payments. Specifically, we must have Factor 3 values available for hospitals that we estimate will qualify for Medicare DSH payments for a fiscal year and for those hospitals that we do not estimate will qualify for Medicare DSH payments for that fiscal year but that may ultimately qualify for Medicare DSH payments for that fiscal year at the time of cost report settlement. As described in the FY 2022 IPPS/ LTCH PPS final rule, commenters expressed concerns that the use of only 1 year of data to determine Factor 3 would lead to significant variations in year-to-year uncompensated care payments. Some stakeholders recommended the use of 2 years of historical data from Worksheet S–10 data of the Medicare cost report (86 FR 45237). In the FY 2022 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule, we stated that we would consider using multiple years of data when the vast majority of providers rksheet S–10 data of the Medicare cost report (86 FR 45237). In the FY 2022 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule, we stated that we would consider using multiple years of data when the vast majority of providers had been audited for more than 1 fiscal year under the revised reporting instructions. Audited FY 2020 cost reports were available for the development of the FY 2024 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed and final rules. Feedback from previous audits and lessons learned were incorporated into the audit process for the FY 2020 reports. In consideration of the comments discussed in the FY 2022 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule, in the FY 2023 IPPS/ LTCH PPS final rule (87 FR 49036 through 49047), we finalized a policy of using a multi-year average of audited Worksheet S–10 data to determine Factor 3 for FY 2023 and subsequent fiscal years. We explained our belief that this approach would be generally consistent with our past practice of using the most recent single year of audited data from the Worksheet S–10, while also addressing commenters’ concerns regarding year-to-year fluctuations in uncompensated care payments. Under this policy, we used a 2-year average of audited FY 2018 and FY 2019 Worksheet S–10 dat e also addressing commenters’ concerns regarding year-to-year fluctuations in uncompensated care payments. Under this policy, we used a 2-year average of audited FY 2018 and FY 2019 Worksheet S–10 data to calculate Factor 3 for FY 2023. We also indicated that we expected FY 2024 would be the first year that 3 years of audited data would be available at the time of rulemaking. For FY 2024 and subsequent fiscal years, we finalized a policy of using a 3-year average of the uncompensated care data from the 3 most recent fiscal years for which audited data are available to determine Factor 3. Consistent with the approach that we followed when multiple years of data were previously used in the Factor 3 methodology, if a hospital does not have data for all 3 years used in the Factor 3 calculation, we will determine Factor 3 based on an average of the hospital’s available data. For IHS and Tribal hospitals and Puerto Rico hospitals, we use the same multi-year average of Worksheet S–10 data to determine Factor 3 for FY 2024 and subsequent fiscal years as is used to determine Factor 3 for all other DSH- eligible hospitals (in other words, hospitals eligible to receive empirically justified M determine Factor 3 for FY 2024 and subsequent fiscal years as is used to determine Factor 3 for all other DSH- eligible hospitals (in other words, hospitals eligible to receive empirically justified Medicare DSH payments for a fiscal year) to determine Factor 3. In the FY 2023 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (87 FR 49033 through 49047), we also modified our policy regarding cost reports that start in one fiscal year and span the entirety of the following fiscal year. Specifically, in the rare cases when we use a cost report that starts in one fiscal year and spans the entirety of the subsequent fiscal year to determine uncompensated care costs for the subsequent fiscal year, we would not use the same cost report to determine the hospital’s uncompensated care costs for the earlier fiscal year. We explained that using the same cost report to determine uncompensated care costs for both fiscal years would not be consistent with our intent to smooth year-to-year variation in uncompensated care costs. As an alternative, we finalized our proposal to use the hospital’s most recent prior cost report, if that cost report spans the applicable period.156 (1) Scaling Factor In the FY 2025 IPPS/LTCH PP ts. As an alternative, we finalized our proposal to use the hospital’s most recent prior cost report, if that cost report spans the applicable period.156 (1) Scaling Factor In the FY 2025 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (89 FR 69323), we continued the policy finalized in the FY 2023 IPPS/ LTCH PPS final rule (87 FR 49042) to address the effects of calculating Factor 3 using data from multiple fiscal years, in which we apply a scaling factor to the Factor 3 values calculated for all DSH- eligible hospitals so that total uncompensated care payments to hospitals that are projected to be DSH- eligible for a fiscal year will be consistent with the estimated amount available to make uncompensated care payments for that fiscal year. Pursuant to that policy, we divide 1 (the expected sum of all DSH-eligible hospitals’ Factor 156 For example, in determining Factor 3 for FY 2023, we did not use the same cost report to determine a hospital’s uncompensated care costs for both FY 2018 and FY 2019. Rather, we used the cost report that spanned the entirety of FY 2019 to determine uncompensated care costs for FY 2019 and used the hospital’s most recent prior cost report to determine its uncompensated car we used the cost report that spanned the entirety of FY 2019 to determine uncompensated care costs for FY 2019 and used the hospital’s most recent prior cost report to determine its uncompensated care costs for FY 2018, provided that cost report spanned some portion of FY 2018. VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00356 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 36891 3 values) by the actual sum of all DSH- eligible hospitals’ Factor 3 values and then multiply the quotient by the uncompensated care payment determined for each DSH-eligible hospital to obtain a scaled uncompensated care payment amount for each hospital. This process is designed to ensure that the sum of the scaled uncompensated care payments for all hospitals that are projected to be DSH-eligible is consistent with the estimate of the total amount available to make uncompensated care payments for the applicable fiscal year. (2) New Hospital Policy for Purposes of Factor 3 In the FY 2025 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (89 FR 69323), we continued o unt available to make uncompensated care payments for the applicable fiscal year. (2) New Hospital Policy for Purposes of Factor 3 In the FY 2025 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (89 FR 69323), we continued our new hospital policy that was modified in the FY 2023 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (87 FR 49042) and initially adopted in the FY 2020 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (84 FR 42370 through 42371) to determine Factor 3 for new hospitals. Consistent with our policy of using multiple years of cost reports to determine Factor 3, we defined new hospitals as hospitals that do not have cost report data for the most recent year of data being used in the Factor 3 calculation. Under this definition, the cut-off date for the new hospital policy is the beginning of the fiscal year after the most recent year for which audits of the Worksheet S–10 data have been conducted. For FY 2026, the FY 2022 cost reports are the most recent year of cost reports for which audits of Worksheet S–10 data have been conducted. Thus, hospitals with CMS Certification Numbers (CCNs) established on or after October 1, 2022, would be subject to the new hospital policy for FY 2026. Under our modified new hospital policy, if a new ho s, hospitals with CMS Certification Numbers (CCNs) established on or after October 1, 2022, would be subject to the new hospital policy for FY 2026. Under our modified new hospital policy, if a new hospital has a preliminary projection of being DSH- eligible based on its most recent available disproportionate patient percentage, it may receive interim empirically justified DSH payments. However, new hospitals will not receive interim uncompensated care payments because we would have no uncompensated care data on which to determine what those interim payments should be. The MAC will make a final determination concerning whether the hospital is eligible to receive Medicare DSH payments at cost report settlement. In FY 2025, while we continued to determine the numerator of the Factor 3 calculation using the new hospital’s uncompensated care costs reported on Worksheet S–10 of the hospital’s cost report for the current fiscal year, we determined Factor 3 for new hospitals using a denominator based solely on uncompensated care costs from cost reports for the most recent fiscal year for which audits have been conducted. In addition, we applied a scaling factor to the Factor 3 calculation or based solely on uncompensated care costs from cost reports for the most recent fiscal year for which audits have been conducted. In addition, we applied a scaling factor to the Factor 3 calculation for a new hospital.157 (3) Newly Merged Hospital Policy In the FY 2025 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (89 FR 690323 through 690324), we continued our policy of treating hospitals that merge after the development of the final rule for the applicable fiscal year similar to new hospitals. As explained in the FY 2015 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (79 FR 50021), for these newly merged hospitals, we do not have data currently available to calculate a Factor 3 amount that accounts for the merged hospital’s uncompensated care burden. In the FY 2015 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (79 FR 50021 and 50022), we finalized a policy under which Factor 3 for hospitals that we do not identify as undergoing a merger until after the public comment period and additional review period following the publication of the final rule or that undergo a merger during the fiscal year will be recalculated similar to new hospitals. Consistent with the policy adopted in the FY 2015 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule, in the FY 2025 IPPS/LTCH PP e or that undergo a merger during the fiscal year will be recalculated similar to new hospitals. Consistent with the policy adopted in the FY 2015 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule, in the FY 2025 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (89 FR 690323 through 690324), we stated that we would continue to treat newly merged hospitals in a similar manner to new hospitals, such that the newly merged hospital’s final uncompensated care payment will be determined at cost report settlement where the numerator of the newly merged hospital’s Factor 3 will be based on the cost report of only the surviving hospital (that is, the newly merged hospital’s cost report) for the current fiscal year. However, if the hospital’s cost reporting period includes less than 12 months of data, the data from the newly merged hospital’s cost report will be annualized for purposes of the Factor 3 calculation. Consistent with the methodology used to determine Factor 3 for new hospitals described in section IV.E.3. of the preamble of this final rule, we continued our policy for determining Factor 3 for newly merged hospitals using a denominator that is the sum of the uncompensated care costs for all DSH-eligible hospitals, as reported o inal rule, we continued our policy for determining Factor 3 for newly merged hospitals using a denominator that is the sum of the uncompensated care costs for all DSH-eligible hospitals, as reported on Worksheet S–10 of their 157 In the FY 2023 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (87 FR 49042), we explained our belief that applying the scaling factor is appropriate for purposes of calculating Factor 3 for all hospitals, including new hospitals and hospitals that are treated as new hospitals, to improve consistency and predictability across all hospitals. cost reports for the most recent fiscal year for which audits have been conducted. In addition, we apply a scaling factor, as discussed in section IV.E.3. of the preamble of this final rule, to the Factor 3 calculation for a newly merged hospital. In the FY 2025 IPPS/ LTCH PPS final rule, we explained that consistent with past policy, interim uncompensated care payments for the newly merged hospital would be based only on the data for the surviving hospital’s CCN available at the time of the development of the final rule. We received comments on the newly merged hospital policy. Comment: A few commenters expressed support for the new hospital ng hospital’s CCN available at the time of the development of the final rule. We received comments on the newly merged hospital policy. Comment: A few commenters expressed support for the new hospital and newly merged hospital policies currently in place. Response: We appreciate the continued support of our policies for new and newly merged hospitals. (4) CCR Trim Methodology The calculation of a hospital’s total uncompensated care costs on Worksheet S–10 requires the use of the hospital’s cost to charge ratio (CCR). In the FY 2025 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (89 FR 69324), we continued the policy of trimming CCRs, which we adopted in the FY 2023 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (87 FR 49043), for FY 2025. Under this policy, we apply the following steps to determine the applicable CCR separately for each fiscal year that is included as part of the multi-year average used to determine Factor 3: Step 1: Remove Maryland hospitals. In addition, we will remove all- inclusive rate providers because their CCRs are not comparable to the CCRs calculated for other IPPS hospitals. Step 2: Calculate a CCR ‘‘ceiling’’ for the applicable fiscal year with the following data: for each IPPS hospital that was ir CCRs are not comparable to the CCRs calculated for other IPPS hospitals. Step 2: Calculate a CCR ‘‘ceiling’’ for the applicable fiscal year with the following data: for each IPPS hospital that was not removed in Step 1 (including hospitals that are not DSH- eligible), we use cost report data to calculate a CCR by dividing the total costs on Worksheet C, Part I, Line 202, Column 3 by the charges reported on Worksheet C, Part I, Line 202, Column 8. (Combining data from multiple cost reports from the same fiscal year is not necessary, as the longer cost report will be selected.) The ceiling is calculated as 3 standard deviations above the national geometric mean CCR for the applicable fiscal year. This approach is consistent with the methodology for calculating the CCR ceiling used for high-cost outliers. Remove all hospitals that exceed the ceiling so that these aberrant CCRs do not skew the calculation of the statewide average CCR. Step 3: Using the CCRs for the remaining hospitals in Step 2, VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00357 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k 36892 Fede n Step 2, VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00357 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k 36892 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations determine the urban and rural statewide average CCRs for the applicable fiscal year for hospitals within each State (including hospitals that are not DSH- eligible), weighted by the sum of total hospital discharges from Worksheet S– 3, Part I, Line 14, Column 15. Step 4: Assign the appropriate statewide average CCR (urban or rural) calculated in Step 3 to all hospitals, excluding all-inclusive rate providers, with a CCR for the applicable fiscal year greater than 3 standard deviations above the national geometric mean for that fiscal year (that is, the CCR ‘‘ceiling’’). Step 5: For hospitals that did not report a CCR on Worksheet S–10, Line 1, we assign them the statewide average CCR for the applicable fiscal year as determined in step 3. After completing these steps, we re- calculate the hospital’s uncompensated care costs (Line 30) for the applicable fiscal year using the trimmed CCR (the statewide avera year as determined in step 3. After completing these steps, we re- calculate the hospital’s uncompensated care costs (Line 30) for the applicable fiscal year using the trimmed CCR (the statewide average CCR (urban or rural, as applicable)). (5) Uncompensated Care Data Trim Methodology After applying the CCR trim methodology, there are rare situations where a hospital has potentially aberrant uncompensated care data for a fiscal year that are unrelated to its CCR. Therefore, under the trim methodology for potentially aberrant uncompensated care costs (UCC) that was included as part of the methodology for purposes of determining Factor 3 in the FY 2021 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (85 FR 58832), if the hospital’s uncompensated care costs for any fiscal year that is included as a part of the multi-year average are an extremely high ratio (greater than 50 percent) of its total operating costs in the applicable fiscal year, we will determine the ratio of uncompensated care costs to the hospital’s total operating costs from another available cost report, and apply that ratio to the total operating expenses for the potentially aberrant fiscal year to determine an adjusted amount of uncompensa ’s total operating costs from another available cost report, and apply that ratio to the total operating expenses for the potentially aberrant fiscal year to determine an adjusted amount of uncompensated care costs for the applicable fiscal year.158 However, we note that we have audited the Worksheet S–10 data that will be used in the Factor 3 calculation for a number of hospitals. Because the UCC data for these hospitals have been subject to audit, we believe that there is increased confidence that if high uncompensated care costs are reported by these audited hospitals, the 158 For example, if a hospital’s FY 2018 cost report is determined to include potentially aberrant data, data from its FY 2019 cost report would be used for the ratio calculation. information is accurate. Therefore, as we explained in the FY 2021 IPPS/ LTCH PPS final rule (85 FR 58832), we determined it is unnecessary to apply the UCC trim methodology for a fiscal year for which a hospital’s UCC data have been audited. In rare cases, hospitals that are not currently projected to be DSH-eligible and that do not have audited Worksheet S–10 data may have a potentially aberrant amount of insured patients’ charity ited. In rare cases, hospitals that are not currently projected to be DSH-eligible and that do not have audited Worksheet S–10 data may have a potentially aberrant amount of insured patients’ charity care costs (line 23 column 2). In the FY 2025 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (89 FR 69324 through 69325), we stated that in addition to the UCC trim methodology, we will continue to apply an alternative trim specific to certain hospitals that do not have audited Worksheet S–10 data for one or more of the fiscal years that are used in the Factor 3 calculation. For FY 2023 and subsequent fiscal years, in the rare case that a hospital’s insured patients’ charity care costs for a fiscal year are greater than $7 million and the ratio of the hospital’s cost of insured patient charity care (line 23 column 2) to total uncompensated care costs (line 30) is greater than 60 percent, we will not calculate a Factor 3 for the hospital at the time of proposed or final rulemaking. This trim will only impact hospitals that are not currently projected to be DSH-eligible; and therefore, are not part of the calculation of the denominator of Factor 3, which includes only uncompensated care costs for hospitals pr pitals that are not currently projected to be DSH-eligible; and therefore, are not part of the calculation of the denominator of Factor 3, which includes only uncompensated care costs for hospitals projected to be DSH- eligible. Consistent with the approach adopted in the FY 2022 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule, if a hospital would be trimmed under both the UCC trim methodology and this alternative trim, we will apply this trim in place of the existing UCC trim methodology. We continue to believe this alternative trim more appropriately addresses potentially aberrant insured patient charity care costs compared to the UCC trim methodology, because the UCC trim is based solely on the ratio of total uncompensated care costs to total operating costs and does not consider the level of insured patients’ charity care costs. Similar to the approach initially adopted in the FY 2022 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (86 FR 45245 and 45246), in the FY 2025 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (89 FR 69324), we also stated that we would continue to use a threshold of 3 standard deviations from the mean ratio of insured patients’ charity care costs to total uncompensated care costs (line 23 column 2 divided by line 30) an hat we would continue to use a threshold of 3 standard deviations from the mean ratio of insured patients’ charity care costs to total uncompensated care costs (line 23 column 2 divided by line 30) and a dollar threshold that is the median total uncompensated care cost reported on most recent audited cost reports for hospitals that are projected to be DSH- eligible. We stated that we continued to believe these thresholds are appropriate to address potentially aberrant data. We also continued to include Worksheet S– 10 data from IHS/Tribal hospitals and Puerto Rico hospitals consistent with our policy finalized in the FY 2023 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (87 FR 49047 through 49051). In addition, we continued our policy adopted in the FY 2023 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (87 FR 49044) of applying the same threshold amounts originally calculated for the FY 2019 reports to identify potentially aberrant data for FY 2025 and subsequent fiscal years to facilitate transparency and predictability. If a hospital subject to this trim is determined to be DSH-eligible at cost report settlement, the MAC will calculate the hospital’s Factor 3 using the same methodology used to calculate Factor 3 for new hospital subject to this trim is determined to be DSH-eligible at cost report settlement, the MAC will calculate the hospital’s Factor 3 using the same methodology used to calculate Factor 3 for new hospitals. c. Methodology for Calculating Factor 3 for FY 2026 For FY 2026, consistent with § 412.106(g)(1)(iii)(C)(11), we are following the same methodology as applied in FY 2024 and described in the previous section of the preamble of this final rule to determine Factor 3 using the most recent 3 years of audited cost reports, from FY 2020, FY 2021, and FY 2022. Consistent with our approach for FY 2025, for FY 2026, we are also applying the scaling factor, new hospital, newly merged hospital, CCR trim methodology, UCC trim, and alternative trim methodology policies discussed in the previous section of the preamble of this final rule. For purposes of the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule, we used reports from the December 2024 HCRIS extract to calculate Factor 3. In the proposed rule, we noted that we intended to use the March 2025 update of HCRIS to calculate the final Factor 3 for the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule. Thus, for FY 2026, we will use 3 years of audited Worksheet S–1 e noted that we intended to use the March 2025 update of HCRIS to calculate the final Factor 3 for the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule. Thus, for FY 2026, we will use 3 years of audited Worksheet S–10 Part 1 data to calculate Factor 3 for all eligible hospitals, including IHS and Tribal hospitals and Puerto Rico hospitals that have a cost report for 2013, following steps. We note that we are clarifying in these steps our use of Worksheet S–10, Part I, rather than Worksheet S–10, Part II, to calculate Factor 3. Step 1: Select the hospital’s longest cost report for each of the most recent 3 years of fiscal year (FY) audited cost reports (FY 2020, FY 2021, and FY 2022). Alternatively, in the rare case when the hospital has no cost report for a particular year because the cost report for the previous fiscal year spanned the VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00358 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 36893 more recent fiscal year, the previous fiscal year cost report will be used in this step. In the o m m a h k Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 36893 more recent fiscal year, the previous fiscal year cost report will be used in this step. In the rare case that using a previous fiscal year cost report results in a period without a report, we would use the prior year report, if that cost report spanned the applicable period.159 In general, we note that, for purposes of the Factor 3 methodology, references to a fiscal year cost report are to the cost report that spans the relevant fiscal year. Step 2: Annualize the UCC from Worksheet S–10, Part I, Line 30, if a cost report is more than or less than 12 months. (If applicable, use the statewide average CCR (urban or rural) to calculate uncompensated care costs.) Step 3: Combine adjusted and/or annualized uncompensated care costs for hospitals that merged using the merger policy. Step 4: Calculate Factor 3 for all DSH- eligible hospitals using annualized uncompensated care costs (Worksheet S–10, Part I, Line 30) based on cost report data from the most recent 3 years of audited cost reports (from Step 1, 2 or 3). New hospitals and other hospitals that are treated as if they are new h eet S–10, Part I, Line 30) based on cost report data from the most recent 3 years of audited cost reports (from Step 1, 2 or 3). New hospitals and other hospitals that are treated as if they are new hospitals for purposes of Factor 3 are excluded from this calculation. Step 5: Average the Factor 3 values from Step 4; that is, add the Factor 3 values, and divide that amount by the number of cost reporting periods with data to compute an average Factor 3 for the hospital. Multiply by a scaling factor, as discussed in the previous section of the preamble of this final rule. We received comments regarding the Factor 3 calculation, including Worksheet S–10 cost report audits and uncompensated care cost report instructions. Comment: Several commenters expressed their support for CMS’ proposal to calculate Factor 3 for FY 2026 based on a three-year average of audited FY 2020, FY 2021, and FY 2022 Worksheet S–10 data. Supporters of this proposal specified that the use of a multi-year average of Worksheet S–10 data significantly reduces year-to-year volatility in uncompensated care payments. Notably, no commenters expressed opposition to using a three-year average of Worksheet S–10 data to f Worksheet S–10 data significantly reduces year-to-year volatility in uncompensated care payments. Notably, no commenters expressed opposition to using a three-year average of Worksheet S–10 data to calculate uncompensated care payments. 159 For example, if a hospital does not have a FY 2020 cost report because the hospital’s FY 2019 cost report spanned the FY 2020 time period, we will use the FY 2019 cost report that spanned the FY 2020 time period for this step. Using the same example, where the hospital’s FY 2019 report is used for the FY 2020 time period, we will use the hospital’s FY 2018 report if it spans some of the FY 2019 time period. We will not use the same cost report for both the FY 2020 and the FY 2019 time periods. Response: We are grateful to those commenters who expressed their support for our policy of using a three- year average of audited FY 2020, FY 2021, and FY 2022 Worksheet S–10 data to determine each hospital’s share of uncompensated care costs in FY 2026. As explained in the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule (90 FR 18002), we believe that using a multi-year average of Worksheet S–10 data will provide assurance that hospitals’ uncompensated care payment explained in the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule (90 FR 18002), we believe that using a multi-year average of Worksheet S–10 data will provide assurance that hospitals’ uncompensated care payments remain stable and predictable, while mitigating unpredictable swings and anomalies in a hospital’s uncompensated care costs. Comment: A commenter urged CMS to monitor trends in uncompensated care as reported on Worksheet S–10 during the COVID–19 Public Health Emergency (PHE). This commenter encouraged CMS to assess how disruptions in care during the COVID– 19 PHE affected Factor 3 calculations and consider steps to dampen the effect of any large reductions in uncompensated care costs attributable to the PHE and ensure that the inclusion of FY 2020–2022 data does not reduce Factor 3 for essential hospitals. Response: Regarding requests for CMS to monitor and account for the impact of the COVID–19 PHE on Worksheet S– 10 cost report data, we will continue to monitor the impact of the PHE and will consider this issue further in future rulemaking, as appropriate. We refer readers to our responses to similar comments in the FY 2025 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (89 FR 69325–39326), and we note d will consider this issue further in future rulemaking, as appropriate. We refer readers to our responses to similar comments in the FY 2025 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (89 FR 69325–39326), and we note that we will continue to use the three-year average of the most recently audited cost report data for FY 2026 and subsequent years, consistent with the policy finalized in the FY 2023 IPPS/ LTCH PPS final rule (87 FR 48780) and § 412.106(g)(1)(iii)(C)(11). Comment: A commenter expressed their support for the continued distribution of the uncompensated care payments based on each DSH hospital’s share of total uncompensated care. Response: We appreciate the support for our policies on the distribution of uncompensated care payments. Comment: We received comments that were outside the scope of previously discussed methodological concepts concerning the blending of historical Worksheet S–10 data to calculate Factor 3. A commenter recommended that CMS distribute current DSH and uncompensated care payments using the Medicare Safety-Net Index (MSNI) framework outlined by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) in its 2024 Report to Congress. Another commenter urged CMS to explore ad re payments using the Medicare Safety-Net Index (MSNI) framework outlined by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) in its 2024 Report to Congress. Another commenter urged CMS to explore additional policy levers to increase DSH and/or uncompensated care payments, such as temporarily directing supplemental funds—beyond empirically justified DSH payments and/or uncompensated care payments—to hospitals that serve the highest proportion of low-income patients. Response: Regarding the commenters’ suggestions unrelated to the previously discussed methodological concepts for the blending of historical Worksheet S– 10 data to calculate Factor 3, we consider these public comments to be outside the scope of the proposed rule and are not addressing them in this final rule. However, we appreciate the commenters’ input and note that we may consider these suggestions in future rulemaking, as appropriate. Comment: Commenters reiterated comments from prior years suggesting modifications to the Worksheet S–10 audit process. Specifically, a commenter requested that CMS publicly disseminate comprehensive audit policy and protocols that must be employed by all auditors and MACs and disclose the Worksheet S–10 audit process. Specifically, a commenter requested that CMS publicly disseminate comprehensive audit policy and protocols that must be employed by all auditors and MACs and disclose these through notice and comment rulemaking. The same commenter requested that CMS implement a workable appeal or review process to correct errors and inconsistent audit disallowances in a timely manner. Another commenter requested that CMS provide clear guidelines on its audit protocols and ensure Worksheet S–10 reviews impose minimal burden and are uniformly applied across all hospitals. The commenter urged CMS to disclose the criteria it uses to identify hospitals for audits and ensure audits are conducted consistently and equitably. Lastly, a commenter encouraged CMS to continuously take steps to improve Worksheet S–10 data auditing accuracy. Response: We thank commenters for their feedback on the audits of the Worksheet S–10 data and their recommendations for future audits, which we will take into consideration for future rulemaking. We note that as we have stated in previous rulemakings in response to comments regarding audit protocols (see, for example, 88 FR 58640), audit prot will take into consideration for future rulemaking. We note that as we have stated in previous rulemakings in response to comments regarding audit protocols (see, for example, 88 FR 58640), audit protocols are provided to MACs in advance of the audit to ensure consistency and timeliness in the audit process. Regarding the request to make public the audit policies and protocols, as we previously explained most recently in the FY 2024 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (88 FR 58640), we do not make our protocols public as CMS desk review and audit protocols are confidential and are for CMS and MAC use only. In addition, there is no requirement under either the Administrative Procedure Act VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00359 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k 36894 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations or the Medicare statute that CMS adopt audit policies or protocols through notice and comment rulemaking. Finally, as noted in the FY 2024 IPPS/ LTCH PPS final rule (88 FR 58640), to most efficiently and appropriately utilize our limited audit t policies or protocols through notice and comment rulemaking. Finally, as noted in the FY 2024 IPPS/ LTCH PPS final rule (88 FR 58640), to most efficiently and appropriately utilize our limited audit resources, we do not plan to introduce an audit appeal process at this time. Comment: Commenters thanked CMS for recent revisions to the Worksheet S– 10 audit protocols but expressed concern about recent changes that require more detailed information. A commenter expressed concerns regarding cost report exhibits and the Worksheet S–10 audits, in particular the commenter stated that they should not have to put unnecessary effort into exhibits if the MAC asks for different information during the Worksheet S–10 audits. Another commenter requested clarification on how the exhibits will be utilized. The commenter requested that CMS consider making some fields as optional rather than mandatory to reduce administrative burden. Response: Regarding commenters’ concerns about cost report instructions, we note that to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the cost reports, all hospitals are required to maintain documentation for the Worksheet S–10, such as exhibits and Exhibits 3B and 3C (PRM 15– ns, we note that to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the cost reports, all hospitals are required to maintain documentation for the Worksheet S–10, such as exhibits and Exhibits 3B and 3C (PRM 15–2, 4012.2) in particular. Regarding commenters’ concerns about exhibits, we refer commenters to the ‘‘Justification’’ section of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) revision request and approval of the existing information collection requirement (ICR) for cost reports (OMB control number 0938– 0050 with an expiration date September 30, 2025). Comment: Regarding Worksheet S–10 instructions and guidance, a commenter requested that CMS clarify inconsistent Worksheet S–10 instructions on line 29 so that non-Medicare bad debt is not multiplied by the CCR. The commenter stated that while CMS’ revised cost report instructions indicate that non- reimbursed Medicare bad debt is not multiplied by the CCR, CMS’ September 2017 transmittal 160 states that non- Medicare bad debt should be multiplied by the CCR. Response: We appreciate the commenter’s concern regarding the need for clarification of the Worksheet S–10 instructions and refer the commenter to our response to a substantially similar commen e CCR. Response: We appreciate the commenter’s concern regarding the need for clarification of the Worksheet S–10 instructions and refer the commenter to our response to a substantially similar comment in the FY 2025 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (89 FR 69327). 160 https://www.cms.gov/regulations-and- guidance/guidance/transmittals/2017downloads/ r11p240.pdf. Comment: Some commenters reiterated concerns previously raised in response to the FY 2025 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule (89 FR 35934), proposing technical revisions to how CMS defines and calculates uncompensated care costs on Worksheet S–10. They recommended that CMS include all patient care costs, such as costs related to training medical residents, supporting physician and professional services, and paying provider taxes associated with Medicaid revenue, when converting costs to charges. These commenters suggested specific revisions to Worksheet S–10 to incorporate all patient care costs, such as utilizing the total of worksheet A, column 3, lines 1 through 117 (reduced by the amount on worksheet A–8, line 10) as the cost component and worksheet C, column 8, line 200, as the charge component. Additionally, some of these commenters lumn 3, lines 1 through 117 (reduced by the amount on worksheet A–8, line 10) as the cost component and worksheet C, column 8, line 200, as the charge component. Additionally, some of these commenters requested that CMS include Graduate Medical Education (GME) costs when calculating a hospital’s CCR. The same commenters further urged CMS to treat the unreimbursed portion of state or local indigent care programs as charity care and revise Worksheet S– 10 such that data on Medicaid shortfalls resembles actual shortfalls incurred by hospitals. Specifically, they requested that hospitals be allowed to reduce their Medicaid revenue reported on Worksheet S–10 by the amount of any contributions to the nonfederal share of Medicaid funding, whether through provider taxes, intergovernmental transfers (IGTs), or certified public expenditures (CPEs). Response: We appreciate commenters’ suggestions for revisions and/or modifications to Worksheet S–10. We will consider the modifications as necessary to further improve and refine the information that is reported on Worksheet S–10 to support the collection of information regarding uncompensated care costs. Regarding the request to include costs fo to further improve and refine the information that is reported on Worksheet S–10 to support the collection of information regarding uncompensated care costs. Regarding the request to include costs for teaching and providing physician and other professional services, including GME costs, when calculating the CCR, as stated in past final rules (see, for example, 85 FR 58826, 86 FR 44774, and 89 FR 68986), we continue to believe that it is not appropriate to modify the calculation of the CCR on Line 1 of Worksheet S–10 to include any additional costs in the numerator of the CCR calculation. We refer readers to those prior rules for further discussion on this issue. With regard to the comments requesting that payment shortfalls from Medicaid and state and local indigent care programs be included in uncompensated care cost calculations, we have consistently explained in past final rules (85 FR 58826, 86 FR 44774, and 89 FR 68986) in response to similar comments that we believe there are compelling arguments for excluding such shortfalls from the definition of uncompensated care. We refer readers to those prior rules for further discussion on this issue. As we explained previously in th mpelling arguments for excluding such shortfalls from the definition of uncompensated care. We refer readers to those prior rules for further discussion on this issue. As we explained previously in this section, for FY 2026, we are also applying the scaling factor, new hospital, newly merged hospital, CCR trim methodology, UCC trim, and alternative trim methodology policies discussed in the previous section of the preamble of this final rule. For a hospital that is subject to either of the trims for potentially aberrant data (the UCC trim and alternative trim methodology explained in the previous section of the preamble of this final rule) and is ultimately determined to be DSH-eligible at cost report settlement, its uncompensated care payment will be calculated only after the hospital’s reporting of insured charity care costs on its FY 2026 Worksheet S–10 has been reviewed. Accordingly, the MAC will calculate a Factor 3 for the hospital only after reviewing the uncompensated care information reported on Worksheet S– 10 of the hospital’s FY 2026 cost report. Then we will calculate Factor 3 for the hospital using the same methodology used to determine Factor 3 for new hospitals. Spe rmation reported on Worksheet S– 10 of the hospital’s FY 2026 cost report. Then we will calculate Factor 3 for the hospital using the same methodology used to determine Factor 3 for new hospitals. Specifically, the numerator will reflect the uncompensated care costs reported on the hospital’s FY 2026 cost report, while the denominator will reflect the sum of the uncompensated care costs reported on Worksheet S–10 of the FY 2022 cost reports of all DSH- eligible hospitals. In addition, we will apply a scaling factor, as discussed previously, to the Factor 3 calculation for the hospital. Under the CCR trim methodology, for purposes of the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH proposed rule and this final rule, the statewide average CCR was applied to 8 hospitals’ FY 2020 reports, of which 2 hospitals had FY 2020 Worksheet S–10 data. The statewide average CCR was applied to 10 hospitals’ FY 2021 reports, of which 4 hospitals had FY 2021 Worksheet S–10 data. The statewide average CCR was applied to 8 hospitals’ FY 2022 reports, of which 2 hospitals had FY 2022 Worksheet S–10 data. We received comments on the trim methodology. Comment: A commenter expressed their support for CMS’ CCR trim and UCC methodolo s’ FY 2022 reports, of which 2 hospitals had FY 2022 Worksheet S–10 data. We received comments on the trim methodology. Comment: A commenter expressed their support for CMS’ CCR trim and UCC methodologies to address unusual and atypical data. Response: We appreciate the support for our policies on the CCR trim VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00360 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 36895 methodology and the UCC trim methodology. For purposes of this FY 2026 IPPS/ LTCH PPS final rule, consistent with our Factor 3 methodology since the FY 2014 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (78 FR 50642), we intend to use data from the March 2025 HCRIS extract for this calculation, which would be the latest quarterly HCRIS extract that is publicly available at the time of the development of this FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule. Regarding requests from providers to amend and/or reopen previously audited Worksheet S–10 data for the most recent 3 cost reporting years that are used in the methodology for calculating Fact l rule. Regarding requests from providers to amend and/or reopen previously audited Worksheet S–10 data for the most recent 3 cost reporting years that are used in the methodology for calculating Factor 3, in the proposed rule, we noted that MACs follow normal timelines and procedures. For purposes of the Factor 3 calculation for the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule, any amended reports and/or reopened reports would need to have completed the amended report and/or reopened report submission processes by the end of March 2025. In other words, if the amended report and/or reopened report is not available for the March HCRIS extract, then that amended and/or reopened report data would not be part of the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule’s Factor 3 calculation. We also noted in the proposed rule that the March HCRIS data extract would be available during the comment period for the proposed rule if providers wanted to verify that their amended and/or reopened data is reflected in the March HCRIS extract. d. Per-Discharge Amount of Interim Uncompensated Care Payments for FY 2026 Since FY 2014, we have made interim uncompensated care payments during the fiscal year on a per-discharge basis CRIS extract. d. Per-Discharge Amount of Interim Uncompensated Care Payments for FY 2026 Since FY 2014, we have made interim uncompensated care payments during the fiscal year on a per-discharge basis. Typically, we use a 3-year average of the number of discharges for a hospital to produce an estimate of the amount of the hospital’s uncompensated care payment per discharge. Specifically, the hospital’s total uncompensated care payment amount for the applicable fiscal year is divided by the hospital’s historical 3-year average of discharges computed using the most recent available data to determine the uncompensated care payment per discharge for that fiscal year. As discussed in the FY 2025 IPPS/ LTCH PPS final rule (89 FR 69328– 69329), we finalized a policy to use a 3- year average of the most recent years of available historical discharge data to calculate a per-discharge payment amount that would be used to make interim uncompensated care payments to each projected DSH-eligible hospital during FY 2026 and subsequent fiscal years, codified at 42 CFR 412.106(i)(1). We are applying this policy for FY 2026. Interim uncompensated care payments made to a hospital during the fiscal ye pital during FY 2026 and subsequent fiscal years, codified at 42 CFR 412.106(i)(1). We are applying this policy for FY 2026. Interim uncompensated care payments made to a hospital during the fiscal year are reconciled following the end of the year to ensure that the final payment amount is consistent with the hospital’s prospectively determined uncompensated care payment for the fiscal year. We received comments on the proposed per discharge payment amount used to make interim uncompensated care payments. Comment: A commenter raised their concern that CMS has understated the per-discharge amount of interim uncompensated care payments in the FY 2026 proposed rule, given the overestimation of discharges from past data years. This commenter also expressed opposition to using a three- year average for determining the discharge volume and requested that CMS project a reasonable estimation of discharges. Response: We thank the commenter for their feedback. As discussed in the FY 2025 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (89 FR 68986), we believe using an average of the most recent three-years of available historical discharge data will appropriately reflect year-to-year variations in discharge volum CH PPS final rule (89 FR 68986), we believe using an average of the most recent three-years of available historical discharge data will appropriately reflect year-to-year variations in discharge volumes in FY 2026 and subsequent fiscal years, and this approach is consistent with 42 CFR 412.106(i)(1). We refer the commenter to that final rule for additional discussion on this subject. We also refer the commenter to our response in that rulemaking (89 FR 69329) to similar comments stating that CMS overestimated discharge volume in recent years. Consistent with 42 CFR 412.106(i)(1), we are finalizing our proposal as is and will calculate the per- discharge amount of uncompensated care payments based on a three-year average of discharge data. As we explained in the FY 2025 IPPS/ LTCH PPS final rule (89 FR 69329 through 69330), we also finalized a voluntary process in the FY 2021 IPPS/ LTCH PPS final rule (85 FR 58833 and 58834), through which a hospital may submit a request to its MAC for a lower per-discharge interim uncompensated care payment amount, including a reduction to zero, once before the beginning of the fiscal year and/or once during the fiscal year. In conjunction with thi a lower per-discharge interim uncompensated care payment amount, including a reduction to zero, once before the beginning of the fiscal year and/or once during the fiscal year. In conjunction with this request, the hospital must provide supporting documentation demonstrating that there would likely be a significant recoupment at cost report settlement if the per-discharge amount is not lowered (for example, recoupment of 10 percent or more of the hospital’s total uncompensated care payment, or at least $100,000). For example, a hospital might submit documentation showing a large projected increase in discharges during the fiscal year to support reduction of its per-discharge uncompensated care payment amount. As another example, a hospital might request that its per- discharge uncompensated care payment amount be reduced to zero midyear if the hospital’s interim uncompensated care payments during the year have already surpassed the total uncompensated care payment calculated for the hospital. Under the policy we finalized in the FY 2021 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (85 FR 58833 through 58834), the hospital’s MAC will evaluate these requests and the supporting documentation before the b spital. Under the policy we finalized in the FY 2021 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (85 FR 58833 through 58834), the hospital’s MAC will evaluate these requests and the supporting documentation before the beginning of the fiscal year and/or with midyear requests when the historical average number of discharges is lower than the hospital’s projected discharges for the current fiscal year. If, following review of the request and the supporting documentation, the MAC agrees that there likely would be significant recoupment of the hospital’s interim Medicare uncompensated care payments at cost report settlement, the only change that will be made is to lower the per-discharge amount either to the amount requested by the hospital or another amount determined by the MAC to be appropriate to reduce the likelihood of a substantial recoupment at cost report settlement. If the MAC determines it would be appropriate to reduce the interim Medicare uncompensated care payment per- discharge amount, that updated amount will be used for purposes of the outlier payment calculation for the remainder of the fiscal year. We are continuing to apply this policy for FY 2026. We refer readers to the Addendum in dated amount will be used for purposes of the outlier payment calculation for the remainder of the fiscal year. We are continuing to apply this policy for FY 2026. We refer readers to the Addendum in the FY 2023 IPPS/LTCH final rule for a more detailed discussion of the steps for determining the operating and capital Federal payment rate and the outlier payment calculation (87 FR 49431 through 49432). No change would be made to the total uncompensated care payment amount determined for the hospital on the basis of its Factor 3. In other words, any change to the per- discharge uncompensated care payment amount will not change how the total uncompensated care payment amount will be reconciled at cost report settlement. We received comments related to the uncompensated care payment reconciliation process. Comment: Some commenters reiterated their recommendation that VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00361 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k 36896 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations CMS use the traditional payment reconciliation proces h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k 36896 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations CMS use the traditional payment reconciliation process to calculate final payments for uncompensated care costs pursuant to section 1886(r)(2) of the Act. These commenters did not object to CMS using prospective estimates, derived from the best data available, to calculate interim payments for uncompensated care costs. However, the commenters stated that interim payments should be subject to later reconciliation based on estimates derived from actual data from the federal fiscal year. The commenters also stated that CMS’ current IPPS/LTCH PPS rulemaking process is flawed because CMS may use data and calculations in final rules that were not included in the relevant proposed rules without providing advance notice to hospitals. The commenters claim that this limits the hospitals’ ability to provide informed comments. These same commenters stated that CMS fails to provide meaningful explanations of its uncompensated care payment calculations and is in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. These commenters recommended that CMS satis ed that CMS fails to provide meaningful explanations of its uncompensated care payment calculations and is in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. These commenters recommended that CMS satisfy its legal obligation by providing hospitals with the opportunity to review and comment on the more recent data used to calculate Factors 1, 2, and 3 in each final rulemaking before the agency publishes the final rule. Response: Consistent with the position that we have taken in past rulemaking, we continue to believe that applying our best estimates of the three factors used in the calculation of uncompensated care payments to determine payments prospectively is most conducive to administrative efficiency, finality, and predictability in payments (83 FR 41144; 84 FR 42044; 85 FR 58432; 86 FR 44774; 87 FR 48780; 88 FR 58640; and 89 FR 68986). We continue to believe that, in affording the Secretary the discretion of estimating the three factors used to determine uncompensated care payments and by including a prohibition against administrative and judicial review of those estimates in section 1886(r)(3) of the Act, Congress recognized the importance of finality and predictability under s and by including a prohibition against administrative and judicial review of those estimates in section 1886(r)(3) of the Act, Congress recognized the importance of finality and predictability under a prospective payment system. As a result, we do not agree with the commenter’s suggestion that we should establish a process for reconciling our estimates of uncompensated care payments, which would be contrary to the notion of prospectivity in a payment system. Furthermore, we note that this rulemaking has been conducted consistent with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act and Title XVIII of the Act. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, a proposed rule is required to include either the terms or substance of the proposed rule, or a description of the subjects and issues involved. In this case, the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule (90 FR 18002) included a detailed discussion of our proposed methodology for calculating Factors 1– 3 and the data that would be used. We made public the best data available at the time of the proposed rule to allow hospitals to understand the anticipated impact of the proposed methodology and submit comments, and we have considered tho made public the best data available at the time of the proposed rule to allow hospitals to understand the anticipated impact of the proposed methodology and submit comments, and we have considered those comments in determining our final policies for FY 2026. e. Process for Notifying CMS of Merger Updates and To Report Upload Issues As we have done for every proposed and final rule beginning in FY 2014, in conjunction with this final rule, we will publish on the CMS website a table listing Factor 3 for hospitals that we estimate will receive empirically justified Medicare DSH payments in FY 2026 (that is, those hospitals that will receive interim uncompensated care payments during the fiscal year), and for the remaining subsection (d) hospitals and subsection (d) Puerto Rico hospitals that have the potential of receiving an uncompensated care payment in the event that they receive an empirically justified Medicare DSH payment for the fiscal year as determined at cost report settlement. However, we note that a Factor 3 will not be published for new hospitals and hospitals that are subject to the alternative trim for hospitals with potentially aberrant data that are not projected to b However, we note that a Factor 3 will not be published for new hospitals and hospitals that are subject to the alternative trim for hospitals with potentially aberrant data that are not projected to be DSH-eligible. We will also publish a supplemental data file containing a list of the mergers that we are aware of and the computed uncompensated care payment for each merged hospital. In the DSH uncompensated care supplemental data file, we list new hospitals and the 7 hospitals that would be subject to the alternative trim for hospitals with potentially aberrant data that are not projected to be DSH-eligible, with a N/ A in the Factor 3 column. Hospitals had 60 days from the date of public display of the FY 2026 IPPS/ LTCH PPS proposed rule in the Federal Register to review the table and supplemental data file published on the CMS website in conjunction with the proposed rule and to notify CMS in writing of issues related to mergers and/ or to report potential upload discrepancies due to MAC mishandling of Worksheet S–10 data during the report submission process.161 In the proposed rule, we stated that comments raising issues or concerns that are specific to the information included o MAC mishandling of Worksheet S–10 data during the report submission process.161 In the proposed rule, we stated that comments raising issues or concerns that are specific to the information included in the table and supplemental data file should be submitted by email to the CMS inbox at Section3133DSH@ cms.hhs.gov. We indicated that we would address comments related to mergers and/or reporting upload discrepancies submitted to the CMS DSH inbox as appropriate in the table and the supplemental data file that we publish on the CMS website in conjunction with the publication of the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule. We also stated that all other comments submitted in response to our proposals for FY 2026 must be submitted in one of the three ways found in the ADDRESSES section of the proposed rule before the close of the comment period in order to be assured consideration. In addition, we noted that the CMS DSH inbox is not intended for Worksheet S– 10 audit process related emails, which should be directed to the MACs. VI. Other Decisions and Changes to the IPPS for Operating Costs A. Changes to MS–DRGs Subject to Postacute Care Transfer Policy and MS– DRG Special Payments Policies ( should be directed to the MACs. VI. Other Decisions and Changes to the IPPS for Operating Costs A. Changes to MS–DRGs Subject to Postacute Care Transfer Policy and MS– DRG Special Payments Policies (§ 412.4) 1. Background Existing regulations at 42 CFR 412.4(a) define discharges under the IPPS as situations in which a patient is formally released from an acute care hospital or dies in the hospital. Section 412.4(b) defines acute care transfers, and § 412.4(c) defines postacute care transfers. Our policy set forth in § 412.4(f) provides that when a patient is transferred and his or her length of stay is less than the geometric mean length of stay for the MS–DRG to which the case is assigned, the transferring hospital is generally paid based on a graduated per diem rate for each day of stay, not to exceed the full MS–DRG payment that would have been made if the patient had been discharged without being transferred. The per diem rate paid to a transferring hospital is calculated by dividing the full MS–DRG payment by the geometric mean length of stay for the MS–DRG. Based on an analysis that showed that the first day of hospitalization is the most expensive (60 FR 45804), our policy ing the full MS–DRG payment by the geometric mean length of stay for the MS–DRG. Based on an analysis that showed that the first day of hospitalization is the most expensive (60 FR 45804), our policy generally provides for payment that is twice the per diem amount for the first day, with 161 For example, if the report does not reflect audit results due to MAC mishandling, or the most recent report differs from a previously accepted, amended report due to MAC mishandling. VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00362 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 36897 each subsequent day paid at the per diem amount up to the full MS–DRG payment (§ 412.4(f)(1)). Transfer cases also are eligible for outlier payments. In general, the outlier threshold for transfer cases, as described in § 412.80(b), is equal to (Fixed-Loss Outlier threshold for Nontransfer Cases adjusted for geographic variations in costs/ Geometric Mean Length of Stay for the MS–DRG) *(Length of Stay for the Case plus 1 day). We established the cri oss Outlier threshold for Nontransfer Cases adjusted for geographic variations in costs/ Geometric Mean Length of Stay for the MS–DRG) *(Length of Stay for the Case plus 1 day). We established the criteria set forth in § 412.4(d) for determining which DRGs qualify for postacute care transfer payments in the FY 2006 IPPS final rule (70 FR 47419 through 47420). The determination of whether a DRG is subject to the postacute care transfer policy was initially based on the Medicare Version 23.0 GROUPER (FY 2006) and data from the FY 2004 MedPAR file. However, if a DRG did not exist in Version 23.0 or a DRG included in Version 23.0 is revised, we use the current version of the Medicare GROUPER and the most recent complete year of MedPAR data to determine if the DRG is subject to the postacute care transfer policy. Specifically, if the MS– DRG’s total number of discharges to postacute care equals or exceeds the 55th percentile for all MS–DRGs and the proportion of short-stay discharges to postacute care to total discharges in the MS–DRG exceeds the 55th percentile for all MS–DRGs, CMS will apply the postacute care transfer policy to that MS–DRG and to any other MS–DRG that shares the same tacute care to total discharges in the MS–DRG exceeds the 55th percentile for all MS–DRGs, CMS will apply the postacute care transfer policy to that MS–DRG and to any other MS–DRG that shares the same base MS–DRG. The statute at subparagraph 1886(d)(5)(J) of the Act directs CMS to identify MS– DRGs based on a high volume of discharges to postacute care facilities and a disproportionate use of postacute care services. As discussed in the FY 2006 IPPS final rule (70 FR 47416), we determined that the 55th percentile is an appropriate level at which to establish these thresholds. In that same final rule (70 FR 47419), we stated that we will not revise the list of DRGs subject to the postacute care transfer policy annually unless we are making a change to a specific MS–DRG. To account for MS–DRGs subject to the postacute care policy that exhibit exceptionally higher shares of costs very early in the hospital stay, § 412.4(f) also includes a special payment methodology. For these MS–DRGs, hospitals receive 50 percent of the full MS–DRG payment, plus the single per diem payment, for the first day of the stay, as well as a per diem payment for subsequent days (up to the full MS–DRG payment spitals receive 50 percent of the full MS–DRG payment, plus the single per diem payment, for the first day of the stay, as well as a per diem payment for subsequent days (up to the full MS–DRG payment (§ 412.4(f)(6))). For an MS– DRG to qualify for the special payment methodology, the geometric mean length of stay must be greater than 4 days, and the average charges of 1-day discharge cases in the MS–DRG must be at least 50 percent of the average charges for all cases within the MS–DRG. MS– DRGs that are part of an MS–DRG severity level group will qualify under the MS–DRG special payment methodology policy if any one of the MS–DRGs that share that same base MS–DRG qualifies (§ 412.4(f)(6)). Prior to the enactment of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115–123), under section 1886(d)(5)(J) of the Act, a discharge was deemed a ‘‘qualified discharge’’ if the individual was discharged to one of the following postacute care settings: • A hospital or hospital unit that is not a subsection (d) hospital. • A skilled nursing facility. • Related home health services provided by a home health agency provided within a timeframe established by the Secretary (beginning within 3 days after tion (d) hospital. • A skilled nursing facility. • Related home health services provided by a home health agency provided within a timeframe established by the Secretary (beginning within 3 days after the date of discharge). Section 53109 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 amended section 1886(d)(5)(J)(ii) of the Act to also include discharges to hospice care provided by a hospice program as a qualified discharge, effective for discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2018. In the FY 2019 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (83 FR 41394), we made conforming amendments to § 412.4(c) of the regulation to include discharges to hospice care occurring on or after October 1, 2018, as qualified discharges. We specified that hospital bills with a Patient Discharge Status code of 50 (Discharged/Transferred to Hospice— Routine or Continuous Home Care) or 51 (Discharged/Transferred to Hospice, General Inpatient Care or Inpatient Respite) are subject to the postacute care transfer policy in accordance with this statutory amendment. 2. Changes for FY 2026 As discussed in the proposed rule and section II.C. of the preamble of this final rule, based on our analysis of FY 2024 MedPAR claims data, CMS pr ith this statutory amendment. 2. Changes for FY 2026 As discussed in the proposed rule and section II.C. of the preamble of this final rule, based on our analysis of FY 2024 MedPAR claims data, CMS proposed to make changes to a number of MS–DRGs, effective for FY 2026. Specifically, we proposed the following changes: • Adding ICD–10–PCS codes describing restriction and replacement of the thoracic aorta, and bypass and occlusion of the subclavian and carotid arteries, to proposed new MS–DRG 209 (Complex Aortic Arch Procedures). • Adding ICD–10–PCS codes describing restriction of the abdominal aorta and restriction of the iliac artery to proposed new MS–DRG 213 (Endovascular Abdominal Aorta with Iliac Branch Procedures). • Reassigning ICD–10–PCS codes describing extirpation of matter from coronary arteries to proposed new MS– DRG 318 (Percutaneous Coronary Atherectomy without Intraluminal Device). • Reassigning ICD–10–PCS codes describing extirpation of matter from coronary arteries and adding ICD–10– PCS codes describing dilation of coronary arteries and insertion of an intraluminal or other device to proposed new MS–DRGs 359 and 360 (Percutaneous Coronary Atherectomy with Intralumi adding ICD–10– PCS codes describing dilation of coronary arteries and insertion of an intraluminal or other device to proposed new MS–DRGs 359 and 360 (Percutaneous Coronary Atherectomy with Intraluminal Device with MCC and without MCC, respectively). • Adding ICD–10–CM diagnosis codes describing periprosthetic joint infection and ICD–10–PCS procedure codes describing hip or knee procedures to proposed new MS–DRGs 403 and 404 (Hip or Knee Procedures with Principal Diagnosis of Periprosthetic Joint Infection with MCC and without MCC, respectively). • Deleting MS–DRGs 294 and 295 (Deep Vein Thrombophlebitis with CC/ MCC and without CC/MCC, respectively) and reassigning the ICD– 10–CM codes to MS–DRGs 299, 300, and 301 (Peripheral Vascular Disorders with MCC, with CC, and without CC/ MCC, respectively). • Deleting MS–DRG 509 (Arthroscopy) and reassigning the ICD– 10–PCS codes describing inspection of various anatomic sites to their respective clinically appropriate MS– DRGs. • Adding ICD–10–CM diagnosis codes describing the insertion of a radioactive element into the brain to MS–DRG 023 (Craniotomy with Major Device Implant or Acute Complex CNS Principal Diagnosis with MCC or Chemothe 10–CM diagnosis codes describing the insertion of a radioactive element into the brain to MS–DRG 023 (Craniotomy with Major Device Implant or Acute Complex CNS Principal Diagnosis with MCC or Chemotherapy Implant or Epilepsy with Neurostimulator). When proposing changes to MS–DRGs that involve adding, deleting, and reassigning procedure or diagnosis codes between proposed new and revised MS–DRGs, we stated in the proposed rule that we continue to believe it is necessary to evaluate the affected MS–DRGs to determine whether they should be subject to the postacute care transfer policy. Considering the proposed changes to the MS–DRGs for FY 2026, according to the regulations under § 412.4(d), we evaluated the proposed new MS–DRGs using the general postacute care transfer policy criteria and data from the FY 2024 MedPAR file. We continue to believe it is appropriate to assess new MS–DRGs and reassess revised MS– DRGs when proposing reassignment of procedure codes or diagnosis codes that would result in material changes to an VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00363 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o uld result in material changes to an VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00363 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k 36898 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations MS DRG. We evaluated any current MS– DRGs if we estimate that more than 5 percent of the current cases would shift from the current assigned MS–DRGs to proposed new MS–DRGs, or to a current MS–DRG from a proposed revised or deleted MS–DRG. For existing MS–DRGs 321 and 322 (Percutaneous Cardiovascular Procedures with Intraluminal Device with MCC or 4+ arteries/intraluminal devices, and without MCC, respectively), we determined that more than 5 percent of the current cases would shift from the current assigned MS–DRGs to proposed new MS–DRGs 359 and 360. We also determined that for MS–DRGs 463, 464, and 465 (Wound Debridement and Skin Graft Except Hand for Musculoskeletal and Connective Tissue Disorders with MCC, with CC, and without MCC/CC, respectively), more than 5 percent of the current cases would shift from the current assigned MS–DRGs to proposed new MS–DRGs 403 and 404. We e Tissue Disorders with MCC, with CC, and without MCC/CC, respectively), more than 5 percent of the current cases would shift from the current assigned MS–DRGs to proposed new MS–DRGs 403 and 404. We noted that for all other proposed changes, the relative volume of cases shifting to or from current MS–DRGs did not exceed the 5 percent threshold. If an MS–DRG qualified for the postacute care transfer policy, we also evaluated that MS–DRG under the special payment methodology criteria according to regulations at § 412.4(f)(6). In the proposed rule, we noted that proposed new MS–DRGs 403 and 404 would qualify to be included on the list of MS–DRGs that are subject to the postacute care transfer policy (90 FR 18264). We therefore proposed to add new MS–DRGs 403 and 404 to the list of MS–DRGs that are subject to the postacute care transfer policy. We also noted that MS–DRGs 463, 464 and 465 are currently subject to the postacute care transfer policy. As a result of our review, these revised MS– DRGs would continue to qualify to be included on the list of MS–DRGs that are subject to the postacute care transfer policy. As discussed in section II.C. of the preamble of this final rule, we ar MS– DRGs would continue to qualify to be included on the list of MS–DRGs that are subject to the postacute care transfer policy. As discussed in section II.C. of the preamble of this final rule, we are finalizing these proposed changes to the MS–DRGs, with exception of the proposal to create new MS–DRGs 403 and 404 (Hip or Knee Procedures with Principal Diagnosis of Periprosthetic Joint Infection with MCC and without MCC, respectively) for FY 2026. We have therefore removed MS–DRGs 403 and 404 from further analysis. We are also removing MS–DRGs 463, 464, and 465 (Wound Debridement and Skin Graft Except Hand for Musculoskeletal and Connective Tissue Disorders with MCC, with CC, and without MCC/CC, respectively) from further analysis for purposes of this final rule as we included them in our initial review due to our determination that more than 5 percent of the current cases would shift from these MS–DRGs to proposed new MS–DRGs 403 and 404 (which are not being finalized). Using the March 2025 update of the FY 2024 MedPAR file, we have developed the following table which sets forth the most recent analysis of the postacute care transfer policy criteria completed for this final rule ch 2025 update of the FY 2024 MedPAR file, we have developed the following table which sets forth the most recent analysis of the postacute care transfer policy criteria completed for this final rule with respect to each of these finalized new or revised MS–DRGs. BILLING CODE 4120–01–P 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00364 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 36899 BILLING CODE 4120–01–C During our annual review of proposed new or revised MS–DRGs and analysis of the December 2024 update of the FY 2024 MedPAR file, we reviewed the list of proposed revised or new MS–DRGs that qualify to be included on the list of MS–DRGs subject to the postacute care transfer policy for FY 2026 to determine if any of these MS–DRGs would also be subject to the special payment methodology policy for FY 2026 (90 FR 18265). Based on our analysis of the proposed changes to the MS–DRGs included in the proposed rule, we determined that proposed new and revised MS–DRGs 404 and 464 met the criteria for the MS– DRG special ). Based on our analysis of the proposed changes to the MS–DRGs included in the proposed rule, we determined that proposed new and revised MS–DRGs 404 and 464 met the criteria for the MS– DRG special payment methodology. As described in the regulations at § 412.4(f)(6)(iv), MS–DRGs that share the same base MS–DRG will all qualify under the MS–DRG special payment policy if any one of the MS–DRGs that VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00365 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k / > H P G 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00366 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 36901 coverage and Medicaid funding) currently under consideration in Congress. In addition, several commenters stated that CMS did not consider the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC)’s recommendation to Congress to add 1 percent to the annual market basket which the commission stated is merited given that even ‘‘relatively efficient’’ hospi are Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC)’s recommendation to Congress to add 1 percent to the annual market basket which the commission stated is merited given that even ‘‘relatively efficient’’ hospitals have negative Medicare margins. In its March 2025 report, commenters noted that MedPAC reported Medicare fee-for-service margins of ¥13 percent in 2023 (and ¥14 percent for nonprofit hospitals), virtually unchanged from the record- low ¥13.1 percent margins in 2022. Several commenters stated that Medicare reimbursement continues to lag behind inflation. A commenter stated that Medicare underpayments reached $100 billion in 2023 (covering just 83 cents per dollar) according to AHA analysis of AHA Annual Survey data (https://www.aha.org/costsof caring). A commenter stated that according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, Medicare payments have not accommodated market increases for at least the last 10 years. Several commenters urged CMS to focus on appropriately accounting for recent and future trends in inflationary pressures and cost increases in the hospital payment update, which they stated is essential to ensure that Medicare payments for acute care services more accurately refle future trends in inflationary pressures and cost increases in the hospital payment update, which they stated is essential to ensure that Medicare payments for acute care services more accurately reflect the cost of providing hospital care. Several commenters stated CMS calculates the market basket based on forecasts rather than actual labor and supply cost increases, thus failing to incorporate the challenging circumstances brought on by unprecedented labor, supply, and drug cost increases. They recommended CMS look to alternative data sources that better reflect true labor and input cost increases in a timelier manner. At a minimum, they requested CMS provide additional publicly available data on the assumptions and inputs that go into developing a market basket update. Commenters also stated that due to the timing of the projections that the CMS Office of the Actuary used for the proposed rule, which were made in December 2024, the effects of tariffs on hospital costs are not accounted for in the IPPS market basket projection. They stated CMS must ensure that its final market basket update for FY 2026 appropriately includes the cost increases attributable to tariffs. Many comment ed for in the IPPS market basket projection. They stated CMS must ensure that its final market basket update for FY 2026 appropriately includes the cost increases attributable to tariffs. Many commenters requested CMS use its exceptions and adjustments authority to increase the market basket increase from the proposed rate of 2.4 percent. In addition, a commenter stated that given the continued rise in input costs and the inadequate market basket updates derived from use of the ECI, CMS may consider using the weighted average growth rate in allowable Medicare costs per risk-adjusted discharge for IPPS hospitals to calculate the final or future market basket update for IPPS hospitals. Several commenters requested CMS increase the FY 2026 market basket update to reflect historic inflationary increases more accurately with a commenter stating it should be no less than the FY 2024 final rule market basket rate of 3.6 percent. However, a commenter stated that when historical data is no longer a good predictor of future changes, the market basket becomes inadequate citing the high inflation, as measured by the consumer price index, of 9.1 percent in June 2022. They urged CMS to use a fac er a good predictor of future changes, the market basket becomes inadequate citing the high inflation, as measured by the consumer price index, of 9.1 percent in June 2022. They urged CMS to use a factor to update the historical data to ensure that rates align with the real-time costs that health systems are experiencing and, therefore requested that CMS include an additional increase to the 2023 historical data to help offset the significant increased costs that providers are currently experiencing. Commenters recommended CMS consider how it can use its regulatory authority to boost payments to rural hospitals. They believe the market basket update of 2.4 percent is inadequate given inflation, workforce shortages, and labor and supply chain cost pressures that rural hospitals continue to face. They stated nearly 50 percent of rural hospitals are operating with negative margins and the median operating margin for rural hospitals is 1 percent. Several commenters recommended CMS work with Congress to address economic pressures and reform the Medicare reimbursement formula to better reflect the actual cost of delivering quality care to an ageing population. A commenter urged CMS to ev h Congress to address economic pressures and reform the Medicare reimbursement formula to better reflect the actual cost of delivering quality care to an ageing population. A commenter urged CMS to evaluate whether the proposed update sufficiently supports operational stability across hospitals with high social risk indicators or atypical cost structures. If disparities emerge, the commenter stated that future rulemaking should explore targeted adjustments to preserve service availability and financial solvency. Response: Section 1886(b)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act states the Secretary shall update IPPS payments based on a market basket percentage increase estimated by the Secretary before the beginning of the period or fiscal year, by which the cost of the mix of goods and services (including personnel costs but excluding nonoperating costs) comprising routine, ancillary, and special care unit inpatient hospital services, based on an index of appropriately weighted indicators of changes in wages and prices which are representative of the mix of goods and services included in such inpatient hospital services, for the period or fiscal year will exceed the cost of such mix of goods and ser wages and prices which are representative of the mix of goods and services included in such inpatient hospital services, for the period or fiscal year will exceed the cost of such mix of goods and services for the preceding 12- month cost reporting period or fiscal year. As described in section IV. of the preamble of this final rule, we believe that the proposed 2023-based IPPS market basket (including the ECI) is consistent with the statute as it is a fixed-weight, Laspeyres-type price index that measures the change in price, over time, while maintaining a mix of goods and services purchased by hospitals consistent with a base period. Therefore, the market basket is designed to measure price inflation for IPPS hospitals and would not reflect increases in costs associated with changes in the volume or intensity of input goods and services. Likewise, the commenter’s suggestion that a weighted average growth rate in allowable Medicare costs per risk-adjusted discharge for IPPS hospitals be used to calculate the final or future market basket update for IPPS hospitals would not be consistent with the IPPS hospital market basket as described in section 1886(b)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act whic be used to calculate the final or future market basket update for IPPS hospitals would not be consistent with the IPPS hospital market basket as described in section 1886(b)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act which reflects changes in wages and prices. CMS understands that the market basket updates may differ from other overall inflation indexes such as the topline CPI; however, we would reiterate that these topline indexes are not comparable since they measure different mixes of products, services, or wages than the legislatively defined CMS IPPS hospital market basket. Additionally, the market basket updates appropriately differ from other payment updates that would reflect anticipated volume and intensity of services. CMS welcomes feedback on alternative data sources for the market basket price proxies that measure price inflation. For the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule, we proposed to rebase and revise the market basket to reflect a 2023 base year and provided a detailed methodology for calculating the cost weights as well as proposed specific price proxies for each of the cost weights. We note that we did not receive any alternative data sources for measuring the prices of the cost we lculating the cost weights as well as proposed specific price proxies for each of the cost weights. We note that we did not receive any alternative data sources for measuring the prices of the cost weights in the market basket. We appreciate the commenters’ request for CMS to provide additional VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00367 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k 36902 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations publicly available data on the assumptions and inputs that go into developing a market basket update. As noted, the detailed market basket cost weights (including the methodology) and price proxies used in the market baskets were set forth in the proposed rule and in section IV. of the preamble of this final rule. Additionally, shortly after the publication of the proposed rule, we made available on the CMS website (https://www.cms.gov/data- research/statistics-trends-and-reports/ medicare-program-rates-statistics/ market-basket-data) the detailed historical growth rates for the market baskets as well as price forecasts for t ms.gov/data- research/statistics-trends-and-reports/ medicare-program-rates-statistics/ market-basket-data) the detailed historical growth rates for the market baskets as well as price forecasts for the aggregated cost weights (such as compensation, utilities). As stated previously, the detailed price proxies used in the market basket are forecasted by IGI (a nationally recognized economic and financial forecasting firm). We also note that general inquiries on the forecasting methodology can be emailed to dnhs@ cms.hhs.gov, as is also noted in the market basket spreadsheets on the CMS website. We would highlight that the market basket percentage increase is a forecast of the price pressures that hospitals are expected to face in FY 2026 based on IGI’s consideration of industry-specific and overall economic conditions, which is notably uncertain in FY 2026. More specifically for the ECI for hospital workers, IGI considers overall labor market conditions (including the impact of wage pressures on skill mix) as well as trends in contract labor wages, which both have an impact on wage pressures for workers employed directly by the hospital. As stated in the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS propos ssures on skill mix) as well as trends in contract labor wages, which both have an impact on wage pressures for workers employed directly by the hospital. As stated in the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule (90 FR 18266) we proposed a FY 2026 applicable percentage increase of 2.4 percent, reflecting the proposed 2023-based IPPS market basket rate-of-increase of 3.2 percent and productivity adjustment of 0.8 percentage point, consistent with current law. We also proposed that if more recent data became available, we would use such data, if appropriate, to derive the final FY 2026 IPPS market basket update for the final rule. We appreciate the commenter’s concern regarding inflationary pressure and the request to use more recent data to determine the FY 2026 IPPS market basket update. For this final rule (as proposed), we are using an updated forecast of the price proxies underlying the market basket that incorporates more recent historical data and reflects a revised outlook regarding the U.S. economy (including the impact of economic uncertainty). As discussed in section IV.A. of the preamble of this final rule, based on more recent data available for this FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS fi the U.S. economy (including the impact of economic uncertainty). As discussed in section IV.A. of the preamble of this final rule, based on more recent data available for this FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (that is, IGI’s second quarter 2025 forecast of the 2023-based IPPS market basket rate-of-increase with historical data through the first quarter of 2025), we estimate that the FY 2026 market basket increase used to determine the applicable percentage increase for the IPPS is 3.3 percent. As discussed later in this section, based on more recent data available for this FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (that is, IGI’s second quarter 2025 forecast of the productivity adjustment), the current estimate of the productivity adjustment for FY 2026 is 0.7 percentage point. Therefore, the applicable percentage increase applied to the standardized amount for hospitals that are considered to be a meaningful EHR user under section 1886(b)(3)(B)(ix) of the Act and submit quality information under rules established by the Secretary in accordance with section 1886(b)(3)(B)(viii) of the Act is 2.6 percent, which is 0.2 percentage point higher than the proposed rule. For these reasons, we belie er rules established by the Secretary in accordance with section 1886(b)(3)(B)(viii) of the Act is 2.6 percent, which is 0.2 percentage point higher than the proposed rule. For these reasons, we believe that the 2023-based IPPS market basket appropriately reflects IPPS cost structures (we note, as described in section IV. of the preamble of this final rule, effective beginning FY 2026, we are finalizing to rebase and revise the IPPS market basket to reflect a 2023 base year), and we believe the price proxies used (such as those from BLS that reflect wage and benefit price growth) are an appropriate representation of price changes for the inputs used by hospitals in providing services. Given that we believe the rebased and revised 2023-based IPPS market basket reflects an index of appropriately weighted indicators of changes in wages and prices that are representative of the mix of goods and services included in such inpatient hospital services and the percentage change of the rebased and revised 2023-based IPPS market basket is based on IGI’s more recent forecast reflecting the prospective price pressures for FY 2026, we do not believe it would be appropriate to use our exceptions nd revised 2023-based IPPS market basket is based on IGI’s more recent forecast reflecting the prospective price pressures for FY 2026, we do not believe it would be appropriate to use our exceptions and adjustment authority to create a separate payment that would have the effect of modifying the current law update. Comment: Many commenters urged CMS to use its special exceptions and adjustments authority under Section 1886(d)(5)(I)(i) of the Act to implement a retrospective adjustment for FY 2026 to account for the difference between the market basket update that was implemented, and the actual market basket increase in prior years. Commenters stated an adjustment would reset hospital losses over the last four years and realign IPPS payments with hospitals’ costs. They stated MedPAC’s March 2025 report to Congress found that fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare payments in 2023 continued the trend below hospitals’ actual costs with a hospital FFS Medicare margin of ¥ 13 percent in 2023 (¥ 14 percent for nonprofit hospitals) and median FFS Medicare margin of ¥ 2 percent even for efficient providers. They stated hospitals cannot continue to take on losses on their Medicare business and al 4 percent for nonprofit hospitals) and median FFS Medicare margin of ¥ 2 percent even for efficient providers. They stated hospitals cannot continue to take on losses on their Medicare business and also be expected to keep up with rising costs and inflation that has affected the entire economy. Commenters also stated that the missed forecasts have a significant and permanent impact on hospitals as they are permanently established in the standard payment rate for IPPS and absent action from CMS will continue to compound. Many commenters noted that MedPAC recommended for 2026 to update the 2025 Medicare base payment rates for general acute care hospitals by the amount specified in current law plus 1 percent. Commenters recommended that CMS implement various one-time adjustments to account for underpayments in 1 or more years between FY 2021 and FY 2024 as well as for forecasted underpayments for FY 2025. The commenters stated the underestimation is, in large part, because the market basket is a time- lagged estimate that cannot fully account for unexpected changes that occur, such as historic inflation and increased labor and supply costs. They stated this is exactly what occurred at et is a time- lagged estimate that cannot fully account for unexpected changes that occur, such as historic inflation and increased labor and supply costs. They stated this is exactly what occurred at the end of the CY 2021 into CY 2022, which resulted in a large forecast error in the FY 2022 market basket update. Commenters also noted that CMS makes forecast error adjustments under the SNF PPS and the capital IPPS update. In both payment systems, CMS applies the forecast error adjustment based on previously established policy if the difference between the update and the actual rate of inflation, using after- the-fact data, differs by more than a threshold amount (0.5 percentage point for the SNF update and 0.25 percentage point for the capital IPPS update). They noted the forecast errors for FY 2021 through FY 2023 for IPPS exceeded the 0.5 percentage point threshold that is used for the SNF forecast error adjustment policy. A commenter recommended CMS establish a forecast error threshold of 1.5 percentage points and retroactively adjust payments for that year. Commenters stated that while CMS has not developed an analogous VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 F hold of 1.5 percentage points and retroactively adjust payments for that year. Commenters stated that while CMS has not developed an analogous VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00368 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 36903 policy for the IPPS operating update, they believe such a forecast error adjustment to the FY 2026 IPPS operating update could be adopted under CMS’ rulemaking authority. A commenter requested that CMS apply a positive adjustment of 4.6 percentage points to the IPPS update taking into account the combined forecast error for the years FY 2021 through FY 2024. The commenter stated that if CMS were to adopt this recommendation, the update would be the market basket update of 3.2 percent plus 4.6 percentage points for forecast error correction less 0.8 percentage point for productivity or a net 7.0 percent. Response: While the projected IPPS hospital market basket updates have been under forecast (actual increases less forecasted increases were positive) for this most recent peri ty or a net 7.0 percent. Response: While the projected IPPS hospital market basket updates have been under forecast (actual increases less forecasted increases were positive) for this most recent period, over longer periods the forecasts have generally averaged close to the historical measures (for instance, from FY 2014 through FY 2023 the cumulative forecast error was 0.0 percentage point). CMS will continue to monitor the methods associated with the market basket forecasts to ensure there are not underlying systematic issues in the forecasting approach. We note that the under forecast of the IPPS market basket increase in the recent time period was largely due to unanticipated inflationary and labor market pressures as the economy emerged from the COVID–19 PHE. However, an analysis of the forecast error of the IPPS market basket over a longer period of time shows the forecast error has been both positive and negative. Only considering the forecast error for years when the final hospital market basket update was lower than the actual market basket update does not consider the full experience and impact of forecast error, in particular the numerous years that providers benefited f ital market basket update was lower than the actual market basket update does not consider the full experience and impact of forecast error, in particular the numerous years that providers benefited from the forecast error. Relatedly, as we discussed in the FY 2024 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule in response to similar comments (88 FR 59034), the capital IPPS and SNF PPS forecast error adjustments were adopted very early in both payment systems and, unlike what commenters are requesting here for the IPPS, forecast errors over many years have been consistently addressed within each of the Capital IPPS and SNF PPS. For these reasons, we continue to believe it is not appropriate to include adjustments to the market basket update for future years based on the difference between the actual and forecasted market basket increase in prior years. After consideration of the comments received and consistent with our proposal, we are finalizing to use more recent data to determine the FY 2026 market basket update for the final rule. Specifically, based on more recent data available, we determined final applicable percentage increases to the standardized amount for FY 2026, as specified in the table t et update for the final rule. Specifically, based on more recent data available, we determined final applicable percentage increases to the standardized amount for FY 2026, as specified in the table that appears later in this section. In the FY 2012 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (76 FR 51689 through 51692), we finalized our methodology for calculating and applying the productivity adjustment. As we explained in that rule, section 1886(b)(3)(B)(xi)(II) of the Act, as added by section 3401(a) of the Affordable Care Act, defines this productivity adjustment as equal to the 10-year moving average of changes in annual economy-wide, private nonfarm business MFP (as projected by the Secretary for the 10-year period ending with the applicable fiscal year, calendar year, cost reporting period, or other annual period). The U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) publishes the official measures of private nonfarm business productivity for the U.S. economy. We note that previously the productivity measure referenced in section 1886(b)(3)(B)(xi)(II) of the Act was published by BLS as private nonfarm business multifactor productivity. Beginning with the November 18, 2021, release he productivity measure referenced in section 1886(b)(3)(B)(xi)(II) of the Act was published by BLS as private nonfarm business multifactor productivity. Beginning with the November 18, 2021, release of productivity data, BLS replaced the term multifactor productivity (MFP) with total factor productivity (TFP). BLS noted that this is a change in terminology only and will not affect the data or methodology. As a result of the BLS name change, the productivity measure referenced in section 1886(b)(3)(B)(xi)(II) of the Act is now published by BLS as private nonfarm business total factor productivity. However, as mentioned, the data and methods are unchanged. Please see www.bls.gov for the BLS historical published TFP data. A complete description of IGI’s TFP projection methodology is available on the CMS website at https:// www.cms.gov/data-research/statistics- trends-and-reports/medicare-program- rates-statistics/market-basket-research- and-information. In addition, we note that beginning with the FY 2022 IPPS/ LTCH PPS final rule, we refer to this adjustment as the productivity adjustment rather than the MFP adjustment, to more closely track the statutory language in section 1886(b) g with the FY 2022 IPPS/ LTCH PPS final rule, we refer to this adjustment as the productivity adjustment rather than the MFP adjustment, to more closely track the statutory language in section 1886(b)(3)(B)(xi)(II) of the Act. We note that the adjustment continues to rely on the same underlying data and methodology. For FY 2026, we proposed a productivity adjustment of 0.8 percent. Similar to the market basket rate-of- increase, for the proposed rule, the estimate of the proposed FY 2026 productivity adjustment was based on IGI’s fourth quarter 2024 forecast. As noted previously, we proposed that if more recent data subsequently became available, we would use such data, if appropriate, to determine the FY 2026 productivity adjustment for the final rule. Based on more recent data available for this FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (that is, IGI’s second quarter 2025 forecast of the productivity adjustment), the current estimate of the productivity adjustment for FY 2026 is 0.7 percentage point. Comment: Commenters expressed concerns about the application of the productivity adjustment stating it is flawed because it is based on a measure for the private nonfarm business sector. Seve e point. Comment: Commenters expressed concerns about the application of the productivity adjustment stating it is flawed because it is based on a measure for the private nonfarm business sector. Several commenters stated that the use of private nonfarm business total factor productivity effectively assumes the hospital field can mirror productivity gains achieved by private nonfarm businesses. Other commenters stated that private-sector productivity trends do not reflect the complex operational realities of hospital care, particularly during a time of sustained labor shortages and wage inflation. Several commenters also claimed that it is well proven by the economic literature that the hospital and health care field cannot achieve the same productivity gains as the total economy. For example, the commenters stated that by focusing only on private businesses, this measure excludes nonprofit and government businesses, which account for more than 60 percent of hospitals and health systems. Thus, the commenter stated that this measure is not an appropriate or reliable predictor of productivity for the hospital field. The commenters stated that an Office of the Actuary memo indicated t s. Thus, the commenter stated that this measure is not an appropriate or reliable predictor of productivity for the hospital field. The commenters stated that an Office of the Actuary memo indicated that hospitals are unable to achieve the same productivity gains as the general economy over the long run. Specifically, some commenters requested CMS consider its own findings that hospitals historically have not achieved the same level of productivity as the general economy referencing the June 2, 2022 memorandum where CMS’s Office of the Actuary stated hospital TFP ranged from 0.2 percent to 0.5 percent compared to the average growth of private nonfarm business TFP of 0.8 percent. Commenters also referred to the BLS publication on a TFP measure for the combined Hospitals and Nursing and Residential Care Facilities industry, which indicated average TFP growth from 1990–2019 of -0.5 percent, even VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00369 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k 36904 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations lower than either of OA 04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k 36904 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations lower than either of OACT’s estimates. A commenter stated that the productivity adjustment penalizes hospitals for their cost-saving efforts and further compounds their fears of adequate funding. Therefore, commenters stated that using the private nonfarm business sector TFP to adjust the market basket inappropriately exacerbates Medicare’s chronic underpayments to hospitals. Other commenters expressed concern regarding the increase in the productivity adjustment for FY 2026 relative to prior years. Commenters requested CMS explain the magnitude of the proposed productivity adjustment stating it is the largest CMS has used since FY 2019 and is the second largest in the 15 years for which CMS has published data. A commenter stated CMS should evaluate how the rolling average experienced such a significant increase when compared with the productivity adjustments ranging from 0.2 to 0.5 percentage point in the last three years. Several commenters stated that it is puzzling how an indicator based on a 10-year mov when compared with the productivity adjustments ranging from 0.2 to 0.5 percentage point in the last three years. Several commenters stated that it is puzzling how an indicator based on a 10-year moving average could yield such an increase in the productivity cut from FY 2025 to FY 2026 and stated that they were unable to fully analyze the projections due to a lack of transparency from CMS. A few commenters requested that CMS explain the large increase to the productivity offset relative to its historical average application in the final rule. Some commenters stated that the application of variables as wide as this ten-year range is no longer appropriate due to the unprecedented cost of goods and services during the COVID–19 pandemic and claimed that prices have never leveled back down to pre- pandemic rates. Another commenter requested that CMS reevaluate the calculation of the productivity adjustment, paying particular attention to what it described as the inconsistency in cost during FYs beginning in FY 2020. Given their concerns about the productivity adjustment, commenters requested CMS use its discretion under section 1886(d)(5)(I)(i) of the Act to reduce or eliminate the pr ng FYs beginning in FY 2020. Given their concerns about the productivity adjustment, commenters requested CMS use its discretion under section 1886(d)(5)(I)(i) of the Act to reduce or eliminate the productivity adjustment of 0.8 percentage point for FY 2026. A commenter requested a FY 2026 productivity adjustment of 0.2 percentage point while another commenter urged CMS to consider an alternative or blended productivity adjustment such as a hospital-specific productivity measure. Response: Section 1886(b)(3)(B)(xi) of the Act requires the application of the productivity adjustment. As required by statute, the FY 2026 productivity adjustment is derived based on the 10- year moving average growth in economy-wide private nonfarm business total factor productivity for the period ending FY 2026. As previously discussed, the general method for calculating the productivity adjustment is made available on the CMS website at https://www.cms.gov/ data-research/statistics-trends-and- reports/medicare-program-rates- statistics/market-basket-research-and- information. The most recent BLS historical TFP data is available at http:// www.bls.gov/productivity/, which allows interested parties to ob care-program-rates- statistics/market-basket-research-and- information. The most recent BLS historical TFP data is available at http:// www.bls.gov/productivity/, which allows interested parties to obtain historical TFP annual index levels for 1987 through 2024. We also provided the IGI projection model (https:// www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data- and-systems/statistics-trends-and- reports/medicareprogramratesstats/ downloads/tfp_methodology.pdf), which is used to derive annual TFP growth rates for 2025 and 2026. The annual index level derived from this method is then interpolated to quarterly levels, and the FY 2026 productivity adjustment is equal to the percent change in the 40-quarter moving average projected level for the period ending September 30, 2026 relative to the 40- quarter moving average projected level for the period ending September 30, 2025. We believe our methodology for the productivity adjustment is consistent with section 1886(b)(3)(B)(xi)(II) of the Act which states that the productivity adjustment is equal to the 10-year moving average of changes in annual economy-wide private nonfarm business multi-factor productivity (as projected by the Secretary for th tates that the productivity adjustment is equal to the 10-year moving average of changes in annual economy-wide private nonfarm business multi-factor productivity (as projected by the Secretary for the 10-year period ending with the applicable fiscal year, year, cost reporting period, or other annual period). At the time of this final rule, the FY 2026 productivity adjustment reflects BLS historical TFP data through 2024 (released on March 21, 2025) and IGI’s forecasted TFP growth for 2025 and 2026. The average annual growth rate of historical TFP published by BLS for 2017 through 2024 is currently 0.9 percent and IGI is projecting average TFP growth of about 0.0 percent for 2025 and 2026 based on IGI’s second- quarter 2025 forecast. Combining the historical and projected TFP data over the entire 10-year time period results in a compound annual growth rate of TFP of 0.7 percent for 2026. The productivity adjustment (based on the 10-year period ending with FY 2026) for the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule is 0.1 percentage point lower than for the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule and primarily reflects the incorporation of a revised outlook from IGI that has lower projected econo LTCH PPS final rule is 0.1 percentage point lower than for the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule and primarily reflects the incorporation of a revised outlook from IGI that has lower projected economic growth over 2025 and 2026. The 0.7 percentage point productivity adjustment in this FY 2026 final rule is larger than the productivity adjustment in prior final rules for FY 2023 and FY 2024 mainly due to the incorporation of updated BLS historical data. We thank the commenters for their comments. After consideration of the comments received and consistent with our proposal, we are finalizing as proposed to use more recent data to determine the FY 2026 productivity adjustment for the final rule. In summary, based on more recent data available for this FY 2026 IPPS/ LTCH PPS final rule (that is, IGI’s second quarter 2025 forecast of the 2023-based IPPS market basket rate-of- increase with historical data through the first quarter of 2025), we estimate that the FY 2026 market basket update used to determine the applicable percentage increase for the IPPS is 3.3 percent. Based on more recent data available for this FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (that is, IGI’s second quarter 2025 f te used to determine the applicable percentage increase for the IPPS is 3.3 percent. Based on more recent data available for this FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (that is, IGI’s second quarter 2025 forecast of the productivity adjustment), the current estimate of the productivity adjustment for FY 2026 is 0.7 percentage point. Based on these more recent data, for this final rule, we have determined four applicable percentage increases to the standardized amount for FY 2026, as specified in the following table: VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00370 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 36905 In the FY 2020 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (84 FR 42344), we revised our regulations at 42 CFR 412.64(d) to reflect the current law for the update for FY 2020 and subsequent fiscal years. Specifically, in accordance with section 1886(b)(3)(B) of the Act, we added paragraph (d)(1)(viii) to § 412.64 to set forth the applicable percentage increase to the operating standardized amount for FY 2020 and subsequent fisc with section 1886(b)(3)(B) of the Act, we added paragraph (d)(1)(viii) to § 412.64 to set forth the applicable percentage increase to the operating standardized amount for FY 2020 and subsequent fiscal years as the percentage increase in the market basket index, subject to the reductions specified under § 412.64(d)(2) for a hospital that does not submit quality data and § 412.64(d)(3) for a hospital that is not a meaningful EHR user, reduced by a productivity adjustment. Section 1886(b)(3)(B)(iv) of the Act provides that the applicable percentage increase to the hospital-specific rates for SCHs and MDHs equals the applicable percentage increase set forth in section 1886(b)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (that is, the same update factor as for all other hospitals subject to the IPPS). Therefore, the update to the hospital-specific rates for SCHs and MDHs is also subject to section 1886(b)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, as amended by sections 3401(a) and 10319(a) of the Affordable Care Act. As discussed in section V.F. of the preamble of this final rule, section 2202 of the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025 extended the MDH program through FY 2025. Therefore, under current law section V.F. of the preamble of this final rule, section 2202 of the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025 extended the MDH program through FY 2025. Therefore, under current law, the MDH program will expire for discharges on or after October 1, 2025. We refer readers to section V.F. of the preamble of this final rule for further discussion of the MDH program. We note that if the MDH program were to be extended by law into FY 2026, the finalized updates to the hospital- specific rates for SCHs as described in this section would also apply to the hospital-specific rates for MDHs for FY 2026. For FY 2026, we proposed the following updates to the hospital- specific rates applicable to SCHs: A proposed update of 2.4 percent for a hospital that submits quality data and is a meaningful EHR user (as defined in section 1886(n) of the Act); a proposed update of 0.0 percent for a hospital that submits quality data and is not a meaningful EHR user; a proposed update of 1.6 percent for a hospital that fails to submit quality data and is a meaningful EHR user; and a proposed update of -0.8 percent for a hospital that fails to submit quality data and is not an meaningful EH ercent for a hospital that fails to submit quality data and is a meaningful EHR user; and a proposed update of -0.8 percent for a hospital that fails to submit quality data and is not an meaningful EHR user. As previously discussed, we proposed that if more recent data subsequently became available (for example, a more recent estimate of the market basket update and the productivity adjustment), we would use such data, if appropriate, to determine the market basket update and the productivity adjustment in the final rule. We did not receive any public comments on our proposed updates to hospital-specific rates applicable to SCHs and MDHs. The general comments we received on the proposed FY 2026 update (including the proposed market basket update and productivity adjustment) are discussed earlier in this section. For FY 2026, we are finalizing the proposal to determine the update to the hospital specific rates for SCHs and MDHs in this final rule using the more recent available data, as previously discussed. For this final rule, based on more recent available data, we are finalizing the following updates to the hospital specific rates applicable to SCHs and MDHs: An update of 2.6 pe previously discussed. For this final rule, based on more recent available data, we are finalizing the following updates to the hospital specific rates applicable to SCHs and MDHs: An update of 2.6 percent for a hospital that submits quality data and is a meaningful EHR user; an update of 1.775 percent for a hospital that fails to submit quality data and is a meaningful EHR user; an update of 0.125 percent for a hospital that submits quality data and is not a meaningful EHR user; and an update of -0.7 percent for a hospital that fails to submit quality data and is not a meaningful EHR user. 2. FY 2026 Puerto Rico Hospital Update Section 602 of Public Law 114–113 amended section 1886(n)(6)(B) of the Act to specify that subsection (d) Puerto Rico hospitals are eligible for incentive payments for the meaningful use of certified EHR technology, effective beginning FY 2016. In addition, section 1886(n)(6)(B) of the Act was amended to specify that the adjustments to the applicable percentage increase under section 1886(b)(3)(B)(ix) of the Act apply to subsection (d) Puerto Rico hospitals that are not meaningful EHR users, effective beginning FY 2022. Accordingly, for FY 2022, section 188 increase under section 1886(b)(3)(B)(ix) of the Act apply to subsection (d) Puerto Rico hospitals that are not meaningful EHR users, effective beginning FY 2022. Accordingly, for FY 2022, section 1886(b)(3)(B)(ix) of the Act in conjunction with section 602(d) of Public Law 114–113 requires that any subsection (d) Puerto Rico hospital that is not a meaningful EHR user as defined in section 1886(n)(3) of the Act and not subject to an exception under section 1886(b)(3)(B)(ix) of the Act will have ‘‘three-quarters’’ of the applicable percentage increase (prior to the application of other statutory adjustments), or three-quarters of the applicable market basket rate-of- increase, reduced by 33 1⁄3 percent. The reduction to three-quarters of the applicable percentage increase for subsection (d) Puerto Rico hospitals that are not meaningful EHR users increases to 66 2⁄3 percent for FY 2023, and, for FY 2024 and subsequent fiscal years, to 100 percent. (We note that section 1886(b)(3)(B)(viii) of the Act, which specifies the adjustment to the applicable percentage increase for ‘‘subsection (d)’’ hospitals that do not submit quality data under the rules established by the Secretary, is not ) of the Act, which specifies the adjustment to the applicable percentage increase for ‘‘subsection (d)’’ hospitals that do not submit quality data under the rules established by the Secretary, is not applicable to hospitals located in Puerto Rico.) The regulations at 42 CFR 412.64(d)(3)(ii) reflect the current law for the update for subsection (d) Puerto Rico hospitals for FY 2022 and subsequent fiscal years. In the FY 2019 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule, we finalized the payment reductions (83 FR 41674). VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00371 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k / > H P G 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00372 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 / > H P G 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00373 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 Case-mix index value 1.4962 1.558 1.6264 1.7413 1.6352 1.5965 36908 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 7. West South Central (AR, LA, OK, TX) ...................................................................................................... , No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 7. West South Central (AR, LA, OK, TX) ............................................................................................................................................ 8. Mountain (AZ, CO, ID, MT, NV, NM, UT, WY) ............................................................................................................................... 9. Pacific (AK, CA, HI, OR, WA) ......................................................................................................................................................... 1.7594 1.807 1.78045 Region Case-mix index value A hospital seeking to qualify as an RRC should obtain its hospital-specific CMI value (not transfer-adjusted) from its MAC. Data are available on the Provider Statistical and Reimbursement (PS&R) System. In keeping with our policy on discharges, the CMI values are computed based on all Medicare patient discharges subject to the IPPS MS–DRG- based payment. 2. Discharges Section 412.96(c)(2)(i) provides that CMS set forth the national and regional numbers of discharges criteria in each year’s annual notice of prospective payment rates for purposes o ent. 2. Discharges Section 412.96(c)(2)(i) provides that CMS set forth the national and regional numbers of discharges criteria in each year’s annual notice of prospective payment rates for purposes of determining RRC status. As specified in section 1886(d)(5)(C)(ii) of the Act, the national standard is set at 5,000 discharges. In the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule (90 FR 18269), we proposed to update the regional standards based on discharges for urban hospitals’ cost reporting periods that began during FY 2023 (that is, October 1, 2022, through September 30, 2023), which are the latest cost report data available at the time this final rule was developed. We believe that this is the best available data for use in calculating the median number of discharges by region and is consistent with our finalized data proposal to use cost report data from cost reporting periods beginning during FY 2023 for FY 2026 ratesetting. In the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule, we proposed that, in addition to meeting other criteria, a hospital, if it is to qualify for initial RRC status for cost reporting periods beginning on or after October 1, 2025, must have, as the number of discharges for addition to meeting other criteria, a hospital, if it is to qualify for initial RRC status for cost reporting periods beginning on or after October 1, 2025, must have, as the number of discharges for its cost reporting period that began during FY 2023, at least— • 5,000 (3,000 for an osteopathic hospital); or • If less, the median number of discharges for urban hospitals in the census region in which the hospital is located. (We refer readers to the table set forth in the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule at 90 FR 18269). In the proposed rule, we stated that we intended to update these numbers in the FY 2026 final rule based on the latest available cost report data. Comment: Commenters supported our proposal to use FY 2023 data to calculate median number of discharges by region for FY 2026. Response: We appreciate the commenters’ support. Therefore, based on the best available discharge data at this time, that is, for cost reporting periods that began during FY 2023, the final median number of discharges for urban hospitals by census region are set forth in the following table. Region 1. New England (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT) ....................................................... n number of discharges for urban hospitals by census region are set forth in the following table. Region 1. New England (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT) ........................................................................................................................................ 2. Middle Atlantic (PA, NJ, NY) ........................................................................................................................................................... 3. East North Central (IL, IN, MI, OH, WI) .......................................................................................................................................... 4. West North Central (IA, KS, MN, MO, NE, ND, SD) ...................................................................................................................... 5. South Atlantic (DE, DC, FL, GA, MD, NC, SC, VA, WV) ............................................................................................................... 6. East South Central (AL, KY, MS, TN) ............................................................................................................................................. 7. West South Central (AR, LA, th Central (AL, KY, MS, TN) ............................................................................................................................................. 7. West South Central (AR, LA, OK, TX) ............................................................................................................................................ 8. Mountain (AZ, CO, ID, MT, NV, NM, UT, WY) ............................................................................................................................... 9. Pacific (AK, CA, HI, OR, WA) ......................................................................................................................................................... Number of discharges 8,535 9,844 7,918 7,414 10,897 8,511 6,002 7,901 9,100 We note that because the median number of discharges for hospitals in each census region is greater than the national standard of 5,000 discharges, under this final rule, 5,000 discharges is the minimum criterion for all hospitals, except for osteopathic hospitals for which the minimum criterion is 3,000 discharges. D. Payment Adjustment for Low-Volume Hospitals (§ 412.101) 1. Background Section 1886(d)(12) of t r all hospitals, except for osteopathic hospitals for which the minimum criterion is 3,000 discharges. D. Payment Adjustment for Low-Volume Hospitals (§ 412.101) 1. Background Section 1886(d)(12) of the Act provides for an additional payment to each qualifying low-volume hospital under the IPPS beginning in FY 2005. The low-volume hospital payment adjustment is implemented in the regulations at 42 CFR 412.101. The additional payment adjustment to a low- volume hospital provided for under section 1886(d)(12) of the Act is in addition to any payment calculated under section 1886 of the Act and is based on the per discharge amount paid to the qualifying hospital. In other words, the low-volume hospital payment adjustment is based on total per discharge payments made under section 1886 of the Act, including capital, DSH, IME, and outlier payments. For SCHs and MDHs, the low-volume hospital payment adjustment is based in part on either the Federal rate or the hospital-specific rate, whichever results in a greater operating IPPS payment. The payment adjustment for low-volume hospitals is not budget neutral. As discussed in the FY 2025 IPPS/ LTCH PPS final rule (89 FR 69348 through 69352) er results in a greater operating IPPS payment. The payment adjustment for low-volume hospitals is not budget neutral. As discussed in the FY 2025 IPPS/ LTCH PPS final rule (89 FR 69348 through 69352), Section 306 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (CAA, 2024) (Pub. L. 118–42), extended the temporary changes to the low- volume hospital qualifying criteria and payment adjustment under the IPPS, that is the modified definition of low- volume hospital and the methodology for calculating the payment adjustment for low-volume hospitals under section 1886(d)(12), through December 31, 2024. Section 3201 of the American Relief Act, 2025 (Pub. L. 118–158), further extended those temporary changes through March 31, 2025. Most recently, section 2201 of the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025 (Pub. L. 119–4), enacted on March 15, 2025, provides an extension of those temporary changes to the qualifying criteria and payment adjustment methodology for certain low-volume hospitals through September 30, 2025. Absent further Congressional action, beginning October 1, 2025, the low-volume hospital VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00374 Fmt lume hospitals through September 30, 2025. Absent further Congressional action, beginning October 1, 2025, the low-volume hospital VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00374 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 36909 qualifying criteria and payment adjustment are set to revert to the statutory requirements that were in effect prior to FY 2011, and the preexisting low-volume hospital payment adjustment methodology and qualifying criteria, as implemented in FY 2005 and discussed later in this section, will resume. We discuss the payment policies for FY 2026, in section V.D.3. of the preamble of this final rule. 2. Extension of Temporary Changes to Low-Volume Hospital Payment Definition and Payment Adjustment Methodology and Conforming Changes to Regulations As discussed previously, prior to the enactment of the American Relief Act, 2025, the temporary changes to the low- volume hospital qualifying criteria and payment adjustment provided by section 306 of CAA, 2024 were set to expire on January 1, 2025 f the American Relief Act, 2025, the temporary changes to the low- volume hospital qualifying criteria and payment adjustment provided by section 306 of CAA, 2024 were set to expire on January 1, 2025. Section 3201 of the American Relief Act, 2025 extended the temporary changes to the low-volume hospital qualifying criteria and payment adjustment under the IPPS for the portion of FY 2025 beginning on January 1, 2025, and ending on March 31, 2025 (that is, for discharges occurring before April 1, 2025). We note that we addressed the extension provided by section 3201 of the American Relief Act, 2025, in Change Request 13949 (Transmittal 13035), issued January 6, 2025. For additional information, please refer to the transmittal https://www.cms.gov/ medicare/regulations-guidance/ transmittals/2025-transmittals/ r13035otn. Subsequently, section 2201 of the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025 further extended the temporary changes to the low-volume hospital qualifying criteria and payment adjustment under the IPPS for the remainder of FY 2025 (that is, for discharges occurring before October 1, 2025). We note the extension provided by section 2201 of the Full-Ye ng criteria and payment adjustment under the IPPS for the remainder of FY 2025 (that is, for discharges occurring before October 1, 2025). We note the extension provided by section 2201 of the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025 was addressed in Change Request 14045 (Transmittal 13151), issued May 5, 2025. For additional information, please refer to the transmittal https://www.hhs.gov/ guidance/sites/default/files/hhs- guidance-documents/CMS/ r13151otn.pdf. Under section 1886(d)(12)(C)(i) of the Act, as amended by the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025, for FYs 2019 through FY 2025, a subsection (d) hospital qualifies as a low-volume hospital if it is more than 15 road miles from another subsection (d) hospital and has less than 3,800 total discharges during the fiscal year. In accordance with the existing regulations at § 412.101(a), we define the term ‘‘road miles’’ to mean ‘‘miles’’ as defined at § 412.92(c)(1). Under section 1886(d)(12)(D) of the Act, as amended, for discharges occurring in FYs 2019 through 2025, the Secretary determines the applicable percentage increase using a continuous, linear sliding scale ranging from an )(12)(D) of the Act, as amended, for discharges occurring in FYs 2019 through 2025, the Secretary determines the applicable percentage increase using a continuous, linear sliding scale ranging from an additional 25 percent payment adjustment for low-volume hospitals with 500 or fewer discharges to a zero percent additional payment for low volume hospitals with more than 3,800 discharges in the fiscal year. Consistent with the requirements of section 1886(d)(12)(C)(ii) of the Act, the term ‘‘discharge’’ for purposes of these provisions refers to total discharges, regardless of payer (that is, Medicare and non-Medicare discharges). In the FY 2019 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (83 FR 41399), we specified a continuous, linear sliding scale formula to determine the low volume payment adjustment, as reflected in the regulations at § 412.101(c)(3)(ii). Consistent with the statute, we provided that qualifying hospitals with 500 or fewer total discharges will receive a low-volume hospital payment adjustment of 25. For qualifying hospitals with fewer than 3,800 discharges but more than 500 discharges, the low-volume payment adjustment is calculated by subtracting from 25 percent the proportion of justment of 25. For qualifying hospitals with fewer than 3,800 discharges but more than 500 discharges, the low-volume payment adjustment is calculated by subtracting from 25 percent the proportion of payments associated with the discharges in excess of 500. For qualifying hospitals with fewer than 3,800 total discharges but more than 500 total discharges, the low-volume hospital payment adjustment is calculated using the formula at § 412.101(c)(3)(ii) (which is shown in the Table V.D.–01). For this purpose, the term ‘‘discharge’’ refers to total discharges, regardless of payer (that is, Medicare and non-Medicare discharges). The hospital’s most recently submitted cost report is used to determine if the hospital meets the discharge criterion to receive the low volume payment adjustment in the current year (§ 412.101(b)(2)(iii)). The low-volume hospital payment adjustment for FYs 2019 through 2024 and the portion-of FY 2025 beginning on October 1, 2024, and ending on December 31, 2024, is set forth in the current regulations at § 412.101(c)(3). In the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule (90 FR 18271), we proposed to make conforming changes to the regulation text in § 412.101 to refl is set forth in the current regulations at § 412.101(c)(3). In the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule (90 FR 18271), we proposed to make conforming changes to the regulation text in § 412.101 to reflect the extensions of the changes to the qualifying criteria and the payment adjustment methodology for low- volume hospitals in accordance with provisions of the American Relief Act, 2025 and the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025. Specifically, we proposed to make conforming changes to paragraphs (b)(2)(iii) and (c)(3) introductory text of § 412.101 to reflect that the low-volume hospital payment adjustment policy in effect through FY 2025 is the same low- volume hospital payment adjustment policy in effect for FYs 2019 through December 31, 2024 (as described in the FY 2019 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (83 FR 41398 through 41399) and in the FY 2025 IPPS/LTCH final rule (89 FR 69348 through 69352)). In addition, in accordance with the provisions of the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025, we proposed to make conforming changes to VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00375 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR inuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025, we proposed to make conforming changes to VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00375 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k / > H P G 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00376 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 36911 with past extensions, we would continue to work to implement any subsequent extensions as quickly and seamlessly as possible based on the specific legislative requirements of the particular extension. Comment: Several commenters stated that it is not the intent of Congress for the low-volume hospital payment policy to revert to the historical statutory requirements. Some of these commenters believe that CMS is ignoring the congressional intent of this policy and denying a group of IPPS providers low-volume hospital payments with the reversion to the policy that was originally established for FY 2005. A few commenters also stated that CMS did not explain y and denying a group of IPPS providers low-volume hospital payments with the reversion to the policy that was originally established for FY 2005. A few commenters also stated that CMS did not explain why limiting the low-volume hospital payment adjustment to hospitals with fewer than 200 discharges is ‘‘most consistent’’ with statute. These commenters requested expanding eligibility for the discharge criteria to match the statutory requirement to include IPPS hospitals with 200–799 discharges. Response: We disagree that it is contrary to the congressional intent for the low-volume hospital policy to revert to the policy established under the original historical statutory requirements. As previously discussed, section 2201 of the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025 (Pub. L. 119–4), enacted on March 15, 2025, provided an extension of the temporary changes to the qualifying criteria and payment adjustment methodology for certain low-volume hospitals through September 30, 2025 only. Consistent with the discussion in the FY 2005 IPPS final rule (69 FR 49100), despite the statutory definition of a low-volume hospital as a subsection (d) hospital that has less th mber 30, 2025 only. Consistent with the discussion in the FY 2005 IPPS final rule (69 FR 49100), despite the statutory definition of a low-volume hospital as a subsection (d) hospital that has less than 800 discharges during the fiscal year for FYs 2026 and subsequent years, the statutory provision mandating this adjustment also requires the Secretary to determine the empirical relationship between the standardized cost-per-case, the total number of discharges, and the amount of incremental costs (if any) associated with the number of discharges. In addition, the statute requires that the applicable percentage increase shall be based upon such relationship in a manner that reflects such incremental costs. We continue to believe that the statutory language thus gives the Secretary the flexibility to set the percentage increase at zero for a given number of discharges if the empirical evidence shows that hospitals experience no higher incremental costs when they reach that number of discharges. In other words, the statute does not require the Secretary to provide an adjustment in the absence of empirical evidence that an adjustment is warranted by higher incremental costs. As discuss harges. In other words, the statute does not require the Secretary to provide an adjustment in the absence of empirical evidence that an adjustment is warranted by higher incremental costs. As discussed in response to public comments in the FY 2013 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (77 FR 53408 through 53409), the FY 2014 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (78 FR 50612 through 50613), and the FY 2018 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (82 FR 38184 through 38189), to implement the original low-volume hospital payment adjustment provision, and as mandated by statute, we developed an empirically justified adjustment based on the relationship between costs and total discharges of hospitals with less than 800 total (Medicare and non-Medicare) discharges. Specifically, we performed several regression analyses to evaluate the relationship between hospitals’ costs per case and discharges, and found that an adjustment for hospitals with less than 200 total discharges is most consistent with the statutory requirement to provide for additional payments to low-volume hospitals where there is empirical evidence that higher incremental costs are associated with lower numbers of discharges (69 FR 49101 through 49102). Based vide for additional payments to low-volume hospitals where there is empirical evidence that higher incremental costs are associated with lower numbers of discharges (69 FR 49101 through 49102). Based on these analyses, we established a low- volume hospital policy under which qualifying hospitals with less than 200 total discharges receive a payment adjustment of an additional 25 percent. (Section 1886(d)(12)(B)(iii) of the Act limits the applicable percentage increase adjustment to no more than 25 percent.) At this time, we are not aware of any analysis or empirical evidence that would support expanding the originally established low-volume hospital adjustment policy and we did not make any proposals regarding the low-volume hospital payment adjustment for FY 2026. For these reasons, we are not making any changes to the low-volume hospital payment adjustment policy in this final rule. Comment: A few commenters expressed support for the methodology for calculating the low-volume payment adjustment using a single, non-sliding scale adjustment of 25 percent for qualifying hospitals discharges beginning in FY 2026. A commenter requested that CMS publish disaggregated impact analyses to adjustment using a single, non-sliding scale adjustment of 25 percent for qualifying hospitals discharges beginning in FY 2026. A commenter requested that CMS publish disaggregated impact analyses to help stakeholders and legislators understand the projected consequences of expiration. Response: We appreciate commenters’ support for the single, non-sliding scale payment adjustment for qualifying hospitals beginning in FY 2026. In response to the comment requesting that CMS publish disaggregated impact analyses to help stakeholders and legislators understand the projected financial effect of expiration, we refer the commenter to the provider data used in creating Table I—Impact Analysis of Changes to the IPPS for Operating Costs for FY 2026, in Appendix A of this final rule, which can be used to estimate individual hospital’s payments for FY 2026 and is available on the CMS website for this final rule at https:// www.cms.gov/medicare/payment/ prospective-payment-systems/acute- inpatient-pps. After consideration of the public comments we received regarding the changes to the qualifying criteria and the payment adjustment methodology for low-volume hospitals for FY 2026, we are final t-pps. After consideration of the public comments we received regarding the changes to the qualifying criteria and the payment adjustment methodology for low-volume hospitals for FY 2026, we are finalizing our proposals without modification. 4. Process for Requesting and Obtaining the Low-Volume Hospital Payment Adjustment for FY 2026 In the FY 2011 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (75 FR 50238 through 50275 and 50414) and subsequent rulemaking, most recently in the FY 2025 IPPS/ LTCH PPS final rule (89 FR 69348 through 69352), we discussed the process for requesting and obtaining the low-volume hospital payment adjustment. Under this previously established process, a hospital makes a written request for the low-volume payment adjustment under § 412.101 to its MAC. This request must contain sufficient documentation to establish that the hospital meets the applicable mileage and discharge criteria. The MAC will determine if the hospital qualifies as a low-volume hospital by reviewing the data the hospital submits with its request for low-volume hospital status in addition to other available data. Under this approach, a hospital will know in advance whether or not it will receive a payment a he hospital submits with its request for low-volume hospital status in addition to other available data. Under this approach, a hospital will know in advance whether or not it will receive a payment adjustment under the low-volume hospital policy. The MAC and CMS may review available data such as the number of discharges, in addition to the data the hospital submits with its request for low-volume hospital status, to determine whether or not the hospital meets the qualifying criteria. (For additional information on our existing process for requesting the low-volume hospital payment adjustment, we refer readers to the FY 2019 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (83 FR 41399 through 41401).) As explained earlier, for FY 2019 and subsequent fiscal years, the discharge determination is made based on the hospital’s number of total discharges, that is, Medicare and non-Medicare discharges, as was the case for FYs 2005 VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00377 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k 36912 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations through 2010. E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k 36912 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations through 2010. Under § 412.101(b)(2)(i) and (iii), a hospital’s most recently submitted cost report is used to determine if the hospital meets the discharge criterion to receive the low- volume payment adjustment in the current year. As discussed in the FY 2019 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (83 FR 41399 and 41400), we use cost report data to determine if a hospital meets the discharge criterion because this is the best available data source that includes information on both Medicare and non- Medicare discharges. (For FYs 2011 through 2018, the most recently available MedPAR data were used to determine the hospital’s Medicare discharges because non-Medicare discharges were not used to determine if a hospital met the discharge criterion for those years.) Therefore, a hospital must refer to its most recently submitted cost report for total discharges (Medicare and non-Medicare) to decide whether or not to apply for low-volume hospital status for a particular fiscal year. In addition to the discharge criterio mitted cost report for total discharges (Medicare and non-Medicare) to decide whether or not to apply for low-volume hospital status for a particular fiscal year. In addition to the discharge criterion, eligibility for the low-volume hospital payment adjustment is also dependent upon the hospital meeting the applicable mileage criterion specified in section 1886(d)(12)(C)(i) of the Act, which is codified at § 412.101(b)(2), for the fiscal year. To meet the mileage criterion to qualify for the low-volume hospital payment adjustment for FY 2026, a hospital must be located more than 25 road miles from the nearest subsection (d) hospital. (We define in § 412.101(a) the term ‘‘road miles’’ to mean ‘‘miles’’ as defined in § 412.92(c)(1) (75 FR 50238 through 50275 and 50414).) For establishing that the hospital meets the mileage criterion, the use of a web-based mapping tool as part of the documentation is acceptable. The MAC will determine if the information submitted by the hospital, such as the name and street address of the nearest hospital(s), location on a map, and distance from the hospital requesting low-volume hospital status, is sufficient to document that it meets the mileage c s the name and street address of the nearest hospital(s), location on a map, and distance from the hospital requesting low-volume hospital status, is sufficient to document that it meets the mileage criterion. If not, the MAC will follow up with the hospital to obtain additional necessary information to determine whether or not the hospital meets the applicable mileage criterion. In accordance with our previously established process, a hospital must make a written request for low-volume hospital status that is received by its MAC by September 1 immediately preceding the start of the Federal fiscal year for which the hospital is applying for low-volume hospital status in order for the applicable low-volume hospital payment adjustment to be applied to payments for its discharges for the fiscal year beginning on or after October 1 immediately following the request (that is, the start of the Federal fiscal year). For a hospital whose request for low- volume hospital status is received after September 1, if the MAC determines the hospital meets the criteria to qualify as a low-volume hospital, the MAC will apply the applicable low-volume hospital payment adjustment to determine payment r September 1, if the MAC determines the hospital meets the criteria to qualify as a low-volume hospital, the MAC will apply the applicable low-volume hospital payment adjustment to determine payment for the hospital’s discharges for the fiscal year, effective prospectively within 30 days of the date of the MAC’s low-volume status determination. Consistent with this previously established process, for FY 2026, we proposed that a hospital must submit a written request for low-volume hospital status to its MAC that includes sufficient documentation to establish that the hospital meets the applicable mileage and discharge criteria (as described earlier). Specifically, for FY 2026, a hospital must make a written request for low-volume hospital status that is received by its MAC no later than September 1, 2025, in order for the 25- percent, low-volume, add-on payment adjustment to be applied to payments for its discharges beginning on or after October 1, 2025. If a hospital’s written request for low-volume hospital status for FY 2026 is received after September 1, 2025, and if the MAC determines the hospital meets the criteria to qualify as a low-volume hospital, the MAC would apply the t for low-volume hospital status for FY 2026 is received after September 1, 2025, and if the MAC determines the hospital meets the criteria to qualify as a low-volume hospital, the MAC would apply the low-volume hospital payment adjustment to determine the payment for the hospital’s FY 2026 discharges, effective prospectively within 30 days of the date of the MAC’s low-volume hospital status determination. Under this process, a hospital that qualified for the low-volume hospital payment adjustment for FY 2025, may continue to receive a low-volume hospital payment adjustment for FY 2026 without reapplying if it meets both the discharge criterion and the mileage criterion applicable for FY 2026 (that is, the preexisting low-volume hospital qualifying criteria as implemented in FY 2005 and specified in the existing regulations at § 412.101(b)(2)(i), as discussed previously). In such a case, we proposed that the hospital must send written verification that is received by its MAC no later than September 1, 2025, stating that it meets the mileage criterion for FY 2026, consistent with our process in previous years. If a hospital’s request for low-volume hospital status for FY 2026 is rec han September 1, 2025, stating that it meets the mileage criterion for FY 2026, consistent with our process in previous years. If a hospital’s request for low-volume hospital status for FY 2026 is received after September 1, 2025, and if the MAC determines the hospital meets the criteria to qualify as a low-volume hospital, the MAC will apply the applicable low-volume add-on payment adjustment to determine the payment for the hospital’s discharges for the applicable portion of FY 2026, effective prospectively within 30 days of the date of the MAC’s low-volume hospital status determination. We received no comments on our proposed process for requesting and obtaining the low- volume hospital payment adjustment for FY 2026 and therefore are finalizing this proposal without modification. E. Changes in the Medicare-Dependent, Small Rural Hospital (MDH) Program (§ 412.108) 1. Background for the MDH Program Section 1886(d)(5)(G) of the Act provides special non-budget neutral payment protections, under the IPPS, to a Medicare-dependent, small rural hospital (MDH). MDHs are paid for their hospital inpatient services based on the higher of the Federal rate or a blended rate based in part on ns, under the IPPS, to a Medicare-dependent, small rural hospital (MDH). MDHs are paid for their hospital inpatient services based on the higher of the Federal rate or a blended rate based in part on the Federal rate and in part on the MDH’s hospital specific rate. (For additional information on the MDH program and the payment methodology, we refer readers to the FY 2012 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (76 FR 51683 through 51684).) Section 2202 of the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025 (Pub. L. 119–4), enacted on March 15, 2025, extended the MDH program through September 30, 2025 (that is, for discharges occurring before October 1, 2025). Prior to enactment of the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025, the MDH program was only to be in effect for FY 2025 discharges occurring before April 1, 2025. Under current law, the MDH program provisions at section 1886(d)(5)(G) of the Act will expire for discharges on or after October 1, 2025. Beginning with discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2025, absent further Congressional action, all hospitals that previously qualified for MDH status will be paid based on the Federal rate. Since the exten th discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2025, absent further Congressional action, all hospitals that previously qualified for MDH status will be paid based on the Federal rate. Since the extension of the MDH program through FY 2012 provided by section 3124 of the Affordable Care Act, the MDH program had been extended by subsequent legislation as follows: section 606 of the American Taxpayer Relief Act (Pub. L. 112–240) extended the MDH program through FY 2013 (that is, for discharges occurring before October 1, 2013). Section 1106 of the Pathway for SGR Reform Act of 2013 (Pub. L. 113–67) extended the MDH program through the first half of FY 2014 (that is, for discharges occurring before April 1, 2014). Section 106 of the Protecting Access to Medicare Act (Pub. VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00378 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 36913 L. 113–93) extended the MDH program through the first half of FY 2015 (that is, for discharges occurring before April 1, 2015). Section 205 of the MA nday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 36913 L. 113–93) extended the MDH program through the first half of FY 2015 (that is, for discharges occurring before April 1, 2015). Section 205 of the MACRA (Pub. L. 114–10) extended the MDH program through FY 2017 (that is, for discharges occurring before October 1, 2017). Section 50205 of the Bipartisan Budget Act (Pub. L. 115–123) extended the MDH program through FY 2022 (that is for discharges occurring before October 1, 2022). Section 102 of the Continuing Appropriations and Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2023 (Pub. L. 117–180) extended the MDH program through December 16, 2022. Section 102 of the Further Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2023 (Pub. L. 117–229) extended the MDH program through December 23, 2022. Section 4102 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (Pub. L. 117– 328) extended the MDH program through FY 2024 (that is for discharges occurring before October 1, 2024). Section 307 of the CAA, 2024 (Pub. L. 118–42) extended the MDH program through December 31, 2024 (that is, for discharges occurring before January 1, 2025). Section 3202 of the American Relief Act, 2025 (Pub. L. 118–158) extend 4 (Pub. L. 118–42) extended the MDH program through December 31, 2024 (that is, for discharges occurring before January 1, 2025). Section 3202 of the American Relief Act, 2025 (Pub. L. 118–158) extended the MDH program through March 31, 2025 (that is, for discharges occurring before April 1, 2025). Lastly, under current law, section 2202 of the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025 (Pub. L. 119– 4) extended the MDH program through September 30, 2025 (that is, for discharges occurring before October 1, 2025). For additional information on the extensions of the MDH program after FY 2012, we refer readers to the following Federal Register documents: The FY 2013 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (77 FR 53404 through 53405 and 53413 through 53414); the FY 2013 IPPS notice (78 FR 14689); the FY 2014 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (78 FR 50647 through 50649); the FY 2014 interim final rule with comment period (79 FR 15025 through 15027); the FY 2014 notice (79 FR 34446 through 34449); the FY 2015 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (79 FR 50022 through 50024); the August 2015 interim final rule with comment period (80 FR 49596); the FY 2017 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (81 FR 57054 through 57057 the FY 2015 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (79 FR 50022 through 50024); the August 2015 interim final rule with comment period (80 FR 49596); the FY 2017 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (81 FR 57054 through 57057); the FY 2018 notice (83 FR 18303 through 18305); the FY 2019 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (83 FR 41429); the FY 2024 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (88 FR 59045); and the FY 2025 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (89 FR 69352). 2. Implementation of Legislative Extension of MDH Program Prior to the enactment of Public Law 119–4, under section 3202 of Public Law 118–158, the MDH program authorized by section 1886(d)(5)(G) of the Act was set to expire on April 1, 2025. Section 2202 of Public Law 119– 4 amended sections 1886(d)(5)(G)(i) and 1886(d)(5)(G)(ii)(II) of the Act by striking ‘‘April 1, 2025’’ and inserting ‘‘October 1, 2025’’. Section 2202 of Public Law 119–4 also made conforming amendments to sections 1886(b)(3)(D)(i) and 1886(b)(3)(D)(iv) of the Act. Therefore, in the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule (90 FR 18273), we proposed to make conforming changes to the regulations governing the MDH program at § 412.108(a)(1) and (c)(2)(iii) and the general payment rules at § 412.90(j) to reflect the rule (90 FR 18273), we proposed to make conforming changes to the regulations governing the MDH program at § 412.108(a)(1) and (c)(2)(iii) and the general payment rules at § 412.90(j) to reflect the extension of the MDH program through September 30, 2025. As a result of the extension of the MDH program through September 30, 2025, as provided by section 2202 of Public Law 119–4, a provider that was classified as an MDH as of March 31, 2025, will continue to be classified as an MDH as of April 1, 2025, with no need to reapply for MDH classification. We addressed the extension provided by section 3202 of the American Relief Act, 2025, in Change Request 13949 (Transmittal 13035), issued January 6, 2025. For additional information, please refer to the transmittal https:// www.cms.gov/medicare/regulations- guidance/transmittals/2025- transmittals/r13035otn. We addressed the extension provided by section 2202 of the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025 (Pub. L. 119–4) in Change Request 14045 (Transmittal 13151), issued May 5, 2025. For additional information, please refer to the transmittal https:// www.hhs.gov/guidance/sites/default/ files/hhs-guidance-documents/ in Change Request 14045 (Transmittal 13151), issued May 5, 2025. For additional information, please refer to the transmittal https:// www.hhs.gov/guidance/sites/default/ files/hhs-guidance-documents/CMS/ r13151otn.pdf. 3. Expiration of the MDH Program Because section 2202 of the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025 extended the MDH program through September 30, 2025, only, beginning October 1, 2025, the MDH program will no longer be in effect. Since the MDH program is not authorized by statute beyond September 30, 2025, absent Congressional action, beginning October 1, 2025, all hospitals that previously qualified for MDH status under section 1886(d)(5)(G) of the Act will no longer have MDH status and will be paid based on the Federal rate. When the MDH program was set to expire at the end of FY 2012, in the FY 2013 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (77 FR 53404 through 53405), we revised our sole community hospital (SCH) policies to allow MDHs to apply for SCH status in advance of the expiration of the MDH program and be paid as such under certain conditions. We codified these changes in the regulations at § 412.92(b)(2)(i) and (v). For additional information, we r n advance of the expiration of the MDH program and be paid as such under certain conditions. We codified these changes in the regulations at § 412.92(b)(2)(i) and (v). For additional information, we refer readers to the FY 2013 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (77 FR 53404 through 53405 and 53674). We note that a MDH that classifies as a SCH in anticipation of the MDH program expiration would have to reapply for MDH classification in accordance with the regulations at 42 CFR 412.108(b) and meet the classification criteria at 42 CFR 412.108(a) in the event that the MDH program is further extended, and the provider wishes to return to its classification as a MDH. As noted, in the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule (90 FR 18273), we proposed to make conforming changes to the regulations governing the MDH program at § 412.108(a)(1) and (c)(2)(iii) and the general payment rules at § 412.90(j) to reflect the extension of the MDH program through September 30, 2025. We also proposed that if the MDH program were to be extended by law beyond September 30, 2025, similar to how it was extended by prior legislation as described previously, we would, depending on timing of such legislation in relation