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 and applied in a given fiscal year. We also stated that we believe that in making these changes, the regulation will provide clearer instructions to hospitals. Finally, we noted that under the current and proposed policies, there is no negative effect for a hospital to reinstate (cancel a withdrawal or termination) for a subsequent year, as the reclassification could be terminated in the following year, and hospitals are eligible to reapply for wage index reclassification to a different labor market area. When eligible, a large majority of hospitals already do this, as it provides greater flexibility and options for wage index reclassification. Before the introduction of the OH CDMS, these reinstatement requests were often submitted simultaneously with a withdrawal or termination request. However, in the online system, the option to reinstate is typically only made available after all withdrawal and termination requests have been processed. We stated that we have considered a policy modification to make termination requests effective for only one fiscal year. That is, all requests to withdraw or terminate a reclassification made in the timeframe specified at § 412.273(c) would auto dification to make termination requests effective for only one fiscal year. That is, all requests to withdraw or terminate a reclassification made in the timeframe specified at § 412.273(c) would automatically be reinstated for any remaining fiscal years, without the need of a second action to reinstate it. We have not fully evaluated the impact of such a policy but may consider it in future rulemaking. We did not receive any comments regarding the proposed changes to § 412.273 and are finalizing the proposed changes without revision. These changes, including the revised definitions, will be effective for all reclassification requests made on or after October 1, 2026 (FY 2026). 4. Redesignations Under Section 1886(d)(8)(B) of the Act a. Lugar Status Determinations In the FY 2012 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (76 FR 51599 through 51600), we adopted the policy that, beginning with FY 2012, an eligible hospital that waives its Lugar status to receive the out- migration adjustment has effectively waived its deemed urban status and, thus, is rural for all purposes under the IPPS effective for the fiscal year in which the hospital receives the outmigration adjustment. In addition, in that rul ly waived its deemed urban status and, thus, is rural for all purposes under the IPPS effective for the fiscal year in which the hospital receives the outmigration adjustment. In addition, in that rule, we adopted a minor VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00314 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 36849 procedural change that will allow a Lugar hospital that qualifies for and accepts the out-migration adjustment (through written notification to CMS within 45 days from the issuance of the proposed rule in the Federal Register) to waive its urban status for the full 3- year period for which its out-migration adjustment is effective. By doing so, such a Lugar hospital will no longer be required during the second and third years of eligibility for the out-migration adjustment to advise us annually that it prefers to continue being treated as rural and receive the out-migration adjustment. In the FY 2017 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (81 FR 56930), we further clarified that if a hospital wishes to reinstate prefers to continue being treated as rural and receive the out-migration adjustment. In the FY 2017 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (81 FR 56930), we further clarified that if a hospital wishes to reinstate its urban status for any fiscal year within this 3-year period, it must send a request to CMS within 45 days of the issuance of the proposed rule in the Federal Register for that particular fiscal year. We indicated that such reinstatement requests may be sent electronically to wageindex@ cms.hhs.gov. In the FY 2018 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (82 FR 38147 through 38148), we finalized a policy revision to require a Lugar hospital that qualifies for and accepts the out-migration adjustment, or that no longer wishes to accept the out-migration adjustment and instead elects to return to its deemed urban status, to notify CMS within 45 days from the date of public display of the proposed rule at the Office of the Federal Register. These revised notification timeframes were effective beginning October 1, 2017. In addition, in the FY 2018 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (82 FR 38148), we clarified that both requests to waive and to reinstate Lugar status may be sent to wageindex@ cms.hhs.gov. To ensu tober 1, 2017. In addition, in the FY 2018 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (82 FR 38148), we clarified that both requests to waive and to reinstate Lugar status may be sent to wageindex@ cms.hhs.gov. To ensure proper accounting, we request hospitals to include their CCN, and either ‘‘waive Lugar’’ or ‘‘reinstate Lugar’’, in the subject line of these requests. When applicable, this election will result in a cancelation of a hospital’s rural reclassification status under § 412.103, effective October 1, 2025. We also inform hospitals that for the request to be approved, the hospital must withdraw or terminate any active MGCRB reclassification. All requests, once approved, will remain in effect for the remainder of the 3-year out- migration adjustment period. In the FY 2020 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (84 FR 42314 and 42315), we clarified that in circumstances where an eligible hospital elects to receive the outmigration adjustment within 45 days of the public display date of the proposed rule at the Office of the Federal Register in lieu of its Lugar wage index reclassification, and the county in which the hospital is located will no longer qualify for an outmigration adjustment when the final e Office of the Federal Register in lieu of its Lugar wage index reclassification, and the county in which the hospital is located will no longer qualify for an outmigration adjustment when the final rule (or a subsequent correction notice) wage index calculations are completed, the hospital’s request to accept the outmigration adjustment will be denied, and the hospital will be automatically assigned to its deemed urban status under section 1886(d)(8)(B) of the Act. We stated that final rule wage index values will be recalculated to reflect this reclassification, and in some instances, after taking into account this reclassification, the out-migration adjustment for the county in question could be restored in the final rule. However, as the hospital is assigned a Lugar reclassification under section 1886(d)(8)(B) of the Act, it will be ineligible to receive the county outmigration adjustment under section 1886(d)(13)(G) of the Act. We received two timely requests from hospitals to accept the county out- migration adjustment in lieu of its Lugar reclassification. The requests were from CCNs 180056 and 320033. When applicable, we informed the hospital that for the request to be appr ept the county out- migration adjustment in lieu of its Lugar reclassification. The requests were from CCNs 180056 and 320033. When applicable, we informed the hospital that for the request to be approved, the hospital must withdraw or terminate any active MGCRB reclassification. All requests have been approved and will remain in effect for the remainder of the 3-year county outmigration adjustment period. We receive one timely request from CCN 390183 to reinstate its Lugar reclassification. This request was approved, and the hospital will be reclassified to CBSA 39740 for FY 2026. F. Wage Index Adjustments: Rural Floor, Imputed Floor, State Frontier Floor, Out-Migration Adjustment, Low Wage Index Hospital, and Cap on Wage Index Decrease Policies The following adjustments to the wage index are listed in the order that they are generally applied. First, the rural floor, imputed floor, and state frontier floor provide a minimum wage index. The rural floor at section 4410(a) of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105–33) provides that the wage index for hospitals in urban areas of a State may not be less than the wage index applicable to hospitals located in rural areas in that S ed Budget Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105–33) provides that the wage index for hospitals in urban areas of a State may not be less than the wage index applicable to hospitals located in rural areas in that State. The imputed floor at section 1886(d)(3)(E)(iv) of the Act provides a wage index minimum for all-urban states. The state frontier floor at section 1886(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the Act requires that hospitals in frontier states cannot be assigned a wage index of less than 1.0000. Next, the out-migration adjustment at section 1886(d)(13)(A) of the Act is applied, potentially increasing the wage index for hospitals located in certain counties that have a relatively high percentage of hospital employees who reside in the county but work in a different county or counties with a higher wage index. For FY 2026 and subsequent fiscal years, as discussed later in this section, after considering the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Bridgeport Hosp. v. Becerra, we are finalizing as proposed to discontinue the low wage index hospital policy. Because we are finalizing as proposed to discontinue the low wage index hospital policy for FY 2026 and subsequent fiscal years, we are no longer applying a low wage i low wage index hospital policy. Because we are finalizing as proposed to discontinue the low wage index hospital policy for FY 2026 and subsequent fiscal years, we are no longer applying a low wage index budget neutrality factor to the standardized amounts. Finally, all hospital wage index decreases are capped at 95 percent of the hospital’s final wage index in the prior fiscal year, according to the policy finalized in the FY 2023 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (87 FR 49018 through 49021). 1. Rural Floor Section 4410(a) of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105–33) provides that, for discharges on or after October 1, 1997, the area wage index applicable to any hospital that is located in an urban area of a State may not be less than the area wage index applicable to hospitals located in rural areas in that State. This provision is referred to as the rural floor. Section 3141 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111–148) also requires that a national budget neutrality adjustment be applied in implementing the rural floor. Based on the FY 2026 wage index associated with this final rule (which is available on the CMS website), and based on the calculation of th ality adjustment be applied in implementing the rural floor. Based on the FY 2026 wage index associated with this final rule (which is available on the CMS website), and based on the calculation of the rural floor including the wage data of hospitals that have reclassified as rural under § 412.103, we estimate that 961 hospitals will receive the rural floor in FY 2026. The budget neutrality impact of the application of the rural floor is discussed in section II.A.4.e. of Addendum A of this final rule. In the FY 2023 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (87 FR 48784), CMS finalized a policy change to calculate the rural floor in the same manner as we did prior to the FY 2020 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule, in which the rural wage index sets the rural floor. We stated that for FY 2023 and subsequent years, we would include the wage data of § 412.103 hospitals that have no Medicare Geographic Classification Review Board (MGCRB) reclassification in the calculation of the rural floor, and include the wage data of such hospitals in the calculation of ‘‘the wage index for rural areas in the State in which the VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00315 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AU ta of such hospitals in the calculation of ‘‘the wage index for rural areas in the State in which the VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00315 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 36850 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations county is located’’ as referred to in section 1886(d)(8)(C)(iii) of the Act. In the FY 2024 IPPS/LTCH final rule (88 FR 58971 through 58977), we finalized a policy change beginning that year to include the data of all § 412.103 hospitals, even those that have an MGCRB reclassification, in the calculation of the rural floor and the calculation of ‘‘the wage index for rural areas in the State in which the county is located’’ as referred to in section 1886(d)(8)(C)(iii) of the Act. We explained that after revisiting the case law, prior public comments, and the relevant statutory language, we agreed that the best reading of section 1886(d)(8)(E)’s text that CMS ‘‘shall treat the [§ 412.103] hospital as being located in the rural area’’ is that it instructs CMS to treat § 412.103 hospitals the same as geographically rura section 1886(d)(8)(E)’s text that CMS ‘‘shall treat the [§ 412.103] hospital as being located in the rural area’’ is that it instructs CMS to treat § 412.103 hospitals the same as geographically rural hospitals for the wage index calculation. Accordingly, in the FY 2024 IPPS/ LTCH PPS final rule, we finalized a policy to include hospitals with § 412.103 reclassification along with geographically rural hospitals in all rural wage index calculations, and to exclude ‘‘dual reclass’’ hospitals (hospitals with simultaneous § 412.103 and MGCRB reclassifications) that are implicated by the hold harmless provision at section 1886(d)(8)(C)(ii) of the Act. (For additional information on these changes, we refer readers to the FY 2024 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (88 FR 58971 through 58977).) Comment: Some commenters expressed continued support for CMS’s treatment of urban hospitals reclassified as rural under § 412.103 in the same manner as geographically rural hospitals for the rural wage index and rural floor calculations. These commenters stated that restoring equality between a state’s rural floor and its rural wage index is an appropriate and fair implementation of the statute. Conversely, rural floor calculations. These commenters stated that restoring equality between a state’s rural floor and its rural wage index is an appropriate and fair implementation of the statute. Conversely, several commenters expressed concern that the current rural floor methodology and associated budget neutrality adjustment exacerbates inequities. A commenter stated that the rural floor magnifies Medicare underpayment to hospitals in high-cost regions, since payments to such hospitals are reduced due to the budget neutrality adjustment. Several commenters stated that hospitals in low- wage states are hurt when their payments are reduced to drive inflated reimbursement to hospitals in states gaming the rural floor. These commenters cited examples of states with high-wage urban hospitals reclassifying to rural to set the rural wage index for the state. The commenters urged CMS to reverse its current policy and calculate the rural wage index using wage data only from geographically rural hospitals in the state. Response: While we did not propose any changes to the rural floor policy in the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule, we appreciate the commenters’ continued support. We understand itals in the state. Response: While we did not propose any changes to the rural floor policy in the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule, we appreciate the commenters’ continued support. We understand the commenters’ concerns regarding the effect that the rural floor budget neutrality factor has on some hospitals as other hospitals make reclassification decisions to take advantage of the rural floor policy. As we noted in the FY 2024 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (88 FR 58975 through 58976) and the FY 2025 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (89 FR 69299), we expect that the number of IPPS hospitals assigned their State’s rural wage index will increase in future years as hospitals adjust to the policy and as the relative value of States’ rural wage index values increase due to the inclusion of hospitals that strategically obtain § 412.103 reclassification. As a result, the majority of hospitals (if not all) will be assigned identical wage index values within their states. For example, in FY 2025, 58 percent of geographically urban hospitals received a wage index equal to their State’s rural floor, imputed floor, or frontier floor prior to any outmigration, or 5 percent decrease cap adjustments. For rcent of geographically urban hospitals received a wage index equal to their State’s rural floor, imputed floor, or frontier floor prior to any outmigration, or 5 percent decrease cap adjustments. For FY 2026, approximately 70 percent of geographically urban hospitals will receive a wage index equal to their State’s rural floor, imputed floor, or frontier floor prior to any outmigration, or 5 percent decrease cap adjustments. As we stated in the FY 2024 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (88 FR 58975) and the FY 2025 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (89 FR 69299), as substantially more hospitals receive the rural floor, there will be a consequently greater budget neutrality impact. However, we believe this result would be unavoidable given the requirement of section 1886(d)(8)(E) of the Act to treat § 412.103 hospitals ‘as being located in the rural area’ of the state, as well as the requirement at sections 4410(b) of the BBA 1997 and 3141 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111–148) that a uniform, national budget neutrality adjustment be applied in implementing the rural floor. Comment: Several commenters disagreed with CMS’ current application of the rural floor and rural f 48) that a uniform, national budget neutrality adjustment be applied in implementing the rural floor. Comment: Several commenters disagreed with CMS’ current application of the rural floor and rural floor budget neutrality adjustment. These commenters asserted that section 4410(b) of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) exempts urban and reclassified rural hospitals that receive the rural floor from having their wage indexes reduced through the application of the rural floor budget neutrality adjustment. According to these commenters, the rural floor budget neutrality adjustment should be applied only to the wage indexes of hospitals not receiving the rural floor (that is, non- reclassified rural hospitals, and urban hospitals with wage indexes above the rural floor). Response: As we stated in the FY 2025 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (89 FR 69299) in response to similar comments that we had received, we disagree with the commenters’ assertion that urban and reclassified rural hospitals that receive the rural floor should be excluded from the application of the rural floor budget neutrality factor. We considered this approach in the FY 2008 IPPS proposed and final rules (72 FR 24787 an at receive the rural floor should be excluded from the application of the rural floor budget neutrality factor. We considered this approach in the FY 2008 IPPS proposed and final rules (72 FR 24787 and 72 FR 47325) and believe we have applied the rural floor budget neutrality adjustment in a manner consistent with the statute. Specifically, in the FY 2008 IPPS proposed rule, we rejected a reading of section 4410(b) of the BBA requiring that the budget neutrality adjustment would be applied only to those hospitals that do not receive the rural floor, because urban hospitals receiving the rural floor would receive a higher wage index than the rural hospitals within the same State (because hospitals receiving the rural floor would not be subject to budget neutrality, whereas rural hospitals would be) (72 FR 24787). We continue to believe that such a reading would not be consistent with the best reading of the statute. The statute sets a floor for urban hospitals. The statute does not instruct CMS to pay urban hospitals a wage index higher than the wage index applicable to rural hospitals and contains no suggestion that the general budget neutrality provisions of section 1886(d)(8)(D)— ruct CMS to pay urban hospitals a wage index higher than the wage index applicable to rural hospitals and contains no suggestion that the general budget neutrality provisions of section 1886(d)(8)(D)—which expressly apply to the adjustments made in section 1886(d)(C)—should not apply. In the FY 2008 IPPS final rule, we adopted the current approach to implement rural floor budget neutrality by applying a uniform, national adjustment to the wage index (72 FR 47325). Since then, Congress specifically endorsed our approach in section 3141 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111–148), which requires that the rural floor budget neutrality adjustment be applied ‘‘in the same manner as the Secretary administered such [adjustment] for discharges occurring during fiscal year 2008 (through a uniform, national adjustment to the area wage index).’’ In addition, we note that section 4410 of the BBA to which the commenters refer provides VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00316 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 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00316 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 36851 that the rural floor is equal to ‘‘the area wage index applicable under [section 1886(d)(3)(E) of the Social Security Act] to hospitals located in rural areas in the State.’’ Under our existing policy, the rural floor and the rural wage index for the state are the same after application of the rural floor budget neutrality adjustment factor, and nothing in section 4410 of the BBA requires otherwise. Put differently, CMS’ methodology amounts to merely calculating the amount of the rural floor such that it is the same as the final rural wage index for the state, rather than reducing the wage indices of low wage urban hospitals or reclassified rural hospitals that receive the rural floor relative to what they would be otherwise—in that way it appropriately implements both section 4410 of the BBA and section 3141 of the ACA. Thus, consistent with our longstanding methodology for implementing the rural floor, we believe it is appropriate to continue to apply a ments both section 4410 of the BBA and section 3141 of the ACA. Thus, consistent with our longstanding methodology for implementing the rural floor, we believe it is appropriate to continue to apply a budget neutrality adjustment to all hospitals’ wage indexes. 2. Imputed Floor In the FY 2005 IPPS final rule (69 FR 49109 through 49111), we adopted the imputed floor policy as a temporary 3- year regulatory measure to address concerns from hospitals in all-urban States that have stated that they are disadvantaged by the absence of rural hospitals to set a wage index floor for those States. We extended the imputed floor policy eight times since its initial implementation, the last of which was adopted in the FY 2018 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule and expired on September 30, 2018. We refer readers to further discussions of the imputed floor in the IPPS/LTCH PPS final rules from FYs 2014 through 2019 (78 FR 50589 through 50590, 79 FR 49969 through 49971, 80 FR 49497 through 49498, 81 FR 56921 through 56922, 82 FR 38138 through 38142, and 83 FR 41376 through 41380, respectively) and to the regulations at § 412.64(h)(4). For FYs 2019, 2020, and 2021, hospitals in all- urban states received a w rough 56922, 82 FR 38138 through 38142, and 83 FR 41376 through 41380, respectively) and to the regulations at § 412.64(h)(4). For FYs 2019, 2020, and 2021, hospitals in all- urban states received a wage index that was calculated without applying an imputed floor, and we no longer included the imputed floor as a factor in the national budget neutrality adjustment. Section 9831 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Pub. L. 117–2), enacted on March 11, 2021, amended section 1886(d)(3)(E)(i) of the Act and added section 1886(d)(3)(E)(iv) of the Act to establish a minimum area wage index for hospitals in all-urban States for discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2021. Specifically, section 1886(d)(3)(E)(iv)(I) and (II) of the Act provides that for discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2021, the area wage index applicable to any hospital in an all-urban State may not be less than the minimum area wage index for the fiscal year for hospitals in that State established using the methodology described in § 412.64(h)(4)(vi) as in effect for FY 2018. Unlike the imputed floor that was in effect from FYs 2005 through 2018, section 1886(d)(3)(E)(iv)(III) of the Act provides that t methodology described in § 412.64(h)(4)(vi) as in effect for FY 2018. Unlike the imputed floor that was in effect from FYs 2005 through 2018, section 1886(d)(3)(E)(iv)(III) of the Act provides that the imputed floor wage index shall not be applied in a budget neutral manner. Section 1886(d)(3)(E)(iv)(IV) of the Act provides that, for purposes of the imputed floor wage index under clause (iv), the term all-urban State means a State in which there are no rural areas (as defined in section 1886(d)(2)(D) of the Act) or a State in which there are no hospitals classified as rural under section 1886 of the Act. Under this definition, given that it applies for purposes of the imputed floor wage index, we consider a hospital to be classified as rural under section 1886 of the Act if it is assigned the State’s rural area wage index value. Effective beginning October 1, 2021 (FY 2022), section 1886(d)(3)(E)(iv) of the Act reinstated the imputed floor wage index policy for all-urban States, with no expiration date, using the methodology described in § 412.64(h)(4)(vi) as in effect for FY 2018. We refer readers to the FY 2022 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (86 FR 45176 through 45178) for further dis no expiration date, using the methodology described in § 412.64(h)(4)(vi) as in effect for FY 2018. We refer readers to the FY 2022 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (86 FR 45176 through 45178) for further discussion of the original imputed floor calculation methodology implemented in FY 2005 and the alternative methodology implemented in FY 2013. Based on data available for this final rule, States that will be all-urban States as defined in section 1886(d)(3)(E)(iv)(IV) of the Act, and thus hospitals in such States that will be eligible to receive an increase in their wage index due to application of the imputed floor for FY 2026, are identified in Table 3 (which is available on the CMS website) associated with this final rule. States with a value in the column titled ‘‘State Imputed Floor’’ are eligible for the imputed floor. The regulations at § 412.64(e)(1) and (4) and (h)(4) and (5) implement the imputed floor required by section 1886(d)(3)(E)(iv) of the Act for discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2021. The imputed floor will continue to be applied for FY 2026 in accordance with the policies adopted in the FY 2022 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule. For more information regarding our imp after October 1, 2021. The imputed floor will continue to be applied for FY 2026 in accordance with the policies adopted in the FY 2022 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule. For more information regarding our implementation of the imputed floor required by section 1886(d)(3)(E)(iv) of the Act, we refer readers to the discussion in the FY 2022 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (86 FR 45176 through 45178). Comment: We received comments supporting the application of the imputed floor. Response: We thank the commenters for their input. As discussed earlier, the imputed floor is a statutory requirement under section 9831 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Pub. L. 117– 2) which requires the Secretary to establish a minimum area wage index for hospitals in all-urban States for discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2021. We did not propose any changes to the methodology for calculating the imputed floor as set forth in § 412.64(e)(1) and (4) and (h)(4) and (5). Therefore, in accordance with the statute and existing regulations, we are applying the imputed floor for hospitals in all-urban States for FY 2026. 3. State Frontier Floor for FY 2026 Section 10324 of Public Law 111–148 requires that hospit and existing regulations, we are applying the imputed floor for hospitals in all-urban States for FY 2026. 3. State Frontier Floor for FY 2026 Section 10324 of Public Law 111–148 requires that hospitals in frontier States cannot be assigned a wage index of less than 1.0000. (We refer readers to the regulations at § 412.64(m) and to a discussion of the implementation of this provision in the FY 2011 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (75 FR 50160 through 50161).) In the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule, we did not propose any changes to the frontier floor policy for FY 2026. In the proposed rule we stated 40 hospitals would receive the frontier floor value of 1.0000 for their FY 2026 proposed wage index. These hospitals are located in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. We did not receive any public comments on the application of the State frontier floor for FY 2026. In this final rule, 23 hospitals will receive the frontier floor value of 1.0000 for their FY 2026 wage index. These hospitals are located in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. We note that while Nevada meets the criteria of a frontier State, all hospitals within the State currently receive a wage ese hospitals are located in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. We note that while Nevada meets the criteria of a frontier State, all hospitals within the State currently receive a wage index value greater than 1.0000. The areas affected by the rural and frontier floor policies for the final FY 2026 wage index are identified in Table 3 associated with this final rule, which is available via the internet on the CMS website. 4. Out-Migration Adjustment Based on Commuting Patterns of Hospital Employees In accordance with section 1886(d)(13) of the Act, as added by section 505 of Public Law 108–173, beginning with FY 2005, we established VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00317 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 36852 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations a process to make adjustments to the hospital wage index based on commuting patterns of hospital employees (the ‘‘out-migration’’ adjustment). The process, outlined in the FY 2005 IPPS final rule (69 FR 49061), provides for an increase in the wage index for hospitals loca ing patterns of hospital employees (the ‘‘out-migration’’ adjustment). The process, outlined in the FY 2005 IPPS final rule (69 FR 49061), provides for an increase in the wage index for hospitals located in certain counties that have a relatively high percentage of hospital employees who reside in the county but work in a different county (or counties) with a higher wage index. Section 1886(d)(13)(B) of the Act requires the Secretary to use data the Secretary determines to be appropriate to establish the qualifying counties. When the provision of section 1886(d)(13) of the Act was implemented for the FY 2005 wage index, we analyzed commuting data compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau that were derived from a special tabulation of the 2000 Census journey-to-work data for all industries (CMS extracted data applicable to hospitals). These data were compiled from responses to the ‘‘long-form’’ survey, which the Census Bureau used at that time, and which contained questions on where residents in each county worked (69 FR 49062). However, the 2010 Census was ‘‘short form’’ only; information on where residents in each county worked was not collected as part of the 2010 Census. The Census Bur in each county worked (69 FR 49062). However, the 2010 Census was ‘‘short form’’ only; information on where residents in each county worked was not collected as part of the 2010 Census. The Census Bureau worked with CMS to provide an alternative dataset based on the latest available data on where residents in each county worked in 2010, for use in developing a new out- migration adjustment based on new commuting patterns developed from the 2010 Census data beginning with FY 2016. To determine the out-migration adjustments and applicable counties for FY 2016, we analyzed commuting data compiled by the Census Bureau that were derived from a custom tabulation of the American Community Survey (ACS), an official Census Bureau survey, utilizing 2008 through 2012 (5-year) Microdata. The data were compiled from responses to the ACS questions regarding the county where workers reside and the county to which workers commute. As we discussed in prior IPPS/LTCH PPS final rules, we have applied the same policies, procedures, and computations since FY 2012. We refer readers to the FY 2016 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (80 FR 49500 through 49502) for a full explanation of the revised data source. We a same policies, procedures, and computations since FY 2012. We refer readers to the FY 2016 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (80 FR 49500 through 49502) for a full explanation of the revised data source. We also stated that we will consider determining out- migration adjustments based on data from the next Census or other available data, as appropriate. As discussed previously in section III.A.2., in the FY 2025 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (89 FR 69253 through 69266), CMS adopted revised delineations from the OMB Bulletin 23–01, published July 21, 2023. The revised delineations incorporated population estimates based on the 2020 decennial census, as well as updated journey-to-work commuting data. The Census Bureau once again worked with CMS to provide an alternative dataset based on the latest available data on where residents in each county worked, for use in developing a new out-migration adjustment based on new commuting patterns. We analyzed commuting data compiled by the Census Bureau that were derived from a custom tabulation of the ACS, utilizing 2016 through 2020 data. The Census Bureau produces county level commuting flow tables every 5 years using non-overlapping 5- year ACS estimat ere derived from a custom tabulation of the ACS, utilizing 2016 through 2020 data. The Census Bureau produces county level commuting flow tables every 5 years using non-overlapping 5- year ACS estimates. The data include demographic characteristics, home and work locations, and journey-to-work travel flows. The custom tabulation requested by CMS was specific to general medical and surgical hospital and specialty (except psychiatric and substance use disorder treatment) hospital employees (hospital sector Census code 8191/NAICS code 6221 and 6223) who worked in the 50 States, Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico and, therefore, provided information about commuting patterns of workers at the county level for residents of the 50 States, Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico. For the ACS, the Census Bureau selects a random sample of addresses where workers reside to be included in the survey, and the sample is designed to ensure good geographic coverage. The ACS samples approximately 3.5 million resident addresses per year.140 The results of the ACS are used to formulate descriptive population estimates, and, as such, the sample on which the dataset is based represents the actual figures that wil dent addresses per year.140 The results of the ACS are used to formulate descriptive population estimates, and, as such, the sample on which the dataset is based represents the actual figures that will be obtained from a complete count. In the FY 2025 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (89 FR 69301), we finalized that for FY 2025 and subsequent years, the out- migration adjustment will be based on the data derived from the previously discussed custom tabulation of the ACS utilizing 2016 through 2020 (5-year) Microdata. As discussed earlier, we believe that these data are the most appropriate to establish qualifying counties, because they are the most 140 According to the Census Bureau, the effects of the public health emergency (PHE) on ACS activities in 2020 resulted in a lower number of addresses (∼2.9 million) in the sample, as well as fewer interviews than a typical year. accurate and up-to-date data that are available to us. For FY 2026, we did not propose any changes to the methodology or data source for calculating the out-migration adjustment. Specifically, we proposed that the FY 2026 out-migration adjustments continue to be based on the same policies, procedures, and computation th data source for calculating the out-migration adjustment. Specifically, we proposed that the FY 2026 out-migration adjustments continue to be based on the same policies, procedures, and computation that were used for the FY 2012 out-migration adjustment. We did not receive any comments on this proposal. We are finalizing as proposed that the FY 2026 out-migration adjustments continue to be based on the same policies, procedures, and computation that were used for the FY 2012 out-migration adjustment. We have applied these same policies, procedures, and computations since FY 2012, and we believe they continue to be appropriate for FY 2026. We refer readers to a full discussion of the out- migration adjustment, including rules on deeming hospitals reclassified under section 1886(d)(8) or section 1886(d)(10) of the Act to have waived the out- migration adjustment, in the FY 2012 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (76 FR 51601 through 51602). Table 2 of this final rule (which is available on the CMS website) lists the out-migration adjustments for the FY 2026 wage index. In addition, Table 4A associated with this final rule, ‘‘List of Counties Eligible for the Out Migration Adjustment under Sect website) lists the out-migration adjustments for the FY 2026 wage index. In addition, Table 4A associated with this final rule, ‘‘List of Counties Eligible for the Out Migration Adjustment under Section 1886(d)(13) of the Act’’ (also available on the CMS website), consists of the following: A list of counties that are eligible for the outmigration adjustment for FY 2026 identified by FIPS county code, the FY 2026 out-migration adjustment, and the number of years the adjustment will be in effect. We refer readers to section V.I. of the Addendum of this final rule for instructions on accessing IPPS tables that are posted on the CMS websites identified in this final rule. 5. Discontinuation of the Low Wage Index Hospital Policy and Budget Neutrality Adjustment In the FY 2020 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (84 FR 42325 through 42339), we finalized a policy to address increasing wage index disparities, based in part on comments we received in response to our request for information included in our FY 2019 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule (83 FR 20372 through 20377). Accordingly, we finalized a policy that provided certain low wage index hospitals with an opportunity to increase employee compensat ur FY 2019 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule (83 FR 20372 through 20377). Accordingly, we finalized a policy that provided certain low wage index hospitals with an opportunity to increase employee compensation without the usual lag in those increases being reflected in the calculation of the wage index (as they would expect to do if not for the lag). We accomplished this VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00318 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 36853 by temporarily increasing the wage index values for certain hospitals with low wage index values and doing so in a budget neutral manner through an adjustment applied to the standardized amounts for all hospitals. We increased the wage index for hospitals with a wage index value below the 25th percentile wage index value for a fiscal year by half the difference between the otherwise applicable final wage index value for a year for that hospital and the 25th percentile wage index value for that year across all hospitals (the low wage index hospital policy) ce between the otherwise applicable final wage index value for a year for that hospital and the 25th percentile wage index value for that year across all hospitals (the low wage index hospital policy). When we adopted the low wage index hospital policy in the FY 2020 IPPS/ LTCH PPS final rule (84 FR 42326 through 42328), we stated our intention that this policy would be effective for at least 4 years, beginning in FY 2020, to allow employee compensation increases implemented by these hospitals sufficient time to be reflected in the wage index calculation. We also stated we intended to revisit the issue of the duration of this policy in future rulemaking as we gained experience under the policy. For FY 2024, we continued to apply the low wage index hospital policy and the related budget neutrality adjustment (88 FR 58977 through 58980). In the FY 2025 IPPS/ LTCH PPS final rule (89 FR 69301 through 69308), we adopted an extension of the low wage index hospital policy and the related budget neutrality adjustment effective for at least three more years, beginning in FY 2025, in order for sufficient wage data from after the end of the COVID–19 Public Health Emergency to become available et neutrality adjustment effective for at least three more years, beginning in FY 2025, in order for sufficient wage data from after the end of the COVID–19 Public Health Emergency to become available. On July 23, 2024, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that the Secretary lacked authority under section 1886(d)(3)(E) of the Act or under the ‘‘adjustments’’ language of section 1886(d)(5)(I)(i) of the Act to adopt the low wage index hospital policy for FY 2020, and that the policy and related budget neutrality adjustment must be vacated.141 After considering the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Bridgeport Hosp. v. Becerra, in the interim final action with comment period (IFC) titled ‘‘Medicare Program; Changes to the Fiscal Year 2025 Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) Rates Due to Court Decision’’ (referred to herein as the FY 2025 IFC) (89 FR 80405 through 80421), we recalculated the FY 2025 IPPS hospital wage index to remove the low wage index hospital policy for FY 2025. We also removed the low wage index budget neutrality factor from the 141 Bridgeport Hosp. v. Becerra, 108 F.4th 882, 887–91 & n.6 (D.C. Cir. 2024). FY 2025 standardized amounts. We refer th r FY 2025. We also removed the low wage index budget neutrality factor from the 141 Bridgeport Hosp. v. Becerra, 108 F.4th 882, 887–91 & n.6 (D.C. Cir. 2024). FY 2025 standardized amounts. We refer the reader to the applicable year final rule discussions (FY 2020 IPPS/ LTCH PPS final rule (84 FR 42325 through 42339); FY 2024 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (88 FR 58977 through 58980)) regarding the implementation of the low wage index hospital policy and the FY 2025 IFC for a complete discussion regarding the removal of the low wage index hospital policy for FY 2025. For FY 2026 and subsequent fiscal years, after considering the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Bridgeport Hosp. v. Becerra, we proposed to discontinue the low wage index hospital policy. Because we proposed to discontinue the low wage index hospital policy for FY 2026 and subsequent fiscal years, we stated that we would no longer apply a low wage index budget neutrality factor to the standardized amounts. Comment: Many commenters supported the discontinuation of the low wage index hospital policy in light of the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Bridgeport Hosp. v. Becerra. Commenters agreed with the court that the FY 2020 low wage index orted the discontinuation of the low wage index hospital policy in light of the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Bridgeport Hosp. v. Becerra. Commenters agreed with the court that the FY 2020 low wage index hospital policy is unlawful. These commenters stated that ending the low wage index hospital policy, under which the wage indexes of hospitals in the bottom quartile were raised at the expense of all hospitals nationwide due to a budget neutrality adjustment, would restore fairness and consistency to the wage index and align the true cost of care within an area. Other commenters strongly urged CMS to continue the low wage index hospital policy. While most commenters acknowledged the court’s decision, they expressed concern regarding the impact of ending the policy on low wage hospitals. They stated that the rationales for implementing the low wage index hospital policy remain, and discontinuing the policy will end critical support to vulnerable low wage and often rural hospitals. Two commenters specifically asked CMS to explore the impacts of discontinuing the low wage index hospital policy on other policies and hospital payment programs before finalizing, report on the effects of thi enters specifically asked CMS to explore the impacts of discontinuing the low wage index hospital policy on other policies and hospital payment programs before finalizing, report on the effects of this policy change, and examine how concurrent wage index adjustments may compound or offset the effects. Similarly, another commenter supported the discontinuation of the low wage index hospital policy but expressed concern regarding the impact of ending the policy on rural hospitals. The commenter believes that other programs such as the low volume payment adjustment should provide support. Response: We thank the commenters for their support for our proposal. With regard to the commenters opposing the discontinuation of the low wage index hospital policy, we understand the commenters’ concerns that the rationales for implementing the low wage index hospital policy remain. However, as discussed in the FY 2025 IFC (89 FR 80407), although we respectfully disagree with the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Bridgeport Hosp. v. Becerra and believed that the low wage index hospital policy and the related budget neutrality adjustment should be effective for at least three more years for the reasons st on in Bridgeport Hosp. v. Becerra and believed that the low wage index hospital policy and the related budget neutrality adjustment should be effective for at least three more years for the reasons stated in the FY 2025 IPPS rulemaking, after considering the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Bridgeport Hosp. v. Becerra, we proposed to discontinue the low wage index hospital policy for FY 2026 and subsequent fiscal years. In response to concerns regarding the impact of ending the policy on low wage hospitals, we believe we have addressed those concerns with policies to mitigate any large decline in wage indexes. We refer readers to Section III.F.5 and III.F.6 for detailed discussions of the cap on wage index decreases and transition for the discontinuation of the low wage index hospital policy. With regard to comments requesting that we explore and report on the effects of discontinuing the low wage index hospital policy, we believe that Table 2 associated with this final rule (which is available on the CMS website) provides a clear analysis. Specifically, Table 2 contains columns with each hospital’s FY 2026 wage index without and with the 5 percent cap on any decrease to a hospital’s wag ble on the CMS website) provides a clear analysis. Specifically, Table 2 contains columns with each hospital’s FY 2026 wage index without and with the 5 percent cap on any decrease to a hospital’s wage index from its wage index in the prior FY, and the value with the transitional payment exception for the discontinuation of the low wage index hospital policy, if applicable. With regard to examining how concurrent wage index adjustments and payment programs like the low volume payment adjustment may compound or offset the effects of discontinuing the low wage index hospital policy, we believe this is a payment analysis best performed by each hospital individually considering each hospital’s unique circumstances and eligibility for different adjustments. Comment: Many commenters urged CMS to consider alternative policies to help low wage hospitals, specifically permanent solutions that address wage index inequities. Some commenters cited reports from the Office of Inspector General (OIG), the Institute of Medicine (IOM), and MedPAC that recognize flaws in the current wage VerDate Sep 2014 01:40 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00319 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 , the Institute of Medicine (IOM), and MedPAC that recognize flaws in the current wage VerDate Sep 2014 01:40 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00319 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 36854 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations index system, and emphasized that comprehensive reform is necessary to protect care in rural and underserved communities in the absence of the low wage index hospital policy. Commenters requested that CMS develop a permanent, statutory solution to address the circularity affecting low wage hospitals by working with Congress to codify the low wage index hospital policy in a manner that complies with the court’s decision. A commenter specifically asked CMS to expand on its administrative discretion to assist low wage hospitals. Another commenter encouraged CMS to continue developing policies that address low wage index hospitals without negatively impacting other hospitals by soliciting input from the hospital community. Similarly, many commenters also encouraged CMS to further investigate the specific factors causing wage dispariti negatively impacting other hospitals by soliciting input from the hospital community. Similarly, many commenters also encouraged CMS to further investigate the specific factors causing wage disparities as part of developing a solution. A few commenters suggested that CMS establish a wage index floor for all hospitals. Response: We appreciate the varied solutions suggested by commenters to help low wage hospitals and reduce wage index disparities. We note that many of the suggested solutions may require changes to the Medicare statute. We also note that exercising CMS’s administrative discretion in a manner that would help low wage hospitals must consider the recent decision and analysis of the D.C. Circuit in Bridgeport Hosp. v. Becerra. Regarding the commenters’ suggestions to solicit input from the hospital community and investigate the causes of wage index disparities, we refer readers to the FY 2019 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule (83 FR 20372), in which we invited the public to submit comments, suggestions, and recommendations for regulatory and policy changes to the Medicare wage index, and to the FY 2020 IPPS/ LTCH PPS proposed rule (84 FR 19393 through 19394) for a summary of t comments, suggestions, and recommendations for regulatory and policy changes to the Medicare wage index, and to the FY 2020 IPPS/ LTCH PPS proposed rule (84 FR 19393 through 19394) for a summary of the responses received from that request for information (RFI). In response to the commenters’ suggesting that CMS establish a wage index floor for all hospitals, we refer readers to the FY 2020 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (84 FR 42326), where we considered that alternative. Specifically, we stated that we believe the rank order of wage indexes generally reflects meaningful distinctions between the employee compensation costs faced by hospitals in different geographic areas. Comment: Many commenters requested that CMS implement a less restrictive reclassification mechanism for the lowest wage index hospitals (for a MGCRB reclassification). Specifically, commenters suggested regulatory changes to § 412.230(d) to allow a low wage index hospital that is within 50 miles of a higher paid wage area (urban or rural) to reclassify to that area and receive the wage index that is paid to hospitals in that area. The commenters also suggested CMS add a low wage hospital exception as § 412.230(d)(6) f (urban or rural) to reclassify to that area and receive the wage index that is paid to hospitals in that area. The commenters also suggested CMS add a low wage hospital exception as § 412.230(d)(6) for any hospital that was in the lowest quartile of wage indexes nationally in any of the FYs 2020 through 2025. As a policy justification, the commenters stated that 50 miles reflect real-world commuting standards, and that altering the average hourly wage comparison test for low wage hospitals advances health equity. Overall, the commenters posited that their suggested regulation text and policy change would reduce disparities and enhance access to care. Response: We thank the commenters for their suggested policy and regulation changes to implement a less restrictive reclassification mechanism for the lowest wage index hospitals (for a MGCRB reclassification). We did not propose any changes to § 412.230 in the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule. Additionally, under section 1886(d)(8)(D) of the Act, the Secretary is required to adjust the standardized amount to ensure that aggregate payments under the IPPS after implementation of the provisions of sections 1886(d)(8)(B) and (C) and 1 of the Act, the Secretary is required to adjust the standardized amount to ensure that aggregate payments under the IPPS after implementation of the provisions of sections 1886(d)(8)(B) and (C) and 1886(d)(10) of the Act are equal to the aggregate prospective payments that would have been made absent these provisions. Any changes that would allow more hospitals to reclassify would increase the budget neutrality adjustment under section 1886(d)(8)(D) of the Act and would further increase the adjustment made to the standardized amount for all hospitals. We believe it is important to receive public comments with regard to such changes. We note that we received comments that were out of scope with regard to our proposal to discontinue the low wage index hospital policy for FY 2026 and subsequent fiscal years. Therefore, we are not responding to these comments in this final rule. After consideration of the public comments received and the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Bridgeport Hosp. v. Becerra, in this final rule, we are finalizing without modification for FY 2026 and subsequent fiscal years, our proposal to discontinue the low wage index hospital policy. Because we are finalizing our p rra, in this final rule, we are finalizing without modification for FY 2026 and subsequent fiscal years, our proposal to discontinue the low wage index hospital policy. Because we are finalizing our proposal to discontinue the low wage index hospital policy for FY 2026 and subsequent fiscal years, we will no longer apply a low wage index budget neutrality factor to the standardized amounts. 6. Cap on Wage Index Decreases and Budget Neutrality Adjustment In the FY 2023 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (87 FR 49018 through 49021), we finalized a wage index cap policy and associated budget neutrality adjustment for FY 2023 and subsequent fiscal years. Under this policy, we apply a 5-percent cap on any decrease to a hospital’s wage index from its wage index in the prior FY, regardless of the circumstances causing the decline. A hospital’s wage index will not be less than 95 percent of its final wage index for the prior FY. If a hospital’s prior FY wage index is calculated with the application of the 5- percent cap, the following year’s wage index will not be less than 95 percent of the hospital’s capped wage index in the prior FY. We note, the FY 2025 wage index was established in the FY 2025 he 5- percent cap, the following year’s wage index will not be less than 95 percent of the hospital’s capped wage index in the prior FY. We note, the FY 2025 wage index was established in the FY 2025 IFC which removed the low wage index hospital policy (89 FR 80405 through 80421). Therefore, for FY 2026, the prior year wage index for purposes of the cap will be based on the wage index established in the IFC. We also note that in that same IFC, we established a transitional payment exception for FY 2025. The 5-percent cap for FY 2026 will be applied irrespective of the FY 2025 transitional payment exception. We finally note, as discussed later in this section, that for FY 2026 we proposed a transitional payment exception that addresses the effects of the removal of the low wage index hospital policy. We proposed that this transitional payment exception would be applied after the application of the 5- percent cap. Except for newly opened hospitals, we apply the cap for a FY using the final wage index applicable to the hospital on the last day of the prior FY. A newly opened hospital will be paid the wage index for the area in which it is geographically located for its first full or p al wage index applicable to the hospital on the last day of the prior FY. A newly opened hospital will be paid the wage index for the area in which it is geographically located for its first full or partial fiscal year, and it will not receive a cap for that first year, because it will not have been assigned a wage index in the prior year. The wage index cap policy is reflected at § 412.64(h)(7). We apply the cap in a budget neutral manner through a national adjustment to the standardized amount each fiscal year. For more information about the wage index cap policy and associated budget neutrality adjustment, we refer readers to the discussion in the FY 2023 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (87 FR 49018 through 49021). For FY 2026, we will apply the wage index cap and associated budget neutrality adjustment in accordance with the policies adopted in the FY VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00320 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 36855 2023 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule. We refer readers to the Addendum of t 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 36855 2023 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule. We refer readers to the Addendum of this final rule for further information regarding the budget neutrality calculations. Comment: Commenters, including MedPAC, supported the policy to cap wage index decreases. MedPAC urged CMS to apply a cap to wage index increases as well. Many commenters thanked CMS for recognizing that significant year-to-year changes in the wage index can occur due to external factors beyond a hospital’s control and stated that this policy increases predictability in IPPS payments. However, many commenters urged CMS to apply this policy in a non-budget neutral manner. Response: We thank the commenters for their support. We note that we did not propose any changes to this policy in the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule. We appreciate MedPAC’s suggestion that the cap on wage index changes should also be applied to increases in the wage index. However, as we stated in the FY 2023 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (87 FR 49021), one purpose of the policy is to help mitigate the significant negative impacts of c applied to increases in the wage index. However, as we stated in the FY 2023 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (87 FR 49021), one purpose of the policy is to help mitigate the significant negative impacts of certain wage index changes. That is, we cap decreases because we believe that a hospital would be able to more effectively budget and plan when there is predictability about its expected minimum level of IPPS payments in the upcoming fiscal year. We do not have a policy to limit wage index increases because we do not believe such a policy is needed to enable hospitals to more effectively budget and plan their operations. Therefore, we believe it is appropriate for hospitals that experience an increase in their wage index value to receive that wage index value. With regard to the commenters requesting that CMS apply this policy in a non- budget neutral manner, we refer readers to our response to similar comments in the FY 2024 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (88 FR 58981). 7. Transition for the Discontinuation of the Low Wage Index Hospital Policy As discussed previously, in the FY 2025 IFC we recalculated the FY 2025 IPPS hospital wage index to remove the low wage index hospital policy for FY continuation of the Low Wage Index Hospital Policy As discussed previously, in the FY 2025 IFC we recalculated the FY 2025 IPPS hospital wage index to remove the low wage index hospital policy for FY 2025. We also removed the low wage index budget neutrality factor from the FY 2025 standardized amounts. For FY 2026 and subsequent fiscal years, consistent with the FY 2025 IFC, after considering the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Bridgeport Hosp. v. Becerra, we proposed to discontinue the low wage index hospital policy. Because we proposed to discontinue the low wage index hospital policy for FY 2026 and subsequent fiscal years, we would no longer apply the low wage index budget neutrality factor to the standardized amounts. In the past, we have established temporary transition policies when there have been significant changes to payment policies, and we have limited the duration of each transition in order to phase in the effects of those payment policy changes. In taking this temporary approach in the past, we have sought to mitigate short-term instability and payment fluctuations that can negatively impact hospitals consistent with principles of certainty and predictability under pros roach in the past, we have sought to mitigate short-term instability and payment fluctuations that can negatively impact hospitals consistent with principles of certainty and predictability under prospective payment systems. For example, CMS has recognized that hospitals in certain areas may experience a negative impact on their IPPS payment due to the adoption of revised OMB delineations for wage index purposes and has finalized transition policies to mitigate negative financial impacts and provide stability to year-to-year wage index variations. We refer readers to the FY 2015 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (79 FR 49956 through 49962) for a discussion of the transition period finalized when CMS adopted revised OMB delineations after the 2010 decennial census. For FY 2025, consistent with our past practice, we established an interim transition policy for hospitals significantly impacted by the removal of the FY 2025 low wage index hospital policy using our authority under section 1886(d)(5)(I) of the Act. Specifically, the transitional payment exception for FY 2025 for those hospitals is equal to the additional FY 2025 amount a hospital would have been paid under the IPPS if its FY 2025 (I) of the Act. Specifically, the transitional payment exception for FY 2025 for those hospitals is equal to the additional FY 2025 amount a hospital would have been paid under the IPPS if its FY 2025 wage index were equal to 95 percent of its FY 2024 wage index. For a discussion of the removal of the low wage index hospital policy and the establishment of the interim transition policy, we refer readers to the FY 2025 IFC (89 FR 80405 through 80421). We currently have a wage index cap policy at 42 CFR 412.64(h)(7), under which we apply a 5-percent cap on any decrease to a hospital’s wage index from its wage index in the prior FY in a budget neutral manner, regardless of the circumstances causing the decline, so that a hospital’s final wage index for the upcoming fiscal year will not be less than 95 percent of its final wage index from the prior fiscal year. In accordance with 42 CFR 412.64(e)(1)(ii), CMS applies a budget neutrality adjustment to offset the increase in total payments resulting from the application of that cap. We stated in the proposed rule that some hospitals that previously benefitted from the low wage index hospital policy would experience decreases of 10 percent sulting from the application of that cap. We stated in the proposed rule that some hospitals that previously benefitted from the low wage index hospital policy would experience decreases of 10 percent or more over the two years from their FY 2024 wage index (with the low wage index hospital policy applied) to their proposed FY 2026 wage index (that is, approximately 5 percent or more per year over that time period). Similar to how 42 CFR 412.64(h)(7) operates, and how our interim transitional policy established in the FY 2025 IFC for these hospitals operates in FY 2025, we proposed to establish a narrow transitional exception to the calculation of FY 2026 payments for these hospitals. As described previously, if the combined payment effect of the FY 2025 wage index and the transitional payment exception for FY 2025 had been attributable solely to the FY 2025 wage index, then the wage index cap policy at 42 CFR 412.64(h)(7) would have mitigated these FY 2026 wage index decreases and would have done so in a budget neutral manner under our current regulations. As discussed in the FY 2025 IFC (89 FR 80407–80408), while CMS is not necessarily required by the statute to budget neutralize ld have done so in a budget neutral manner under our current regulations. As discussed in the FY 2025 IFC (89 FR 80407–80408), while CMS is not necessarily required by the statute to budget neutralize every exception or adjustment under section 1886(d)(5)(I), it has often done so by exercising its discretion under section 1886(d)(5)(I) of the Act twice: first to adopt an exception or adjustment, and then again to make that exception or adjustment budget neutral.142 For the FY 2025 interim transition policy, under the unique circumstances and due to the timing of the appellate court’s decision in Bridgeport Hosp. v. Becerra so close to the beginning of FY 2025, we declined to exercise our discretion to budget neutralize that interim FY 2025 transition policy. We stated that unlike most policies relevant to the calculation of the hospital wage index, the timing of the court’s decision shortly before the beginning of the fiscal year necessitated swift action by the agency via an IFC, rather than providing for prior notice and opportunity for comment. The agency’s action in that IFC was intended to promote certainty regarding FY 2025 IPPS payments in light of the reasoning of Bridgepor er than providing for prior notice and opportunity for comment. The agency’s action in that IFC was intended to promote certainty regarding FY 2025 IPPS payments in light of the reasoning of Bridgeport, which risked creating ongoing confusion for hospitals extending into FY 2025 about the amount of their IPPS payments. In that circumstance, the lack of an opportunity to notify interested parties in a notice of proposed rulemaking about changes to their wage index that would result from 142 For example, CMS has stated in the past that it would exercise its discretion under section 1886(d)(5)(I) of the Act to make the low wage index hospital policy budget neutral even if budget neutrality were not required by statute (88 FR 58979). VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00321 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 36856 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations budget neutralizing the transition policy, and for the agency to consider before the policy’s effective date issues hospitals might raise when commenting on those changes, weighed in favor egulations budget neutralizing the transition policy, and for the agency to consider before the policy’s effective date issues hospitals might raise when commenting on those changes, weighed in favor of an approach that did not adversely affect the significant majority of hospitals. For these reasons, and as discussed in the IFC, we declined to budget neutralize the interim FY 2025 transition policy. In contrast, we proposed the FY 2026 transition policy under very different circumstances. We are not facing the timing constraints of a court decision issued shortly before the beginning of a fiscal year that necessitated swift action through an IFC to promote certainty and prevent ongoing confusion by hospitals. Rather, we proposed the FY 2026 transition policy through the normal course of our annual rulemaking for the IPPS, which allows both for advance notice of the policy and for us to consider issues interested parties might raise in comments on the proposed rule. We proposed to make this policy budget neutral through an adjustment applied to the standardized amount for all hospitals because: (1) the wage index cap policy at 42 CFR 412.64(h)(7) would have mitigated these FY 2026 this policy budget neutral through an adjustment applied to the standardized amount for all hospitals because: (1) the wage index cap policy at 42 CFR 412.64(h)(7) would have mitigated these FY 2026 wage index decreases had the combined payment effect of the FY 2025 wage index and the transitional payment exception been reflected solely in the FY 2025 wage index, and it would have done so in a budget neutral manner under our current regulations; and (2) the circumstances described previously that caused us to decline to budget neutralize the interim FY 2025 transition policy are not applicable to the proposed FY 2026 transition policy. In addition, we noted that implementing the proposed FY 2026 transition policy in a budget neutral manner would be consistent with past practice. For example, we budget neutralized the FY 2015 wage index transition budget neutrality policy discussed earlier (79 FR 49956 through 49962). As we have discussed in other instances (89 FR 19398), we believed, and continue to believe, that transition policies should not increase estimated aggregate Medicare payments beyond the payments that would be made had we never proposed these transition policies. Ther and continue to believe, that transition policies should not increase estimated aggregate Medicare payments beyond the payments that would be made had we never proposed these transition policies. Therefore, we proposed to use our authority under section 1886(d)(5)(I)(i) of the Act twice. First, we proposed to adopt a narrow transitional exception to the calculation of FY 2026 IPPS payments for low wage index hospitals significantly impacted by the discontinuation of the low wage index hospital policy. Second, we proposed to exercise our authority again to do so in a budget neutral manner.143 144 We refer the reader to section II.A.4.g. of the Addendum of this final rule for complete details regarding the application of the transition for the discontinuation of the low wage index hospital policy budget neutrality factor. The transitional exception policy we proposed applies to hospitals that benefitted from the FY 2024 low wage index hospital policy. For those hospitals, we stated that we would compare the hospital’s proposed FY 2026 wage index to the hospital’s FY 2024 wage index. If the hospital is significantly impacted by the discontinuation of the low wage index hospital policy we would compare the hospital’s proposed FY 2026 wage index to the hospital’s FY 2024 wage index. If the hospital is significantly impacted by the discontinuation of the low wage index hospital policy, meaning the hospital’s proposed FY 2026 wage index is decreasing by more than 9.75 percent 145 from the hospital’s FY 2024 wage index, then the transitional payment exception for FY 2026 for that hospital would be equal to the additional FY 2026 amount the hospital would be paid under the IPPS if its FY 2026 wage index were equal to 90.25 percent 146 of its FY 2024 wage index.147 We noted this proposed transitional payment exception would be applied after the application of the 5- percent cap described at 42 CFR 412.64(h)(7). We provided the following 143 We note that even more so than was the case for the FY 2025 interim transition policy, the scope and magnitude of the FY 2026 transitional policy are much smaller than the low wage index hospital policy. As discussed in section VI. of the preamble of this final rule, we estimate only 54 hospitals out of the over 3,000 hospitals paid under the IPPS will receive FY 2026 transitional exception payments, and the total payment impact of he preamble of this final rule, we estimate only 54 hospitals out of the over 3,000 hospitals paid under the IPPS will receive FY 2026 transitional exception payments, and the total payment impact of the transitional policy is an increase in IPPS operating payments by approximately $27 million. For the FY 2025 interim transition policy the corresponding figures were 113 hospitals and an increase in IPPS operating payments by approximately $37 million (89 FR 80417). 144 We note that because creating an exception to the calculation of the FY 2026 payments is in this circumstance functionally equivalent to adjusting the FY 2026 payments, the transitional exception can be alternatively considered a transitional adjustment. 145 Under the wage index cap policy at 42 CFR 412.64(h)(7), a hospital’s wage index for a FY cannot be lower than 0.95 * its wage index from the prior FY. Over a 2-year period if its wage index were decreasing by more than 5 percent each year, this will mean a hospital’s wage index for a FY cannot be lower than (0.95*0.95) times its wage index from two years earlier. Similarly for our proposed FY 2026 transitional exception policy, we proposed that a hospital is sign wage index for a FY cannot be lower than (0.95*0.95) times its wage index from two years earlier. Similarly for our proposed FY 2026 transitional exception policy, we proposed that a hospital is significantly impacted by the discontinuation of the low wage index hospital policy if its FY 2026 wage index is less than (0.95*0.95) of its FY 2024 wage index, which equates to a decrease of more than 9.75 percent. 146 90.25 percent = 95 percent for FY 2025 * 95 percent for FY 2026. 147 We note that we are not proposing to change the FY 2026 wage index values under section 1886(d)(3)(E) for hospitals eligible for the proposed FY 2026 transitional exception policy on the basis of the exception; the proposed change will be applied as a separate step only for purposes of determining the hospitals’ FY 2026 IPPS payments. example in the proposed rule: assume the FY 2024 wage index for a hospital that benefitted from the low wage index hospital policy is 0.7600, and the hospital’s proposed FY 2026 wage index is 0.6500. (If applicable, this proposed FY 2026 wage index value would include the 5-percent cap based on a comparison of the hospital’s FY 2026 wage index prior to application of the 5- wage index is 0.6500. (If applicable, this proposed FY 2026 wage index value would include the 5-percent cap based on a comparison of the hospital’s FY 2026 wage index prior to application of the 5- percent cap, to the hospital’s FY 2025 wage index. We noted that the FY 2025 wage index that will be used in this comparison is generally the FY 2025 wage index listed in Table 2 from the FY 2025 IFC in the column labeled ‘‘FY 2025 Wage Index With Cap’’. We noted that all hospitals, regardless of whether the cap was applied to their FY 2025 wage index, have a value in the column ‘‘FY 2025 Wage Index With Cap’’. Hospitals that did not have a cap applied to their FY 2025 wage index will display a wage index in this column without the cap.) The hospital’s proposed FY 2026 wage index is decreasing by more than 9.75 percent from the hospital’s FY 2024 wage index [that is, 0.6500 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00322 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 36857 decreases of 10 percent or more over the two years from th 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 36857 decreases of 10 percent or more over the two years from their FY 2024 wage index (with the low wage index hospital policy applied) to their proposed FY 2026 wage index (that is, approximately 5 percent or more per year over that time period). As such, similar to the FY 2025 interim transition policy established in the FY 2025 IFC, we proposed to make a budget neutral equivalent exception under the capital IPPS. Comment: Commenters generally supported a transition for the discontinuation of the low wage index hospital policy. However, a few commenters expressed concern that CMS’s proposed transition for FY 2026 is too narrow in scope and duration and suggested that CMS extend the transition for more years. Response: We thank the commenters for their support. For FY 2026, as discussed later in the section, we are finalizing as proposed without modification the transitional payment exception for FY 2026 in a budget neutral manner. With regard to extending the transition for additional years, we may consider this in future rulemaking. Comment: Re fication the transitional payment exception for FY 2026 in a budget neutral manner. With regard to extending the transition for additional years, we may consider this in future rulemaking. Comment: Regarding the budget neutrality adjustment for the transition, a commenter was supportive and explained that the budget neutrality adjustment will have only a very narrow impact. Most commenters, however, urged CMS to adopt the transition policy on a non-budget neutral basis. Some of these commenters stated that the statute does not require CMS to implement the policy in a budget neutral manner, and CMS could apply the transition in the same manner as in FY 2025. A few commenters maintained that CMS does not have the authority under 1886(d)(5)(I)(i) to apply budget neutrality, stating that the only authority for budget neutrality is under section 1886(d)(5)(I)(ii) of the Act when making adjustments for transfer cases. Multiple commenters maintained that a budget neutrality adjustment to fund the transition perpetuates the same issue the courts rejected by increasing payments to low wage hospitals at the expense of other hospitals. Similarly, a commenter stated that if CMS lacks the autho the transition perpetuates the same issue the courts rejected by increasing payments to low wage hospitals at the expense of other hospitals. Similarly, a commenter stated that if CMS lacks the authority to implement the low wage index hospital policy, the burden should be on CMS to pay for a transition for hospitals benefiting from the unlawful policy, not on other hospitals. Other reasons given by commenters for a non-budget neutral transition included avoiding additional instability and the modest cost due to the relatively small number of hospitals benefiting from the policy. Response: We thank the commenter supportive of the budget neutrality adjustment. In response to the commenters urging CMS to finalize the transition without a budget neutrality adjustment like the FY 2025 transition, we continue to believe that the circumstances that caused us to decline to budget neutralize the interim FY 2025 transition policy are not applicable in FY 2026, and that the reasons we stated in the proposed rule for budget neutralizing the transition continue to apply. Regarding the comments challenging CMS’s authority under 1886(d)(5)(I)(i) to apply the transition for FY 2026 in a budget n the proposed rule for budget neutralizing the transition continue to apply. Regarding the comments challenging CMS’s authority under 1886(d)(5)(I)(i) to apply the transition for FY 2026 in a budget neutral manner, we disagree with the commenters that we are not permitted to make budget neutral exceptions under section 1886(d)(5)(I)(i) of the Act. Consistent with our response to similar comments about the authority for budget neutrality in the FY 2021 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (85 FR 58767), we believe that we have authority under section 1886(d)(5)(I)(i) of the Act to promulgate a budget neutrality adjustment to the national standardized amount and that this authority is not limited to transfer cases. In response to the commenters asserting that CMS should not budget neutralize a transition from a policy that a court ruled exceeded the Secretary’s statutory authority, and other reasons given by commenters in support of a non-budget neutral transition, we continue to believe as we have stated in the past (89 FR 19398) that transition policies should not increase estimated aggregate Medicare payments beyond the payments that would have been made had we never proposed these transition stated in the past (89 FR 19398) that transition policies should not increase estimated aggregate Medicare payments beyond the payments that would have been made had we never proposed these transition policies. Also, as noted earlier, this is a narrow transition and the scope and magnitude of the FY 2026 transitional policy are much smaller. This is an appropriate budget neutral transition for hospitals. After consideration of the public comments we received, we are finalizing as proposed without modification to use our authority under section 1886(d)(5)(I)(i) of the Act twice. First, to adopt a narrow transitional exception to the calculation of FY 2026 IPPS payments for low wage index hospitals that benefitted from the FY 2024 low wage index hospital policy and are significantly impacted by the discontinuation of the low wage index hospital policy. Second, we are exercising our authority again to do so in a budget neutral manner through an adjustment applied to the standardized amount for all hospitals. We are also finalizing our proposal to make a budget neutral equivalent exception under the capital IPPS. G. FY 2026 Wage Index Tables In this FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule, we t for all hospitals. We are also finalizing our proposal to make a budget neutral equivalent exception under the capital IPPS. G. FY 2026 Wage Index Tables In this FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule, we have included the following wage index tables: Table 2 titled ‘‘Case- Mix Index and Wage Index Table by CCN’’; Table 3 titled ‘‘Wage Index Table by CBSA’’; Table 4A titled ‘‘List of Counties Eligible for the Out-Migration Adjustment under Section 1886(d)(13) of the Act’’; and Table 4B titled ‘‘Counties redesignated under section 1886(d)(8)(B) of the Act (Lugar Counties).’’ We refer readers to section VI. of the Addendum to this final rule for a discussion of the wage index tables for FY 2026. H. Labor-Related Share for the FY 2026 Wage Index Section 1886(d)(3)(E) of the Act directs the Secretary to adjust the proportion of the national prospective payment system base payment rates that are attributable to wages and wage- related costs by a factor that reflects the relative differences in labor costs among geographic areas. It also directs the Secretary to estimate from time to time the proportion of hospital costs that are labor-related and to adjust the proportion (as estimated by th labor costs among geographic areas. It also directs the Secretary to estimate from time to time the proportion of hospital costs that are labor-related and to adjust the proportion (as estimated by the Secretary from time to time) of hospitals’ costs that are attributable to wages and wage-related costs of the DRG prospective payment rates. We refer to the portion of hospital costs attributable to wages and wage-related costs as the labor-related share. The labor-related share of the prospective payment rate is adjusted by an index of relative labor costs, which is referred to as the wage index. Section 403 of Public Law 108–173 amended section 1886(d)(3)(E) of the Act to provide that the Secretary must employ 62 percent as the labor-related share unless this would result in lower payments to a hospital than would otherwise be made. However, this provision of Public Law 108–173 did not change the legal requirement that the Secretary estimate from time to time the proportion of hospitals’ costs that are attributable to wages and wage- related costs. Thus, hospitals receive payment based on either a 62-percent labor-related share, or the labor-related share estimated from time to tim s’ costs that are attributable to wages and wage- related costs. Thus, hospitals receive payment based on either a 62-percent labor-related share, or the labor-related share estimated from time to time by the Secretary, depending on which labor- related share results in a higher payment. In the FY 2022 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (86 FR 45194 through 45208), we rebased and revised the hospital market basket to a 2018-based IPPS hospital market basket, which replaced the 2014- VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00323 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 36858 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations based IPPS hospital market basket, effective beginning October 1, 2021. Using the 2018-based IPPS market basket, we finalized a labor-related share of 67.6 percent for discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2021. In addition, in FY 2022, we implemented this revised and rebased labor-related share in a budget neutral manner (86 FR 45193, 86 FR 45529 through 45530). However, consistent with section 1886(d)(3)(E) of the Act, we did not take into mented this revised and rebased labor-related share in a budget neutral manner (86 FR 45193, 86 FR 45529 through 45530). However, consistent with section 1886(d)(3)(E) of the Act, we did not take into account the additional payments that would be made as a result of hospitals with a wage index less than or equal to 1.0000 being paid using a labor- related share lower than the labor- related share of hospitals with a wage index greater than 1.0000. As described in section IV. of the preamble of this final rule, effective beginning FY 2026, in the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH proposed rule, we proposed to rebase and revise the IPPS market basket to reflect a 2023 base year. We also proposed to recalculate the labor- related share for discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2025, using the proposed 2023-based IPPS market basket. As discussed in Appendix A of this final rule, we proposed this rebased and revised labor-related share in a budget neutral manner. However, consistent with section 1886(d)(3)(E) of the Act, we stated that we would not take into account the additional payments that would be made as a result of hospitals with a wage index less than or equal to 1.0000 being paid using (d)(3)(E) of the Act, we stated that we would not take into account the additional payments that would be made as a result of hospitals with a wage index less than or equal to 1.0000 being paid using a labor-related share lower than the labor-related share of hospitals with a wage index greater than 1.0000. The labor-related share is used to determine the proportion of the national IPPS base payment rate to which the area wage index is applied. We include a cost category in the labor-related share if the costs are labor intensive and vary with the local labor market. As described in section IV. of the preamble of this final rule, beginning with FY 2026, we proposed to include in the labor-related share the national average proportion of operating costs that are attributable to the following cost categories in the proposed 2023-based IPPS market basket: Wages and Salaries; Employee Benefits; Professional Fees: Labor-Related; Administrative and Facilities Support Services; Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Services; and All Other: Labor-Related Services as measured in the proposed 2023-based IPPS market basket. Therefore, for FY 2026, we proposed to use a labor-related share of 6 Maintenance, and Repair Services; and All Other: Labor-Related Services as measured in the proposed 2023-based IPPS market basket. Therefore, for FY 2026, we proposed to use a labor-related share of 66.0 percent for discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2025. As discussed in section VI.B. of the preamble of this final rule, prior to January 1, 2016, Puerto Rico hospitals were paid based on 75 percent of the national standardized amount and 25 percent of the Puerto Rico-specific standardized amount. As a result, we applied the Puerto Rico-specific labor- related share percentage and nonlabor- related share percentage to the Puerto Rico-specific standardized amount. Section 601 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Pub. L. 114– 113) amended section 1886(d)(9)(E) of the Act to specify that the payment calculation with respect to operating costs of inpatient hospital services of a subsection (d) Puerto Rico hospital for inpatient hospital discharges on or after January 1, 2016, shall use 100 percent of the national standardized amount. Because Puerto Rico hospitals are no longer paid with a Puerto Rico-specific standardized amount as of January 1, 2016, under section 1886 6, shall use 100 percent of the national standardized amount. Because Puerto Rico hospitals are no longer paid with a Puerto Rico-specific standardized amount as of January 1, 2016, under section 1886(d)(9)(E) of the Act as amended by section 601 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, there is no longer a need for us to calculate a Puerto Rico-specific labor- related share percentage and nonlabor- related share percentage for application to the Puerto Rico-specific standardized amount. Hospitals in Puerto Rico are now paid 100 percent of the national standardized amount and, therefore, are subject to the national labor-related share and nonlabor-related share percentages that are applied to the national standardized amount. Accordingly, for FY 2026, we did not propose a Puerto Rico-specific labor- related share percentage or a nonlabor- related share percentage. Comment: A commenter stated that while they understood that the rebasing of the market basket to a 2023 base year requires recalibrating cost weights, CMS is not required to reweight the labor related share under section 1886(d)(2)(H) as part of that rebasing. They urged CMS to maintain the current 67.6 percent labor ires recalibrating cost weights, CMS is not required to reweight the labor related share under section 1886(d)(2)(H) as part of that rebasing. They urged CMS to maintain the current 67.6 percent labor-related share in light of rising labor costs borne by essential hospitals. Some commenters were concerned that the reduction to the labor-related share from 67.6 percent to 66 percent would disproportionally negatively impact hospitals with a wage index greater than 1.000. Response: We thank the commenters for their comments. As stated previously, in the FY 2006 IPPS final rule (70 FR 47403), in accordance with section 404 of Public Law 108–173, CMS determined a new frequency for rebasing the hospital market basket. We established a rebasing frequency of every 4 years and, therefore, we rebase and revise the IPPS market basket effective for the FY 2026 IPPS update since it was last rebased effective for the FY 2022 IPPS update (the base year for the cost weights is being updated from 2018 to 2023). Section 1886(d)(3)(E) of the Act directs the Secretary to adjust the proportion of the national prospective payment system base payment rates that are attributable to wages and wage-related to 2023). Section 1886(d)(3)(E) of the Act directs the Secretary to adjust the proportion of the national prospective payment system base payment rates that are attributable to wages and wage-related costs by a factor that reflects the relative differences in labor costs among geographic areas. It also directs the Secretary to estimate from ‘‘time to time’’ the proportion of hospital costs that are labor-related and to adjust the proportion (as estimated by the Secretary from ‘‘time to time’’) of hospitals’ costs that are attributable to wages and wage-related costs of the DRG prospective payment rates. In order to meet the statutory requirement of ‘‘time to time’’, when we rebase and revise the IPPS market basket it is our longstanding practice to also recalculate the labor-related share using the rebased and revised IPPS market basket. Finally, we believe it is appropriate for FY 2026 to update the labor-related share to reflect the more recent cost structures of IPPS hospitals from the 2023-based IPPS market basket rather than continue to use the 2018-based IPPS market basket. After consideration of public comments, as discussed in section IV. of the preamble of this final rule the 2023-based IPPS market basket rather than continue to use the 2018-based IPPS market basket. After consideration of public comments, as discussed in section IV. of the preamble of this final rule, we are finalizing the rebasing of the 2023-based IPPS market basket without modification and the derivation of a labor-related share of 66.0 percent based on the final 2023-based IPPS market basket. Therefore, we are finalizing a labor-related share of 66.0 percent based on the 2023-based IPPS market basket. We refer the reader to section IV. of the preamble of this final rule for complete details regarding the rebasing of the labor-related share. Tables 1A and 1B, which are published in section VI. of the Addendum to this FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule and available via the internet on the CMS website, reflect the national labor-related share. Table 1C, in section VI. of the Addendum to this FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule and available via the internet on the CMS website, reflects the national labor- related share for hospitals located in Puerto Rico. For FY 2026, for all IPPS hospitals (including Puerto Rico hospitals) whose wage indexes are less than or equal to 1.0000, we are he national labor- related share for hospitals located in Puerto Rico. For FY 2026, for all IPPS hospitals (including Puerto Rico hospitals) whose wage indexes are less than or equal to 1.0000, we are finalizing to apply the wage index to a labor-related share of 62 percent of the national standardized amount. For all IPPS hospitals (including Puerto Rico hospitals) whose wage indexes are greater than 1.000, for FY 2026, we are finalizing to apply the wage index to a labor-related share of 66.0 percent of the national standardized amount. VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00324 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 36859 IV. Rebasing and Revising of the Hospital Market Baskets for Acute Care Hospitals A. Background Effective for cost reporting periods beginning on or after July 1, 1979, we developed and adopted a hospital input price index (that is, the hospital market basket for operating costs). Although ‘‘market basket’’ technically describes the mix of goods and services used in providing hospi d adopted a hospital input price index (that is, the hospital market basket for operating costs). Although ‘‘market basket’’ technically describes the mix of goods and services used in providing hospital care, this term is also commonly used to denote the input price index (that is, cost category weights and price proxies combined) derived from that market basket. Accordingly, the term ‘‘market basket’’ as used in this document refers to the hospital input price index. The percentage change in the market basket reflects the average change in the price of goods and services hospitals purchase in order to provide inpatient care. We first used the market basket to adjust hospital cost limits by an amount that reflected the average increase in the prices of the goods and services used to provide hospital inpatient care. This approach linked the increase in the cost limits to the efficient utilization of resources. Since the inception of the IPPS, the projected change in the hospital market basket has been the integral component of the update factor by which the prospective payment rates are updated every year. An explanation of the hospital market basket used to develop the prospective basket has been the integral component of the update factor by which the prospective payment rates are updated every year. An explanation of the hospital market basket used to develop the prospective payment rates was published in the Federal Register on September 1, 1983 (48 FR 39764). We also refer readers to the FY 2022 IPPS/ LTCH PPS final rule (86 FR 45194 through 45207) in which we discussed the most recent previous rebasing of the hospital input price index. The hospital market basket is a fixed- weight, Laspeyres-type price index. A Laspeyres-type price index measures the change in price, over time, of the same mix of goods and services purchased in the base period. Any changes in the quantity or mix of goods and services (that is, intensity) purchased over time relative to the base period are not measured. The index itself is constructed in three steps. First, a base period is selected (in the proposed rule, we proposed to use 2023 as the base period) and total base period costs are estimated for a set of mutually exclusive and exhaustive spending categories, with the proportion of total costs that each category represents being calculated. These proportions are called co sts are estimated for a set of mutually exclusive and exhaustive spending categories, with the proportion of total costs that each category represents being calculated. These proportions are called cost weights. Second, each cost category is matched to an appropriate price or wage variable, referred to as a ‘‘price proxy.’’ In almost every instance, these price proxies are derived from publicly available statistical series that are published on a consistent schedule (preferably at least on a quarterly basis). Finally, the cost weight for each cost category is multiplied by the level of its respective price proxy. The sum of these products (that is, the cost weights multiplied by their price index levels) for all cost categories yields the composite index level of the market basket in a given period. Repeating this step for other periods produces a series of market basket levels over time. Dividing an index level for a given period by an index level for an earlier period produces a rate of growth in the input price index over that timeframe. As previously noted, the market basket is described as a fixed-weight index because it represents the change in price over time of a constant m of growth in the input price index over that timeframe. As previously noted, the market basket is described as a fixed-weight index because it represents the change in price over time of a constant mix (quantity and intensity) of goods and services needed to provide hospital services. The effects on total costs resulting from changes in the mix of goods and services purchased subsequent to the base period are not measured. For example, a hospital hiring more nurses to accommodate the needs of patients would increase the volume of goods and services purchased by the hospital but would not be factored into the price change measured by a fixed-weight hospital market basket. Only when the index is rebased would changes in the quantity and intensity be captured, with those changes being reflected in the cost weights. Therefore, we rebase the market basket periodically so that the cost weights reflect recent changes in the mix of goods and services that hospitals purchase (hospital inputs) to furnish inpatient care between base periods. We last rebased the hospital market basket cost weights effective for FY 2022 (86 FR 45194 through 45207), with 2018 data used as the base period for th to furnish inpatient care between base periods. We last rebased the hospital market basket cost weights effective for FY 2022 (86 FR 45194 through 45207), with 2018 data used as the base period for the construction of the market basket cost weights. Effective for FY 2026, we proposed to rebase the IPPS operating market basket to reflect the 2023 cost structure for IPPS hospitals and to revise applicable cost categories and price proxies used to determine the IPPS market basket, as discussed in this final rule. We also proposed to rebase and revise the Capital Input Price Index (CIPI) as described in section IV.D. of the preamble of this final rule. In the following discussion, we provide an overview of the proposed IPPS market basket, describe the proposed methodologies for developing the cost weights, and provide information on the proposed price proxies. In each section, we describe any comments received, responses to these comments, and our final policies for this final rule. Then, we present the FY 2026 market basket update and labor-related share based on the 2023- based IPPS market basket. B. Rebasing and Revising the IPPS Market Basket The terms ‘‘rebasing’’ and ‘‘revising,’ we present the FY 2026 market basket update and labor-related share based on the 2023- based IPPS market basket. B. Rebasing and Revising the IPPS Market Basket The terms ‘‘rebasing’’ and ‘‘revising,’’ while often used interchangeably, actually denote different activities. ‘‘Rebasing’’ means moving the base year for the structure of costs of an input price index (for example, in the proposed rule, we proposed to shift the base year cost structure for the IPPS hospital index from 2018 to 2023). ‘‘Revising’’ means changing data sources or price proxies used in the input price index. As published in the FY 2006 IPPS final rule (70 FR 47403), in accordance with section 404 of Public Law 108–173, CMS determined a new frequency for rebasing the hospital market basket. We established a rebasing frequency of every 4 years and, therefore, we proposed to rebase and revise the IPPS market basket effective for the FY 2026 IPPS update since it was last rebased effective for the FY 2022 IPPS update (the base year for the cost weights is being updated from 2018 to 2023). We note that comments we received on the overall market basket method (including frequency of rebasings), transparency of the m (the base year for the cost weights is being updated from 2018 to 2023). We note that comments we received on the overall market basket method (including frequency of rebasings), transparency of the method, and resulting market basket updates are discussed in section IV.B.2. of the preamble of this final rule and comments we received on the labor- related share are discussed in section IV.B.3. of the preamble of this final rule. 1. Development of Cost Categories and Weights a. Use of Medicare Cost Report Data The major source of expenditure data for developing the proposed rebased and revised hospital market basket cost weights is the 2023 Medicare cost reports. These 2023 Medicare cost reports are for cost reporting periods beginning on and after October 1, 2022, and before October 1, 2023. We proposed to use 2023 as the base year because we believe that the 2023 Medicare cost reports represent the most recent, complete set of Medicare cost report data available to develop cost weights for IPPS hospitals at the time of rulemaking. As was done in previous rebasings, these cost reports are from IPPS hospitals only (hospitals excluded from the IPPS (including CAHs and rural emergency s for IPPS hospitals at the time of rulemaking. As was done in previous rebasings, these cost reports are from IPPS hospitals only (hospitals excluded from the IPPS (including CAHs and rural emergency hospitals) are not VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00325 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 36860 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations included) and are based on IPPS Medicare-allowable operating costs. IPPS Medicare-allowable operating costs are costs that are eligible to be paid under the IPPS. For example, the IPPS market basket excludes home health agency (HHA) costs as these costs would be paid under the HHA PPS and, therefore, these costs are not IPPS Medicare-allowable costs. The current set of instructions for the Medicare cost reports for hospitals (Form 2552–10, OMB Control Number 0938–0050) can be found in Chapter 40 at the following website (https:// www.cms.gov/Regulations-and- Guidance/Guidance/ManuFals/Paper- Based-Manuals-Items/CMS021935). The major types of costs underlying the 2023-based IPPS market basket are deri ollowing website (https:// www.cms.gov/Regulations-and- Guidance/Guidance/ManuFals/Paper- Based-Manuals-Items/CMS021935). The major types of costs underlying the 2023-based IPPS market basket are derived from the Medicare cost reports (Form 2552–10, OMB Control Number 0938–0050). Specifically, we proposed to use the Medicare cost reports for seven specific types of costs: Wages and Salaries, Employee Benefits, Contract Labor, Pharmaceuticals, Professional Liability Insurance (Malpractice), Blood and Blood Products, and Home Office/ Related Organization Contract Labor. A residual category is then estimated and reflects all remaining costs not captured in the seven types of costs identified previously. The 2018-based IPPS market basket similarly used the Medicare cost reports. In order to create a market basket that is representative of IPPS hospitals serving Medicare patients and to help ensure the major cost weights accurately reflect the percent of total Medicare- allowable operating costs, as defined in this final rule, we proposed to apply edits to remove reporting errors and outliers. Specifically, the IPPS Medicare cost reports used to calculate the market basket cost weights costs, as defined in this final rule, we proposed to apply edits to remove reporting errors and outliers. Specifically, the IPPS Medicare cost reports used to calculate the market basket cost weights exclude any providers that reported costs less than or equal to zero for the following categories: total Medicare inpatient costs (Worksheet D–1, Part II, column 1, line 49); Medicare PPS payments (Worksheet E, Part A, column 1, line 59); Total salary costs (Worksheet S–3, Part II, column 2, line 1). We also limited our sample to providers that had a Medicare cost reporting period that was between 10 and 14 months. The final sample used includes roughly 2,900 Medicare cost reports (about 93 percent of the universe of IPPS Medicare cost reports for 2023). The sample of providers is representative of the national universe of providers by ownership-type (proprietary, nonprofit, and government) and by urban/rural status. In the proposed rule, we proposed to calculate total Medicare-allowable operating costs for each hospital to be equal to noncapital costs (Worksheet B, Part I, column 26 less Worksheet B, Part II, column 26) that are attributable to the Medicare-allowable cost centers of t perating costs for each hospital to be equal to noncapital costs (Worksheet B, Part I, column 26 less Worksheet B, Part II, column 26) that are attributable to the Medicare-allowable cost centers of the hospital. We proposed that Medicare- allowable cost centers are lines 30 through 35, 50 through 60, 62 through 76, 90, 91, 92.01, 93, 96 and 97. This is the same methodology that was used for the 2018-based IPPS market basket. (1) Wages and Salaries Costs To derive wages and salaries costs for the Medicare-allowable cost centers, we proposed to first calculate total unadjusted wages and salaries costs as reported on Worksheet S–3, Part II, column 4, line 1. We then proposed to remove the wages and salaries attributable to non-Medicare-allowable cost centers (that is, excluded areas) as well as a portion of overhead wages and salaries attributable to these excluded areas. This is the same methodology that was used to derive wages and salaries costs for the 2018-based IPPS market basket. Specifically, we proposed to calculate excluded area wages and salaries as equal to the sum of Worksheet S–3, Part II, column 4, lines 3, 4.01, 5, 6, 7, 7.01, 8, 9, and 10 less Worksheet A, column 1, Specifically, we proposed to calculate excluded area wages and salaries as equal to the sum of Worksheet S–3, Part II, column 4, lines 3, 4.01, 5, 6, 7, 7.01, 8, 9, and 10 less Worksheet A, column 1, lines 20 and 23. Overhead wages and salaries are attributable to the entire IPPS facility. Therefore, we proposed to only include the proportion attributable to the Medicare-allowable cost centers. Specifically, we proposed to estimate the proportion of overhead wages and salaries that are not attributable to Medicare-allowable cost centers (that is, excluded areas) by first calculating the ratio of total Medicare-allowable operating costs (as previously defined) to total facility operating costs (Worksheet B, Part I, column 26, line 202 less Worksheet B, Part I, column 0, lines 1 and 2). We then proposed to multiply this ratio by total overhead wages and salaries (Worksheet S–3, Part II, column 4, lines 26, 27, 29 through 32, 34, and 36 through 43) to estimate Medicare allowable overhead wages and salaries. The difference between total overhead wages and salaries and Medicare allowable overhead wages and salaries is equal to the overhead wages and salaries attributable to the excluded wages and salaries. The difference between total overhead wages and salaries and Medicare allowable overhead wages and salaries is equal to the overhead wages and salaries attributable to the excluded areas. Therefore, we proposed wages and salaries costs used for the 2023-based IPPS market basket are equal to total wages and salaries costs less: (a) excluded area wages and salaries costs; and (b) overhead wages and salaries costs attributable to the excluded areas. (2) Employee Benefits Costs We proposed to derive employee benefits costs using a similar methodology as the wages and salaries costs; that is, reflecting employee benefits costs attributable to the Medicare-allowable cost centers. First, we calculate total unadjusted employee benefits costs as the sum of Worksheet S–3, Part II, column 4, lines 17, 18, 20, 22, and 25.52. We then exclude those employee benefits attributable to the overhead wages and salaries for the non- Medicare-allowable cost centers (that is, excluded areas). Employee benefits attributable to the non-Medicare- allowable cost centers are derived by multiplying the ratio of total employee benefits (equal to the sum of Worksheet S–3, Part II, column 4, l as). Employee benefits attributable to the non-Medicare- allowable cost centers are derived by multiplying the ratio of total employee benefits (equal to the sum of Worksheet S–3, Part II, column 4, lines 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 22.01, 23, 24, 25, 25.50, 25.51, 25.52, and 25.53) to total wages and salaries (Worksheet S–3, Part II, column 4, line 1) (which we hereafter refer to as the ‘‘IPPS benefits ratio’’) by excluded overhead wages and salaries (as previously described in section IV.B.1.a.(1). of the preamble of this final rule for wages and salaries costs). The same methodology was used in the 2018-based IPPS market basket. Therefore, we proposed employee benefit costs used for the 2023-based IPPS market basket are equal to total employee benefit costs less: (a) excluded area benefit costs; and (b) overhead benefit costs attributable to the excluded areas. (3) Contract Labor Costs Contract labor costs are primarily associated with direct patient care services. Contract labor costs for services such as accounting, billing, and legal are estimated using other government data sources as described in this final rule. We proposed to derive contract labor costs for the 2023-based IPP for services such as accounting, billing, and legal are estimated using other government data sources as described in this final rule. We proposed to derive contract labor costs for the 2023-based IPPS market basket as the sum of Worksheet S–3, Part II, column 4, lines 11, 13, and 15. The same methodology was used in the 2018-based IPPS market basket. (4) Professional Liability Insurance Costs We proposed that professional liability insurance (PLI) costs (often referred to as malpractice costs) be equal to premiums, paid losses, and self- insurance costs reported on Worksheet S–2, Part I, columns 1 through 3, line 118.01. The same methodology was used for the 2018-based IPPS market basket. VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00326 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 36861 (5) Pharmaceuticals Costs We proposed to calculate pharmaceuticals costs as total costs reported for the Pharmacy cost center (Worksheet B, Part I, column 0, line 15) and Drugs Charged to Patients cost center (Worksheet B, Part I, roposed to calculate pharmaceuticals costs as total costs reported for the Pharmacy cost center (Worksheet B, Part I, column 0, line 15) and Drugs Charged to Patients cost center (Worksheet B, Part I, column 0, line 73) less wages and salaries attributable to these two cost centers (Worksheet S–3, Part II, column 4, line 40 and Worksheet A, column 1, line 73) less estimated employee benefits attributable to these two cost centers. We proposed to estimate the employee benefits costs by multiplying the IPPS benefits ratio as described in section IV.B.1.a.(2) of the preamble of this final rule by total wages and salaries costs for the Pharmacy and Drugs Charged to Patients cost centers (equal to the sum of Worksheet S–3, Part II, column 4, line 40 and Worksheet A, column 1, line 73). The same methodology was used for the 2018-based IPPS market basket. (6) Blood and Blood Products Costs We proposed to calculate blood and blood products costs as total costs reported for the Whole Blood & Packed Red Blood Cells cost center (Worksheet B, Part I, column 0, line 62) and the Blood Storing, Processing, & Transfusing cost center (Worksheet B, Part I, column 0, line 63) less wages and salaries cked Red Blood Cells cost center (Worksheet B, Part I, column 0, line 62) and the Blood Storing, Processing, & Transfusing cost center (Worksheet B, Part I, column 0, line 63) less wages and salaries attributable to these two cost centers (Worksheet A, column 1, lines 62 and 63) less estimated employee benefits attributable to these two cost centers. We estimate these employee benefits costs by multiplying the IPPS benefits ratio as described in section IV.B.1.a.(2) of the preamble of this final rule by total wages and salaries for the Whole Blood & Packed Red Blood Cells and Blood Storing, Processing, & Transfusing cost centers (equal to the sum of Worksheet A, column 1, lines 62 and 63). The same methodology was used for the 2018-based IPPS market basket. (7) Home Office/Related Organization Contract Labor Costs We proposed to determine home office/related organization contract labor costs using data reported on Worksheet S–3, Part II, column 4, lines 14.01, 14.02, 25.50, and 25.51. The same methodology was used for the 2018- based IPPS market basket. b. Final Major Cost Category Computation After we derived costs for the major cost categories for each provider using the Medicare The same methodology was used for the 2018- based IPPS market basket. b. Final Major Cost Category Computation After we derived costs for the major cost categories for each provider using the Medicare cost report data as previously described, we proposed to address data outliers using the following steps. First, for each of the major cost weights except the Home Office/Related Organization Contract Labor cost weight, we proposed to trim the data to remove outliers (a standard statistical process) by: (step 1) requiring that major expenses (such as Wages and Salaries costs) and total Medicare-allowable operating costs be greater than zero; (step 2) dividing the costs for each of the six categories (calculated as previously described in this section) by total Medicare-allowable operating costs to obtain cost weights for each PPS hospital; and (step 3) excluding the top and bottom 5 percent of the major cost weight (for example, Wages and Salaries costs as a percent of total Medicare- allowable operating costs). We note that missing values are assumed to be zero consistent with the methodology for how missing values were treated in the 2018-based IPPS market basket. For the Home Offic owable operating costs). We note that missing values are assumed to be zero consistent with the methodology for how missing values were treated in the 2018-based IPPS market basket. For the Home Office/Related Organization Contract Labor cost weight, we proposed to exclude outliers using a slightly different method by (step 1) requiring that total Medicare- allowable operating costs are greater than zero; (step 2) dividing the home office/related organization contract labor costs (calculated as previously described in this section) by total Medicare-allowable operating costs to obtain a cost weight for each PPS hospital; and (step 3) applying a trim that excludes those reporters with a Home Office/Related Organization Contract Labor cost weight above the 99th percentile. This allows all providers’ Medicare-allowable costs to be included, even if their home office/ related organization contract labor costs were reported to be zero. The Medicare cost report data (Worksheet S–2, Part I, line 140) indicate that not all hospitals have a home office. IPPS hospitals without a home office would report administrative costs that might typically be associated with a home office in the Wages a ine 140) indicate that not all hospitals have a home office. IPPS hospitals without a home office would report administrative costs that might typically be associated with a home office in the Wages and Salaries and Employee Benefits cost weights, or these costs would be reflected in the residual cost weight if they purchased these types of services from external contractors. We believe the trimming methodology that excludes those who report a Home Office/Related Organization Contract Labor cost weight above the 99th percentile is appropriate as it removes extreme outliers while also allowing providers with zero home office/related organization contract labor costs to be included in the Home Office/Related Organization Contract Labor cost weight calculation. After the outliers have been removed, we sum the costs for each category across all remaining providers. We then divide this by the sum of total Medicare- allowable operating costs across all remaining providers to obtain a cost weight for the 2023-based IPPS market basket for the given category. This is the same methodology used for the 2018- based IPPS market basket. The trimming process is done individually for each cost cat ight for the 2023-based IPPS market basket for the given category. This is the same methodology used for the 2018- based IPPS market basket. The trimming process is done individually for each cost category so that providers excluded from one cost weight calculation are not automatically excluded from another cost weight calculation. We note that these proposed trimming methods are the same types of edits performed for the 2018-based IPPS market basket, as well as other PPS market baskets (including but not limited to SNF market basket and home health market basket). We note that for each of the cost weights we evaluated the distribution of providers and costs by ownership-type, and by urban/rural status. For all of the cost weights, the trimmed sample was nationally representative. Finally, we calculate the residual ‘‘All Other’’ cost weight that reflects all remaining costs that are not captured in the seven cost categories listed. We received the following comments on our proposed methodology for deriving the major cost weights of the proposed 2023-based IPPS market basket. Comment: A commenter stated that contract labor has been substituted for employed labor in recent years and thodology for deriving the major cost weights of the proposed 2023-based IPPS market basket. Comment: A commenter stated that contract labor has been substituted for employed labor in recent years and accelerated with the COVID–19 PHE, and as a result their expectation would be that any decrease in labor costs for employee benefits would be more than offset by the increased costs for contract labor. The commenter requested that CMS reexamine its methodology for allocating home office costs to contract labor to ensure that it is appropriately resulting in an increase that offsets the decline in employee benefits as contract labor now represents a significantly higher share of total hospital labor costs. The commenter stated that the Employee Benefits cost weight is the largest factor in the decreasing labor- related share (1.2 percentage points). Response: We note that the discussion of the labor-related share as mentioned by the commenter is provided in section IV.B.3. of the preamble of this final rule. Our analysis of the Medicare cost report data indicates that the increase in the Home Office/Related Organization Contract Labor cost weight of 0.8 percentage point from 2018 to 20 of this final rule. Our analysis of the Medicare cost report data indicates that the increase in the Home Office/Related Organization Contract Labor cost weight of 0.8 percentage point from 2018 to 2023 is more than offset by the estimated overhead compensation cost weight (excluding Home Office/Related Organization Contract Labor costs), which decreased about 1.4 percentage points over the same period. Overhead VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00327 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 36862 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations compensation costs (as indicated in the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH proposed rule (90 FR 18238)) would be reflected in the Wages and Salaries and Employee Benefits cost weights. Therefore, it is possible that hospitals are substituting some of their in-house administrative compensation costs for Home Office/ Related Organization administrative compensation costs as the commenter alluded. We note that direct patient care contract labor costs are allocated to the Wages and Salaries and Employee Benefits cost weights bas ization administrative compensation costs as the commenter alluded. We note that direct patient care contract labor costs are allocated to the Wages and Salaries and Employee Benefits cost weights based on their relative proportions for employed labor under the assumption that direct patient care contract labor costs are comprised of both wages and salaries and employee benefits and then these cost weights are proxied by the ECI for All Civilian Workers in Hospitals. As stated in the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH proposed rule (90 FR 18245 through 18246), we proposed to allocate the Home Office/ Related Organization Contract Labor cost weight to the Professional Fees: Labor-Related and Professional Fees: Nonlabor-related cost weights (both of which are proxied by ECI for Total Compensation for Private Industry Workers in Professional and Related). After consideration of public comments, we are finalizing the major cost weights without modification. We note that comments we received on the overall market basket method (including frequency of rebasings), transparency of the method, and resulting market basket updates are discussed in section IV.B.2. of the preamble of this final rule and comment market basket method (including frequency of rebasings), transparency of the method, and resulting market basket updates are discussed in section IV.B.2. of the preamble of this final rule and comments on the labor-related share are discussed in section IV.B.3 of the preamble of this final rule. Table IV–01 shows the resulting proposed and final cost weights for these major cost categories of the 2023-based IPPS market basket compared to the 2018- based IPPS market basket. From 2018 to 2023, the Wages and Salaries and Employee Benefits cost weights as calculated directly from the Medicare cost reports decreased by 1.9 percentage points and 1.5 percentage points, respectively, while the Contract Labor cost weight increased by 1.6 percentage points. As we did for the 2018-based IPPS market basket (86 FR 45198), we proposed to allocate contract labor costs to the Wages and Salaries and Employee Benefits cost weights based on their relative proportions for employed labor under the assumption that contract labor costs are comprised of both wages and salaries and employee benefits. The contract labor allocation proportion for wages and salaries is equal to the Wages and Salaries cost wei on that contract labor costs are comprised of both wages and salaries and employee benefits. The contract labor allocation proportion for wages and salaries is equal to the Wages and Salaries cost weight as a percent of the sum of the Wages and Salaries cost weight and the Employee Benefits cost weight. Using the 2023 Medicare cost report data, this percentage is 79 percent. Therefore, we proposed to allocate approximately 79 percent of the Contract Labor cost weight to the Wages and Salaries cost weight and 21 percent to the Employee Benefits cost weight. The 2018-based IPPS market basket allocated 78 percent of the Contract Labor cost weight to the Wages and Salaries cost weight. We received no comments on the proposed methodology to allocate the Contract Labor cost weight to the Wages and Salaries cost weight and Employee Benefits cost weight and therefore, are finalizing this methodology without modification. Table IV–02 shows the Wages and Salaries and Employee Benefits cost weights after contract labor allocation for the 2018-based IPPS market basket and the proposed and final 2023-based IPPS market basket. In aggregate, the Compensation cost weight (calculated using more det ts after contract labor allocation for the 2018-based IPPS market basket and the proposed and final 2023-based IPPS market basket. In aggregate, the Compensation cost weight (calculated using more detailed decimal places) decreased from 53.0 percent to 51.1 percent, or 1.9 percentage points. 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 00328 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 / > H P G H P G 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00329 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 36864 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations a. Wages and Salaries We proposed to use the ECI for Wages and Salaries for All Civilian Workers in Hospitals (BLS series code CIU1026220000000I) to proxy the price growth of this cost category. This is the same price proxy used in the 2018- based IPPS market basket. b. Employee Benefits We proposed to use the ECI for Total Benefits for All Civilian Workers in Hospitals to proxy the price growth of this cost category. This ECI is calculated using t market basket. b. Employee Benefits We proposed to use the ECI for Total Benefits for All Civilian Workers in Hospitals to proxy the price growth of this cost category. This ECI is calculated using the ECI for Total Compensation for All Civilian Workers in Hospitals (BLS series code CIU1016220000000I) and the relative importance of wages and salaries within total compensation. This is the same price proxy used in the 2018-based IPPS market basket. c. Fuel: Oil and Gas For the 2023-based IPPS market basket, we proposed to use a blend of the PPI Industry for Petroleum Refineries (NAICS 3241), PPI for Other Petroleum and Coal Products (NAICS 32419) and the PPI Commodity for Natural Gas. Our analysis of the Bureau of Economic Analysis’ 2017 Benchmark I–O data for NAICS 622000 Hospitals shows that Petroleum Refineries expenses account for approximately 86 percent, Other Petroleum and Coal Products expenses account for about 7 percent and Natural Gas expenses account for approximately 7 percent of Hospitals’ (NAICS 622000) total Fuel: Oil and Gas expenses. Therefore, we proposed to use a blend of 86 percent of the PPI Industry for Petroleum Refineries (BLS series code PCU324110324110), cent of Hospitals’ (NAICS 622000) total Fuel: Oil and Gas expenses. Therefore, we proposed to use a blend of 86 percent of the PPI Industry for Petroleum Refineries (BLS series code PCU324110324110), 7 percent of the PPI for Other Petroleum and Coal Products (BLS series code PCU32419) and 7 percent of the PPI Commodity Index for Natural Gas (BLS series code WPU0531) as the price proxy for this cost category. The 2018-based IPPS market basket used a 90/10 blend of the PPI Industry for Petroleum Refineries and PPI Commodity for Natural Gas, reflecting the 2012 I–O data (86 FR 45199). We believe that the three proposed price proxies are the most technically appropriate indices available to proxy the price growth of the Fuel: Oil and Gas cost category in the 2023-based IPPS market basket. d. Electricity and Other Non-Fuel Utilities We proposed to use the PPI Commodity for Commercial Electric Power (BLS series code WPU0542) to proxy the price growth of this cost category. This is the same price proxy used in the 2018-based IPPS market basket. e. Professional Liability Insurance We proposed to proxy price changes in hospital professional liability insurance premiums (PLI) using percentag rice proxy used in the 2018-based IPPS market basket. e. Professional Liability Insurance We proposed to proxy price changes in hospital professional liability insurance premiums (PLI) using percentage changes as estimated by the CMS Hospital Professional Liability Index. To generate these estimates, we collect commercial insurance medical liability premiums for a fixed level of coverage while holding nonprice factors constant (such as a change in the level of coverage). This is the same price proxy used in the 2018-based IPPS market basket. f. Pharmaceuticals We proposed to use the PPI Commodity for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, Prescription (BLS series code WPUSI07003) to proxy the price growth of this cost category. This is the same price proxy used in the 2018- based IPPS market basket. g. Food: Direct Purchases We proposed to use the PPI Commodity for Processed Foods and Feeds (BLS series code WPU02) to proxy the price growth of this cost category. This is the same price proxy used in the 2018-based IPPS market basket. h. Food: Contract Services We proposed to use the CPI for Food Away From Home (All Urban Consumers) (BLS series code CUUR0000SEFV) to proxy the price growth of ed in the 2018-based IPPS market basket. h. Food: Contract Services We proposed to use the CPI for Food Away From Home (All Urban Consumers) (BLS series code CUUR0000SEFV) to proxy the price growth of this cost category. This is the same price proxy used in the 2018- based IPPS market basket. i. Chemicals Similar to the 2018-based IPPS market basket, we proposed to use a four-part blended PPI as the proxy for the Chemicals cost category in the 2023- based IPPS market basket. The proposed blend is composed of the PPI Industry for Industrial Gas Manufacturing, Primary Products (BLS series code PCU325120325120P), the PPI Industry for Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing (BLS series code PCU32518–32518), the PPI Industry for Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing (BLS series code PCU32519–32519), and the PPI Industry for Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product Manufacturing (BLS series code PCU325998325998). For the 2023-based IPPS market basket, we proposed to derive the weights for the PPIs using the 2017 Benchmark I–O data. The 2018- based IPPS market basket used the 2012 Benchmark I–O data to derive the weights for the four PPIs (86 FR 45200). We did not receive comments o for the PPIs using the 2017 Benchmark I–O data. The 2018- based IPPS market basket used the 2012 Benchmark I–O data to derive the weights for the four PPIs (86 FR 45200). We did not receive comments on the proposed methodology to derive the blended Chemicals price proxy using the 2017 Benchmark I–O and therefore are finalizing this methodology without modification. Table IV–03 shows the proposed and final weights for each of the four PPIs used to create the blended index compared to those used for the 2018- based IPPS market basket. 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 j. Blood and Blood Products We proposed to use the PPI Industry for Blood and Organ Banks (BLS series code PCU621991621991) to proxy the price growth of this cost category. This is the same price proxy used in the 2018-based IPPS market basket. k. Medical Instruments We proposed to use a blended price proxy for the Medical Instruments category, as shown in Table IV–04. The 2017 Benchmark I–O data shows the majority of medical instruments and supply costs are for NAICS 339112— Surgical and medical instrument manufacturing costs (approximately 64 VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 26 O data shows the majority of medical instruments and supply costs are for NAICS 339112— Surgical and medical instrument manufacturing costs (approximately 64 VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00330 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 / > H P G 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00331 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 00332 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 36867 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 00333 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 / > H P G 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00334 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 H P G 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00335 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 36870 Fed a h k / > H P G H P G 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00335 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 36870 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations (the median of 1 percent to 49 percent range) to estimate the proportion of these services that are purchased inside of the local labor market. For the remaining reporters (which accounted for 68 percent of total Medicare allowable operating costs) that indicated they purchased the majority of these services inside the local labor market we use 75 percent (the median of 51 percent to 100 percent). To estimate the overall proportion of expenses classified as professional fees that meet our definition of labor-related services (that is, reflects services purchased inside of the local labor market), for the first group of reporters we multiply 32 percent times 25 percent, which yields an estimate of 8 percent, and for the second group of reporters multiply 68 percent times 75 percent, which yields an estimated proportion of 51 percent. Combining these two measures yields 59 percent (8 percent plus 51 percent nd for the second group of reporters multiply 68 percent times 75 percent, which yields an estimated proportion of 51 percent. Combining these two measures yields 59 percent (8 percent plus 51 percent), which reflects the overall proportion of total Medicare allowable operating expenses that are purchased inside the local labor market and will be reflected in our labor-related measure. Therefore, we proposed to allocate 59 percent of the Benchmark I–O expenses classified as professional fees to estimate Professional Fees: Labor-Related cost weight, and 41 percent of the Benchmark I–O expenses classified as professional fees to estimate Professional Fees: Nonlabor-Related cost weight. In the 2023-based IPPS market basket, expenses classified as professional fees that are subject to allocation represent approximately 9.8 percent of total operating costs. Based on the Medicare cost report results, we proposed to apportion 5.8 percentage points of the 9.8 percentage point figure into the Professional Fees: Labor-Related cost category (59 percent of 9.8 percent) and designate the remaining approximately 4.0 percentage points into the Professional Fees: Nonlabor-Related cost category (41 rofessional Fees: Labor-Related cost category (59 percent of 9.8 percent) and designate the remaining approximately 4.0 percentage points into the Professional Fees: Nonlabor-Related cost category (41 percent of 9.8 percent). We note that in the 2018-based IPPS market basket given the data available from the 2008 survey, we classified some expenses from the 2012 Benchmark I–O data as Professional Fees: Labor-Related, some expenses as Professional Fees: Nonlabor-Related, and some expenses as professional fees subject to allocation based on the survey. We then applied the 2008 survey results to the following specific categories of expenses: Legal services, Accounting, tax preparation, bookkeeping, and payroll services, Architectural, engineering and related services, and Management consulting services. However, for the 2023-based IPPS market basket, we proposed to revise the methodology to now use the data as reported on the Medicare cost reports (Worksheet S–2, Part I) to allocate all of the expenses we proposed to classify as professional fees costs from the 2017 Benchmark I–O data. The impact of this proposed change is an increase in the 2023-based Professional Fees: Labor-Related f the expenses we proposed to classify as professional fees costs from the 2017 Benchmark I–O data. The impact of this proposed change is an increase in the 2023-based Professional Fees: Labor-Related cost weight of about 1 percentage point. In addition to the professional services listed earlier, we also classify a proportion of the Home Office/Related Organization Contract Labor cost weight into the Professional Fees: Labor- Related cost category as was done in the previous rebasing. We believe that many of these costs are labor-intensive and vary with the local labor market. However, data indicate that not all IPPS hospitals with home offices have home offices located in their local labor market. Therefore, we proposed to include in the labor-related share only a proportion of the Home Office/Related Organization Contract Labor cost weight based on the methodology described in this final rule. For the 2023-based IPPS market basket, based on Medicare cost report data, we found that approximately 71 percent of IPPS hospitals reported some type of home office information on their Medicare cost report for 2023 (for example, city, State, and zip code). Using the data reported on the pproximately 71 percent of IPPS hospitals reported some type of home office information on their Medicare cost report for 2023 (for example, city, State, and zip code). Using the data reported on the Medicare cost report, we compared the location of the hospital with the location of the hospital’s home office. We then determined the proportion of home office/related organization contract labor cost that should be allocated to the labor-related share based on the percent of the home office/related organization contract labor costs for those hospitals that had home offices located in their respective local labor markets—defined as being in the same MSA. We determined a hospital’s and home office’s MSAs using their zip code information from the Medicare cost report. Based on these data, we determined the proportion of costs that should be allocated to the labor-related share based on the percent of hospital home office/related organization contract labor costs (equal to the sum of Worksheet S–3, Part II, column 4, lines 14.01, 14.02, 25.50, and 25.51). Using this methodology, we determined that 62 percent of hospitals’ home office compensation costs were for home offices located in th et S–3, Part II, column 4, lines 14.01, 14.02, 25.50, and 25.51). Using this methodology, we determined that 62 percent of hospitals’ home office compensation costs were for home offices located in their respective local labor markets. Therefore, we proposed to allocate 62 percent of Home Office/ Related Organization Contract Labor cost weight to the labor-related share. The 2018-based IPPS market basket used a 60 percent proportion, which was based on the same methodology and the 2018 Medicare cost report data. In the 2023-based IPPS market basket, the Home Office/Related Organization Contract Labor cost weight that is subject to allocation based on the home office allocation methodology represented 6.7 percent of total operating costs. Based on the results of the home office analysis, as previously discussed, we apportioned approximately 4.2 percentage points of the 6.7 percentage points figure into the Professional Fees: Labor-Related cost category and designated the remaining approximately 2.6 percentage points into the Professional Fees: Nonlabor- Related cost category.149 In summary, based on the two previously mentioned allocations, we apportioned 10.0 percentage points (sum ximately 2.6 percentage points into the Professional Fees: Nonlabor- Related cost category.149 In summary, based on the two previously mentioned allocations, we apportioned 10.0 percentage points (sum of the professional fees (5.8 percentage points) and Home Office/Related Organization Contract Labor cost weight (4.2 percentage points)) into the Professional Fees: Labor-Related cost category. Using these two methods, we then apportion 6.6 percentage points (sum of the professional fees (4.0 percentage points) and Home Office/Related Organization Contract Labor cost weight (2.6 percentage points)) to the Professional Fees: Nonlabor-related cost category to be included with other costs classified as Professional Fees: Nonlabor-Related (approximately 0.4 percentage point), resulting in a Professional Fees: Nonlabor-related cost weight of 7.0 percent. The resulting 2023-based Professional Fees: Labor-related cost weight is about 1.4 percentage points higher than the 2018-based Professional Fees: Labor-related cost weight. Using the proposed 2023-based IPPS market basket cost weights, we derived a proposed labor-related share of 66.0 percent based on the proposed 2023- based IPPS market Fees: Labor-related cost weight. Using the proposed 2023-based IPPS market basket cost weights, we derived a proposed labor-related share of 66.0 percent based on the proposed 2023- based IPPS market basket. We summarize and respond to the public comments we received on our proposed methodology for deriving the proposed labor-related share for FY 2026 here. Comment: A commenter was supportive of the proposed update to the labor-related share and encouraged CMS to review the labor-related share of all states to ensure that the labor proportion is accurate to current costs incurred by hospitals. Several commenters were concerned about the downward adjustment of the labor- related share from 67.6 percent to 66 149 Note: The cost weights are calculated using 3 decimal places. For presentational purposes, we are displaying one decimal and therefore, the detail may not add to the total due to rounding. VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00336 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 36871 percent in FY 2026 R\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 36871 percent in FY 2026 stating that they believe it does not reflect hospital labor and non-labor cost pressures. They stated that per-discharge labor costs have dramatically increased in recent years, citing that according to one study, 37 percent from 2019 to 2022. A few commenters noted the labor- related share has declined in five of the last six rebasings of the hospital market basket. The commenters stated that this continued decline only negatively impacts hospitals with a wage index over 1.0 without a clearly delineated budget neutrality adjustment to ensure overall Medicare hospital reimbursement is maintained. The commenters stated that given the current healthcare workforce crisis and the growing wage demands on hospitals, labor costs as a share of total hospital costs have grown since the 2018 base year, not declined. A few commenters stated that they understood the need for rebasing the labor share but requested that CMS release additional information on how it arrived at its proposed estimate year, not declined. A few commenters stated that they understood the need for rebasing the labor share but requested that CMS release additional information on how it arrived at its proposed estimate for the national labor-related share for FY 2026. Commenters stated that to accurately replicate and verify the labor related share, they requested CMS publish a table of their intermediate steps reflective of the numerators and denominators utilized in each cost category and calculation step. These commenters requested CMS include the dollar values used to calculate the percentage of each cost category. A commenter stated that the proposed reduction in the national labor-related share could lead to lower payments for hospitals with higher wage indexes, as a smaller share of the payment rate will reflect local labor costs. Accordingly, the commenter requested that CMS, at a minimum, reconsider labor expense calculations to provide a more appropriate update based on growing and unsustainable costs. Response: The purpose of the labor- related share is to reflect the proportion of the national IPPS standardized amount that is adjusted by the hospital’s wage index (representing the relativ e costs. Response: The purpose of the labor- related share is to reflect the proportion of the national IPPS standardized amount that is adjusted by the hospital’s wage index (representing the relative costs of their local labor market to the national average). We proposed to derive the labor-related share using the 2023-based IPPS market basket, reflecting average national cost weights for IPPS hospitals. As stated in the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule (90 FR 18239), for each cost weight included in the 2023-based IPPS market basket we utilized reported data from all IPPS hospitals reporting Medicare IPPS payments and facility operating costs with proposed trims to the data to remove outliers. For each of the cost weights, we evaluated the distribution of providers and costs by ownership- type and by urban/rural status to make sure they were nationally representative. We appreciate the commenters’ request to explain the decrease in the labor-related share in more detail. The decrease in the labor-related share from 67.6 percent to 66.0 percent is primarily due to the lower compensation cost weight (calculated using the Medicare cost report data) in the 2023-based IPPS market ease in the labor-related share from 67.6 percent to 66.0 percent is primarily due to the lower compensation cost weight (calculated using the Medicare cost report data) in the 2023-based IPPS market basket (51.1 percent) compared to the compensation cost weight in the 2018-based IPPS market basket (53.0 percent) as these costs increased at a slower rate than total operating costs. Our analysis of the Medicare cost report data showed that on a per inpatient day basis, compensation costs, which largely reflect direct patient care salaries, grew by about 4 percent per year from 2018 to 2023 while total operating costs grew by about 5 percent per year. The slower growth in compensation costs also reflected slower growth in employee benefit costs (particularly qualified defined benefit plan costs) and overhead employee salaries at about 3 percent per year. Contract labor costs for direct patient care, on the other hand, offset some of this experience as costs grew nearly 18 percent per year over this same period. For noncompensation costs, which grew nearly 6 percent per year from 2018–2023, key contributors were costs for home office contract labor (about 8 percent growth per year) an r over this same period. For noncompensation costs, which grew nearly 6 percent per year from 2018–2023, key contributors were costs for home office contract labor (about 8 percent growth per year) and pharmaceuticals (about 6 percent growth per year). Consistent with some of the commenter’s findings, our analysis of the Medicare cost report data shows that compensation costs have been increasing at a faster rate between the 2018 to 2023 time period compared to the prior 4-year period; however, these compensation costs have been growing slower than noncompensation costs, which results in a decrease in the compensation cost weight. In addition, from 2018 to 2023, we have seen faster growth in the Professional Fees costs and Home Office/Related Organization costs resulting in an increase in the professional fees cost weights and Home Office/Related Organization cost weight, which are partially offsetting the decrease in compensation cost weight as shown in Table IV–05. In response to commenters’ request for additional information on the methodology for calculating the labor related share, as stated in the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule (90 FR 18240), we derive the Professional F menters’ request for additional information on the methodology for calculating the labor related share, as stated in the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule (90 FR 18240), we derive the Professional Fees cost weight using the 2017 Benchmark I–O, ‘‘The Use Table (Supply-Use Framework),’’ for NAICS 622000, Hospitals, published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). First, to obtain an amount for the Professional Fees costs subject to the allocation percentage from the Medicare cost reports, we calculated the sum of I–O expenses for Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services (NAICS 54) excluding Veterinary services (which we include in the Professional Fees: Nonlabor-Related), I–O expenses for Business Support Services (NAICS 5614), Data Processing, Hosting and Related services (NAICS 5182) and I–O expenses for Lessors of Nonfinancial Intangible Assets (NAICS 533). In addition, we also are adding in 34 percent of Employment Services (NAICS 5613) as Census and BEA data indicate that these expenses reflect more than just direct patient care contract labor (which we directly obtain from Worksheet S–3, Part II, column 4, lines 11, 13, and 15 from the Medicare cost report as noted at these expenses reflect more than just direct patient care contract labor (which we directly obtain from Worksheet S–3, Part II, column 4, lines 11, 13, and 15 from the Medicare cost report as noted in the proposed rule). The sum of these costs reflect total Professional Fees from the 2017 Benchmark I–O data that are subject to the allocation percentage from the Medicare cost reports, or 30.2 percent of total ‘‘All Other’’ costs from the 2017 Benchmark I–O data. The ‘‘All Other’’ costs are equal to the sum of the Benchmark I–O data for the detailed cost categories as described in section IV.B.c. of the preamble of the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH proposed rule. Second, we proposed to inflate the detailed 2017 Benchmark I–O data forward to 2023 by applying the annual price changes from the respective price proxies to the appropriate market basket cost categories that are obtained from the 2017 Benchmark I–O data (for instance, for the Professional Fees category we applied the growth in the ECI for Total Compensation for Private industry workers in Professional and Related). After inflating the 2017 costs to 2023 and calculating the cost shares we determined that the resulting cost share was or Total Compensation for Private industry workers in Professional and Related). After inflating the 2017 costs to 2023 and calculating the cost shares we determined that the resulting cost share was 29.5 percent of ‘‘All Other’’ costs in 2023 dollars. Third, these resulting 2023 cost shares were applied to the residual ‘‘All Other’’ cost weight to obtain the detailed cost weights for the proposed 2023-based IPPS market basket. For example, we apply the Professional Fees cost share (29.5 percent of total ‘‘All Other’’ costs) to the residual ‘‘All Other’’ cost weight of 33.2 percent, resulting in a total Professional Fees cost weight from the Benchmark I–O data of approximately 9.8 percent of the 2023-based IPPS market basket. Lastly, this is then allocated between Professional Fees: Labor-Related and Professional Fees: Nonlabor-Related as VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00337 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 36872 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations described later in this section. As stated in the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH proposed r W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k 36872 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations described later in this section. As stated in the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH proposed rule (90 FR 18245) for the 2018-based IPPS market basket given the data available from the 2008 survey, we classified some expenses from the 2012 Benchmark I–O data as Professional Fees: Labor-Related, some expenses as Professional Fees: Nonlabor-Related, and some expenses as professional fees subject to allocation based on the survey. We then applied the 2008 survey results to the following specific categories of expenses: Legal services, Accounting, tax preparation, bookkeeping, and payroll services, Architectural, engineering and related services, and Management consulting services (all of which are reported in NAICS 54). However, for the 2023-based IPPS market basket, since we proposed to revise the methodology to use the data as reported on the Medicare cost reports (Worksheet S–2, Part I), we proposed to apply the allocation percentage of 59 percent obtained from the Medicare cost reports to all of the professional fees costs we identified from the 2017 Benchmark I–O data as descr t I), we proposed to apply the allocation percentage of 59 percent obtained from the Medicare cost reports to all of the professional fees costs we identified from the 2017 Benchmark I–O data as described previously. This proposal to apply the percentage to all of the professional fees costs is a result of the revised scope of expenses captured in the question when we switched to using the Medicare cost report data. Specifically, the professional fees question on Worksheet S–2, Part I of the Medicare cost report stated a wider range of types of costs as an example (legal, accounting, tax preparation, bookkeeping, payroll, advertising, and management/consulting services) while the survey conducted by CMS in 2009 was more limited and had specific questions for each type of cost (legal services, accounting and auditing, engineering, and management consulting). The impact of this proposed methodology change in order to be consistent with the Medicare cost report professional fees question is an increase in the proposed 2023-based Professional Fees: Labor-Related cost weight of about 1 percentage point. For even greater transparency, as requested by the commenter, we are posting a table is an increase in the proposed 2023-based Professional Fees: Labor-Related cost weight of about 1 percentage point. For even greater transparency, as requested by the commenter, we are posting a table providing the calculations of the detailed cost category weights for the 2023-based IPPS market basket using the publicly available I–O data. This table along with other market basket information can be found at https://www.cms.gov/data-research/ statistics-trends-and-reports/medicare- program-rates-statistics/market-basket- research-and-information. We believe it is technically appropriate to update the labor-related share to reflect the cost structures of IPPS hospitals from the 2023-based IPPS market basket rather than continue to use the less recent 2018-based IPPS market basket. Comment: A few commenters were grateful that CMS proposed to use Medicare cost report data to inform the determination of the proportion of expenses classified as professional fees that are purchased within the local area labor market rather than relying on survey data as had been done in previous calculations of the labor- related share. However, the commenters were disappointed that CMS has not revised he local area labor market rather than relying on survey data as had been done in previous calculations of the labor- related share. However, the commenters were disappointed that CMS has not revised the calculation to reflect that professional fees purchased outside the local area labor market are also ‘‘related to, influenced by, or vary with the local market.’’ They believe the cost of professional fees purchased outside of the hospital’s local area market should be considered labor-related, because providers of these professional services must adjust their pricing to reflect what local markets are able to bear. Commenters stated that an accounting firm will not necessarily charge a hospital located in a major urban area the same that it would charge a hospital in a small rural area for the same services. Several commenters recommended CMS increase the labor- related portion of professional fees from 59 percent (which reflects CMS’s estimate of the proportion of professional fees purchased within hospitals’ local area labor markets) to a higher percentage. Another commenter stated that CMS should revise its methodology for rebasing the labor- related share, to account for the ge rchased within hospitals’ local area labor markets) to a higher percentage. Another commenter stated that CMS should revise its methodology for rebasing the labor- related share, to account for the geographic wage variation inherent in all non-clinical professional services costs. Response: We appreciate the commenters’ support to use the Medicare cost report data to determine the proportion of professional fees that are purchased in the local labor market. However, we disagree that the proportion of professional fees services costs purchased by hospitals outside the local area labor market should be included in the labor-related share. The labor-related share of the IPPS standardized amount is adjusted to account for geographic differences in area wage levels by applying the applicable IPPS wage index. The purpose of the labor-related share is to reflect the proportion of the national IPPS standardized amount that is adjusted by the hospital’s wage index (representing the relative costs of their local labor market to the national average). Therefore, we include a cost category in the labor-related share if the costs are labor intensive and vary with the local labor market. As ackn ts of their local labor market to the national average). Therefore, we include a cost category in the labor-related share if the costs are labor intensive and vary with the local labor market. As acknowledged by the commenter and confirmed by the Medicare cost report data for IPPS hospitals, professional services can be purchased from local firms as well as national and regional professional services firms. It is not necessarily the case, as asserted by the commenter, that these national and regional firms have fees that match those in the local labor market even though providers have the option to utilize those firms. That is, fees for services purchased from firms outside the local labor market may differ from those that would be purchased in the local labor market for any number of reasons (including but not limited to, the skill level of the contracted personnel, higher capital costs, etc.). We believe it is reasonable to conclude that the 59 percent of those Professional Fees costs purchased directly within the local labor market are directly related to local labor market conditions and, thus, should be included in the labor-related share. The remaining approximately 41 percen s purchased directly within the local labor market are directly related to local labor market conditions and, thus, should be included in the labor-related share. The remaining approximately 41 percent of Professional Fees costs, which are purchased outside the local labor market, reflect different and additional factors outside the local labor market and, thus, should be excluded from the labor-related share. In addition, we note the compensation costs of professional services provided by hospital employees (which would reflect the local labor market) are included in the labor-related share as they are included in the Wages and Salaries and Employee Benefits cost weights. Therefore, for the reasons discussed, we believe our proposed methodology of continuing to allocate only a portion of Professional Fees to the Professional Fees: Labor-Related cost category is appropriate. After consideration of public comments, we are finalizing the rebasing of the 2023-based IPPS market basket without modification and the derivation of a labor-related share of 66.0 percent based on the final 2023- based IPPS market basket. Table IV–07 presents a comparison of the proposed and final 2023-based l out modification and the derivation of a labor-related share of 66.0 percent based on the final 2023- based IPPS market basket. Table IV–07 presents a comparison of the proposed and final 2023-based labor-related share and the 2018-based labor-related share. As discussed in section IV.B.1.b. of the preamble of this final rule, the Wages and Salaries and Employee Benefits cost weights reflect contract labor costs. VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00338 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 36873 Using the cost category weights from the 2023-based IPPS market basket, we calculated a labor-related share of 66.0 percent, 1.6 percentage points lower than the current labor-related share of 67.6 percent. This downward revision to the labor-related share is primarily the result of incorporating the more recent 2023 Medicare cost report data for Wages and Salaries, Employee Benefits, and Contract Labor costs. This is partially offset by an increase in the Professional Fees: Labor-Related cost weight. There t 2023 Medicare cost report data for Wages and Salaries, Employee Benefits, and Contract Labor costs. This is partially offset by an increase in the Professional Fees: Labor-Related cost weight. Therefore, we proposed and are finalizing a labor-related share of 66.0 percent based on the 2023-based IPPS market basket. We continue to believe, as we have stated in the past, that these operating cost categories are related to, influenced by, or vary with the local markets. Therefore, our definition of the labor-related share continues to be consistent with section 1886(d)(3) of the Act. We note that section 403 of Public Law 108–173 amended sections 1886(d)(3)(E) and 1886(d)(9)(C)(iv) of the Act to provide that the Secretary must employ 62 percent as the labor- related share unless 62 percent would result in lower payments to a hospital than will otherwise be made. C. Market Basket for Certain Hospitals Presently Excluded From the IPPS As explained in the FY 2006 IPPS final rule (70 FR 47396 through 47398), beginning with FY 2006, we have used the percentage increase in the IPPS operating market basket to update the target amounts for children’s hospitals, the 11 cancer hospitals, and 96 through 47398), beginning with FY 2006, we have used the percentage increase in the IPPS operating market basket to update the target amounts for children’s hospitals, the 11 cancer hospitals, and RNHCIs. Consistent with the regulations at §§ 412.23(g) and 413.40(a)(2)(ii)(A) and (c)(3)(viii), we also have used the percentage increase in the IPPS operating market basket to update target amounts for short-term acute care hospitals located in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. In the FY 2018 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule, we rebased and revised the IPPS operating market basket to a 2014 base year, effective for FY 2018 and subsequent fiscal years (82 FR 38158 through 38175), and finalized the use of the percentage increase in the 2014-based IPPS operating market basket to update the target amounts for children’s hospitals, the 11 cancer hospitals, RNHCIs, and short-term acute care hospitals located in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa for FY 2018 and subsequent fiscal years. Effective for the FY 2022 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (86 FR 45194 through 45207), we rebased and revised the IPPS operating Mariana Islands, and American Samoa for FY 2018 and subsequent fiscal years. Effective for the FY 2022 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (86 FR 45194 through 45207), we rebased and revised the IPPS operating market basket to a 2018 base year. Therefore, we used the percentage increase in the 2018-based IPPS operating market basket to update the target amounts for children’s hospitals, the 11 cancer hospitals, RNHCIs, and short-term acute care hospitals located in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa for FY 2022 and subsequent fiscal years. As discussed in this section IV. of the preamble of this final rule, we proposed and are finalizing to rebase and revise the IPPS operating market basket to a 2023 base year. We continue to believe that it is appropriate to use the increase in the IPPS operating market basket to update the target amounts for these excluded facilities, as discussed in prior rulemaking. Therefore, we proposed to use the percentage increase in the 2023- based IPPS operating market basket to update the target amounts for children’s hospitals, the 11 cancer hospitals, RNHCIs, and short-term acute care hospitals located in the U.S. Vi rease in the 2023- based IPPS operating market basket to update the target amounts for children’s hospitals, the 11 cancer hospitals, RNHCIs, and short-term acute care hospitals located in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa for FY 2026 and subsequent fiscal years. Accordingly, for FY 2026, the rate-of increase percentage to be applied to the target amount for these hospitals would be the FY 2026 percentage increase in the 2023-based IPPS operating market basket. We received no comments on this proposal and therefore are finalizing this proposal without modification. D. Rebasing and Revising the Capital Input Price Index (CIPI) The CIPI was originally described in the FY 1993 IPPS final rule (57 FR 40016). There have been subsequent discussions of the CIPI presented in the IPPS proposed and final rules. The FY 2022 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (86 FR 45208 through 45213) described the most recent rebasing and revising of the CIPI to a 2018 base year, which reflected the capital cost structure of IPPS hospitals available at that time. Effective for FY 2026, we proposed to rebase and revise the CIPI to a 2023 base year to reflect a more current ear, which reflected the capital cost structure of IPPS hospitals available at that time. Effective for FY 2026, we proposed to rebase and revise the CIPI to a 2023 base year to reflect a more current structure of capital costs for IPPS hospitals. This 2023-based CIPI was derived using data from the 2023 cost reports for IPPS hospitals, which includes providers whose cost reporting period began on or after October 1, 2022, and prior to September 30, 2023. We also proposed to start with the same subset of Medicare cost reports from IPPS hospitals as previously described in section IV.B.1.a. of the preamble of this final rule. As with the 2018-based index, we proposed to develop two sets of weights to derive the 2023-based CIPI. The first set of weights identifies the proportion of hospital capital expenditures attributable to each expenditure category, while the second set of weights is a set of relative vintage weights for depreciation and interest. The set of vintage weights is used to identify the proportion of capital expenditures within a cost category that is attributable to each year over the VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00339 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 o identify the proportion of capital expenditures within a cost category that is attributable to each year over the VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00339 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 00340 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 00341 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 / > H P G 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00342 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 36877 acquisition level derived in Step 1 (first year of data available from the Medicare cost reports) we proposed to apply the growth rate of acquisitions derived using the prior method going back to 1977. We do this separately for both building and fixed equipment acquisitions and movable equipment acquisitions. As done in prior CIPI rebasings (inc ons derived using the prior method going back to 1977. We do this separately for both building and fixed equipment acquisitions and movable equipment acquisitions. As done in prior CIPI rebasings (including the 2018-based CIPI), in order to derive the proposed vintage weights, we need to calculate the average useful lives for building and fixed equipment and movable equipment based on the most recent Medicare cost report data. As previously described in Step 1, we proposed to calculate the average building and fixed equipment useful life using 2023 Medicare cost report data as the ending asset value of building and fixed equipment (sum of Worksheet A–7, part I, column 6, lines 2 through 5, less sum of Worksheet A–7, part I, column 7, lines 2 through 5) divided by building and fixed equipment depreciation (Worksheet A–7, part III, column 9, line 1). We proposed to calculate the average movable equipment useful life using 2023 Medicare cost report data as the ending asset value of movable equipment (sum of Worksheet A–7, part I, column 6, lines 6 through 7, less sum of Worksheet A–7, part I, column 7, lines 6 through 7) divided by movable equipment depreciation (Worksheet A– 7, part e equipment (sum of Worksheet A–7, part I, column 6, lines 6 through 7, less sum of Worksheet A–7, part I, column 7, lines 6 through 7) divided by movable equipment depreciation (Worksheet A– 7, part III, column 9, line 2). Using this proposed method, we determined the average expected life of building and fixed equipment to be equal to 28 years, and the average expected life of movable equipment to be equal to 12 years. For the expected life of interest, we believe that vintage weights for interest should represent the average expected life of building and fixed equipment because, based on previous research described in the FY 1997 IPPS final rule (61 FR 46198), the expected life of hospital debt instruments and the expected life of buildings and fixed equipment are similar. We note that the 2018-based CIPI was based on an expected average life of building and fixed equipment of 27 years and an expected average life of movable equipment of 12 years. For the building and fixed equipment and movable equipment vintage weights, we proposed to use the real annual capital-related purchase amounts for each asset type to capture the actual amount of the physical acquisition, net of the ef t and movable equipment vintage weights, we proposed to use the real annual capital-related purchase amounts for each asset type to capture the actual amount of the physical acquisition, net of the effect of price inflation. These real annual capital- related purchase amounts are produced by deflating the nominal annual purchase amount (as calculated in Steps 1 through 3) by the associated price proxy as provided earlier in this final rule. For the interest vintage weights, we proposed to use the total nominal annual capital-related purchase amounts to capture the value of the debt instrument (including, but not limited to, mortgages and bonds). Using these capital purchases time series specific to each asset type, we proposed to calculate the vintage weights for building and fixed equipment, for movable equipment, and for interest. The vintage weights for each asset type are deemed to represent the average purchase pattern of the asset over its expected life (in the case of building and fixed equipment and interest, 28 years, and in the case of movable equipment, 12 years). For each asset type, we proposed to use the time series of annual capital purchases amounts available from 1 nd fixed equipment and interest, 28 years, and in the case of movable equipment, 12 years). For each asset type, we proposed to use the time series of annual capital purchases amounts available from 1977 to 2023. These data allow us to derive twenty 28- year periods of capital purchases for building and fixed equipment and interest, and thirty-five 12-year periods of capital purchases for movable equipment. For each 28-year period for building and fixed equipment and interest, or 12-year period for movable equipment, we proposed to calculate annual vintage weights by dividing the capital-related purchase amount in any given year by the total amount of purchases over the entire 28-year or 12- year period. This calculation was done for each year in the 28-year or 12-year period and for each of the periods for which we have data. We then calculated the average vintage weight for a given year of the expected life by taking the average of these vintage weights across the multiple periods of data. This is the same methodology used for the 2018- based CIPI but using 27 years and 12 years and reflecting data through 2018. The vintage weights for the 2023- based CIPI and the 2018-based CIPI data. This is the same methodology used for the 2018- based CIPI but using 27 years and 12 years and reflecting data through 2018. The vintage weights for the 2023- based CIPI and the 2018-based CIPI are presented in Table IV–10. While we proposed an alternative methodology for calculating the vintage weights due to the discontinuation of AHA data, Table IV–10 shows this change had limited impact on the results. We note that using the 2023-based vintage weights instead of the 2018-based vintage weights has a minimal impact on the overall CIPI update (averaging less than 0.1 percentage point over FY 2021 through FY 2026). We did not receive any comments on our proposed vintage weights and therefore are finalizing without modification. 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 00343 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 36878 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations The process of creating vintage- weighted price proxies requires applying the vintage weights to the price proxy index where the last applied vintage weight in Table IV–10 is applied t and Regulations The process of creating vintage- weighted price proxies requires applying the vintage weights to the price proxy index where the last applied vintage weight in Table IV–10 is applied to the most recent data point. We have provided on the CMS website an example of how the vintage weighting price proxies are calculated, using example vintage weights and example price indices. The example can be found under the following CMS website link: https://www.cms.gov/data-research/ statistics-trends-and-reports/medicare- program-rates-statistics/market-basket- research-and-information in the zip file titled ‘‘Weight Calculations as described in the IPPS FY 2010 Proposed Rule.’’ Table IV–11 in this section of this final rule compares both the historical and forecasted percent changes in the 2018-based CIPI and the 2023-based CIPI. Over the most recent historical period, the 2023-based CIPI increases at a slightly lower rate, on average, than the 2018-based CIPI primarily due to rebasing the CIPI from 2018 to 2023 and updating the base year cost weights. 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 sing the CIPI from 2018 to 2023 and updating the base year cost weights. 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 00344 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 / > H P G 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00345 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 H P G 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00346 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 00347 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 36882 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations uncompensated care payments for that fiscal year on a per discharge basis. Final eligibility determinations will be made at the end of the cost reporting period at settlement, and both interim empirically justified Medicare DSH payments and uncompensated care payments will be adjusted accordingly (78 FR 50624 and 7 made at the end of the cost reporting period at settlement, and both interim empirically justified Medicare DSH payments and uncompensated care payments will be adjusted accordingly (78 FR 50624 and 79 FR 50007). • Medicare-dependent, small rural hospitals (MDHs) are paid based on the IPPS Federal rate or, if higher, the IPPS Federal rate plus 75 percent of the amount by which the Federal rate is exceeded by the updated hospital- specific rate from certain specified base years (FY 2012 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule 76 FR 51684). The IPPS Federal rate that is used in the MDH payment methodology is the same IPPS Federal rate that is used in the SCH payment methodology. Because MDHs are paid based on the IPPS Federal rate, they continue to be eligible to receive empirically justified Medicare DSH payments and uncompensated care payments if their DPP is at least 15 percent, and we apply the same process to determine MDHs’ eligibility for interim empirically justified Medicare DSH and interim uncompensated care payments as we do for all other IPPS hospitals. Recently enacted legislation has extended the MDH program through September 30, 2025. We refer readers to section V.F. of the preamble compensated care payments as we do for all other IPPS hospitals. Recently enacted legislation has extended the MDH program through September 30, 2025. We refer readers to section V.F. of the preamble of this final rule for further discussion of the MDH program. We will continue to make a determination concerning an MDH’s eligibility for interim empirically justified Medicare DSH and uncompensated care payments based on the hospital’s estimated DSH status for the applicable fiscal year. • IPPS hospitals that elect to participate in the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced (BPCI Advanced) model, will continue to be paid under the IPPS and, therefore, are eligible to receive empirically justified Medicare DSH payments and uncompensated care payments until the Model’s final performance year, which ends on December 31, 2025. For further information regarding the BPCI Advanced model, we refer readers to the CMS website at https:// innovation.cms.gov/innovation-models/ bpci-advanced. • Transforming Episode Accountability Model (TEAM) is a new episode-based payment model. Hospitals participating in TEAM would continue to be paid under the IPPS and, therefore, are eligible to rece . • Transforming Episode Accountability Model (TEAM) is a new episode-based payment model. Hospitals participating in TEAM would continue to be paid under the IPPS and, therefore, are eligible to receive empirically justified Medicare DSH payments and uncompensated care payments. The model’s start date is January 1, 2026. Ineligible hospitals include the following: • Maryland hospitals are not eligible to receive empirically justified Medicare DSH payments and uncompensated care payments under the payment methodology of section 1866(r) of the Act because they are not paid under the IPPS. As discussed in the FY 2019 IPPS/ LTCH PPS final rule (83 FR 41402 through 41403), CMS and the State have entered into an agreement to govern payments to Maryland hospitals under a new payment model, the Maryland Total Cost of Care (TCOC) Model, which began on January 1, 2019. Under the Maryland TCOC Model, which concludes on December 31, 2026, Maryland hospitals are not paid under the IPPS and are ineligible to receive empirically justified Medicare DSH payments and uncompensated care payments under section 1886(r) of the Act. • SCHs that are paid under their hospital-specific rate are not eligibl ligible to receive empirically justified Medicare DSH payments and uncompensated care payments under section 1886(r) of the Act. • SCHs that are paid under their hospital-specific rate are not eligible for Medicare DSH and uncompensated care payments (78 FR 50623 and 50624). • Hospitals participating in the Rural Community Hospital Demonstration Program are not eligible to receive empirically justified Medicare DSH payments and uncompensated care payments under section 1886(r) of the Act because they are not paid under the IPPS (78 FR 50625 and 79 FR 50008). The Rural Community Hospital Demonstration Program was originally authorized for a 5-year period by section 410A of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) (Pub. L. 108–173).153 The period of participation for the last hospital in the demonstration under this most recent legislative authorization will end on June 30, 2028. Under the payment methodology that applies during this most recent extension of the demonstration program, participating hospitals do not receive empirically 153 The Rural Community Hospital Demonstration Program was extended for a subsequent 5-year period by sections tension of the demonstration program, participating hospitals do not receive empirically 153 The Rural Community Hospital Demonstration Program was extended for a subsequent 5-year period by sections 3123 and 10313 of the Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111–148). The period of performance for this 5-year extension period ended on December 31, 2016. Section 15003 of the 21st Century Cures Act (Pub. L. 114–255), enacted on December 13, 2016, again amended section 410A of Public Law 108–173 to require a 10-year extension period (in place of the 5-year extension required by the Affordable Care Act), therefore requiring an additional 5-year participation period for the demonstration program. Section 15003 of Public Law 114–255 also required a solicitation for applications for additional hospitals to participate in the demonstration program. The period of performance for this 5-year extension period ended December 31, 2021. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Pub. L. 116–260) amended section 410A of Public Law 108–173 to extend the demonstration program for an additional 5-year period. justified Medicare DSH payments, and they are excluded from receiving interim and final uncompensat tion 410A of Public Law 108–173 to extend the demonstration program for an additional 5-year period. justified Medicare DSH payments, and they are excluded from receiving interim and final uncompensated care payments. At the time of development of the proposed rule, we stated we believed 16 hospitals may participate in the demonstration program at the start of FY 2026. We noted that if at the time of developing the final rule there is a different number of hospitals projected to participate in the demonstration program during FY 2026, we would use updated information in the FY 2026 final rule. At the time of developing this FY 2026 final rule, we believe 30 hospitals may participate in the demonstration program during FY 2026. We received comments that are outside the scope of the proposed rule. For example, we received comments related to the eligibility of SCHs paid under hospital-specific rate and MDHs to receive DSH payments, our policy related to patient days associated with Section 1115 demonstrations, and determination of patient SSI eligibility. Because we consider these public comments to be outside the scope of the proposed rule, we are not addressing these comments in th on 1115 demonstrations, and determination of patient SSI eligibility. Because we consider these public comments to be outside the scope of the proposed rule, we are not addressing these comments in this final rule. C. Empirically Justified Medicare DSH Payments As we have discussed earlier, section 1886(r)(1) of the Act requires the Secretary to pay 25 percent of the amount of the Medicare DSH payment that would otherwise be made under section 1886(d)(5)(F) of the Act to a subsection (d) hospital. Because section 1886(r)(1) of the Act merely requires the Secretary to pay a designated percentage of these payments, without revising the criteria governing eligibility for DSH payments or the underlying payment methodology, we stated in the FY 2014 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule that we did not believe that it was necessary to develop any new operational mechanisms for making such payments. Therefore, in the FY 2014 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (78 FR 50626), we implemented this provision by advising Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) to simply adjust subsection (d) hospitals’ interim claim payments to an amount equal to 25 percent of what would have been paid if section 1886(r) of the Ac Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) to simply adjust subsection (d) hospitals’ interim claim payments to an amount equal to 25 percent of what would have been paid if section 1886(r) of the Act did not apply. We also made corresponding changes to the hospital cost report so that these empirically justified Medicare DSH payments could be settled at the appropriate level at the time of cost report settlement. We provided more detailed operational instructions and cost report instructions following issuance of the FY 2014 IPPS/ LTCH PPS final rule that are available on the CMS website at https:// VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00348 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 36883 www.cms.gov/Regulations-and- Guidance/Guidance/Transmittals/2014- Transmittals-Items/R5P240.html. D. Supplemental Payment for Indian Health Service (IHS) and Tribal Hospitals and Puerto Rico Hospitals In the FY 2023 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (87 FR 49047 through 49051), we established a new supplemental payment for IHS/ t for Indian Health Service (IHS) and Tribal Hospitals and Puerto Rico Hospitals In the FY 2023 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (87 FR 49047 through 49051), we established a new supplemental payment for IHS/Tribal hospitals and hospitals located in Puerto Rico for FY 2023 and subsequent fiscal years. This payment was established to help to mitigate the impact of the decision to discontinue the use of low-income insured days as a proxy for uncompensated care costs for these hospitals and to prevent undue long- term financial disruption for these providers. The regulations located at 42 CFR 412.106(h) govern the supplemental payment. In brief, the supplemental payment for a fiscal year is determined as the difference between the hospital’s base year amount and its uncompensated care payment for the applicable fiscal year as determined under § 412.106(g)(1). The base year amount is the hospital’s FY 2022 uncompensated care payment adjusted by one plus the percent change in the total uncompensated care amount between the applicable fiscal year (that is, FY 2026 for purposes of this rulemaking) and FY 2022, where the total uncompensated care amount for a fiscal year is determined as the produc d care amount between the applicable fiscal year (that is, FY 2026 for purposes of this rulemaking) and FY 2022, where the total uncompensated care amount for a fiscal year is determined as the product of Factor 1 and Factor 2 for that year. If the base year amount is equal to or lower than the hospital’s uncompensated care payment for the current fiscal year, then the hospital would not receive a supplemental payment because the hospital would not be experiencing financial disruption in that year as a result of the use of uncompensated care data from the Worksheet S–10 in determining Factor 3 of the uncompensated care payment methodology. In the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule, we did not propose any changes to the methodology for determining the amount of or hospital eligibility for supplemental payments. For FY 2026, we will calculate the supplemental payments to eligible IHS/ Tribal and Puerto Rico hospitals consistent with the methodology described in the FY 2023 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (87 FR 49047 through 49051) and § 412.106(h). As discussed in the FY 2023 IPPS/ LTCH PPS final rule (87 FR 49048 and 49049), the eligibility and payment processes for the supplemental paym final rule (87 FR 49047 through 49051) and § 412.106(h). As discussed in the FY 2023 IPPS/ LTCH PPS final rule (87 FR 49048 and 49049), the eligibility and payment processes for the supplemental payment are consistent with the processes for determining eligibility to receive interim and final uncompensated care payments adopted in FY 2014 IPPS/ LTCH PPS final rule. We note that the MAC will make a final determination with respect to a hospital’s eligibility to receive the supplemental payment for a fiscal year, in conjunction with its final determination of the hospital’s eligibility for DSH payments and uncompensated care payments for that fiscal year. Comment: A commenter reiterated their prior recommendation that was submitted in response to the proposal to establish these supplemental payments in the FY 2023 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule. The commenter recommended that CMS calculate the supplemental payment for Puerto Rico hospitals using a base year amount determined using a Medicare SSI days proxy of at least 42 percent, consistent with the local poverty level, instead of the current value of 14 percent which incorporates the proxy that was applied from FY 2017 through FY 2022 re SSI days proxy of at least 42 percent, consistent with the local poverty level, instead of the current value of 14 percent which incorporates the proxy that was applied from FY 2017 through FY 2022 of 14 percent of the hospital’s Medicaid days and that was based on national data on the relationship between Medicare SSI days and Medicaid days. Another commenter reiterated similar comments submitted in response to the FY 2025 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule, thanking CMS for the supplemental payments but requesting that CMS evaluate alternatives to better support hospitals in Puerto Rico if uninsured days increased. This commenter suggested reverting to the previous method of using a proxy to determine uninsured days for hospitals in Puerto Rico, citing ongoing challenges with collecting reliable Worksheet S–10 data for hospitals in Puerto Rico. Response: In the proposed rule, we did not propose any changes to our methodology for calculating or determining hospital eligibility for supplemental payments. Therefore, we consider these comments to be outside the scope of the proposed rule. However, we refer readers to our responses to substantially similar comments in the FY 2025 IPPS/LTC ental payments. Therefore, we consider these comments to be outside the scope of the proposed rule. However, we refer readers to our responses to substantially similar comments in the FY 2025 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (89 FR 69314, FY 2024 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (88 FR 58992–58993) and FY 2023 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (87 FR 49047–49048) for fulsome discussion on these issues. E. Uncompensated Care Payments As we discussed earlier, section 1886(r)(2) of the Act provides that, for each eligible hospital in FY 2014 and subsequent years, the uncompensated care payment is the product of three factors, which are discussed in the next sections. 1. Calculation of Factor 1 for FY 2026 Section 1886(r)(2)(A) of the Act establishes Factor 1 in the calculation of the uncompensated care payment. The regulations located at 42 CFR 412.106(g)(1)(i) govern the Factor 1 calculation. Under a prospective payment system, we would not know the precise aggregate Medicare DSH payment amounts that would be paid for a fiscal year until cost report settlement for all IPPS hospitals is completed, which occurs several years after the end of the fiscal year. Therefore, section 1886(r)(2)(A)(i) of the Act provi id for a fiscal year until cost report settlement for all IPPS hospitals is completed, which occurs several years after the end of the fiscal year. Therefore, section 1886(r)(2)(A)(i) of the Act provides authority to estimate this amount by specifying that, for each fiscal year to which the provision applies, such amount is to be estimated by the Secretary. Similarly, we would not know the precise aggregate empirically justified Medicare DSH payment amounts that would be paid for a fiscal year until cost report settlement for all IPPS hospitals is completed. Thus, section 1886(r)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act provides authority to estimate this amount. In brief, Factor 1 is the difference between the Secretary’s estimates of: (1) the amount that would have been paid in Medicare DSH payments for the fiscal year, in the absence of section 1886(r) of the Act; and (2) the amount of empirically justified Medicare DSH payments that are made for the fiscal year, which takes into account the requirement to pay 25 percent of what would have otherwise been paid under section 1886(d)(5)(F) of the Act. In the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule (90 FR 18255 through 18257), we proposed to continue the p t to pay 25 percent of what would have otherwise been paid under section 1886(d)(5)(F) of the Act. In the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule (90 FR 18255 through 18257), we proposed to continue the policy that has applied since the FY 2014 final rule (78 FR 50627 through 50631), to determine Factor 1 from the most recently available estimates of the aggregate amount of Medicare DSH payments that would be made for FY 2026 in the absence of section 1886(r)(1) of the Act and the aggregate amount of empirically justified Medicare DSH payments that would be made for FY 2026, both as calculated by CMS’ Office of the Actuary (OACT). Consistent with the policy that has applied in previous years, these estimates will not be revised or updated subsequent to publication of our final projections in the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule. In the FY 2026 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule (90 FR 18255 through 18257), to calculate both estimates, we used the most recently available projections of Medicare DSH payments for the fiscal year, as calculated by OACT using the most recently filed Medicare hospital cost reports with VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00349 Fmt 4701 Sfmt H payments for the fiscal year, as calculated by OACT using the most recently filed Medicare hospital cost reports with VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00349 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 36884 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations Medicare DSH payment information and the most recent DPPs and Medicare DSH payment adjustments provided in the IPPS Impact File. The projection of Medicare DSH payments for the fiscal year is also partially based on OACT’s Part A benefits projection model, which projects, among other things, inpatient hospital spending. Projections of DSH payments additionally require projections of expected increases in utilization and case-mix. The assumptions that were used in making these inpatient hospital spending, utilization, and case-mix projections and the resulting estimates of DSH payments for FY 2023 through 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 cal