Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [CMS-1357-N]
RIN 0938-AQ97
 AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This notice contains the final fiscal year (FY) 2011 wage indices and hospital reclassifications and other related tables which reflect changes required by or resulting from the implementation of section 102 of the Medicare and Medicaid Extenders Act of 2010. MMEA requires the extension of the expiration date for certain geographic reclassifications and special exception wage indices through September 30, 2011.
 DATES: *Applicability Date:*
                         The revised wage indices for section 508 and special exception providers published in this notice are applicable for discharges on or after October 1, 2010 and on or before September 30, 2011. Certain hospitals that are not section 508/special exception providers, but that are located in areas affected by section 102 of the MMEA, are also identified in this notice, and will be paid based on the revised wage index published in this notice for discharges on or after April 1, 2011 and on or before September 30, 2011.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Slater, (410) 786-5229.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  I. Background The final rule setting forth the Medicare fiscal year (FY) 2011 hospital inpatient prospective payment systems (IPPS) for acute care hospitals and the long-term care hospital prospective payment system (LTCH PPS) (hereinafter referred to as the FY 2011 IPPS/LTCHPPS final rule) appeared in the August 16, 2010 
                    **Federal Register**
                     (75 FR 50042) and we subsequently corrected this final rule in an October 1, 2010 
                    **Federal Register**
                     notice (75 FR 60640). On December 15, 2010, the Medicare and Medicaid Extenders Act (MMEA) of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-309) was enacted. Section 102 of the MMEA extends section 508 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) (Pub. L. 108-173) reclassifications and certain additional special exceptions through September 30, 2011. This notice addresses the provisions of the MMEA that impact the FY 2011 IPPS final wage index tables. II. Provisions of this Notice A. Section 508 Extension Section 102 of the MMEA of 2010, extends through the end of FY 2011 wage index reclassifications under section 508 of the MMA and certain special exceptions (for example, those special exceptions contained in the final rule that appeared in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     (69 FR 49105 and 49107) extended under section 117 of the Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act (MMSEA) of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-173) and further extended under section 124 of the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 (MIPPA)(Pub. L. 110-275) and section 3137(a) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) (Pub. L. 111-148) as amended by section 10317 of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (HCERA), (Pub. L. 111-152 enacted on March 30, 2010). (These public laws are collectively known as the Affordable Care Act (ACA).) Under section 508 of MMA, a qualifying hospital could appeal the wage index classification otherwise applicable to the hospital and apply for reclassification to another area of the State in which the hospital is located or, at the discretion of the Secretary, to an area within a contiguous State. We implemented this process through notices published in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     on January 6, 2004 (69 FR 661), and February 13, 2004 (69 FR 7340). Such reclassifications were applicable to discharges occurring during the 3-year period beginning April 1, 2004, and ending March 31, 2007. Section 106(a) of the Medicare Improvements and Extension Act, Division B of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (MIEA-TRHCA) extended the geographic reclassifications of hospitals that were made under section 508 of the MMA. In the March 23, 2007 
                    **Federal Register**
                     (72 FR 3799), we published a notice that indicated how we were implementing section 106(a) of the MIEA-TRHCA through September 30, 2007. Section 117 of the MMSEA further extended section 508 reclassifications and certain special exceptions through September 30, 2008. On February 22, 2008 in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     (73 FR 9807), we published a notice regarding our implementation of section 117 of the MMSEA. In the October 3, 2008 
                    **Federal Register**
                     (73 FR 57888), we published a notice regarding our implementation of section 124 of MIPPA, which extended section 508 reclassifications and certain special exceptions through September 30, 2009. In the June 2, 2010 
                    **Federal Register**
                     (75 FR 31118), we explained our implementation of section 3137(a) of the ACA, as amended by section 10317 of ACA, which further extended section 508 reclassifications and certain special exceptions through the end of FY 2010. Section 102 of the MMEA has extended the hospital reclassifications originally received under section 508 and certain special exceptions through September 30, 2011 (FY 2011). Furthermore, effective April 1, 2011, section 102 of the MMEA also requires that in determining the wage index applicable to hospitals that qualify for wage index reclassification, the Secretary shall remove the section 508 and special exception hospitals' wage data from the calculation of the reclassified wage index if doing so increases the reclassified wage index. If the section 508 or special exception hospital's wage index applicable for the period beginning on October 1, 2010, and ending on March 30, 2011, is lower than for the period beginning on April 1, 2011, and ending on September 30, 2011, the Secretary shall pay the hospital an additional amount that reflects the difference between the wage indices for the two periods. As a result of these changes, we have recalculated certain wage index values to account for the new legislation. Hospitals receiving an extension of their section 508 reclassifications or special exceptions wage indices are shown in Table 9B of the Addendum to this notice. Please note we are not making reclassification decisions on behalf of hospitals in this extension as we did with the MIPPA provision. (Because MIPPA was enacted prior to the finalization of the FY 2009 rates, we were able to modify reclassifications that had not yet taken effect. In contrast, MMEA was enacted in the middle of the fiscal year, and reclassifications are already in effect). Also, as explained in this notice, in cases where we have removed section 508/special exception hospital data from the reclassification wage index (effective April 1), we have 
                    ( print page 19366)
                    done so only where the labor market area includes hospitals that have 508 reclassifications/special exceptions extended, or where an extended hospital was reclassified to such area for FY 2011. When originally implementing section 508 of the MMA, we required each hospital to submit a request in writing by February 15, 2004, to the Medicare Geographic Classification Review Board (MGCRB), with a copy to CMS. We will neither require nor accept written requests for the extension required by MMEA, since that law simply provides a 1 year continuation through the end of FY 2011 for any section 508 reclassifications and special exceptions wage indices that expired September 30, 2010. B. FY 2011 Final Wage Indices The FY 2011 final wage index values and geographic adjustment factors (GAF) for hospitals affected by section 102 of the MMEA are included in Tables 2, 4C, and 9B of the Addendum to this notice, as well as in a Table showing the hospitals that have been removed from Table 9A. These tables also are posted on our Web site at 
                    *http://www.cms.hhs.gov/​AcuteInpatientPPS/​.*
                     Table 2 of the Addendum to this notice includes the final wage index values for: (1) Section 508 and special exception hospitals; and (2) other hospitals affected by the extension. Table 4C of the Addendum to this notice lists the revised final wage index and GAF values for certain hospitals that are reclassified, for hospitals that have not had their section 508 reclassifications or special exceptions extended, will be effective April 1, 2011. The revised Table 9A of the Addendum lists hospitals removed from the table due to the enactment of section 102 of MMEA. In addition, Table 9B of the Addendum to this notice lists hospitals that are section 508 and special exception providers that have been extended until September 30, 2011. Please note that some hospitals that might otherwise qualify for an extension of their section 508 reclassification or special exception have not been so extended for FY 2011, because they are receiving a higher wage index as a result of maintaining their MGCRB reclassification or due to section 10324 of the ACA which provides for a floor (of 1.0) on the area wage index for hospitals in Frontier States. Therefore, in keeping with our historic practice, these providers continue to receive the wage index published in the FY 2011 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule, or subsequent correction notice (published on October 1, 2010), and are neither removed from Table 9A nor listed in Table 9B. III. Collection of Information Requirements This document does not impose information collection and recordkeeping requirements. Consequently, it need not be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). IV. Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking and Delay of Effective Date We ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     and invite public comment prior to a rule taking effect in accordance with section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and section 1871 of the Act. In addition, in accordance with section 553(d) of the APA and section 1871(e)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we ordinarily provide a 30-day delay to a substantive rule's effective date. For substantive rules that constitute major rules, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 801, we ordinarily provide a 60-day delay in the effective date. None of the above processes or effective date requirements apply, however, when the rule in question is interpretive, a general statement of policy, or a rule of agency organization, procedure or practice. They also do not apply when the Congress itself has created the rules that are to be applied, leaving no discretion or gaps for an agency to fill in through rulemaking. In addition, an agency may waive notice and comment rulemaking, as well as any delay in effective date, when the agency for good cause finds that notice and public comment on the rule as well the effective date delay are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. In cases where an agency finds good cause, the agency must incorporate a statement of this finding and its reasons in the rule issued. The policies being publicized in this notice do not constitute agency rulemaking. Rather, the Congress, in the MMEA, has already required that the agency make these changes, and we are simply notifying the public of certain required revisions to wage index values that are effective either October 1, 2010 (or for certain affected non-508 hospitals April 1, 2011). As this notice merely informs the public of these required modifications to the wage index values under the IPPS, it is not a rule and does not require any notice and comment rulemaking. To the extent any of the policies articulated in this notice constitute interpretations of the Congress's requirements or procedures that will be used to implement the Congress's directive; they are interpretive rules, general statements of policy, and/or rules of agency procedure or practice, which are not subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking or a delayed effective date. However, to the extent that notice and comment rulemaking or a delay in effective date or both would otherwise apply, we find good cause to waive such requirements. Specifically, we find it unnecessary to undertake notice and comment rulemaking in this instance as this notice does not propose to make any substantive changes to IPPS policies or methodologies already in effect as a matter of law, but simply applies rate adjustments required by MMEA to these existing policies and methodologies. Therefore, we would be unable to change any of the policies governing the IPPS for FY 2011 in response to public comment on this notice. Finally, even if any of the policies could be subject to change, as many of the changes outlined in this notice have already taken effect or must take effect within a very short period of time after enactment of the MMEA (that is, by April 1, 2011—approximately 3 months after enactment), it would also be impracticable to undertake notice and comment rulemaking. For these reasons, we also find that a waiver of any delay in effective date, if it were otherwise applicable, is necessary to comply with the requirements of the MMEA. Therefore, we find good cause to waive notice and comment procedures as well as any delay in effective date, if such procedures or delays are required at all. V. Regulatory Impact Analysis A. Introduction We have examined the impacts of this notice as required by Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review (September 30, 1993), Executive Order 13563 on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (January 18, 2011), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96-354), section 1102(b) of the Social Security Act, section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), Executive Order 13132 on Federalism (August 4, 1999), and the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)). Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits 
                    ( print page 19367)
                    (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for regulatory actions with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any 1 year). This notice has been designated an “economically” significant regulatory action, under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. Therefore, although we do not consider this notice to constitute a substantive rule, we have prepared a RIA, that to the best of our ability, presents the costs and benefits of this notice. In accordance with Executive Order 12866, the notice has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief of small businesses, if a rule has a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and small government jurisdictions. We estimate that most hospitals and most other providers and suppliers are small entities as that term is used in the RFA. The great majority of hospitals and most other health care providers and suppliers are small entities, either by being nonprofit organizations or by meeting the SBA definition of a small business (having revenues of less than $7.5 to $34.5 million in any 1 year). (For details on the latest standard for health care providers, we refer readers to page 33 of the Table of Small Business Size Standards at the Small Business Administration's Web site at 
                    *http://www.sba.gov/​services/​contractingopportunities/​sizestandardstopics/​tableofsize/​index.html*.) For purposes of the RFA, all hospitals and other providers and suppliers are considered to be small entities. Individuals and States are not included in the definition of a small entity. We believe that this notice will have a significant impact on small entities. Because we acknowledge that many of the affected entities are small entities, the analysis discussed in this section would fulfill any requirement for a final regulatory flexibility analysis. In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare a regulatory impact analysis if a rule may have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This analysis must conform to the provisions of section 604 of the RFA. With the exception of hospitals located in certain New England counties, for purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act, we now define a small rural hospital as a hospital that is located outside of an urban area and has fewer than 100 beds. Section 601(g) of the Social Security Amendments of 1983 (Pub. L. 98-21) designated hospitals in certain New England counties as belonging to the adjacent urban area. Thus, for purposes of the IPPS, we continue to classify these hospitals as urban hospitals. Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4) also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. In 2011, that threshold is approximately $136 million. This notice will not mandate any requirements for State, local, or Tribal governments, nor will it affect private sector costs. Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. This notice will not have a substantial effect on State and local governments. Although this notice merely reflects the implementation of provisions of the MMEA and does not constitute a substantive rule, we are nevertheless preparing this impact analysis in the interest of ensuring that the impacts of these changes are fully understood. The following analysis, in conjunction with the remainder of this document, demonstrates that this notice is consistent with the regulatory philosophy and principles identified in Executive Order 12866 and 13563, the RFA, and section 1102(b) of the Act. The notice will positively affect payments to a substantial number of small rural hospitals, as well as other classes of hospitals, and the effects on some hospitals may be significant. The impact analysis, which shows the effect on all payments to hospitals, is shown in Table I of this notice. B. Statement of Need This notice is necessary to update the final fiscal year (FY) 2011 wage indices and hospital reclassifications and other related tables to reflect changes required by or resulting from the implementation of section 102 of the MMEA. MMEA requires the extension of the expiration date for certain geographic reclassifications and special exception wage indices through September 30, 2011. We note that the changes in this notice are already in effect with changes made to PRICER and announced through a Joint Signature Memorandum. C. Overall Impact The FY 2011 IPPS final rule included an impact analysis for the changes to the IPPS included in that rule. This notice updates those impacts to the IPPS operating payment system as to reflect certain changes required by the MMEA. Because provisions in the MMEA were not budget neutral, the overall estimates for hospitals have changed from our estimate that was published in the FY 2011 IPPS final rule (75 FR 50042). We estimate that the changes in the FY 2011 IPPS final rule, in conjunction with the final IPPS rates and wage index included in this notice, will result in an approximate $279 million decrease in total operating payments relative to FY 2010. In the FY 2011 IPPS final rule (75 FR 50042), we had projected that total operating payments would decrease by $440 million relative to FY 2010. However, the changes in this notice will increase operating payments by $162 million relative to what was projected in the FY 2011 IPPS final rule, resulting in a net decrease of $279 million in total operating payments. Capital payments are estimated to increase by an additional $13.6 million in FY 2011 as a result of the changes in this notice. D. Anticipated Effects In Table I, we provide an impact analysis for changes to the IPPS operating payments in FY 2011 as a result of the changes required by the MMEA. The table categorizes hospitals by various geographic and special payment consideration groups to illustrate the varying impacts on different types of hospitals. The first row of Table I shows the overall impact on the 3,472 acute care hospitals included in the analysis. The impact analysis reflects the change in estimated operating payments in FY 2011 due to the provisions in the MMEA relative to estimated FY 2011 operating payments published in the FY 2011 IPPS final rule (75 FR 50042). Overall, all hospitals will experience an estimated 0.2 percent increase in operating payments in FY 2011 due to the provisions in MMEA compared to the previous estimates of operating payments in FY 2011 published in the FY 2011 IPPS final rule. Because the provisions in the MMEA were not budget neutral, all hospitals, depending on whether they were affected by the provisions in the MMEA, will either experience no 
                    ( print page 19368)
                    change or an increase in IPPS operating payments in FY 2011 in this notice relative to the previously published estimates. As such, hospitals located in urban areas will experience a 0.2 percent increase in payments while hospitals located in rural areas will not experience any change in payments in FY 2011 due to the provisions in this notice as compared to the estimated payments provided in the FY 2011 IPPS final rule. Among the hospitals that are subject to the changes in this notice, hospitals will experience a net effect increase in payments ranging from 0.1 percent to 0.4 percent where urban Middle Atlantic hospitals, urban East North Central hospitals and urban reclassified hospitals are expected to experience the largest net increase in operating payments of 0.4 percent in FY 2011. Table I—Impact Analysis of Changes for FY 2011 Acute Care Hospital Operating Prospective Payment System
Number of hospitals
Percent net 
                             effect of all changes for FY 2011All Hospitals
3472
0.2By Geographic Location:Urban hospitals
2494
0.2Large urban areas
1362
0.2Other urban areas
1132
0.2Rural hospitals
978
0Bed Size (Urban):0-99 beds
622
0.1100-199 beds
785
0.2200-299 beds
460
0.2300-499 beds
430
0.2500 or more beds
197
0.2Bed Size (Rural):0-49 beds
348
050-99 beds
368
0100-149 beds
156
0150-199 beds
60
0200 or more beds
46
0Urban by Region:New England
121
0.3Middle Atlantic
330
0.4South Atlantic
382
0East North Central
403
0.4East South Central
155
0West North Central
167
0West South Central
336
0Mountain
161
0Pacific
389
0.1Puerto Rico
50
0Rural by Region:New England
24
0Middle Atlantic
70
0.1South Atlantic
165
0East North Central
121
0East South Central
176
0West North Central
100
0.1West South Central
219
0Mountain
72
0Pacific
31
0By Payment Classification:Urban hospitals
2551
0.2Large urban areas
1404
0.2Other urban areas
1147
0.2Rural areas
921
0Teaching Status:Nonteaching
2429
0.1Fewer than 100 residents
805
0.2100 or more residents
238
0.3Urban DSH:Non-DSH
779
0.2100 or more beds
1531
0.2Less than 100 beds
356
0.1Rural DSH:SCH
423
0RRC
212
0100 or more beds
30
0.2Less than 100 beds
141
0.2Urban teaching and DSH:( print page 19369)Both teaching and DSH
818
0.2Teaching and no DSH
161
0.3No teaching and DSH
1069
0No teaching and no DSH
503
0.2Special Hospital Types:RRC
180
0.1SCH
332
0MDH
194
0SCH and RRC
117
0MDH and RRC
13
0Type of Ownership:Voluntary
1990
0.2Proprietary
859
0.1Government
586
0Medicare Utilization as a Percent of Inpatient Days:0-25
353
025-50
1593
0.250-65
1203
0.2Over 65
233
0.2FY 2011 Reclassifications by the Medicare Geographic Classification Review Board:All Reclassified Hospitals
773
0.3Non-Reclassified Hospitals
2699
0.1Urban Hospitals Reclassified
442
0.4Urban Nonreclassified Hospitals, FY 2011
2022
0.1All Rural Hospitals Reclassified FY 2011
331
0Rural Nonreclassified Hospitals FY 2011
585
0.1All Section 401 Reclassified Hospitals:
37
0Other Reclassified Hospitals (Section 1886(d)(8)(B))
63
0Specialty Hospitals:Cardiac Specialty Hospitals
19
0
 E. Alternatives Considered This notice provides descriptions of the statutory provisions that are addressed and identifies policies for implementing these provisions. Due to the prescriptive nature of the statutory provisions, no alternatives were considered. F. Accounting Statement and Table 1. Acute Care Hospitals As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at 
                    *http://www.whitehouse.gov/​omb/​circulars/​a004/​a-4.pdf*), in Table II, we have prepared an accounting statement showing the classification of expenditures associated with the provisions of this notice as they relate to acute care hospitals. This table provides our best estimate of the change in Medicare payments to providers as a result of the changes to the IPPS presented in this notice. All expenditures are classified as transfers from the Federal government to Medicare providers. As previously discussed, relative to what was projected in the FY 2011 IPPS final rule, the changes in this notice will increase FY 2011 operating payments by $162 million and capital payments by $14 million. Thus, the total increase in Federal expenditures for FY 2011 is approximately $176 million. Table II—Accounting Statement: Classification of Estimated Expenditures Under the IPPS From Published FY 2011 to Revised FY 2011
Category
TransfersAnnualized Monetized Transfers
$176 millionFrom Whom to Whom
Federal Government to IPPS Medicare ProvidersTotal
$176 million
 (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.773, Medicare—Hospital Insurance; and Program No. 93.774, Medicare—Supplementary Medical Insurance Program) Dated: March 3, 2011. Donald M. Berwick, Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Approved: April 1, 2011. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
 Addendum This addendum includes tables referred to throughout the notice which contain data relating to the final FY 2010 wage indices and the hospital reclassifications and payment amounts for operating costs discussed in section II. of this notice. Table 2A—Revised FY 2011 Wage Index Values for Section 508/Special Exception Hospitals
(Effective October 1, 2010 through September 30, 2011).
CMS certification No.
Revised FY 2011 wage index010150
0.8567020008
1.2776050549
1.5477060075
1.1429( print page 19370)070005
1.2529070006 *
1.2867070010
1.2867070016
1.2529070017
1.2529070018 *
1.2867070019
1.2529070022
1.2529070028
1.2867070031
1.2529070034 *
1.2867070036
1.3329070039
1.2529150034
1.0386160040
0.8759160064
0.9501160067
0.8759160110
0.8759220046
1.1629230003
0.9930230004
0.9930230013
1.0781230019
1.0781230020
1.0057230024
1.0057230029
1.0781230036
1.0781230038
0.9930230053
1.0057230059
0.9930230066
0.9930230071
1.0781230072
0.9930230089
1.0057230097
0.9930230104
1.0057230106
0.9930230130
1.0781230135
1.0057230146
1.0057230151
1.0781230165
1.0057230174
0.9930230176
1.0057230207
1.0781230236
0.9930230254
1.0781230269
1.0781230270
1.0057230273
1.0057230277
1.0781250002
0.8443250078 *
0.8443250122
0.8443310021
1.2867310028
1.2867310050
1.2867310051
1.2867310060
1.2867310115
1.2867310120
1.2867330023 *
1.2867330049
1.2867330067 *
1.2867330106
1.4341330126
1.2867330135
1.2867330205
1.2867330264
1.2529340002
0.9087390001
0.9370390003
0.9370390045 **
0.9370390072
0.9370390095
0.9370390119
0.9370390137
0.9370390169
0.9370390185
0.9852390192
0.9370390237
0.9370390270
0.9852430005
1.0934470003
1.1629490001
0.8514530015
1.0577* These hospitals are assigned a wage index value under a special exceptions policy (see the FY 2005 IPPS final rule, 69 FR 49105).** This hospital has been assigned a wage index under a special exceptions policy (see the FY 2007 IPPS final rule, 71 FR 48070).
 Table 2B—Revised FY 2011 Wage Index Values for Other Affected Hospitals
(Effective April 1, 2011 through September 30, 2011)
CMS certification No.
Revised FY 2011 wage index070015
1.2867070033
1.2867070038
1.2529140012
1.0386140110
1.0386140161
1.0386150002
1.0386150004
1.0386150008
1.0386150090
1.0386150125
1.0386150126
1.0386150165
1.0386150166
1.0386150170
1.0386230002
1.0057230037
1.0057230069
1.0781230077
1.0781230099
1.0057230142
1.0057230244
1.0057230279
1.0781230297
1.0057230301
1.0781230302
1.0781250023
0.8443250040
0.8443250094
0.8443250117
0.8443310002
1.2867310009
1.2867310015
1.2867310017
1.2867310038
1.2867310039
1.2867310054
1.2867310070
1.2867310076
1.2867310083
1.2867310096
1.2867310108
1.2867310119
1.2867330027
1.2867330167
1.2867330181
1.2867330182
1.2867330198
1.2867330225
1.2867330259
1.2867330331
1.2867330332
1.2867330372
1.2867
 Table 4C.—Revised Wage Index and Capital Geographic Adjustment Factors (GAF) for Acute Care Hospitals That Are Reclassified by CBSA and by State—FY 2011
[Wage index includes rural floor budget neutrality adjustment]
CBSA code
Area
State
Revised wage index
Revised GAF11460
Ann Arbor, MI
MI
1.0057
1.003916974
Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL
IL
1.0386
1.026322420
Flint, MI
MI
1.0781
1.052825060
Gulfport-Biloxi, MS
MS
0.8443
0.8906( print page 19371)35004
Nassau-Suffolk, NY
NY
1.2529
1.167035644
New York-White Plains-Wayne, CT
CT
1.2867
1.188435644
New York-White Plains-Wayne, NJ
NJ
1.2867
1.188435644
New York-White Plains-Wayne, NY
NY
1.2867
1.1884
 The following providers have been removed from Table 9A published in the FY 2011 IPPS/LTCH final rule (or in the October 1, 2010 correction notice to that final rule) due to the implementation of section 102 of the MMEA: Table 9A—Hospital Reclassifications and Redesignations Withdrawn/Terminated due to Section 102 of the MMEA—FY 2011
CCN
Geographic CBSA
Reclassified CBSA
LUGAR020008
02
11260060075
06
24300070005
35300
35004070006
14860
35644070010
14860
35644070016
35300
35004070017
35300
35004070018
14860
35644070019
35300
35004070022
35300
35004070028
14860
35644070031
35300
35004070034
14860
35644070036
25540
35300070039
35300
35004150034
23844
16974160064
16
24230003
26100
34740230013
47644
22420230019
47644
22420230020
19804
11460230024
19804
11460230029
47644
22420230036
23
13020230038
24340
34740230053
19804
11460230071
47644
22420230072
26100
34740230089
19804
11460230097
23
24340230104
19804
11460230106
24340
34740230130
47644
22420230135
19804
11460230146
19804
11460230151
47644
22420230165
19804
11460230174
26100
34740230176
19804
11460230207
47644
22420230236
24340
34740230254
47644
22420230269
47644
22420230270
19804
11460230273
19804
11460230277
47644
22420250002
25
22520250078
25620
25060310050
35084
35644330023
39100
35644330106
35004
35644330126
39100
35644390185
42540
10900
 
 
 Table 9B.—Hospital Reclassifications and Redesignations by Individual Hospital Under Section 508 of Public Law 108-173—FY 2011
CCN
Note
Geographic 
                             CBSA
Wage index 
                             CBSA section  
                             508 reclassification
Own wage index010150

17980
0.8567020008

02

1.2776050549

42220
1.5477060075

06

1.1429070005

35004
1.2529070006
*
35644
1.2867070010

35644
1.2867070016

35004
1.2529070017

35004
1.2529070018
*
35644
1.2867070019

35004
1.2529070022

35004
1.2529070028

35644
1.2867070031

35004
1.2529070034
*
35644
1.2867070036

25540

1.3329070039

35004
1.2529150034

16974
1.0386160040

16300
0.8759160064

16

0.9501160067

16300
0.8759160110

16300
0.8759220046

14484
1.1629230003

28020
0.9930230004

28020
0.9930230013

22420
1.0781230019

22420
1.0781230020

11460
1.0057230024

11460
1.0057230029

22420
1.0781230036

22420
1.0781230038

28020
0.9930230053

11460
1.0057230059

28020
0.9930230066

28020
0.9930230071

22420
1.0781230072

28020
0.9930230089

11460
1.0057230097

28020
0.9930230104

11460
1.0057230106

28020
0.9930230130

22420
1.0781230135

11460
1.0057230146

11460
1.0057230151

22420
1.0781230165

11460
1.0057230174

28020
0.9930230176

11460
1.0057230207

22420
1.0781230236

28020
0.9930230254

22420
1.0781230269

22420
1.0781230270

11460
1.0057230273

11460
1.0057230277

22420
1.0781250002

25060
0.8443250078
*
25060
0.8443250122

25060
0.8443310021

35644
1.2867310028

35644
1.2867310050

35644
1.2867310051

35644
1.2867310060

35644
1.2867310115

35644
1.2867310120

35644
1.2867330023
*
35644
1.2867330049

35644
1.2867330067
*
35644
1.2867( print page 19373)330106

35004

1.4341330126

35644
1.2867330135

35644
1.2867330205

35644
1.2867330264

35004
1.2529340002

16740
0.9087390001

10900
0.9370390003

10900
0.9370390045
**
10900
0.9370390072

10900
0.9370390095

10900
0.9370390119

10900
0.9370390137

10900
0.9370390169

10900
0.9370390185

29540
0.9852390192

10900
0.9370390237

10900
0.9370390270

29540
0.9852430005

39660
1.0934470003

14484
1.1629490001

31340
0.8514530015

53

1.0577* These hospitals are assigned a wage index value under a special exceptions policy (see FY 2005 IPPS final rule, 69 FR 49105).** This hospital has been assigned a wage index under a special exceptions policy (see FY 2007 IPPS final rule, 71 FR 48070).


[FR Doc. 2011-8209 Filed 4-6-11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P