Contacting Legislators to Enforce and Realign the 75% Rule

Started by Loseit
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Loseit

Junior Member
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
20+ Year Member
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Hey guys,
I am more of a lurker on this board than a contributor, although this place has been an invaluable source for me since my residency hunt began a little over four years ago (edit 5!! i just looked at my join date!!). I joined PM&R as a result of the vast amount of knowledge available here. The newbies on here don't know what a great resource they have. Anyways, Our hospital along with the other rehab hospitals in Chicago are involved in the legislation that affects how rehab is practiced. This has gone out to the various residencies in Chicago but I thought that there could a bigger audience here. I am sorry for the short notice but I just thought of it last night. This has to reach our legislators 6/22. Read through it and decide if you want to participate. It affects us as physiatrists and I felt that it is important enough to bring it to the attention of this forum.
I will attach the letter that we used at the end and you can cut and paste it and use it as your own template.
Thanks!




Rehabilitation Hospitals needs your help today to contact federal legislators who have not yet signed on to legislation to alter the current "75% Rule" regulations. We are asking you to be part of a grassroots campaign to address the enforcement and realignment of the 75% Rule.

Our grassroots efforts are critical to the success of our lobbying efforts. We urgently need the help of every associate in contacting their member of congress to further encourage support for the efforts to protect patient access to inpatient rehabilitation by supporting the House or Senate Bill.

The two Bills that have been introduced in the legislation are: House Bill H.R 1459, introduced by Reps. Tanner, Hulshof, Lowey, and LoBindo and Senate Bill S. 543, introduced by Sens. Nelson, Bunning, Stabenow, and Snowe.



Background

By enforcing the ‘75% Rule' for justification for inpatient rehabilitation, CMS (the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services) will likely cause up to 40% of the nation's inpatient rehabilitation beds to close their doors, limiting the number of available beds and limiting the beds in programs with specialty areas in rehab medicine.

PLEASE NOTE: This is an issue that will impact YOU and YOUR chosen speciality and how you practice medicine in the future. The nursing home lobbyists have been promoting the enforcement of the 75% rule because they feel "nursing home admissions are the same as actue inpatient rehab and there is NO NEED FOR PHYSIATRY SERVICES because they can handle it.



Action Requested:

We are asking that you send the ATTACHED LETTER to your representative TODAY (no later than 6/22/2007)



Please follow the instructions listed below:



· Address the EMAIL letter to your representative and add your signature.

· Send the letter from your personal email account or on your own personal letterhead.

· Follow-up your emails with a phone call to your representative's office. Use the letter as your talking points.

· Encourage other associates, family members and friends to also join our grassroots campaign.





You can find your representative by clicking on the link below and entering your zip code. (If the link does not work, please type the web address into your browser). You will need your zip +4 code to find your representative.



http://www.house.gov/



Thank you in advance for your efforts.


The letter:

June XX, 2007

[INSERT]

Dear:

Rehabilitation hospitals provide post acute physical rehabilitation care for patients who have experienced strokes, brain injuries, spinal cord injuries and other conditions that result in permanent or temporary disabilities. Physical rehabilitation allows patients to reach their highest functional independence and return to home, work or school at a faster rate than treatments provided elsewhere.

Unfortunately, A CMS policy, commonly referred to as the "75% Rule", limits access for patients because of a severe restriction imposed by CMS requiring rehab hospitals to only admit patients who are diagnosed with certain medical conditions. This artificial criteria creates an unnecessary admissions "quota system" and causes rehabilitation facilities like Marianjoy to deny or delay a patient admission rather than giving them appropriate access because of medical necessity.

As you are already aware, continued conformity with the 75% Rule continues to move forward. The CMS requirement as of June 1, 2007, is that Marianjoy and other rehabilitation providers be 65% compliant with the Rule. For the last year, we have been attempting to balance the number of qualified patients while attempting to meet the discharge planning needs of patients.

On behalf of your constituents with disabilities, I am asking you to support legislation to protect patient access to inpatient rehabilitation by co-sponsoring House Bill H.R. 1459, or Senate Bill S. 543 to "Preserving Patient Access to Inpatient Rehabilitation".

The 75% Rule has forced us to move from concentrating on the selection of patients, who can benefit from rehabilitation services, to the day-to-day mechanics of managing compliance under the Rule.

I urgently ask for your help to resolve this issue. The 75% Rule is not only a problem for Marianjoy but for patients across the country. Thank you for your consideration.



Sincerely,

[INSERT]
 
Anyone else cares to comment on this issue. How is this going to affect the new graduates from different programs across the nation. Should we really be proactive? Any thoughts...
 
Fixing the 75% rule and access to inpatient rehabilitation is a key issue for the specialty. The situation is complex and there is a lot of information available on the Academy web site, but it basically comes down to ensuring access for appropriate patients who need medically supervised rehabilitation services. For a variety of reasons, a number of barriers exist with respect to third-pary payors and local coverage determinations (LCD) that make it difficult for many patients to qualify for inpatient rehabilitation despite significant functional impairments and disabling illnesses.

However, there has been some very positive development and momentum on the issue from a legislative perspective as policy-makers are becoming increasingly aware of SCI, TBI, amputee, and other disability issues with respect to our wounded military personnel. As we all know already, these issues are huge society at large. What is needed is to keep up the pressure from a grass roots level. Writing and/or contacting your legislators is key.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Sorry,

Haven't logged in since that day. Dr. Russo says it perfectly. These decisions are being made by legislators who don't know what we do in physiatry as a whole. Limiting admissions to people who "fall in" to certain diagnostic codes to be in compliance with the 75% rule limits accesability to patients who could benefit from a multidisciplanary inpatient program.
 
Also, it says that despite the fact that you make the assesment that patient could benefit from an inpatient program you are not allowed to make that decision. Your clinical judgement becomes secondary.
 
Would anyone be interested in trying to explain this? Sorry, I'm not in residency yet. Thanks!!
 
What it means is that CMS will not pay for unnecessary stays or admissions to rehab units and therefore 40% of the units will close.
 
Dr. Braddom's article in the Archives is probably the most reader friendly explanation.

Medicare Funding for Inpatient Rehabilitation: How Did We Get to This Point and What Do We Do Now?
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Volume 86, Issue 7, July 2005, Pages 1287-1292
Randall L. Braddom
 

Attachments

This is just another attempt to curb over-utilization.

The same with interventional procedures, imaging centers, etc.

It goes both ways.

I've seen patients get screwed out of the rehab they needed as well as medical directors of inpt units inappropriately admit patients just to keep the beds full or to make the referral sources happy (i.e. patients admitted to free up med/surg beds for Ortho or patient's admitted as favors to social workers/discharge planners when all the nursing homes/sub-acutes are full).

The ideal scenario would be for this rule to be done away with and to implement a system where UR for inpt rehab admits are conducted by a PM&R doc, who to be qualified, must spend x percentage of his/her time in clinical practice with an inpt focus. If there were a shortage of willing Physiatrists, the insurance companies would have to pay those willing accordingly.

This is one area Physiatrists can claim ownership of (as opposed to pain, spine, sports/Occ med) and we should jump on it.
 
Hmmmmm...interesting idea disciple. i can see why the wasteful billing of the past is being replaced by a restrictive program now...both r not ideal. now of course the PMR doc making the decisions on who needs to be admitted can't be paid by the insurance companies and receiving bonus pay for rejecting admissions
 
now of course the PMR doc making the decisions on who needs to be admitted can't be paid by the insurance companies and receiving bonus pay for rejecting admissions


The possibility of that happening is something we all have to live with when it comes to Utilization Review.

Still better to have a practicing inpt Physiatrist reviewing the request than a retired Pediatrician, general surgeon, etc.
 
Still better to have a practicing inpt Physiatrist reviewing the request than a retired Pediatrician, general surgeon, etc.

True dat!!! One of the hospitals in new orleans was audited by a group from Florida that was contracted with Medicare. A person with less medical education than a nurse (so I'm told by our program chairman) audited our rehab files for the last few years and rejected payment of about 4 million b/c not everything on her checklist of requirements was obviously stated in the H&P. So now the hospital is spending hundreds of man-hours to try and fight for their money back. Just another example of sub-educated reviewers decided what's medically necessary.