Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 1
Summary
T
he Medicare system adjusts fee-for-service payments to hospitals and practitioners1
according to the geographic location in which providers practice, recognizing that certain
costs beyond providers’ control vary between metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas
and also differ by region. The fundamental rationale for geographic adjustment is to create a
payment structure that adjusts payments for input price differences that health care professionals
and institutions face, such as the cost of employee compensation.
Medicare provides health care coverage for 47 million Americans, including 39 million
individuals who are 65 years of age and older and 8 million nonelderly people with permanent
disabilities or end-stage renal disease. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that Medicare
payments in 2010 will reach more than $500 billion. Total per capita Medicare spending is not
evenly distributed across the country, and the proportion of beneficiaries living in metropolitan
and nonmetropolitan areas also varies from state to state.
Because Medicare is a national program, policy makers and researchers working to develop
and implement its payment systems have long recognized the need to adjust payment amounts
to reflect input price differences across geographic areas of the United States. The geographic
adjustments to Medicare fee-for-service payments are the hospital wage index (HWI) and the
three geographic practice cost indexes (GPCIs).2
Geographic adjustments are intended to improve the accuracy of Medicare payments to
providers in various areas of the country by accounting for the differences in prices for certain
expenses (such as clinical and administrative staff salaries and benefits, rent, malpractice insur-
ance, and other defined costs) from region to region. As a result, Medicare’s Inpatient Prospec-
tive Payment System (IPPS), other institutional prospective payment systems (other PPSs), and
1 Unless otherwise specified, the term “practitioners” is used to describe both physicians and other eligible clinical
providers who are permitted to furnish and bill Medicare under the Physician Fee Schedule (PFS). These include nurse
practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, psychologists, social workers, and others.
2 In broad terms, an index compares differences in price or quantity for a group of services relative to an average
value for a standard or baseline geographic area or time period.
1
OCR for page 2
2 GEOGRAPHIC ADJUSTMENT IN MEDICARE PAYMENT
the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS, or fee schedule) all employ geographic adjustment
factors (GAFs).
Although there is widespread agreement about the importance of providing accurate
payments to providers, there is considerable and long-standing disagreement in the provider
community and among policy makers about how best to adjust payments based on geographic
location. In two public sessions, the committee heard testimony from critics of the existing
geographic adjusters who identified a number of questions and concerns and who believe that
the current adjusters are not treating them fairly. Among their stated concerns are problems
and inconsistencies with the definitions of payment areas and labor markets, concerns about the
relevance and accuracy of the source data for determining area wages and other input prices,
questions about the occupational mix used to create the hospital wage and physician practice
expense adjustments, and criticisms about the lack of transparency of index construction.
These and other concerns regarding the current system for geographic adjustment are
conceptually complex, widely disputed, and often contentious. With a goal of improving this
system, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Congress sought
advice from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) on how to best address concerns about the accuracy
of the data sources and the transparency of the methods used for making the geographic adjust-
ments in payments to providers. The IOM was also asked to assess the impact of geographic
adjustment on the workforce in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, beneficiaries’ access
to care, and the ability of providers to provide high-value, high-quality care.
SCOPE OF THIS STUDY
This is the first of two reports to the Secretary of HHS and the U.S. Congress. This report
focuses primarily on accuracy of measuring input prices for fee-for-service Medicare Part A and
Part B payments. It includes a review of the data sources used to calculate the HWI and the
GPCIs and for defining the payment areas used for each index, but it does not include a review
of the accuracy of payments to facilities other than short-term acute care hospitals, such as
skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) or home health agencies (HHAs).
In its phase 2 report, scheduled to be released in the spring of 2012, the committee will
consider the role of Medicare payments in addressing matters such as the distribution of the
health care workforce, population health, and the ability of providers to produce high-value,
high-quality health care.
To assist with the quantitative aspects of data accuracy and methodological assessments
and to model the impact analysis, the IOM engaged RTI International as consultants to the
committee because of its extensive previous work on the HWI and the GPCIs.
RESEARCH FRAMEWORK FOR THE STUDY
After evaluating its charge (see Box S-1), the committee developed a framework with a
series of research questions to help guide its work and decision-making. Understanding that its
recommendations must be objective, well-supported by empirical evidence, and understandable
to stakeholders, the committee undertook a systematic review of current and alternative data
sources and methods for making geographic adjustments. This included:
OCR for page 3
3
SUMMARY
BOX S-1
Statement of Task
An ad hoc committee will conduct a comprehensive empirical study on the accuracy of
the geographic adjustment factors established under Sections 1848(e) and 1886(d)(3)(E) of
Title XVIII of the Social Security Act and used to ensure that Medicare payment fees and rates
reflect differences in input costs across geographic areas.
Specifically, the committee will
• valuate the accuracy of the adjustment factors;
E
• valuate the methodology used to determine the adjustment factors; and
E
• valuate the measures used for the adjustment factors for timeliness and frequency of
E
revisions, for sources of data and the degree to which such data are representative of
costs, and for operational costs of providers who participate in Medicare.
Within the context of the U.S. health care marketplace, the committee will also evaluate
and consider:
• he effect of the adjustment factors on the level and distribution of the health care
T
workforce and resources, including recruitment and retention, taking into account
m
obility between urban and rural areas; ability of hospitals and other facilities to main-
tain an adequate and skilled workforce; and patient access to providers and needed
medical technologies;
• he effect of adjustment factors on population health and quality of care; and
T
• he effect of the adjustment factors on the ability of providers to furnish efficient,
T
high-value care.
A first report will address the issues surrounding the adjustment factors themselves, and
then a second report that evaluates the possible effects of the adjustment factors will follow.
The reports, containing findings and recommendations, will be submitted to the Secretary,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the U.S. Congress.
• Reviewing the existing data sources and methods used to calculate the HWI and the
GPCIs, as well as considering recommendations in previous studies that have proposed
changes in data sources or methods;
• Examining the conceptual foundation for the geographic areas used in the HWI and GPCI
adjustment process;
• Considering previous recommendations about the accuracy of alternative data sources
through a series of statistical comparisons of those data with the data currently being
used;
• Assessing the nature and extent of geographic variation in the prices for each input;
• Conducting a series of simulations to determine the impact on stakeholders of using
different data sources and methods for computing the indexes;
• Evaluating the cost shares for both indexes; and
• Choosing the most appropriate and best available data source and method for each input
and each index.
OCR for page 4
4 GEOGRAPHIC ADJUSTMENT IN MEDICARE PAYMENT
PRINCIPLES AND ASSUMPTIONS
Committee members made an early commitment to focus first on the committee’s charge
to study the accuracy of the geographic adjustment established under Sections 1848(e) and
1886(d)(3)(E) of Title XVIII of the Social Security Act. To help guide its review and deliberations,
the committee developed the following general principles.
Evidence for adjustment. The continued use of geographic adjustment factors
in Medicare payment is warranted to reflect geographic variations in input
prices.
Public testimony and written comments to this committee, along with extensive public com-
ment to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services on the proposed revisions to the PFS
Rules in 2010, revealed clear differences of opinion about how the study should be conducted
and what the committee should recommend. However, one area of agreement among stake-
holders was the need to rebuild the system and to improve the accuracy of the data sources and
methods used in making geographic adjustments. The committee begins its deliberations by
examining the extent of geographic variation in input prices faced by hospitals and practitioners.
Although the availability of sufficient representative data on practitioner compensation and
practice expenses was particularly problematic and the data sources available for determining
wages for the HWI had certain shortcomings, the committee agreed that the overall evidence
and rationale for geographic adjustment were strong enough to warrant its continuation. To
help improve the current system, the committee focused on ways to improve the data sources
and methods used.
2. Accuracy. Geographic adjustment for input price differences is intended to
reflect the input prices faced by providers, not the costs incurred by providers.
“Accuracy” of data sources can be defined as the degree of closeness of measurements to
the true value of whatever is being measured. The committee recognizes that stakeholders have
different perspectives about the accuracy of data sources, and it supports moving toward a more
systematic process of geographic adjustment that more accurately reflects differences in input
prices across labor markets. Although the committee recognizes that every currently available
data source has certain deficiencies, the committee agrees that data sources can be improved
by holding the data producers to standards of accountability and accuracy in sampling, analysis,
and reporting, and by making the data and data collection methods more transparent to users.
The committee heard testimony from hospital administrators and clinical practitioners who
believe that hospital cost reports or actual practice expense data are both more understandable
and more transparent to the provider community and a more accurate reflection of their actual
business costs than some of the proxy data sources currently proposed or in use. However, the
committee generally concluded that independent data that reflect input prices faced by provid-
ers are conceptually more appropriate than are data on costs paid by the providers, given that
actual costs also reflect local business decisions or requirements that do not necessarily reflect
input prices across labor markets.
3. Local labor markets. Geographic adjustment, where possible, should reflect
area-wide input prices for labor faced by all employers operating in the same
OCR for page 5
5
SUMMARY
local market and should not be drawn exclusively from data on the prices
paid by hospitals or health care practitioners.
To improve accuracy and reflect market prices faced by providers, geographic adjustment
should reflect the local labor markets in which providers operate and compete for employees.
The committee recognized that such competition may exist between like entities (e.g., hos-
pitals versus hospitals) and across different entities (e.g., hospitals versus ambulatory surgery
centers). The committee concluded that broadening the employers whose employees would be
included in calculating a wage index would be especially worthwhile in areas with few health
care providers (e.g., single-hospital markets).
On balance, the committee agreed that labor market data should not be drawn exclusively
from hospital and provider sources, yet it also recognized that some categories of personnel
are employed primarily in health care settings (e.g., nurses). In addition, the committee was
concerned that certain employees in health care and other employment settings may not be
identical according to their training and scope of service.
In developing recommendations about data sources for the HWI and GPCIs, the committee
members compared an independent source of wage data for all-industry, health care sector,
and hospital-specific wages for several occupational categories and found a very high degree
of correlation between health care sector wages and wages from the other data sources. As a
result, the committee found a strong conceptual rationale for using health sector data rather
than industry-wide data to help improve accuracy in adjustments and to respond to concerns
expressed by stakeholders.
4. Consistent criteria. Consistent criteria should be used for determining the
payment areas, data sources, and methods that are used in making the
geographic adjustment for hospitals and practitioners.
Currently, Medicare payment to hospitals is based on their location in 1 of 441 labor
markets (365 metropolitan statistical areas [MSAs] and 76 non-MSAs). In contrast, physician
and other practitioner payments are adjusted across 89 payment areas, with 34 statewide areas
having both metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas and the remainder being centered on
large metropolitan areas. The committee understands the history leading to these geographic
designations, yet it found little compelling evidence that the actual labor markets for physicians
and hospitals are different.
Because hospitals, physicians, and other practitioners in a given geographic area tend to
function within the same local labor markets, the committee sees benefits to using the same
defined payment areas for both hospitals and practitioners. In view of market and policy trends
toward increasing degrees of coordination and integration between hospital and ambulatory
care, this appears to be both reasonable and timely.
5. Sound rationale. Changes in the current system of geographic adjustment
should be based on a clear and logical rationale.
Throughout its deliberations, the committee sought to make internally consistent deci-
sions that were logically valid, clearly supported by empirical evidence, and understandable
to nontechnical audiences. The HWI and the GPCIs have been subject to many changes since
OCR for page 6
6 GEOGRAPHIC ADJUSTMENT IN MEDICARE PAYMENT
they were first introduced, yet they have been considered separately both in statute and in
implementation. There have been many previous recommendations for improvements to both
indexes over several years. The committee noted that a number of improvements could be
made to both indexes through a similar strategy or data source.
6. Transparency. The geographic adjustment process should provide sufficient
information to allow transparency and empirical review of the data and
methods used to make the adjustments.
The committee worked to develop recommendations to improve the accuracy of the current
data sources and methodologies and provide a clear explanation of its reasoning for recom-
mending selected data sources and methodologies to improve accuracy. Whenever possible, the
committee sought to simplify the methodologies used for geographic adjustment, to use clear
language to explain complex technical formulas and concepts, and to promote a reasonable
and objective selection of data sources that maximize accuracy.
7. Policy adjustments. Medicare payment adjustments related to national policy
goals should only be made through a separate and distinct adjustment
mechanism, and not through geographic adjustment.
Medicare provider payments should be adjusted on the basis of the services that they
provide and the prices that they face. The committee responded to its charge for this report
by focusing first on the accuracy of payments based on the market conditions and input prices
that providers face in fee-for-service settings.
The statement of task also asks the committee to consider the impact on stakeholders of
any recommendations to change the current system of geographic adjustment. The commit-
tee heard testimony from practitioners and policy makers who view geographic adjustments
in fee-for-service Medicare payment as a way to help address provider shortages and achieve
other policy goals. Throughout their deliberations, committee members also recognized that
even the most accurate geographic adjustment factors will not resolve all problems associated
with the fee-for-service payment system as they relate to issues such as access to care, provider
shortages, and provider mix. The committee recognizes the importance of these issues and
will examine policy adjustments and their impact on stakeholders further in its phase 2 report.
ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT
Chapter 1, Introduction and Overview, includes an overview of the Medicare program, a
brief history of the approaches to geographic adjustment, and a description of the committee’s
approach to the study, including its principles and technical considerations.
Chapter 2, Labor Markets and Payment Areas, describes the conceptual framework for the
committee’s recommendations on changing the payment areas used for geographic adjustment.
It provides a brief overview of labor markets, and then explains the committee’s findings on
how well existing payment areas perform in differentiating providers when based on prevailing
wages. Finally, the chapter lays out alternative market designations that the committee consid-
ered and explains the committee’s recommendation for using MSAs and statewide non-MSAs
as the basis for labor markets for both physicians and hospitals.
OCR for page 7
7
SUMMARY
Chapter 3, Hospital Wage Index, describes what the index is intended to accomplish and
explains how it is calculated. The chapter also reviews the different data sources that have
been used in the past, and assesses the advantages and disadvantages of using alternate data
sources, including their timeliness, accuracy, and transparency to stakeholders. Finally, the
chapter includes recommendations about using Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) health care
industry wage data (instead of hospital cost survey data reported to CMS), expanding the use
of BLS data collection to include benefits, and expanding the number of occupations included
as inputs in the wage index, each with a fixed national weight.
Chapter 4, Smoothing the Borders of Labor Markets and Payment Areas, compares differ-
ent approaches to smoothing the differences in the wage indexes when neighboring hospitals
competing in the same labor market have different wage indexes. The chapter recommends
the use of commuting patterns of health care workers to compute the HWI and the practice
expense component of the GPCI applying to employee wages. This approach would replace
the current system of reclassification.
Chapter 5, Geographic Practice Cost Indexes, describes the history, intent, and evolution of
the GPCIs. It explains the three GPCI components: physician work; practice expense, including
employee wages and rent; and professional liability, or malpractice insurance. The chapter also
reviews concerns about the accuracy and appropriateness of the methods and sources of data
used to calculate the GPCIs that stakeholders have expressed. After reviewing several sources
of data for each GPCI component and discussing the ways in which the GPCIs are calculated,
the committee made seven recommendations regarding national cost share weights; a full
range of occupations in the practice expense component; geographic adjustment for certain
nonclinical labor-related expenses; new data sources for office staff wages and office rent; and
a new method for setting the work adjustment.
Chapter 6, Transitions, is a summary of the goals of the study, themes of the committee’s
deliberations, and key features of its technical approach. The chapter then makes some obser-
vations about what the committee’s recommendations were intended to accomplish overall
and its plans for the second phase of the study. The final section looks ahead to some broader
trends in the health care industry that are already under way and could have an influence on the
way in which the committee’s recommendations are implemented over the next 3 to 5 years.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Chapter 2: Labor Markets and Payment Areas
Recommendation 2-1: The same labor market definition should be used for both
the hospital wage index and the physician geographic adjustment factor. Metro-
politan statistical areas and statewide nonmetropolitan statistical areas should
serve as the basis for defining these labor markets.
The current system of geographic adjustment for hospitals uses 441 labor markets to define
payment areas. Hospitals are classified according to their location in 365 metropolitan statisti-
cal areas, with the balance of nonmetropolitan counties grouped into rest-of-state areas. The
geographic adjustment system for physician payment uses 89 payment areas, some of which
comprise large metropolitan areas, whereas 34 are statewide with combinations of metropolitan
and nonmetropolitan areas. The committee recommends using the same labor market definition
OCR for page 8
8 GEOGRAPHIC ADJUSTMENT IN MEDICARE PAYMENT
for both indexes, to reflect market integration for health care employers and workers in local
markets. The committee acknowledges that moving from 89 to 441 physician payment areas
could result in some areas with small sample sizes. To address this potential problem, certain
areas could be combined, additional data could be collected, or data-smoothing techniques
using information from adjoining areas could be used.
Recommendation 2-2: The data used to construct the hospital wage index and
the physician geographic adjustment factor should come from all health care
employers.
The current payment systems use wage data from different sources: some directly from pro-
viders (e.g., hospital cost reports and physician surveys) and others that are more independent,
such as census data. After comparison of hospital-only, health care sector, and industry-wide
wage data, the committee concluded that the health sector data from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics would be the most accurate and conceptually appropriate data source for both of
the indexes.
Chapter 3: Hospital Wage Index
Recommendation 3-1: The U.S. Congress should revise the hospital wage index
statute (Section 1886[d][3][E] of the Social Security Act) to allow the Secretary of
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to use data from the Bureau
of Labor Statistics (BLS) to compute the wage index.
Currently, hospital cost survey data reported to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Ser-
vices (CMS) are used to calculate the wage index. The committee recommends that the BLS
health care industry wage data be used as an independent source to improve the accuracy of
the index, given that BLS data are collected at the occupational level and every occupation
can be incorporated into the index. Because every occupation is measured, the average hourly
wage in each area can be weighted by a fixed number of hours for each occupation. The fixed
weighting allows the index to reflect the price of labor, not the reported cost of labor, which
the committee views as an improvement in accuracy. If the use of BLS data were to change
total payments, CMS will need to make a budget neutrality adjustment to recalibrate the wage
index, as required by law.
Recommendation 3-2: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) should
establish an ongoing agreement with the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to use
all necessary wage data from the Occupational Employment Statistics to compute
the wage index.
Compensation includes wages as well as benefits, and CMS will need access to the unpub-
lished BLS data to accurately compute the wage index. Several options for arranging CMS access
to BLS data are available, including having BLS calculate wage index values for CMS. These are
implementation details for CMS to work out.
OCR for page 9
9
SUMMARY
Recommendation 3-3: The committee recommends use of all occupations as inputs
in the hospital wage index, each with a fixed national weight based on the hours
of each occupation employed in hospitals nationwide.
Currently, a limited number of occupations are included in the computation of the wage
index. The use of all occupations in the health care workforce will more accurately reflect the
broad range of health care professions and skills, and it will also reflect the increasing integration
of care provided in hospitals, outpatient clinics, office-based practices, and other clinical settings.
Recommendation 3-4: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
should apply the proposed hospital wage index to facilities other than short-term
acute care hospitals, using nationwide occupation-specific weights derived from
data for each type of facility.
The hospital wage index is currently applied to non–Inpatient Prospective Payment System
(IPPS) facilities, such as skilled nursing facilities, home health agencies, and ambulatory surgical
centers, but it does not accurately reflect the wage levels that these providers face because they
have a different labor mix. To improve the accuracy of the price indexes, CMS should use the
respective labor shares and occupation-specific weights from each setting.
Chapter 4: Smoothing the Borders of Labor Markets and Payment Areas
Recommendation 4-1: The committee recommends that wage indexes be adjusted
by using formulas based on commuting patterns for health care workers who
reside in a county located in one labor market but commute to work in a county
located in another labor market.
As described earlier, the current geographic adjustment system uses different labor market
definitions and payment areas for hospitals and physicians. To streamline the system and
improve accuracy, the committee has proposed using metropolitan statistical areas and non-
metropolitan statistical area definitions for labor markets and payment areas in the future (see
Recommendation 2-1). However, if the wage or other geographic practice cost index values
are very different on either side of these defined borders, a process will be needed to smooth
the boundaries in recognition of the fact that labor markets cannot classify all providers with
complete accuracy. The commuting patterns of health care workers should be used as part of
the smoothing adjustments because they are an indication of economic integration of labor
markets across their geographically drawn boundaries.
Smoothing adjustments based on commuting patterns can be implemented in several
ways, but implementation will require determination of whether a minimum threshold should
be applied, whether commuting patterns to lower- or higher-wage areas should be used, and
whether the cost differences should be adjusted nationally or locally. The committee favored
an outmigration adjustment, in which workers living in the county where a hospital is located
are commuting to work in other hospitals located in areas with a higher wage index, because
a precedent in using that type of adjustment already exists. However, the full range of options
should be reviewed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
OCR for page 10
10 GEOGRAPHIC ADJUSTMENT IN MEDICARE PAYMENT
Recommendation 4-2: The committee’s recommendation (4-1) is intended to
replace the system of geographic reclassification and exceptions that is currently
in place.
The committee believes that its recommendation will improve accuracy and that smooth-
ing will decrease the need for reclassifications and exceptions. However, smoothing is not a
replacement for index floors, which are policy adjustments rather than adjustments to improve
accuracy. These and other policy adjustments will be considered as part of the phase 2 report.
Chapter 5: Geographic Practice Cost Indexes
Recommendation 5-1: The Geographic Practice Cost Index (GPCI) cost-share weights
for adjusting fee-for-service payments to practitioners should continue to be
national, including the three GPCIs (work, practice expense, and liability insur-
ance) and the categories within the practice expense (office rent and personnel).
Geographic adjustments should be made for the prices of inputs that are purchased and/
or produced locally and that vary from the national average. Inputs that are purchased in
a national market without systematic variation in prices across geographic areas should not
be adjusted geographically. In future Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) updates, the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) should take steps to ensure accuracy in distinguishing
between national and local market input prices. The statutory requirement to use the Medicare
Economic Index (MEI) cost-share weights as the source of GPCI cost-share weights is reasonable
and should be continued.
Recommendation 5-2: Proxies should continue to be used to measure geographic
variation in the physician work adjustment, but the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services (CMS) should determine whether the seven proxies currently in
use should be modified.
Geographic variations in the price of physician time can be measured in two ways: by
directly measuring variation in physician income, or by using income data from proxy occu-
pations as indicators of variations in physician income. In keeping with its principles about
accuracy and independence of data sources, the committee prefers an independent source of
data that reflects geographic variation in compensation levels for comparable professions rather
than using physician compensation data that are affected by Medicare’s payment adjustments.
Therefore, the continued use of proxy data for rate-setting to avoid the circularity of using
physician income data is appropriate. However, in keeping with its principles of accuracy, con-
sistency, and transparency of data sources, the committee recommends that CMS empirically
reevaluate the accuracy of the seven proxies it currently employs using the most current BLS
Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) data. The statistical process for this assessment is
described in detail in Appendix I.
The committee recognizes that this empirical approach is conceptually challenging because
there is no obvious “gold standard” against which the proxy-based estimates can be judged.
Although the committee does not favor basing the geographic adjuster on actual physician
incomes in each area, it would be useful to assess the extent to which the proxy-based esti-
OCR for page 11
11
SUMMARY
mates are related to variation in physician compensation among geographic areas on a national
basis. This process would validate their status as proxies. If the proxy data were not found to
have predictive value for physician compensation, CMS might compare the predictive value of
physician salary data from several different sources, such as the Medical Group Management
Association (MGMA) and the American Community Survey (ACS). A proposed methodology
for such a reevaluation using statistical modeling is discussed in the section on the physician
work adjustment and is described in Recommendation 5-3 and Appendix I.
Recommendation 5-3: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
should consider an alternative method for setting the percentage of the work
adjustment based on a systematic empirical process.
The committee recommends that the work adjustment should be based on a systematic
empirical process that generates new evidence to predict the extent of differences in compen-
sation across geographic areas. There is clearly a policy precedent for the current one-quarter
adjustment, given that the GPCIs have been updated six times since the Physician Fee Schedule
was implemented, and the “quarter work” adjustment has been in place by law throughout
all of the updates. Many will view that precedent as adequate justification for continuing the
same approach.
The committee members did not think there is an adequate conceptual justification for
choosing that level of adjustment. However, based on the available empirical evidence, the
committee found inadequate grounds to determine a more appropriate level for the adjustment.
The committee therefore advises CMS to test various statistical models using multiple
regression, a versatile technique that allows testing and modeling of multiple independent or
explanatory variables to predict a dependent or outcome variable (see Appendix I for more
detail). Once the necessary data are assembled, CMS has reviewed the data to ensure that they
are credible, and the model is estimated, CMS would determine the empirically derived percent-
age for the work adjustment by using the model that provides maximum explanatory power.
Several alternative data sets could be used for the modeling, each with different strengths,
weaknesses, and predictive power. At a minimum, the wage index data used in the modeling
would have to be adjusted to control for specialty mix, relative value units (RVUs), and residency
training status to ensure that the variability in wages attributable to these non-geographical
factors would not affect the geographic adjuster based on the models.
While the committee strongly supports an empirical approach to determining the work
adjustment, it also acknowledges that it is impossible to determine in advance how much
predictive power the most appropriate statistical model may attain. If the correlations between
the proxy occupation wages and the physician wages were found to be low or not statistically
significant, for example, that might indicate that the factors determining physician wages are
too distinctive to be adequately captured by this methodology. The committee has considered
the possibility that geographical variations in the market for physician services or in amenities
(including professional amenities) valued by physicians might not parallel the corresponding
variations for other professionals. If that were found to be the case, CMS would need to re-
evaluate the use of the current proxies, as indicated in Recommendation 5-2. For purposes of
modeling (but not rate-setting), CMS might also compare the predictive power of different
sources of provider-generated data, such as physician salary data from Medical Group Manage-
OCR for page 12
12 GEOGRAPHIC ADJUSTMENT IN MEDICARE PAYMENT
ment Association (MGMA) surveys and American Community Survey (ACS) data, when they
become available.
Recommendation 5-4: The practice expense Geographic Practice Cost Index (GPCI)
should be constructed with the full range of occupations employed in physicians’
offices, each with a fixed national weight based on the hours of each occupation
employed in physicians’ offices nationwide.
The committee finds that independent, health-care-specific data from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) provide the most conceptually appropriate measure of differences in wages for
health professional labor and clinical and administrative office staff. Although acknowledging
that there are some regional differences in occupational mix of employees in the limited data
available, the committee prefers a consistent set of national weights applied to wage data from
the full range of health sector occupations so that hourly wage comparisons can be made. The
exceptions are those health professionals who bill independently under Medicare Part B, whose
compensation should be captured through the work geographic practice cost index.
The expanded set of occupations will be a better reflection of the current workforce and
a broader range of health professions, which will help to improve accuracy of the adjustment.
In addition, the expansion will anticipate future changes in the workforce brought by changes
in the labor market, including the increasing demand for expertise in the adoption and use of
health information technology. Further study of the mix of occupations by specialties will be
valuable to determine whether geographic differences in approaches to clinical service integra-
tion and care teams should be addressed in future assessments of the geographic adjustment
factors.
Recommendation 5-5: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and
the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) should develop a data use agreement allow-
ing BLS to analyze confidential BLS data for CMS.
The committee recommends that the data source for office staff wages should be all health
sector employers’ wages and benefits data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Comparable to
the analyses and recommendations about the Hospital Wage Index (HWI), the committee con-
cluded that independent data that reflect market prices faced by providers are more appropriate
than provider data on costs paid, because actual costs also reflect business decisions that are
not necessarily an accurate reflection of input prices. Further, the committee concluded that
independent data on health sector wages would be a closer proxy to physicians’ office staff
wages than all-industry data from BLS.
The committee recognizes that there is a need to increase coverage in areas where current
data are not made available in public data files by BLS because of the need to protect confiden-
tiality. Some areas have a very small number of providers; thus, increased sampling to improve
accuracy may not be possible. A data use or other formal agreement between CMS and BLS
would allow additional analyses to be conducted in the interest of improving transparency.
Using all occupations instead of a limited number would be new, but BLS could compute an
index that includes all data, including those data that are suppressed due to confidentiality.
OCR for page 13
13
SUMMARY
Recommendation 5-6: A new source of data should be developed to determine the
variation in the price of commercial office rent per square foot.
The committee reviewed several available sources of data to determine whether an accurate
alternative is available to replace the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) residential data that are currently used in the practice expense geographic practice
cost index. These included rental data from the American Housing Survey (U.S. Census Bureau
and HUD), the General Services Administration (GSA), The Basic Allowance for Housing (U.S.
Department of Defense [DOD]), the U.S. Postal Service (USPS), the Medical Group Management
Association (MGMA) Physician Cost Survey, and REIS, Inc.
Each of these sources yielded a substantially different index, which indicates that they may
not be representative of the market in which physicians rent space. They also collected and
reported data differently (e.g., monthly rent v. price per square foot), which made comparisons
difficult. Based on the limitations associated with each data source, such as low response rates,
small sample sizes, and sample bias, the committee concluded that all of these sources would
be imperfect or geographically incomplete proxies for variation in physician office rental costs.
Because the committee also concluded that the cost of space is not adequately measured with
residential data, the committee recommends the development of a new data source.
Recommendation 5-7: Nonclinical labor-related expenses currently included under
practice expense (PE) office expenses should be geographically adjusted as part of
the wage component of the PE.
The update for the physician payment rule proposed for comment in July 2011 included
setting several labor-related expenses to a national index. These included occupations in the “All
Other, Labor-Related” category (e.g., security guard and janitor) and the “Other Professional
Expenses” category (e.g., accountants and attorneys). The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services (CMS) proposed to create a new category for contracted/outsourced services for these
labor categories and to create a new purchased services index. Including professional and other
labor expenses in labor categories would promote consistency between labor-related hospital
and physician payment adjustments, and it would also take into account geographic variations
in wages for the services reflected in the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data.
CONCLUSION
The committee recommends a shift to one set of payment areas for both indexes: using
one source of wage and benefits data for both indexes, finding a new source of commercial
rent data, including a more inclusive range of occupations in computing both indexes, and
geographically adjusting certain additional nonclinical labor-related expenses. The committee
also recommends a new method for setting the physician work adjustment based on a sys-
tematic empirical process that generates new evidence to confirm differences in compensation
across geographic areas.
Taken together, these recommendations will mean a significant change in the way that the
indexes are calculated and will require a combination of legislative, rule-making, and adminis-
trative actions as well as a period of public comment. If the use of new data sources changes
the total payments, CMS will need to recalibrate the payments to maintain budget neutrality.
OCR for page 14
14 GEOGRAPHIC ADJUSTMENT IN MEDICARE PAYMENT
Any such transition should be managed strategically by phasing it in over time and communi-
cating clearly with stakeholders at every step along the way. However, the advantages of long-term
administrative simplification, reduced administrative burden, and improved consistency within
the Medicare program outweigh the short-term disadvantages of moving forward with a change.
