Summary of the Final Rule related to Medicare Pass-through Funds for Clinical Pastoral Education

The August 1, 2003 of the Federal Register published the Final Rule related to the eligibility criteria for Medicare Pass-through funds for Clinical Pastoral Education (CPE). These new rules will take effect October 1, 2003, although ACPE, Inc. is in the process of determining how to initiate an appeal of certain sections of the new rules.

Single unit CPE (400 hours or internship) or any CPE done for academic credit - Not eligible for pass-through funds

Rationale: One unit of CPE does not lead to certification or employability as a chaplain. Does not meet criteria as a "provider-operated" program when academic credit is granted by an external institution.

CPE Residencies of 1600 hrs leading to Board-certification - Eligible for pass-through funds

Must meet all criteria in the Federal rules, i.e. be a "provider-operated" program, completion leads to eligibility for board certification and employment in chaplaincy (an allied health profession), and the current industry (defined as 50% of a random survey of hospitals of 100 beds or more) requires board certification for employment as a chaplain.

Second year residencies, Specialities or any CPE beyond 1600 hours - Not eligible for pass-through funds

Rationale: Current industry does not require this additional CPE for certification or employment, so it is considered continuing education.

Supervisory CPE - Not eligible for pass-through funds

Rationale: In the opinion of the Center for Medicare Services (CMS), certified CPE Supervisors are considered educators, not allied health professionals, thus Supervisory Education is not considered preparation for certification or employment in an allied health profession.

Federal Funding Partially Preserved For CPE Programs

By Lerrill J. White, BCC & ACPE Supervisor

On August 1, 2003, a significant portion of the Medicare pass-through funding for Nursing and Allied Health Education was eliminated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. This was accomplished by the introduction of new rules and significant re-definitions of terms essential to the interpretation, implementation, and maintenance of Medicare support for Nursing and Allied Health training programs in hospital settings. To this point in time, Medicare support for Medical Residency training, and Nursing and Allied Health Education has been crucial in the struggle to stave off shortages of physicians, nurses, and allied health providers, while providing high quality healthcare for Medicare patients, and subsequently benefiting the entire American healthcare system.

The ruling’s specific affect on CPE would be to reduce the allowable Medicare reimbursement for CPE Centers to only first-year Residency programs. That would implicitly mean that CPE Centers would not be reimbursed for moneys expended or patient care provided by summer Interns, Extended students, second-year Residents, and Residents in Supervisory training by Medicare in the near future. In the short-term, this could create considerable anxiety for those hospitals and CPE Centers that count heavily on Medicare reimbursement to underwrite a portion of the cost of the clinical training and the direct patient care provided by ACPE, Inc. Centers and their students. In the long-term, this CMS ruling could seriously undermine the continued investment of teaching hospitals in CPE training programs, create serious shortages of CPE Supervisors, and thus, equally serious shortages of Board Certified Chaplains. In turn, this would reduce the availability of the spiritual and emotional support necessary for the healing of Medicare patients, and increase by three hundred percent the actual cost of providing these same services with comparably trained, full-time employees.

In early July, a conference call was initiated by CMS that included several Executive Directors of Pastoral Care organizations and a half-dozen of the CMS representatives. This was prompted by the deluge of comments they had received that sparked a number of important questions during their deliberations. At one point during the conversation, a CMS representative noted the hundreds of letters they had poured over, written by our constituents. In the background, you could hear another of the CMS representatives whisper under her breath with a chuckle, “You mean thousands of letters!” The outpouring of letters you helped to generate was nothing short of fantastic!!!

In the Proposed Rule CMS-1470-P that we first encountered on May 19, 2003, only CPE and Pharmacy Residents were singled out for attention. It is not clear whether other Nursing and Allied Health disciplines thought that the “proposed rule” did not apply to them, or whether they were not even aware of the existence of this “proposed rule” and its implications. Regardless of the reason, only four Nursing and Allied Health disciplines responded significantly during the comment period (Dietary, Pharmacy, Diploma Nursing programs, and CPE/Chaplains).

A Dietary Internship is required in order to become a Registered Dietitian, so CMS allowed them to continue to receive reimbursement. A Clinical Pharmacy Residency year is the industry standard for Pharmacy Clinical Specialist positions, so CMS allowed them to continue to receive reimbursement. However, they disallowed their second-year Specialization Residency because it wasn’t required by the majority of hospitals for employment. Hospitals that operate their own Diploma Nursing programs argued that changing the rules in mid-stream was unfair and that they deserved continued support for their Nurse training programs that were following all the rules. CMS decided to allow them to continue to receive reimbursement, with several new caveats. And then, as I noted above, first-year CPE Residencies were allowed to continue to receive Medicare reimbursement because they are the primary path to becoming a Board Certified Chaplain, which is the predominant industry standard. However, summer Interns (many of whom are exploring the vocation of Chaplaincy for the first time), Extended students (a significant proportion of whom are making a career transition into professional Chaplaincy), second-year Residents (most of whom are on the certification track, but who are also training in specific medical specialties), and Residents in Supervisory training (who are also Board-eligible Chaplains, and are preparing to enter the Chaplain Specialty of Board Certified ACPE Supervisor) were disallowed.

Pharmacy representatives have stated that they will seek a delay in the implementation of the Specialty Pharmacy Residency portion of the rule until they can present a clearer and more compelling case. Nursing seems to have been caught completely off-guard by the ruling. They have indicated that they will begin lobbying efforts immediately. Other Allied Health groups haven’t registered any public response thus far. We have several options at our disposal regarding how we might respond to the CMS ruling. We anticipate that our first step will be to file an appeal with the PRRB in the next forty-five days. Beyond that we shall have to wait and see. In the long-term, this CMS ruling could have serious consequences for teaching hospitals and for the delivery of high-quality patient care in hospitals throughout the nation. Several commenters pointed out that the reduction in reimbursement for Nursing and Allied Health Education in teaching hospitals could easily translate into even greater shortages of Nursing and Allied Health professionals nationwide. We, and all members of the healthcare community, are concerned first and foremost for the competent, compassionate, and effective care of all our patients, and secondly for the integrity and the future of the delivery of healthcare in America. We will continue to urge the Department of Health & Human Services and CMS to do what is ultimately, morally right rather than what is politically expedient.

Text from August 1, 2003 FEDERAL REGISTER

For entire document go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/index.html

This text is on this page: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/
14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/
2003/03-19363.htm

E. Costs of Approved Nursing and Allied Health Education Activities

(Sec. 413.85)

1. Background

Medicare has historically paid providers for the program's share of the costs that providers incur in connection with approved educational activities. The activities may be divided into the following three general categories to which different payment policies apply:

Approved graduate medical education (GME) programs in medicine, osteopathy, dentistry, and podiatry. Medicare makes direct and indirect medical education payments to hospitals for residents training in these programs. Existing policy on direct GME payment is found at 42 CFR 413.86, and for indirect GME payment at 42 CFR 412.105.

Approved nursing and allied health education programs operated by the provider. The costs of these programs are excluded from the definition of inpatient hospital operating costs and are not included in the calculation of payment rates for hospitals paid under the IPPS or in the calculation of payments to hospitals and hospital units excluded from the IPPS that are subject to the rate-of-increase ceiling. These costs are separately identified and ``passed through'' (that is, paid separately on a reasonable cost basis). Existing regulations on nursing and allied health education program costs are located at 42 CFR 413.85.

All other costs that can be categorized as educational programs and activities are considered to be part of normal operating costs and are included in the per discharge amount for hospitals subject to the IPPS, or are included as reasonable costs that are subject to the rate-of-increase limits for hospitals and hospital units excluded from the IPPS.

In the May 19, 2003 proposed rule, we proposed to clarify our policy governing payments to hospitals for provider-operated nursing and allied health education programs. Under the regulations at Sec. 413.85 (``Cost of approved nursing and allied health educational activities''), Medicare makes reasonable cost payment to hospitals for provider-operated nursing and allied health education programs. A program is considered to be provider-operated if the hospital meets the criteria specified in Sec. 413.85(f), which means the hospital directly incurs the training costs, controls the curriculum and the administration of the program, employs the teaching staff, and provides and controls both clinical training and classroom instruction (where applicable) of a nursing or allied health education program.

In the January 12, 2001 Federal Register (66 FR 3358), we published a final rule that clarified the policy for payments for approved nursing and allied health education activities in response to section 6205(b)(2) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989 (Pub. L. 101-239) and sections 4004(b)(1) and (2) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-508).

Section 6205(b)(2) of Pub. L. 101-239 directed the Secretary to publish regulations clarifying the rules governing allowable costs of approved educational activities. The Secretary was directed to publish regulations to specify the conditions under which those costs are eligible for pass-through, including the requirement that there be a relationship between the approved nursing or allied health education program and the hospital. Section 4004(b)(1) of Pub. L. 101-508 provides an exception to the requirement that programs be provider-operated to receive pass-through payments. The section provides that, effective for cost reporting periods beginning on or after October 1, 1990, if certain conditions are met, the costs incurred by a hospital (or by an educational institution related to the hospital by common ownership or control) for clinical training (as defined by the Secretary) conducted on the premises of the hospital under an approved nursing or allied health education program that is not operated by the hospital are treated as pass-through costs and paid on the basis of [[Page 45424]] reasonable cost. Section 4004(b)(2) of Pub. L. 101-508 sets forth the conditions that a hospital must meet to receive payment on a reasonable cost basis under section 4004(b)(1).

2. Continuing Education Issue for Nursing and Allied Health Education

Since publication of the January 12, 2001 final rule on nursing and allied health education, we have encountered questions concerning the substantive difference between provider-operated continuing education programs for nursing and allied health education (which would not be reimbursable under Medicare on a reasonable cost basis) and provider- operated approved programs that are eligible to receive Medicare reasonable cost payment. In that final rule, we stated that Medicare would generally provide reasonable cost payment for ``programs of long duration designed to develop trained practitioners in a nursing or allied health discipline, such as professional nursing or occupational therapy.

This is contrasted with a continuing education program of a month to a year in duration in which a practitioner, such as a registered nurse, receives training in a specialized skill such as enterostomal therapy. While such training is undoubtedly valuable in enabling the nurse to treat patients with special needs and in improving the level of patient care in a provider, the nurse, upon completion of the program, continues to function as a registered nurse, albeit one with special skills. Further distinction can be drawn between this situation and one in which a registered nurse undergoes years of training to become a CRNA. For these reasons, the costs of continuing education training programs are not classified as costs of approved educational activities that are passed-through and paid on a reasonable cost basis. Rather, they are classified as normal operating costs covered by the prospective payment rate or, for providers excluded from the IPPS, as costs subject to the target rate-of-increase limits'' (66 FR 3370).

Accordingly, upon publication of the final rule, we revised Sec. 413.85(h)(3) to include continuing education programs in the same categoryas ``educational seminars and workshops that increase the quality of medical care or operating efficiency of the provider.'' Costs associated with continuing education programs, as stated above, are recognized as normal operating costs and are paid in accordance with applicable principles.

Prior to the issuance of the May 19, 2003 proposed rule, we received an inquiry requesting further clarification on what is meant by continuing education. It is our belief that provider-operated programs that do not lead to any specific certification in a specialty would be classified as continuing education. In the proposed rule (68 FR 27210), we stated that our use of the term ``certification'' does not mean certification in a specific skill, such as when an individual is certified to use a specific piece of machinery or perform a specific procedure. Rather, we stated that we believe certification means the ability to perform in the specialty as a whole.

Although, in the past, we believe we have allowed hospitals to be paid for operating a pharmacy ``residency'' program, in the May 19, 2003 proposed rule, we stated that it has come to our attention that those programs do not meet the criteria for approval as a certified program. Once individuals have finished their undergraduate degree in pharmacy, there are some individuals who go on to participate in 1-year hospital-operated postundergraduate programs. It is our understanding that many individuals complete the 1-year postundergraduate program practice pharmacy inside the hospital setting. However, we also understand that there are pharmacists who do not complete the 1-year postundergraduate program, but have received the undergraduate degree in pharmacy, who also practice pharmacy inside the hospital setting. Because pharmacy students need not complete the 1-year residency program to be eligible to practice pharmacy in the hospital setting, the 1-year programs that presently are operated by hospitals would be considered continuing education, and therefore, would be ineligible for pass-through reasonable cost payment.

We stated that we understood that all individuals who wish to be nurses practicing in a hospital must either complete a 4-year degree program in a university setting, a 2-year associate degree in a community or junior college setting, or a diploma program traditionally offered in a hospital setting. Since participants that complete a provider-operated diploma nursing program could not practice as nurses without that training, the diploma nursing programs are not continuing education programs and, therefore, may be eligible for pass-through treatment.

Because of the apparent confusion concerning the distinction between continuing education programs and approved education programs in the context of reasonable cost pass-through payments for nursing and allied health education activities, in the May 19, 2003 proposed rule, we proposed to revise Sec. 413.85(h)(3) to state that educational seminars, workshops, and continuing education programs in which the employees participate that enhance the quality of medical care or operating efficiency of the provider and, effective October 1, 2003, do not lead to certification required to practice or begin employment in a nursing or allied health specialty, would be treated as educational activities that are part of normal operating costs. We also proposed to add a conforming definition of ``certification'' for purposes of nursing and allied health education under Sec. 413.85(c) to mean ``the ability to practice or begin employment in a specialty as a whole.''

Comment: A large number of commenters responded to our proposal to clarify that, effective October 1, 2003, activities that do not lead to certification required to practice or begin employment in a nursing or allied health specialty would be treated as educational activities (continuing education) that are part of normal operating costs, and not as approved programs that are eligible for reasonable cost reimbursement. Many commenters strongly disagreed with the section of the proposed rule that included clinical pastoral education (CPE) as continuing education and stated that CMS must have been badly misinformed when writing the proposed rule. The commenters argued that CPE is a rigorous and structured education program accredited by the Association for Clinical Pastoral Education, Inc. (ACPE). The commenters stressed that, in varying amounts, CPE is a requirement for graduation for the master of divinity degree and for professional certification by the Association of Professional Chaplains (APC) as a health care chaplain, or as a CPE supervisor. Many commenters also noted prior Provider Reimbursement Review Board (PRRB) rulings that recognized chaplaincy as an allied health discipline, and asserted that hospitals that receive Medicare reasonable cost pass-through payment for CPE do so for the purpose of their professional CPE programs, not as continuing education for individuals already qualified to practice in hospital chaplaincy. Many commenters mentioned that the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations also recognizes chaplains as allied health professionals and considers them ``primary care providers.'' Similarly, commenters referred to various studies that have [[Page 45425]] shown the positive spiritual and therapeutic benefits of pastoral care. The commenters warned that removal of funding for CPE would represent a huge step backward for American health care. The commenters urged CMS to ensure continuing pass-through payments for CPE.

Response: In the May 19, 2003 proposed rule (68 FR 27210), we stated that we received an inquiry requesting further clarification of what is meant by continuing education. We proceeded to explain what constitutes ``continuing education'' for the purpose of determining whether a nursing or allied health education activity would or would not qualify for Medicare reasonable cost pass-through payments. We acknowledge that the definition of ``continuing education'' for Medicare payment purposes may differ from the academic view of what, in general, constitutes such activities. In the proposed rule, we stated that we believed that provider-operated programs that do not lead to any specific certification or the ability to perform in the specialty would be classified as ``continuing education.''

Our intent is to ensure that Medicare pass-through payments are only provided for programs that enable an individual to be employed in a capacity that he or she could not have been employed without having first completed a particular education program. We believe that, for Medicare purposes, training that enhances an individual's competencies, but does not permit that individual to be employed in a new capacity in which he or she could not have been employed without completing the additional training, would not qualify for Medicare reasonable cost pass-through payment. Medicare provides payments for such educational activities, but only under the methodology applicable to payment of normal operating costs. Our intent was simply to provide clarification for the purpose of distinguishing between those educational programs that qualify for reasonable cost pass-through payment (that is, programs that enable an individual to begin employment in a specialty as a whole) and those programs that should be paid as normal operating costs (that is, activities that are intended to enhance the current skill set of an individual's profession or advance an individual's professional career).

Since publication of the proposed rule, we have learned from information provided by the ACPE and the APC that there are several levels of CPE. Specifically, the ACPE accredits three different levels of CPE. The first level of CPE is generally geared to interns and beginning residents. The second level of CPE is generally geared to residents doing specialization and preparation for chaplaincy certification. The third level is supervisory training, which is geared toward preparation for certification by the ACPE as a CPE supervisor.

We understand that, as a part of the requirements for a master of divinity degree, many theological schools and seminaries require or strongly recommend completion of an internship, or 1 unit of CPE for graduation. A unit of CPE is 400+ hours of supervised CPE in a health care or institutional setting. Students taking either 1 or 2 units of CPE are generally referred to as interns. In addition, many faith groups require, at their national or regional levels, that individuals complete at least 1 unit of CPE in order for them to be ordained into professional ministry. Theological schools that offer doctoral degrees (for example, a doctor of philosophy, a doctor of ministry, or a doctor of theology) with specialties in pastoral counseling and related fields also generally require some amount of CPE as a part of those degree programs. Upon completion of a CPE internship, the health care institution typically reports to the theological school in which the student is enrolled that the student has successfully completed the internship, and the theological school subsequently awards credit for the training. Based upon information received from the commenters, we understand that completion of only an internship, or 400+ hours of CPE, would not qualify an individual for employment as a chaplain in a hospital setting.

In contrast to CPE internships, CPE residents generally participate in a 1-year, or occasionally a 2-year, full-time CPE program. A 1-year residency typically consists of 4 units of postgraduate CPE (that is, 1,600+ hours of supervised CPE), in a health care or institutional setting. Generally, individuals who undertake 1,600 hours of CPE do so in order to become a board-certified chaplain. The ACPE has established 4 units, or 1,600 hours of supervised CPE, as the national minimum amount of CPE that is required to become a board-certified chaplain. However, some certifying boards or particular programs may require some additional hours of CPE for board certification. We note that, in instances where academic credit is granted for completion of 1 unit, or 400 hours, of CPE prior to receipt of a degree, an individual seeking to become a board-certified chaplain generally must complete an additional 1,600 hours of CPE training.

The board certification of chaplains is carried out by nationally recognized organizations that are part of the Commission on Ministry in Specialized Settings (COMISS), an umbrella network for pastoral care organizations that share the same standards of educational preparation and clinical training. These organizations include the Association of Professional Chaplains (APC), the National Association of Catholic Chaplains (NACC), the National Association of Jewish Chaplains (NAJC), and the Canadian Association for Pastoral Practice and Education (CAPPE). The ACPE accredits CPE training for all of these certifying organizations.

Based on information received from the commenters, we understand that most health care organizations that are accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) advertise for and recruit only board-certified chaplains, which means that qualified applicants for employment as hospital chaplains will usually have completed at least 1,600 hours of CPE.

Individuals who seek to develop a health care chaplaincy specialization (for example, hospice, pediatrics, cardiology, rehabilitation, neurology) may undertake a second year of CPE residency. A second year of residency consists of an additional 4 units of CPE (or 1,600+ hours of supervised CPE). However, there is currently no established board certification process for residents completing a second year of CPE residency training.

To be eligible to apply for supervisory CPE training, an individual must have completed at least 4 units (1 year) of CPE training. Upon completion of supervisory training, an individual becomes certified by the ACPE as a CPE supervisor and is qualified to develop and conduct CPE training for all ACPE-accredited programs.

Based on information submitted by the commenters on the different levels of CPE training, two important points relative to Medicare reimbursement have become clear to us. First, in instances where internship training is completed as a prerequisite for a degree granted by an educational institution other than a hospital, such training is not provider-operated, and, therefore, does not qualify for Medicare reasonable cost pass-through payment under Sec. 413.85. Under Sec. 413.85(f), a program is considered to be provider-operated only if the hospital directly incurs the training costs, directly controls the curriculum and the administration of [[Page 45426]] the program, employs the teaching staff, and provides and controls both clinical training and classroom instruction (where applicable). While a hospital may serve as the site for a CPE internship, such training is provided to satisfy curriculum requirements of a theological school, which grants the master degree upon completion of the internship. While the hospital might incur training costs and employ the supervising faculty, it would not ordinarily meet the other ``provider-operated'' criteria concerning controlling the curriculum and providing both the didactic and clinical training necessary for the degree. Thus, a CPE internship, or any other CPE training that is a requirement for a degree, whether it is undergraduate, graduate, or doctoral, is not eligible for Medicare reasonable cost pass-through payment.

Secondly, a CPE residency consisting of 1,600 hours of training could be a provider-operated program and could also lead to certification and the ability to be employed in a new or different capacity. Specifically, a CPE residency consisting of approximately 1,600 hours of training leads to board certification in chaplaincy, and, as we understand it, most JCAHO-accredited hospitals generally only employ board-certified chaplains. In consideration of these facts, the costs of CPE training programs that meet the requirements under Sec. 413.85, including accreditation by a nationally recognized accrediting body, direct operation by a provider, and lead to certification that is generally a requirement for employment in a particular specialty, may be eligible for Medicare reasonable cost pass-through payment.

In the May 19, 2003 proposed rule (68 FR 27210), we proposed to revise the regulations at Sec. 413.85(h)(3) to state that activities treated as normal operating costs include ``Educational seminars, workshops, and continuing education programs in which the employees participate that enhance the quality of medical care or operating efficiency of the provider and, effective October 1, 2003, do not lead to certification required to practice or begin employment in a nursing or allied health specialty.'' We proposed to add a conforming definition of ``certification'' for purposes of nursing and allied health education under Sec. 413.85(c) to mean ``the ability to practice or begin employment in a specialty as a whole.'' However, it is apparent from the comments we received that our proposed definition of ``certification'' was not clear. Some commenters believed we intended, through the proposed definition, to allow pass-through payments for the costs of a program that would only enhance an individual's set of skills. However, that was not our intent. We believe it would have been more appropriate to use the word ``and'' instead of the word ``or'', to further emphasize that pass-through payment would only apply to activities that enable an individual to practice and begin employment in a specialty, but would not apply to activities that serve to add to or to enhance an individual's current skill set.

In addition, based on the comments received, we understand that there may be several distinct levels of training in a given health profession, and each level of training may be a requirement in order for an individual to work in a new capacity or ``specialty'' in that profession, but not a requirement to practice or begin employment in the specialty ``as a whole.'' Since a second level of training is not required to begin practicing in a profession, under the proposed definition, we would not have been able to allow for pass-through payments for a second (or potentially a third) level of training. Therefore, we understand that inclusion of the words ``as a whole'' in the proposed definition of ``certification'' was misleading. Consequently, where a subsequent level of training is a requirement to practice in a new specialty in a given profession, pass-through payment may be made for the subsequent level of training.

Finally, we have concluded that it is not necessary to include a specific definition of ``certification'' at Sec. 413.85. In this final rule, we are deleting the proposed definition of ``certification'' from Sec. 413.85(c), and amending Sec. 413.85(h)(3) by removing the words ``certification required'' and inserting the words ``the ability.'' We are also changing the word ``or'' to ``and''. Specifically, we are amending the proposed regulations at Sec. 413.85(h)(3) to state that activities treated as normal operating costs include ``Educational seminars, workshops, and continuing education programs in which the employees participate that enhance the quality of medical care or operating efficiency of the provider and, effective October 1, 2003, do not lead to the ability to practice and begin employment in a nursing or allied health specialty.''

Our view of a ``specialty'' in the nursing and allied health education context is based on what the industry views as the standard of practice in a specific area within a profession. The training required to allow a person to serve in the ``specialty'' is tailored to the skill level and context that an individual is expected to use in that ``specialty.''

Consistent with what we stated in the proposed rule, Medicare reasonable cost pass-through payments are only provided for programs that, according to industry norms, qualify an individual to be employed in a specialty in which the individual could not have been employed before completing a particular education program. Given the confusion expressed by commenters, we recognize the need to specify how we will determine whether completion of a particular education program enables an individual to be employed in a specialty. We will use ``industry norms'' as the standard to determine whether participation in a specialty enables an individual to be employed in a capacity that he or she could not have been employed without having first completed a particular education program. We are defining ``industry norm'' to mean that more than 50 percent of hospitals in a random, statistically valid sample require the completion of a particular training program before an individual may be employed in a specialty. (We understand that, in some instances, due to the unique staffing circumstances faced by many smaller hospitals, inclusion of small hospitals in the sample would introduce factors that are not typically representative of the industry as a whole and would skew the results inappropriately. In such a case, if appropriate, we would consider excluding hospitals with less than 100 beds, which would still retain over 75 percent of all hospitals in the universe).

Based on comments received, we believe that it is the ``industry norm'' to require a CPE residency and board certification for employment as a hospital chaplain. Since it is currently the ``industry norm'' for hospitals to employ only board-certified chaplains, and since completion of approximately 1,600 hours of CPE training is a requirement to practice and begin employment in hospital chaplaincy, we view hospital chaplaincy as a ``specialty'' of pastoral counseling. Consequently, a hospital that operates a CPE residency may be eligible for reasonable cost pass-through payment.

Specifically, assuming all requirements under Sec. 413.85 are met, Medicare reasonable cost pass-through payments may only be madeto hospitals for CPE hours that are not prerequisites for any academic degree, and are provided to students in order to obtain board certification in hospital chaplaincy. A hospital may not receive reasonable cost payment for any costs [[Page 45427]] incurred in connection with providing CPE that is undertaken to meet the requirements of an academic degree. In addition, since generally a minimum of approximately 1,600 hours of CPE is required to become a board-certified chaplain, any costs incurred for an individual participating in CPE training that exceeds the minimum number of hours required to obtain board certification would not be eligible to be paid on a reasonable cost basis.

However, we note that we do not completely defer to the information provided by industry representatives in order to determine the ``industry norm.'' Rather, if at any time we obtain information that calls our view of industry norms into question, we may make our own determination based on a random sample of hospitals. Therefore, assuming all other requirements under Sec. 413.85 are met, a hospital may receive reasonable cost pass-through payment for the hours of CPE for which academic credit is not granted (since those CPE hours are not generally provider-operated), and for the hours of CPE that may be used to satisfy training requirements for board certification. We will continue to allow reasonable cost payment for CPE that leads to board certification as long as we do not have evidence indicating that, based on a statistically valid, random sample, the ``industry norm'' is not to require board certification for chaplains that are employed by hospitals.

We also recognize that industry norms are susceptible to change over time. Therefore, although it may not currently be the ``industry norm'' to require completion of a particular nursing or allied health education program in order to practice and begin employment in a particular specialty, it may become the ``industry norm'' in the future. If we find that it has become the ``industry norm,'' we may allow the hospitals operating those programs (and meeting the requirements at Sec. 413.85) to be paid for the costs of those programs on a reasonable cost basis.

In relation to the commenters' recommendation that reasonable cost reimbursement should be provided for CPE supervisory training, we understand that, essentially, the purpose of the supervisory training is to prepare a chaplain to develop CPE programs and to teach interns and residents. We believe that CPE supervisors are practicing in the teaching profession, not within a nursing or allied health discipline. Furthermore, we do not believe that Congress intended to provide for reasonable cost pass-through payments for programs that are intended to produce instructors or teachers. While we recognize that CPE supervisors are necessary to train and prepare individuals for hospital chaplaincy, we believe that it is appropriate for the costs of supervisory programs in general to be treated as normal operating costs and paid accordingly.

Comment: One commenter stated that our proposed definition of provider-operated programs intended to exclude programs ``that do not lead to certification required to practice or begin employment in a nursing or allied health specialty * * *'' is not appropriate in light of the growing number of skills that require intensive clinical experiences. Another commenter stated that this proposal will seriously hinder reversal of the nursing shortage across the nation and, as a result, will have an adverse impact on the quality and safety of care provided in hospitals. The commenters used the example of nurse residencies, which a number of hospitals across the country are hosting for registered nurses. The commenters explained that these residencies, which are postgraduate and typically last 1 year, are designed to equip the newly licensed nurse with the skills to care for patients who require the most complex and sophisticated diagnostic and therapeutic services, and to prepare the nurses for leadership roles earlier in their careers and give them the tools to improve the quality of care and reduce medical errors. The commenters claimed that the Federal Government has thus far provided minimal funding to help ameliorate the nursing shortage and, therefore, the proposed rule is particularly distressing. They urged CMS to include criteria in the final rule for pass-through payment of nurse residencies.

Response: First, we do not believe that nurse residencies, which are intended to help integrate newly licensed nurses into complex acute care environments by enhancing their competencies and skills, are programs that qualify these nurses to be employed in a new specialty. Accordingly, it is more appropriate to treat such activities as normal operating costs. As we stated above, Medicare reasonable cost pass-through payment will only be provided for programs that, according to industry norms, qualify an individual to be employed in a specialty in which the individual could not have been employed prior to completing a particular education program. Second, we note that nurse residencies do not qualify for reasonable cost payment because they also do not meet the requirement for accreditation by a national approving body under Sec. 413.85(d)(1)(i)(A). Therefore, while we are sympathetic to the commenters' concerns, we do not believe that it is appropriate at the present time to allow for pass-through payment to be made under the Medicare program for nurse residencies.

Comment: Some commenters stated that CMS was ``entirely correct'' in identifying CPE as continuing education and concurred with our proposal to discontinue pass-through payments for CPE. One commenter contended that ACPE-accredited training is not primarily used to prepare students to be health care chaplains. Rather, CPE is primarily ministry training, and there are various ways that one can choose to use CPE. One commenter added that very few individuals who train in CPE, including those individuals in 1-year residencies, become employed as health care chaplains. The commenter further stated that CPE is ``properly a funding responsibility of the church rather than the government''. The commenters argued that Medicare should not be supporting continuing education for religious care providers whose primary base and certifying group is their denomination or faith group.

Another commenter presented a similar argument concerning pharmacy residencies and questioned why Medicare (that is, taxpayers) should subsidize these residency programs. The commenter claimed that hospitals ``use government monies in order to hire these `residents,' utilize them in `clinical' positions under the guise of postgraduate training, thereby bypassing having to use FTEs in the hospital pharmacy budget.'' The commentator believed that if hospitals and pharmacists were truly concerned with improving patient care, hospital pharmacy departments would train their own staff pharmacists to perform the clinical aspects themselves, rather than having taxpayers provide the funding.

Response: We are sympathetic to the commenters' concerns. However, we understand that many CPE programs do occur in hospitals, and that, while there may be various kinds of CPE training, generally, completion of approximately 1,600 hours of CPE training is required for board certification and employment by a hospital. Therefore, we believe that CPE residencies that lead to board certification generally would not be considered continuing education.

In response to the commenters' concerns about the taxpayers, through the Medicare program, providing support for CPE and pharmacy residencies, we note Medicare payment for these and other similar programs are made in accordance with the Medicare [[Page 45428]] statute. Under section 1861(v) of the Act, Congress provides for Medicare payments to be made in support of certain medical education activities. Currently, if a program meets the regulatory requirements under Sec. 413.85, which were specified earlier in this preamble, a hospital operating that program may qualify for Medicare reasonable cost pass-through payment.

Comment: One commenter explained that a dietetic internship is a post-baccalaureate program that is one of the requirements for practicing as a registered dietitian. The commenter pointed out that the Commission on Accreditation of Dietetic Education (CADE) of the American Dietetic Association accredits these internships and the interns contribute directly to patient care in a hospital. The commenter urged us to continue to pay health care organizations for dietetic internships.

Response: We appreciate the comment and note that, as long as a dietetic internship meets the requirements under Sec. 413.85 (and we do not find that it is not the industry norm to require this training to be employed as a registered dietitian), the hospital operating the internship may qualify for Medicare reasonable cost pass-through payment.

Comment: A large number of commenters responded to our proposal to clarify that, effective October 1, 2003, training that does not lead to certification required to practice or begin employment in a nursing or allied health specialty would be treated as educational activities (continuing education) that are part of normal operating costs, and not as approved programs that are eligible for reasonable cost pass-through payments. Many commenters strongly disagreed with our proposal that included pharmacy residencies in the type of training that is considered continuing education and claimed that the proposed rule reflected a fundamental misunderstanding of pharmacy education. The commenters stated that educational seminars, workshops, and continuing education programs are generally performed outside the provider setting, and in most instances do not exceed 40 hours per year, whereas a pharmacy residency is a full-time commitment that lasts for 1 year. The commenters emphasized that the pharmacy residencies are structured, intensive programs that incorporate direct patient care experience where residents work as part of a clinical team and are required to complete a comprehensive project. The commenters contended that residency experience provides focused, invaluable training that yields proven positive clinical and financial outcomes. The commenters also noted that, while residencies are not a requirement for all hospital pharmacy positions, they are a requirement for most clinical specialist positions. The commenters maintained that residencies would be a more universal hiring requirement were it not for the current shortage of pharmacists and residency programs. The commenters stressed the benefits of clinical pharmacist involvement in patient care and cautioned that CMS' attempt at short-term cost savings will result in significant long-term cost of care increases. The commenters urged CMS to ensure continuing reasonable cost pass-through payments for pharmacy residencies.

Response: As we stated above in response to the comments received from the clinical pastoral counseling community, in the May 19, 2003 proposed rule (68 FR 27210), we explained what constitutes ``continuing education'' for the purpose of determining whether a nursing or allied health education activity would or would not qualify for Medicare reasonable cost pass-through payments. We acknowledge that the definition of ``continuing education'' for Medicare payment purposes may differ from the academic view of what, in general, constitutes such activities. As we stated earlier, we believe that provider-operated programs that do not lead to any specific certification, or the ability to perform in the specialty, would be classified as ``continuing education.''

Our intent is to ensure that Medicare reasonable cost pass-through payments are only provided for programs that enable an individual to be employed in a capacity that he or she could not have been employed without having first completed a particular education program. We believe that, for Medicare purposes, training that enhances an individual's competencies, but does not permit that individual to be employed in a new specialty in which he or she could not have been employed without completing the additional training, would not qualify for Medicare reasonable cost pass-through payment. Medicare provides payment for such educational activities, but only under the methodology applicable to payments for normal operating costs. Our intent was to provide clarification for the purpose of distinguishing between those educational programs that qualify for reasonable cost pass-through payment (that is, programs that enable an individual to begin employment in a specialty), and those programs that should be paid as normal operating costs (that is, activities that are intended to enhance the current skill set of an individual for a profession or advance an individual's professional career).

Since publication of the proposed rule, we have learned from information provided by the commenters that there are two categories of pharmacy residencies--pharmacy practice residencies and specialized pharmacy residencies, both of which are accredited by the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP). If a pharmacist chooses to participate in residency training, he or she would generally do so after completion of an undergraduate bachelor of science degree or a doctor of pharmacy degree. (In some cases, residencies are offered as a part of a postgraduate degree (a master of science or a doctor of pharmacy). However, these programs would not meet our provider-operated criteria.) A pharmacy practice residency is typically a 1-year, organized, directed, postgraduate training program in a defined area of pharmacy practice that may take place in a variety of settings, including hospitals. For those seeking additional skills in a focused area of pharmacy practice (for example, oncology), an individual may choose to complete a second year of specialized pharmacy residency. Currently, ASHP, in partnerships with other professional organizations, accredits 17 second-year pharmacy residencies, in areas such as cardiology, geriatrics, infectious diseases, and oncology.

Of the 17 second-year pharmacy residencies, only 5 of these residencies currently lead to board certification. The Board of Pharmaceutical Specialties (BPS) is the organization that administers the certifying examinations after completion of each of these five residencies. Upon completion of a residency in 1 of the other 12 second-year residencies, the hospital in which the resident has trained issues a certificate to the pharmacist.

We understand that many employers, including hospitals, increasingly are requiring completion of an ASHP-accredited first year pharmacy practice residency as a condition for employment as a clinical (``on the floor'') or direct patient care pharmacist. While a licensed pharmacist who has not completed a pharmacy practice residency might be hired by a hospital as a staff or distribution pharmacist, a hospital typically would only hire an individual who has completed at least a 1-year pharmacy practice residency to fill a position that requires direct work with hospital patients. Some hospitals may even require their pharmacists to have completed a second-year [[Page 45429]] specialized residency before allowing those pharmacists to specialize on a particular group or type of patients. For example, before a pharmacist may work exclusively to design, implement, and monitor a course of treatment for oncology patients, some hospitals require that the pharmacist complete a residency in oncology pharmacy. However, many hospitals may employ pharmacists who have only completed a pharmacy practice residency to treat these groups or types of patients, including oncology patients.

As we explained above in response to the comments on CPE, in the May 19, 2003 proposed rule (68 FR 27210), we proposed to revise the regulations at Sec. 413.85(h)(3) to state that activities treated as normal operating costs include ``Educational seminars, workshops, and continuing education programs in which the employees participate that enhance the quality of medical care or operating efficiency of the provider and, effective October 1, 2003, do not lead to certification required to practice or begin employment in a nursing or allied health specialty.'' We proposed to add a conforming definition of ``certification'' for purposes of nursing and allied health education under Sec. 413.85(c) to mean ``the ability to practice or begin employment in a specialty as a whole.'' However, it is apparent from the comments we received that our proposed definition of ``certification'' was not clear. Some commenters believed we intended, through the proposed definition, to allow pass-through payments for the costs of a program that would only enhance an individual's set of skills. However, that was not our intent. We believe it would have been more appropriate to use the word ``and'' instead of the word ``or'' to further emphasize that pass-through payment would only apply to activities that enable an individual to practice and begin employment in a specialty, but would not apply to activities that serve to add to or to enhance an individual's current skill set.

In addition, based on the comments received, we understand that there may be several distinct levels of training in a given health profession, and each level of training may be a requirement in order for an individual to work in a new capacity or ``specialty'' in that profession, but not a requirement to practice or begin employment in the specialty ``as a whole.'' Since a second level of training is not required to begin practicing in a profession, under the proposed definition, we would not have been able to allow for pass-through payments for a second (or potentially a third) level of training. Therefore, we understand that inclusion of the words ``as a whole'' in the proposed definition of ``certification'' was misleading. Consequently, where a subsequent level of training is a requirement to practice in a new specialty in a given profession, pass-through payment may be made for the subsequent level of training.

Finally, we have concluded that it is not necessary to include a specific definition of ``certification'' in the regulations at Sec. 413.85. In this final rule, we are deleting the proposed definition of ``certification'' from Sec. 413.85(c), and amending Sec. 413.85(h)(3) by removing the words ``certification required'' and inserting the words ``the ability.'' We are also changing the word ``or'' to ``and''. Specifically, we are amending the proposed Sec. 413.85(h)(3) to state that activities treated as normal operating costs include ``Educational seminars, workshops, and continuing education programs in which the employees participate that enhance the quality of medical care or operating efficiency of the provider and, effective October 1, 2003, do notlead to the ability to practice and begin employment in a nursing or alliedhealth specialty.''

As we stated above in response to the comments concerning CPE, our view of a ``specialty'' in the nursing and allied health education context is based on what the health care industry views as the standard of practice in a specific area within a profession. We are defining ``industry norm'' to mean that more than 50 percent of hospitals in a random, statistically valid sample require the completion of a particular training program before an individual may be employed in a specialty. (We understand that, in some instances, due to the unique staffing circumstances faced by many smaller hospitals, inclusion of small hospitals in the sample would introduce factors that are not typically representative of the industry as a whole and would skew the results inappropriately. In such cases, we would consider excluding hospitals with less than 100 beds, which would still retain over 75 percent of all hospitals in the sample universe.)

Based on comments received, we believe that it is currently the ``industry norm'' for hospitals to generally hire only pharmacists who have completed a pharmacy practice residency to work directly in patient care. Specifically, without having completed a pharmacy practice residency, a pharmacist would typically be employed by a hospital as a staff or distribution pharmacist, but not as a clinical pharmacist who works directly with patients to develop treatment plans. Since completion of a pharmacy practice residency has become a requirement by hospitals to practice or begin employment in a position that involves direct patient care, we would view ``hospital pharmacy'' as a ``specialty'' of the pharmacy profession. Accordingly, pharmacy practice residency training programs that meet the requirements under Sec. 413.85, including accreditation by a nationally recognized accrediting body, direct operation by a provider, and lead to certification that is a requirement for employment, may be eligible for Medicare reasonable cost pass-through payment. However, it is apparent from the comments that it is not unusual for a hospital to employ a pharmacist that has only completed a pharmacy practice residency in an area in which an accredited second-year program exists (that is, geriatrics, cardiology, or oncology), without requiring the pharmacist to first complete that second-year residency program. For example, we would view further training in oncology pharmacy or cardiology pharmacy as specializations within the pharmacy field under the policy in this final rule. However, these second-year residencies would not qualify for reasonable cost pass-through payment because, based on information received from commenters, it is not currently the ``industry norm'' to require completion of these programs before beginning work in these specialties. If we find in the future that it has become the ``industry norm'' for hospitals to require second-year pharmacy residencies, we may allow the hospitals operating those programs to be reimbursed for the costs of those programs on a reasonable cost basis.

3. Programs Operated by Wholly-Owned Subsidiary Educational Institutions of Hospitals

Another matter that has come to our attention since publication of the January 12, 2001 final rule (66 FR 3363) on nursing and allied health education concerns the preamble language of the rule, which states:

``Concerning those hospitals that have established their own educational institution to meet accrediting standards, we believe that, in some cases, these providers can be eligible to receive payment for the classroom and clinical training of students in approved programs. If the provider demonstrates that the educational institution it has established is wholly within the provider's control and ownership and that the provider continues to incur the costs of both the classroom and clinical [[Page 45430]] training portions of the program, the costs would continue to be paid on a reasonable cost basis. An independent college would not meet these criteria.

``An example of a program that could be considered provider-operated would be one in which the hospital is the sole corporate member of the college, elects the board of trustees, has board members in common, employs the faculty and pays the salaries, controls the administration of the program and the curriculum, and provides the site for the clinical and classroom training on the premises of the hospital. We believe that, in these situations, the community has not undertaken to finance the training of health professionals; the provider has merely restructured its provider-operated program to meet certain State or accrediting requirements. In most cases, providers have aligned themselves with already established educational institutions. We note that a program operated by an educational institution that is related to the provider through common ownership or control would not be considered to meet the criteria for provider operated.'' (66 FR 3363).

We have received a question from a hospital that pertains to the cited preamble language in the narrow circumstance where the hospital previously received Medicare reasonable cost payment for direct operation of nursing or allied health education programs and then established its own wholly owned subsidiary college to operate the programs, in order to meet accreditation standards. The hospital has continued to receive Medicare payments after the hospital moved operation of the programs to the wholly owned subsidiary college. The hospital believes that, based on the cited preamble language regarding wholly owned subsidiary colleges and the lack of prior specific guidance on this particular organizational structure (as well as its continued receipt of pass-through payments) and because the hospital continues to pay all of the costs of the nursing and allied health education programs, the hospital is still the direct operator of the programs and should continue to receive pass-through treatment. However, we believe that once the hospital moved the direct operation of its nursing and allied health education programs to the college, the programs no longer met our provider-operated criteria at Sec. 413.85(f). At the very least, it appears that the hospital did not hire the faculty for the program(s) and did not have direct control of the curriculum of the program(s) after operation was transferred to the wholly owned subsidiary college. As we stated in the preamble language quoted above: ``a program operated by an educational institution that is related to the provider through common ownership or control would not be considered to meet the criteria for provider operated'' (66 FR 3363).

However, we understand that some hospitals, including this hospital, may have interpreted the preamble language that stated, ``if the provider demonstrates that the educational institution it has established is wholly within the provider's control and ownership and that the provider continues to incur the costs of both the classroom and clinical training portions of the program, the costs would continue to be paid on a reasonable cost basis'' (Ibid.), to mean that hospitals that establish wholly owned subsidiary colleges or educational institutions would continue to receive Medicare reasonable cost payment if the hospitals incur the costs of the classroom instruction and clinical training. In the May 19, 2003 proposed rule, we proposed to clarify that transferring operation of previously provider-operated programs to educational institutions, even if the institutions are wholly owned by the hospital, does not necessarily mean that the programs continue to meet our provider-operated criteria under Sec. 413.85(f). In order to remain provider operated, the hospital must have direct control of the program; the hospital itself must employ the teaching staff, have direct control of the program curriculum, and meet other requirements, as stated at Sec. 413.85(f).

While we proposed to clarify that merely operating programs through a wholly owned subsidiary college does not constitute direct operation of nursing or allied health education programs unless the hospital itself meets the requirements of the regulations at Sec. 413.85(f), we believe it would be unfair to recoup Medicare payments that have already been made to hospitals that meet this very narrow fact pattern. Therefore, we proposed that Medicare would not recoup reasonable cost payment from hospitals that have received pass-through payments for portions of cost reporting periods occurring before October 1, 2003 for the nursing or allied health education program(s) where the program(s) had originally been operated by the hospital, and then operation of the program(s) had been transferred by the hospital to a wholly owned subsidiary educational institution in order to meet accreditation standards prior to October 1, 2003, and where the hospital had continuously incurred the costs of both the classroom and clinical training portions of the programs at the educational institution.

In addition, we proposed that, for portions of cost reporting periods occurring on or after October 1, 2003, such a hospital would continueto receive reasonable cost payments for the clinical training costs incurred by the hospital for the program(s) described above that were previously provider operated. However, we further proposed that, with respect to classroom costs, only those classroom costs incurred by the hospital for the courses that were paid by Medicare on a reasonable cost basis and included in the hospital's provider-operated program(s) could continue to be reimbursed on a reasonable cost basis. That is, Medicare would pay on a reasonable cost basis for the classroom costs associated with the courses provided as part of the nursing and allied health education programs (for example, the coursesrelating to the theory and practice of the particular nursing and allied health discipline(s)) that were offered by the hospital when the hospitalwas the direct operator of the program(s).

We believe the proposed policy is appropriate since continued pass-through payment will allow these hospitals to maintain equal footing with other hospitals that receive pass-through payments and have maintained their provider-operated programs. In addition, it would not be equitable to discontinue longstanding Medicare pass-through payment to these hospitals (in fact, reasonable cost payment to at least one of these hospitals for nonprovider-operated programs preceded the publication of the January 12, 2001 final rule on nursing and allied health education payments by many years) that restructured operation of their nursing and allied health education program(s) as wholly owned subsidiaries in order to meet accreditation standards while relying on their understanding of CMS' prior expressions of provider-operated requirements and the recent preamble language. If these providers were now forced to restructure in order to meet the requirements of Sec. 413.85(f), they would not be able to maintain their accreditation.

We note that Congress has specifically expressed its intent that providers that have restructured their programs to be operated by a wholly owned subsidiary educational institution in order to meet accreditation standards should continue to receive Medicare reasonable cost payment. In the conference report accompanying the Consolidated [[Page 45431]] Appropriations Resolution for FY 2003, Congress stated:

``The conferees are particularly concerned about nursing and allied health educational programs that cannot meet the regulations set forth at 42 CFR 413.85(f) solely as a result of regional educational accrediting criteria. Given the shortage of nursing and allied health professionals, the conferees support the payment of costs on a reasonable cost basis for a hospital that has historically been the operator of nursing and allied health education programs(s) that qualified for Medicare payments under 42 CFR 413.85, but, solely in order to meet educational standards, subsequently relinquishes some control over the program(s) to an educational institution, which meets regional accrediting standards; is wholly owned by the provider; and is supported by the hospital, that is, the hospital is incurring the costs of both the classroom and clinical training of the program.'' (H.R. Rep. No. 108-10, 108th Cong., 1st Sess., 1115 (2003).)

However, we note that the proposed policy would not allow these hospitals to be paid for additional classroom costs for courses that were not paid on a reasonable cost basis to the hospitals in conjunction with their provider-operated programs (for example, additional classes needed to meet degree requirements). We believe that to allow pass-through payment for those additional costs would provide thesehospitals with an unfair advantage over other hospitals with provider-operated programs.

We note that any hospital that chooses to restructure its programs to be operated by a wholly-owned subsidiary educational institution on or after the effective date of this proposal when finalized (October 1, 2003) would not be eligible for pass-through payments under the proposed provision unless the hospital continues to meet the requirements of Sec. 413.85(f). We believe it is appropriate to limit the proposed payments to hospitals that restructured before October 1, 2003 because our policy with respect to programs by a wholly-owned subsidiary of a hospital will have been clarified by that date (the date that this final rule is effective).

We proposed to revise Sec. 413.85 by adding new paragraphs (d)(1)(iii) and (g)(3) to reflect the proposed payment policy.

Comment: Several comments supported our proposal. Specifically, the commenters believed that the proposed rule is consistent with the recent expressions of Congressional intent reflected in the conference report to the 2003 Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, which recognize that there is a shortage of nursing and allied health professionals, and that payments made for programs that are operated by wholly-owned subsidiary educational institutions of hospitals should not be retrospectively recouped and may continue in the future.

However, several commenters disagreed with the proposal under proposed Sec. 413.85(g)(3)(iii) that, effective for portions of cost reporting periods occurring on or after October 1, 2003, eligible hospitals could receive payment for the clinical training costs and for the classroom costs, but only those classroom costs incurred by the hospital for the courses that were included in the program(s) that had originally been provider-operated before transfer of operation of the program(s) to a wholly owned subsidiary educational institution. One commenter stated that such criteria regarding reimbursement of classroom costs appears to presume that while a hospital was operating its own programbefore transferring the operation of the program to a wholly-owned subsidiary, the hospital must have offered fewer or different programs. The commenter believed that our example in the preamble of the proposed rule seems to suggest that ``noncore'' or nonnursing related classes would be excluded from reasonable cost reimbursement, effective October 1, 2003. The commenter contended that we have incorrectly assumed that diploma programs include only nursing courses because, in fact, such diploma programs typically included general courses for English, basic science, math, and similar subjects. The commenter asked that we revise the preamble to clarify that courses for which costs were historically reimbursed would continue to qualify for reasonable cost payment without regard to whether they are ``core'' or ``noncore'' nursing courses.

Other commenters argued that restricting reimbursement to courses originally offered by the provider-operated program would discourage providers from ensuring that training of health care professionals is kept up to date and would not allow providers to meet evolving requirements of accrediting organizations. One commenter noted that the conference report accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution for FY 2003 states that ``* * * the conferees support the payment of costs on a reasonable cost basis for a hospital that has historically been the operator of nursing and allied health education program(s) * * *'' (Emphasis added) (H.R. Rept. No. 108-10, 108th Cong., 1st Sess., 1115 (2003)). The commenter believed this language indicates that Congress intended that schools should be reimbursed, not particular courses.

In addition, commenters expressed concern that capping reimbursement for educational programs effective October 1, 2003, would further aggravate the existing shortage of appropriately trained healthcare workers. Finally, commenters suggested that the October 1, 2003 effective date be postponed because this date will cause hardship for institutions currently in the process of creating educationalorganizations for the purpose of transitioning their programs to those educational organizations.

Response: We acknowledge the commenters' general support of the proposed changes. In response to the commenters who disagreed with our proposal for limiting payment to certain classroom costs, as we stated in the preamble to the proposed rule (68 FR 27210), this proposed exception to the reasonable cost payment policy for programs operated by wholly-owned subsidiary educational institutions was based on a question that we received from a hospital pertaining to the language in the January 12, 2001 Federal Register (66 FR 3363) concerning hospitals that established their own educational institutions to meet accreditation standards. Specifically, the hospital that raised the issue previously received Medicare reasonable cost payment for the direct operation of nursing and allied health education programs and then established its own wholly-owned subsidiary college to operate the programs, in order to meet accreditation standards. The hospital in question has continued to receive Medicare payments after the hospital moved operation of the programs to the wholly-owned subsidiary college. The hospital believed that, based on the cited preamble language in the January 12, 2001 Federal Register regarding wholly owned subsidiary colleges and the lack of prior specific guidance on this particular organizational structure (as well as its continued receipt of pass-through payments) and because the hospital continues to pay all of the costs of the nursing and allied health education programs, that it is still the direct operator of the programs and should continue to receive pass-through treatment.

As we stated in the proposed rule, we believe that once the hospital moved the direct operation of its nursing and allied health education programs to the college, the programs no longer met our provider-operated criteria at Sec. 413.85(f). [[Page 45432]] As we stated in the preamble language quoted above: ``a program operated by an educational institution that is related to the provider through common ownership or control would not be considered to meet the criteria for provider operated'' (66 FR 3363).

We explained that we understood that some hospitals may have interpreted the preamble language that stated, ``if the provider demonstrates that the educational institution it has established is wholly within the provider's control and ownership and that the provider continues to incur the costs of both the classroom and clinical training portions of the program, the costs would continue to be paid on a reasonable cost basis' (Ibid.), to mean that hospitals that establish wholly owned subsidiary colleges or educational institutions would continue to receive Medicare reasonable cost payment if the hospitals incur the costs of the classroom instruction and clinical training. Accordingly, although we proposed to clarify in the proposed rule that, in general transferring operation of previously provider-operated programs to educational institutions, even if the institutions are wholly owned by the hospital, does not necessarily mean that the programs continue to meet our provider-operated criteria under Sec. 413.85(f), we believed it would be unfair to recoup Medicare payments that have already been made to such a hospital that meets this very narrow fact pattern. Therefore, we proposed to add a limited exception to Sec. 413.85 to reflect the unique circumstances of such a hospital.

First, we proposed that, for portions of cost reporting periods occurring on or before October 1, 2003, Medicare would not recoup reasonable cost payment from such a hospital that has received pass-through payments for the nursing or allied health education program(s) where the program(s) had originally been operated by the hospital, and then operation of the program(s) had been transferred by the hospital to a wholly owned subsidiary educational institution in order to meet accreditation standards prior to October 1, 2003, and where the hospital had continuously incurred the costs of both the classroom and clinical training portions of the programs at the educational institution.

Second, since we believed that such a hospital's programs were no longer provider-operated, and therefore, should not continue in the future to receive full reasonable cost payments for the clinical and classroom costs of programs that are now operated by the wholly owned subsidiary educational institution, we proposed that, for portions of cost reporting periods occurring on or after October 1, 2003, such a hospital would continue to receive reasonable cost payments for the clinical training costs incurred by the hospital for the program(s) described above that were previously provider operated. However, we further proposed that, with respect to classroom costs, only those classroom costs incurred by the hospital for the courses that were paid by Medicare on a reasonable cost basis and were included in the hospital's provider-operated program(s) could continue to be reimbursed on a reasonable cost basis. That is, we proposed that Medicare would pay on a reasonable cost basis for the classroom costs associated with the courses provided as part of the nursing and allied health education programs (for example, the courses relating to the theory and practice of the particular nursing and allied health discipline(s)) that were offered by the hospital when the hospital was the direct operator of the program(s).

In proposing that, effective for portions of cost reporting periods occurring on or after October 1, 2003, we would only continue to pay on a reasonable cost basis for classroom costs associated with the courses that relate to the theory and practice of the particular nursing or allied health discipline(s) that were offered by the hospital when the hospital was the direct operator of the program(s), and not for additional classes needed to meet degree requirements provided as part of the nursing or allied health education programs, we did assume, as a commenter suggested, that diploma nursing programs typically only include courses related to the theory and practice of nursing. However, regardless of whether diploma programs include additional general courses other than ``core'' nursing courses, we continue to believe it is more appropriate to pay a hospital that meets the limited exception that allows continued payment for only those costs associated with courses included in the program(s) when the hospital was still the direct operator of the program(s). If, in fact, a hospital that meets the limited exception currently offers the same courses that it had offered when it was still the direct operator of the programs, we would continue to pay for the classroom costs associated with those courses, even if those courses do not relate directly to the theory and practice of the nursing or allied health program(s). However, if new courses, whether or not they are nursing-related or allied health-related course, have been added after the operation of the program(s) was transferred to a wholly owned subsidiary educational institution, we would not pay on a reasonable cost basis for the classroom costs associated with those new courses, effective October 1, 2003. If the courses offered currently are the same as the courses offered prior to transfer of the programs to the wholly owned subsidiary, but, for example, the names of the courses have changed, or there have been course substitutions, we would evaluate each course on an individual basis to determine whether we would continue to allow reasonable cost payment for those courses. All other things being equal (that is, after adjusting for inflation and changes in enrollment), our intent is not to pay more on a reasonable cost basis as of October 1, 2003, for classroom costs to such a hospital than we had paid to the hospital when the hospital was still the direct operator of the program(s).

In response to the comments we received that urged us not to restrict the number of courses for which we would provide reasonable cost reimbursement due to concerns about evolving accreditation requirements and the existing nursing shortage, we emphasize again that this proposal is not at all broad in scope. Rather, based on the information we currently have available to us, we believe this provision would have a limited application.. Therefore, we do not believe that our proposal will aggravate the nursing shortage or adversely affect hospitals that otherwise meet the requirements for reasonable cost payment under Sec. 413.85 but add courses to their programs. Similarly, we do not believe that the effective date of October 1, 2003, will cause hardship to other providers that are currently in the process of transitioning their programs to educational organizations, since the proposed changes would only apply to a provider that had already created its own educational institution. We also note that, as indicated above, programs that transition in some respect to educational institutions created by providers could possibly be considered ``provider-operated'' under Sec. 413.85(f) and, if all other requirements are met, could qualify to receive reasonable cost reimbursement.

Comment: One commenter disagreed with our statement in the proposed rule (68 FR 27211) that ``* * * transferring operation of previously provider-operated programs to educational institutions, even if the institutions are wholly owned by the hospital, does not necessarily mean that the programs continue to meet our provider-operated [[Page 45433]] criteria under Sec. 413.85(f).'' Rather, the commenter believed that programs that are wholly owned or wholly controlled by a hospital are provider-operated programs. The commenter asserted that CMS'' distinction between provider-operated programs and wholly owned programs conflicts with CMS'' regulations at Sec. 413.17(c)(2) which state that ``If the provider obtains items of services, facilities, or supplies from an organization, even though it is a separate legal entity, and the organization is owned or controlled by the owner(s) of the provider, in effect the items are obtained from itself.'' The commenter also referenced Sec. 412.2(c)(5)(i) concerning the DRG 3-day payment window that applies to services provided by a hospital or by an entity wholly owned or operated by the hospital, and asserted that there is ``no rational basis'' for treating wholly owned or wholly controlled affiliates differently for purposes of pass-through payment.

Response: The commenter is incorrect in stating that, in the proposed rule, we indicated that wholly owned (or wholly controlled) programs by definition cannot meet the provider-operated criteria and, therefore, would not qualify for reasonable cost pass-through payments. In fact, as we have stated in the January 12, 2001 final rule (66 FR 3363), and reiterated in the preamble to the proposed rule, if the hospital that wholly owns the educational institution meets the provider-operated criteria, the hospital would qualify to receive reasonable cost pass-through payment. Specifically, we stated in the proposed rule (68 FR 27210) that ``Concerning those hospitals that have established their owneducational institution to meet accrediting standards, we believe that, in some cases, these providers can be eligible to receive payment for the classroom and clinical training of students in approved programs. * * * An example of a program that could be considered provider-operated would be one in which the hospital is the sole corporate member of the college, elects the board of trustees, has board members in common, employs the faculty and pays the salaries, controls the administration of the program and the curriculum, and provides the site for the premises of the hospital (emphasis added). Thus, while we still believe that transferring operation of previously provider-operated programs to educational institutions, even if the institutions are wholly owned by the hospital, does not necessarily mean that the programs continue to meet our provider-operated criteria under Sec. 413.85(f) (68 FR 27211), we reiterate that only in instances where the hospital continues to meet the provider-operated criteria under Sec. 413.85(f) would the hospital continue to qualify for reasonable cost pass-through payments, as it did prior to transferring operation of a provider-operated program(s) to a wholly owned educational institution.

The commenter also mentioned the generally applicable ``related-entity'' rules, and suggested that a wholly owned school would be a related entity that should be treated as if it is the provider. Thus, a wholly owned educational institution would remain provider-operated. However, we note that, for purposes of nursing or allied health education payment under Sec. 413.85, it is not sufficient for a program to be operated by a related entity. Rather, the ``related entity'' principles do not apply under the agency's nursing and allied health education payment policy because, as indicated in previous rulemakings, that policy requires that a program be directly operated by the provider itself. Requiring direct operation of a program by the provider ensures that, under Sec. 413.85(c), costs borne by related organizations (that is, the community) are not redistributed to the hospital and claimed as a pass-through under the Medicare program.

Comment: Commenters requested clarification on whether the proposed change regarding providers that created wholly owned subsidiary educational institutions to meet accreditation requirements would have any effect on provider-operated nursing or allied health programs that have entered into written contracts with colleges or universities to award their degrees.

Response: As we have explained in response to a previous comment, the proposed change was extremely limited in scope and only relates to hospitals with a unique set of circumstances surrounding operation of their programs by a wholly owned subsidiary educational institution. Therefore, the proposed changes do not have any impact on existing policy related to hospitals that enter into contracts with academic institutions to award their degrees. However, we stress that, in the instance where an academic institution other than the hospital grants the final certificate or degree upon completion of the program, the burden of proof is on the hospital to demonstrate that it, in fact, meets the ``provider-operated'' criteria under Sec. 413.85(f) before reasonable cost payment may be made to that hospital.

Comment: One commenter believed that it is inappropriate to use the term ``wholly owned'' in reference to entities that, in many cases, are nonprofit institutions because, technically, nonprofit organizations are public trusts. The commenter suggested that it would be more accurate to refer to ``wholly owned'' or ``wholly controlled'' educational institutions.

Response: We believe that, for purposes of payment under Sec. 413.85, it is appropriate to use the term ``wholly owned.'' Although we recognize that nonprofit entities would not technically be ``wholly owned'' since they do not issue stock, we do not agree with the commenter that ``wholly controlled'' is an appropriate alternative because of the potential for confusion over issues relating to ``control'' and ``provider operation.'' Further, we believe that the term ``wholly owned'' is commonly used in the context of nonprofit entities, and implies the kind of relationship we intend--where there is a single founder or member. Therefore, we will continue to use the term ``wholly owned subsidiary'' in the context of payment under Sec. 413.85.

We are finalizing the two proposals associated with programs operated by wholly owned subsidiary educational institutions of hospitals. Specifically, we are finalizing the proposal under new Sec. 413.85(g)(3) that, effective for portions of cost reporting periods occurring on or after October 1, 2003, a provider that incurs costs for a nursing or allied health education program(s) where those program(s) had originally been provider-operated, and then operation of the programs) was transferred to a wholly owned subsidiary educational institution in order to meet accreditation standards prior to October 1, 2003, and where the provider has continuously incurred the costs of both the classroom and clinical training portions of the program(s) at the educational institution, may receive reasonable cost payment for such a program(s). Further, reasonable cost payment will be made if a provider received reasonable cost payment for those nursing and allied health education program(s) both prior and subsequent to the date the provider transferred operation of the program(s) to this wholly owned subsidiary educational institution (and ceased to be provider-operated program(s)). Such a provider would receive reasonable cost payments for: (a) The clinical training costs incurred for the program(s), and (b) classroom costs, but only those classroom costs incurred by the provider for the courses that were included in the programs that were [[Page 45434]] originally provider-operated prior to the transfer to a wholly owned subsidiary educational institution. That is, Medicare would pay on a reasonable cost basis for the classroom costs associated with the courses provided as part of the nursing or allied health education programs that were offered by the hospital when the hospital was the direct operator of the program(s). We would not allow such a hospital to be paid for additional classroom costs for courses that were not paid on a reasonable cost basis to the hospital in conjunction with its provider-operated programs.

AFFECTS OF CMS-1470-F (NOW 42 CFR PARTS 412 & 413) ON ACPE, INC. CENTERS:
THE ACTUAL IMPACT ON CPE PROGRAMS

By Lerrill J. White, BCC & ACPE Supervisor

Across the nation, Nursing and Allied Health Education programs are feeling the affects of the CMS-1470-F Ruling, and many programs are in jeopardy. In fact, most of the other Allied Health programs are in much worse shape than we. With the exception of Pharmacy, CPE, Diploma Nursing, and Dieticians, none of the other specialties even commented on the Proposed Ruling CMS-1470-P.

What you (Pastoral Care Directors & CPE Supervisors) can share with your financial officers is that nothing much has really changed regarding CPE Reimbursement. Medicare will still use the same formulary, the Medicare Intermediaries will still want to see the same quarterly reports, CPE programs will still use the same cost center, and the CPE budget (plus administrative overhead) will still be treated as it always has in the Medicare pass-through program. Your budgeted expenses will still be: Supervisory faculty salary, secretarial support, office space, supplies, staff serving as adjunct faculty, Resident stipends (1st year), and other related costs. No earth shattering changes will occur by virtue of this Ruling.

If you have an Accredited ACPE, Inc. First-Year CPE Residency program at your hospital, then you are still eligible for Medicare reimbursement - there is no interruption of your pass-through status. Since we generally don't give stipends to Extended students or Summer Interns, we incur no additional budgeted cost for the provision of those programs. Therefore, maintaining those programs won't seriously impact our reimbursed bottom-line. If you have an Accredited ACPE, Inc. CPE program at your hospital that offers Single Units or Extended Units of CPE and those Units are taken with the intent of completing 4 Units of CPE in order to become eligible for Board Certification as a professional Chaplain, then there should be no interruption of your pass-through status. If you have 2nd year Residents, then the stipends paid to them will have to be backed-out of the CPE cost center report for reimbursement purposes. Until we are able to establish Chaplain specializations as the industry standard, we will probably have to make this unfortunate adjustment. A significant number of CPE Centers have decided to identify individuals in Supervisory training as members of the CPE faculty, and capture their hours involved in the training and supervision of students in reimbursable CPE programs.

Regarding your Quarterly Time Studies for the Medicare Intermediary, you will still do this for all Supervisory faculty, secretarial support, pastoral care staff serving as adjunct faculty for CPE, the 1st year Residents, and Extended & Single Units of CPE taken with the intent of becoming eligible for Board Certification as a professional Chaplain. You will no longer include Summer CPE students, Extended CPE students, or Single Unit CPE students who are taking CPE for academic credit or as continuing education only, nor will you include the 2nd-Year Residents in the Time Study data in your Quarterly packet for the Medicare Intermediary.

Some Supervisors may wonder how to report their time on their Time Study Form regarding the time spent with the non-reimbursed CPE Units. As a Medicare Intermediary once explained to me, the Time Study covers 40 hours per week. They don't care if you work 60 hours, they only want to know about 40 hours and they really don't care which 40. So, depending on your work ethic and your time management, it could be that you spend 40 hours a week with your 1st year Residency program, 10 hours with your Extended Interns, and 10 hours doing administrative tasks. As far as the Intermediary is concerned, the 40 hours you spend related to the 1st year Residency program is forty hours. In the summer, reporting the Supervisor's time will be affected somewhat by time spent with the Summer Interns. Still, it will not make a significant difference in the amount reimbursed to your hospital on an annual basis. My best estimate is that if you have a 1st year Residency, Summer, and Extended students, the difference in your reimbursement will be 8 - 12% or less annually. As astute healthcare administrators know, CPE programs pay for themselves many times over in terms of patient satisfaction, reduced length of stay, reduction of lawsuits, and employee morale.

The CPE Centers that will be most affected by this Ruling are those that do not have a 1st year Residency program. If you offer only Summer Units (and those are taken specifically by students for academic credit), then as of October 1, 2003, your hospital will not be able to receive reimbursement even though you are an Accredited ACPE, Inc. Center, recognized by Medicare as a provider of Allied Health Education. As noted above, if you offer Extended or Single Unit CPE and individuals enroll in them with the intent of accumulating 4 Units of CPE in order to become eligible for Board Certification as a professional Chaplain, then those Units are reimbursable. Hopefully, these changes will provide the impetus necessary to convince some hospital administrators that the few extra dollars required to fund a CPE Residency program would be a good investment. If you are in this category, then now would be a good time to create a strategy and enter into discussions with your administrator regarding the advantages of having a CPE Residency program. Be creative and proactive. Help your administration protect their investment in their CPE Center by introducing an opportunity to improve patient care quality and the overall efficiency of the healthcare team. Conversations amongst Supervisors in similar circumstances across the nation are proving useful and are encouraged. The national ACPE office will be happy to assist in facilitating this dialogue.

The CMS position espoused in the Final Ruling recognizes the professional value of the education offered by ACPE Supervisors in hospital-based CPE training programs for Chaplains. This is as it should be. They affirm that it is necessary for qualified individuals to take four Units of CPE in order to become Board Certified Chaplains. They acknowledge that ACPE, Inc. is the recognized accrediting body for ACPE Centers, that it is ACPE Certified Supervisors who provide the CPE training, and note that APC, NACC, NAJC, and ACAPPE are the related bodies that certify professional Chaplains.

CMS's position that they won't reimburse CPE Centers for the costs related to training Residents in Supervisory Training is inconsistent with their position in relationship to every other Allied Health Accrediting and Certifying organization, not to mention Graduate Medical Education. ACPE Supervisors have been officially recognized as Allied Health Specialists by CMS since the early 1980's. Their specialized training prepares them to function as Master Practitioners of Pastoral Care and as Supervisors of Chaplains-in-training. The additional three years of Residency for Supervisory CPE in the Pastoral Care discipline is akin to a General Practitioner M.D. becoming a Board Certified Surgeon in the Medical discipline. What's more, since 1967, hospitals throughout the United States have recognized ACPE Supervisors as Allied Health Specialists in Pastoral Care and have made Board Certified CPE Supervisors the “industry standard”. Hospitals will not hire CPE Supervisors for their ACPE training Centers unless they have been Board Certified by ACPE, Inc. Failure to honor ACPE Supervisors as Pastoral Care Specialists in Healthcare and to deny reimbursement of their training because they become educators as a part of their healthcare specialization is akin to refusing to reimburse Surgical Residencies because those successfully completing them will likely become supervising Attending Physicians and educators for Medical Residents.

ACPE, Inc. will respond to the appropriate officials in CMS to address what we believe to be serious errors in information, logic, and decisions. This will be a concerted effort of all the cognate groups affected within Pastoral Care, and we hope to be working in tandem with the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists as well. It is very likely that we will be asking Congress to override the CMS decision as it applies to our constituencies. We will keep you informed as these plans unfold.

Contact Lerrill White at: lwhite@sleh.com.