Site icon CMS Compliance Group

CMS Proposed Changes to RoPs – Delays Ahead? (Part 3)

Here is the third and final part of CMSCG’s look into the proposed rule, “Medicare & Medicaid Programs; Requirements for Long-Term Care Facilities; Regulatory Provisions to Promote Efficiency and Transparency.” In this post, we will look at changes proposed to the Administration regulatory group, including the Facility Assessment, Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement and Compliance and Ethics. We will also look at proposed changes to the Infection Preventionist requirement and how the proposed rule could delay some of those looming Phase 3 Requirements.

Administration

CMS has proposed a handful of changes under the Administration regulatory group. These include:

Compliance and Ethics

CMS stated in the proposed rule that the requirement for facilities to have a Compliance and Ethics Program (Phase 3 requirement) was finalized, but it included additional training and personnel requirements that were not statutorily required. The following requirements have been proposed to be removed:

CMS has proposed that the operating organization for each facility develop/implement/maintain an effective compliance and ethics program that includes written compliance and ethics standards and P&Ps that are “reasonable, capable of reducing the prospect of criminal, civil and administrative violations under the Act.” The Agency has also proposed that specific, high-level staff of the operating organization be responsible for overseeing compliance, but that person would not need to be the CEO/ members of the Board of Directors or other such individuals as currently written in the reg.

Infection Control

Another part of the proposed rule addresses the Infection Preventionist (Phase 3 requirement – F882 Infection Preventionist Qualifications/Role). The Infection Preventionist requirement is remaining in place, however, CMS has proposed some tweaks to the regulation related to the time spent in the facility. As it currently stands, the regulation states that the Infection Preventionist (IP) must work at least “part-time” in the facility, which CMS feels is ambiguous and could be better revised to require the IP to spend enough time in the facility to meet the objectives of the Infection Prevention and Control Plan (IPCP). View CMSCG’s Ftag of the Week posts for F880 Infection Prevention and Control (Part 1Part 2Part 3) and F882 IP for the current regulatory requirements.

Potentially Impacted Phase 3 Regulatory Areas

If the proposed rules is finalized, there are three areas listed that are effective Phase 3 that would be impacted. CMS is recommending a 1 year delay in these areas if the rule is finalized. These include:

For a comprehensive look at the proposed rule, “Medicare and Medicaid Programs: Requirements for Long-Term Care Facilities: Regulatory Provisions to Promote Efficiency, and Transparency,” and the changes potentially impacting LTC providers, view Part 1 and Part 2 of the CMSCG Blog Series.

Exit mobile version