Have regulatory changes that steered rehabilitation patients of lesser CMG values away from IRF fueled the growth of other post acute care venues? Have the shifts that occurred made good financial sense to CMS? Have acute care practices and lengths of stay changed over the past 20 years necessitating more robust post-acute care readiness? The answer to these questions hold the key to what lawmakers need to consider when it comes to recommending site-neutral payment in IRFs and SNFs, even for limited orthopedic conditions.
Let's review these concepts in Blog 3 of the series on site-neutral payment and why now more than ever a specialized level of rehabilitation care (IRF) should not be considered comparable in services or payment to a SNF level of care. If patients are screened and directed appropriately based on their real medical and functional needs, there would be no need to concoct 'site- neutral' relationships.