Posts

Court Upholds Delay of Medicare Site-Neutral Payment Cut

Medicare cannot proceed with its plan to pay for outpatient care on a site-neutral basis while it appeals a court ruling rejecting that policy, a federal court has ruled.

A federal judge found that Medicare has not articulated an adequate reason to delay the $380 million a year in site-neutral payment cuts while the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services appeals the September decision rejecting the payment policy change.  The court also found that, contrary to CMS’s claim, Medicare still has an appropriate methodology for making payments that are not site-neutral and that the agency has not proved that it would suffer irreparable harm if the cuts are delayed while it considers CMS’s appeal.

The cut took effect on January 1, 2019 but the court did not address how Medicare should compensate hospitals for lost payments, instead ordering CMS and the plaintiffs in the case to submit reports on how the payment shortfalls can best be addressed.

NASH has opposed implementation of the site-neutral payment policy on several occasions in recent years, doing so most recently in its letter last month to CMS (scroll down to page 5) about the agency’s proposed policy for paying for Medicare-covered outpatient services for 2020.

Learn more about the Medicare site-neutral payment cut and why the federal court again ruled against that cut in the Fierce Healthcare article “Judge denies bid to preserve site-neutral payment cuts while awaiting appeal.”

NASH Takes First Position on Surprise Medical Bills

Congress should address surprise medical bills in a manner that protects patients from such bills and establishes a fair negotiating process between providers and insurers, the National Alliance of Safety-Net Hospitals declared in its first public statement about the surprise medical bill issue.

The statement, developed to coincide with NASH Advocacy Day in Washington, D.C. last week, explains that the biggest challenge in developing a means of addressing this problem is forging a solution that ensures that providers, including private safety-net hospitals, can negotiate adequate reimbursement for care they deliver outside of the provider networks of their patients’ insurers.

With this in mind, NASH encourages Congress to pursue a solution that follows four basic principles:

  • Surprise billing legislation should protect patients from surprise medical bills and balance billing for out-of-network services.
  • Insurers and providers should be required to negotiate, without a federal role or involvement, for payment for services provided to insured individuals by out-of-network providers.
  • Insurers should uphold the “prudent layperson standard” and provide emergency care for any condition that a prudent layperson would reasonably believe requires emergency care.
  • Federal policies should preserve rather than supersede existing state policies that meet federal minimum patient protections for insurance products that are within states’ jurisdiction.

Learn more from NASH’s new position statement on surprise medical bills.

NASH Seeks Medicaid Exemption From New Public Charge Regulation

Congress should exempt Medicaid enrollment from the criteria in a new federal regulation that defines “public charge” or even overturn that regulation entirely, the National Alliance of Safety-Net Hospitals has declared in a new position statement.

The new statement, developed to coincide with NASH Advocacy Day in Washington, D.C. last week, notes that the fear of being designated a public charge will discourage many immigrants, including those to whom the new regulation does not even apply, from obtaining the medical care they need.  As a result, as many as 13 million legal immigrants are expected to disenroll from Medicaid out of fear of being labeled a public charge or choose not to enroll in the program even though they are entitled to Medicaid benefits.  Those found to be public charges risk losing green card status or even deportation.

Such individuals, NASH believes, will inevitably turn to private safety-net hospitals and others for care when they are sick or injured, placing great financial stress on these hospitals and potentially jeopardizing their ability to serve their communities.  For this reason, NASH has urged Congress to remove Medicaid participation from the criteria defining a public charge or to overturn the new regulation completely.

Learn more in the new NASH position paper “Challenges Posed by the New Public Charge Regulation.”

 

NASH Reiterates Call for Delay of Medicaid DSH Cuts

NASH supports current, bipartisan efforts in Congress to delay Medicaid disproportionate share (Medicaid DSH) cuts required by the Affordable Care Act.

The National Alliance of Safety-Net Hospitals has long called for the delay or elimination of these Medicaid DSH cuts and reiterated this view in preparation for NASH Advocacy Day, which was held last week in Washington, D.C.  In NASH’s view, Medicaid DSH is a vital tool for helping private safety-net hospitals serve residents of the low-income communities in which those hospitals are located.

NASH reinforced this position in a new position statement that notes that

While many Americans have taken advantage of the Affordable Care Act to obtain health insurance, millions remain uninsured…and the past two years have seen the number of uninsured Americans rise, not fall…Consequently, any decline now in Medicaid DSH payments could lead to an increase in the provision of charity care, possibly forcing hospitals to reduce services limit community outreach, and even reduce staff.  Such measures could jeopardize access to care, not only for hospitals’ uninsured and low-income patients but also for their privately insured, Medicare, and Medicaid patients as well.

See the complete statement on delaying Medicaid DSH cuts here, on the NASH web site.

NASH Award to Rep. Kennedy

NASH has given its “Champion for Health Care Award” to Representative Joe Kennedy III (D-MA).

Rep. Kennedy received the award during last week’s NASH Advocacy Day in recognition of his “tireless advocacy of access to care for his constituents, the residents of Massachusetts, and all Americans.”

As a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Health Subcommittee, Representative Kennedy has introduced numerous bills to help ensure access to care.  As explained by Keith Hovan, CEO of both NASH and the Southcoast Health System, which is located in Mr. Kennedy district, “Representative Kennedy has fought to protect private safety-net hospitals from damaging cuts that would hinder our ability to care for our most vulnerable residents.  We are incredibly grateful for his leadership.”

Learn more about Representative Kennedy and the NASH Champion of Health Care Award here.

Groups Seek to Block Medicaid Block Grants

Do not permit states to adopt block grants for their Medicaid programs, more than two dozen groups have asked the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

A letter signed by the American Diabetes Association, American Heart Association, COPD Foundation, March of Dimes, United Way, and others states that

Simply put, block grants and per capita caps will reduce access to quality and affordable healthcare for patients with serious chronic health conditions and are therefore unacceptable to our organizations.

The letter explains that

Per capita caps and block grants are designed to reduce federal funding for Medicaid, forcing states to either make up the difference with their own funds or make cuts to their programs that would reduce access to care for the patients we represent…  States under a block grant or per capita cap would struggle to respond to changes in standards of care, such as the development of ground-breaking but expensive treatment, and would have a greater incentive to impose additional barriers for treatments to manage their overall costs…  Additionally, per capita caps and block grants would cut Medicaid most deeply when the need is greatest, as these financing structures do not protect either states or patients from financial risk as the result of an economic downturn or other expected event.

NASH has long been skeptical about the use of block grants in state Medicaid programs.  The organization’s advocacy agenda for 2019 explains that

Block grants, whether based on individual states’ Medicaid enrollment or on their past Medicaid spending, could impose unreasonable limits on Medicaid spending that could potentially leave private safety-net hospitals unreimbursed for care they provide to legitimately eligible individuals. NASH will work to ensure that any new approach that involves Medicaid block grant continues to give states the ability to pay safety-net hospitals adequately for the essential services they provide to the low-income residents of the communities in which those hospitals are located.

Learn more about the groups that signed this letter and their objections to Medicaid block grants and per capita caps by reading their letter to CMS.

NASH Comments on Proposed Medicare Regulation (Part 2 of 3)

The National Alliance of Safety-Net Hospitals has submitted formal comments to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in response to the latter’s proposed hospital payment plan for FY 2020.

Responding to the proposed inpatient prospective payment system published by CMS in April, NASH primarily addressed a CMS proposal to change how it calculates Medicare disproportionate share (Medicare DSH) uncompensated care payments and proposed changes in the Medicare area wage index system.

Yesterday, the NASH blog presented the alliance’s written comments about proposed changes in Medicare DSH uncompensated care payments.  Today, it presents a detailed alternative proposal to CMS’s April 2019 recommendation for calculating those payments.  On Thursday the blog presents NASH’s response to proposed changes in the Medicare area wage index system.  The complete NASH response to the proposed CMS regulation can be found here.

Calculation of Medicare DSH Uncompensated Care Payments for FY 2020

Factor 3 represents a hospital’s share (as estimated by the Secretary) of the total uncompensated care provided by all hospitals eligible to receive DSH payments.  CMS has, in recent years, calculated UCC DSH payments using an average of three factor 3 calculations subject to a budget neutrality adjustment that modifies the average factor 3 for each hospital to spend the appropriate amount of money (i.e., factor 1 times factor 2) for the fiscal year.

For the reasons stated in the accompanying comment letter, NASH recommends that for FY 2020, CMS implement year one of a three-year transition to using a three-year average of audited post-transmittal 11 data.  The schedule for this transition would be as follows:

  • Year one (FY 2020) would consist of a blend of 2/3 of a hospital’s 2019 UCC DSH payment with 1/3 of the hospital’s UCC DSH payment based on unaudited 2017 S-10 data. During FY 2020, CMS could engage in audits of the 2017 data.
  • Year two (FY 2021) would consist of a blend of 1/3 of a hospital’s 2019 UCC DSH payment with 2/3 of the hospital’s UCC DSH payment based on the average factor 3 derived from the hospital’s audited 2017 data and unaudited 2018 data. During FY 2021, CMS could engage in audits of the 2018 data.
  • Year three (FY 2022) would consist of an equally weighted blend of the hospital’s audited 2017 and 2018 data and unaudited 2019 data.

Each year thereafter, CMS could continue to engage in audits while rolling forward the three-year average, adding a new year of data to the calculation and dropping the oldest year of data.  The result balances timeliness and accuracy while also maintaining year-over-year stability.

Specifically, for FY 2020, a hospital’s final factor 3 would be calculated by:

  • Calculating for each hospital a preliminary 2017 factor 3 by dividing the hospital’s reported line 30 uncompensated care (subject to any adjustments or trims) by the total reported line 30 uncompensated care (subject to any adjustments or trims) reported by all hospitals expected to receive DSH in FY 2020 on their 2017 cost reports.
  • Calculating for each hospital a blended FY 2020 factor 3 by summing the hospital’s preliminary 2017 factor 3 plus its FY 2019 final factor 3 plus its FY 2019 final factor 3 and dividing by 3 if the hospital received a payment in 2019 and 1 if the hospital received no payment in 2019.
  • Deriving a standardization factor by calculating the average factor 3 for all hospitals projected to receive DSH and dividing the result by 1.0.
  • Calculating each hospital’s final FY 2020 factor 3 by multiplying its blended FY 2020 factor 3 by the standardization factor.

Puerto Rico hospitals, Indian Health Service and Tribal hospitals would continue receive a factor 3 based on low-income insured days from FY 2013.

For 2021, each hospital’s factor three would be based on the three-year average of its 2019 final factor 3, its 2017 factor 3 and its 2018 factor 3.

*          *          *

Tomorrow, see NASH’s comments on CMS’s proposal for changes in the Medicare geographic wage classification system.

See NASH’s entire response to the proposed Medicare regulation here.

NASH Comments on Proposed Medicare Regulation (Part 1 of 3)

The National Alliance of Safety-Net Hospitals has submitted formal comments to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in response to the latter’s proposed hospital payment plan for FY 2020.

Responding to the proposed inpatient prospective payment system published by CMS in April, NASH primarily addressed a CMS proposal to change how it calculates Medicare disproportionate share (Medicare DSH) uncompensated care payments and proposed changes in the Medicare area wage index system.

In this first of three parts, the NASH blog presents the alliance’s written comments about proposed changes in Medicare DSH uncompensated care payments. Tomorrow the blog presents a more detailed look at NASH’s alternative proposal for calculating Medicare DSH uncompensated care payments. On Thursday the blog presents NASH’s response to proposed changes in the Medicare area wage index system. The complete NASH response to the proposed CMS regulation can be found here.

The Calculation of Medicare DSH Uncompensated Care Payments

The Present Challenge

When the Affordable Care Act divided Medicare DSH payments into two components, one of which was a Medicare DSH uncompensated care payment that was to be based entirely on how much uncompensated care hospitals provide, it created a major challenge for policy-makers: how to determine how much uncompensated care hospitals provide. Lacking a clear, credible source of uncompensated care data to use for this purpose, CMS for three years – from 2014 through 2016 – used a proxy for hospital uncompensated care based on two low-income variables: eligible hospitals’ Medicaid patients and their SSI patients.

In 2017, CMS announced that it would move away from this proxy and begin a three-year transition into a different source of data for hospital uncompensated care: line 30 of the S-10 worksheet of the Medicare cost report, where hospitals report their uncompensated care. At that time CMS also announced that it would begin calculating hospitals’ Medicare DSH uncompensated care payments based on three years worth of data. The purpose of using three years of data was to reduce undue fluctuations in hospitals’ Medicare DSH uncompensated care payments from one year to the next.

For years, NASH (previously the National Association of Urban Hospitals) and others have urged CMS to prepare for future use of S-10 data for this purpose in two ways:

  • By improving the instructions for completing the form, which have widely been viewed as confusing and have led to hospitals reporting their uncompensated care in many different ways – including ways it is virtually inconceivable that CMS ever intended. Representatives of NASH met with CMS officials on several occasions in recent years to share examples of hospitals reporting uncompensated care data that totally lacked credibility and to discuss specific aspects of the S-10’s instructions that give rise to inconsistent and inaccurate data reporting.
  • By auditing hospitals’ reported S-10 data to ensure that they are reporting this data accurately and in compliance with the S-10’s instructions. NASH has been urging CMS to audit S-10 data for nine years – ever since passage of the Affordable Care Act created the new Medicare DSH uncompensated care payment and it appeared inevitable that the S-10 would eventually be used in the calculation of that payment. Auditing is necessary because NASH’s reviews of the uncompensated care data hospitals reported on their S-10 in recent years revealed that some hospitals are reporting enormous amounts of uncompensated care that simply cannot be believed in the context of their size, their operating expenses, and their other patient revenue. NASH has shared these reviews with CMS officials on a number of occasions. If left unaddressed, this inaccurate reporting would greatly skew the distribution of the limited pool of Medicare DSH uncompensated care money, inappropriately rewarding some hospitals for their inaccurate data and unfairly penalizing others.

Now, NASH is concerned that while work on both of these tasks is under way, that work remains incomplete at this time. CMS has made progress in improving the S-10’s instructions, as can be seen by what NASH believes are improvements in the quality of the data hospitals are reporting. Despite this, further improvements may still be needed. The auditing is not nearly as far along: as described below, the very limited auditing that has been undertaken so far has been troubled and insufficient.

CMS Proposes Using Flawed Data for FY 2020

In its proposed FY 2020 Medicare inpatient prospective payment system regulation, CMS calls for using uncompensated care data from hospitals’ FY 2015 S-10 forms when calculating FY 2020 Medicare DSH uncompensated care and also asks interested parties to share their view on the possibility of using FY 2017 S-10 data instead of the 2015 data. NASH believes that neither FY 2015 data nor FY 2017 data is suitable for this purpose.

NASH opposes the use of hospitals’ FY 2015 data as the single source of data in the calculation of FY 2020 Medicare DSH uncompensated care reports because while this was the first such uncompensated care data CMS audited, that auditing so far has been not sufficient to give hospitals – and taxpayers – confidence that federal Medicare DSH uncompensated care funds will find their way to the hospitals providing the greatest verified amount of uncompensated care. Among the problems that arose during the first round of auditing were inadequate time frames for hospitals to submit data to auditors; rushed auditing; the use of different auditing methodologies in different parts of the country, between the different Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs), and even within individual MAC regions; and the lack of comprehensive auditing, with only about 20 percent of affected hospitals actually audited. In its proposed FY 2020 Medicare inpatient prospective payment system regulation, CMS revealed that “approximately 10 percent of audited hospitals have more than a $20 million difference between their audited FY 2015 data and their unaudited FY 2016 data.” CMS also observed that some hospitals have suggested that had the S-10 instructions developed for FY 2017 – instructions that clearly represented an improvement over past instructions – been in place when they completed their FY 2015 S-10 reports, those 2015 reports would have had fewer errors and been more accurate. Together, these problems lead NASH to oppose the use of S-10 data from hospitals’ FY 2015 Medicare cost reports in calculating hospitals’ FY 2020 Medicare DSH payments, even when that data has been audited, because auditing was only undertaken for a relatively small proportion of hospitals.

NASH also opposes CMS’s suggested alternative to using FY 2015: using FY 2017 data as the single source of data in the calculation of Medicare DSH uncompensated care payments. That data remains entirely unaudited, and while the instructions that guided hospitals during completion of their S-10 forms for FY 2017 are generally thought to be clearer and better than those used in FY 2015, there is, at least at this time, little reason to believe this unaudited data as a whole is any more accurate and any more credible than FY 2015 data. Upon reviewing this data, NASH found evidence of some improved data but also numerous examples of reported uncompensated care data that simply lack credibility – generally, hospitals reporting so much uncompensated care that it seems inconceivable that their doors could remain open. In addition, while hospitals that did undergo auditing of their FY 2015 data undoubtedly learned lessons that will improve their ability to complete future S-10 reports, 80 percent of DSH-eligible hospitals have not yet undergone those audits and therefore are not better prepared to complete future S-10s worksheets.

One Year of Data is Insufficient

The proposed FY 2020 regulation also calls for another change: calculating FY 2020 payments based on one year of data instead of three, as has been the case in recent years. NASH opposes this shift in approach. With so little auditing completed and the auditing that has been done of questionable value, NASH opposes any methodology for calculating hospitals’ Medicare DSH uncompensated care payments that relies on data from just a single year. In addition to the problems specific to 2015 and 2017 data, outlined above, NASH objects to using data from just one year because the possibility of aberrant data from any one year skewing the distribution of Medicare DSH uncompensated care payments is too great.

CMS is on record expressing this same view, writing in the final FY 2017 regulation that

…because the data used to make uncompensated care payment determinations are not subject to reconciliation after the end of the fiscal year, we believe that it would be appropriate to expand the time period for the data used to calculate Factor 3 from one cost reporting period to three cost reporting periods. We stated that using data from more than one cost reporting period would mitigate undue fluctuations in the amount of uncompensated care payments to hospitals from year to year and smooth over anomalies between cost reporting periods.

Also,

We stated that we believe that computing Factor 3 using data from three cost reporting periods would best stabilize hospitals’ uncompensated care payments while maintaining the recency of the data used in the Factor 3 calculation. We indicated that we believe using data from two cost reporting periods would not be as stable while using data from more than three cost reporting periods could result in using overly dated information.

Until now, CMS had insisted on basing these payments on three years of data even after it shifted from basing payments on the low-income proxy to uncompensated care data as reported on the S-10. Now, however, it proposes changing its approach and basing the payments’ calculation on just a single year of data, leaving hospitals potentially vulnerable to precipitous declines in their Medicare DSH uncompensated care payments because of either one unusual year of their own activity or questionable reporting by other hospitals.

Accuracy in S-10 reporting is so important because Medicare DSH payments are made out of a single pool of federal funds, with hospitals drawing from that pool based on the amount of uncompensated care they provide in comparison to other DSH-eligible hospitals. As a result, every hospital’s reporting affects how much Medicare DSH uncompensated care money every other DSH-eligible hospital receives. Whether the result of misinterpreting the S-10’s instructions, placing the wrong data on the wrong line on the form, an accounting or mathematical error, or an attempt to maximize their potential Medicare DSH uncompensated care revenue, some hospitals could unfairly receive a windfall of Medicare DSH uncompensated care money – and they would do so at the expense of other hospitals, including those that reported their data exactly as CMS intended. Conversely, the same reporting mistakes could result in aberrant data in which some hospitals’ uncompensated care is under-reported, resulting in such hospitals not receiving the Medicare DSH uncompensated care payments to which they should reasonably be entitled.

An Alternative Approach: NASH’s Proposal

NASH proposes an alternative to CMS’s plan for calculating hospitals’ FY 2020 Medicare DSH uncompensated care payments: a three-year proposal that would cover FY 2020, FY 2021, and FY 2022. At the heart of this proposal is NASH’s belief – a belief CMS in the past made very clear that it shares – that these payments should be made based on more than one year of hospitals’ S-10 data. Using more than one year of data would help smooth the overall data and ensure that no single year’s aberrant data, whether the result of reporting error or just an unusual year in the life of a hospital, inappropriately skews calculations in ways that unfairly benefit or harm any hospitals or has wide-ranging effects that can be felt throughout the universe of the approximately 2,430 hospitals that will be eligible for Medicare DSH uncompensated care payments in FY 2020.

NASH has concluded that the more recent the data is, the more likely it will be reliable – or at least closer to reliable – for three reasons: first, CMS has improved the S-10’s instructions since 2015, suggesting that data reported after 2015 should be more reliable than it was that year or prior to that year; second, future auditing should uncover flaws in hospitals’ data reporting practices that hospitals will correct in the future, leading to more accurate reporting as time passes; and third, improved auditing will enable CMS to adjust hospitals’ reported uncompensated care totals, which also should make future data more accurate.

With this in mind – using more recent data, including audited data, and the value of using data from more than one year – NASH suggests that instead of adopting its proposed methodology, CMS instead use the following methodology for calculating Medicare DSH uncompensated care payments over the next three years:

For FY 2020 (year one of three):

Calculate Medicare DSH uncompensated care payments based on a blend that consists two-thirds of the Medicare DSH uncompensated care payments hospitals receive in FY 2019 and one-third on hospitals’ calculated share of the overall Medicare DSH uncompensated care pool for FY 2017.

For FY 2021 (year two of three):

Calculate Medicare DSH uncompensated care payments based on a blend that consists one-third of the Medicare DSH uncompensated care payments hospitals receive in FY 2019 and two-thirds on the average of hospitals’ calculated share of the overall Medicare DSH uncompensated care pool for FY 2017 and FY 2018.

For FY 2022 (year three of three):

Calculate Medicare DSH uncompensated care payments based on the average of hospitals’ calculated share of the overall Medicare DSH uncompensated care pool for FY 2017, FY 2018, and FY 2019.

By using this approach, CMS would reduce the importance of unreliable 2015 data in the calculation of Medicare DSH uncompensated care payments and instead use the most credible data available at the time of the calculation for each of the three years. Most important, adopting NASH’s alternative proposal would buy CMS time: time to improve its auditing, time to do more auditing, time to engage in additional provider education to ensure that hospitals understand how to comply with Medicare’s uncompensated care data reporting requirements, and time to refine the S-10’s instructions still further if the outcome of future auditing suggests that improvements are still needed. NASH’s proposed alternative also would eliminate the need for any auditing of hospitals’ FY 2016 S-10 data, which is not needed to implement this alternative approach. NASH’s proposed approach also takes advantage of the two major advances CMS has implemented in recent years: better S-10 instructions and a commitment to auditing. Together, these steps can help ensure that future uncompensated care data reporting is more accurate and can constitute an appropriate foundation for the calculation of Medicare DSH uncompensated care payments during the next three years and do so without the volatility inherent in potentially significant swings in hospitals’ annual Medicare DSH uncompensated care payments – swings that CMS made a point of expressing its concern about in the past. Until then, NASH believes our alternative approach to that calculation for the next three years would produce more appropriate payments to hospitals

*       *       *

See NASH’s entire response to the proposed Medicare regulation here.

Tomorrow:  more details about NASH’s alternative Medicare DSH uncompensated care proposal.

Delay Medicaid DSH Cuts, Pelosi Says

Medicaid DSH cuts should be delayed, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told a gathering of hospital officials.

According to Speaker Pelosi,

DSH cuts threaten to erode the health of community hospitals, safety-net hospitals and rural hospitals, [affecting] the health of not only the families that rely on Medicaid, but any person who relies on these hospitals for care.

NASH has long urged Congress to delay or even eliminate Affordable Care Act-mandated cuts of Medicaid disproportionate share payments, doing so twice in the past week: first in a letter to Senate Finance Committee chairman Charles Grassley (R-IA) and then in a message to all House members. NASH believes this cut would be especially harmful for the nation’s private safety-net hospitals.

Learn more about Speaker Pelosi’s remarks in the Becker’s Hospital Review article “House speaker urges Congress to ease Medicaid payment cuts to hospitals serving low-income patients.”

NASH Asks House to Support Delay of Medicaid DSH Cut

Working to prevent the scheduled October 2019 reduction of Medicaid DSH allocations to the states, NASH has reached out to the House of Representatives for help.

In a message delivered to all House members, NASH asked those members to sign onto a bipartisan letter being circulated by two of their colleagues, Representatives Eliot Engel (D-CA) and Pete Olson (R-TX), that asks House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and minority leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) to advance legislation to delay an Affordable Care Act-mandated reduction of Medicaid disproportionate share allocations to the states.  Congress has already delayed this cut three times.

In its letter, NASH explains that

If implemented, this cut would be harmful for private safety-net hospitals and the communities they serve throughout the country.

See the Engel-Olson letter here and see NASH’s message to House members here.