US · guidance
CMS HPMS Memo, Part D Payment for Drugs for Beneficiaries Enrolled in Hospice—Request for Comments (Dec. 6, 2013), § CMS’ Independent Reviewer
CMS’ Independent Reviewer
We recognize a mechanism is necessary for handling disputes between the hospice and Part D
sponsors regarding payment responsibility when the drug should be paid for and the question at
issue is whether it should be paid for by the hospice or Part D sponsor. As a result, we are
exploring incorporating an independent reviewer function as part of the appeals process under a
CMS contract. The independent reviewer’s decisions will be binding on the hospice and the Part
D sponsor. We will outline the details of the independent review process in future guidance
providing adequate notice to all affected parties.
In the interim, CMS expects:
• The hospice and Part D sponsor to coordinate their benefits;
• The hospice/prescriber to immediately provide written documentation to satisfy the Part
D PA;
• The Part D sponsor to accept and maintain the documentation that the drug is unrelated
and not waived through the hospice election and is, therefore, reimbursable under Part D
and process the claim; and
• If the sponsor disagrees with the hospice/prescriber decision, the sponsor to flag the claim
and request a retrospective determination of drug payment responsibility by the
independent reviewer once the process is implemented.
History
CMS memorandum dated December 6, 2013, to All Part D Plan Sponsors and Medicare Hospice Providers: "Part D Payment for Drugs for Beneficiaries Enrolled in Hospice—Request for Comments".
Provenance
- Source
- cms.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-17
- Edition
- hospice-memos-2026-09-17
- Content hash
b7fb194199846ded85669f26a6dfd43a7507d95f31ec2bb45726f78774eedcc1
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.