
Are you keeping up on your reading from the FY 2027 hospital inpatient prospective payment system (IPPS) Final Rule? True, it is close to 900 pages of Federal Register fine print, (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-08-04/pdf/2026-15833.pdf ) but there are four areas that prepared compliance professionals should be aware of. This blog takes you through the highlights of those important sections.
What Does the Final Rule Mean for Your Organization?
This release updates Medicare payment rates and policies for acute care and long-term care hospitals, with some starting as soon as January 1, 2027, so it’s definitely time to start paying close attention.
1: Expansion of Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) Model
The original CJR Model ran from April 2016 through December 2024 and according to CMS, it produced the needed results. The most recent evaluation of performance years six and seven (2021-2023) showed that the CJR Model produced an estimated $112.7 million in net savings while maintaining quality of care.
Now, the CMS Innovation Center is expanding the model nationally, including in U.S. Territories, starting January 1, 2028. The expanded model, called CJR-X, will focus on improving care and reducing spending for Medicare beneficiaries undergoing lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR) procedures.
CJR-X Mandatory Requirements for Some Acute Care Hospitals
Participating hospitals will be held accountable for spending and quality of care during an inpatient stay or hospital outpatient procedure and for the 90 days following hospital discharge. With some exceptions, the CJR–X Model will be mandatory for acute care hospitals paid under IPPS and Outpatient Prospective Payment Systems (OPPS).
Multiple Modifications to CJR Model
CJR–X also includes modifications to the CJR Model. The Final Rule confirms multiple policies for CJR-X. These include:
- January 1, 2028 start date
- Acute care hospitals as participant and accountable entity
- LEJR as the episode of care
- Five quality measures and a composite quality score (CQS) to assess quality performance
- Regional risk-adjusted target prices that include capped normalization and trend factors
- Pricing-specific policies for certain hospitals, such as low-volume and safety net hospitals
- Provider and beneficiary overlap permitted with most models
- Allows participant hospitals to have financial arrangements
- Waives certain Medicare program requirements
- Permits beneficiary-identifiable and regional aggregated data sharing
- Options for Alternative Payment Model (APM) participation
Though compliance professionals aren’t likely to be named the implementation lead of these efforts at their hospital, they should still be aware of how these changes will affect reimbursement, quality reporting and allowances for financial arrangements.
To learn more now and in the future about the CJR-X Model, stay tuned at https://www.cms.gov/priorities/innovation/innovation-models/cjr-x
2: Organ Acquisition Costs
Compliance professionals working in or with organizations providing organ acquisition services need to be aware of these changes and ensure policies, procedures and any auditing activity is adjusted accordingly.
- The Final Rule outlines payment policies for organ acquisition and reasonable cost, as well as reimbursement appeals for Independent Organ Procurement Organizations (IOPOs) and Histocompatibility Laboratories (HCLs).
- The Final Rule solidifies the proposal to clarify and codify certain longstanding policies on allowable costs under Medicare’s reasonable cost principles for all provider types, including public education for organ procurement organizations.
- Additionally, it finalizes the proposal to clarify and codify Medicare’s longstanding policies for allocating overhead costs across all provider types.
- Lastly, the final rule codifies the CMS administrator’s discretionary review of reimbursement appeals for IOPOs and HCLs.

As HHS OIG states in their General Program Compliance Guidance, “One of the best ways to identify fraud and abuse risks is to follow the money.” Understanding the flow of money related to organ acquisition is one of those areas to add to the list for “following the money.”
3. Quality, Quality, Quality.
Quality of care is another area that the HHS OIG has been shining a light on for compliance professionals in recent years. Though it’s unlikely compliance professionals will take over quality of care programs in hospitals, OIG expects tight partnerships. Also expected is a general understanding by compliance departments of the work that hospitals’ quality of care teams perform.
Specifically, OIG said, “Entities should incorporate quality and patient safety oversight into their compliance programs. Integrating quality and patient safety oversight into compliance processes can alert the entity of quality and patient safety concerns and enable the entity to mitigate risk of patient harm.”
Quality Reporting and Compliance Impact
The IPPS Final Rule has a lot to say about quality reporting. Although compliance professionals aren’t on the front line for some changes, they should ensure quality teams are aware and have a plan to address any potential impact.
Quality-related highlights include:
- Adoption of three new measures:
- Excess Days in Acute Care After Hospitalization for Diabetes measure beginning with the FY 2029 payment determination
- Hospital Harm-Postoperative Venous Thromboembolism electronic clinical quality measure (eCQM) beginning with the FY 2030 payment determination
- Advance Care Planning eCQM beginning with the FY 2030 payment determination
- Removal of three measures, beginning with FY 2030 payment determination:
- Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis eCQM
- Intensive Care Unit Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis eCQM
- Discharged on Antithrombotic Therapy eCQM
- Modifications to three measures beginning with the FY 2028 payment determination. All are related to Excess Days in Acute Care after Hospitalization for:
- Acute Myocardial Infarction
- Heart Failure
- Pneumonia

- Five modified mortality measures beginning with the FY 2028 payment determination. Each relates to the Hospital 30-Day, All-Cause, Risk-Standardized Mortality Rate following:
- Acute Myocardial Infarction Hospitalization
- Heart Failure Hospitalization
- Pneumonia Hospitalization
- Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Hospitalization
- Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery
4: Promoting Interoperability of Certified Electronic Health Record Technology
The Medicare Promoting Interoperability Program encourages eligible hospitals and critical access hospitals to adopt, implement, upgrade and demonstrate meaningful use of certified electronic health record technology (CEHRT).
In this Final Rule, CMS confirmed policies to:
- Remove and revise certain criteria to align with proposals made by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT
- Remove certain attestations
- Delay removal of the following two measures: (i) Support Electronic Referral Loops by Sending Health Information and (ii) Support Electronic Referral Loops by Receiving and Reconciling Health Information
- Modify the Electronic Prior Authorization measure as an optional bonus measure for the EHR reporting period in CY 2027 and mandatory beginning with the EHR reporting period in CY 2028
- Add the Unique Device Identifiers for Implantable Medical Devices measure
- Adopt two new eCQMs beginning with the FY 2030 payment determination in alignment with the Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting Program
- Remove three eCQMs beginning with the FY 2030 payment determination in alignment with the Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting Program
Build Business Knowledge to Anticipate Non-Compliance Risks
Most compliance professionals are unlikely to be the assigned project lead on any of these announcements within their individual hospitals. But good compliance professionals need to understand their organization’s business lines and operations to anticipate where non-compliance could most likely occur.
For those working with or for hospitals, the Hospital IPPS Final Rule is always a good place to review upcoming changes to hospital reimbursement, government policies and data reporting requirements.
CJ Wolf, MD, M.Ed. is a healthcare compliance professional with over 22 years of experience in healthcare economics, revenue cycle, coding, billing, and healthcare compliance. He has worked for Intermountain Healthcare, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, the University of Texas System, an international medical device company and a healthcare compliance software start up. Currently, Dr. Wolf teaches and provides private healthcare compliance and coding consulting services as well as training.

Stay Informed on Medical Necessity and More
Read other blogs by Dr. CJ Wolf on YouCompli to stay current on information compliance leaders need. He covers these and other topics:
- Regulatory and Enforcement Updates: Breaks down OIG Work Plan priorities, CMS policy updates, and healthcare regulatory changes.
- Compliance Auditing and Risk: Offers practical advice on risk assessments, internal auditing, and building effective compliance programs.
- Billing and Documentation Integrity: Examines compliance strategy related to coding integrity, medical necessity, and operational oversight.
Here are a couple of articles to get you started.
Don’t Let Pain Injections Cause Regulatory Compliance Pain
The regulatory compliance landscape around SI joint injections is dynamic and significant. It’s worth paying attention to those devilish details.
Four Areas of Noncompliance in SI Joint Injection Procedures
Below are four categories of noncompliance and indications of unmet requirements: How SI Joint Injections Are Covered
Medical Necessity: A Guide for Healthcare Compliance Leaders
Ensuring medical necessity for services or supplies is a safeguard against unnecessary or duplicative services that increase the risk of patient harm or medical errors. That’s reason enough for this to be an important topic for compliance leaders.
This piece explains the medical necessity compliance risk in general, while subsequent articles highlight specific examples of enforcement actions experienced by medical providers such as hospitals and health systems.
Video resource hub

