Jay F. Grinney
Analyst · Stifel
The answer is yes. And for those who are not participating on the last quarter call, what Rob is referring to is the fact that we have offered an alternative cost-saving measure to the proposal to reset the 60% rule up to 75%. And our position is when that occurs, the Medicare beneficiary who needs rehabilitative care, whose physician has determined they need inpatient rehabilitative care, but now, because of a government fiat, a CMS regulation, they can't get that care. They're going to be forced to go into the second best alternative, and in some cases, it's not even the second best alternative, and that would be the local nursing home. So resetting the rule, while it may generate some savings, some scored savings, it really puts the burden of that shift on to the backs of the Medicare beneficiaries. Our proposal, and it is getting traction to answer your question, Rob, it's definitely getting traction in D.C. How much and whether or not we'll be successful is, I think, still up in the air. But we're working the hill pretty hard with a proposal to have the outlier payments be revised in a manner that would cap any individual IRF Medicare payments to a percentage of their total. So as we look at it, and we've done a pretty deep dive on this, we've actually engaged a third-party to look at it in even greater detail and really do some hard data analytics, but -- and this is found on Page 9, by the way, of our Investor Reference Book. But if you look at the $200-and-some million that's spent on outlier payments in IRF today, about half, a little over half, goes to the top decile of hospitals. And if you dig into those hospitals that are getting outlier payments and you start looking at the history, how much have they been getting year-after-year, there is an astonishing number of IRF providers who are living off of these outlier payments. Well, outlier payments were designed to pay for the train wrecks, the high-cost patients, it was estimated about 3% of Medicare IRF payments would go to these kinds of patients. And you see in many of these IRF providers, they're getting 30%, 40%, 50% of their total IRF payments are coming through the outlier pool. And so we -- what we're proposing is that, that be limited. They've done this with home care, I believe, and maybe in other instances, limit the amount of outlier payments any single IRF can provide -- can receive to, say, 10%. And then, by doing that, it puts the burden on providers to become more efficient. Still get the same kind of savings, and we do know that one member, in fact, the ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee, has asked the CBO to score this. So we're hoping that, that will occur. My guess is that CBO is being inundated with all kinds of requests to score this, that and the other. But we're hoping that, that will occur, because we think this is a very viable option to resetting the 75% or the 60% rule, and harming beneficiaries' access to rehabilitative care.
Robert M. Mains - Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc., Research Division: Okay, great. That's helpful. And then kind of a corollary to the policy questions. You alluded to a lot of the competition being units and not-for-profit hospitals, and some of them are looking to partner. Just curious whether you're seeing any movement on the part of any of them to kind of just throw in the towel, given the challenges or the changes going on in the hospital business, and therefore, creating share opportunity for you?