Medicaid Cuts Update: Meet the Senate Parliamentarian

Admin

by Tim Rowan | Jun 27, 2025 | Admin, Advocacy, Medicaid, Medicare

by Tim Rowan, Editor Emeritus

Medicaid Cuts Update

Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough

The ongoing negotiations in Congress will impact Medicaid and Medicare. There has been little movement from the Senate since we reported on this last week, but here’s what we know now:

When H.R. 1 was passed by the House of Representatives and forwarded to the Senate, it was immediately subjected to scrutiny by the Senate Parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough. The job of the parliamentarian is to ensure that every proposed bill complies with Senate rules. The story of Ms. MacDonough taking her scissors to the “One Big Beautiful Bill” requires more than a little unpacking, but it is a good story.

Problem with Medicaid Cuts: "One Bill"

It appears that the idea to put all of the President’s legislative agenda into a single bill is acceptable in the House, but the Senate has different rules. The Senate forces itself to live under the filibuster system. When the filibuster is evoked, a bill must receive 60 votes to pass, but there is an exception. “Budget Reconciliation” is a rule that allows expedited passage of certain specific budget-related bills with only a simple majority, 51 votes.

The problem of the week is that H.R. 1 includes dozens of provisions that have nothing to do with spending. The Senate parliamentarian took her scissors to parts of the bill that:

change environmental regulations to pave the way to sell public lands
reduce the ability of federal judges to block Presidential orders¹
dissolve the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
change the rules about who can be excluded from receiving Medicare benefits, even after contributing through FICA taxes

Cutting Medicaid Cuts

Parliamentarian MacDonough has also applied her scissors to the portion of the bill that would reduce Medicaid spending by nearly $800 billion over ten years. Writing for The Hill, Alexander Bolton reported on June 26:

“The Senate’s referee rejected a plan to cap states’ use of health care provider taxes to collect more federal Medicaid funding, a proposal that would have generated hundreds of billions of dollars in savings… The decision could force Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) to reconsider his plan to bring the Senate bill up for a vote this week.”

Alexander Bolton

Journalist, The Hill

The provision, which would have forced states to take over substantially more Medicaid costs, came under strong bipartisan opposition. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) warned deep cuts to federal Medicaid spending could cause dozens of rural hospitals in their states to close. Senate Democrats, led by Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), the ranking Democratic on the Senate Budget Committee, praised MacDonough’s exclusions.

The Hill reported, “Democrats are fighting back against Republicans’ plans to gut Medicaid, dismantle the Affordable Care Act, and kick kids, veterans, seniors, and folks with disabilities off of their health insurance – all to fund tax breaks for billionaires,” Merkley said in a statement.

The President pushed back against the parliamentarian’s rulings in a June 24 social media post:

“To my friends in the Senate, lock yourself in a room if you must, don’t go home, and GET THE DEAL DONE THIS WEEK. Work with the House so they can pick it up, and pass it, IMMEDIATELY. NO ONE GOES ON VACATION UNTIL IT’S DONE.”

Donald Trump

President of the United States

Sorting out the Complex Immigration Question

If the above seems complicated, it becomes rudimentary compared to the background that sets the stage for the parliamentarian’s next cut. Except for emergencies, most often crisis pregnancies, persons in the country illegally cannot, and do not, receive Medicaid-reimbursed healthcare. According to a study by Kaiser Family Foundation, however, fourteen states plus the District of Columbia use state taxpayer money, not federal funds, to cover children regardless of immigration status, Seven of those fourteen, and D.C., also cover some adults with state funds regardless of immigration status.

In the bill was a provision to punish these fourteen states and D.C. by reducing their federal Medicaid payments from 90 percent to 80 percent. Though there is no accusation in the bill that these states are guilty of improper use of federal funds, the states will lose some of those funds because of the way they have chosen to use their own funds. Parliamentarian MacDonough said that is not a budget line item but an attempt by the federal government to force states to change their own healthcare policies.

Medicare Restrictions also Scrapped

Almost as a postscript, a House restriction on Medicare eligibility also fell victim to the Senate Parliamentarian’s scissors. Non-citizens who work in W-2 wage jobs pay FICA taxes, many of them for 30 years or more. When these workers turn 65, they are eligible for Medicare benefits due to their contributions, regardless of their status. Though H.R. 1, the House version, would eliminate that eligibility, Ms. MacDonough said, “Nope, this is not a budget reconciliation issue.”

Although the White House is pressuring Senators to vote quickly — so that a joint House/Senate negotiating committee can hammer out differences and send their compromise version to the President’s desk by July 4 — that self-imposed deadline is up in the air at the moment. Both President Trump and House Speaker Johnson are adamant that every spending and every non-budgetary policy change they want must be enacted in one big bill. In spite of Ms. MacDonough’s cuts, the Senate it not exactly handcuffed either. Because it makes its own rules, Senators could simply decide, with a 51-49 party-line vote, to ignore the parliamentarian.

The power, as well as the future health of Medicaid, falls into the hands of the four dissenting Republican Senators. Home Health and Home Care folks in Missouri, Maine, Alaska and Kansas take note.

____________________________________

¹ From White House correspondent Bart Jansen, writing for USA Today:

Currently, judges have discretion to set bonds on plaintiffs who file civil suits. Legal experts say judges often waive bonds in lawsuits against the government because the disputes are typically over policy rather than money.
A provision in the House-passed version of the bill would remove that discretion from federal judges and require litigants to post a bond when the issue under consideration is whether to block a Trump policy.
So far, judges have blocked Trump policies in 180 cases. All of them would have to be reviewed for bonds if the Senate approves the House provision and Trump signs it into law.
The law would effectively kill most of the limitations on Trump policies because bond amounts are determined by the dollar amount of the contested policy. In federal cases involving massive policy changes, those bonds can amount to hundreds of billions.

# # #

Tim Rowan is a 30-year home care technology consultant who co-founded and served as Editor and principal writer of this publication for 25 years. He continues to occasionally contribute news and analysis articles under The Rowan Report’s new ownership. He also continues to work part-time as a Home Care recruiting and retention consultant. More information: RowanResources.com
Tim@RowanResources.com

©2025 by The Rowan Report, Peoria, AZ. All rights reserved. This article originally appeared in The Rowan Report. One copy may be printed for personal use: further reproduction by permission only. editor@therowanreport.com

UnitedHealth Bribes Nurses

Medicaid

by Kristin Rowan | Jun 13, 2025 | Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Other Sites, Regulatory

United Health Bribery Update

In the weeks since the below article revealed allegations against UnitedHealth, members of Congress are calling for action. At least one US Senator and two Representatives are engaged in the allegations. Senator Wyden (D-OR) announced that his office is launching its own investigation. Senator Hawley (R-MO), who is on the investigations subcommittee said it was “alarming to hear these serious allegations. I look forward to securing justice for patients, policyholders, and whistleblowers alike who’ve been harmed by insurance companies.” Other Senators expressed similar sentiments.

“If these allegations are true, UnitedHealth must be held responsible for their gross abuse of patients. Patients should always come before profits.”

Buddy Carter

Chair of the House subcommittee on health, U.S. Representative, (R-GA)

Three U.S. Representatives, coming from both sides of the aisle, are calling on the DoJ to investigate. A letter to the DoJ reads:

“The Guardian’s findings reveal the need for a wide-ranging investigation by the Department of Justice into years, if not decades, of potential waste, fraud, and abuse at UnitedHealth.”

Here is another take on the breaking news story, published by whistlebloweraid.org

The Guardian has uncovered some truly disturbing information about UnitedHealth Group. As the investigation and reporting belongs to them, I have reprinted the first part of the article here. Read the full article here.

by George Joseph, The Guardian
Wed May 21, 2025

Revealed: UnitedHealth secretly paid nursing homes to reduce hospital transfers

A Guardian investigation finds insurer quietly paid facilities that helped it gain Medicare enrollees and reduce hospitalizations. Whistleblowers allege harm to residents

UnitedHealth Group, the nation’s largest healthcare conglomerate, has secretly paid nursing homes thousands in bonuses to help slash hospital transfers for ailing residents – part of a series of cost-cutting tactics that has saved the company millions, but at times risked residents’ health, a Guardian investigation has found.

Those secret bonuses have been paid out as part of a UnitedHealth program that stations the company’s own medical teams in nursing homes and pushes them to cut care expenses for residents covered by the insurance giant.

In several cases identified by the Guardian, nursing home residents who needed immediate hospital care under the program failed to receive it, after interventions from UnitedHealth staffers. At least one lived with permanent brain damage following his delayed transfer, according to a confidential nursing home incident log, recordings and photo evidence.

“No one is truly investigating when a patient suffers harm. Absolutely no one,” said one current UnitedHealth nurse practitioner who recently filed a congressional complaint about the nursing home program. “These incidents are hidden, downplayed and minimized. The sense is: ‘Well, they’re medically frail, and no one lives for ever.’”

Confidential Investigation

The Guardian’s investigation is based on thousands of confidential corporate and patient records obtained through sources, public records requests and court files, interviews with more than 20 current and former UnitedHealth and nursing home employees, and two whistleblower declarations submitted to Congress this month through the non-profit legal group Whistleblower Aid.

The documents and sources provide a never-before-seen window into the company’s successful effort to insert itself into the day-to-day operations of nearly 2,000 nursing homes in small towns and urban commercial strips across the nation – an approach which has helped UnitedHealth secure a vast stream of federal dollars from Medicare Advantage plans that cover more than 55,000 long-term nursing home residents.

UnitedHealth Responds

UnitedHealth said the suggestion that its employees have prevented hospital transfers “is verifiably false”. It said its bonus payments to nursing homes help prevent unnecessary hospitalizations that are costly and dangerous to patients and that its partnerships with nursing homes improve health outcomes.

Long-Term Profit

Under Medicare Advantage, insurers collect lump sums from the federal government to cover seniors’ care. But the less insurers spend on care, the more they have for potential profit – an opportunity that UnitedHealth higher-ups have systematically sought to exploit when it comes to long-term nursing home residents.

To reduce residents’ hospital visits, UnitedHealth has offered nursing homes an array of financial sweeteners that sounded more like they came from stockbrokers than medical professionals.

Seven Years of Bribery and Threats

Over the past seven years, the company has shelled out “Premium Dividend” and “Shared Savings” payments that boosted nursing homes’ bottom lines. Through its “Quality and Shared Risk” program, UnitedHealth offered an even bigger cut to nursing homes that drove down medical spending, but threatened to claw back money from those that didn’t, according to former employees and internal corporate documents.

“You gain profitability by denying care, and when profitability suffers for the shareholders, that’s when people get crazy and do things that are not appropriate.”

Anonymous

Former National Executive, United Health

# # #

BREAKING NEWS: Intrepid USA Files Bankruptcy

Breaking News

by Kristin Rowan | Jun 6, 2025 | Breaking News, Home Health, Hospice, Legal, M&A, Medicaid, Medicare

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

*Editor’s note: This article has been updated to remove inaccurate information from the Intrepid USA website.

Intrepid USA Files Bankruptcy

Intrepid USA, once among the largest providers of home health and hospice services, files bankruptcy in Texas. With more than $90 million in revenue in 2023, Intrepid operated more than 60 home health and hospice locations in 17 states. The Chapter 7 filing leaves no road to recovery. Chapter 7 allows the company to liquidate assets and distribute the proceeds. According to the Texas Southern Bankruptcy Court, Intrepid USA filed a voluntary petition for Chapter 7 bankruptcy on May 29, 2025.

Troubled History Plagues Company

Intrepid USA has a troubled past that it seems may have caught up with them. The U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) alleges that between 2016 and 2021, Intrepid home healthcare agencies engaged in fraud. In violation of the False Claims Act, Intrepid filed Medicare claims for patients who did not qualify for home health, services that were not medically necessary, services provided by untrained staff, and services that were never provided. In August, 2024, Intrepid agreed to pay $3.85 million to resolve the allegations. The allegations were brought to the DoJ by two former employees of Intrepid under whistleblower provisions.

This is not the first DoJ lawsuit against Intrepid USA. In 2006, when Intrepid owned 150 agencies across the country, the company entered into an $8 million settlement agreement to resolve similar allegations. The DoJ alleged that from 1997 to 2004 Intrepid violated the False Claims Act by billing Medicare and TRICARE for services not provided by a qualified person, failing to maintain complete documentation for its claims, and other violations of Medicare regulations. Additionally, the DoJ alleged that Intrepid, in 2002 and 2003, fraudulently billed Medicaid for home care services provided to patients who were hospitalized at the time of the supposed care.

Private Equity Backing

Sometime around Q3 of 2006, Intrepid USA received financial backing from Patriarch Partners, led by Lynn Tilton. In August of 2020, Patriarch filed a notice of removal with the Supreme Court of New York. In 2021, Intrepid announced it was gearing up for rapid growth fueled by new private equity investors. Then CEO John Kunysz indicated the infusion of capital would fund opportunities for growth through acquisition.

Divest, not Acquire

Despite the influx of capital and the plan to grow through acquisition, by 2024, Intrepid was selling its assets. In August of 2024, Humana acquired 30 Intrepid branch locations and rebranded them under the CenterWell Home Health brand. The sale was part of Patriarch Partners’s Zohar Funds bankruptcy case. In November of 2024, New Day Healthcare acquired Intrepid’s hospice locations in Missouri and Texas.

$0 Revenue; 0 Value

The bankruptcy filing shows that Intrepid USA had $90 million in revenue in 2023, $50 million in revenue in 2024, and $0 in revenue so far in 2025. Chapter 7 bankruptcy is usually supervised by the court, allowing the filing company to sell assets without having to use the revenue generated by the sale to pay off debts. Intrepid listed $1 to $10 million in assets and $88 million in debts at the time of the filing.

Who will take the loss?

The Intrepid USA website still lists 55 active home health and hospice locations in 11 states. However, 30 of those locations are now listed on the CenterWell website and at least 5 other locations were part of the sale to New Day Healthcare. It is unknown if Intrepid has any locations still in operation. The company did not respond to our request for a statement.

The website also has a list of partners and investors. The Rowan Report reached out to the partners with whom we are familiar for more information. We will provide updates from them once we reach them.

Final Thoughts

The recent divestiture of home health and hospice locations to New Day and CenterWell will hopefully minimize the number of patients who are losing their home health or hospice provider. Millions of dollars in future fraudulent claims will remain in the Medicare, TRICARE, and Medicaid coffers. Conversely, the partners and investors in Intrepid USA may face some loss. We will provide any important updates and comments from the impacted companies as available.

# # #

Kristin Rowan has been working at The Rowan Report since 2008. She is the owner and Editor-in-chief of The Rowan Report, the industry’s most trusted source for care at home news, and speaker on Artificial Intelligence and Lone Worker Safety and state and national conferences.

She also runs Girard Marketing Group, a multi-faceted boutique marketing firm specializing in content creation, social media management, and event marketing. Connect with Kristin directly kristin@girardmarketinggroup.com or www.girardmarketinggroup.com

Fraudsters Arrested, Oz Issues Warning

CMS

by Kristin Rowan | Jun 6, 2025 | CMS, Hospice, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Regulatory

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

Fraudsters Arrested, Oz Issues Warning

Fraud in California

Fraudsters arrested in West Covina, CA this week were allegedly running a Medicare scheme. Authorities arrested hospice owner-operator Normita Sierra. They charged her with nine counts of health care fraud, one count of conspiracy, and four counts illegal remuneration (kick-backs) for health care referrals. The U.S. Attorney’s Office named co-conspirator Rowena Elegado. They also arrested her and charged her with one count of conspiracy and four counts of illegal remuneration for health care referrals.

Kickbacks

Sierra and Elegado worked together to pay marketers to recruit patients who did not have a hospice referral from their PCP and who were not terminally ill. Some of the kickbacks paid to marketers were as high as $1,300 per patient per month. After six months, the patients were referred out to Sierra’s home health company.

Medicare Claims

According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, from 2018 to 2022, Sierra’s hospice agences submitted $4.8 million in fraudulent claims. Of those claims, Medicare paid approximately $3.8 million.

Dr. Oz Issues Warning

In a video statement, Dr. Oz explained how Medicare recipients are falling victim to scams. Sales people call, email, and even knock on your door, offering advice, free samples, and referrals. These marketers have one goal: get you sign a piece of paper. That paper signs you up for hospice care and agrees to allow a specific hospice agency to provide that care. The hospice agency then bills Medicare for services they never provide. Watch the video statement here.

HHS OIG Issues Consumer Alert

In a similar statement, HHS issued a consumer alert regarding DME companies. The alert warns that some DME companies are contacting Medicare beneficiaries. They claim to work for or on behalf of Medicare. Once they receive the patient’s Medicare number, they bill Medicare for unnecessary medical items. These items include urinary catheters, knee and back braces, orthotic braces, and prescription drugs, which may or may not ever be sent to the patient. HHS urges enrollees not to give their Medicare number to anyone. Further, they suggest regulary reviewing items charged to insurance, and refusing delivery of any medical supply not ordered by a physician.

Combating Waste, Fraud, and Abuse

Dr. Oz and CMS have spoken numerous times about combatting the waste, fraud, and abuse withing the Medicare and Medicaid systems. Originally a strong proponent for Medicare Advantage, Oz has promised to audit MA after discovering the government pays more for MA than traditional Medicare. Oz also promised to reduce the amount of prior authorization requests needed before a patient gets services. Oz responded to the Republican-backed House bill requiring more oversight on Medicaid eligibility. Oz indicated that some Medicaid patients are enrolled in more than one state and that Medicaid is paying for able-bodied patients. The waste, fraud and abuse across Medicare and Medicaid is costing the government between $1 and $10 billion and Dr. Oz plans to find it and make significant changes to the management of the system.

A Cautionary Tale for Hospice Providers

You may be thinking, “What does this have to do with me?” Unfortunately, even the most scrupulous hospice agencies can fall prey to marketers running schemes. There are legitimate referral resources in the market who can help your agency get more referrals and more clients. There are also underhanded marketers who know how the system works. These predators will promise new referrals (for a fee) and then enroll uneligible patients without your knowledge. If you are working with or looking for a referral partner for your hospice agency, use one that is referred by someone you trust, and/or do a lot of research on the company history before working with anyone. Be especially wary of the ones who promise much more than what most referral companies offer.

# # #

Medicare Advantage Audits

CMS

by Kristin Rowan | May 29, 2025 | CMS, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Regulatory

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

CMS Strategy for Medicare Advantage Audits

Last week, The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) rolled out a new, aggressive strategy to enhance and accelerate Medicare Advantage Audits under RADV. CMS will audit all eligible MA contracts in all newly initiated audits. The strategy will also invest additional resources to complete the audits for each payment year (PY) 2018 to 2024.

Falling Behind

CMS is several years behind in completing audits. In fact, the last payment year with any significant recovery was from PY 2007. Completed audits from 2011 to 2013 recovered 5%-8% in overpayments. Federal estimates put current overpayments at $17 billion annually. MedPAC‘s estimate is significantly higher at $43 billion annually.

“We are committed to crushing fraud, waste and abuse across all federal healthcare programs. While the Administration values the work that Medicare Advantage plans do, it is time CMS faithfully executes its duty to audit these plans and ensure they are billing the government accurately for the coverage they provide to Medicare patients.”

Dr. Mehmet Oz

Administrator, CMS

The Plan to Manage Medicare Advantage Audits

According to a press release from CMS, the plan is to complete all outstanding audits from PY 2018 to 2024 by early 2026. Here are key elements from the plan:

Enhanced Technology: CMS will deploy advanced systems to efficiently review medical records and flag unsupported diagnoses.
Workforce Expansion: CMS will increase its team of medical coders from 40 to approximately 2,000 by September 1, 2025. These coders will manually verify flagged diagnoses to ensure accuracy.
Increased Audit Volume: By leveraging technology, CMS will be able to increase its audits from ~60 MA plans a year to all eligible MA plans each year in all newly initiated audits (approximately 550 MA plans). CMS will also be able to increase from auditing 35 records per health plan per year to between 35 and 200 records per health plan per year in all newly initiated audits based on the size of the health plan. This will help ensure CMS’s audit findings are more reliable and can be appropriately extrapolated as allowed under the RADV final rule.

CMS will also reportedly work with the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG) to recover uncollected payments identified in past audits.

Impact of Medicare Advantage Audits on Providers

If CMS is able to audit as many plans and records as they are anticipating, Medicare Advantage payers could be looking at significant overpayments. CMS will aggressively seek repayment. When MA payers lose money, they tend to pass that loss on to providers and patients. We could see MA plans cutting benefits, denying procedures, and other cost-saving measures.

Providers who are aware of the unsupported diagnoses or who profited from them may be on the hook for overpayments. Law firm Ropes and Gray suggests that “[MA] plans should…minimize historical risk by correcting or deleting unsupported diagnoses for any time periods for which they are still able to do so.”

I suggest not using this particular law firm. I also suggest checking your payer contracts for clawback and indemnification clauses. When applicable, negotiate new and renewal contracts very carefully.

Medicare Advantage payers will push back on these audits, file lawsuits, and challenge how CMS is conducting audits. MA payers have historically denied treatments and medications that would be covered under traditional Medicare plans. They go to great lengths to avoid paying for services patients did receive. I’m certain they won’t be happy paying back money for services they never received.

CMS indicates it will start the new audit plan immediately. We will continue watching for updates through the end of the year to see if CMS reaches their goal. Of course, we will continue to report on changes at CMS and with Medicare Advantage payers as they happen.

# # #

Trouble in MA Paradise?

Advocacy

by Kristin Rowan | May 1, 2025 | Advocacy, CMS, Editorial, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

Medicare Advantage

It’s no secret within the care at home community that Medicare Advantage is not without its problems. Coverage and care are good when the beneficiary is relatively healthy. When it’s really needed, MA plans deny coverage. Multiple insurance companies have upcoded patient care for higher reimbursements. And predatory marketing tactics target our most vulnerable.

Predatory Marketing

Medicare Advantage payers use unethical marketing to target seniors, sometimes going as far as to call unwitting customers and strong-arm them into changing from their traditional Medicare plans to MA. Anecdotally, a family friend was convinced to switch to Medicare Advantage three times. Each time, his family caregiver reversed that change before any real damage was done. Similarly, our own Editor Emeritus, Tim Rowan, fielded calls aimed at his disabled, grieving brother, urging him to change to a MA plan. Luckily, those calls were deflected by someone who knew better. Not everyone is as lucky.

UHC Projects Lower Earnings

Despite a 9.8 billion dollar year-over-year increase in revenue in the first quarter of 2025, UnitedHealth Group last week submitted a lower earnings outlook for 2025. UHG attributed the revision to “increased care activity” in its Medicare Advantage business.

UHG has strong growth in providing benefits and services to more members. In Massachusetts, for example, the company reported 100% growth in care activity. Simultaneously, Optum Health, the arm responsible for home health, took on more clients with lower reimbursement rates, impacting overall revenue. Optum cites changes to the CMS risk adjustment model particularly for complex patients as a contributor to the problem.

Breaking it Down

UHG initially projected strong growth through 2025. The projection was partly based on the expection of a gradual increase in care activity. More members should increase revenue. What UHG did not account for was rapid growth of high-risk members in a risk-adjustment model that had not yet been thoroughly tested. Medicare Advantage is a money losing model that is propped up by Traditional Medicare. UHG is finally feeling that impact and it will only get worse as HHS cracks down on waste, fraud, and abuse in MA.

Elevance Pulls Plug on MA Marketing

One week after UHG revised its earnings projections for 2025, Elevance announced plans to cut is Medicare Advantage marketing. EVP of payer solutions at ATI Advisory, a consulting firm in the healthcare space, says cutting spending on MA marketing happens for different reasons.

“It’s often a temporary decision to give an MAO a year to ‘catch up’ or right-size impacts from the prior year. For example, it might be in response to larger-than-expected enrollment during the prior year, higher-than-expected utilization the plan is trying to get under control, or a change in federal policy.”

Breaking it Down

Elevance reported better earnings in Q1 2025 than were expected. The company listed home health as one of its key revenue drivers. The operating revenue increase came from higher premiums and growth in MA membership. The announcement to cut marketing spend came less than a week later.

In other words, the company had a surge of MA sign-ups at the beginning of the year when plan coverage started after open-enrollment. Now that the company is seeing how many of those members actually need care and how much they will have to spend to provide that care, they no longer want to enroll additional MA members.

Opposition

The National Association of Benefits and Insurance Professionals expressed “deep concern” over Elevance’s announcement. NABIP represents licensed health insurance agents and brokers with a stated goal of promoting access to affordable health insurance coverage.

“This decision directly harms Medicare beneficiaries by limiting their access to essential healthcare options and support during Medicare’s enrollment period,” NABIP CEO Jessica Brooks-Woods said.

NABIP asked CMS, Congress, and health plans to mitigate the effects of this announcement. They urged CMS to “freeze any carrier-initiated changes after October 1 that would limit agent access.

Breaking it Down

NABIP represents agents and brokers who sell insurance plans to eligible members. They are membership based and rely on member fees as a main revenue stream along with fees collected for education, advertising, and sponsorships. Their PAC raises money from members to support political candidates.

Agents and brokers make money from commissions on sales of healthcare plans. The commission on Medicare Part D is around $109 per member per year. The commission on Medicare Advantage plans varies by state and carrier, but is as high as $780 per member per year. Commissions for Medicare Supplement plans are a percentage of premiums. The average commission for supplement plans is $322.

But, of Course...

It is not surprising, then, that the member-based advocacy group on behalf of sales people who earn nearly 7 times the commission on MA plans wouldn’t want companies like Elevance to stop marketing them.

Final Thoughts

I don’t believe Medicare Advantage is going anywhere anytime soon. I also don’t believe any government agency can monitor itself for fraud, waste, and abuse. Further, I don’t believe an association that makes its living on commissions has the best interest of its customers as its first priority.

Perhaps fewer beneficiaries will be subjected to the predatory marketing and sales calls pushing them into Medicare Advantage plans. Perhaps knowledgeable, well-intentioned individuals and associations can shed light on the real advantages of Traditional Medicare. Perhaps CMS, under the direction of HHS, will turn the “waste, fraud, and abuse” mirror in the direction it belongs.

# # #

Vision for CMS

CMS

by Kristin Rowan | Apr 24, 2025 | CMS, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Regulatory

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

Vision for CMS from Dr. Oz

Last week, Dr. Mehmet Oz issued a statement on his vision for the future of CMS. Dr. Mehmet Oz is a cardiothoracic surgeon and former host of his own TV show. Under the Department of Health and Human Services, CMS has a $1.7 trillion budget and oversees the health outcomes of more than 160 million people.

“I want to thank President Trump and Secretary Kennedy for their confidence in my ability to lead CMS in achieving their vision to Make America Healthy Again. Great societies protect their most vulnerable. As stewards of the health of so many Americans – especially disadvantaged youth, those with disabilities, and our seniors, the CMS team is dedicated to delivering superior health outcomes across each program we administer. America is too great for small dreams, and I’m ready to get work on the President’s agenda.”

Dr. Mehmet Oz

Administrator of CMS, Department of Health and Human Services

Make America Healthy Again

With HHS Secretary Kennedy, Oz is throwing his support behind Make America Healthy Again, under direction from President Trump. Senator Kennedy says that, under the leadership of Dr. Oz, CMS will work to modernize Medicare, the Marketplaces, and Medicaid. The goal is to get Americans the care they want, need, and deserve. The agenda includes:

Empowering the American People with personalized solutions with which they can better manage their health and navigate the complex health care system. As a first step, CMS will implement the President’s Executive Order on Transparency to give Americans the information they need about costs.
Equipping health care providers with better information about the patients they serve and holding them accountable for health outcomes, rather than unnecessary paperwork that distracts them from their mission. For example, CMS will work to streamline access to life-saving treatments.
Identifying and eliminating fraud, waste, and abuse to stop unscrupulous people who are stealing from vulnerable patients and taxpayers.
Shifting the paradigm for health care from a system that focuses on sick care to one that fosters prevention, wellness, and chronic disease management. For example, CMS operates many programs that can be used to focus on improving holistic health outcomes.

Letter to Medicaid

Following the vision statement, Dr. Oz released a letter to state Medicaid Agencies outlining the use of Medicaid dollars during his tenure as Administrator. The two-page letter, citing recent studies on gender dysphoria, directed Medicaid agencies to eliminate gender reassignment surgery from covered procedures, opting instead for psychotherapy. Hormonal interventions will be reserved for exceptional cases.

“My top priority is protecting children and upholding the law. Medicaid dollars are not to be used for gender reassignment surgeries or hormone treatments in minors – procedures that can cause permanent, irreversible harm, including sterilization. We have a duty to ensure medical care is lawful, necessary, and truly in the best interest of patients. CMS will not support services that violate this standard or place vulnerable children at risk.”

Read the full letter here.

Final Thoughts

We believe this will be the first of many changes made to Medicare and Medicaid rules under Dr. Oz. We will continue to share updates from the CMS newsdesk.

# # #

Industry Update

Admin

by Kristin Rowan | Apr 24, 2025 | Admin, Advocacy, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Regulatory

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

Industry Update with Dr. Steve Landers

At last week’s New England Home Care & Hospice Conference, Dr. Steve Landers, President of The National Alliance for Care at Home (The Alliance) gave the keynote address and offered some industry insights and updates.

A Heartfelt Introduction

Ken Albert, Chairman of the Board at The Alliance introduced Dr. Landers before his address. After reading Dr. Landers’s official biography, Albert offered his own thoughts on the first few months of Landers’ tenure.

Last year, five colleagues from organizations across the country sat in D.C. interviewing candidates. While interviewing Landers, I was remarkably engaged by someone who is deeply passionate about care at home. Steve describes hospice care as a national treasure, and I don’t disagree. More than just his passion for care at home, Dr. Landers is savvy in navigating the political paradigms driving policy. He artfully combines data and stories to navigate relationships with policy makers. What I see every day is someone who roles up his sleeves for the patients we take care of with tremendous respect for the caregivers who are in the patients’ homes.

Ken Albert

Chairman of the Board, The National Alliance for Care at Home

Industry Changes, Advancements, and Ongoing Advocacy Efforts

Dr. Landers attributes much of the positive changes in D.C. to the efforts of volunteer leaders looking to move the industry forward. Care at home needs to become more streamlined, more efficient, and with a better voice.

His vision for the care at home industry is an America where everyone can access high-quality care wherever they call home.

Strong Admonition for CMS

Dr. Landers noted positive movement in some areas. However, he became passionately adamant that a payment update is not an increase if it doesn’t keep up with inflation or pay increases. “The Alliance represents providers delivering high-quality, person-centered care to million of individuals in the home, and they deserve to be recognized and compensated for the work they do,” he said.

Our Aging Nation

It should come as no surprise that older adults have a strong preference for aging at home. They prioritize living where they feel in control and connected. They want to be in familiar surroundings and to maintain their routines.

The U.S. population over the age of 85 is expected to triple from 2020-2060 to more than 19 million people. Despite medical advances, only 1/3 of those over the age of 85 say they are free of disability or free of difficulty with daily living.

With the rising number of older individuals, caregiver to patient ratios are falling nearly everywhere across the country. Dr. Landers and The Alliance urge policymakers to make promoting the dignity and independence of our aging population one of their highest health policy priorities. The Alliance will continue to tell anyone and everyone who will listen that care at home offers the win-win solution that policymakers are looking for.

Changes at the Top

We’ve already seen numerous and sometimes drastic changes at the federal level. Dr. Landers points out that eight years ago the “Trump 1.0 Administration” developed the PDGM framework and signed hospice reform legislation. On the campaign trail, President Trump stated he would not be making cuts to Medicare. The “Trump 2.0” care at home priorities are not yet clear, but The Alliance will continue to emphasize cost savings and the preference to age in place.

Secretary Kennedy, head of HHS, placed his emphasis on the chronic disease epidemic, launching Making America Healthy Again. He has stated a preference for community-based solutions and patient-centered care.

New CMS Administrator Dr. Oz seems to be supportive of Medicare Advantage, but did have some critique of the program during senate hearings. Dr. Oz has a stated focus of finding and eliminating fraud, waste, and abuse.

Changes Near the Top

At the congressional level, The Alliance lost a few key supporters with the last election, but many care at home advocates remained. Of the returning members of the Senate and House, care at home advocates include:

Senators Collins (R-ME), Hassan (D-NH), Tillis (R-NC), Barrasso (R-WY), Blackburn (R-TN), CortezMasto (D-NV), and Rosen (D-NV)
Representatives: Adrian Smith (R-NE), Sewell (D-AL) Van Duyne (R-TX), Panetta (D-CA), Guthrie (RKY), and Carter (R-GA)

The support in Congress leaves us hopeful. Large Reconciliation Packages dominate the current conversation. Many questions remain as to what is at risk for care at home and what Medicaid’s future might hold.

Later this year, The Alliance sees opportunities for care at home outside of reconciliation. These include Home Health PDGM reform, hospice reform, the telehealth extension, revocation of the Medicaid HCBS 80/20 rule, tax credits, and long term care insurance.

Public Policy Priorities

As The Alliance moves forward, several key issues will remain priorities:

Access to Care at Home

PDGM Implementation
Telehealth Extension
Medicare Advantage Dynamics
Care for High Needs Beneficiaries

Quality Care at Home

Special Focus Program Implementation
DEA Telehealth Provisions
HOPE tool implementation?

Eliminating Fraud and Abuse in Care at Home

Hospice Concurrent Care
Hospice and Medicare Advantage
Medicaid 80/20 Rule
Caregiver Tax Credits / LTCI

Growing the Care at Home Workforce

Supply is simply not meeting demand
Strengthened rates, incentives, and educational opportunities will attract and retain a qualified workforce

Follow Up

I spoke with Dr. Landers after the keynote address to ask him why lone worker safety was not among the top priorities of The Alliance. He assured me that there is a position within The Alliance who, among other tasks, is focusing on lone worker safety. I urged him to make it a higher priority and will follow up to get the contact information for the position he mentioned.

# # #

That’s a No-No

Admin

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq. | Apr 24, 2025 | Admin, Hospice, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Regulatory

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.

No-no # 1

“No-No” may seem like something you would say to a toddler, but there is a list of things agency owners do that they should not do. Many of these are things providers may not often consider. This article focuses on the use of private duty services by hospice and home health patients, and what hospices and home health agencies cannot do with regard to aide services.

Aide Services

Both home health and hospice services are usually intermittent and provided in patients’ homes. Patients and their families may elect to utilize the services of private duty/home care companies for additional assistance. At the same time, hospice and home health patients may receive aide services from hospices and home health agencies.

Conditions of Participation

According to Medicare Conditions of Participation (CoPs), hospice and home health aides can only provide personal care services, including bathing. Aides provided by private duty/home care companies may also provide personal care. Unlike aides provided by hospices and home health agencies, however, they can provide additional services; such as laundry, food preparation, light housekeeping, shopping, and running errands.

Private Duty Services

When patients use private duty services, they are often paying for these services out of their own pockets. Even if they have long-term care insurance, patients still bear the financial burden of paying for private duty services. Longterm care insurance often costs thousands of dollars that patients probably paid for themselves. Patients usually pay by the hour for these services.

That's a No-No

Patients may, of course, utilize private duty/home care services to perform any of the services described above. It seems, however, that hospices routinely tell patients who have private duty/home care that they will not provide aide services because private duty/home care aides are able to provide personal care for patients.

Breaking it Down

Here is an example: A hospice admitted a bedridden patient with urinary and fecal incontinence. The patient and caregiver requested aide services from the hospice five days a week to bathe him. He paid for a few hours of private duty/home care services each day. The hospice refused to provide aide services five days a week to bathe him because he had private duty/home care services. No-no!

Compelled to Provide Care

ospices must provide aide services consistent with patients’ needs related to their terminal illnesses. In the example above, the patient clearly had a need for aide services five days a week. If patients and their caregivers state that they prefer to use private caregivers for personal care, then hospices must document the refusal of hospice aide services offered, consistent with applicable standards of care. Then hospices are not required to provide aide services.

Profiteering

When hospices deny aide services that are consistent with applicable standards of care and require patients and caregivers to use private duty/home care services, hospices are shifting the cost of aide services onto patients and their families. Patients and their families may have to pay for additional private duty/home care services to meet patients’ needs. The result for hospices is that they do not incur the costs of aide services, thereby increasing their profits at the expense of patients and their families.

If hospice staff members who refuse to provide aide services to patients and require patients and their families to use private duty/home care services instead are compensated in any way based on the financial performance or profitability of the hospices, let’s hope they look good in orange jumpsuits!

Intent to Defraud

If the private duty/home care services are being paid for by any federal or state health care program; such as Medicaid, Medicaid waiver, VA, or TriCare; then both home health agencies and hospices have engaged in fraudulent conduct by shifting costs that they should have incurred onto other federal government programs.

God forbid that the hospice also owns the company from which patients receive private duty/home care services! Then hospices are limiting their costs while profiting from patients and their families.

Dig Deep and Find Your No-No's

Now is the time for all home health agencies and hospices especially to audit patients’ records to make certain that all patients have been offered services that they are required to provide. If patients and their families choose to use private duty/home care aides instead, documentation must show that they were offered the services but chose to use private duty/home care aides.

No-No's Final Thoughts

The bottom line is that hospices and home health agencies must always provide services needed by patients. Patients may choose to pay for services that are paid for by the Medicare hospice or home health benefits. Patients cannot be required to pay for services privately that hospices and home health agencies must provide. Unacceptable!

This article is the first in a series of “No-no” items for agency owners.

# # #

Elizabeth Hogue is an attorney in private practice with extensive experience in health care. She represents clients across the U.S., including professional associations, managed care providers, hospitals, long-term care facilities, home health agencies, durable medical equipment companies, and hospices.

No portion of this material may be reproduced in any form without the advance written permission of the author.

Relief for Providers

Admin

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq. | Apr 11, 2025 | Admin, Audits, CMS, Medicare, Regulatory

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.

Relief for Providers from Devastating Penalties?

A judge in the Northern District of Texas recently decided that even the minimum penalties mandated under the False Claims Act (FCA) violate the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause [see U.S. ex rel. Taylor v. Healthcare Associates of Tex. (N.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2025)]. The FCA punishes providers for submission of information that is not true in order to get paid by the federal government.

Life Threatening Penalties

The penalties assessed against providers under the FCA may be described as “life threatening.” That is, it may be difficult for providers’ businesses to survive payment of such severe penalties. The minimum penalty increased from $13,946 to $14,308 in 2025. The maximum penalty per claim increased from $27,894 to $28,619.

Ex Post Facto

These increased penalties will be assessed for violations that occurred prior to the change, but that are assessed after they are in effect. These penalties certainly make it clear why it is difficult for providers to survive violations of the FCA.

False Claims

In the Taylor case above, for example, the defendants allegedly submitted false claims as follows:

As “incident to” a physician’s care without proper documentation
For services by providers who were not eligible to bill the Medicare Program
For services performed by medical assistants instead of qualified practitioners

FCA Math Doesn't Add Up

The jury found that one of the defendants, a primary care medical group practice, submitted 21,944 false claims for $2,753,641.86 in actual damages. After trebling the damages as required by the FCA, the Court said it would enter judgement against the defendant for approximately $8 million. The Court acknowledged, however, that penalties under the FCA are fines subject to the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Grossly Disproportional to the Gravity

The Court then applied the following four factors to decide whether the “fine was grossly disproportional to the gravity of the offense” under the Eighth Amendment:

The essence of the defendant’s crime and its relationship to other criminal activity
Whether the defendant was within the class of people for whom the statute of conviction was principally designed
The maximum sentence, including the fine that could have been imposed
The nature of the harm resulting from the defendant’s conduct

Fraud...or a Reporting Error?

With regard to the first factor, the Court emphasized that the defendant’s misconduct involved violations of Medicare billing rules, but did not include billing for services that were not provided. In fact, the Court said that even though the defendant violated Medicare billing rules, the misconduct was “closer in gravity to something like a ‘reporting offense.’” There was, said the Court, no evidence that the defendant’s conduct was “related to other criminal or fraudulent activity.

Magnitude of Harm

The Court also focused attention on the fourth factor. The defendant’s harm was certainly significant, but the harm, according to the Court, did not necessitate a penalty “two orders of magnitude greater than the actual financial harm,” especially when the actual damages were substantial, i.e., one hundred times the amount of actual damages. That ratio was “grossly out of alignment with the ratios in other similar cases.” The Court imposed a civil penalty of $8,260,925.58 that represents less than 3% of the statutory minimum.

Final Thoughts

Whether other Courts follow the Taylor case described above remains to be seen, but it is quite clear that providers need relief from the penalties of the FCA.

# # #

No portion of this material may be reproduced in any form without the advance written permission of the author.

Next Entries »