Medicaid Enrollees Sent to ICE

Legal

by | Aug 21, 2025 | Legal, Medicaid, Regulatory

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

UPDATE

The Rowan Report originally published this article on August 7, 2025. This update is as of August 15, 2025.

After HHS began providing access to personal data on Mediciad enrollees to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), 20 states filed to sue the department for violating privacy laws. Shortly thereafter, CMS entered into a new agreement to give DHS daily access to view the same data.

Federal Judge Vince Chhabria of California ordered HHS to stop giving DHS access to personal information. The ruling grants a preliminary injunction, stopping HHS from sharing Medicaid data with ICE in the 20 states that participated in the lawsuit. The injunction will last until 14 days after the two agencies complete and submit a reason for the decision to share information. The reasoning must comply with the Administrative Procedure Act. The injunction can also end if litigation is concluded (a formal hearing and decision).

Chhabria noted that there is no formal law preventing government agencies from sharing information, he cited agency policy as his reasoning for the injunction. ICE has a well-publicized policy against using Medicaid data for immigration enforcement. Judge Chhabria wrote in his ruling:

“Given these policies, and given that the various players in the Medicaid system have relied on them, it was incumbent upon the agencies to carry out a reasoned decisionmaking process before changing them. The record in this case strongly suggests that no such process occurred.”

August 7, 2025

Associated Press Confirms

Enrollee Information Given to ICE

In a surprise announcement on July 17, 2025, investigative reporter Kimberly Kindy and reporter Amanda Seitz filed a report. They uncovered information confirming Medicaid enrollee information given to ICE from CMS. ICE will use this to find “aliens” across the country. The health and personal information disclosed includes home addresses, birth dates, Social Security numbers, and ethnicities.

Department of Homeland Security Responds

DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLauglin said, “…CMS and DHS are exploring an intitiative to ensure that illegal aliens are not receiving Medicaid benefits….”

DHS Spokesperson Andrew Nixon said, “With respect to the recent data sharing between CMS and DHS, HHS acted entirely within its legal authority—and in full compliance with all applicable laws….”

Opposing Viewpoints

Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA) said, “The massive transfer of the personal data of millions of Medicaid recipients should alarm every American. This massive violation of our privacy laws must be halted immediately. It will harm families across the nation and only cause more citizens to forego lifesaving access to health care.”

Similarly, CA Governor Gavin Newsom said, “This potential data transfer brought to our attention by the AP is extremely concerning, and if true, potentially unlawful….”

HHS and DHS Sued

State Attorneys General from 20 states, led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta have filed suit. They are suing the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem.

The Associated Press found a Medicaid internal memo and emails. Subsequently, the AP reported that Medicaid officials tried to stop the data transfer due to legal and ethical concerns. The objection was unsuccessful. CMS had 54 minutes to comply with an order coming from two advisors within Secretary Kennedy Jr’s camp.

Disclosure Focuses on Violation of Laws

Current laws provide that states can create their own health plans, eligibility standards, and coverage, as long as the plan follows federal criteria. Medicaid laws also provide for emergency coverage for non-citizens. Seven states and D.C. started programs that offer full Medicaid coverage to non-citizens.

Four of the seven states, New York, Oregon, Minnesota, and Colorado, never submitted identifiable information about Medicaid recipients to CMS. The data shared with ICE came from the remaining three states; California, Illinois, & Washington State; and Washington D.C.

Map of U.S. States Compromised by CMS and DHS

The Allegation

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. It alleges that the federal government is allowing the personal data of Medicaid recipients to be used for purposes unrelated to the Medicaid program.

Further, the coalition of states alleges that the disclosures violate several federal data privacy laws. These  include Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA), and the Privacy Act. 

Additionally, the Attorneys General state that the disclosures are contrary to the Social Security Act and a violation of the Spending Clause.

The lawsuit calls upon the court to bar CMS from sending additional PII to DHS and to bar DHS from using any of the information it has already received.

“In the seven decades since Congress enacted the Medicaid Act to provide medical assistance to vulnerable populations, federal law, policy, and practice has been clear: the personal healthcare data collected about beneficiaries of the program is confidential, to be shared only in certain narrow circumstances that benefit public health and the integrity of the Medicaid program itself.”

Attorneys General

Coalition of States

Final Thoughts

This lawsuit is the latest of many against the current administration. The Rowan Report will continue to update this and other stories impacting care at home as the lawsuits continue.

# # #

Kristin Rowan, Editor
Kristin Rowan, Editor

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

©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

 

Alliance Responds to Hospice Final Rule

Advocacy

by | Aug 7, 2025 | Advocacy, CMS, Hospice, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Regulatory

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

The Alliance Responds to CMS Hospice Final Rule

CMS Issues FY 2026 Hospice Final Rule

On August 1, 2026, CMS issues the FY 2026 Hospice Wage Index and Payment Rate Update and Hospice Quality Reporting Programs Requirements Final Rule. Here are the high-level changes in this year’s final rule:

  • Rate Setting Changes
    • A 3.3% inpatient hospital market basket percentage increase
    • A 0.7% productivity adjustment (read decrease)
    • Statutory cap increases from $34,465.34 to $35,361.44
  • Hospice Care Admission
    • The physician member of the interdisciplinary group (IDG) may recommend admission to hospice care
  • Face-to-Face Attestation
    • Signature and date requirements restored
    • Eliminated requirement for attestation to be a separate and distinct document
    • Attestation requirement can be a section or addendum to recert form, or part of a signed and dated clinical note
  • Hospice Quality Reporting Program
  • The HOPE tool will replace the HIS tool on October 1, 2025, despite comments to delay implementation
  • CMS published a HOPE Technical Information webpage ,an HQRP training library, and a Requirements and Best Practices webpage
  • CMS recognized the error in their HOPE burden calculations. The burden is 21.1% higher than initially reported. The difference will be “taken into consideration” in the next PRA package submission.
  • The separate reporting tool (QIES) and reports tool (CASPER) will sunset and iQIES will replace both tools.
FY 2026 Hospice Quality Reporting Program

National Alliance for Care at Home Statement

After CMS issued the final rule, the Alliance responds with a statement addressing the wage adjustment, HOPE tool implementation, and sttestation changes. Read the full press release here.

Wage Adjustment

The Alliance recognizes that the 2.6% wage update is higher than the proposed 2.4% adjustment issued earlier this year. However, The Alliance maintains its position that the update does not go far enough to offset the very high and very real operational costs that hospices across the country face.  

Regulatory Relief

Both the physician member of the IDG recommending hospice admission and the inclusion of a clinical note to serve as attestation of a face-to-face were welcome changes to hospice regulations. The Alliance thanked CMS for these changes.

HOPE Tool Implementation

The Alliance was among the many commenters to CMS about the October 1, 2025 implementation date for the HOPE tool. Alliance CEO Dr. Steve Landers had this to say:

Despite responsiveness in other areas, the Alliance is deeply disappointed that CMS did not heed recommendations and delay the October 1, 2025 implementation of the Hospice Outcomes and Patient Evaluation (HOPE) tool nor waive the timeliness completion requirement for HOPE record submission. We expect providers to face a burdensome transition and urge CMS to remain responsive to real-world challenges, offering flexibility as providers navigate the change.  

Dr. Steve Landers

CEO, National Alliance for Care at Home

The Alliance is committed to working with CMS to reduce spending and strengthen the Medicare hospice benefit. They also continue to support the CMS initiative to reduce fraud, waste, and abuse.

Final Thoughts

The Hospice Final Rule is not what we hoped for. The wage update was increase, but not by enough to make a real impact on the operational burden hospices face. CMS has provided technical training and education for the HOPE tool, but severely underestimated the financial burden connected to the transition. CMS continues to use outdated, incorrect, or faulty information in its calculations of wage rate updates and ignores the repeated comments from advocacy groups and hospice providers. 

# # #

Kristin Rowan, Editor
Kristin Rowan, Editor

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

©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

 

Tell CMS not to Kill Home Health

Advocacy

by | Aug 7, 2025 | Advocacy, CMS, Regulatory

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

The Alliance to Care at Home:

CMS needs your comments

CMS needs your comments on the home health proposed rule for FY 2026. Advocacy is a cornerstone of the mission of The National Alliance for Care at Home. From The Hill to the home, The Alliance fights for the future of the industry. But, they can’t do it alone. 

Proposed Rule

The CMS proposed rule for FY 2026 has a net 6.4% decrease in payments to home health providers. Industry experts warn that this change will cause home health agencies to shutter their doors and it will leave many rural areas in a home health desert.

The Alliance Call to Action

At last week’s 2025 Financial Summit in Chicago, policy and industry experts provided ways to adjust how to write comments to CMS. According to Mary Carr, Vice President for Regulatory Affairs at National Alliance for Care at Home, it’s not enough for a few agencies and organizations to advocate for home health. Everyone has to submit comments about this. Carr says if done effectively, sending comments on proposed rules is one of the most powerful ways to stop these policy changes. The way you write your comment letters is important if you want them to have an impact.

Carr provided this guidance and tips on how to right an effective comment to CMS:

Remember that CMS is not looking for an agree/disagree statement

Provide good reasons for not keeping the proposed rule as is

Address very specific reasons why any part of the proposed rule is bad

Include the direct impact the proposal will have on your business, your staff, and your patients

Provide an alternative recommendation

Mention studies on how much less home health costs compared with SNFs and ALFs

Don’t let fear, anger, and anxiety detract from your message

Maintain professionalism and respect

Mention and thank CMS for any good aspects of the proposed rule

Include impact statements on reduction in services, delays to getting care, and areas that would be without any available home health care should the proposed rule stand

Mention the Other Side

No matter what side of the aisle you are usually on, we all must agree that care at home is an industry issue, not a Democrat or Republican issue. Hillary Loeffler, Vice President of policy and regulatory affairs at the Alliance, reluctantly mentions that the clawbacks, reductions, and methodology used to determine rates were put in place by the previous administration. 

“It’s a new administration. I hate to say it, but I’m going to say, ‘This methodology was created by the Biden administration, and the Trump administration needs to do something about this.’ So, hopefully they take a fresh look at it.”

Hillary Loeffler

Vice President of Policy and Regulatory Affairs, National Alliance for Care at Home

Loeffler also suggests going directly to Congress with comments and letters in addition to CMS. The recent trend of lowering reimbursement rates causing fewer visits, less coverage, and longer wait times is untenable and complete reform of the home health benefit at the federal level is needed to ensure its survival, added Loeffler.

Illogical Arguments

Whether you are publishing comments on the home health proposed rule or writing a letter to your senators and representatives, steer clear of logical fallacies. These errors in reasoning are easy to fall prey to when you have an emotional investment in the issue at hand.

Ad Hominem

The very common Ad Hominem fallicy happens when the argument moves from the problem to the person. Blaming your representative or accusing CMS of hating home health rather than focusing on the impact of the pay cut will weaken our standing.

Slippery Slope

This fallicy involves stretching the consequences of an action beyond reality. Cutting home health payment rates will decrease care and increase start-of-care delays. It will not cause homelessness, mass hysteria, or a small pox outbreak. 

Fallacy of Composition

If you’re familiar with standard contracts, you’ve read the clause that goes something like, “if any part of this contract is illegal, the rest is still intact.” The composition fallacy assumes that the whole of something matches its parts. The CMS proposed rule for FY 2026 has improvements, such as allowing physicians to do face-to-face appointments even if they are not the certifying physician. Don’t throw out the entire proposed rule. Rather focus on those parts that are clearly devastating to the industry.

Fallacy of Origin

Criticizing the rule based on its authors (CMS) as adversaries to care at home also negates the impact of our advocacy. CMS has been charged with maintaining government payments for health care in hospitals, physician groups, hospices, SNFs, and more. They have also been directed to cut costs, decrease spending, and maintain budget neutrality. The proposed rule is a death sentence for home health not because it came from CMS, but because of the flawed math. Address the calculations, the methodology, the assumption that care at home is more expensive than hospital or SNF care, and the number of people who will lose access to quality care.

CMS needs your comments now

Now that you know what issues to address and how to frame your argument, reach out. Contact CMS and your Congresspeople and submit your comments today. Comments are due by August 29th.

# # #

Kristin Rowan, Editor
Kristin Rowan, Editor

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

©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

 

Patients’ Right to Freedom of Choice

Admin

by | Jul 24, 2025 | Admin, CMS, Home Health, Hospice, Medicaid, Medicare, Regulatory

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.

Patient's Right to Freedom of Choice of Providers

U.S. Supreme Court Weighs In

Patient’s rights to freedom of choice of providers who will render care to them is currently based on four key sources:

  • Court decisions that establish the right of all patients, regardless of payor source and the setting in which services are rendered, to control treatment, including who provides it
  • Federal statutes for both the Medicare and Medicaid Programs that establish the right of patients whose care is paid for by these programs to choose providers to render care – Specifically, Section 1802 (42 U.S. C. 1395a) states as follows: “(a) Basic freedom of choice.- Any individual entitled to insurance benefits under this title may obtain health services from any institution, agency, or person qualified to participate under this title if such institution, agency or person undertakes to provide him such services.”
  • The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA), which currently requires hospitals to provide a list of home health agencies and hospices to patients. According to the BBA, the list must meet the following criteria: (a) Providers that render services in the geographic area in which patients reside, are Medicare-certified, and request to be included must appear on the list given to patients. (b) If hospitals have a financial interest in any provider that appears on the list, this interest must be disclosed on the list.
  • Conditions of Participation (COP’s) of the Medicare Program that are the same as the provisions of the BBA described above

Supreme Court Decision

The U.S Supreme Court has now issued a decision about the federal statute for the Medicaid Program described above in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, et al. [No, 23-1276 (June 26, 2025)]. This case involves the any-qualified-provider provision in the statute above that requires states to ensure that any individual eligible for medical assistance may obtain it from any provider qualified to perform the service who undertakes to provide it. The question is whether individual Medicaid beneficiaries may sue state officials under the above statute for failing to comply with the any-qualified-provider provision. 

Exclusions on "any-qualified-provider" provision

The State of South Carolina excluded Planned Parenthood from the Medicaid Program. An enrollee in the Medicaid Program sued the State based on the above statute because she said that she wanted to receive Medicaid services from Planned Parenthood.

Federal enforcement; not private

The Court said that spending power statutes, such as Medicaid Programs, are especially unlikely to create the right for individuals to sue the states. The typical remedy for state noncompliance is federal funding termination. Private enforcement, such as suits by individuals, requires states to voluntarily and knowingly consent to private suits based on clear and unambiguous alerts from Congress to the states that private enforcement is a funding condition.

The Court concluded that the above statute does not permit individuals to sue the States for violation of their right to freedom of choice of providers.

# # #

Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.
Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.

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.

©2025 Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq. All rights reserved.

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

©2025 by The Rowan Report, Peoria, AZ. All rights reserved. 

Non-Compliance Notifications & HOPE Training

CMS

by | Jul 24, 2025 | CMS, Hospice

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

Hospice Non-Compliance Notifications

On July 21, 2025, the CMS Hospice QRP Announcements page added an update titled “Hospice Quality Reporting Program: Non-Compliance Notifications.”

The Update Reads:

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is providing notifications to hospices that were determined to be out of compliance with Hospice Quality Reporting Program (HQRP) requirements for calendar year (CY) 2024…. This will affect their fiscal year (FY) 2026 Annual Payment Update (APU). The Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) will distribute Non-compliance notifications and place them into hospices’ Certification and Survey Enhanced Reporting (CASPER) folders in QIES on July 21, 2025. Hospices that receive a letter of non-compliance may submit a request for reconsideration to CMS via email no later than 11:59 pm, August 26, 2025. If you receive a notice of non-compliance and would like to request a reconsideration, see the instructions in your notification and on the Reconsideration Requests webpage.

Details

Any reconsiderations containing protected health information (PHI) will not be processed. All PHI must be removed for a reconsideration to be reviewed.

Additionally, all submissions must be less than 20 MB overall (email message and attachments). Submissions that are greater than 20 MB in size cannot be processed.

HOPE Training

As the implementation date for the HOPE tool drew nearer, advocacy groups and hospice agencies expressed concern over it’s readiness. On June 6, 2025, The Rowan Report shared that three of the largest organizations urged CMS to delay the tool. The groups asked for proper information, education, and training. 

CMS Response

As of now, CMS is not delaying the implementation of the HOPE tool. They have, however, published training tools for hospice providers. The first series of videos is Didactic Training. They cover an introduction to the tool, admin information, preferences and active diagnoses, health conditions, skin conditions, and medications.

On July 21, 2025, CMS announced the opening of registration for live HOPE training. “Hospice Outcomes and Patient Evaluation (HOPE) National Implementation Virtual Training Program Course 2: Coding Workshop.” CMS recommends completing The Didactic Training as a prerequisite to the Coding Workshop.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is offering a live coding workshop on August 5, 2025…. It will provide coding practice for items that are new for HOPE, as well as the existing and updated items carried over from the Hospice Item Set (HIS).

Register now at:The Hospice Outcomes and Patient Evaluation (HOPE) National Implementation Coding Workshop

Find the Didactic Recorded Training Series here.

Data Collection Starts Soon

The HOPE tool begins data collection on October 1, 2025. Key items hospice providers should understand:

  • More Frequent Assessments: HOPE introduces up to four assessment points per patient, capturing care from multiple angles during the first 30 days and at discharge.
  • Real-Time Data Capture: Unlike the retrospective nature of HIS, HOPE assessments are completed during live patient encounters, providing richer and more immediate insights.
  • Higher Stakes for Compliance: To avoid a reimbursement cut of up to 4%, agencies must ensure that at least 90% of HOPE assessments are submitted on time—a notable increase from the previous 2% penalty under HIS.
  • Public Reporting Timeline: While HIS data has been publicly available, HOPE data will not be released for public comparison until fiscal year 2028 or later, giving providers time to adapt.

*from the SimiTree blog: Understanding the Transition from HIS to HOPE

As the implementation of the HOPE tool gets closer, we will continue to share training information from CMS and other sources as it becomes available. If you need a referral to a hospice consultant to navigate the transition, please reach out to The Rowan Report.

# # #

Kristin Rowan, Editor
Kristin Rowan, Editor

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

©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

 

Impact of H.R. 1: The Homebound and Overlooked

Medicaid

by | Jul 24, 2025 | Medicaid, Regulatory

Analysis by Tim Rowan, Editor Emeritus

The Impact of H.R. 1

Homebound and Overlooked

In early 2025, the Republican-led Congress introduced its proposed budget for FY2026 and beyond, a sweeping legislative effort aimed at curbing federal expenditures and restructuring entitlement programs. Medicaid, one of the largest healthcare safety nets in the United States, faces major revisions under this bill. Central to the proposed changes is the shift toward block grants or per-capita caps on federal funding. The legislation also rolls back incentives enacted into law by the Affordable Care act, including those that supported Medicaid expansion. The reconciliation bill, signed into law on July 4, also eliminates financial support for optional services such as home and community-based services (HCBS). A new set of work requirements in the new law will expand the paperwork burden for beneficiaries.

Risks for Home- and Community-Based Care

The figure below presents a visual from the Commonwealth Fund showing their projection of over $100 billion in cumulative federal Medicaid cuts by 2035. These reductions are expected to disproportionately affect non-mandated programs like HCBS, which are many times more economical than residential care. With diminished federal support, states will face pressure to reallocate limited resources, often at the expense of these optional, yet critical, programs. ¹

For nearly eight million elderly Americans, Medicaid-funded HCBS has helped reduce hospital admissions, extend independence, and relieve stress on long-term care facilities. However, the new budget cuts destabilize these programs. Barbara Merrill, CEO of ANCOR, expressed concern, stating, “When you cut federal Medicaid dollars, even for optional services, states have to make tough decisions about who gets care and when.”² Experts anticipate that approval delays, extended waitlists, and even termination of services could follow as states struggle to maintain existing infrastructure.

Bar chart of Medicaid spending.

Comparing the 2005 Budget Bill to the Affordable Care Act

Compared to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the Republican budget bill marks a significant policy reversal. The ACA expanded Medicaid eligibility and incentivized states to develop non-institutional care models. It emphasized preventive care and home-based treatment options, helping shift care away from costly institutional settings. By contrast, the new bill eliminates such incentives and introduces fiscal and operational barriers. According to data from Medicaid.gov and the Kaiser Family Foundation, Medicaid enrollment, which rose steadily during the ACA years, is projected to drop by 10% nationwide once the budget bill is implemented³. This decline reflects both tightening eligibility and retreat from HCBS programs.

Healthcare providers will need to brace for substantial ripple effects. With fewer patients accessing home care, hospitals and emergency departments may see an uptick in acute episodes related to unmanaged chronic conditions. Providers may also encounter staffing shortages and reduced reimbursements, undermining service quality and sustainability. Richard Edwards, policy director at Amivie Home Health, warned, “If states cut home care services, many patients have no other choice but to enter a skilled nursing facility. That’s not just a shift in care—it’s often a worse outcome at a higher cost.” ⁴ These operational challenges could exacerbate pressure on an already strained healthcare workforce.

Scope and Severity of Coming Changes

Today, over eight million seniors rely on Medicaid-funded HCBS, with an average annual cost per recipient of $29,000. Thirty-three states use HCBS waivers to administer these services, yet the average state waitlist already exceeds 3,000 applicants. Institutional care costs remain 57% higher than home care, making HCBS not only more humane but more fiscally prudent. Despite that, projected federal cuts of $100 billion by 2035 threaten to replace HCBS with nursing home care. Meanwhile, a national enrollment drop of 10% would leave millions at risk of losing coverage and care.

Richard Edwards, policy director at Amivie Home Health, explains, “If states cut home care services, many patients have no other choice but to enter a skilled nursing facility. That’s not just a shift in care—it’s often a worse healthcare and social outcome at a higher cost.” ⁴

  • 8 million elderly rely on Medicaid HCBS
  • $29,000/year average cost per Medicaid home care recipient
  • 33 states use HCBS waivers
  • Average state waitlist for HCBS exceeds 3,000 applicants
  • Institutional care costs 57% more than home care
  • Estimated federal Medicaid cuts by 2035: $100 billion
  • Projected national enrollment drop: 10%

Implications for Care at Home: Next Steps

To mitigate these risks, policy experts are advocating for pragmatic alternatives, knowing that implementation depends entirely on the direction in which political winds blow. Federal stabilization grants could offer targeted relief to states with high HCBS enrollment, preserving continuity of care. Streamlining waiver approvals would reduce bureaucratic delays and ease access for both providers and patients. Retaining key ACA incentives could help maintain momentum in home-based care innovation. States would also benefit from flexible financing rules, including reformed provider tax policies, to better manage Medicaid funds under new constraints. 

Final Thoughts

Ultimately, the new budget, passed with no Democratic votes, may reshape eldercare delivery for years to come. With states facing hard choices, the healthcare community must prepare for transitions that could disrupt care and deepen inequities. Advocacy for vulnerable populations, investment in alternatives, and ongoing engagement in policy reform will be essential to ensure seniors receive the care they deserve in the setting they prefer.

# # #

____________________________________________

¹ Congressional Budget Office, Federal Healthcare Outlook 2025–2035
² Barbara Merrill, ANCOR Policy Brief, March 2025
³ Kaiser Family Foundation, Medicaid Enrollment Tracker, April 2025
⁴ Amivie Health, Testimony to House Budget Committee, June 2025

Tim Rowan The Rowan Report

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

OBBB Care at Home Adjustments

Advocacy

by | Jul 18, 2025 | Advocacy, CMS, Medicaid, Medicare, Regulatory

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

Care at Home Through Medicare and Medicaid

Adjustments from OBBB

Despite the passing and subsequent signing of the reconciliation bill, numerous lawsuits have paused its implementation in some areas. We will continue to report on those court decisions as they arise. In the meantime, the care at home industry can look at the few adjustments that will positively impact the industry.

Medicaid Waivers

Prior to this, the HHS Secretary could only approve Medicaid waivers to cover home and community-based services for beneficiaries who already met institutional level-of-care criteria. This bill provides additional flexibility to define waiver eligibility without the institutional level-of-care criteria.

For FY 2026, CMS has an additional $50 million to oversee the new waivers. There is an additional $100 million earmarked for FY 2027 to deliver HCBS under new and existing waivers. Although the expanded waivers and additional budget will not satisfy the more 700,000 on waiting lists for HCBS, it is a start.

Rural Health Transformation Program

For five years, beginning in 2026, states can apply for a portion of a $10 billion annual fund for rural health providers. To qualify, providers must submit a rural health care plan that includes technology adoption, local partnerships, using data-driven methods, and setting strategies for financial stability. This could provide an opportunity for care at home agencies to partner with rural hospitals to help provide care in rural settings.

Health Savings Accounts

Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) allow insurance beneficiaries to save money to pay for deductibles, copays, and other services not covered by insurance (such as non-medical supportive care and home health). Currently, people can only use HSAs if they have a high deductible health plan (HDHP). The bill allows for a plan to be considered an HDHP even if it covers telehealth and remote health services prior to meeting the deductible. Insurance companies can design new HDHPs that can be used with HSAs.

Telehealth Reconciliation Bill<br />

Another change to HSAs involves the type of plan that qualifies. Currently, bronze and catastrophic plans cannot be considered HDHPs because their out-of-pocket limits exceed IRS limits for HDHPs. The bill allows bronze and catastrophic plans to qualify as HDHPs and have access to HSAs.

Additionally, current regulations prohibit anyone with a Direct Primary Care (DPC) arrangement from contributing to our using HSAs. DPC is an arrangement with a flat monthly fee for services rather than using insurance for routine care. The bill removes the limitations, allowing people with DPC arrangements to contriute to HSAs and use them for DPC arrangements.

Adding telehealth/remote plans, bronze plans, and catastrophic plans to HSA eligibility could provide opportunities for care at home agencies to connect with beneficiaries of these plans who did not have expendable funds for non-covered services before, but can now use HSAs. Allowing patients with DPCs to use HSAs could provide yet another path to increasing patients by partnering with DPC offices.

Final Thoughts

As a whole, we are anticipating great disruption to Medicare and Medicaid stemming from the budget reconciliation bill. While we await the final word on legality from the U.S. Supreme Court on many of the provisions, we can look to the ones that may help brace the industry in the meantime.

 # # #

Kristin Rowan, Editor
Kristin Rowan, Editor

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

©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

 

Hospice Hope

Admin

by | Jul 10, 2025 | Admin, CMS, Hospice, Outcomes, Regulatory

by Peggy Rattarree, Principle Product Manager, Curantis Solutions

Hospice HOPE

The importance of documenting symptom impact for patient-centered care

In hospice care, the focus isn’t just on treating symptoms; it’s on improving the quality of life for patients and their families. This is where Hospice HOPE takes center stage, emphasizing the importance of documenting symptom impact to deliver truly patient-centered care. By understanding how symptoms affect each patient’s physical, emotional, and psychosocial well-being, hospice teams can provide care that aligns with their unique needs and goals.

What is hospice HOPE?

Hospice HOPE stands for Hospice Outcomes and Patient Evaluation. It’s a philosophy that places the patient’s comfort, dignity, and goals at the forefront of care delivery. Documenting symptom impact is a critical part of this approach because it provides a detailed understanding of how symptoms affect the patient’s overall quality of life.

In hospice care, every patient’s journey is unique. By actively tracking and documenting symptom impact, care providers can move beyond generic treatments and embrace a truly individualized approach that prioritizes what matters most to the patient.

Why documenting symptom impact matters?

Moves us to patient-centered care

Documenting symptom impact allows hospice teams to focus on what truly matters to the patient. Instead of simply addressing symptoms like pain, nausea, or fatigue in isolation, it provides a holistic view of how these symptoms affect the patient’s daily life. For example:

  • Pain
    • How does it limit mobility or the ability to participate in meaningful activities?
  • Fatigue
    • Is it preventing patients from spending time with loved ones?
  • Nausea
    • Is it reducing their ability to eat or enjoy meals?
Curantis Solutions Hospice HOPE

By asking these questions and recording the answers, hospice providers can better tailor interventions to manage not just symptom management but the overall patient experience.

Improves communication across the care team

In hospice care, communication is everything. Documenting symptom impact ensures that every member of the interdisciplinary team (IDT), from nurses and physicians to social workers and chaplains, has access to the same comprehensive information.

This documentation:

  • Creates a shared understanding of the patient’s condition
  • Helps align the team’s goals with the patient’s priorities
  • Reduces duplication of efforts and enhances care coordination

When everyone is on the same page, patients and families receive more seamless, cohesive care.

Hospice HOPE Communication

Supports compliance and quality standards

Regulatory bodies like CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) require hospices to document and monitor patient symptoms to ensure care quality. But beyond compliance, tracking symptom impact demonstrates a commitment to continuous improvement.

Documenting symptom impact allows hospices to:

  • Identify trends and gaps in care
  • Measure the effectiveness of interventions
  • Use data to advocate for better resources or innovations in care delivery

Empowers families and caregivers

When symptom impact is documented, families and caregivers gain a clearer understanding of their loved one’s condition. This transparency fosters trust and collaboration between the hospice team and the family, ensuring everyone is working toward the same goals.

For example, a caregiver might better understand why a loved one sleeps more during the day or avoids certain foods. These insights can help families feel more prepared and supported during a challenging time.

Final Thoughts

With CMS rolling out Hospice HOPE, documenting symptom impact is no longer optional. It’s the standard for compassionate, high-quality care. This shift helps hospice organizations go beyond symptom control and into whole-person care that honors each patient’s life journey.

This is part one in a two-part series on Hospice HOPE. Check back next week for part two.

# # #

Peggy Rattarree Curantis Solutions Hospice HOPE
Peggy Rattarree Curantis Solutions Hospice HOPE

Peggy is an IT professional with over 30 years’ experience. She has defined and developed software products in industries such as grocery management, financial services, and reporting and analytics. In her 2.5 years with Curantis, Peggy has helped to shape the definition and delivery of the application. She brings a passion for agility and has been integral in transitioning Curantis to an environment of delivery on cadence, release on demand.

Peggy has a Bachelor of Music degree from University of North Texas.

©2025 by The Rowan Report, Peoria, AZ. All rights reserved. This article originally appeared in the Curantis Solutions blog and is reprinted here with permission. For more information or to request permission to print, please contact Curantis Solutions.

Injunctions Overturned

CMS

by | Jul 10, 2025 | CMS, Legal, Regulatory

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

District Court Injunctions Overturned

Agencies to resume layoffs.

The now infamous “Memo” from the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management instructed agency leaders to cut their workforce as part of the President’s DOGE Workforce Optimization Initiative. The memo from late February started with divisions and employees whose work was not mandated by law and is not considered essential during government shutdowns.

District Court Block on Workforce Downsizing

In May, District Court Judge Susan Illston ruled that the administration lacked congressional approval to make sweeping cuts, and blocked the federal workforce reductions. The order came after lawsuits from labor unions and nonprofit groups argued that the cuts would have drastic negative effects on the American people. They also posed the argument that reorganizing government functions and laying off workers en masse without congressional approval is not allowed by the Constitution. A panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals voted against overturning Illston’s order. 

Supreme Court Overrules

On July 8th, the Supreme Court ruled to allow federal agencies to resume the layoff directive. The 8-1 decision lifts one block on reduction in workforce, but there are smaller injunctions across different courts that have not made it to the Supreme Court yet. The decision overturns the injunction for 17 of the 19 agencies included in the initial memo. The Department of Veterans Affairs is among those cleared to resume layoffs. The departments of Defense, Education, Homeland Security and Justice were not included in the directive.

Restructuring Not Included

The Court was careful to convey there has been no decision on whether the reorganization plan for any specific agency is legal. Each agency’s restructuring plan may eventually reach the Supreme Court.

The order also only clears the way for the reduction in workforce. It is also not a blanket green light. The administration has to provide details on how it selects the staff being laid off. In some cases, they must notify Congress and the labor unions. 

Dissent, and Agreement

The Supreme Court decision was 8-1 in favor of overturning the injunction. Only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

“In my view, this decision is not only truly unfortunate but also hubristic and senseless. [The] statutory shortfalls likely to result from implementation of this executive order will be immensely painful to the general public, and the plaintiffs, in the interim, causing harm that includes ‘proliferat[ing] foodborne disease,’ perpetuating ‘hazardous environmental conditions,’ ‘eviscerat[ing] disaster loan services for local businesses,’ and ‘drastically reduc[ing] the provision of healthcare and other services to our nation’s veterans.’”

Kentanji Brown Jackson

Justice, United States Supreme Court

Justice Sotomayor, who voted to overturn the injunction, wrote a one-paragraph solo opinion saying she agrees with Jackson that the administration cannot “restructure federal agencies in a manner inconsistent with congressional mandates.”

“The plans themselves are not before this Court, at this stage, and we thus have no occasion to consider whether they can and will be carried out consistent with the constraints of law,” Sotomayor warned.

Blocks Still Standing

The Supreme Court ruling overturned the injunction put in place on May 22nd by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. This is the only injunction impacted by the ruling. Other injunctions remain in place.

On July 1, U.S. District Judge Melissa DuBose granted an injunction to stop the downsizing and restructuring of HHS. This injunction was not explicitly mentioned in the latest ruling, but could still be impacted.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox ordered the reinstatments of AmeriCorps employees who were laid off or put on leave and blocked any additional reductions that affect union employees. 

U.S. District Judge Myong Joun indefinitely blocked the reduction of workforce of school districts in Boston. An emergency bid with the Supreme Court to lift the block could be heard and decided at any time.

A federal appeals court blocked a 90 percent reduction of the staff at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; federal judges reversed similar reductions at DEI foundations, and all actions under Pete Marocco are voided.

Final Thoughts

Numerous cases remain undecided in lower courts and the Supreme Court. Whether any layoffs will be finalized and whether departmental restructing is legal remain to be seen. For now, expect a reduction in personnel at the VA, but not yet at HHS or CMS. We will continue to report on updates as they occur.

# # #

Kristin Rowan, Editor
Kristin Rowan, Editor

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

©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

 

Fraud, Waste, and Abuse

Clinical

by | Jul 10, 2025 | Clinical, CMS, Home Health, Legal, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Regulatory, Waste Fraud and Abuse

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

Fraud, Waste, and Abuse

DOJ, HHS False Claims Act

Fraud, Waste, and Abuse has become something of a mantra within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Secretary Kennedy has committed to combatting fraud, waste, and abuse within the federal healthcare system. The Department of Justice (DOJ) and HHS have a long history of working together to combat healthcare frauding under the False Claims Act (FCA).

Working Group

In furtherance of their goal to combat healthcare fraud, HHS and DOJ have formed the DOJ-HHS False Claims Act Working Group. The Working Group will include leadership from the HHS Office of General Counsel, CMS Center for Program Integrity, the Office of Counsel for the OIG, and the DOJ Civil Division.

Working Group Priorities to Combat Fraud, Waste, and Abuse

1. HHS will refer potential False Claims Act violations to the DOJ that are in line with the Working Group priority enforcement areas:

  • Medicare Advantage
  • Drug, device, or biologics pricing
    • arrangements for discounts, rebates, service fees, and formulary placement and pricing reporting
  • Barriers to patient access to care
    • violations of network adequacy requirements
  • Kickbacks related to drugs, medical decives, DME, and other products paid for by federal healthcare programs
  • Materially defective medical devices that impact patient safety
  • Manipulation of Electronic Health Records systems to drive inappropriate utilization of Medicare covered products and services

2. The Working Group will maximize collaboration to expedite investigations and identify new leads. They will leverage HHS resources using data mining and assessment of findings.

3. The Working Group will discuss implementing payment suspension according to the CMS Medicare Program Code of Federal Regulations¹

4. The Working Group will discuss whether DOJ will dismiss a whistleblower case under the U.S. Code for Civil actions for False Claims, pursuant to the DOJ Manual for Civil Fraud Litigation²

Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse

The Working Group encourages whistleblowers to report violations of the False Claims Act within the priority areas. Tips and complaints from all sources about potential fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement can be reported to HHS at 800-HHS-TIPS (800-447-8477). Similarly, the Working Group encourages healthcare companies to identify and report such violations.

Fraud, Waste, and Abuse

²DOJ Dismissal of a Civil Qui Tam Action. When evaluating a recommendation to decline intervention in a qui tam action, attorneys should also consider whether the government’s interests are served, in addition, by seeking dismissal pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(A).

¹Suspension of payment. The withholding of payment by a Medicare contractor from a provider or supplier of an approved Medicare payment amount before a determination of the amount of the overpayment exists, or until the resolution of an investigation of a credible allegation of fraud.

# # #

Kristin Rowan, Editor
Kristin Rowan, Editor

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

©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

 

Planned Parenthood Cut Halted

CMS

by | Jul 10, 2025 | CMS, Legal, Medicaid, Regulatory

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

Part of Big Beautiful Bill Halted

Medicaid Cuts to Planned Parenthood Blocked

The tax and immigration bill, dubbed “One Big Beautiful Bill,” signed by President Trump on July 4th, included removing all Medicaid payments to any nonprofit organization that provides medical services, received more than $800,000 in federal funding in 2023, and also provides abortions.

On Monday, July 7th, the first business day after the bill was signed into law, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani granted a temporary halt to Medicaid funding cuts to Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood Claims Unfavorable Treatment

The portion of the bill in question does not specifically name Planned Parenthood. The bill cuts Medicaid funding to groups “primarily engaged in family planning services, reproductive health, and related medical care” that also provide abortions and abortion education. According to the lawsuit, however, because of the federal funding threshold of $800,000, Planned Parentood locations comprise almost all of the impact. 

[It’s a] “naked attempt to leverage the government’s spending power to attack and penalize Planned Parenthood and impermissibly single it out for unfavorable treatment.”

Planned Parenthood

Immediate Decision

The decision came before the federal government responded. Judge Talwani ruled within hours and provided no explanation other than a brief note stating that Planned Parenthood showed good cause for immediate intervention.

Decision Unlikely to Stand

  • The decision came within hours of the lawsuit filing
  • Congress is generally lawfully allowed to make determinations on spending
  • This was an egregious judicial usurpation of legislative power
  • This makes her court look like a fast food drive-through
  • The House could initiate impeachment proceedings against the judge for this decision

These are just a few of the statements made in opposition to the injunction, mostly claiming that the judge did not have the authority to make the decision. Talwani set a hearing for July 21 to hear from both Planned Parenthood and the agencies named in the lawsuit, HHS, and CMS.

Precedent

A previous ruling from the Supreme Court in June of this year provides that any state can remove any provider from the list of “Qualified Providers” using its own Medicaid criteria. The court further ruled that, although patients have the right to choose their own provider, patients do not have the right to sue based on who those qualified providers are.

This lawsuit is the first against the tax and immigration bill, but it is most likely not the last. We will continue to report on this and other lawsuits as they arise.

# # #

Kristin Rowan, Editor
Kristin Rowan, Editor

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

©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

 

CMS Home Health Proposed Rule 2026

Advocacy

by | Jul 2, 2025 | Advocacy, CMS, Home Health, Regulatory

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

CMS Home Health Proposed Rule 2026

June 30th, 2025, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued its proposed rule with updates to Medicare payment policies and rates for home health agencies under the Home Health Prospective Payment System Proposed Rule for calendar year 2026.

Payment Adjustments

The Facts, as Listed by CMS

  1. A permanent prospective adjustment to home health payments of -4.059% (not applied to LUPAs)
    • Reasoning: the impact of implementing PDGM
  2. A temporary adjustment of -5.0% (not applied to LUPAs)
    • Reasoning: to recoupe retrospective overpayments
  3. Updates Fixed-Dollar Loss (FDL) adjustment of -0.5%
  4. Payment Update Percentage of 2.4%
  5. Quality data decrease of 2%, offset by the update percentage yields a 0.4% adjustment
  6. Net changes in payment rate from 2025 to 2026 with quality reporting data is -6.40%

Contradictory Facts, as Listed by CMS

  1. The finalized methodology used to calculate the impact of PDGM yielded the need for a -7.85% permanent adjustment
  2. In CY 2023, 2024, and 2025, CMS implemented permanent adjustments of -3.925%, -2.890%, and -1.975%, respectively
  3. The total permanent adjustment made in the last three years is -8.790% (0.940% more than the calculated adjustment need)
  4. CMS has now determined that Medicare is still paying more under PDGM than it did under the old system and is proposing an additional permanent adjustment of -4.059%
  5. This yields a combined -12.849% permanent adjustment over four years
  6. The CMS analysis of estimated aggregate expenditures lead them to propose an additional temporary adjustment of -5.0%

HHCAHPS Survey Changes

Added Questions

  • Whether the care provided helped the patient take care of their health.
  • Whether the patient’s family/friends were given sufficient information and
    instructions.
  • Whether the patient felt the staff cared about them “as a person.”

Removed Questions - Medication

  • Whether someone asked to see all the prescription and over-the-counter medicines
    the patient was taking.
  • Whether the patient is taking any new prescription medicines or whether the patient’s
    medicines have changed.
  • Whether home health providers talked to the patient about the purpose for taking new
    or changed prescription medicines.
  • Whether home health providers talked to the patient about when to take the
    medicines.

Removed Questions - Other

  • Which type of staff served the patient – nurse, PT/OT, or home care aide
  • Whether the patient got information about what care and services they would get when they first started home health care
  • Removal of the proposed changes to include questions on SDOH
  • Minor text changes to clarfiy some existing questions and response options

Other Changes

CMS recommends additional changes in various categories:

  1. Recalibration of the PDGM case-mix weights
    • Update low utilization payment adjustment (LUPA) thresholds
    • Update functional impairment levels
    • Update comorbidity adjustment subgroups
    • Update the fixed-dollar loss (FDL) for outlier payments
  2. Change the face-to-face encounter policy by adding physicians to the list of who can perform the face-to-face
  3. Removal of the “Up-to-date” on the COVID-19 vaccine percentage
  4. Changing the Final Data Submissions Deadline Period from 4.5 months to 45 days
  5. Adding a Termination Clause for DME, prosthetics, orthotics, and supplies competitive bidding program

Requests for Information and Feedback

CMS has issued the following RFI:

Request for Information related to Executive Order 14192 – Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation of the Medicare Program

CMS is seeking feedback on the proposed rule through

August 29th, 2025

  • Feedback on the digital quality measurement transition
  • Feedback on the final data submission deadline from 4.5 months to 45 days
  • Feedback on tools that promote healthy eating habits, exercise, nutrition, and physical activity
  • Feedback on the current state of health IT use, including EHRs
  • Feedback on the proposed changes to DMEPOS

Submit comments, feedback, and documentation to CMS

CMS home health proposed rule
CMS home health proposed rule

The Alliance Responds

“We are alarmed by the negligent proposed payment update, which deepens a heartless pattern of insufficient adjustments that have already led providers to close their doors and reduce services, and now threatens to further diminish care access by compelling more HHAs to take similar actions.”

Dr. Steve Landers

CEO, The National Alliance for Care at Home

You can read the entire Proposed Rule HERE. Read the Fact Sheet HERE.

# # #

Kristin Rowan, Editor
Kristin Rowan, Editor

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

©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

 

Bill Cuts Medicaid Directly, Medicare Indirectly

Admin

by | Jul 2, 2025 | Admin, Legal, Medicaid, Medicare, Regulatory

by Tim Rowan, Editor Emeritus

Bill Cuts Medicaid Directly, Medicare Indirectly

This is what online publishers call a “living article.” With the House and Senate passing different bills, progress toward the President’s desk changes by the hour. What follows is everything we knew to be true on Tuesday evening, July 1. However, this bill will impact Home Health, Home Care, and Hospice. To keep readers informed, we will continuously update this article as need through the weekend. We will not send our usual emails to subscribers with every update, so we urge you to return here from time to time for updates to this breaking news item. We will add the date and time to each update.

July 3: Bill Passes, The Alliance Responds

Nearly as soon as House Republicans began their celebration, Alliance President Dr. Steve Landers issued a response from the National Alliance for Care at Home. We reprinted the complete statement from The Alliance here.

“As these Medicaid provisions become law, the Alliance will work tirelessly to monitor their implementation and advocate for the protection of Medicaid enrollees, families, and providers nationwide. We will continue to champion the delivery of HCBS – proven services that are preferred by beneficiaries and save the system money.” 

Dr. Steve Landers

CEO, The National Alliance for Care at Home

Final House Vote: July 3

In spite of a couple of Republican holdouts, H.R. 1 passed the House on a 2018-2014 vote on Thursday afternoon. All of the Senate’s changes were approved, meaning the bill does not have to go back to Senate for re-approval. Now begin final assessments of the impact on Medicaid and SNAP. Changes made in the Senate, approved by the House, increased the size of spending cuts for those two programs. As analysts inside and away from our home care community weigh in, we will post them here.

As of the end of the day, July 1

It appears as though the stalemate, if there is to be one, will center around Medicaid and SNAP cuts. There are some House Republicans who are upset that the Senate increased their H.R. 1 proposed cuts to nearly $1 Trillion. Contrarily, other House Republicans threaten to vote no because cuts are not deep enough. They point to the predicted $3.3 trillion addition to the national debt over ten years. As of the evening of July 1, the House Rules Committee continues the debate. We will update this page as often as possible for you.

As of the morning of July 1

Early Tuesday morning, the Senate passed its version of Donald Trump’s bill. Among its changes are increased cuts to Medicaid. The Congressional Budget Office calculated that the House version would have resulted in $700 billion in spending reductions. It would also have removed health insurance from 10.9 million people over 10 years. The version the Senate sent back to the House Tuesday, according to the CBO, increases those cuts to $930 billion and 11.8 million people.

Senate passes bill

June 29th

The Senate reconciliation bill would cut gross federal Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) spending by $1.02 trillion over the next ten years.  These cuts are $156.1 billion (18%) larger than even the House-passed bill’s draconian cuts of $863.4 billion over ten years.

  • These larger gross Medicaid and CHIP cuts are driven by changes to the House-passed bill that would:

    • further restrict state use of provider taxes to finance Medicaid
    • eliminate eligibility for many lawfully present immigrants
    • cut federal funding for payments to hospitals furnishing emergency Medicaid services
    • further reduce certain supplemental payments to hospitals and other providers (known as state-directed payments)

  • The spending effect of these additional cuts is modestly offset by increased Medicaid and CHIP spending from provisions not in the House-passed bill

    • a rural health transformation program
    • increased federal Medicaid funding for Alaska and Hawaii (Already ruled out by the parliamentarian)
    • expanded waiver authority for home- and community-based services

  • Overall, the Senate Republican reconciliation bill’s Medicaid, CHIP, Affordable Care Act marketplace, and Medicare provisions would increase the number of uninsured by 11.8 million in 2034, relative to current law

    • In comparison, the House-passed bill would increase the number of uninsured by 10.9 million in 2034.
    • More detailed CBO estimates of the specific Medicaid health coverage effects under the Senate Republican reconciliation bill are not yet available
    • CBO estimates the House-passed bill’s Medicaid and CHIP provisions would cut Medicaid enrollment by 10.5 million by 2034 and by themselves, increase the number of uninsured by 7.8 million by 2034

How the Senate Pushed the Bill Through

Majority leader Thune could only afford to lose three Republican votes. With GOP Senators Thom Tillis (N.C.), Rand Paul (Ky.) and Susan Collins (Maine) voting against the measure, along with every Democrat, centrist Lisa Murkowski of Alaska became the sole target of Republican pressure. The tactic used to get the vote close enough for VP Vance to cast the deciding vote is disturbing. 

First, leadership wrote an amendment that would have exempted Alaska from Medicaid and SNAP cuts. The parliamentarian killed that idea, saying it violated the Senate’s “Byrd Rule.” Next, marathon negotiations brought Murkowski and Parliamentarian MacDonough together to appease both. The compromise became exceptions to Medicaid and SNAP cuts that had less of an appearance of a bribe. They devised a formula that delayed cuts to states with a history of high error rates in calculating who is entitled to benefits. The CBO said that would cover as many as 10 states. The parliamentarian decided this did not violate Senate rules because it did not specifically benefit one state. They also increased the federal subsidy for rural hospitals that will be harmed by the bill from $25 billion to $50 billion.

In agreeing to vote ‘yes,’ Murkowski essentially declared that she knows the cuts will be bad for most states but will be good for her state. With the Alaska Senator’s vote secured, the final count was 50-50, leaving the final decision up to the vice president.

# # #

Tim Rowan The Rowan Report
Tim Rowan The Rowan Report

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

Medicaid Cuts Update: Meet the Senate Parliamentarian

Admin

by | 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
Medicaid Cuts

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 The Rowan Report
Tim Rowan The Rowan Report

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

Medicaid Cuts Still Looming

Clinical

by | Jun 20, 2025 | Clinical, Medicaid, Regulatory

by Tim Rowan, Editor Emeritus

Medicaid Cuts Looming

Terminal Prognosis

Let me tell you about my brother. In his early 30’s, Tom was diagnosed with a rare disorder, one of the 25 versions of Ataxia. A disorder that is sometimes genetic, sometimes of unknown cause. It damages the part of the brain stem that controls balance, eye-hand coordination, and speech. He was supposed to be confined to a wheelchair by age 45 and not make it to 60.

Medicaid to the Rescue

Tom will celebrate his 71st birthday next week. Some years back, an experimental drug appeared that happened to be effective with his variation of Ataxia. That medication, administered intravenously in his home, is ridiculously expensive. If not for Medicare and Medicaid, those early prognoses would have come true. With the treatments, the disorder does still progress, though much more slowly. During my visits to his home — yes, he still manages on his own for now — he and I talk about the Assisted Living or Skilled Nursing Facility that looms in his future. Always with his head low and a sigh, he says he knows that day will come.

One in 71 Million

The 20 percent of American citizens who qualify for Medicaid are as nervous as Tom is about a bill making its way through Congress. As of May 22, 2025, H.R. 1 passed the House of Representatives by one vote. Today, it is still under debate in the Senate, where several amendments are being considered.

Medicaid Pays More than Medicare

In a February report, the Kaiser Family Foundation explained it this way:

Medicaid road sign "cuts ahead"

Four in ten adults incorrectly believe that Medicare is the primary source of coverage for low-income people. For those who need nursing or home care, Medicaid is the primary payer. Medicaid covered two-thirds of all home care spending in the United States in 2022. With House Republicans considering $2.3 trillion in Medicaid cuts over 10 years, the availability of home care could be affected in future years. Home care cannot afford the loss of almost one-third of the entire Medicaid budget.

Medicaid Cuts Impact

The February report indicates that H.R 1 could fundamentally change how Medicaid financing works. This would consequently impact enrollees’ access to care. The authors assert that “cuts of this magnitude would put states at financial risk, forcing them to raise new revenues or reduce Medicaid spending by eliminating coverage for some people, covering fewer services, and/or cutting rates paid to home care workers and other providers.”

“Such difficult choices would have implications for home care because over half of Medicaid spending finances care for people ages 65 and older and those with disabilities, the enrollees most likely to use home care and related services.”

Mohamed, A.; Burns, A.; O'Malley Watts, M.

Authors, What is Medicaid Home Care (HCBS)?

Medicaid Cuts Proposals

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has been listening to Senate debates and reading proposed amendments. In a news release this week, CBPP offered a dismal assessment.

“The health provisions in the Senate Republican leaders’ plan are, alarmingly, even harsher and more damaging than the health provisions in [H.R. 1]. Under both plans, tens of millions of people would face substantially higher health care costs and millions would lose access to life-saving treatments, routine care, and medications they need.”

Medicaid Cuts

Higher Costs, Less Access

Home Care and the Work Requirement

There is much talk in Congress and in social media about able-bodied Medicaid beneficiaries who sit at home and play video games all day. Not only does this indicate a confusion between healthcare and welfare (you can’t eat or sleep in Medicaid), but it also tends to exaggerate the scope of this fraud/waste/abuse target. 

As KFF points out, most Medicaid adults under age 65 are already working but are paid low enough that they still qualify. Many who are not working (12%) serve as caregivers for a family members. If they are removed from the home to go to a job, someone else would have to take over caregiving duties, probably a home care agency. Thus, there would be a net loss to the system. 

Net Loss

The Congressional Budget Office found when examining the House version that work requirements would decrease federal spending by reducing the number of uninsured. However, in the same report, the CBO notes that there would be no increase in employment numbers.

On top of the uncertain benefit of the work requirement, the bill as it stands today would greatly increase reporting requirements. In place of “once qualified, always qualified,” Medicaid eligibility will require regular reporting to prove employment and annual re-qualification paperwork. The new red tape burdens will be especially difficult on seasonal workers or those who frequently change jobs.

Medicaid Cuts and Rural Hospitals

No one is quite sure what the impact on home care will be when Medicaid cuts force rural hospitals to close, as the CBO predicts. Longer journeys to receive hospital care and doctor visits may push more beneficiaries to home care while home care will be struggling to find caregiving staff.

Before the bill becomes law, rural hospitals are already in trouble. The American Hospital Association says that 48 percent of rural hospitals operated at a loss in 2023 and 92 closed their doors over the past 10 years. There are 16.1 million Medicaid beneficiaries living in rural communities, including 65 percent of nursing home residents. Can home care cover the losses if a portion of the estimated $800 billion in Medicaid cuts over 10 years hit home care just as hard?  

Medicaid Support in Congress

There are home care champions on the Republican side of the House and Senate. Some of them have already expressed their doubts about whether cutting home care would decrease or increase overall spending. In the “strange bedfellow” category, conservative icon Josh Hawley of Missouri swore he would “tank any bill that cuts Medicaid benefits.”

Senate Republicans can afford to lose only three votes to get this bill passed and sent back to the House. Today would be the time for all of them to hear from the care at home industry. Call your Senator. All phone numbers start with 202-224-

# # #

Tim Rowan The Rowan Report
Tim Rowan The Rowan Report

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