Alliance Statement on Congressional Budget

Advocacy

by Rowan Report | Mar 21, 2025 | Advocacy, CMS, Partner News, Regulatory

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contacts: Tom Threlkeld
202-547-7424
Email

Elyssa Katz
571-281-0220
Email

The Alliance Comments on Recent Congressional Budget and Reconciliation Activity

ALEXANDRIA, VA and WASHINGTON, DC, March 5, 2025 – The National Alliance for Care at Home (the Alliance) released the following statement regarding recent legislative developments that may impact the Medicaid program. These include the passage of the House Budget Bill and the reconciliation framework that includes instructions for the House Energy and Commerce Committee to find $880 billion in reductions to programs under its jurisdiction; passage of the Senate Budget framework that does not include such drastic reductions; and comments by Speaker of the House Johnson (R-LA) that any changes to Medicaid will not include caps on federal funding or changes to the state matching formulas.

“The Alliance is reassured by affirmations that the congressional majority will not pursue some of the most drastic proposals previously discussed as options for reducing federal expenditures. Our members will not support any policies that reduce access to essential home and community-based services for eligible individuals. As Congress continues to assess options to reduce federal spending, we encourage leaders to continue to look favorably on high-value services that reduce costs and improve participant satisfaction.

“Care in the home is a proven model that reduces costs and is preferred by patients and families. An independent evaluation of Money Follows the Person, a grant program that transitioned individuals from institutional settings to the community, found that total spending on older adults decreased by 20 percent during the first year and 27 percent during the second year following their move to the community.[1] If Congress wishes to seek opportunities to reduce spending, we recommend they advance care models that provide cost-effective care without limiting access to services.

“We also recognize that there are opportunities to strengthen program integrity and reduce instances of fraud, waste, and abuse in the health care sector. The Alliance supports actions that reduce fraud, waste, and abuse from bad actors without placing unnecessary burdens or unfairly punishing providers and beneficiaries who are acting in good faith. We look forward to working with Congress to advance policies that strengthen federal health care program oversight.

“Medicaid is a complex program and changes to one part of the statute may have unanticipated negative outcomes on other aspects of services, financing, or reimbursements. We encourage Congress to be extremely careful to avoid making changes that could lead to unintended outcomes. We stand ready to provide our expertise to help strengthen Medicaid for all individuals and providers.”

# # #

About the National Alliance for Care at Home

The National Alliance for Care at Home (the Alliance) is a new national organization representing providers of home care, home health, hospice, palliative care, and other health care services mainly delivered in the home. The Alliance brings together two organizations with nearly 90 years of combined experience: NAHC and NHPCO. NAHC and NHPCO have combined operations to better serve members and lead into the future of care offered in the home. Learn more at www.AllianceForCareAtHome.org.   

[1] https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/long-term-services-supports/downloads/mfpfieldreport21.pdf

Underlying Causes of Health Issues

Advocacy

by Kristin Rowan | Mar 13, 2025 | Advocacy, CMS, Outcomes, Regulatory

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

Underlying Causes of Health Issues

Underlying causes of health issues are common. Not all health issues come directly from infections, medical conditions, or genetics. Lifestyle, environmental factors, and social determinants can cause and/or increase the severity of health issues. Beginning in the winter of 2023, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services posted guidance on approving coverage for these social needs, acknowledging that they contribute to poor health outcomes. CMS named the social needs that could be covered by Medicaid, CHIP, Section 1115, and Home and Community Based Services. These include help finding new housing, one-time moving costs, eviction prevention, respite care, sober centers, home improvements, meals, and case management.

Guidance Rescinded

CMS referred to both the 2023 and 2024 documents as “Center Informational Bulletins” (CIB) meant as guidance, not rule of law. The 2024 document provided updates and clarifications to the 2023 document. According to the statement from CMS, dated March 4, 2025, they have rescinded both CIBs “to evaluate policy options consistent with Medicaid and CHIP progam requirements and objectives.” Moving forward, CMS will consider each application to cover these services on a case-by-case basis using the Social Security Act, not the HRSN Framework or the CIBs.

Opposition

Former chief medical officer of the US Medicaid program Andrey Ostrovsky, MD, FAAP said that removing coverage for social determinants of health will harm patients and taxpayers.

Sen Ron Wyden (D, Oregon) agrees, stating that addressing the underlying causes of health issues is key to keeping America healthy.

Underlying Causes of Health Issues Andrey Ostrovsky

“It’s unlikely we see an easy, smooth approval process for such services moving forward….I think that the bar to getting it approved will be higher. States are going to have to make individualized decisions around where their priorities are and where they want to continue to focus on expansion — and maybe focus a little bit more on cost constraint and financially effective services under the new administrative priorities.”

Damon Terzaghi

Senior Director of Medicaid Advocacy, National Alliance for Care at Home

On the Other Hand

Despite the opposition to this change, there does seem to be some validity to the move. There should be some discussion about where Medicaid services should end and another department begins. The question here is whether a different federal program should be providing coverage for these social determinants of health. According to Terzaghi, this could be the beginning of an improvement to the system, rather than the dismantling of it.

Final Thoughts

The changes coming out of D.C. recently seem to be coming like rapid fire. See this weeks related press release on the continuing resolution passed by Congress. As with most of these edicts, executive orders, and other changes, the long-term impact and the eventual goal remain to be seen. We will continue to follow these and other stories as new information becomes 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 .She also has a master’s degree in business administration and marketing and 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

ATA Applauds Telehealth Inclusion

Advocacy

by Rowan Report | Mar 13, 2025 | Advocacy, CMS, Partner News, Regulatory, Telehealth

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Gina Cella
781-799-3137
gcella@americantelemed.org

ATA ACTION APPLAUDS INCLUSION OF MEDICARE TELEHEALTH FLEXIBILITIES IN DRAFT CONTINUING RESOLUTION, URGES CONGRESS TO REINSTATE PROVISIONS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE

WASHINGTON, D.C., MARCH 8, 2025 – ATA Action, the advocacy arm of the American Telemedicine Association, today praised Congress for including Medicare Telehealth Flexibilities and the Acute Hospital Care at Home Program in the draft Continuing Resolution (CR) released today by appropriators. These critical provisions, which were originally implemented under President Trump’s leadership in his first term, will now remain in place through September 30, 2025, ensuring that millions of Americans continue to have access to high-quality, convenient, and affordable care.

“We appreciate Congress taking action to prevent a lapse in these vital telehealth flexibilities. While we would have preferred a longer extension, this step ensures uninterrupted access to telehealth services for patients and clinicians, as we continue working toward permanent solutions that reflect the needs of modern healthcare.”

Kyle Zebley

Executive Director, ATA Action

“But there remains work to be done. The CR must still be passed by Congress, and its path forward remains uncertain,” Zebley noted. “However, we are encouraged that, this past week, we submitted a detailed letter to House and Senate Appropriations Committee leaders, expressing urgency in extending these essential provisions, and clearly Congress listened and is responding to the needs of patients and the healthcare community, for which we are deeply grateful.”

Eliminated Coverage

However, key provisions – including first-dollar coverage for High Deductible Health Plan-Health Savings Accounts (HDHP-HSA), telehealth as an excepted benefit, an expanded Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program (MDPP) that would include telehealth components, and expanded, in-home cardiopulmonary rehabilitation services – were once again left out of the final CR, as they were at the end of 2024. These essential provisions now remain expired, leaving millions of Americans without the telehealth coverage they need.

“We strongly urge Congress to reinstate these provisions as soon as possible,” Zebley said. “Every day these flexibilities remain lapsed is another day that patients cannot access the care they need, employers struggle to provide affordable coverage, and critical gaps in healthcare widen.

“Telehealth remains a bipartisan issue, and we deeply appreciate the longstanding leadership of President Trump, who put these provisions in place during his first term, as well as our policy champions in Congress,” Zebley added. “We will continue to work in earnest with the administration and lawmakers to solidify telehealth as a lasting pillar of American healthcare.”

# # #

About the ATA

As the only organization completely focused on advancing telehealth, the American Telemedicine Association is committed to ensuring that everyone has access to safe, affordable, and appropriate care when and where they need it, enabling the system to do more good for more people. The ATA represents a broad and inclusive member network of leading healthcare delivery systems, academic institutions, technology solution providers and payers, as well as partner organizations and alliances, working to advance industry adoption of telehealth, promote responsible policy, advocate for government and market normalization, and provide education and resources to help integrate virtual care into emerging value-based delivery models.

About ATA Action

ATA Action recognizes that telehealth and virtual care have the potential to transform the healthcare delivery system by improving patient outcomes, enhancing the safety and effectiveness of care, addressing health disparities, and reducing costs. ATA Action is a registered 501c6 entity and an affiliated trade organization of the American Telemedicine Association (ATA).

© 2025 This press release was submitted to The Rowan Report by ATA Action via prnewswire.com and is reprinted here with permission. For additional information, please see the contact information above.

Update on Public Participation in Rule Making

Advocacy

by Kristin Rowan | Mar 13, 2025 | Advocacy, CMS, Medicare Advantage, Regulatory

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

Update

Last week, we reached out to some of our contacts for responses to this change.

Former President of NAHC and current Senior Counsel at Arnall Golden Gregory Bill Dombi said:

It is difficult to discern the impact of the rescission of the waiver. One concern is whether the administration considers Medicaid a grant or benefit program thereby exempting it from APA public notice and comment rulemaking.

With respect to Medicare, if it is considered a benefit, there is still a Medicare statutory requirement of public notice and opportunity for comment through formal rulemaking that should effectively nullify the practical impact of the rescission of the waiver. All that said, we will need to see more before being to judge the impact.

Frequent guest author and Fellow, American Healh Law Association, Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq. had this to say:

Recission of the Richardson Waiver is not good news for providers.

Many federal agencies voluntarily committed to give notice and comment for actions that otherwise would be exempt. The US Department of Health and Human Services was one of the federal agencies that adopted this policy in October, 1970, in a memorandum commonly referred to as the “Richardson Waiver.” This policy was published in the Federal Register in 1971. HHS did not, however, promulgate the Waiver through notice and comment rulemaking.

The open process of give and take between agencies and providers under the Richardson Waiver resulted in resolution of important issues relatively informally. Now it appears that only policies mandated by statute will go through the rulemaking process. In other words, opportunities to resolve issues without formal resolution will be compromised.

The recission of the Waiver may also make administration of both the Medicaid and Medicare programs more complicated and less effective, especially in view of US Supreme Court decisions that say everything that hasn’t gone through the notice and comment process is not binding on providers.

# # #

Below is the original article, published March 6, 2025

Public Participation Rescinded

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires that an agency public a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register; allow sufficient time for public participation via written data, views, or arguments; and then publish a final rule. Matters relating to agency management, personnel, or public property; loans, grants, benefits, or contracts; and for “good cause” are exempt from the reporting requirements. The Richardson Waiver, adopted in 1971, waived the exemption and instructed agencies to use the good cause exemption sparingly. Effective immediately, the Richardson Waiver is rescinded.

“The policy waiving the statutory exemption…imposes on the Department obligations beyond the maximum procedural requirements specified by the APA, adds costs [that] are contrary to the efficient operation of the Department, and impedes the Department’s flexibility to adapt quickly to legal and policy mandates.”

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services

What it Means

Public participation is now optional. Agencies and offices of the Department of HHS can, if desired, use the public notice and comment procedures for these matters, but are no longer required to do so. The Department will continue to follow these procedures in all circumstances in which they are required to do so.

Law firm Hogan Lovells, experts in healthcare law, wrote about the potential implications for the health care industry in a recent blog post. According to the firm, it is unclear how HHS will interpret the “benefits” portion of the exemption. HHS, and specifically CMS, currently uses the notice and comment procedure for various benefits programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. Secretary Kennedy’s statement clearly calls out the limitation in impacting any other law requiring notice and comment periods.

Public Participation in Medicare Rules

Hogan Lovells indicates that few if any policies written under the Medcare Act will be impacted by this change. The Medicare Act operates under additional rulemaking requirements under section 1871(a) of the SSA. Additionally, Azar v. Allina Health Services, 587 U.S. 566 (2019) confirms that Medicare rulemaking is independent from the APA. Some policies are currently exempt from the notice and comment obligations under the Medicare Act and will remain exempt.

Public Participation in Medicaid and CHIP rules

Medicare and CHIP fall under Title XIX of the SSA, which does not contain its own notice and comment requirements separate from the APA. HHS has used the APA notice and comment rules for many of the changes made to the Medicaid program. HHS could interpret the “benefits” clause as exempting Medicaid changes from the rule. Hogan Lovells states it is currently unclear whether HHS will take this route. They also purport the courts have not ruled on whether APA excludes Medicaid from the notice and comment requirements, and may not agree with that exclusion. Until the term “benefits” is better defined, Medicaid, CHIP, the insurance exchange marketplace, and TANF, among others, may be impacted.

Department of Veterans Affairs

A notable exception to these changes is the rulemaking in the Department of Veterans Affairs as it relates to the Veterans Health Care act of 1992. This program implemented Federal contractor requirements that established pricing and contracting standards for drug manufacturers. The VA policies and rules have historically been enacted using guidance letters, avoiding the rulemaking process altogether.

Final Thoughts

There is too much that is yet unknown regarding this change to understand its full impact. There will be immediate changes, court rulings, further changes, and likely a lot of advocacy from national organizations fighting for transparency for Medicare, Medicaid, and other “benefit” programs. This will be an ongoing story and The Rowan Report will bring updates as they happen.

# # #

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 .She also has a master’s degree in business administration and marketing and 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

Humana Thyme Agreement

Clinical

by Kristin Rowan | Mar 7, 2025 | Clinical, Hospice, Medicare Advantage, Regulatory

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

Palliative Care for Medicare Advantage Members

Cancer is one of the highest leading causes of death in the United States, second only to heart disease. The challenges for cancer patients are not only physical, but emotional and financial as well. The consequences of these challenges are often devastating to the patient and their families. Providing additional care, support, and pharmaceutical interventions through value-based care can improve patient outcomes and reduce out-of-pocket costs.

Thyme Care

Thyme Care is a Nashville-based cancer treatment center that operates in seven states. The centers provide not just treatment, but cancer care navigation, designed to work within the value-based framework, keeping the patient at the center of care. Thyme Care includes an oncology care team, a patient app with multiple resources and 24/7 access to support. Patient surveys track symptoms and reduce barriers to care. This approach combines cancer treatment and palliative care for whole-person cancer care support.

Palliative Care

Palliative care works alongside medical care to improve the quality of life for the patient, addressing physical, emotional, and spirtual needs. Strictly speaking, it is not medical care, and not specifically covered by most insurance plans. The out-of-pocket costs for palliative care can be extremely high, making this kind of care an inaccessible amenity for most patients.

Value-Based Care

Value-based care reimburses care providers partially based on patient outcomes and patient satisfaction. Providers also share the financial risk of care with health insurance companies. Care providers who can both improve outcomes and patient satisfaction can be reimbursed more through health insurance plans, which can cover the costs of palliative care, even when it is not explicitly covered by the plan.

Humana

Humana is a payer with plans for Medicare, Medicaid, and Individual/Family beneficiaries. The Medicare Advantage value-based care plans allow Humana to disperse payments for covered services in partnership with care provider teams across a patient’s care journey. The better the outcome and satisfaction, the more Humana can pay a provider for care. Better outcomes often means reduced hospital visits, a longer time at home before requiring skilled nursing facilities, and lower costs.

Humana Thyme Palliative Care Collaboration

The recently announced partnership between payer and provider will give eligible patients access to palliative care support as part of the whole-person cancer care navigation provided by Thyme. Humana patients can also receive, as needed, 24/7 virtual care, medication guidance, symptom management, chronic condition management, community-based resources, financial assistance, transportation, food assistance, and/or access to stable housing.

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. She also has a master’s degree in business administration and marketing and 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

Prior Authorization Requirement Removed by UnitedHealthcare

Clinical

by Kristin Rowan | Mar 7, 2025 | Clinical, CMS, Medicare Advantage, Regulatory

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

Easier Access to Home Health

Prior authorization requirements can be cumbersome, delaying or even preventing care in some cases. Patients who need prior authorization to get he care they need also generally have form after form to fill out or to have completed by their PCP or hospital physician, who doesn’t have time for adequate visits, much less more paperwork.

As part of their ongoing efforts to reduce prior authorization volume by 10%, UnitedHealthcare has just announced a change in their home health services requirements.

Limits on Where Changes Apply

Beginning April 1, 2025, UHC will no longer require prior authorization or concurrent reviews for home health services managed by Home & Community (formerly naviHealth). This is the next step in an ongoing effort to modernize the authorization process and simplify health care for its members and providers.

These changes will apply to Medicare Advantage and Dual Special Needs Plan (D-SNP) beneficiaries in 36 states and the District of Columbia.

Alabama
Alaska
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida*
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas

Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Nebraska
Nevada
New Mexico
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon

Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee*
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Washington, D.C.

*In Florida and Tennessee, the changes will not apply to D-SNP plans that are not managed by Home & Community.

Prior Authorization Additional Information

You should continue to request prior authorization and concurrent review through March 31, 2025. UHC reminds all providers that following CMS guidelines for providing home health care services is still required. And in states where a Medicare denial is required to get Medicaid prior authorizations, providers should submit their requests through the UHC provider portal.

The available information on this pending change is limited. We will provide updates should they become available. Please contact UHC directly through the provider portal if you have specific questions.

# # #

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 .She also has a master’s degree in business administration and marketing and 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

BREAKING NEWS: Kennedy Rescinds Public Participation in Rule Making

Advocacy

by Kristin Rowan | Mar 7, 2025 | Advocacy, Breaking News, CMS, Medicare Advantage, Regulatory

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

Public Participation Rescinded

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires that an agency public a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register; allow sufficient time for public participation via written data, views, or arguments; and then publish a final rule. Matters relating to agency management, personnel, or public property; loans, grants, benefits, or contracts; and for “good cause” are exempt from the reporting requirements. The Richardson Waiver, adopted in 1971, waived the exemption and instructed agencies to use the good cause exemption sparingly. Effective immediately, the Richardson Waiver is rescinded.

“The policy waiving the statutory exemption…imposes on the Department obligations beyond the maximum procedural requirements specified by the APA, adds costs [that] are contrary to the efficient operation of the Department, and impedes the Department’s flexibility to adapt quickly to legal and policy mandates.”

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services

What it Means

Public participation is now optional. Agencies and offices of the Department of HHS can, if desired, use the public notice and comment procedures for these matters, but are no longer required to do so. The Department will continue to follow these procedures in all circumstances in which they are required to do so.

Law firm Hogan Lovells, experts in healthcare law, wrote about the potential implications for the health care industry in a recent blog post. According to the firm, it is unclear how HHS will interpret the “benefits” portion of the exemption. HHS, and specifically CMS, currently uses the notice and comment procedure for various benefits programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. Secretary Kennedy’s statement clearly calls out the limitation in impacting any other law requiring notice and comment periods.

Public Participation in Medicare Rules

Hogan Lovells indicates that few if any policies written under the Medcare Act will be impacted by this change. The Medicare Act operates under additional rulemaking requirements under section 1871(a) of the SSA. Additionally, Azar v. Allina Health Services, 587 U.S. 566 (2019) confirms that Medicare rulemaking is independent from the APA. Some policies are currently exempt from the notice and comment obligations under the Medicare Act and will remain exempt.

Public Participation in Medicaid and CHIP rules

Medicare and CHIP fall under Title XIX of the SSA, which does not contain its own notice and comment requirements separate from the APA. HHS has used the APA notice and comment rules for many of the changes made to the Medicaid program. HHS could interpret the “benefits” clause as exempting Medicaid changes from the rule. Hogan Lovells states it is currently unclear whether HHS will take this route. They also purport the courts have not ruled on whether APA excludes Medicaid from the notice and comment requirements, and may not agree with that exclusion. Until the term “benefits” is better defined, Medicaid, CHIP, the insurance exchange marketplace, and TANF, among others, may be impacted.

Department of Veterans Affairs

A notable exception to these changes is the rulemaking in the Department of Veterans Affairs as it relates to the Veterans Health Care act of 1992. This program implemented Federal contractor requirements that established pricing and contracting standards for drug manufacturers. The VA policies and rules have historically been enacted using guidance letters, avoiding the rulemaking process altogether.

Final Thoughts

There is too much that is yet unknown regarding this change to understand its full impact. There will be immediate changes, court rulings, further changes, and likely a lot of advocacy from national organizations fighting for transparency for Medicare, Medicaid, and other “benefit” programs. This will be an ongoing story and The Rowan Report will bring updates as they happen.

# # #

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 .She also has a master’s degree in business administration and marketing and 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

Special Focus Program Ends

Advocacy

by Kristin Rowan | Feb 20, 2025 | Advocacy, CMS, Hospice, Regulatory

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

Special Focus Program Not Well Received

When the Hospice Special Focus Program (SFP) first appeared, the industry was told the program would help CMS identify and improve the performance of hospice providers that were struggling to meet quality standards. CMS developed the program to strenthen oversight, promote quality improvements, and ensure compliance for underperforming hospice agencies.

Soon after its inception and implementation in 2022, numerous concerns emerged. The National Alliance for Care at Home (then NAHC and NHPCO) voiced concerns over the program’s reliance on incomplete data as well as the potential for the program to unfairly targed providers in underserved communities.

Between February 2020 and January 2025, numerous state and national organizations have introduced Hospice Acts to Congress, given feedback to CMS on improvements to SFP, and filed lawsuits against the CMS.

Ramping Up the Opposition

In mid-2024, following the Council of States meeting, monthly opposition to the SFP became standard:

The McDermott Report highlighted significant flaws in the algorithm used for the program. Again, there was an objection over the use of incomplete and inconsistent data.
Bi-partisan Congress members sent a letter to CMS requesting revisions to SFP, criticizing outdated survey data and suggested that the quality metrics were inappropriately weighted.
Alliance CEO Steve Landers publicly criticized the implementation of SFP in his op-ed.
Representatives introduced Bill H.R. 10097 to delay SFP implementation, stating it would give CMS time to address the problems with the program and ensure fair application of standards for low-performing hospices without impacting quality programs.
The Texas Association for Home Care & Hospice; Indiana Association for Home & Hospice Care; Association for Home & Hospice Care of North Carolina; South Carolina Home Care & Hospice Association; and Houston Hospice filed a lawsuit challenging the SFP as unlawful and arbitrary.

CMS Backs Down

This week, CMS announced that it has paused the implementation of SFP for the calendar year 2025. The CMS statement say the pause will allow CMS to “further evaluate the program.” There is no mention of the opposition or the ongoing lawsuits.

The hospice special focus program page on the CMS website reads:

Effective February 14, 2025, implementation of the Hospice Special Focus Program for CY 2025 has ceased so that CMS may further evaluate the program. Please contact QSOG_Hospice@cms.hhs.gov for policy questions.

All additional information about the program has been removed from the website page.

Special Focus Program gets First Positive Feedback

For the first time since 2020, industry leaders are applauding a CMS move regarding SFP. The move is halting the program altogether, but at least its positive feedback.

“This decision is a positive move acknowledging that the current approach is not working as intended. The hospice community has long advocated for strong oversight and patient protections, but the SFP, as implemented, was deeply flawed, unlawful, and harmful to the very patients it was meant to protect.”

National Alliance for Care at Home

You can read the full statement from The Alliance in their press release.

Final Thoughts

It seems it is not often that CMS hears what the industry tells them. Reimbursement rates continue to drop, documentation is increasingly complex, and the industry has suffered from their misconceptions about what we need. This time, at least, there was enough pressure and advocacy from Congress and from you, the people who are impacted daily by their decisions, to cause them to rethink this program. Keep up the good work and continue to advocate for yourself and for care at home. Perhaps this is not the last time CMS will listen.

# # #

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 .She also has a master’s degree in business administration and marketing and 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

Perfect Storm

Admin

by Rowan Report | Feb 20, 2025 | Admin, Clinical, CMS, Regulatory

by Hannah Vale, CMO HealthRev Partners

Care at Home Industry Faces Perfect Storm

Industry Challenges in 2025

The care at home industry is grappling with an unprecedented crisis as staffing shortages, technological hurdles, and complex reimbursement models converge to create significant operational challenges. Industry experts warn that without immediate intervention, patient care could be severely impacted.

Staffing Crisis Reaches Critical Levels

The staffing shortage in home health care has intensified dramatically since the COVID-19 pandemic. Carole Carlson, Registered Nurse (RN), Administrator at Avant Home Care, is a veteran with 36 years of experience in the field. She reports unprecedented difficulty in recruiting registered nurses.

“We’re seeing a mass exodus of healthcare workers who have found remote work alternatives. This exodus has also led to a significant caregiver shortage, causing a decline in non-skilled care services.”

Carole Carlson

Administrator, Avant Home Care

RN Shortage

“The other issue is the RN shortage. This is our first time ever experiencing an RN shortage. We are not even getting applicants, whereas in the past we have always had nurses apply and were able to hire within a relatively short period of time,” Carlson added.

Michael Greenlee, Founder and CEO of HealthRev Partners, notes that the shortage is systemic, with insufficient new workers entering the field to meet growing demand. The situation is particularly dire in rural areas, where agencies face additional challenges in attracting and retaining staff.

Connectivity Issues on Top of Documentation Burden

The documentation requirements for home health care are proving to be a major source of burnout among nurses. Pointedly, in rural areas, the problem is exacerbated by poor connectivity:

Many patients still rely solely on landlines
Large areas lack cell coverage
Limited or no WiFi access is common

These issues often force nurses to complete documentation after hours, significantly impacting their work-life balance. Greenlee suggests that emerging satellite connectivity solutions could potentially address these issues in the future.

EMR Limitations

Electronic Medical Record (EMR) systems, while essential, present their own set of challenges. Agencies find that basic systems require multiple costly add-ons for full functionality.

Carlson identifies several gaps in current EMR systems:

Lack of built-in HIPAA-compliant dictation capabilities
Limited care plan template libraries requiring extensive manual input
Need for multiple add-ons to achieve full functionality

These limitations are forcing agencies to invest in additional software solutions, further straining already tight budgets.

Medicare Advantage Complicates Operations

The growing prevalence of Medicare Advantage plans is adding another layer of complexity to home health care operations. In one agency’s case, Medicare Advantage patients now represent 30% of their 160-patient census, equal to traditional Medicare patients. Each Medicare Advantage plan comes with different requirements, creating a significant administrative burden for agencies.

“Keeping up with the varying billing requirements across plans is a constant challenge for our small staff,” Carlson notes. “The need to maintain efficient workflows with clearinghouse and software updates for different payers is putting additional strain on already stretched resources”

Final Thoughts

As the care at home industry navigates these multifaceted challenges, experts stress the urgent need for comprehensive solutions to ensure the continued delivery of quality care to an aging population increasingly preferring to receive treatment at home.

# # #

Hannah Vale, M.Ed. is a dynamic leader bringing a wealth of experience and marketing innovation to her role at HealthRev Partners. Hannah is dedicated to helping post acute agencies streamline processes, optimize reimbursement, and embrace tech-driven solutions. She is recognized as an advocate for empowering agencies with the tools and knowledge they need to drive successful growth. A lifelong learner and former educator turned entrepreneur with a proven track record in launching and scaling businesses, passionate about creating impactful strategies that unite purpose and business. Hannah is also the co-host of the Home Health Revealed podcast, where she discusses industry insights and shares stories from experts in all things pertaining to home health, hospice, and palliative care. Hannah holds a Bachelors Degree in Education from Cleveland State University and a Masters in Educational Leadership from Evangel University.

©2024 by The Rowan Report, Peoria, AZ. All rights reserved. This article originally appeared in Healthcare at Home: The Rowan Report. One copy may be printed for personal use: further reproduction by permission only. editor@therowanreport.com

Treatment in Place from Emergency Medical Services

Clinical

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq. | Feb 14, 2025 | Clinical, Medicare Advantage, Regulatory

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.

Treatment in Place

Providers of services to patients in their homes are anecdotally familiar with situations in which patients need help at home, but do not qualify for home health services and have not arranged for or are unable to afford home care/private duty services. These patients need assistance, but do not need transport.

The Problem

The problem for Emergency Medical Services (EMS) is nonpayment for services if patients are not transported for services.

Can EMS Charge Without Transport

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has weighed in on whether local EMS can meet this need and bill patients’ insurance for treatment in place (TIP) services. The OIG has “blessed” the provision and billing of these services in Advisory Opinion No. 24-09 issued on November 21, 2024.

Treatment in Place Requirements to Bill Insurance

Specifically, the OIG says that EMS may provide services to patients in their homes or TIP services and bill Patients’ insurers if the following requirements are met:

Charges to patients’ insurers would be limited for emergency responses only.
Charges for TIP services must be based on the level of care furnished to patients and cannot exceed amounts currently claimed for payment for the same levels of care furnished in connection with ambulance transports.
Charges are made regardless of whether patients are enrolled in commercial insurance plans or federal health programs.
EMS accepts payment for TIP services from patients’ health insurances as payment in full.
Patients will not be billed for any cost-sharing amounts under patients’ health insurance, including federal health care programs for covered TIP services, regardless of whether they are residents or nonresidents of the county where TIP services are provided.
EMS cannot later claim cost-sharing amounts waived as bed debts for payments under federal health care programs or otherwise shift the burden of cost-sharing waivers onto federal health care programs, other payors, or individuals by, for example, balance billing.

Cost-Sharing

In light of the above, the OIG first acknowledged that the prohibition on waivers of cost-sharing under the federal anti-kickback statute (AKS) is applicable and that the requirements of a safe harbor that addresses waivers of cost-sharing amounts for municipally owned ambulances are not met by the proposed arrangement. The OIG also said that the proposed arrangement would result in remuneration in the form of cost-sharing waivers for TIP services and TIP services provided at no charge to patients. Consequently, remuneration provided implicates both the AKS and the Beneficiary Inducements CMP.

Risk

Nonetheless, the OIG concluded that the arrangement involves a low risk of fraud and abuse. In addition to the above requirements, the OIG concluded that neither Medicare Part B nor the State Medicaid Program currently covers TIP services; only a handful of Medicare Advantage Plans and some Medicaid Programs currently cover TIP services. This means that, in most circumstances, the arrangement will result in no costs to federal health care programs and, in fact, may reduce costs by avoiding ambulance transport or subsequent hospital care. Patients may also receive care more quickly and efficiently, and at more appropriate levels of care when they receive TIP services.

Treatment in Place Cost-sharing Waivers

Finally, according to the OIG, waivers of cost-sharing for TIP services or the provision of free TIP services are unlikely to affect patients’ decisions to use future emergency ambulance services reimbursed by federal health care programs.

Providers are increasingly aware that patients need a variety of services in their homes. The OIG has opened another door!

# # #

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.

©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

Medicare Advantage Lowers Home Health Care Use

Hospice

by Kristin Rowan | Feb 6, 2025 | Hospice, Medicare Advantage

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

End-of-Life Care in Medicare Advantage vs Traditional Medicare

Using research from CMS, researchers from Mt. Sinai in New York and Brown University in Rhode Island studied the data of adults aged 66 and older who passed away and had Medicare coverage in their final year of life. Included in the study were people potentially eligible for home health care and not in a nursing facility, hospital, or hospice care setting. Data from close to 1.8 million people was analyzed. The researchers identified whether the participants received home health care and how many days of end-of-life care they received.

Home Health Higher in Traditional Medicare

Of the nearly 1.8 million participants, the average age was 82. 51.5% were female and 36.5% were enrolled in Medicare Advantage. In the final year of life, home health care use was recorded at 37.5% for MA enrollees and 41.7% for traditional Medicare.

When the researchers looked at different demographic groups within the data sets, home health care usage was higher in traditional Medicare in most groups. However, among American Indian and Alaska Native groups, Medicare Advantage had a slightly higher rate of home health use at 37.9% compared with 37.1% in Traditional Medicare.

Conversely, in the Asian or Pacific Islander demographic, home health use rate was 32.6% in MA and 41.8% in TM. Similarly, the rate of use among the Hispanic group was 33% in MA and 44% in TM. Following a similar trend, in the non-Hispanic Black group home health usage in MA was 38.8% compared with 42.9% in TM. Likewise, among the non-Hispanic White group, home health use in MA was 37.9% versus 41.5% for TM. For those of unknown race, usage was 36.1% in MA compared with 40.1% in TM.

Days of Care Lower in Medicare Advantage

Home health users across all racial and ethnic demographic groups enrolled as Medicare Advantage beneficiaries had fewer days of care in home health than those enrolled in Traditional Medicare. The stand-out group in this part of the research was those of Hispanic descent, who averaged 81.9 days in home health care in Medicare Advantage compared with 111.9 days in Traditional Medicare.

Implications

The researchers indicated some limitations in the study, namely that data was pulled from pre-covid patients because of the changes in home health during covid. The study should be repeated with post-covid data. One of the researchers received personal fees while serving as a senior advisor to CMS. Another received personal fees as a section editor for UpToDate. A third researcher reported receiving personal fees from Abt and UpToDate.

Despite these limitations, the implications of the study show that end-of-life care is not the same between Medicare and Medicare Advantage patients. Medicare Advantage is largely operating on a Value-Based Purchasing Model. The fewer services the beneficiary receives, the more money the primary doctor, hospital, and payer keep. It is not surprising, therefore, that MA patients get fewer services for less time. Patients who switch from Traditional Medicare to Medicare Advantage, especially if they are your patients, should be informed that they are still eligible for home health care and hospice care, but they may have to ask for it.

# # #

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 .She also has a master’s degree in business administration and marketing and 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

Medicare Advantage Increase for Payers, not Providers

Artificial Intelligence

by Kristin Rowan | Jan 23, 2025 | Artificial Intelligence, Breaking News, CMS, Medicare Advantage, Regulatory

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

CMS Announces Medicare Advantage Pay Hike

On January 13, 2025, CMS announced its plans to increase payments to Medicare Advantage plans by 4.33%. Policy changes for Medicare Advantage and Part D include changes in how the agency calculates payments to health plans. A spokesperson from CMS said that the policy change provides access to affordable, high-quality care. The changes, however, don’t increase payments to the people actually providing the care, only to the payers.

Opposition

While major health plans across the U.S. were thrilled with the announcement and saw substantial stock price hikes immediately after, not everyone is on board. The American Medical Association (AMA) outlined how physicians who treat Medicare patients are getting pay cuts from CMS for the fifth year in a row. Meanwhile, HHS OIG released a report finding that MA insurers profited $7.5 billion from risk-adjusted payments in 2023.

“It’s unbelievable they’re giving insurance companies that had record profits an increase while at the same time cutting payment to physician practices that are struggling to survive. This contrast highlights the urgent need for Congress to prioritize linking payment to physician practices to the cost of providing care.”

Bruce Scott, M.D.

President, American Medical Association

Out-of-Pocket Cost Increase

In addition to the higher payments, the advance proposal includes an increase in the Part D deductible from $590 to $615. With this proposal, the out-of-pocket maximum will increase from $2,000 to $2,100 as well. Cost sharing after the deductible is reached but before the out-of-pocket max is reached will also increase. There is no increase for beneficiaries whose income is less than 100% of the Federal Poverty Level.

Coverage Increase

The CMS advance proposal calls for coverage and policy changes. Medicare and Medicaid programs will now cover anti-obesity medications. The plan imposes stricter rules on MA policies to prevent denial of reasonable and necessary services that would be covered under Medicare Part A and B. Finally, imposed guardrails on the use of AI. The guardrails will ensure AI systems are unbiased in patient care decisions. Additionally, the guardrails will ensure they do not perpetuate existing inequity in access to and receipt of medical services. The American Hospital Association appplauded this last change.

“The AHA commends CMS for taking important steps to increase oversight of 2026 Medicare Advantage plans to help ensure enrollees have equal access to medically necessary health care services. The AHA has previously raised concerns about the negative effects of certain Medicare Advantage practices and policies…that are more restrictive than Traditional Medicare and can compromise enrollee access to Medicare-covered services.”

Ashley Thompson

Senior Vice President, American Hospital Association

Changes are not Definite

Even though CMS has announced these changes to start in January, 2026, they are not set in stone. As of January 20, 2025, we are operating under anew administration and the changes under Trump have already started. CMS intends to continue it’s three-year plan to update the MA risk adjustment model and the implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act. However, it seems likely that the Inflation Reduction Act will be replaced with a different plan for inflation.

Jeff Davis, director of health policy at McDermott+ believes it is likely that Trump’s team will throw out the updates to MA and Part D as well as Biden’s proposed staffing mandate for SNFs. In the first 24 hours of his Presidency, Trump revoked both Biden’s “Strengthening Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act” and “Continuing to Strengthen Americans’ Access to Affordable, Quality Health Coverage” executive orders. He also rescinded the Drug Pricing Model executive order that covered obesity drugs, lowered the price of some drugs, and accelerated FDA approval for drugs that address unmet medical needs.

As Yet Unknown

As was to be expected, many of Trump’s initial 78 executive orders are already facing lawsuits from various entities. There are as of yet no definitive answers to changes in Medicare, Medicare Advantage, or other policies that impact healthcare and care at home. The Rowan Report will continue to follow these stories as they unfold.

# # #

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. She also has a master’s degree in business administration and marketing and 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

Whistleblower Case Impedes Lawsuits

CMS

by Kristin Rowan | Jan 16, 2025 | CMS, Medicare Advantage, Regulatory

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

Whistleblower Action

A United States District Court in Tampa, Florida ruled against a whistleblower action under the False Claims Act (FCA) against her former employer. In 2019, a family care physician filed a whistleblower, or qui tam, action against her employer for increasing the risk adjustment scores of Medicare Advantage patients in order to receive higher payments.

Whistleblower Protection

When an employee or person with information about a company’s wrongdoing, they can file a lawsuit against that company. Whistleblowers are protected under OSHA, EEOC, and several federal and state regulations against retaliation from their employer. A whistleblower, the person who brings evidence of wrongdoing to the court, is called a “relator.”

Before the Ruling

The False Claims Act is the first and one of the strongest whistleblower laws in the U.S. Under the FCA whistleblower rules, any private citizen can sue any individual, company, or other entity that is defrauding the government and recover damages and penalties on the government’s behalf. Whistleblowers also receive compensation when these suits are settled between 15% and 30% of the total proceeds. As the FCA has expanded since its passing in 1863, the law made it possible for anyone to serve as a whistleblower.

The Ruling

In the case noted above, the court ruled that FCA whistleblowers act as officers of the United States when they sue on behalf of the federal government. The decision reasoned that whistleblowers are appointing themselves as officers of the federal government by bringing these lawsuits.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution states that the President can appoint officers and officials to the government and that they require Senate approval for some of these. Cabinet appointments, judicial appointments, and other high ranking positions are often the subject of news stories during Senate hearings to confirm these appointments.

The court ruled that an FCA whistleblower becomes an officer of the federal government through self-appointment, violating the Appointment Clause of the Constitution. The court further ruled that the False Claims Act in itself is a violation of the Constitution, effectively nullifying the FCA, at least in Florida for now.

Widespread Implications

Any company who has lost a False Claims Act suit may now be able to challenge those rulings, using this case as precedent. However, there are some hoops they would need to jump in order to do so, depending on how this case is interpreted. Ironically, this case states that whistleblowers cannot be officers of the government without appointment, but if that’s true, then all False Claims Act decisions become easier to challenge.

If this decision stands and is adopted as precedent across the U.S., it could completely nullify the False Claims Act. It may even be considered for a Supreme Court ruling. In 2023, the U.S. government recouped $2.6 billion from FCA suits, nearly $2.3 billion of which were claims brought by whistleblowers.

Care at Home Implications

Medicare and Medicare Advantage are rife with fraudulent claims, “coding intensity“, upcoding, and predatory marketing. In 2024, CMS announced changes to the risk adjustment model in the Risk Adjustment Validation Final Rule after seeing higher-than-expected risk scores. The changes could help CMS recoup up to $4.7 billion in the next ten years.

MedPAC estimates that Medicare Advantage plans received as much at $88 billion in excess payments in 2024. The lowest share of overpayment reimbursement through the Fraudulent Claims Act would give whistleblowers a combined $13.2 billion. Eliminating the FCA may discourage employees and contractors from reporting fraudulent claims and overbilling through Medicare and Medicare Advantage.

Final Thoughts

A safeguard for people trying to do the right thing, a means to save the federal government billions of dollars that can be spent elsewhere, and ultimately better care for patients are all at risk if the FCA is struck down. A law that has been in place for more than 150 years should carry more weight than the ruling of one district court who applies a new definition to a long-standing term.

Whistleblowers and the federal government have generally been considered co-defendants in these suits. Two parties with separate interests in the same suit, acting independently, not a joint case like a class action suit would be. I anticipate an appeal on this decision and hopefully a panel of judges who better understand the necessity of the False Claims Act and the Whistleblower provisions.

# # #

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 .She also has a master’s degree in business administration and marketing and 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

Congress Allows Medicare Advantage to Deny Coverage

Advocacy

by Kristin Rowan | Jan 9, 2025 | Advocacy, Editorial, Medicare Advantage, Regulatory

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

Medicare Advantage Bill Dies in Congress

The 118th United States Congress, ran from January 3, 2023 to January 3, 2025. This Congress’s first law was passed on March 20, 2023, much later than most previous congressional sessions. In its first year, it passed only 34 bills. In the two years of this congressional run, the 118th passed 209 public laws, almost half the average since 1989. Among the many bills that died on the floor before time ran out was the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (H.R. 8702/S. 4532). Senate and House members introduced the bill on June 12, 2024.

Improving Seniors' Timely Access to Care

In June of 2024, senators and representatives introduced bipartisan legislation that would have curbed Medicare Advantage’s ability to deny claims. The bill included language that allowed CMS the authority to establish standard timeframes for electronic prior authorizations requests including expedited requests and real-time decisions for routinely approved services. The bill also included requirements for transparency and reporting, including:

- establishing an electronic prior authorization process
- establishing a process for real-time decisions for routine services
- providing more detailed reports on use of prior authorization including
  - rates of approvals
  - denials
  - average time for approvals
- pressing Medicare Advantage providers to incorporate input from health care providers on their authorization processes and decisions
- adopting prior authorization programs that adhere to evidence-based medical guidelines
- requiring Medicare Advantage providers to report on the percentage of denied claims that were later overturned

Overwhelming Support

At the time this bill was reintroduced to Congress in June, 135 House co-sponsors and 44 Senate co-sponsors signed on. By the end of July, the bill had been read, sent to the House Ways and Means Committee, and passed. Representative Mike Kelly (R-PA) noted that more than 500 organizations had endorsed the act.

Urgent Need for Change

In early 2024, an audit from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) revealed that Medicare Advantage plans eventually approve 75% of authorization requests for services that were initally denied. More recently, HHS OIG released a report showing that MA plans incorrectly denied services to beneficiaries even though they met the requirements for coverage. Following the report, HHS OIG made the following recommendations to CMS:

- issue new guidance on the use of MAO clinical criteria in medical necessity reviews
- update audit protocols for Medicare Advantage to address the issues of MAO use of clinical critera and examining service types
- direct MAOs to indentify and address the causes for manual review errors and system errors.

CMS agreed with all three recommendations.

Dead in the Field

Despite the bipartisan, bicameral support of this much needed overhaul of Medicare Advantage providers, the bill is currently in pile of unaddressed issues that the 118th Congress just didn’t get to. Despite having it in front of them for five months, and despite passing nearly half the legislation of the 17 most recent congressional sessions, the bill that would keep MA beneficiaries from waiting inordinate amounts of time for routine care will have to wait for the next session to resume. Let’s hope the 119th Congress is more productive.

# # #

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 .She also has a master’s degree in business administration and marketing and 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

Proposal to Update HIPAA Security Rule

CMS

by Rowan Report | Jan 9, 2025 | CMS, Partner News, Regulatory

HHS OCR Proposes Updates to the HIPAA Security Rule to Respond to Emerging Threats

by Paul F. Schmeltzer and John F. Howard, Clark Hill PLC

HHS Proposal

On Dec. 27, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued proposed updates to the HIPAA Security Rule to address evolving cybersecurity threats in healthcare. Introduced through a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), the substantial updates aim to enhance the protection of electronic protected health information (ePHI) while aligning the two-decade-old regulations with current technological advancements. These changes are especially crucial in a healthcare environment increasingly reliant on electronic health records (EHRs), online patient portals, telehealth platforms, and interconnected medical devices.

Since its adoption in 2003, the HIPAA Security Rule has served as the foundation for safeguarding ePHI. However, the healthcare landscape has changed dramatically with the rise of cyber threats like ransomware, phishing attacks, and hacking incidents that result in data breaches. OCR’s investigations into HIPAA compliance across the healthcare industry have also revealed significant inconsistencies, underscoring the need for updated regulations that provide clarity and enforceability.

Revisiting “Addressable” vs. “Required” Specifications

Among the most significant aspects of the proposed changes in the NPRM is the reconsideration of the distinction between “required” and “addressable” implementation specifications, a hallmark of the original Security Rule that has often caused confusion. Required specifications must be implemented as outlined, with no exceptions. Addressable specifications, on the other hand, give entities the flexibility to evaluate their feasibility and adopt alternative measures if implementing the original specification is deemed unreasonable or inappropriate. This flexibility has often been relied on by mid and small-sized HIPAA-covered entities in their compliance efforts.

The NPRM proposes eliminating the concept of “addressable” implementation specifications and making all implementation specifications required, with limited exceptions. This includes reclassifying encryption of ePHI at rest and in transit as a required specification, reflecting its essential role in mitigating cyber risks and its widespread availability. Previously, entities could justify not using encryption if they documented their rationale and implemented alternative measures. The proposed change eliminates this flexibility, simplifying compliance expectations and reinforcing encryption as a baseline safeguard for ePHI. This same change would follow for other specifications under the rule, highlighting OCR’s desire to strengthen and simplify the Security Rule.

Strengthened Administrative Safeguards

The NPRM introduces several enhancements to administrative safeguards to address modern security risks. Comprehensive risk analysis remains a cornerstone of HIPAA compliance, but the proposed updates add specificity to these requirements. Entities will be required to maintain a detailed inventory of all technology assets that interact with ePHI and map how ePHI flows within their systems. This mapping ensures visibility into where sensitive data resides and how it is accessed, helping organizations proactively identify and address vulnerabilities. The inventory and map would then be required to be reviewed every 12 months as part of an entity’s risk assessment and risk management processes.

Incident response planning is also emphasized. Entities must develop robust written plans that include protocols for detecting, containing, and recovering from cyberattacks or breaches. These plans should be regularly updated to align with emerging threats and best practices. Workforce training requirements are also expanded under the NPRM, with a focus on providing comprehensive and role-specific education. These programs must address unique vulnerabilities tied to specific job functions and be updated regularly to combat threats like phishing and social engineering.

Strengthened Physical and Technical Safeguards

Physical and technical safeguards also receive significant attention in the NPRM. To secure ePHI, physical access to facilities and devices must be tightly controlled through advanced measures such as biometric authentication, badge systems, and video surveillance. These controls aim to protect ePHI from unauthorized access, theft, or tampering.

The NPRM proposes a definition of the term “multi-factor authentication” (MFA) that entities would be required to apply when implementing the proposed rule’s specific requirements for authenticating users’ identities through verification of at least two of three categories of factors of information about the user, such as passwords combined with biometrics, to secure access to systems containing ePHI. Additionally, the NPRM encourages using advanced threat detection tools like intrusion detection systems, AI-powered anomaly detection, and real-time breach alerts to proactively address security risks.

Addressing Challenges for Small and Rural Providers

HHS recognizes the unique challenges faced by smaller healthcare providers, particularly those in rural and tribal areas, where resources for implementing complex security measures are often limited. The NPRM seeks to provide scalability, allowing entities to implement solutions proportional to their size and complexity. Tailored guidance and tools are expected to support these providers, and regional collaborations are encouraged to pool resources and expertise for improved cybersecurity.

Implications for Stakeholders

For healthcare providers and business associates, the proposed updates necessitate significant investment in technology, training, and compliance infrastructure. Allocating budgets for tools like encryption and MFA, revising and drafting policies and procedures, and updating vendor contracts to ensure alignment with new standards are critical steps. Failure to comply with these updated requirements could lead to stricter enforcement actions and penalties. Fortunately, the proposed changes also remove some of the guesswork needed to comply with the Security Rule. Making areas where investment is needed easier to identify.

Patients stand to benefit significantly from the proposed changes, as stronger protections for sensitive health information can help rebuild trust in healthcare systems. By reducing the frequency and severity of breaches, the NPRM supports greater patient engagement and the adoption of digital health technologies. Regulators, equipped with clearer enforcement guidelines, will be better positioned to ensure compliance and address violations effectively.

Alignment with Broader Cybersecurity Efforts

The proposed updates align with national and international cybersecurity frameworks, including the NIST Cybersecurity Framework and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). These alignments position the U.S. healthcare sector as a global leader in data security while promoting best practices like continuous monitoring, risk management, and strong encryption.

Implementation Timeline and Next Steps

The NPRM is to be published in the Federal Register on Jan. 6, 2025, after which a 60-day public comment period will follow. The final rule will take effect 60 days post-publication. Entities will have 180 days to achieve compliance, with additional time provided to update business associate agreements. The NPRM encourages stakeholders to provide feedback on the practicality and cost-effectiveness of the proposed changes during the comment period.

Conclusion: A Necessary Evolution in Cybersecurity

The proposed updates to the HIPAA Security Rule represent a critical step forward in securing ePHI against today’s sophisticated cyber threats. By reclassifying key specifications, enhancing safeguards, and providing greater clarity for compliance, the NPRM builds a robust framework for protecting both patients and providers. While these changes may pose challenges for some organizations, they are an essential evolution in safeguarding sensitive data in an increasingly digital world. As healthcare continues its digital transformation, these updates underscore the importance of cybersecurity as a cornerstone of quality care and public trust. Investment in a strong cybersecurity posture up front will prove valuable and ultimately save the entire healthcare industry in the long run.

# # #

This publication is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. The information in this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel. The views and opinions expressed herein represent those of the individual author only and are not necessarily the views of Clark Hill PLC. Although we attempt to ensure that postings on our website are complete, accurate, and up to date, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness.