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. 

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

 

Implementing QHINs Interoperability Part 4

Admin

by | Jul 18, 2025 | Admin, Interoperability, Regulatory

by Ben Rosen, Sr. Client Success Manager, Netsmart

Interoperability

What You Need to Know About Interoperability and How it Affects You: Part 4

For over two decades, tech companies and government agencies have been moving toward the goal of interoperability in healthcare technology. At long last, standards and protocols are in place—and continually being improved—to support open data exchange networks. As a result, healthcare providers, including human services, post-acute providers and specialty practices, have more opportunities to participate in alternative payment models and adapt more readily to the evolving payment landscape.

This is part four of a four-part series covering the forces that are driving interoperability, as well as the future vision of open networks, and what it all could mean to your organization. Read Part One Here; Read Part Two Here; Read Part Three Here.

Interoperability in Healthcare

QHIN Implementation, Use Cases, and Benefits

Qualified Health Information Networks (QHIN) can support a range of use cases, including treatment, payment, healthcare operations, public health reporting and patient access to their records. These are referred to as Exchange Purposes (XPs), and all QHINs must facilitate a request for this data. The difference lies with how QHINs facilitate those requests and provide that information to you as a participant. The data uses the same network that all QHINs have built too, but there is value in what your current technology vendor can do with the data.

Complete Information Supports Decision-Making and Compliance

By enabling data exchange, QHINs help ensure providers have access to complete, up-to-date information that has the potential to improve decision-making and reduce redundant tests. The Trusted Exchange Framework and Common Agreement™ (TEFCA) network also supports the exchange of more robust types of data than before, offering participants more holistic views of individuals to support a whole-person care approach.

A QHIN can help your organization stay compliant with interoperability mandates designed to align technology with regulatory requirements, such as the 21st Century Cures Act and TEFCA. As the data exchange landscape shifts toward a more regulatory-based landscape with TEFCA at the core, remaining in compliance with certification requirements becomes increasingly important.

Complete Information Interoperability QHIN

Preparing for TEFCA and QHIN Participation

As outlined in Part 3 of this blog series, getting the most out of joining a QHIN starts with assessing your current interoperability capabilities:

  • Identify gaps in your data exchange processes and data needs
  • Collaborate with your EHR vendor to ensure technical readiness and ensure they can accommodate the QHIN data to be used with your EHR
  • Explore QHIN options and compare their offerings for your current EHR features and functionality
  • Understand and create a plan for your organization to use or increase the use of FHIR-based integrations

Once you’ve determined which QHIN will work best for your organization, you can begin nailing down specifics and start planning implementation.

Costs, Implementation and Onboarding

Costs vary by QHIN vendor and may include membership fees, transaction fees and additional charges for optional services.

Onboarding typically includes:

  • Technical integration into your EHR
  • Staff training
  • Testing and validation of data exchange
  • Establishing compliance with TEFCA requirements/signing agreements to participate

Joining the TEFCA network is built into some existing integration processes and capabilities. There are legal agreements specific to TEFCA to sign, but all technical implementations are much easier to facilitate as an already existing EHR client, assimilating into already existing workflows.

Security and Privacy

QHINs are required to meet strict security and privacy standards under TEFCA, including compliance with HIPAA and other relevant regulations. All QHINs are HITRUST-certified and ensure robust security backing for all network transactions and therefore must have incident response and mitigation procedures in place in case of a security incident. It’s important to understand the full enterprise security plan for the QHIN you decide to use and how they protect all of their solutions/programs, not just QHIN.

It’s important to understand the full enterprise security plan for the QHIN you choose and how they protect all their solutions/programs, not just QHIN. Choose a partner with a robust history as an ONC-certified EHR vendor so your data is protected in all facets of exchange. Verify enterprise-wide security procedures and incident response plans.

Regulatory Benefits and Use Cases

By selecting a QHIN and participating in a nationwide interoperability framework, your organization can stay ahead of regulatory changes, improve patient outcomes and reduce the administrative burden of managing multiple data exchange partners. With the changing regulatory landscape, including the HTI-1 and HTI-2 rules, all ONC-certified vendors must abide by those parameters. TEFCA is taking a more central role in helping to prep organizations and users to be compliant with those regulatory standards. For this reason, QHINs with a rich history of ONC certification and who have regulatory staff will have an advantage.

Exchange Purposes

Under TEFCA, QHINs will facilitate the exchange of multiple types of data, referred to as Exchange Purposes (XPs). Initially, there were six core XPs that were revealed for TEFCA:

  • Treatment –To support the provision, coordination or management of healthcare among providers
  • Payment–For activities related to billing, claims and reimbursement under HIPAA
  • Healthcare Operations–For administrative, quality improvement and other operational functions
  • Public Health–To support public health authorities in disease surveillance, reporting and response
  • Government Benefits Determination – To help determine eligibility for government programs, such as Medicaid
  • Individual Access Services – To empower individuals to access their own health data securely and conveniently

These XPs have now been expanded to include subtypes that can be read about here, via the RCE approved resource and SOP. As mentioned previously, all QHINs will be required to support the exchange of these XP’s, and all participants of QHINs will be required to respond to Treatment and Individual Access Services. An important deciding factor when choosing a QHIN is to understand the workflows to receive this information into your EHR, as well as the capabilities to persist and action the information.

# # #

Interoperability Ben Rosen Netsmart
Interoperability Ben Rosen Netsmart

Ben Rosen is a senior client success manager and business unit owner for the interoperability solution suite at Netsmart. With more than a decade of healthcare experience, Ben has led numerous initiatives to integrate healthcare systems and enhance data sharing across the care continuum. His dedication to advancing healthcare interoperability drives his active involvement in industry initiatives and standards organizations, where he provides insight for frameworks such as HL7 FHIR, USCDI and others. Ben holds a Bachelor of Science in kinesiology from Kansas State University and a Bachelor of Science in nursing degree from the University of Nebraska Medical Center.

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

Bill to Strengthen Hospice

Admin

by | Jul 18, 2025 | Admin, Hospice, Regulatory

From the office of Earl L. “Buddy” Carter (R-GA)

Carter, Bera introduce Bill to Strengthen Palliative and Hospice Care Workforce

Reps. Earl L. “Buddy” Carter (R-GA) and Ami Bera, M.D. (D-CA) today introduced the Palliative Care and Hospice Education and Training Act (PCHETA), bipartisan legislation to invest in training, education, and research for the palliative care and hospice workforce, allowing more practitioners to enter these in-demand fields. 

Palliative and hospice care focus on providing comfort and quality of life improvements for those seriously ill, extending quality of life and reducing the length of hospital stays for many patients.

Earl L. "Buddy" Carter

“Caring for someone living with serious illness or at the end of their life is one of the most compassionate, selfless things one can do, and we must ensure that these heroes have the assistance, training, education, and tools available to provide the highest quality care possible. As a pharmacist, I understand the toll burnout takes on the health care industry, and I am committed to bolstering the workforce so nurses, doctors, and all health care workers can continue to pursue their passion for helping others.”

Earl L. "Buddy" Carter

(R-GA), U.S. House of Representatives

Ami Bera, M.D.

“As a doctor, I know how important it is to provide patients with comfort, clarity, and support when they’re facing serious illness,” said Rep. Bera. “The Palliative Care and Hospice Education and Training Act is a smart, bipartisan step to ensure more health care professionals are trained to deliver this kind of care. By expanding training programs and strengthening our health care workforce, we will make sure that patients and families have access to the care they need to manage pain, make informed decisions, and live with dignity.”

Workforce Shortage

In 2001, just 7% of U.S. hospitals with more than 50 beds had a palliative care program, compared with 72% in 2019. Those working in the field, 40% of whom are 56 years of age or older, report high rates of burnout, in response to the increasing number of patients requiring treatment. 

Reps. Carter and Bera’s bill, which has a Senate companion led by Senators Baldwin and Capito, alleviates these strains through workforce training, education and awareness, and enhanced research.

Widespread Support

“As we face a critical shortage of health professionals with expert knowledge and skills in palliative care, AAHPM applauds Representatives Carter and Bera for their leadership in introducing the Palliative Care and Hospice Education and Training Act to ensure all patients facing serious illness or at the end of life can receive high-quality care. We urge Congress to recognize the importance of a well-trained, interprofessional healthcare team to providing coordinated, person-centered serious illness care and to act now to build a healthcare workforce more closely aligned with America’s evolving healthcare needs. Advancing PCHETA will go a long way towards improving quality of care and quality of life for our nation’s sickest and most vulnerable patients, along with their families and caregivers.”

Kristina Newport, MD FAAHPM, HMDC

Chief Medical Officer, American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine

“Palliative care treats the whole person, not just the disease. Ensuring health care providers can be trained in this specialized, coordinated form of care and providing funding for robust public education through the Palliative Care Education and Training Act can help increase access to palliative care for cancer patients and make their cancer journey less difficult. We commend Reps. Carter and Bera for their leadership and steadfast commitment to palliative care and to improving quality of life for patients, including those impacted by cancer.”

Lisa A. Lacasse

President, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network

“Every person living with serious illness or facing the end of life deserves compassionate, expert care that honors their choices and helps them live comfortably on their own terms. The Alliance celebrates Representatives Carter and Bera’s leadership in introducing the Palliative Care and Hospice Education and Training Act, which will ensure families have access to the trained professionals they need during life’s most difficult moments. As our population ages, this critical investment in education and training will help us meet the growing demand for quality palliative and hospice care

Dr. Steve Landers

CEO, National Alliance for Care at Home

Supporting Organizations

Alzheimer’s Association, Alzheimer’s Disease Resource Center, Alzheimer’s Impact Movement, American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Physician Associates, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American College of Surgeons, American Geriatrics Society, American Heart Association, American Psychological Association, American Psychosocial Oncology Society, The American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, Association for Clinical Oncology, Association of Oncology Social Work, Association of Pediatric Hematology/ Oncology Nurses, Association of Professional Chaplains, The California State University Shiley Haynes Institute for Palliative Care, Cambia Health Solutions, Cancer Support Community, CaringKind, Catholic Health Association of the United States, Center to Advance Palliative Care, Children’s National Health System, Coalition for Compassionate Care of California, Colorectal Cancer Alliance, Courageous Parents Network, The George Washington Institute for Spirituality and Health, GO2 for Lung Cancer, The HAP Foundation, HealthCare Chaplaincy Network, Hospice and Palliative Nurses Association, LEAD Coalition, LeadingAge, The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, Motion Picture & Television Fund, National Alliance for Care at Home, National Alliance for Caregiving, National Brain Tumor Society, National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship, National Coalition for Hospice and Palliative Care, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, National Marrow Donor Program, National Palliative Care Research Center, National Partnership for Healthcare and Hospice Innovation, National Patient Advocate Foundation, National POLST Paradigm, Oncology Nursing Society, Pediatric Palliative Care Coalition, PAs in Hospice and Palliative Medicine, Prevent Cancer Foundation, Second Wind Dreams, Social Work Hospice & Palliative Care Network, Society of Pain and Palliative Care Pharmacists, St. Baldrick’s Foundation, Supportive Care Matters, Susan G. Komen, Trinity Health, West Health Institute, The Alliance for the Advancement of End-of-Life Care, Alzheimer’s Los Angeles, Alzheimer’s Orange County, Arizona Association for Home Care, Arizona Hospice & Palliative Care Organization, Association for Home & Hospice Care of North Carolina, California Association for Health Services at Home, The Center for Optimal Aging at Marymount University, Children’s Hospice and Palliative Care Coalition, Delaware Association for Home & Community Care, Florida Hospice & Palliative Care Association, Georgia Association for Home Health Agencies, Georgia Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, Granite State Home Health & Hospice Association (NH), Healthcare Association of Hawaii, Home Care Association of Florida, Home Care Association of NYS, Home Care Association of Washington, Home Care and Hospice Association of Colorado, Homecare and Hospice Association of Utah, Hospice and Palliative Care Association of Iowa, Hospice and Palliative Care Association of New York, Hospice Care and Kentucky Home Care Association, Hospice Council of West Virginia, Hospice & Palliative Care Federation of Massachusetts, Idaho Health Care Association, Illinois Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, Indiana Association for Home, Kokua Mau, LeadingAge California, LeadingAge Georgia, LeadingAge New Jersey/Delaware, LeadingAge Ohio, LifeCircle-South Dakota’s Hospice and Palliative Care Network, Louisiana Mississippi Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, Maryland-National Capital Homecare Association, Michigan HomeCare and Hospice Association, Minnesota Network of Hospice and Palliative Care, Missouri Alliance for Home Care, Missouri Hospice & Palliative Care Association, Nebraska Association for Home Healthcare and Hospice, Nebraska Home Care Association, Ohio Council for Home Care & Hospice, Ohio Health Care Association, Oklahoma Association for Home Care and Hospice, South Carolina Home Care & Hospice Association, The Oregon Hospice & Palliative Care Association, Texas Association for Home Care & Hospice, Texas ~ New Mexico Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, Virginia Association for Home Care and Hospice, VNAs of Vermont, The Washington State Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, and West Virginia Council for Home Care and Hospice.

Read full bill text here.

# # #

Earl L. Earl L. “Buddy” Carter is an experienced businessman, health care professional and faithful public servant. For over 32 years Buddy owned Carter’s Pharmacy, Inc. where South Georgians trusted him with their most valuable assets: their health, lives and families. While running his business, he learned how to balance a budget and create jobs. He also saw firsthand the devastating impacts of government overregulation which drives his commitment to ensuring that the federal government creates policies to empower business instead of increasing burdens on America’s job creators.

A committed public servant, Buddy previously served as the Mayor of Pooler, Georgia and in the Georgia General Assembly where he used his business experience to make government more efficient and responsive to the people. Buddy is serving his fifth term in the United States House of Representatives and is a member of the House Energy and Commerce (E&C) Committee and the House Budget Committee. As a pharmacist serving in Congress, Buddy is dedicated to working towards a health care system that provides more choices, less costs and better services.

A lifelong resident of the First District, Buddy was born and raised in Port Wentworth, Georgia and is a proud graduate of Young Harris College and the University of Georgia where he earned his Bachelor of Science in Pharmacy. Buddy married his college sweetheart, Amy. Buddy and Amy have three sons, three daughters-in-law and eight grandchildren.

Ami Bera, M.D. (D-CA)Congressman Ami Bera, M.D. has represented Sacramento County in the U.S. House of Representatives since 2013. The 6th Congressional District is located just east and north of California’s capitol city, Sacramento, and lies entirely within

Sacramento County.

During Congressman Bera’s twenty-year medical career, he worked to improve the availability, quality, and affordability of healthcare. After graduating from medical school in 1991, he did his residency in internal medicine at California Pacific Medical Center, eventually becoming chief resident. He went on to practice medicine in the Sacramento area, serving in various leadership roles for MedClinic Medical Group. Chief among his contributions was improving the clinical efficiency of the practice. He then served as medical director of care management for Mercy Healthcare, where he developed and implemented a comprehensive care management strategy for the seven-hospital system.

In Congress, Bera uses the skills he learned as a doctor to listen to the people of Sacramento County and put people ahead of politics to move our country forward. His priority is to work alongside people in both parties to address our nation’s most pressing challenges and make government work. Bera believes Congress should be a place for service, not for politicians who only look out to protect their own careers, pay, and perks.

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

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

 

Alliance Statement on House Passage of Reconciliation Bill

Advocacy

by | Jul 3, 2025 | Advocacy, Breaking News, Partner News, Regulatory

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:                                                       Elyssa Katz
571-281-0220
communications@allianceforcareathome.org

Medicaid Provisions Threaten Home and Community-Based Services for Millions of Vulnerable Americans

Alexandria, VA and Washington, DC, July 3, 2025. The National Alliance for Care at Home (the Alliance) issued the following statement today in response to the House’s passage of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” also known as the Reconciliation bill, which now heads to President Trump’s desk for his signature.

“The Alliance is deeply troubled by the Medicaid provisions within the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which has passed both chambers of Congress and now awaits President Trump’s signature,” said Alliance CEO Dr. Steve Landers. “These provisions—including work requirements, reduced provider taxes, and new cost-sharing mandates—prioritize short-sighted budget savings over the health and wellbeing of our most vulnerable citizens who rely on home and community-based services (HCBS).”

Dr. Steve Landers

CEO, The National Alliance for Care at Home

The Alliance Advocates for Care at Home

The home care community advocated throughout the legislative process for Congress to mitigate these harmful Medicaid provisions. The legislation will reduce state provider tax rates, cutting funding that states rely on to support HCBS programs. New work requirements and mandatory cost-sharing will also create administrative burdens for both providers and beneficiaries, likely resulting in coverage losses that extend beyond those directly targeted by these policies. Further, new limits on home equity for long-term care recipients will force older adults to sell their homes, leading to unnecessary institutionalization.

Continued Advocacy

“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,” said Dr. Landers. “We will continue to champion the delivery of HCBS – proven services that are preferred by beneficiaries and save the system money.”

Careful Consideration Needed

Landers CEO The Alliance Reconciliation Bill

The Alliance calls on federal and state officials to implement these new requirements with careful consideration of their impact on vulnerable populations and to work collaboratively with providers to minimize disruption to essential services.

# # #

About the National Alliance for Care at Home

The National Alliance for Care at Home (the Alliance) is the leading authority in transforming care in the home. As an inclusive thought leader, advocate, educator, and convener, we serve as the unifying voice for providers and recipients of home care, home health, hospice, palliative care, and Medicaid home and community-based services throughout all stages of life. Learn more at www.AllianceForCareAtHome.org.

© 2025 The National Alliance for Care at Home. This press release originally appeared on The Alliance website and is reprinted here with permission. For additional information or to request permission to print, please see the contact information above.

Follow our continuous updates on the bill passage, what it means for Medicare and Medicaid, and how the provisions of the bill will be rolled out in our accompanying article here.

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

HIPAA Compliance Voice Activation

Admin

by | Jun 27, 2025 | Admin, Artificial Intelligence, Regulatory

by Curantis Solutions

HIPAA Compliance for Voice Activated Technology

HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) compliance is critical in the healthcare field, particularly regarding any technology that handles patient information, including HIPAA-compliant voice technology. Understanding the implications of HIPAA is essential for ensuring that innovations in healthcare technology do not compromise patient data privacy regulations.

Patient Privacy Protection

HIPAA enforces strict privacy protections for all patient data, including voice recordings and summaries. Voice recognition technology in healthcare must ensure that data is only accessible to authorized personnel. Any voice-activated system must adhere to HIPAA security measures for handling Protected Health Information (PHI).

Data Security Requirements

Voice-activated systems must implement safeguards to protect patient information from unauthorized access and breaches. This includes both physical and electronic security measures, such as:

Voice Activation HIPAA
  • Encryption
    • Data should be encrypted both in transit and at rest to prevent unauthorized access.
  • Access Controls
    • Systems must restrict access to only those who need to know, using multi-factor authentication and role-based permissions.
  • Audit Trails
    • Voice-activated technologies should log all access activity, tracking who accessed data, when, and what specific information was retrieved.

HIPAA Training Requirements for Voice-Activated Systems

HIPAA emphasizes the need for staff training and awareness regarding handling PHI in voice-recognition software. Training programs should cover:

  • Best Practices
    • Staff should be instructed on correct voice command usage to minimize accidental PHI disclosures in public or unsecured environments.
  • Identifying PHI
    • Employees should learn to recognize and protect sensitive patient data when interacting with voice-activated systems.

Data Minimization Principles

Under HIPAA, organizations should limit data collection to only what is necessary for specific tasks. This includes:

  • Minimal Data Handling
    • Only essential PHI should be processed and stored.
  • Anonymization Processes
    • Voice-activated systems should anonymize data when full patient identification is unnecessary, reducing security risks.

Incident Response Protocol

In the event of a data breach involving voice-activated patient summaries, organizations must follow HIPAA-compliant response steps:

  • Incident Reporting
    • Immediate breach investigation and reporting per HIPAA timelines.
  • Notification Requirements
    • Patients must be notified if their PHI has been compromised, along with steps taken to mitigate risks.

Summary

HIPAA compliance directly impacts how voice-activated patient summaries are implemented in healthcare. Ensuring compliance requires:

  • Robust data security measures
  • Thorough staff training
  • Strict vendor agreements
  • Comprehensive privacy protections

By aligning voice-activated patient summaries with HIPAA regulations, healthcare organizations can enhance patient care, safeguard sensitive information, and build trust with patients and families.

# # #

About Curantis Solutions

Curantis Solutions was founded on a desire to put hospice and palliative care first. We are dedicated to radically transforming standard electronic health records into a refreshingly simple and intuitive experience so that providers can keep their focus where it matters most – on the patients and families they serve. 

With a genuine culture of caring, we have assembled a team of highly talented individuals who are passion-driven and feel connected to their role in supporting the bigger mission of enabling high-quality end-of-life care. From forward-thinking technologists to hospice and palliative care experts, and every role in between, our team works with great integrity, accountability and responsiveness to bridge the latest technology with smart design to keep patient care at the center of what we do.

©2025 This article was originally published by Curantis Solutions and is reprinted with permission. For additional information or to request permission, contact Curantis Solutions.