Injunctions Overturned

CMS

by Kristin Rowan | 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 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 Kristin Rowan | 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.

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.

# # #

Planned Parenthood Cut Halted

CMS

by Kristin Rowan | 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.

# # #

Alliance Statement on House Passage of Reconciliation Bill

Advocacy

by Rowan Report | 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 Kristin Rowan | 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

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

Contradictory Facts, as Listed by CMS

The finalized methodology used to calculate the impact of PDGM yielded the need for a -7.85% permanent adjustment
In CY 2023, 2024, and 2025, CMS implemented permanent adjustments of -3.925%, -2.890%, and -1.975%, respectively
The total permanent adjustment made in the last three years is -8.790% (0.940% more than the calculated adjustment need)
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%
This yields a combined -12.849% permanent adjustment over four years
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:

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
Change the face-to-face encounter policy by adding physicians to the list of who can perform the face-to-face
Removal of the “Up-to-date” on the COVID-19 vaccine percentage
Changing the Final Data Submissions Deadline Period from 4.5 months to 45 days
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

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.

# # #

Bill Cuts Medicaid Directly, Medicare Indirectly

Admin

by Tim Rowan | 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.

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 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

HIPAA Compliance Voice Activation

Admin

by Rowan Report | 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:

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.

Evaluating QHINs Interoperability 3

Admin

by Rowan Report | Jun 27, 2025 | Admin, Clinical, Interoperability, Regulatory

by Ben Rosen, Sr. Client Success Manager, Netsmart

Interoperability

What you need to know and how it affects you Part 3

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 three 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.

Interoperability in Healthcare

Evaluating QHINs for your Organization

As outlined in Part Two of this series, all Qualified Health Information Networks (QHINs) must apply and be accepted according to the baseline requirements outlined by the Trusted Exchange Framework and Common Agreement (TEFCA). While the rigorous testing and project tasks for each QHIN are the same, they may differ in services offered, geographic focus, technical capabilities, pricing and specific target markets. This blog will explore similarities and differences between QHINs, to provide insights that will arm organizations with the knowledge needed to make informed decisions about selecting a QHIN.

How to choose the right QHIN for your organization

As with any major business decision, consider what your organization is currently doing for data exchange and connectivity and how these factors are likely to change in the next 18 to 24 months:

The services you provide today and with whom you exchange data.
The communities you serve.

Prospective QHINs should have experience in serving the technology needs of the communities you serve and exhibit an understanding of how your service lines could impact the types of data transactions you use. If your strategic plan calls for expanding your services or community footprint – either organically or through partnerships with other providers – you’ll need to consider how your current needs will evolve and how that will affect your QHIN criteria.

QHIN candidates should have experience working with your electronic health record (EHR) vendor and be able to manage a smooth integration with your existing technology. Compatibility with your

EHR will help simplify implementation and further establish the network as a good fit for your organization. Integration capabilities of the QHIN should lend well to your current EHR build, such as being able to integrate the QHIN data directly to your EHR workflows.

Consider technical requirements

Each QHIN will have to build to and abide by the same standards for exchange via TEFCA. These requirements are outlined in the Common Agreement and the QHIN Technical Framework documents. Differentiation among QHINs will come from doing an analysis of your organization’s data exchange requirements and then determining how well they match up with the technical infrastructure and capabilities of the QHINs.

If your service lines require special consent practices or you do business in a state with strict data laws, it is paramount that your QHIN be technically capable of handling your most complicated information sharing needs from day one. Network

size and geographic coverage should also factor into your decision as well as the QHIN business itself. QHINs today fall into categories such as developer platforms, data exchanges, and EHRs.

Questions to ask your QHIN short list candidates

Use the previously mentioned factors to focus on your top candidates, then it’s time to start asking about specifics:

Cost structure and pricing

QHINs may charge a per-transaction fee for their connectivity services. The specific services they can charge for are outlined by TEFCA, but the amount they can charge is not. Be sure to ask about ongoing costs and transaction fees so you can accurately project costs.

Additional services, such as analytics or public health reporting

All QHINs can provide you with connectivity for data exchange. But you should also explore each QHIN’s ability to provide reporting, analytics and other value-added services that will help you relate that data to your organizational goals.

Customer support and ease of onboarding

Ask about the onboarding process, how long it typically takes and the level of support you can expect from start to finish.

Plans to implement FHIR

QHINs will all be held to the same FHIR (Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources) standards for exchange via TEFCA. When evaluating FHIR capabilities for QHINs, it’s important to understand what the QHIN’s strategy is around subscription services and bulk data access. This also ties into the consideration that even though a QHIN may support FHIR standards, you need to evaluate how well those pieces of information are actually integrated so you receive the information in a usable form.

Ongoing compliance with TEFCA and security standards

Technology companies must meet strict standards to become a QHIN. But you should also inquire about further monitoring and safety measures that guard against breeches of security and other concerns.

Total transactions and how different kinds of transactions are managed

Ask vendors for metrics around total transactions facilitated on their network and how they manage the different exchange types that are available via TEFCA. You also should find out ratio of errors to successes they have with their current network participants.

Final Thoughts

Due diligence is always essential whenever you choose technology. Scrutinizing all the factors outlined above for QHINs is particularly important because of the potential they will have for enhancing data sharing throughout your organization. In the final part of this blog series, we will explore actual QHIN use cases and the benefits they may offer.

Coming soon in Interoperability Part 4:QHIN implementation, use cases, and benefits.

# # #

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.

Medicaid Cuts Still Looming

Clinical

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

by Tim Rowan, Editor Emeritus

Medicaid Cuts Looming

Terminal Prognosis

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

Medicaid to the Rescue

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

One in 71 Million

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

Medicaid Pays More than Medicare

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

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

Medicaid Cuts Impact

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

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

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

Authors, What is Medicaid Home Care (HCBS)?

Medicaid Cuts Proposals

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

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

Higher Costs, Less Access

Home Care and the Work Requirement

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

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

Net Loss

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

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

Medicaid Cuts and Rural Hospitals

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

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

Medicaid Support in Congress

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

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

# # #

UnitedHealth Bribes Nurses

Medicaid

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

United Health Bribery Update

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

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

Buddy Carter

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

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

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

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

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

by George Joseph, The Guardian
Wed May 21, 2025

Revealed: UnitedHealth secretly paid nursing homes to reduce hospital transfers

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

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

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

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

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

Confidential Investigation

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

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

UnitedHealth Responds

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

Long-Term Profit

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

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

Seven Years of Bribery and Threats

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

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

Anonymous

Former National Executive, United Health

# # #

Fraudsters Arrested, Oz Issues Warning

CMS

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

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

Fraudsters Arrested, Oz Issues Warning

Fraud in California

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

Kickbacks

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

Medicare Claims

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

Dr. Oz Issues Warning

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

HHS OIG Issues Consumer Alert

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

Combating Waste, Fraud, and Abuse

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

A Cautionary Tale for Hospice Providers

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

# # #

Delay HOPE Tool

Advocacy

by Kristin Rowan | Jun 6, 2025 | Advocacy, CMS, Hospice, Regulatory

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

Advocacy Groups to CMS:

Delay HOPE Tool Implementation

“Delay HOPE Tool Implementation,” say multiple hospice advocacy groups. LeadingAge, the National Alliance for Care at Home (The Alliance), and the National Partnership for Healthcare and Hospice Innovation (NPHI) are urging CMS to delay the transition from HIS to HOPE. The three groups sent a joint letter to Dr. Mehmet Oz, CMS Administrator, earlier this week.

“Our associations remain fully committed to the [Hospice Quality Reporting Program (HQRP)], including the payment penalties for non-compliance, and recognize the critical importance of accurate, timely data submission to inform the delivery of high-quality hospice care. However, we have serious concerns about the potential for successful implementation of the HOPE tool.”

LeadingAge, The Alliance, NPHI

Hospice Advocacy

The concerns over agency readiness to implement the new tool center on the new reporting platform. Hospice agencies state they don’t have all the necessary information to develop a workable tool for submission. Therefore, the agencies have asked CMS to delay the implementation of the HOPE tool. They have called on CMS to wait until six months after agencies have access to education, training, and final validation specifications.

Hospice Rule Penalty

The hospice program through CMS requires substantial reporting for payment. Hospices that do not submit the required 90% of records, they receive an annual payment penalty of 4%. Combined with lower than sustainable payment increases, the 4% penalty results in a lower reimbursement rate over prior years. The associations worry that the lack of information and education will lead to lower reporting. In turn, the lower reporting lowers reimbursement rates. For hospices that are already struggling to survive, the penalty is devastating. The letter to CMS asked to waive the timeliness requirement for two quarters after implementation.

HOPE Tool Lacks Validation

CMS will have a Validation Utility Tool that agencies will need to use in order to ensure their software can successfully submit their data. CMS has not released the tool and indicates they may not until sometime in September. The HOPE tool is scheduled for implementation in October. There is not enough time between release of the validity tool and implementation of the HOPE tool for proper testing.

Hospice Agencies Lack Validation

In addition to validating data submission, hospice agencies have to enroll in the new submission portal, iQUIES. Enrollment requires a privacy security official and other staff. Additionally, it requires an application to access the system, background checks, and other actions. Thus far, hospice agencies do not have access to begin this process and there is no indication of how long it will take. The associations are concerned that the process may also involve significant financial cost to hospice agencies.

Resources

CMS released the Hospice Outcomes and Patient Evaluation (HOPE) Guidance Manual v1.01, a 138 page PDF, available here. The manual includes links to other resources for hospice agencies. Namely, a webpage with information on HOPE Data Submission Specifications has a “final” version of data specs available for download. Additionally, there are links to the Main Page here and technical information and updates here. The document urges vendors to register to get updates and important announcements.

Final Thoughts

There is no information yet as to a response to the letter from CMS. Thus far, CMS is still planning on keeping the October 1, 2025 HOPE implementation date. We will continue to report on updates from CMS and the advocacy groups.

# # #

Patient Data Access

Artificial Intelligence

by Kristin Rowan | May 29, 2025 | Artificial Intelligence, Interoperability, Regulatory

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

Access to Patient Data

Tighter than Fort Knox

Access to patient data has always been tricky, even for the patient. Every doctor’s office, hospital, urgent care center, home health agency, and nursing facility uses their own system to house medical records. With concerns over HIPAA violations, that data is secured, sometimes in several ways simultaneously. A breach in that system could spell big trouble for the medical agency and the software company that provided it. Even in the age of electronic medical records, it is difficult to access those records without proof of identity, a signature in triplicate, and an oath punishable by death that you are allowed access to the information. (Okay, I may be exaggerating on that last one just a bit.)

3rd Party Access

Even more difficult than accessing patient data as the patient or the patient’s doctor or caregiver is accessing the data as a service provider:

Consultants who help agencies with operational efficiency, documentation, software implementation, etc.
QAPI advisors who help with reporting and training
Data analytics companies who interpret information and provide meaning behind numbers.

Who Owns the Data?

One of the big questions in these cases is who owns the data. Each party seems to claim some ownership. Medical agencies believe they own the data because the information doesn’t exist without inputing it during a patient visit. Electronic medical records claim ownership based on housing the information in the system they created, designed, and built. I, along with many others I assume, believe the data belongs to the patient. It is being used by the medical agency to perform services and housed by the software company much like a storage facility. But, the information should travel with the patient.

It's a Bot!

Skilled nursing facilities and other providers often hire data analytics companies to help assess their business. One such company, Real Time, provides data analytics services using facility and patient data. Real Time accesses this data using log-in credentials provided by the facilities. Due to the volume of data and the time it takes to sift through a robust EHR system, Real Time uses bots to comb through the system and download the necessary information.

Roadblock

This system works well for analytics companies and consultants to access more data quickly and provide faster, more thorough answers to their clients. The system doesn’t work well when the software housing the data enables CAPTCHA on its log-in page. CAPTCHA is specifically designed to keep bots out. In 2022, PointClickCare started using CAPTCHA on users they thought were bots. In 2023, PointClickCare used images so indecipherable that even humans couldn’t solve.

Request Denied

Real Time was losing access to its accounts. Agencies were losing the data analytics they contracted to receive. Real Time and PointClickCare entered discussion to provide access to the data. Real Time alleges that the solutions PointClickCare agreed to would only allow access to 30% of the data needed. Additional negotiations ended without an agreement. It seems PointClickCare ended the negotiations.

Fight for Your Right to...Data

In January of 2024, Real Time sued PointClickCare claiming unfair competition and tortious interference, among others. A district court issued an injunction to stop PointClickCare from using indecipherable CAPTCHA images and from deactivating Real Time’s accounts. PointClickCare appealed the decision to the Fourth Circuit.

Interpreting the Law

The Fourth Circuit upheld the district court ruling. The significance in the ruling is that the court interpreted some previously ambiguous language in the Cures Act exceptions to the information blocking rules. Specifically, the court interpreted the phrase “cannot reach agreeable terms” to mean that both parties attempt to reach an agreement in “good faith” using “reasonable” and “genuine” effort. The court also stated that the parties must have “articulable reasons why the parties cannot come to an agreement.” While this may seem like a minor ruling, the impact of the interpretation of the exceptions could reach much farther than this law suit.

I Object!

PointClickCare requested a rehearing after the Fourth Circuit decision. The American Hospital Assocition and Electronic Health Record Association filed briefs supporting PointClickCare in the lawsuit and in the petition for a rehearing. On April 23, 2025, The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied the petition for review.

Paving the Way for Interoperability

The Fourth Circuit decision upholds the final rule from HHS implementing the Cures Act disincentives for information blocking. This decision and the denial of the petition for en banc review could have widespread implications. EHR companies must use the same access rules for every user. No more tricky images to stump consultants. No limiting access to 30% of the data.

The use of artificial intelligence-based software that can access EHR data without standard API connectivity could be the next step. Without needing permission to access and download data, switching software companies becomes easier. Sharing patient data with other medical providers is now a simple task. A patient could access their medical records with a single log-in.

Final Thoughts

I anticipate this will not be a decision that is accepted easily. I see more objections, lawsuits, and arguments from the AHA, the EHRA, and individual software providers and consultants. The decision has the potential to reach into other industries. AI will continue to evolve in ways we haven’t even anticipated. This certainly will not solve the issues of access to data or interoperability, but it’s a good first step.

Read the related articles on interoperability from Netsmart. Part 1 | Part 2

# # #

Medicare Advantage Audits

CMS

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

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

CMS Strategy for Medicare Advantage Audits

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

Falling Behind

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

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

Dr. Mehmet Oz

Administrator, CMS

The Plan to Manage Medicare Advantage Audits

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

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

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

Impact of Medicare Advantage Audits on Providers

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

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

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

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

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

# # #

TEFCA and QHINs: Interoperability 2

Admin

by Rowan Report | May 29, 2025 | Admin, Clinical, Interoperability, Regulatory

by Ben Rosen, Sr. Client Success Manager, Netsmart

Interoperability

What you need to know and how it affects you Part 2

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 two 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.

Interoperability in Healthcare

The creation of TEFCA and QHINs

TEFCA (Trusted Exchange Framework and Common Agreement) is a national framework designed to enable seamless, secure sharing of health information across organizations. With respect to EHRs, this framework simplifies data exchange with other providers, payers and public health entities while enhancing compliance with interoperability requirements. TEFCA is touted as a nationwide federal and private data exchange network.

End goal

One of TEFCA’s main goals is to standardize data sharing, therefore reducing the complexity of managing multiple connections and enhancing the interoperability of your EHR with other systems nationwide.

TEFCA was created by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy (ASTP). The ASTP is contracting with the Recognized Coordinating Entity (RCE), The Sequoia Project. The RCE is tasked with governing and maintaining the operations of the entities who are electing to implement the TEFCA network, these entities are referred to as Qualified Health Information Networks (QHINs).

QHINs

The certification process

QHINs are the entities that build the frameworks to allow data exchange as specified by TEFCA and facilitate the national exchange of health information. A single QHIN may represent dozens or even hundreds of healthcare providers, referred to as participants or sub-participants, across sectors (i.e., acute, human services, post-acute) public health agencies, health IT vendors and payers.

Applicants must build their TEFCA connection, which is then subjected to rigorous technology and security testing. QHIN applicants must also sign the Common Agreement that is countersigned by The Sequoia Project. These rigorous standards have a time limit: Each QHIN who applies must have their network built, tested and designated by the ASTP and RCE within 12 months of the application acceptance date. As of this writing there are eight designated QHINs and two candidate QHINs.

Benefits of participating in a QHIN

Streamlined Data Exchange
Compliance with Federal Interoperability Mandates
Access to Broader Patient Data
Improved Care Coordination

The market is already seeing regulatory rules and guidance tied directly to TEFCA. For instance, HTI 1 rule laid the groundwork for TEFCA and the HTI 2 rule is expanding on the process for designation, as well as codifying definitions and use cases to be exchanged via QHINs. Overwhelmingly, one of the biggest benefits to using a QHIN will be the increased types of data exchanged via the network.

The Same, but Different

Data exchange via TEFCA will look different than what we are used to with other nationwide networks today, such as Carequality, EHealthExchange or CommonWell. Via TEFCA, QHINs will exchange more robust types of data, referred to as Exchange Purposes, and will deal with higher volumes as a network. A few examples of these Exchange Purposes are clinical documentation (CCD-A), benefits determination data, public health research data, and even lab data, just to name a few.

Another benefit will be seamless connectivity. Other QHINs should integrate with EHRs to facilitate data exchange, acting as a hub that connects your system with other networks, providers and stakeholders.

Coming soon in Interoperability Part 3: Not all QHINs are created equal. How to choose the one that’s right for you.

# # #

« Older Entries

Next Entries »

District Court Injunctions Overturned

Agencies to resume layoffs.

District Court Block on Workforce Downsizing

Supreme Court Overrules

Restructuring Not Included

Dissent, and Agreement

Blocks Still Standing

Final Thoughts

Fraud, Waste, and Abuse

DOJ, HHS False Claims Act

Working Group

Working Group Priorities to Combat Fraud, Waste, and Abuse

Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse

Part of Big Beautiful Bill Halted

Medicaid Cuts to Planned Parenthood Blocked

Planned Parenthood Claims Unfavorable Treatment

Immediate Decision

Decision Unlikely to Stand

Precedent

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

The Alliance Advocates for Care at Home

Continued Advocacy

Careful Consideration Needed

About the National Alliance for Care at Home

CMS Home Health Proposed Rule 2026

Payment Adjustments

The Facts, as Listed by CMS

Contradictory Facts, as Listed by CMS

HHCAHPS Survey Changes

Added Questions

Removed Questions - Medication

Removed Questions - Other

Other Changes

CMS recommends additional changes in various categories:

Requests for Information and Feedback

CMS has issued the following RFI:

CMS is seeking feedback on the proposed rule through

August 29th, 2025

The Alliance Responds

Bill Cuts Medicaid Directly, Medicare Indirectly

July 3: Bill Passes, The Alliance Responds

Final House Vote: July 3

As of the end of the day, July 1

As of the morning of July 1

June 29th

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

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

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

How the Senate Pushed the Bill Through

HIPAA Compliance for Voice Activated Technology

Patient Privacy Protection

Data Security Requirements

HIPAA Training Requirements for Voice-Activated Systems

Data Minimization Principles

Incident Response Protocol

Summary

About Curantis Solutions

Interoperability

What you need to know and how it affects you Part 3

Interoperability in Healthcare

Evaluating QHINs for your Organization

How to choose the right QHIN for your organization

Consider technical requirements

Questions to ask your QHIN short list candidates

Cost structure and pricing

Additional services, such as analytics or public health reporting

Customer support and ease of onboarding

Plans to implement FHIR

Ongoing compliance with TEFCA and security standards

Total transactions and how different kinds of transactions are managed

Final Thoughts

Medicaid Cuts Looming

Terminal Prognosis

Medicaid to the Rescue

One in 71 Million

Medicaid Pays More than Medicare

Medicaid Cuts Impact

Medicaid Cuts Proposals

Home Care and the Work Requirement

Net Loss