Nursing Facility Compliance Guidance

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq. | Mar 13, 2025 | Admin, Clinical, Regulatory

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.

Nursing Facility Compliance Guidance

Takeaways for Hospices

In November of 2024, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued revised “Nursing Facility Industry Segment-Specific Compliance Program Guidance.” This guidance describes:

Risk areas for nursing facilities
Recommendations and practical considerations for mitigating risks
Other important information that the OIG believes nursing facilities should consider when implementing, evaluating, and updating their compliance and quality programs

Guidance Extends to Post-Acute Providers

The guidance targets nursing facilities. Howeve, it also clearly states that post-acute providers other than nursing facilities should use the guidance in their compliance efforts. The OIG says: “We encourage all long-term and post-acute providers to establish and maintain effective compliance and quality programs.” Guidance for nursing facilities, for example, specifically addresses relationships between nursing facilities and hospices.

The OIG...

First...

acknowledges that nursing facilities may arrange for hospice services for patients who meet the eligibility criteria and who elect the hospice benefit.

Then...

reminds facilities and hospices that requesting or accepting remuneration from hospices may subject both parties to liability under the federal anti-kickback statute. This applies if the remuneration may influence nursing facilities’ decisions to do business with hospices or induce referrals between the parties.

Goes On...

points out that nursing facilities that refer patients for hospice services who do not qualify for the hospice benefit may be liable for submission of false claims.

Nursing Facility Compliance Guidance OIG

Additionally...

says that hospices are permitted to furnish noncore services under arrangements with other providers or suppliers, including nursing facilities. State Medicaid Programs pay hospices at least 95% of the Programs’ daily facility rate. Hospices are then responsible to pay facilities for patients’ room and board.

Finally...

provides a list of suspicious arrangements between nursing facilities and hospices, including: (1) referrals of patients to hospices to induce hospices to refer patients to facilities, and (2) solicitation or receipt of hospices of goods or services for free or below fair market value, including nurses or other staff to provide services at facilities for nonhospice patients and monetary payments for:

referrals of patients to hospices to induce hospices to refer patients to facilities
solicitation or receipt of hospices of goods or services for free or below fair market value
- solicitation of nurses or other staff to provide services at facilities for nonhospice patients
- monetary payments for:

- - Room and board for patients in excess of what nursing facilities receive directly from Medicaid if patients are not enrolled in hospices. Additional payments must represent fair market value of additional services actually provided to patients that are not included in Medicaid daily rates.
  - Additional services for residents that include room and board payments to hospices from Medicaid Programs
  - Additional services for patients that are not included in room and board payments from Medicaid Programs at rates that are above fair market value
  - Provision of services by nursing facilities to hospice patients at rates that are above fair market value

Final Thoughts

Hospices are surely under fire these days from fraud enforcers. Engaging in the practices described above is likely to draw attention by enforcers and possible enforcement action.

# # #

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

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

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

BREAKING NEWS: Kennedy Rescinds Public Participation in Rule Making

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

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

Public Participation Rescinded

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

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

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services

What it Means

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

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

Public Participation in Medicare Rules

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

Public Participation in Medicaid and CHIP rules

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

Department of Veterans Affairs

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

Final Thoughts

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

# # #

Kristin Rowan has been working at The Rowan Report since 2008. She is the owner and Editor-in-chief of The Rowan Report, the industry’s most trusted source for care at home news .She also has a master’s degree in business administration and marketing and runs Girard Marketing Group, a multi-faceted boutique marketing firm specializing in content creation, social media management, and event marketing. Connect with Kristin directly kristin@girardmarketinggroup.com or www.girardmarketinggroup.com

Federal Regulations for Adult Protective Services

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq. | Jul 26, 2024 | Regulatory

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.

Dept of Health & Human Services Final Rule

On May 7, 2024, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a final rule establishing the first federal regulations for Adult Protective Services (APS). The regulations took effect on June 7, 2024. The entire rule is at https://acl.gov/apsrule.

One goal of the new regulations is to promote high quality APS that better meet the needs of adults who experience or are at risk of maltreatment and self-neglect. Another goal is to improve consistency in services among the states.

APS services have historically been funded by state and local governments. There has been wide variation in APS services and practices between and even within states. New regulations, along with recent funding from HHS to state APS programs, now make it possible to improve consistency.

The APS final rule:

- Establishes a set of national minimum standards for the operation of APS programs that all state APS systems meet
- Requires APS systems to ensure that planning and delivery of all services respect the fundamental right of adults to make their own life choices and that services are driven by the person receiving them
- Establishes stronger protections for clients subject to, or at risk of, guardianship. Specifically, APS must consider guardianship only when there are not alternatives.
- Requires responses within 24 hours of screening cases that are life-threatening or likely to cause irreparable harm or significant loss of income, assets, or resources
- Requires APS to provide at least two ways, at least one of which must be online, to report maltreatment or self-neglect 24 hours per day, seven days per week
- Requires robust conflict of interest policies to support ethical APS practice
- Establishes definitions for key APS terms to improve information sharing, data collection, and program standardization
- Promotes coordination and collaboration with state Medicaid agencies, long-term care ombudsmen, tribal APS, law enforcement, and other partners.

The Need for Adult Protective Services

HHS points out that at least one in ten older adults who live in communities experience some form of maltreatment each year.

All providers have been involved in situations in which adult protective services are needed. Case managers/discharge planners in hospitals and long-term care facilities are especially likely to encounter and to be expected to assist with situations involving APS.

Providers of services to patients in their homes; including home health agencies, hospices, home medical equipment (HME) companies, and home care or private duty companies; are on the “front lines” with regard to identifying situations in which APS is needed. At least anecdotally, however, providers have received very little assistance and support from APS in situations of abuse and neglect.

Hopefully, providers can look forward to greater assistance in view of enhanced funding and standards.

# # #

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

Next Entries »