MedPAC Finalizes Recommendation to CMS

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

MedPAC Recommends 7% Cut

Vote Finalized

In December, MedPAC published a proposed recommendation for calendar year 2027 that included a 7% cut to home health reimbursement rates and no increase for hospice. Last week, MedPAC voted to finalize that recommendation and send it to CMS. 

Industry Objection

Both the proposal and final recommendation met with strong industry backlash.

“MedPAC’s dangerous and misguided recommendations to reduce the Medicare home health base payment rate by 7% for CY 2027 and eliminate the update to the 2026 Medicare base payment rate for hospice do not reflect both home health and hospice agencies’ operating realities as well as the cumulative impact of recent policy changes. For home health agencies, any cut – let alone one of such great magnitude – will threaten the ability to meet individuals’ healthcare needs. Yet again, the Commission is failing to understand the operating reality providers face and the potential patient harm that any further payment cuts pose.”

Dr. Steve Landers

CEO, National Alliance for Care at Home

Consistently Wrong

The MedPAC recommendation may not be built on solid data, use accurate calculations, consider Medicare Advantage and Medicaid rates along with Traditional Medicare FFS, consider the number of agencies that will go out of business, have any recommendations for maintaining nurse and caregiver hourly rates, or fairly distribute Medicare funds across disciplines, but, wait…where was I going with this? Oh, right! At least they’re consistent. MedPAC recommended a 7% decrease in Medicare payments for 2027, 2026, 2025, 2024, and 2023. They may be completely wrong, but they are dedicated to maintaining their wrongness.

Final Thoughts

Despite the years of 7% cut recommendations from MedPAC, the final numbers from CMS are rarely in line with those recommendations. We will, of course, know more when CMS publishes their proposal later this year. LeadingAge, National Association for Care at Home, individual and corporate HHAs and Hospices, and anyone else with a stake in the care at home industry, should contact their congressional representatives and CMS directly to voice concerns over these cuts.

# # #

Kristin Rowan Editor The Rowan Report
Kristin Rowan Editor The Rowan Report

Kristin Rowan is the owner and Editor-in-chief of The Rowan Report, the industry’s most trusted source for care at home news. She is also a sought-after speaker on Artificial Intelligence, Technology Adoption and Lone Worker Safety. She is available to speak at state and national conferences as well as software user-group meetings.

Kristin also runs Girard Marketing Group, a multi-faceted boutique marketing firm specializing in content creation, social media management, and event marketing. She works with care at home software providers to create dynamic content that increases conversions for direct e-mail, social media, and websites.  Connect with Kristin directly at kristin@girardmarketinggroup.com or www.girardmarketinggroup.com

©2026 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

 

Overtime Changes

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

Overtime Changes

FLSA exemption to resume

In 1938, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) established a federal minimum wage, guaranteed overtime, and kept children out of the workforce. Exemptions to FLSA include executive, administrative, professional, computer employee, and outside sales positions. Employers did not pay minimum wage for retail workers, service workers, agricultural workers, or construction workers.

Domestic workers included

An amendment to FLSA in 1974 added domestic workers to those who must receive minimum wage and overtime. The amendment did not include “companionship services” and live-in domestic service employees. A later amendment from 2013 narrowed the definition of “companionship services.” This eliminated the exemptions for workers who provided “care.” Companions could still be exempted from overtime. This stopped home care agencies from claiming exemptions and required overtime pay for home care workers.

Overtime Changes FLSA Exempt

Rolling back the rule

The Department of Labor is considering unraveling the 2013 amendment. There is a concern that they may have misinterpretated the rule. Additionally, requiring overtime for home care workers will increase the cost of care. Supporters of the rule change believe that allowing exemptions for overtime among home care workers would make live-in care more affordable. If the 2013 amendment is removed, employers would not have to guarantee minimum wage or overtime for home care aides.

Industry impact

The DOL argues that this change will make care more affordable and expand access to care at home. However, there is already a workforce shortage in the industry. Lowering pay rates and removing overtime could cause a mass exodus from the industry. As far as we know, DOL did not discuss requiring CMS to increase reimbursements rates or covering non-medical supportive care at home as an alternative.

“Removing basic labor protections from home care workers will only exacerbate the multiple issues buffeting the home care sector, its workers and consumers: serious threats from cuts to federal Medicaid contributions, changing immigration policies and the lack of realistic long-term services and supports (LTSS) options.”

Katie Smith Sloan

President and CEO, LeadingAge

Comments from the industry

The public comments period on this proposed rule change ended on September 2, 2025. The proposed rule received roughly 5,300 comments. Some examples of feedback include:

“…reversing the 2013 protections, the DOL would undermine the wages and economic security of home care workers…exacerbate turnover and workforce shortages…[and] harm older adults and people with disabilities….” – Hand in Hand: The Domestic Employers Network

“This proposed change is a crucial step toward restoring flexibility and affordability in home care services, particularly for families relying on live-in support.” – Owner, Home Helpers Home Care of Larimer County and member of HCAOA and IFA

“…strongly support workforce development and has historically and continues to support thoughtful solutions to our workforce crisis. We strongly support the restoration of the overtime exemption.” – The Virginia Association for Home Care and Hospice and the West Virginia Council for Home Care and Hospice

Home care workers are also strongly vital for companion care, personal care, home health, nursing, therapy, caring for the disabled and the elderly, and more. The proposed rule that was meant to strip home care workers of wage and overtime protections is absolutely cruel and harmful for home care workers…” – Derek Dinh, CA

“I am not a home care worker, but used a home care worker to take care of my mom when she was unable to do things around the home and then got progressively worse. They need to be paid a living wage and receive overtime. They are professional people who take care of those who need care.” – Wendy Peale, NY

Opposition

  • Among the people and organizations who have publicly expressed opposition to this change are:
  • LeadingAge
  • Autistic Self Advocacy Network
  • American Civil Liberties Union
  • Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal
  • The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington

Final Rule

The has not issued a final rule. However, neither has the DOL enforced the requirement since July 25, 2025. Home care agencies can currently claim overtime exemptions. There is no set timeline yet for a final decision. We will continue to follow updates on this topic.

# # #

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

 

Delay HOPE Tool

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.

# # #

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

 

Medicare Advantage Predatory Marketing

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

Leading Associations Attempt to Curb Medicare Advantage Marketing Practices that Prey on the Unsuspecting

For some time now, we’ve been reporting on the marketing practices that Medicare Advantage uses to lure new members. And, it’s working, as more than 50% of eligible patients are now on Medicare Advantage plans. From federal lawsuits to fraud, to upcoding, Medicare Advantage has made headlines more often than almost any other topic in the industry in the last few years. A joint move last week by two national associations may bring the issue to a head once and for all.

The National PACE Association (NPA) and LeadingAge wrote to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) urging them to employ stricter oversight on Medicare Advantage marketing practices. The letter, dated July 25, 2024, cited the impact of these marketing tactics on adults served by Programs for All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE). They called the marketing “aggressive and misleading” and called upon CMS to protect PACE beneficiaries from harm.

 One of the selling points in the marketing of Medicare Advantage is the supplemental benefits. Medicare Advantage plans are allocated nearly $64 billion dollars to pay for dental, vision, gym memberships, and other benefits that are not available with traditional Medicare. However, the government has no idea where this money is going, who is using it, and what it’s for. Limited available data suggests that a very low number of Medicare Advantage enrollees are using these supplemental benefits. The rest of the money just sits with the payers at taxpayer expense.

The false promise of cash benefits draw even more of this population away from traditional Medicare and into Medicare Advantage plans. Cash benefits from MA plans are only available to dual eligible members. What they don’t tell you, though, is that if you are dual eligible and you switch from Medicare to Medicare Advantage, you are subject to prior authorization rules, care denials, and smaller networks, meaning you may lose your physician when you switch plans. Some of those cash benefits are restricted to use in particular stores. For example, Aetna restricts the use of cash benefits to stores owned by CVS Health. If there isn’t a CVS Health near you, the cash benefits can’t be used.  

PACE Programs

Programs of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) are typically traditional Medicare and Medicaid joint programs that provide medical and social services in home and community-based care settings. The programs cover prescriptions, dental care, emergency services, home care, meals services, primary care providers, nurses, social workers, and more. The program’s goal is to keep patients at home or in their communities and get the health care they need. There is no out-of-pocket costs to these programs for dual eligible members. Medicare only members have a monthly premium and prescription drug (Part D) premium. There are no additional deductibles or copayments for any service or level of care.

Bait and Switch

The marketing messages from Medicare Advantage are pulling PACE eligible members into dual MA and Medicaid plans, which significantly reduce the level of care, access to care, and continuity of care. The MA/Medicaid programs also have higher out-of-pocket costs to members, despite having no monthly premium. Research shows that Medicare Advantage is targeting healthier individuals who will use the provided benefits less often and that when Medicare Advantage patients become sicker, they switch back to traditional Medicare plans if they can.

Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.

PACE LeadingAge MA ReformThe financial and health implications of uninformed disenrollment from PACE to conventional MA plans are significant. The needs of PACE beneficiaries, most of whom have multiple complex medical conditions, cognitive or functional impairments – or all three – are not comprehensively addressed by MA plans. The loss of PACE services is harmful and, in some cases, can be life-threatening.

Katie Smith Sloan

president and CEO, LeadingAge

Dire Need for Change

In their letter to CMS, NPA and LeadingAge called for the following changes to be made:

  • Require MA plans to explain, clearly and without embellishment, all out-of-pocket costs and network/coverage limitations. using easy to understand terms
  • When a member disenrolls from a PACE program, additional steps should be taken to ensure the disenrollment is voluntary and that the member is fully informed of the differences in coverage before leaving the PACE program.
  • Increased leniency in re-enrolling in PACE programs after leaving a Medicare Advantage program by allowing re-enrollment mid-month.
  • Require MA brokers, when providing comparative benefit information of their current coverage (e.g., PACE) to an alternate MA plan, to also inform them, in plain language, if the new plan does not cover or coordinate their Medicaid benefits; and any benefits the individual would “lose” under the new plan (e.g., transportation to groceries).

Pace LeadingAge MA ReformWe share CMS’ stated desire that people have access to accurate and complete information when they make health care choices. We have numerous examples of vulnerable seniors being induced to enroll in MA plans without being fully-informed of what they are giving up when they enroll.

Shawn Bloom

president and CEO, National PACE Association

The Rowan Report reached out to LeadingAge to see if CMS has responded to their letter.

Updates will be provided when we have them.

# # #

Kristin Rowan, Editor
Kristin Rowan, Editor

Kristin Rowan has been working at Healthcare at Home: The Rowan Report since 2008. She has a master’s degree in business administration and marketing and runs Girard Marketing Group, a multi-faceted boutique marketing firm specializing in event planning, sales, and marketing strategy. She has recently taken on the role of Editor of The Rowan Report and will add her voice to current Home Care topics as well as marketing tips for home care agencies. Connect with Kristin directly kristin@girardmarketinggroup.com or www.girardmarketinggroup.com

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