Medicaid Enrollees Sent to ICE

by | Aug 21, 2025 | Legal, Medicaid, Regulatory

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

UPDATE

The Rowan Report originally published this article on August 7, 2025. This update is as of August 15, 2025.

After HHS began providing access to personal data on Mediciad enrollees to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), 20 states filed to sue the department for violating privacy laws. Shortly thereafter, CMS entered into a new agreement to give DHS daily access to view the same data.

Federal Judge Vince Chhabria of California ordered HHS to stop giving DHS access to personal information. The ruling grants a preliminary injunction, stopping HHS from sharing Medicaid data with ICE in the 20 states that participated in the lawsuit. The injunction will last until 14 days after the two agencies complete and submit a reason for the decision to share information. The reasoning must comply with the Administrative Procedure Act. The injunction can also end if litigation is concluded (a formal hearing and decision).

Chhabria noted that there is no formal law preventing government agencies from sharing information, he cited agency policy as his reasoning for the injunction. ICE has a well-publicized policy against using Medicaid data for immigration enforcement. Judge Chhabria wrote in his ruling:

“Given these policies, and given that the various players in the Medicaid system have relied on them, it was incumbent upon the agencies to carry out a reasoned decisionmaking process before changing them. The record in this case strongly suggests that no such process occurred.”

August 7, 2025

Associated Press Confirms

Enrollee Information Given to ICE

In a surprise announcement on July 17, 2025, investigative reporter Kimberly Kindy and reporter Amanda Seitz filed a report. They uncovered information confirming Medicaid enrollee information given to ICE from CMS. ICE will use this to find “aliens” across the country. The health and personal information disclosed includes home addresses, birth dates, Social Security numbers, and ethnicities.

Department of Homeland Security Responds

DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLauglin said, “…CMS and DHS are exploring an intitiative to ensure that illegal aliens are not receiving Medicaid benefits….”

DHS Spokesperson Andrew Nixon said, “With respect to the recent data sharing between CMS and DHS, HHS acted entirely within its legal authority—and in full compliance with all applicable laws….”

Opposing Viewpoints

Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA) said, “The massive transfer of the personal data of millions of Medicaid recipients should alarm every American. This massive violation of our privacy laws must be halted immediately. It will harm families across the nation and only cause more citizens to forego lifesaving access to health care.”

Similarly, CA Governor Gavin Newsom said, “This potential data transfer brought to our attention by the AP is extremely concerning, and if true, potentially unlawful….”

HHS and DHS Sued

State Attorneys General from 20 states, led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta have filed suit. They are suing the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem.

The Associated Press found a Medicaid internal memo and emails. Subsequently, the AP reported that Medicaid officials tried to stop the data transfer due to legal and ethical concerns. The objection was unsuccessful. CMS had 54 minutes to comply with an order coming from two advisors within Secretary Kennedy Jr’s camp.

Disclosure Focuses on Violation of Laws

Current laws provide that states can create their own health plans, eligibility standards, and coverage, as long as the plan follows federal criteria. Medicaid laws also provide for emergency coverage for non-citizens. Seven states and D.C. started programs that offer full Medicaid coverage to non-citizens.

Four of the seven states, New York, Oregon, Minnesota, and Colorado, never submitted identifiable information about Medicaid recipients to CMS. The data shared with ICE came from the remaining three states; California, Illinois, & Washington State; and Washington D.C.

Map of U.S. States Compromised by CMS and DHS

The Allegation

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. It alleges that the federal government is allowing the personal data of Medicaid recipients to be used for purposes unrelated to the Medicaid program.

Further, the coalition of states alleges that the disclosures violate several federal data privacy laws. These  include Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA), and the Privacy Act. 

Additionally, the Attorneys General state that the disclosures are contrary to the Social Security Act and a violation of the Spending Clause.

The lawsuit calls upon the court to bar CMS from sending additional PII to DHS and to bar DHS from using any of the information it has already received.

“In the seven decades since Congress enacted the Medicaid Act to provide medical assistance to vulnerable populations, federal law, policy, and practice has been clear: the personal healthcare data collected about beneficiaries of the program is confidential, to be shared only in certain narrow circumstances that benefit public health and the integrity of the Medicaid program itself.”

Attorneys General

Coalition of States

Final Thoughts

This lawsuit is the latest of many against the current administration. The Rowan Report will continue to update this and other stories impacting care at home as the lawsuits continue.

# # #

Kristin Rowan, Editor
Kristin Rowan, Editor

Kristin Rowan has been working at The Rowan Report since 2008. She is the owner and Editor-in-chief of The Rowan Report, the industry’s most trusted source for care at home news, and speaker on Artificial Intelligence and Lone Worker Safety and state and national conferences.

She also runs Girard Marketing Group, a multi-faceted boutique marketing firm specializing in content creation, social media management, and event marketing.  Connect with Kristin directly kristin@girardmarketinggroup.com or www.girardmarketinggroup.com

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

 

Patients’ Right to Freedom of Choice

by | Jul 24, 2025 | Admin, CMS, Home Health, Hospice, Medicaid, Medicare, Regulatory

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.

Patient's Right to Freedom of Choice of Providers

U.S. Supreme Court Weighs In

Patient’s rights to freedom of choice of providers who will render care to them is currently based on four key sources:

  • Court decisions that establish the right of all patients, regardless of payor source and the setting in which services are rendered, to control treatment, including who provides it
  • Federal statutes for both the Medicare and Medicaid Programs that establish the right of patients whose care is paid for by these programs to choose providers to render care – Specifically, Section 1802 (42 U.S. C. 1395a) states as follows: “(a) Basic freedom of choice.- Any individual entitled to insurance benefits under this title may obtain health services from any institution, agency, or person qualified to participate under this title if such institution, agency or person undertakes to provide him such services.”
  • The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA), which currently requires hospitals to provide a list of home health agencies and hospices to patients. According to the BBA, the list must meet the following criteria: (a) Providers that render services in the geographic area in which patients reside, are Medicare-certified, and request to be included must appear on the list given to patients. (b) If hospitals have a financial interest in any provider that appears on the list, this interest must be disclosed on the list.
  • Conditions of Participation (COP’s) of the Medicare Program that are the same as the provisions of the BBA described above

Supreme Court Decision

The U.S Supreme Court has now issued a decision about the federal statute for the Medicaid Program described above in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, et al. [No, 23-1276 (June 26, 2025)]. This case involves the any-qualified-provider provision in the statute above that requires states to ensure that any individual eligible for medical assistance may obtain it from any provider qualified to perform the service who undertakes to provide it. The question is whether individual Medicaid beneficiaries may sue state officials under the above statute for failing to comply with the any-qualified-provider provision. 

Exclusions on "any-qualified-provider" provision

The State of South Carolina excluded Planned Parenthood from the Medicaid Program. An enrollee in the Medicaid Program sued the State based on the above statute because she said that she wanted to receive Medicaid services from Planned Parenthood.

Federal enforcement; not private

The Court said that spending power statutes, such as Medicaid Programs, are especially unlikely to create the right for individuals to sue the states. The typical remedy for state noncompliance is federal funding termination. Private enforcement, such as suits by individuals, requires states to voluntarily and knowingly consent to private suits based on clear and unambiguous alerts from Congress to the states that private enforcement is a funding condition.

The Court concluded that the above statute does not permit individuals to sue the States for violation of their right to freedom of choice of providers.

# # #

Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.
Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.

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

©2025 Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq. All rights reserved.

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

©2025 by The Rowan Report, Peoria, AZ. All rights reserved. 

Impact of H.R. 1: The Homebound and Overlooked

by | Jul 24, 2025 | Medicaid, Regulatory

Analysis by Tim Rowan, Editor Emeritus

The Impact of H.R. 1

Homebound and Overlooked

In early 2025, the Republican-led Congress introduced its proposed budget for FY2026 and beyond, a sweeping legislative effort aimed at curbing federal expenditures and restructuring entitlement programs. Medicaid, one of the largest healthcare safety nets in the United States, faces major revisions under this bill. Central to the proposed changes is the shift toward block grants or per-capita caps on federal funding. The legislation also rolls back incentives enacted into law by the Affordable Care act, including those that supported Medicaid expansion. The reconciliation bill, signed into law on July 4, also eliminates financial support for optional services such as home and community-based services (HCBS). A new set of work requirements in the new law will expand the paperwork burden for beneficiaries.

Risks for Home- and Community-Based Care

The figure below presents a visual from the Commonwealth Fund showing their projection of over $100 billion in cumulative federal Medicaid cuts by 2035. These reductions are expected to disproportionately affect non-mandated programs like HCBS, which are many times more economical than residential care. With diminished federal support, states will face pressure to reallocate limited resources, often at the expense of these optional, yet critical, programs. ¹

For nearly eight million elderly Americans, Medicaid-funded HCBS has helped reduce hospital admissions, extend independence, and relieve stress on long-term care facilities. However, the new budget cuts destabilize these programs. Barbara Merrill, CEO of ANCOR, expressed concern, stating, “When you cut federal Medicaid dollars, even for optional services, states have to make tough decisions about who gets care and when.”² Experts anticipate that approval delays, extended waitlists, and even termination of services could follow as states struggle to maintain existing infrastructure.

Bar chart of Medicaid spending.

Comparing the 2005 Budget Bill to the Affordable Care Act

Compared to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the Republican budget bill marks a significant policy reversal. The ACA expanded Medicaid eligibility and incentivized states to develop non-institutional care models. It emphasized preventive care and home-based treatment options, helping shift care away from costly institutional settings. By contrast, the new bill eliminates such incentives and introduces fiscal and operational barriers. According to data from Medicaid.gov and the Kaiser Family Foundation, Medicaid enrollment, which rose steadily during the ACA years, is projected to drop by 10% nationwide once the budget bill is implemented³. This decline reflects both tightening eligibility and retreat from HCBS programs.

Healthcare providers will need to brace for substantial ripple effects. With fewer patients accessing home care, hospitals and emergency departments may see an uptick in acute episodes related to unmanaged chronic conditions. Providers may also encounter staffing shortages and reduced reimbursements, undermining service quality and sustainability. Richard Edwards, policy director at Amivie Home Health, warned, “If states cut home care services, many patients have no other choice but to enter a skilled nursing facility. That’s not just a shift in care—it’s often a worse outcome at a higher cost.” ⁴ These operational challenges could exacerbate pressure on an already strained healthcare workforce.

Scope and Severity of Coming Changes

Today, over eight million seniors rely on Medicaid-funded HCBS, with an average annual cost per recipient of $29,000. Thirty-three states use HCBS waivers to administer these services, yet the average state waitlist already exceeds 3,000 applicants. Institutional care costs remain 57% higher than home care, making HCBS not only more humane but more fiscally prudent. Despite that, projected federal cuts of $100 billion by 2035 threaten to replace HCBS with nursing home care. Meanwhile, a national enrollment drop of 10% would leave millions at risk of losing coverage and care.

Richard Edwards, policy director at Amivie Home Health, explains, “If states cut home care services, many patients have no other choice but to enter a skilled nursing facility. That’s not just a shift in care—it’s often a worse healthcare and social outcome at a higher cost.” ⁴

  • 8 million elderly rely on Medicaid HCBS
  • $29,000/year average cost per Medicaid home care recipient
  • 33 states use HCBS waivers
  • Average state waitlist for HCBS exceeds 3,000 applicants
  • Institutional care costs 57% more than home care
  • Estimated federal Medicaid cuts by 2035: $100 billion
  • Projected national enrollment drop: 10%

Implications for Care at Home: Next Steps

To mitigate these risks, policy experts are advocating for pragmatic alternatives, knowing that implementation depends entirely on the direction in which political winds blow. Federal stabilization grants could offer targeted relief to states with high HCBS enrollment, preserving continuity of care. Streamlining waiver approvals would reduce bureaucratic delays and ease access for both providers and patients. Retaining key ACA incentives could help maintain momentum in home-based care innovation. States would also benefit from flexible financing rules, including reformed provider tax policies, to better manage Medicaid funds under new constraints. 

Final Thoughts

Ultimately, the new budget, passed with no Democratic votes, may reshape eldercare delivery for years to come. With states facing hard choices, the healthcare community must prepare for transitions that could disrupt care and deepen inequities. Advocacy for vulnerable populations, investment in alternatives, and ongoing engagement in policy reform will be essential to ensure seniors receive the care they deserve in the setting they prefer.

# # #

____________________________________________

¹ Congressional Budget Office, Federal Healthcare Outlook 2025–2035
² Barbara Merrill, ANCOR Policy Brief, March 2025
³ Kaiser Family Foundation, Medicaid Enrollment Tracker, April 2025
⁴ Amivie Health, Testimony to House Budget Committee, June 2025

Tim Rowan The Rowan Report

Tim Rowan is a 30-year home care technology consultant who co-founded and served as Editor and principal writer of this publication for 25 years. He continues to occasionally contribute news and analysis articles under The Rowan Report’s new ownership. He also continues to work part-time as a Home Care recruiting and retention consultant. More information: RowanResources.com
Tim@RowanResources.com

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

OBBB Care at Home Adjustments

by | Jul 18, 2025 | Advocacy, CMS, Medicaid, Medicare, Regulatory

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

Care at Home Through Medicare and Medicaid

Adjustments from OBBB

Despite the passing and subsequent signing of the reconciliation bill, numerous lawsuits have paused its implementation in some areas. We will continue to report on those court decisions as they arise. In the meantime, the care at home industry can look at the few adjustments that will positively impact the industry.

Medicaid Waivers

Prior to this, the HHS Secretary could only approve Medicaid waivers to cover home and community-based services for beneficiaries who already met institutional level-of-care criteria. This bill provides additional flexibility to define waiver eligibility without the institutional level-of-care criteria.

For FY 2026, CMS has an additional $50 million to oversee the new waivers. There is an additional $100 million earmarked for FY 2027 to deliver HCBS under new and existing waivers. Although the expanded waivers and additional budget will not satisfy the more 700,000 on waiting lists for HCBS, it is a start.

Rural Health Transformation Program

For five years, beginning in 2026, states can apply for a portion of a $10 billion annual fund for rural health providers. To qualify, providers must submit a rural health care plan that includes technology adoption, local partnerships, using data-driven methods, and setting strategies for financial stability. This could provide an opportunity for care at home agencies to partner with rural hospitals to help provide care in rural settings.

Health Savings Accounts

Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) allow insurance beneficiaries to save money to pay for deductibles, copays, and other services not covered by insurance (such as non-medical supportive care and home health). Currently, people can only use HSAs if they have a high deductible health plan (HDHP). The bill allows for a plan to be considered an HDHP even if it covers telehealth and remote health services prior to meeting the deductible. Insurance companies can design new HDHPs that can be used with HSAs.

Telehealth Reconciliation Bill<br />

Another change to HSAs involves the type of plan that qualifies. Currently, bronze and catastrophic plans cannot be considered HDHPs because their out-of-pocket limits exceed IRS limits for HDHPs. The bill allows bronze and catastrophic plans to qualify as HDHPs and have access to HSAs.

Additionally, current regulations prohibit anyone with a Direct Primary Care (DPC) arrangement from contributing to our using HSAs. DPC is an arrangement with a flat monthly fee for services rather than using insurance for routine care. The bill removes the limitations, allowing people with DPC arrangements to contriute to HSAs and use them for DPC arrangements.

Adding telehealth/remote plans, bronze plans, and catastrophic plans to HSA eligibility could provide opportunities for care at home agencies to connect with beneficiaries of these plans who did not have expendable funds for non-covered services before, but can now use HSAs. Allowing patients with DPCs to use HSAs could provide yet another path to increasing patients by partnering with DPC offices.

Final Thoughts

As a whole, we are anticipating great disruption to Medicare and Medicaid stemming from the budget reconciliation bill. While we await the final word on legality from the U.S. Supreme Court on many of the provisions, we can look to the ones that may help brace the industry in the meantime.

 # # #

Kristin Rowan, Editor
Kristin Rowan, Editor

Kristin Rowan has been working at The Rowan Report since 2008. She is the owner and Editor-in-chief of The Rowan Report, the industry’s most trusted source for care at home news, and speaker on Artificial Intelligence and Lone Worker Safety and state and national conferences.

She also runs Girard Marketing Group, a multi-faceted boutique marketing firm specializing in content creation, social media management, and event marketing.  Connect with Kristin directly kristin@girardmarketinggroup.com or www.girardmarketinggroup.com

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

 

Planned Parenthood Cut Halted

by | Jul 10, 2025 | CMS, Legal, Medicaid, Regulatory

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

Part of Big Beautiful Bill Halted

Medicaid Cuts to Planned Parenthood Blocked

The tax and immigration bill, dubbed “One Big Beautiful Bill,” signed by President Trump on July 4th, included removing all Medicaid payments to any nonprofit organization that provides medical services, received more than $800,000 in federal funding in 2023, and also provides abortions.

On Monday, July 7th, the first business day after the bill was signed into law, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani granted a temporary halt to Medicaid funding cuts to Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood Claims Unfavorable Treatment

The portion of the bill in question does not specifically name Planned Parenthood. The bill cuts Medicaid funding to groups “primarily engaged in family planning services, reproductive health, and related medical care” that also provide abortions and abortion education. According to the lawsuit, however, because of the federal funding threshold of $800,000, Planned Parentood locations comprise almost all of the impact. 

[It’s a] “naked attempt to leverage the government’s spending power to attack and penalize Planned Parenthood and impermissibly single it out for unfavorable treatment.”

Planned Parenthood

Immediate Decision

The decision came before the federal government responded. Judge Talwani ruled within hours and provided no explanation other than a brief note stating that Planned Parenthood showed good cause for immediate intervention.

Decision Unlikely to Stand

  • The decision came within hours of the lawsuit filing
  • Congress is generally lawfully allowed to make determinations on spending
  • This was an egregious judicial usurpation of legislative power
  • This makes her court look like a fast food drive-through
  • The House could initiate impeachment proceedings against the judge for this decision

These are just a few of the statements made in opposition to the injunction, mostly claiming that the judge did not have the authority to make the decision. Talwani set a hearing for July 21 to hear from both Planned Parenthood and the agencies named in the lawsuit, HHS, and CMS.

Precedent

A previous ruling from the Supreme Court in June of this year provides that any state can remove any provider from the list of “Qualified Providers” using its own Medicaid criteria. The court further ruled that, although patients have the right to choose their own provider, patients do not have the right to sue based on who those qualified providers are.

This lawsuit is the first against the tax and immigration bill, but it is most likely not the last. We will continue to report on this and other lawsuits as they arise.

# # #

Kristin Rowan, Editor
Kristin Rowan, Editor

Kristin Rowan has been working at The Rowan Report since 2008. She is the owner and Editor-in-chief of The Rowan Report, the industry’s most trusted source for care at home news, and speaker on Artificial Intelligence and Lone Worker Safety and state and national conferences.

She also runs Girard Marketing Group, a multi-faceted boutique marketing firm specializing in content creation, social media management, and event marketing.  Connect with Kristin directly kristin@girardmarketinggroup.com or www.girardmarketinggroup.com

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

 

Bill Cuts Medicaid Directly, Medicare Indirectly

by | Jul 2, 2025 | Admin, Legal, Medicaid, Medicare, Regulatory

by Tim Rowan, Editor Emeritus

Bill Cuts Medicaid Directly, Medicare Indirectly

This is what online publishers call a “living article.” With the House and Senate passing different bills, progress toward the President’s desk changes by the hour. What follows is everything we knew to be true on Tuesday evening, July 1. However, this bill will impact Home Health, Home Care, and Hospice. To keep readers informed, we will continuously update this article as need through the weekend. We will not send our usual emails to subscribers with every update, so we urge you to return here from time to time for updates to this breaking news item. We will add the date and time to each update.

July 3: Bill Passes, The Alliance Responds

Nearly as soon as House Republicans began their celebration, Alliance President Dr. Steve Landers issued a response from the National Alliance for Care at Home. We reprinted the complete statement from The Alliance here.

“As these Medicaid provisions become law, the Alliance will work tirelessly to monitor their implementation and advocate for the protection of Medicaid enrollees, families, and providers nationwide. We will continue to champion the delivery of HCBS – proven services that are preferred by beneficiaries and save the system money.” 

Dr. Steve Landers

CEO, The National Alliance for Care at Home

Final House Vote: July 3

In spite of a couple of Republican holdouts, H.R. 1 passed the House on a 2018-2014 vote on Thursday afternoon. All of the Senate’s changes were approved, meaning the bill does not have to go back to Senate for re-approval. Now begin final assessments of the impact on Medicaid and SNAP. Changes made in the Senate, approved by the House, increased the size of spending cuts for those two programs. As analysts inside and away from our home care community weigh in, we will post them here.

As of the end of the day, July 1

It appears as though the stalemate, if there is to be one, will center around Medicaid and SNAP cuts. There are some House Republicans who are upset that the Senate increased their H.R. 1 proposed cuts to nearly $1 Trillion. Contrarily, other House Republicans threaten to vote no because cuts are not deep enough. They point to the predicted $3.3 trillion addition to the national debt over ten years. As of the evening of July 1, the House Rules Committee continues the debate. We will update this page as often as possible for you.

As of the morning of July 1

Early Tuesday morning, the Senate passed its version of Donald Trump’s bill. Among its changes are increased cuts to Medicaid. The Congressional Budget Office calculated that the House version would have resulted in $700 billion in spending reductions. It would also have removed health insurance from 10.9 million people over 10 years. The version the Senate sent back to the House Tuesday, according to the CBO, increases those cuts to $930 billion and 11.8 million people.

Senate passes bill

June 29th

The Senate reconciliation bill would cut gross federal Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) spending by $1.02 trillion over the next ten years.  These cuts are $156.1 billion (18%) larger than even the House-passed bill’s draconian cuts of $863.4 billion over ten years.

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

    • further restrict state use of provider taxes to finance Medicaid
    • eliminate eligibility for many lawfully present immigrants
    • cut federal funding for payments to hospitals furnishing emergency Medicaid services
    • further reduce certain supplemental payments to hospitals and other providers (known as state-directed payments)

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

    • a rural health transformation program
    • increased federal Medicaid funding for Alaska and Hawaii (Already ruled out by the parliamentarian)
    • expanded waiver authority for home- and community-based services

  • Overall, the Senate Republican reconciliation bill’s Medicaid, CHIP, Affordable Care Act marketplace, and Medicare provisions would increase the number of uninsured by 11.8 million in 2034, relative to current law

    • In comparison, the House-passed bill would increase the number of uninsured by 10.9 million in 2034.
    • More detailed CBO estimates of the specific Medicaid health coverage effects under the Senate Republican reconciliation bill are not yet available
    • CBO estimates the House-passed bill’s Medicaid and CHIP provisions would cut Medicaid enrollment by 10.5 million by 2034 and by themselves, increase the number of uninsured by 7.8 million by 2034

How the Senate Pushed the Bill Through

Majority leader Thune could only afford to lose three Republican votes. With GOP Senators Thom Tillis (N.C.), Rand Paul (Ky.) and Susan Collins (Maine) voting against the measure, along with every Democrat, centrist Lisa Murkowski of Alaska became the sole target of Republican pressure. The tactic used to get the vote close enough for VP Vance to cast the deciding vote is disturbing. 

First, leadership wrote an amendment that would have exempted Alaska from Medicaid and SNAP cuts. The parliamentarian killed that idea, saying it violated the Senate’s “Byrd Rule.” Next, marathon negotiations brought Murkowski and Parliamentarian MacDonough together to appease both. The compromise became exceptions to Medicaid and SNAP cuts that had less of an appearance of a bribe. They devised a formula that delayed cuts to states with a history of high error rates in calculating who is entitled to benefits. The CBO said that would cover as many as 10 states. The parliamentarian decided this did not violate Senate rules because it did not specifically benefit one state. They also increased the federal subsidy for rural hospitals that will be harmed by the bill from $25 billion to $50 billion.

In agreeing to vote ‘yes,’ Murkowski essentially declared that she knows the cuts will be bad for most states but will be good for her state. With the Alaska Senator’s vote secured, the final count was 50-50, leaving the final decision up to the vice president.

# # #

Tim Rowan The Rowan Report
Tim Rowan The Rowan Report

Tim Rowan is a 30-year home care technology consultant who co-founded and served as Editor and principal writer of this publication for 25 years. He continues to occasionally contribute news and analysis articles under The Rowan Report’s new ownership. He also continues to work part-time as a Home Care recruiting and retention consultant. More information: RowanResources.com
Tim@RowanResources.com

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

Medicaid Cuts Update: Meet the Senate Parliamentarian

by | Jun 27, 2025 | Admin, Advocacy, Medicaid, Medicare

by Tim Rowan, Editor Emeritus

Medicaid Cuts Update

Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough

The ongoing negotiations in Congress will impact Medicaid and Medicare. There has been little movement from the Senate since we reported on this last week, but here’s what we know now:

When H.R. 1 was passed by the House of Representatives and forwarded to the Senate, it was immediately subjected to scrutiny by the Senate Parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough. The job of the parliamentarian is to ensure that every proposed bill complies with Senate rules. The story of Ms. MacDonough taking her scissors to the “One Big Beautiful Bill” requires more than a little unpacking, but it is a good story.

Problem with Medicaid Cuts: "One Bill"

It appears that the idea to put all of the President’s legislative agenda into a single bill is acceptable in the House, but the Senate has different rules. The Senate forces itself to live under the filibuster system. When the filibuster is evoked, a bill must receive 60 votes to pass, but there is an exception. “Budget Reconciliation” is a rule that allows expedited passage of certain specific budget-related bills with only a simple majority, 51 votes.

The problem of the week is that H.R. 1 includes dozens of provisions that have nothing to do with spending. The Senate parliamentarian took her scissors to parts of the bill that:

  • change environmental regulations to pave the way to sell public lands
  • reduce the ability of federal judges to block Presidential orders1
  • dissolve the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
  • change the rules about who can be excluded from receiving Medicare benefits, even after contributing through FICA taxes
Medicaid Cuts

Cutting Medicaid Cuts

Parliamentarian MacDonough has also applied her scissors to the portion of the bill that would reduce Medicaid spending by nearly $800 billion over ten years. Writing for The Hill, Alexander Bolton reported on June 26:

“The Senate’s referee rejected a plan to cap states’ use of health care provider taxes to collect more federal Medicaid funding, a proposal that would have generated hundreds of billions of dollars in savings… The decision could force Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) to reconsider his plan to bring the Senate bill up for a vote this week.”

Alexander Bolton

Journalist, The Hill

The provision, which would have forced states to take over substantially more Medicaid costs, came under strong bipartisan opposition. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) warned deep cuts to federal Medicaid spending could cause dozens of rural hospitals in their states to close. Senate Democrats, led by Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), the ranking Democratic on the Senate Budget Committee, praised MacDonough’s exclusions.

The Hill reported, “Democrats are fighting back against Republicans’ plans to gut Medicaid, dismantle the Affordable Care Act, and kick kids, veterans, seniors, and folks with disabilities off of their health insurance – all to fund tax breaks for billionaires,” Merkley said in a statement.

The President pushed back against the parliamentarian’s rulings in a June 24 social media post:

“To my friends in the Senate, lock yourself in a room if you must, don’t go home, and GET THE DEAL DONE THIS WEEK. Work with the House so they can pick it up, and pass it, IMMEDIATELY. NO ONE GOES ON VACATION UNTIL IT’S DONE.”

Donald Trump

President of the United States

Sorting out the Complex Immigration Question

If the above seems complicated, it becomes rudimentary compared to the background that sets the stage for the parliamentarian’s next cut. Except for emergencies, most often crisis pregnancies, persons in the country illegally cannot, and do not, receive Medicaid-reimbursed healthcare. According to a study by Kaiser Family Foundation, however, fourteen states plus the District of Columbia use state taxpayer money, not federal funds, to cover children regardless of immigration status, Seven of those fourteen, and D.C., also cover some adults with state funds regardless of immigration status.

In the bill was a provision to punish these fourteen states and D.C. by reducing their federal Medicaid payments from 90 percent to 80 percent. Though there is no accusation in the bill that these states are guilty of improper use of federal funds, the states will lose some of those funds because of the way they have chosen to use their own funds. Parliamentarian MacDonough said that is not a budget line item but an attempt by the federal government to force states to change their own healthcare policies.

Medicare Restrictions also Scrapped

Almost as a postscript, a House restriction on Medicare eligibility also fell victim to the Senate Parliamentarian’s scissors. Non-citizens who work in W-2 wage jobs pay FICA taxes, many of them for 30 years or more. When these workers turn 65, they are eligible for Medicare benefits due to their contributions, regardless of their status. Though H.R. 1, the House version, would eliminate that eligibility, Ms. MacDonough said, “Nope, this is not a budget reconciliation issue.”

Although the White House is pressuring Senators to vote quickly — so that a joint House/Senate negotiating committee can hammer out differences and send their compromise version to the President’s desk by July 4 — that self-imposed deadline is up in the air at the moment. Both President Trump and House Speaker Johnson are adamant that every spending and every non-budgetary policy change they want must be enacted in one big bill. In spite of Ms. MacDonough’s cuts, the Senate it not exactly handcuffed either. Because it makes its own rules, Senators could simply decide, with a 51-49 party-line vote, to ignore the parliamentarian.

The power, as well as the future health of Medicaid, falls into the hands of the four dissenting Republican Senators. Home Health and Home Care folks in Missouri, Maine, Alaska and Kansas take note.

____________________________________

1  From White House correspondent Bart Jansen, writing for USA Today:

  • Currently, judges have discretion to set bonds on plaintiffs who file civil suits. Legal experts say judges often waive bonds in lawsuits against the government because the disputes are typically over policy rather than money.
  • A provision in the House-passed version of the bill would remove that discretion from federal judges and require litigants to post a bond when the issue under consideration is whether to block a Trump policy.
  • So far, judges have blocked Trump policies in 180 cases. All of them would have to be reviewed for bonds if the Senate approves the House provision and Trump signs it into law.
  • The law would effectively kill most of the limitations on Trump policies because bond amounts are determined by the dollar amount of the contested policy. In federal cases involving massive policy changes, those bonds can amount to hundreds of billions.

# # #

Tim Rowan The Rowan Report
Tim Rowan The Rowan Report

Tim Rowan is a 30-year home care technology consultant who co-founded and served as Editor and principal writer of this publication for 25 years. He continues to occasionally contribute news and analysis articles under The Rowan Report’s new ownership. He also continues to work part-time as a Home Care recruiting and retention consultant. More information: RowanResources.com
Tim@RowanResources.com

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

Medicaid Cuts Still Looming

by | 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:

Medicaid road sign "cuts ahead"

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.”

Medicaid Cuts

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-

# # #

Tim Rowan The Rowan Report
Tim Rowan The Rowan Report

Tim Rowan is a 30-year home care technology consultant who co-founded and served as Editor and principal writer of this publication for 25 years. He continues to occasionally contribute news and analysis articles under The Rowan Report’s new ownership. He also continues to work part-time as a Home Care recruiting and retention consultant. More information: RowanResources.com
Tim@RowanResources.com

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

BREAKING NEWS: Intrepid USA Files Bankruptcy

by | Jun 6, 2025 | Breaking News, Home Health, Hospice, Legal, M&A, Medicaid, Medicare

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

*Editor’s note: This article has been updated to remove inaccurate information from the Intrepid USA website.

Intrepid USA Files Bankruptcy

Intrepid USA, once among the largest providers of home health and hospice services, files bankruptcy in Texas. With more than $90 million in revenue in 2023, Intrepid operated more than 60 home health and hospice locations in 17 states. The Chapter 7 filing leaves no road to recovery. Chapter 7 allows the company to liquidate assets and distribute the proceeds. According to the Texas Southern Bankruptcy Court, Intrepid USA filed a voluntary petition for Chapter 7 bankruptcy on May 29, 2025.

Troubled History Plagues Company

Intrepid USA has a troubled past that it seems may have caught up with them. The U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) alleges that between 2016 and 2021, Intrepid home healthcare agencies engaged in fraud. In violation of the False Claims Act, Intrepid filed Medicare claims for patients who did not qualify for home health, services that were not medically necessary, services provided by untrained staff, and services that were never provided. In August, 2024, Intrepid agreed to pay $3.85 million to resolve the allegations. The allegations were brought to the DoJ by two former employees of Intrepid under whistleblower provisions.

This is not the first DoJ lawsuit against Intrepid USA. In 2006, when Intrepid owned 150 agencies across the country, the company entered into an $8 million settlement agreement to resolve similar allegations. The DoJ alleged that from 1997 to 2004 Intrepid violated the False Claims Act by billing Medicare and TRICARE for services not provided by a qualified person, failing to maintain complete documentation for its claims, and other violations of Medicare regulations. Additionally, the DoJ alleged that Intrepid, in 2002 and 2003, fraudulently billed Medicaid for home care services provided to patients who were hospitalized at the time of the supposed care.

Private Equity Backing

Sometime around Q3 of 2006, Intrepid USA received financial backing from Patriarch Partners, led by Lynn Tilton. In August of 2020, Patriarch filed a notice of removal with the Supreme Court of New York. In 2021, Intrepid announced it was gearing up for rapid growth fueled by new private equity investors. Then CEO John Kunysz indicated the infusion of capital would fund opportunities for growth through acquisition.

Divest, not Acquire

Despite the influx of capital and the plan to grow through acquisition, by 2024, Intrepid was selling its assets. In August of 2024, Humana acquired 30 Intrepid branch locations and rebranded them under the CenterWell Home Health brand. The sale was part of Patriarch Partners’s Zohar Funds bankruptcy case. In November of 2024, New Day Healthcare acquired Intrepid’s hospice locations in Missouri and Texas.

$0 Revenue; 0 Value

The bankruptcy filing shows that Intrepid USA had $90 million in revenue in 2023, $50 million in revenue in 2024, and $0 in revenue so far in 2025. Chapter 7 bankruptcy is usually supervised by the court, allowing the filing company to sell assets without having to use the revenue generated by the sale to pay off debts. Intrepid listed $1 to $10 million in assets and $88 million in debts at the time of the filing. 

Intrepid USA files bankruptcy
Intrepid USA Files Chapter 7 Bankruptcy

Who will take the loss?

The Intrepid USA website still lists 55 active home health and hospice locations in 11 states. However, 30 of those locations are now listed on the CenterWell website and at least 5 other locations were part of the sale to New Day Healthcare. It is unknown if Intrepid has any locations still in operation. The company did not respond to our request for a statement.

The website also has a list of partners and investors. The Rowan Report reached out to the partners with whom we are familiar for more information. We will provide updates from them once we reach them.

Final Thoughts

The recent divestiture of home health and hospice locations to New Day and CenterWell will hopefully minimize the number of patients who are losing their home health or hospice provider. Millions of dollars in future fraudulent claims will remain in the Medicare, TRICARE, and Medicaid coffers. Conversely, the partners and investors in Intrepid USA may face some loss. We will provide any important updates and comments from the impacted companies as available.

# # #

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

 

Fraudsters Arrested, Oz Issues Warning

by | 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.

Oz Issues Warning
Fraudsters Arrested

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.

# # #

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