Medicare Home Health Cuts: Survey Says

by | Sep 4, 2025 | Partner News

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

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

70% of Americans Oppose Medicare Home Health Cuts, National Poll Finds

Alexandria VA, and Washington, DC, September 4, 2025– A new national poll by Fabrizio Ward, commissioned by the National Alliance for Care at Home (the Alliance), finds that seven in ten Americans oppose the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) 2026 Medicare home health proposed rule, which would slash Medicare home health funding by an additional 9%, or $1.1 billion, next year. These cuts would put lifesaving home health care for millions of Americans at risk, particularly seniors and those with disabilities, while doing nothing to address fraud, waste, and abuse occurring in the home health payment system.

In one of the strongest bipartisan rebukes of Medicare home health cuts to date, the poll found overwhelming opposition across party lines. Large majorities of voters support targeting cost savings to eliminating waste and fraud rather than across-the-board cuts. Voters widely recognize that home health provides significant savings for taxpayers, that lack of access to home health due to recent cuts hurts Medicare patients, and that many more would be hurt if the proposed cuts go into effect.

CMS home health proposed rule

“The results send a crystal-clear message: Americans want more home-based care, not less, and preserving access to care is critical. Cutting home health doesn’t save money – it hurts patients, worsens outcomes, and costs taxpayers more in the long run.” 

Dr. Steve Landers

CEO, National Alliance for Care at Home

The poll reveals Americans see home health as essential to keeping patients safe at home, lowering costs, and easing pressure on already overburdened hospitals and emergency rooms.

Key findings:

  • 70% of all voters oppose Medicare cutting home health services by an additional 9% next year.
  • 91% of all voters believe it’s important that home health services be available when Medicare patients require extra medical support.
  • 55% of all voters support President Trump taking steps to reverse the proposed Medicare home health cuts and ordering a crackdown on fraud in the system.
  • 71% of all voters believe home care is the most affordable care option, compared to just 17% who believe hospital care is more affordable.
  • 73% of all voters say that cutting Medicare home health harms patients and legitimate providers while failing to stop the fraudulent operators that scam hundreds of millions of dollars from the program each year is a good reason to oppose the cuts.

“With more than one out of every two voters either on Medicare, or with a parent on Medicare, voters are clear that people want treatment at home if it’s an option and that home medical care is less expensive than care provided at hospitals and nursing homes. Voters also see the folly in across-the-board cuts that harm everyone rather than focusing efforts to root out known fraud in the home health system. Across the political spectrum voters oppose cuts and support redoubling efforts to fight fraud.”

Tony Fabrizio

Partner, Fabrizio Ward

“These numbers should give every lawmaker pause,” Dr. Landers cautioned. “Patients want to recover where they’re safest – at home. It’s time for Congress to protect what’s working and stop the home-care bleeding. Lawmakers have an opportunity to protect a program that saves lives, lowers costs, enjoys overwhelming bipartisan support, and reflects the clear will of the American people.”

The Alliance is urging Congress and CMS not to finalize the proposed payment cuts and to work with providers to revise their approach and strengthen, not weaken, access to home-based care.

A memo of the poll findings can be found here.

###

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.

Medicare Advantage Excess Payments

by | Sep 4, 2025 | CMS, Hospice, Medicaid, Medicare Advantage

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

Medicare Advantage Excess Payments

Investigational Study

Researchers from the Department of Health Services, Policy and Practice at Brown Universchool of Public Health and the Department of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine at Icahn School of Medicine published an original investigative study on spending versus payments in Medicare Advantage under the hospice carve-out model.

Carve-out to VBID to Carve-out

In 2021, CMS started a Value-Based Insurance Design (VBID) to test the impact of adding hospice services to Medicare Advantage benefits. By December of 2024, CMS ended the program due to widespread upset. CMS returned to the hospice carve-out model. Under this model, when an MA beneficiary chooses hospice, any health care expenses related to the terminal illness is paid on a fee-for-service (FFS) basis. MA no longer receives inpatient and outpatient payments, but continues to receive premiu, and rebate payments.

Carve-out Hospice Benefit

Once an MA enrollee enrolls in hospice, MA is no longer responsible for payments. Under the carve-out model, hospice services are paid by Medicare. MA plans are still responsible for paying for services that are not related to hospice care. These services can include inpatient, outpatient, physician, skilled nursing facility, home health care, and prescription drug expenses. 

Medicare Advantage Spending and Payments

The study spanned 12 months and looked at 314,087 MA beneficiaries. In that period, 80.5% of enrollees had no spneding unrelated to their terminal illness. MA was not responsible for any healthcare related payments, but continued to receive $120 per enrollee per month. Estimated spending from MA on hospice enrollees was $57-70 per month. 

Medicare Advantage Excess Payments
Medicare Advantage Excess Payments

In the 12 months following an enrollee electing hospice, MA plans netted $50-60 per month per enrollee. If half of the rebate payments received pay for supplemental benefits, MA receives excess payments to the tune of $68,808,924 over three years. If no rebate payments go toward supplemental benefits, MA receives $174,185,112 in excess payments over three years. The care a hospice enrollee receives uses the fee-for-service model. Medicare Advantage providers are seemingly paid on a fee-for-no-service model. 

Medicare Advantage plans do not currently report the actual amount of rebate payments used to pay supplemental benefits.

Study Conclusion

The researchers conclude that MA receives excess payments under the hospice carve-0ut model. They also note that there is no accountability for spending after hospice election from MA plans to CMS. The researchers suggest that CMS could require MA plans to report actual spending on supplemental services after hospice election and pay premiums and rebates only to cover the amount spent. 

I have a different recommendation….MA plans should not receive any additional premium payments or rebates following hospice election. MA plans should be required to report total payments and spending from enrollment date to election date. The balance, less the same 8% average margin of home and health and hospice agencies, should be used to pay for hospice services from election to passing. Any remaining balance after the patient’s passing should be returned to the beneficiary’s family.

# # #

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

 

BREAKING NEWS: CMS Changes AHEAD

by | Sep 4, 2025 | CMS, Medicaid, Medicare

From cms.gov

CMS Changes AHEAD

CMS Announces Changes to Achieving Healthcare Efficiency through Accountable Design (AHEAD) Model to Improve Quality, Promote Transparency, and Decrease Costs

September 2, 2025

What's New

The CMS Innovation Center announced new policy and operational changes, as well as a new end date, to the Achieving Healthcare Efficiency through Accountable Design (AHEAD) Model to help states achieve their total cost of care (TCOC) targets, while advancing the Center’s commitment to promote choice and competition, increase prevention, empower patients, and protect taxpayer dollars.

Why it Matters

Participating states now have more tools to manage Medicare costs (designed to support sustainable growth) and improve quality of care and population health outcomes

What to Expect

Changes will be implemented across all cohorts beginning in January 2026. AHEAD’s end date for all cohorts is now December 31, 2035.

The Big Picture

Changes made to the model will help to advance the CMS Innovation Center’s strategic pillars of: 1) choice and competition, with states implementing at least two policies focused on promoting choice and competition in their health care markets and 2) prevention, with a new Population Health Accountability Plan focused on preventive care, including chronic disease prevention.

CMS Change AHEAD

Additional Details

CMS is also introducing payment reforms through AHEAD for patients with Original Medicare and establishing new transparency requirements around TCOC and primary care investment targets. For the first time ever, AHEAD will bring total cost of care accountability to all Original Medicare beneficiaries in AHEAD regions through geographic attribution of beneficiaries not attributed to other CMS accountable care organization programs. This novel framework will offer risk-bearing Geographic Entities additional tools and enhanced flexibilities to improve health outcomes and lower spending for their patients while receiving shared payments (or losses) through two-sided risk arrangements. In return, patients may receive additional beneficiary incentives while enjoying existing protections under the Original Medicare program.

Total Cost of Care Model

The AHEAD Model is a state total cost of care (TCOC) model that seeks to drive state and regional health care transformation and multi-payer alignment, with the goal of improving the total health of a state population and lowering costs. Under a TCOC approach, a participating state uses its authority to assume responsibility for managing health care quality and costs across all payers, including Medicare, Medicaid, and private coverage. States also assume responsibility for ensuring health providers in their state deliver high-quality care, improve population health, offer greater care coordination, and promote healthier living for all people participating in the model. The AHEAD Model provides participating states with funding and other tools to address rising health care costs and improve health outcomes.

More Information

# # #

©2025 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. This announcement originally appeared on the CMS website here. For more information, please contact the CMS Innovation Center.

DOJ Settles with UnitedHealth and Amedisys

by | Aug 21, 2025 | Legal, M&A, Medicare, Medicare Advantage

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

DOJ Settles with UnitedHealth and Amedisys

Judge to Weigh In

DOJ settles with UnitedHealth and Amedisys after almost nine months of negotiations. The Department of Justice (DOJ) initially blocked the proposed merger between UnitedHealth and Amedisys, citing concerns over eliminating competition in home health and hospice services in some areas of the U.S. After the most recent settlement hearing, the merger seems to be back on track.

Public Comment Period and Judicial Review

Now that the DOJ hurdle has been passed, there is a public comment period. Following the public comment period, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland will enter final judgement. From the Justice Department website:

As required by the Tunney Act, the proposed settlement, along with a competitive impact statement, will be published in the Federal Register. Any interested person should submit written comments concerning the proposed settlement within 60 days following the publication to Jill Maguire, Acting Chief, Healthcare and Consumer Products Section, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 450 Fifth Street NW, Suite 4100, Washington, DC 20530. 

Antitrust Division Statement

“In no sector of our economy is competition more important to Americans’ well-being than healthcare. This settlement protects quality and price competition for hundreds of thousands of vulnerable patients and wage competition for thousands of nurses. I commend the Antitrust Division’s Staff for doggedly investigating and prosecuting this case on behalf of seniors, hospice patients, nurses, and their families.”

Abigail Slater

Assistant Attorney General, Justice Department Antitrust Division

Divestiture Agreement

According to the new agreement, UnitedHealth will sell 164 home health and hospice locations across 19 states. In addition to the sale, the agreement provides the buyers of these locations with assets, personnel, and relationships to help them compete with remaining UnitedHealth locations. Also included are protections to deter UnitedHealth from interfering with the new owners’ ability to compete.

BrightSpring Health Services and Pennant Group will acquire the 164 locations. Slater said the settlement, which includes the largest ever divestiture of outpatient healthcare, protects quality and price competition patients as well as wage competition for nurses. However, antitrust specialist Robin Crauthers, a partner with McCarter & English, says it doesn’t go far enough. According to Crauthers, the settlement agreement does not address all of the markets that would have less competition and that the DOJ accepted less than they wanted in the agreement.

Additionally, critics argue the divestiture moves 164 home health and hospice agencies from one large player to two other large players in the space. Arguably, rather than preserve competition, this divestiture agreement will only serve to strengthen the largest players in the market, giving them a substantial advantage over smaller agencies in these areas.

UnitedHealth Amedisys divestiture locations

Not the Only Concern

Vertical Integration

Joe Widmar, Director of M&A at West Monroe consulting firm, says that the number of home health and hospice agencies is not the tipping factor in competition. Rather, it is UnitedHealth’s vertical integration. A health insurance company that also owns nearly 2,700 subsidiaries, including pharmacies, home health and hospice, behavioral health, consulting for healthcare organizations, surgery centers, hospitals, mental health, managed care for Medicaid and Medicare, and specialty care. Virtually any referral from a PCP to any other health professional puts more money into the health care giant’s pockets. The lack of competition is across all forms of healthcare, leaving patients no choice buy to support UnitedHealth Group in areas where all local healthcare providers are subsidiaries. I 2024, UnitedHealth insurance paid $150.9 million to its subsidiaries for care. These provider companies are not counted in the profit caps placed on insurance companies.

Upcoding

In addition to side-stepping profit caps, vertical integration aids in upcoding. Upcoding is the practice of digging into a patient’s life to find (or create) additional patient needs. Insurers add as many codes as possible for the greatest reimbursement rates. According to a recent study, UnitedHealthcare overbilled Medicare Advantage by $14 billion through upcoding. 

In-home health risk assessments and patient reviews, often offered to beneficiaries as a free service, result in an average risk score 7% higher than in patients seen in medical practices and hospitals. UnitedHealth generates more income from patient review diagnoses than any other MA insurer. The Department of Justice is currently investigating UnitedHealth’s Medicare billing practices.

Final Thoughts

If you own a home health, hospice, or palliative care agency in any of the states shown in the graphic above, write to Jill Maguire with comments and concerns. Our primary objective is providing quality care to patients in their homes. We know that home care is less expensive for the patient and government-funded insurance. But not when all the home care agencies in an area are owned by only a few of the largest home health agencies in the country. And not when the insurer is adding diagnostic codes to pad their bill. 

# # #

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. 

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

 

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