UnitedHealth Bribes Nurses

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

United Health Bribery Update

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

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

Buddy Carter

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

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

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

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

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

by George Joseph, The Guardian
Wed May 21, 2025

Revealed: UnitedHealth secretly paid nursing homes to reduce hospital transfers

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

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

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

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

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

Confidential Investigation

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

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

UnitedHealth Responds

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

Long-Term Profit

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

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

Seven Years of Bribery and Threats

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

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

Anonymous

Former National Executive, United Health

# # #

Medicare Advantage Predatory Marketing

by Kristin Rowan | Aug 16, 2024 | CMS, Editorial, Marketing, Medicare Advantage, Regulatory

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

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

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

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

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

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

PACE Programs

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

Bait and Switch

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

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

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

Katie Smith Sloan

president and CEO, LeadingAge

Dire Need for Change

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

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

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

Shawn Bloom

president and CEO, National PACE Association

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

Updates will be provided when we have them.

# # #

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

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

Sources:

https://prospect.org/health/2024-05-30-medicare-advantage-64-billion-supplemental-benefits/

https://leadingage.org/associations-urge-tougher-enforcement-of-anti-predatory-medicare-advantage-marketing-practices/

Federal Regulations for Adult Protective Services

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

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.

Dept of Health & Human Services Final Rule

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

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

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

The APS final rule:

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

The Need for Adult Protective Services

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

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

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

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

# # #

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

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