Subsidies Undecided

by Kristin Rowan | Dec 12, 2025 | Medicaid, Medicare, Regulatory

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

Subsidies Undecided

Senate cannot agree

The record-breaking government shutdown centered around one issue: extending the COVID-era Affordable Care Act supplemental subsidies. The subsidies were an additional discount for Americans within a certain income bracket. They helped make healthcare insurance through the ACA marketplace more affordable during and after COVID. The subsidies have been extended multiple times and expire at the end of the year. Senate Republicans are not willing to extend them again. Senate Democrats won’t vote in favor of any health care proposal that doesn’t include them.

Time is Running Out

Not only do the subsidies expire at the end of the year, but anyone enrolling in a marketplace plan has to apply by December 15th, leaving precious few days to find a way forward. Senate Democrats proposed a straight three-year extension of the subsidies, which failed. Senate Republicans proposed using the subsidy money to contribute to HSAs for bronze or “catastrophic” plans. That proposal also failed.

A hybrid compromise is in the works. Details have not been released but it will likely include income caps and eligibility restrictions on the subsidies as well as some HSA flexibility. Without an extension on the subsidies, premiums are expected to increase an average of 26% in 2026, although some analyses suggest premiums could go up by 73-90%.

Another Shutdown?

The 43-day shutdown that ended in November did not finalize the 2026 budget. It merely passed enough appropriations to temporarily fund some departments through January 30, 2026 and a few essential departments for longer. If the Senate and House cannot agree on the subsidy issue, we face another shutdown in February. Every shutdown impacts Medicare & Medicaid payments, approvals, and renewals.

Experts indicate nearly 50% of people buying marketplace plans are ages 50-64. Most, if not all of them, are looking at lower cost (and lower benefit) plans or dropping insurance altogether in 2026. If insurance costs remain high, this group of

people will enter Medicare with poorer health, which will cost the Medicare program and tax payers more in the long run. It will cause a vicious circle of higher Medicare costs, leading to higher taxes, lower subsidies, higher premiums, fewer people being covered, and finally higher Medicare costs again.

This is an ongoing story and The Rowan Report will continue to bring you the latest news on the subsidies and the impending expiration of the temporary government funding as we head into 2026.

# # #

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

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

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

Medicare Advantage Reform

by Kristin Rowan | Nov 25, 2025 | CMS, Editorial, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Regulatory

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

Medicare Advantage Reform

Background

Traditional Medicare is available to any U.S. citizen over the age of 65 or with a qualifying disability. Part A covers hospital care, skilled nursing facility care, hospice care, and some medically necessary home health care while Part B covers doctor visits and outpatient care. Medicare is billed through and paid by the federal government.

Medicare Advantage (originally Medicare+Choice) is Medicare coverage offered by private insurance companies who are then reimbursed by the government. The goal was to create competition and lower costs. It has done neither. Medicare Advantage plans are supposed to provide all of the coverage from Parts A, B, & D except hospice care. That is still handled by traditional Medicare.

Hospice Carve-in Plan

Despite the epic failure of the recent hospice carve-in experiment, House representative Schweikert (R-AZ) introduced H.R. 3467 to reform the Medicare Advantage program and included a requirement for hospice care. The goal, according to Schweikert, is to eliminate waste and fraud and stop MA insurance companies from making billions in profits by upcoding. The solutions, outlined in H.R.3467, include requiring MA recipients to stay on the same plan for at least three years and permanently including the hospice benefit in MA plans.

Eight New Bills

On November 19, 2025, Representative Mark Pocan (D-WI), with the support of 12 other members of the House, introduced eight separate bills aimed at Medicare Advantage reform and strengthening traditional Medicare. The eight bills include:

1. Disincentives for delaying and denying lifesaving care due to prior authorization requirements
2. Automatic appeals for any denial of care
3. Visually and audibly disclosing delay and denial rates in advertising
4. Banning participation in MA for any company convicted of defrauding the government
5. Lowering MA reimbursement rates to at or below traditional Medicare rates
6. Limiting the number of MA plans a company can offer to 3 per year
7. Prohibiting MA from being the default option
8. Creating a website listing all doctors by plan

Commentary

In addition to the package cosponsors and six endorsing organizations, Rep Pocan received industry expert support for his bill package.

“Big Insurance has long pitched Medicare Advantage as a key tool to lowering health care costs and delivering better care, but like so much of their rhetoric, this is nothing but bold-faced lies. The truth is, Medicare Advantage is neither Medicare nor an advantage. And it certainly doesn’t exist to lower costs. It exists to help Big Insurance make sky-high profits and enrich shareholders. It is long past time Congress stepped in and protected patients. The legislative package Congressman Pocan is introducing is the most comprehensive plan ever introduced to rein in Medicare Advantage and protect patients. Congress should pass these bills without delay.”

– Wendell Potter, President, The Center for Health and Democracy

“Medicare Advantage insurers profit from withholding medically necessary care, and can withhold care with near impunity. So, people enrolling in corporate MA plans are forced to gamble with their health and with their lives. They can’t avoid the bad actors. It’s time Congress protected older Americans and people with disabilities from bad actor Medicare Advantage insurers, as Congressman Pocan’s MA Bill package would do.”

– Diane Archer, President and Founder, Just Care

Rep. Pocan’s bills do not include the hospice carve-in and would leave hospice care under traditional Medicare.

Faulty Logic?

Medicare Advantage plan payors have been accused of upcoding, fraud, overbilling, delays in care, and denials that circumvent the rule that MA must cover everything traditional Medicare does. It may be naive to assume that passing these bills will force unscrupulous companies to suddenly have integrity.

MA enrollees pay the standard Part B premium and might pay an additional MA premium depending on their income, geographic locations, and/or additional plan benefits. Rep. Pocan’s bill lowers what MA charges the government (aka tax payers) but does not address what the plans charge enrollees. If MA plans are required to lower reimbursement rates by 10%, for example, won’t they just increase premiums, deductibles, and copays or remove additional benefits? Sure, the government spends less, but out-of-pocket costs increase and quality of care drops.

The “Seniors Choice” bill limiting the number of plans to three is unclear in its direction. A 2019 rule removed the meaningful difference requirement for MA plans. This bill seeks to reinstate that requirement, but changes the term to “significantly different” in premiums, benefits, and cost-sharing. There are too many variables in health insurance to limit the choices to three. Three choices per company lessens the competitive need to keep prices low.

Not so Hidden Agenda

Medicare Advantage reform is sorely needed. MA is largely fraudulent, misleading, and costly both in spending and health. Chipping away at some of these pieces is for the good of the enrollees on their surfaces. But dig just a little deeper and the goal is clear.

Overwhelmingly, the organizations in support of this bill package are proponents of a single payer system. The prior authorizations disincentive is termination of the entire contract for the year. The disallowing participation bill includes all companies and individuals convicted of any crime, misdemeanor or greater, in any way connected to healthcare, all financial misconduct in or out of healthcare, and all acts of fraud, kickbacks, and misrepresentation of material fact. Any plan charging more than its traditional Medicare counterpart will be eliminated. Given these restrictions, it will not take long for every Medicare Advantage plan to be eliminated entirely.

The recent government shutdown centered around the ACA subsidies that are set to expire at the end of the year. The elimination of those subsidies could push healthcare insurance premiums to a level that few can afford, furthering the need for a single payer plan.

Final Thoughts

The White House has promised a health care proposal with much speculation but no facts. The proposal has yet to be released. Congress is still negotiating the extension of Covid-era subsidy increases with only a few weeks remaining before they adjourn for the holidays. ACA participants are having to renew their health insurance without knowing what the final cost will be and many believe the number of participants will drop significantly, leaving millions uninsured.

None of the proposed solutions will fix all the problems with healthcare. But, a temporary stay is better than losing access to healthcare altogether. This is an ongoing issue and The Rowan Report will continue to bring you the latest information as it becomes available.

# # #

Second Longest Shutdown Since 1980

by Kristin Rowan | Oct 30, 2025 | Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Regulatory

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

Second Longest Shutdown Since 1980

–As of October 30, 2025–

Shutdown day 30

Subsidy Standoff

Senate Majority Leader John Thune spoke with MSNBC about the shutdown and the subsidy expiration. “Shouldn’t people who are signing up during open enrollment know what they’re signing up for?,” MSNBC asked. Thune said the first step has to be opening the government before that conversation happens, not in the context of the budget talks. According to Thune, the Republican party objects to the current operation of the subsidy program and the incentive structure needs reform.

Subsidy Standoff Not to Blame

Current estimates show insurance premiums rising by 18% – 22% in 2026. Leader Thune suggests that only a “tiny percentage” of that increase is due to the expiration of the enhanced subsidies and the rest is coming from the insurance companies. He says premiums should not being going up by this much and the extreme rate increase is because of waste, fraud, and abuse, and the lack of incentives for insurance companies to lower costs.

No Reform, No Subsidy

Throughout the interview, Leader Thune would not commit to

Government Shutdown Senate Majority Leader John Thune

negotiating with Democrats, would not guarantee subsidies would be saved, and would not commit to voting for any extension without at least lowering income caps back to pre-COVID levels.

After the Senate session today, Thune spoke to reporters, indicating there was a “higher level of communication” happening. He went on to repeat his earlier statement to MSNBC.

“…there are a lot of rank-and-file members that continue, I think, to want to pursue solutions and to be able to address the issues they care about, including health care, which … we’re willing to do, but it obviously is contingent upon them opening up the government.”

John Thune

Senate Majority Leader

(Un)lucky Number 13

October 28th marked the 13th vote put to the Senate to reopen the government in 28 days. The Senate reconvened yesterday and plan to vote again today, October 30th. Senators have mixed opinions about the likelihood of an agreement now that deadlines for military pay, SNAP benefits, and other programs close in.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D) said negotiations were “occasional” and that Republicans haven’t offered anything different from the original House-passed budget.

Senator Lindsey Graham (R) said resolving the differences on health care would come after the government reopens. “I’m hoping next week, hopefully after the election, that we can get the government back open, talking about our differences on health care.”

Senator Thom Tillis (R) states there is no evidence that formal negotiations are happening, just discussions.

When Will it End?

The Senate is expected to vote today, October 30th. The measure needs 60 affirmative votes to pass. The vote to automatically continue without discussion failed 37-61. The subsequent votes to temporarily fund the government through November 21st failed 55-45 on October 1 and 54-45 on October 28. Senator Jim Justice (R-WV) voted yes in the first vote, but did not vote yesterday.

If I Were a Gambler...

The rumors and accusations fly on both sides about who is to blame for the shutdown. There are betting sites placing odds on the date the standoff will end. I’m no political expert, but I think there’s something else going on. I believe both sides are playing risky games and that neither side knows the rules to the other’s game. I think both sides know the exact date they will each agree to end this standoff. And I’m sure there are underlying motives that have nothing to do with what they’re telling us.

We will continue to report on this ongoing story as more information becomes available.

# # #

Government Shutdown

by Kristin Rowan | Oct 9, 2025 | Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Regulatory

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

Government Shutdown Threatens Care at Home

Lawmakers on opposite sides of the aisle failed to come to a budget agreement by the deadline. This causes an immediate cease to all non-essential government functions and many government employees aren’t being paid.

UPDATE: Shutdown, Day 16

–As of October 16, 2025–

What it Means for Care at Home

After 10 attempts, the government is no closer to an agreement than they were on September 30th. The Senate is expected to break at the end of the day, leaving the next opportunity to negotiate until at least Monday.

Telehealth

The biggest impact on care at home during the government shut down is the ability to complete required face-to-face visits using telehealth appointments. Both home health and hospice have employed telehealth for face-to-face encounters since the COVID-era waiver, which has now been extended several times. The most recent extension, which we anticipated Congress to extend in this budget, expired on September 30th.

All face-to-face encounters occurring after October 1, 2025 must be in person.

According to home health expert Melinda A. Gaboury of Healthcare Provider Solutions says it is unlikely an extension would be retroactive even if Congress includes an extension in the finalized budget.

Payments

Conflicting information on Medicare payments leave us unsure of the actual impact. Some reports say there will be no delay while others mention 10-day holds. It is unclear whether this is in addition to the standard 14-day hold. Either way, we are anticipating (and hoping for) minimal payment disruptions.

Surveys

Initial Medicare certification for home health and hospice as well as recertifications will be delayed. If ACHA, CHAP, or another accrediting body is conducting your survey, however, there should be no delay. These accrediting bodies are continuing without interruption. State agency surbveys will be delayed until after the budget is finalized and the shutdown ends.

Look for continued updates from The Rowan Report as the shutdown and negotiations continue.

–As of October 9, 2025–

The Disagreement

Reporters and spokespoeople from both sides of the debate have suggested various reasons for the shutdown. Equally, both sides claim they are not the holdouts. What we do know for sure is that one of the primary points of contention is the continuation of subsidies for Affordable Care Act Marketplace Insurance plans. One group wants an extension written into the current budget while the other says it’s not necessary since the subsidies currently run through the end of the calendar year.

Push to Extend

The lawmakers who are pushing to get the subsidy issue resolved believe that marketplace users are not going to sign up for insurance in November and do it again in January when the subsidies are fixed. Instead, insurance commissioners warn that without the subsidies, many people will opt not to have insurance at all and others will select substandard plans based on affordability. They will be priced out of the plans they want without the subsidies in place.

Priced Out

In 2025, even with the subsidies, the average family was paying $800 per month on health insurance through the marketplace. When the subsidies expire, those same families will see their existing plan rates jump to $3,000 per month. KFF, the nonpartisan health research organization, estimates that most users will have a 114% rate increase.

Photo Credit – The New York Times

Counter

According to ND insurance commissioner Jon Godfread, lawmakers who oppose the subsidies are actually opposing the cost of health care and insurance across the board. They insist the subsidies aren’t necessary if healthcare and insurance costs drop instead. Proponents of the subsidies agree, but say that is a longer discussion that will take a lot of time to resolve and the subsidies provide an immediate solution to a bigger problem. They are urging the holdouts to include the subsidies in the budget and tackle the rising cost of healthcare later.

Open Enrollment

The clock is ticking. Open enrollment for 2026 begins November first in every state except Idaho, where open enrollment starts next week. Insurers have already locked in their 2026 premium rates, which will likely cause sticker shock for most marketplace users. Most insurers have prepared subsidy and non-subsidy rates, but without the extension, we will only see the much higher non-subsidy rates. These rates are unlikely to change before enrollment starts and the only hope for marketplace buyers is for Congress to extend the subsidies.

Care at Home Impact

There are several ways in which the shutdown and the loss of the subsidy may impact care at home.

Payment delays are the most pressing risk. Government officials have promised no delay for some essential services like SNAP and WIC. It is likely Medicare and Medicaid payments will be delayed. While those payments will come through eventually, care at home agencies have to operate without payment or hope the

payers will process payments locally while waiting on the government to reopen. The longer the shutdown lasts, the more likely it is that payments will be delayed. The 6th Senate budget vote failed today, sending the shutdown to day 8.

The longer term impact for care at home will come if the subsidies are not renewed. If insurance rates increase by more than 100% on November 1, users will opt for lower priced coverage, which may no longer include care at home benefits. Fewer patients seeking care at home means less money for agencies. Long-term, it also means higher hospital and ER usage and costs, which increases government spending and usually leads to additional care at home cuts to offset the costs.

National Alliance for Care at Home has identifed current and potential implications of the shutdown. Read their analysis here.

This is an ongoing story and we will continue to provide additional information as it happens.

# # #

Advocacy Week

by Rowan Report | Sep 18, 2025 | Advocacy, Home Health, Hospice, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Regulatory

Advocacy Week

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

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

Over 240 Advocates Rally in DC for the Future of Care at Home

National Alliance for Care at Home Hosts Inaugural Advocacy Week on Capitol Hill

Alexandria, VA and Washington, D.C., September 12, 2025.

More than 240 care at home care advocates from across the country met with over 275 congressional offices this week to discuss key legislative and regulatory priorities for expanding access to home-based care services. The meetings were part of the 2025 National Alliance for Care at Home’s inaugural Advocacy Week.

Alliance Advocacy Week brings together leaders, advocates, and supporters to unite as one voice for care at home, driving positive legislative change and shaping the future of care to ensure broader access to the life-changing home care services for all Americans.

Advocates focused on four key issues during their congressional meetings:

Protecting home health care by preventing dangerous payment cuts
Safeguarding the Medicare Hospice Benefit by ensuring hospice remains a separate holistic managed care model outside of Medicare Advantage
Expanding telehealth access across many care at home services
Supporting robust Medicaid HCBS funding to strengthen community-based care

Advocacy Week National Alliance for Care at Home

In addition to Wednesday’s congressional meetings, Alliance Advocacy Week featured strategy sessions, beginner advocate training featuring a panel discussion with Congressional staffers, and in-depth policy briefings. On Thursday, the Alliance’s Assembly of State Associations – a network of leaders of state home care and hospice organizations – came together for a robust conversation.

The Alliance celebrates the achievements of this inaugural Advocacy Week on behalf of home-based care providers nationwide and will continue engaging in critical policy dialogue to support and expand access to essential care at home services.

# # #

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.

©2025. This press release originally appeared on the National Alliance for Care at Home website and is reprinted here with permission. For questions or to request permission to use, please see press contact information above.

Medicaid Cuts Update: Meet the Senate Parliamentarian

by Tim Rowan | 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

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 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

Dr. Oz Nomination Advances to Full Senate

by Tim Rowan | Mar 31, 2025 | Admin, CMS, Regulatory

by Tim Rowan, Editor Emeritus

Dr. Oz Nomination Advance to Senate

“Given your close ties to the industry that you would regulate, if you are confirmed, the public would have reason to question your impartiality and commitment to serving the public’s interest.” — Senator Elizabeth Warren, letter to Dr. Mehmet Oz

Reuter’s Ahmed Aboulenein reported on March 12 that “Warren called on Oz to divest from his financial holdings related to industries regulated by the agency and commit to strong ethics safeguards.” Oz, of course, is President Donald Trump’s nominee for CMS Administrator, the agency most important to Home Health and Hospice providers.

Across the aisle, Missouri Senator Josh Hawley peppered Oz with questions about his position on transgender therapy. “You previously praised trans surgeries for minors and supported the use of puberty blockers for children. You discussed transgender therapy on your TV program and hosted transgender children.”

Hawley also questioned Dr Oz’s previous comments on abortion, adding: “I hope he’s changed his views to match President Trump! We need the Trump agenda at CMS.”

It goes without saying that a nominee who encounters challenges from the left and the right is facing an uphill battle toward Senate confirmation, especially when nominees this year can only afford to lose three votes from the majority party. What exactly has Dr. Oz said or done over his long career that may put his nomination in jeopardy?

Pulling Back the Curtain

Becker’s Hospital Review summarized Oz’s history as well as his answers to questions during his three-hour Senate hearing on March 14.

“The former TV personality answered questions about potential Medicaid cuts, the focus of the House’s February budget instruction that the Energy and Commerce Committee cut $880 billion over 10 years. Medicare and Medicaid are the largest programs under the committee’s oversight. (A March 5 Congressional Budget Office report said the only way to reach the $880 billion saving goal over the next decade, without raising taxes, would be through Medicaid or CHIP cuts.)”

While Dr. Oz did not directly respond to questions or reveal his stance regarding Medicaid cuts, he did have a prepared non-answer for the Senators. “I commit to doing whatever I can, working tirelessly to ensure that CMS provides Americans with superb care. Especially Americans who are most vulnerable. Our young, our disabled and our elderly.”

On March 25, the Senate Finance Committee voted to advance Oz’s nomination to the full Senate. The panel voted 14 to 13, along party lines.

Vision Statement

Prior to facing the challenging questions thrown at him from both sides of the aisle, Dr. Oz used his opening statement to outline a vision focused largely on modernizing CMS’s systems; addressing waste, fraud and abuse; and incentivizing Americans to make healthier lifestyle choices.

In the past, Oz had endorsed privatizing Medicare through a change that would essentially result in something that might be called “Medicare Advantage for All.” In his Senate hearing answers, Oz pivoted to the opposite argument. He cited problems of overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans, the need to limit prior authorizations, and emphasized the need to halt the practice of “upcoding” where providers or plans bill for treating patients as sicker than they actually are.

In 2010, Dr Oz hosted a 15-minute segment on his show called “Transgender Kids: Too Young to Decide?” in which he spoke to transgender children, their parents and a doctor who provided gender-affirming care.

Outlook

Considering the slim Republican majority in the Senate, Ox can afford to lose only three Republican votes in his bid to become the next CMS administrator.

# # #

©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

Congress Allows Medicare Advantage to Deny Coverage

by Kristin Rowan | Jan 9, 2025 | Advocacy, Editorial, Medicare Advantage, Regulatory

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

Medicare Advantage Bill Dies in Congress

The 118th United States Congress, ran from January 3, 2023 to January 3, 2025. This Congress’s first law was passed on March 20, 2023, much later than most previous congressional sessions. In its first year, it passed only 34 bills. In the two years of this congressional run, the 118th passed 209 public laws, almost half the average since 1989. Among the many bills that died on the floor before time ran out was the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (H.R. 8702/S. 4532). Senate and House members introduced the bill on June 12, 2024.

Improving Seniors' Timely Access to Care

In June of 2024, senators and representatives introduced bipartisan legislation that would have curbed Medicare Advantage’s ability to deny claims. The bill included language that allowed CMS the authority to establish standard timeframes for electronic prior authorizations requests including expedited requests and real-time decisions for routinely approved services. The bill also included requirements for transparency and reporting, including:

- establishing an electronic prior authorization process
- establishing a process for real-time decisions for routine services
- providing more detailed reports on use of prior authorization including
  - rates of approvals
  - denials
  - average time for approvals
- pressing Medicare Advantage providers to incorporate input from health care providers on their authorization processes and decisions
- adopting prior authorization programs that adhere to evidence-based medical guidelines
- requiring Medicare Advantage providers to report on the percentage of denied claims that were later overturned

Overwhelming Support

At the time this bill was reintroduced to Congress in June, 135 House co-sponsors and 44 Senate co-sponsors signed on. By the end of July, the bill had been read, sent to the House Ways and Means Committee, and passed. Representative Mike Kelly (R-PA) noted that more than 500 organizations had endorsed the act.

Urgent Need for Change

In early 2024, an audit from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) revealed that Medicare Advantage plans eventually approve 75% of authorization requests for services that were initally denied. More recently, HHS OIG released a report showing that MA plans incorrectly denied services to beneficiaries even though they met the requirements for coverage. Following the report, HHS OIG made the following recommendations to CMS:

- issue new guidance on the use of MAO clinical criteria in medical necessity reviews
- update audit protocols for Medicare Advantage to address the issues of MAO use of clinical critera and examining service types
- direct MAOs to indentify and address the causes for manual review errors and system errors.

CMS agreed with all three recommendations.

Dead in the Field

Despite the bipartisan, bicameral support of this much needed overhaul of Medicare Advantage providers, the bill is currently in pile of unaddressed issues that the 118th Congress just didn’t get to. Despite having it in front of them for five months, and despite passing nearly half the legislation of the 17 most recent congressional sessions, the bill that would keep MA beneficiaries from waiting inordinate amounts of time for routine care will have to wait for the next session to resume. Let’s hope the 119th Congress is more productive.

# # #

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

Pharmacy and PBM Separation Pushed by Congress

by Kristin Rowan | Dec 19, 2024 | Advocacy, Regulatory

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

Bi-Partisan Bill Introduced

The final session of this Congress may not be as “lame” as anticipated. On December 11, 2024, Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), with the support of Representatives Diana Harshbarger (R-Tenn.) and Jake Auchincloss (D-Mass.) introduced the Patients Before Monopolies Act.

The bill, if passed, would prohibit any company from owning both a Pharmacy Benefit Manager and a Pharmacy. Joint ownership of both creates a “gross conflict of interest” that allows companies to increase their own profits at the expense of patients and independent pharmacies.

Pharmacy Benefit Managers

Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) act as middlemen between consumers, health insurance companies, drug manufacturers, and pharmacies. They were designed to negotiate reimbursement and dispensing fees in pharmacies, negotiate drug prices from manufacturers, and manage drug costs for insurance companies. The PBM Act claims that PBMs have manipulated the market, increased drug costs, and are driving independent smaller pharmacies out of business.

In Their Own Words

“PBMs have manipulated the market to enrich themselves — hiking up drug costs, cheating employers, and driving small pharmacies out of business. My new bipartisan bill will untangle these conflicts of interest by reining in these middlemen,” said Senator Warren.

“The PBM industry is rife with self-dealing that raises costs for patients and bankrupts independent pharmacists. No PBM should be allowed to own pharmacies, because it poses an unacceptable conflict of interest when it then sets reimbursement rates for its own versus external pharmacies. Independent pharmacies deserve fair play,” said Representative Auchincloss.

“As a life-long pharmacist, I know first-hand how unchecked PBM consolidation and vertical integration have allowed these shadowy middlemen to self-deal and manipulate the system in ways that are driving up drug costs, limiting patient choices, and putting the financial screws to independent community pharmacies,” said Representative Harshbarger. “I’m a proud conservative Republican, but we have antitrust laws for a reason. That’s why I’m joining my colleagues in introducing the bipartisan Patients Before Monopolies Act, which will protect consumers and taxpayers, and ensure fair competition by breaking-up these anticompetitive, conflict-of-interest arrangements. Federal regulators should never have let this excessive concentration of our healthcare industry happen in the first place, and so it’s up to Congress to get the job done.”

Issues Addressed

The PBM Act aims to address the issues of higher drug costs, fewer independent pharmacies, and larger profits for corporations. The PBM Act would:

- Disallow the parent company of any PBM or insurer from owning a pharmacy
- Require any PBM or insurer that also owns a pharmacy to sell the pharmacy business within three years
- Allow the FTC, DHHS, DOJ Anti-Trust Division, and state attorneys general to issue orders requiring the divestiture of pharmacies by owners of PBMs or insurers
- Allow the same to sieze revenue made from the pharmacy business from any owner of a PBM or insurer
- Distribute the funds to communities and consumers who have been overcharged by these pharmacies
- Mandate the reporting of all divestments of pharmacies to the FTC
- Allow the FTC to review any and all future acquisitions

PBMs have manipulated the market to enrich themselves — hiking up drug costs, cheating employers, and driving small pharmacies out of business. My new bipartisan bill will untangle these conflicts of interest by reining in these middlemen.

Elizabeth Warren

Senator, D-Mass.

Who is Impacted?

CVS Health, Cigna, and UnitedHealth Group, among others, would be required to sell their pharmacy businesses within three years.

Caremark, owned by CVS, Express Scripts, owned by Cigna, and OptumRX, owned by UnitedHealth Group, are three of the largest PBMs in the country. Together, they control about 80% of all prescription drug claims.

Not surprisingly, the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, a lobbying group for PBMs, has contested the claims made in the bill and by its supporters. They argue that PBMs offer convenient, affordable access to medications.

Similarly, CVS said that its integrated business model, both a PBM and pharmacy, helps connect people to accessible, affordable care. The pharmaceutical giant claims it has lowered out-of-pocket drug costs more than 25% in the last ten years and that it reimburses independent pharmacies at a higher rate than its own CVS pharmacy locations.

A spokesperson for CVS Caremark said that policies designed to limit their ability to negotiate with drug manufacturers and pharmacies would increase the cost of medicine. He also said these policies would be a “handout” to the pharmaceutical industry.

Supporters

The bipartisan, bicameral Act has support from the American Economic Liberties Project (AELP), National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA), American Pharmacy Cooperative Inc (APCI), Pharmacists United for Truth and Transparency (PUTT), Patients Rising, and AffirmedRx.

Public statements on behalf of the PBM Act harshly criticize PBMs, private health insurers, and the healthcare system as a whole.

Giant PBMs and insurers owning their own pharmacies has driven independent pharmacies out of business and reduced patient access to quality care. The Patients Before Monopolies Act addresses the root cause of this problem — consolidated market power — by eliminating the inherent conflicts of interest within the big three PBM business model. We are thrilled to see Sen. Warren and Sen. Hawley lead this bipartisan effort to lower drug costs, protect independent retail pharmacies, and improve patient access to care.

Morgan Harper

Director of Policy and Advocacy, American Economic Liberties Project

A particularly egregious result of the vertical integration of PBM-insurers with retail and mail-order pharmacies is that the PBM – which competes with independent pharmacies and others – decides what their rival pharmacy will be reimbursed and which patients will be allowed to use them. There are also countless examples of PBMs paying their pharmacies much higher reimbursement than non-affiliated pharmacies and using patient data to steer patients to their own pharmacies. We’re grateful to Sens. Warren and Hawley and Reps. Harshbarger and Auchincloss for introducing the PBM Act, which will go a long way in eliminating the conflicts of interest that currently exist in this space.

Anne Cassity

Senior VP of Government Affairs, National Community Pharmacists Association

The inherent conflicts of interest between PBMs owning their own retail, mail-order, and specialty pharmacies have resulted in higher drug costs, reduced patient choice and access to care, and unsustainable reimbursements to non-PBM affiliated pharmacies. With retail pharmacies closing at an alarming rate and patients fighting life threatening diseases being steered to PBM owned pharmacies and often overcharged thousands of dollars for medications, Senator Warren’s Patients Before Monopolies Act couldn’t come soon enough. This commonsense legislation strikes at the heart of anti-competitive PBM behavior and roots out conflicts of interest by prohibiting ownership of both a PBM and a pharmacy. American Pharmacy Cooperative, Inc, is grateful to Senator Warren for her work and leadership on this issue and looks forward to fighting for this critically important piece of legislation.

Greg Reybold

VP of Healthcare Policy and General Counsel, American Pharmacy Cooperative, Inc.

While there are a variety of conflicts of interest that can compromise the intended role of PBMs to act as counterweights to inflated drug prices, one of the chief areas of system misalignment arises from PBM ownership of pharmacies. As these large vertically integrated companies serve as both price-setter and price-taker for pharmacy transactions, PBM incentives to reduce drug markups and to manage pharmacy reimbursement and network decisions in an unconflicted manner are significantly undermined. In our work advising government programs and commercial plan sponsors, we stress that minimizing or eliminating these areas of misalignment are foundationally critical in order to achieve greater balance for medicine accessibility and affordability.

Antonio Ciaccia

President, 3 Axis Advisors

For too long vertically integrated PBMs have put profits over patients, driving up costs, limiting access to essential medications and forcing countless independent pharmacies to close their doors. The Patients Before Monopolies Act is a step toward breaking these monopolies, restoring fairness and competition and, most importantly, ensuring patients get the care they need at a price they can afford. At the heart of our mission is the belief that transparency and integrity should be the foundation of health care. I congratulate Senators Warren and Hawley, and Representatives Harshbarger and Auchincloss for putting patients first, and urge Congress to pass this bipartisan bill.

Greg Baker

Pharmacist and CEO, Affirmed Rx, a transparent PBM

This bill is the next step in urgently-needed legislation to eliminate the profiteering and other conflicts of interest that exist when private health insurers and their pharmacy benefit managers are allowed to design and sell health benefit plans while also owning pharmacies, clinics and other point-of-care entitiesm Vertical integration among the largest healthcare insurers has only served to saddle Americans with the priciest possible premiums for impossibly high-deductible plans that provide fewer options and ultimately result in poorer health outcomes. We applaud Senators Warren and Hawley for recognizing the need to dismantle the current system, which has failed consumers and taxpayers at just about every level.

Monique Whitney

Executive Director, Pharmacists United for Truth and Transparency

Across the country, patients feel increasingly disenfranchised by the healthcare system. The culprit: a complex web of powerful health conglomerates including health insurers, Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs), and their affiliated pharmacies. Patients Rising applauds Senators Elizabeth Warren and Josh Hawley, along with Representatives Diana Harshbarger and Jake Auchincloss for putting forward bi-partisan legislation to put patients before monopolies. It is critical we crack down on health conglomerate conflicts of interest and encourage businesses to operate in the interest of patients’ long term health and wellbeing.

MacKay Jimeson

Executive Director, Patients Rising

The New York Times stated their uncertainty over whether this bill would gain any traction. With so much support, both across the aisle, across congress, and from outside entities, it seems likely it will move ahead. However, Congress has run out of time to pass any bill during this term and will have to be reintroduced in January.

The Rowan Report will continue to follow the progress of the PBM Act next year.

# # #

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

Medicare Advantage Stock Prices After Trump Elected

by Kristin Rowan | Nov 15, 2024 | Clinical

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

Will the Change in Leadership Usher in a Change in Reimbursement Rates?

As in any election year, we have been bombarded with promises, predictions, and pandering from senate and house hopefuls as well as presidential candidates from every party. Each of them found platform issues that resonated with their followers. In turn, they have accused their opponents of all manner of sin.

Now that the election has passed and the lame duck session of congress has begun, analysts have started looking to January and how election results may impact different industries. Analysts believe Trump, along with congressional Republicans, will aggressively push Medicare Advantage. One researcher predicts that traditional Medicare will “wither on the vine.”

Privatization

Opposition to our current health care and insurance system often advocate for a single-payer system that is seen in places like England and Canada. Naysayers refer to this as the “socialization” of medicine, referring to socialist and communist governments. Privatization, on the other hand, moves healthcare out of the hands of the government and into the hands of privately held, usually for-profit, health insurance companies. Medicare Advantage has quietly moved more than 50% of all Medicare eligible patients to a privatized system. Senior policy analyst at Paragon Health Institute, Joe Alabanese believes that the Trump administration and a republican Congress would be “more friendly” to the idea of privatized health care.

Insurer Stock Prices

Whether the stock prices just before and after election day are predictive of things to come remains to be seen. For now, the information before us is this:

- Between Nov 1 and Nov 7, Humana Inc. had the largest increase in stock prices at 10.7%
- UnitedHealth Group Inc. rose 5.1% in the same time period
- Both companies had greater stock increases than the average across S&P
- Elevance Health was in keeping with the rest of the S&P with an increase of 3.6%
- Molina Healthcare, Inc. and The Cigna Group dropped 0.2% and 0.4%, respectively

Analysts say the jumps are in keeping with expectations that Republican control in Congress and in the White House will be beneficial for Medicare Advantage

Final Thoughts

It’s no secret that The Rowan Report is not a fan of Medicare Advantage. Specifically, the sales tactics used on the elderly and infirmed are predatory and the denial rate is criminal. The more eligible patients sign up for Medicare Advantage the less they will receive the care they need. Further, the more Medicaid has to supplement the cost of Medicare Advantage, the more home care agencies will suffer. Nationally, the more CMS regulates payment rates, pre-authorizations, and denial rates by privatizing Medicaid, the worse off our entire healthcare system will be.

With the state and national associations, we will continue to advocate on behalf of care at home agencies and their patients. And we hope you will too, regardless of who is in office. We have support at the federal level and we will continue to fight the good fight.

# # #