UnitedHealth Causes Heightened Alarm

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

UnitedHealth Causes Heightened Alarm

Guardian Investigation Launches Probe

In July of 2025, The Guardian reported that UnitedHealth had secretly paid nursing homes to reduce hospital transfers. The investigation revealed that UnitedHealth was placing its own medical teams inside nursing homes and pushing them to cut care expenses, delay transfers, and deny care.

Senators Push for Answers

In the weeks following The Guardian report, Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) launched their own investigation of the insurance giant’s cost cutting measures in nursing homes. Wyden and Warren sent a letter to then UnitedHealth Group leaders requesting documents and information about the nursing home incentive program.

New Allegations

A new letter from Senators Wyden and Warren states that UHG has refused to comply with the initial request. In the months since the demand for information, UHG has provided only “brief and unsubstantial answers” to their questions.

“Because you have failed to respond adequately to our inquiry – and in light of additional recent reporting – we are renewing our inquiry with heightened alarm.”

Ron Wyden and Elizabeth Warren

United States Senators

Additional Reports

The Senators’s letter alludes to recent additional reports. They were referring to a December story, also from The Guardian, reporting allegations of wrongful deaths inside the nursing home care program. In a statement, UnitedHealth denied any allegations their practices “endanger patient safety or violate ethical standards.”

No Response is a Response

When asked about the second letter, UnitedHealth Group did not respond to reporters at The Guardian. UHG leadership said in statement that they would “continue to engage” with the senators. The company’s leadership also maintains that its nursing home program “improves outcomes” and “reduces unnecessary hospitalizations.”

Unanswered Questions

UnitedHealth attended a briefing with the senators’ offices last July. During that meeting, UnitedHealth made several claims the Senators are now questioning.

  • UHG maintained their nurses are not required to contact company representatives prior to taking a nursing home patient to the hospital, but a document provided by a whistleblower alleges the opposite 
  • UHG failed to adequately explain why hospital admission rates are part of the metrics for determining bonuses
  • UHG chose not to respond to questions about pending wrongful death lawsuits for Mary GrantCindy Deal, and an unnamed nursing home resident in New York

Deadline to Comply

Senators Wyden and Warren allege that UnitedHealth Group has withheld internal documents that directly relate to their initial request for information. The senators gave a deadline of January 28, 2026 to respond with the following information:

  • Hospitalization policies, including clinical protocols for determining when transfers are warranted, definitions of avoidable versus unavoidable hospitalizations, and whether staff must consult Optum supervisors before hospital transfers.
  • Bonus program metrics and thresholds, including how UnitedHealth determines APK limits, whether facilities are penalized for exceeding thresholds, and five years of documentation on bonus payments to nursing homes.
  • Advance directive policies, including training materials for end-of-life conversations, the mortality risk assessment tool used, and who participates in those discussions with residents.
  • Marketing and enrollment practices for I-SNP plans at contracted nursing homes.
  • Federal oversight and compliance, including any CMS sanctions or enforcement actions in the past five years.
Wyden Warren UnitedHealth Group Heightened Alarm

Failure to Respond

Without adding details, the letter states that should UnitedHealth Group fail to respond it full, they will seek answers to their questions using “all tools at the Committee’s disposal.”

This is an ongoing inquiry/investigation and story. The Rowan Report will continue to provide updates as they become available.

# # #

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

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

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

©2026 by The Rowan Report, Peoria, AZ. All rights reserved. This article originally appeared in The Rowan Report. One copy may be printed for personal use: further reproduction by permission only. editor@therowanreport.com

 

LEAD Replaces REACH

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

LEAD Replaces REACH

CMS Launches 10-Year Model Test

LEAD replaces REACH in new 10-year CMS model. The Long-term Enhanced ACO Design (LEAD) model is scheduled to launched at the end of 2026, following the end of ACO Realizing Equity, Access, and Community Health  (REACH). LEAD is a voluntary model that will run January 1, 2027 thorugh December 31, 2036, the longest CMS has ever run a test.

Key Takeaways

CMS provides the following information:

  • Problem: Many health care providers have not historically participated in or dropped out of ACOs because of financial and administrative obstacles to success.
  • Solution: LEAD is designed to address such barriers to support both established and newly created ACOs by providing them enhanced, flexible cash flow payments; and greater freedom and tools to support spending time with and meeting patient needs, including those with specialized care needs.
  • Outcomes: Through ACOs, health care providers will be empowered to deliver coordinated, accountable care and preventive services — keeping patients healthier and helping to reduce health care costs and unnecessary emergency room visits and hospitalizations.
  • Strategy: LEAD advances the Innovation Center’s commitment to 1) building opportunities for independent health care providers and practices to be rewarded for delivering better care, 2) promoting and empowering patient choice in both coverage and sites of care, and 3) making it easier for health care providers and patients to engage in preventive care that supports healthier living.

LEAD Goals

According to CMS, the LEAD Model will improve care coordination among a broad range of healthcare providers, including hospices. The model will also appeal to providers with specialized patients and those who are newer to ACOs like small, independent, or rural-based practices. The LEAD model intends to incentivize providers downstream such as home health agencies, palliative care, and hospices, to engage with the providers upstream. It is particularly aimed at complex patients with high needs.

CMS has outlined a 3-part framework for its goals:

  • Increase the scope of ACOs to include rural, small, and independent providers and health centers
  • Enhance evidence-based prevention and care coordination for more patients
  • Empower patient choice and encourage patient participation in care

Planning Phase

The LEAD Model will begin its planning stage in March of 2026 and run through December of 2027. During that time, CMS will identify two states to partner with for developing the framework for Medicaid partnerships. The framework will include how ACOs and Medicaid organizations can share data and coordinate care.

CARA

Among the more prominent changes in the LEAD Model is the CMS Administered Risk Arrangements (CARA). CMS will assist LEAD ACOs in designing episode-based risk payment arrangments with other health care providers. According to CMS, CARA will facilitate stronger preferred provider relationships. Building these strong care networks and partnerships between ACOs and hospice and palliative care providers will improve care for high-needs patients. 

Hospice and palliative care organizations will need to demonstrate partnership value to ACO organizations by supporting smooth care transitions, reducing unnecessary hospitalizations, and ensuring patients receive the right care at the right time, according to a statement from The Alliance.

Final Thoughts

This new model may provide some opportunities for hospice agencies. It may also pave the way for a reimbursement model for palliative care. Although the statements from CMS focus on hospice and palliative care, there may be opportunities for home health agencies as well. These opportunities may become more apparent once the model demonstration begins in 2027. If they are not immediately apparent, we have 10 years to figure them out.

Applications for participation will open in March. To stay connected and receive updates from CMS, join the LEAD Model List or contact the LEAD Model team.

# # #

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

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

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

©2026 by The Rowan Report, Peoria, AZ. All rights reserved. This article originally appeared in The Rowan Report. One copy may be printed for personal use: further reproduction by permission only. editor@therowanreport.com

 

Overtime Ruling Upheld

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

Ruling Upheld

Agencies must pay minimum wage and overtime

A District Court of Pennsylvania ruled in favor of the Secretary of Labor against the WiCare Home Care Agency. The parties engaged in a lawsuit alleging the agency failed to pay minimum wage and overtime.

Background

The battle on overtime wages for home health aides continues to create more questions than answers. The FLSA in 1974 extended overtime coverage for all domestic service workers with two exceptions: companion services and live-in employees. In 2013, the Department of Labor published a rule that created an exception to the exceptions: third-party employers, such as home care agencies and staffing agencies, cannot use the exception. This forced most home health and personal care agencies to pay minimum wage and overtime rates. Courts upheld this rule, applying deference to the DOL interpretation of the FLSA. This is in keeping with the Chevron Doctrine, which has since been overturned.

In July of 2025, the DOL proposed a rule that would revert back to the 1974 interpretation of the exceptions. Later that month, the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) of the DOL stated it would no longer uphold the 2013 change for new and existing cases. The DOL used the overturning of the Chevron case in support of the proposed rule.

Arguing Deference

WiCare lost the first case and the court ordered them to pay more than $1 million in back wages and damages. WiCare filed an appeal and argued that the DOL does not have standing to change the parameters of FLSA. The agency argued that government agencies should not be shown deference in their interpretation of a statute (Chevron Deference). They also argued that the DOL does not have the authority to override the exceptions for companion and live-in caregivers.

Court Unpersuaded

The opinion was filed by some but not all of the court of appeal judges. The court held that it is “well established” that agencies have the authority to give meaning to statutory terms. The decision upholds the now overturned Chevron Deference and conflicts with the 2025 statement from the WHD that it would not uphold the rule.

What it all Means

The proposed rule to undo the 2013 rule and revert to the 1974 rule is still undecided. This means that the existing FLSA rule remains intact. That rule requires overtime pay from an agency or other third-party employer.

This ruling on appeal is unlikely to impact other Chevron Defense cases. The court stated that the DOL has the express right to establish meaning and would have that right with or without Chevron. This ruling may, however, influence the proposed rule that would eliminate overtime requirements. The industry is split on support for this change and advocates continue to argue on both sides. This ruling may be used in attempts to stop the proposed rule from being finalized.

Final Thoughts

Until there is a clear change to the FLSA overtime and minimum wage exemptions and exceptions, individual employers and agencies should continue to ensure caregivers are paid both minimum wage and overtime wages in accordance with the existing exemptions.

# # #

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

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

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

©2026 by The Rowan Report, Peoria, AZ. All rights reserved. This article originally appeared in The Rowan Report. One copy may be printed for personal use: further reproduction by permission only. editor@therowanreport.com

 

2025 Caregiver Survey: An Interview with Stephen Vaccaro

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

2025 Caregiver Survey

An Interview with Stephen Vaccaro

The end of the year seems like a good time to see where caregivers fall on questions about technology, training, management support, career motivations, and other relevant and pressing topics. Some of the results of the HHAeXchange caregiver survey are not surprising. Others, you may not expect.

The Rowan Report spoke with HHAeXchange President Stephen Vaccaro this week to discuss the survey.

Key Takeaways

Here are a few of the key takeaways from the 2025 Caregiver Survey:

  • Just over 65% of respondents said they are comfortable with technology, up from 55.65% just two years ago
  • Caregivers find technology supports them most with managing shifts and schedules
  • 70% said they would spend an extra 3-5 minutes documenting client observations if it improves care
  • Higher pay is still the #1 complaint of caregivers
  • A desire for additional training and flexibility increased to 21.7% and 28.2%, respectively

Read theHHAeXchange survey press release.

In His Own Words

The Rowan Report:

Stephen, thank you for talking with me today. It’s good to see you again. It’s been quite a year or so of changes for HHAeXchange.

Stephen Vaccaro:

Thanks, Kristin. 2025 has been truly transformational for HHAeXchange. State Medicaid and Medicaid managed care plans have been very positive with the change. We’re now in a position to invest at scale.

RR:

It’s been fascinating watching. I can’t wait for what’s next. The answers you received in the 2025 Caregiver Survey had some significant changes to the answers this year. What can you tell me about this year’s survey?

HHAeXchange 2025 Caregiver Survey Vaccaro

Stephen:

We are connected to close to 3 million caregivers on the personal side. The past couple of years, we’ve done the caregiver survey. 2025 is the third year. It’s interesting to see the evolution of it. In the beginning there was a lot of fear around EVV technology. Now, the level of adoption is increasing and they’re starting to see that it’s a value add to their job. This year, 65% had positive feedback on technology in the home.

RR:

To what do you attribute this change in response?

Stephen:

It’s a very meaningful change. The first round of technology was different. There were promises, delays, and a lot of pepople who didn’t think it would ever happen. It has gone from “We’d like to see you use it” to “you have to use it.” There’s a certain level of expectation. And now, it’s pushing down to managed care plans. Providers are cooperating now because it’s not okay not to. Sometimes it’s the consumers that are convincing the caregiver to use the technology. 

RR:

Do you think there’s any tie in to the average age of the caregiver?

Stephen:

I think that helps, certainly. I think when new caregivers come in, they are starting mobile first. It’s part of the orientation. It’s how the job is done. But it’s also the impact the technology makes.

More than 61% ranked the positive impact on the client as the most important thing that they do. Having the app is bringing them in to the care team. Nurses and NPs are collaborating with caregivers and seeing that the observations of the caregiver are important, even when they seem small. 

So, as we start to look at different care needs, we have to design programs accordingly, and that also has impacted the the change. Caregivers want support to get the training they need to do their job the best they can. They want resources, tools, and information. Advanced training is important, but the technology to be able to see the patient records, notes, and observations is key and that necessitates the technology.

RR:

What are the top reasons a caregiver leaves an agency?

Stephen:

Well, salary of course is the number one challenge. But more training and more flexibility rank pretty high on the list.

2025 Caregiver Survey Vaccaro HHAexchange

RR: 

What do you see coming in 2026 and beyond?

Stephen:

I think there will be a big focus on technology. It will be the year we truly step into mobile first as a standard.

I also think we will continue to see the evolution of the caregiver as part of the care team. We will start leveraging the caregiver as the untapped asset that they are. We will see increased continuity of care, especially for integrated dual eligible patients.

RR:

And, what’s next for HHAeXchange?

Stephen:

We will continue looking for ways to innovate and bring value to the industry and the ecosystem. In the home care economy, all the players are involved. The patient, the caregiver, the doctor, and the payor. But, also the training vendors, food suppliers, transportation providers, and so many more. We will be looking at ways to involve all of the players from a patient’s home ecosystem into the care plan.

RR:

Stephen, it’s always a pleasure talking with you. Thank you, again for sharing your 2025 Caregiver Survey with us and for your always valuable insights. Happy Holidays.

Stephen:

Thank you for having me. Happy Holidays

Final Thoughts

Caregivers are embracing technology not for themselves, but for their clients. The desire to help and make a positive impact on their clients’ health and well-being is the core drive for caregivers, so it’s not surprise that they want better access to information and training. Non-medical supportive care at home has more contact hours and indiidual time with clients and are an invaluable untapped resource for home health and hospice. With the technology finally catching up to the motivation, we can tune in to that resource and provide better care across the board.

# # #

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 

House Passes Health Care Reform Bill

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

House to Vote on Health Care Plan

Discharge Petition Forces Vote

Since the temporary appropriations passed to reopen the government last month, the House and the Senate have been playing chicken with the health care plan for 2026. The lack of consensus threatens both Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies to keep health insurance rates down and the extension of the additional subsidies needed to keep the government open after January 30.

Today, four GOP members broke rank and sided with their Democrat counterparts on a discharge petition that would force a vote on the House floor on extending the subsidies. The House quickly called for an expedited vote on the Democratic-backed bill to extend the subsidies for three years without any changes.

In an uncommon move that Democrats decried as “outrageous,” House Leader Johnson closed the vote while some House members were still trying to vote. The vote against the bill passed 204-203. There are 435 voting members of the House. The subsequent vote for the Republican-backed plan passed 213-209. With 15 missing votes, the discharge petition vote may have passed.

House Speaker Johnson said it is “inevitable” that the discharge petition will come up for a vote when the House reconvenes in January.

Multiple Plans

Both Republicans and Democrats want votes on their own House bills. 

The Democratic-backed bill from Leader Hakeem Jeffries is a straight forward extension to the existing ACA subsidies with no policy changes.

The Republican-backed bill does not extend the subsidies or address them at all. Instead, it appropriates funds to pay for cost-sharing reductions that would decrease overall subsidies, lower premiums for some, and raise premiums for others.

Some moderates disagree with their own party’s leadership. Fitzpatrick (R-Pa) and Golden (D-Maine) introduced their own bill that extends the subsidies for two years and includes some eligibility changes. In addition, Gottenheimer (D- NJ) introduced a separte bill with Kiggans (R-VA) that extends the subsidies for one year and includes modest eligibility reforms. Neither petition has near enough support to force a vote.

Second Vote Today

Despite the moderates’s support of Jeffries’s bill, the House voted today on the Republican-backed bill from Miller-Meeks (R-IA). This bill also includes reform of Pharmacy Benefit Managers and provide more control for small business owners through Association Health Plans.

The vote for Lower Health Care Premiums for All Act was 213-209 (some reports say 216-211) and the bill will advance to the Senate. It is unlikely the Senate will vote on the bill before the end-of-year recess, leaving the bill undecided until the Senate returns on January 5th.

End of the Year

Both the House and the Senate will start their end-of-year recess this week. The House of Representatives is scheduled to close their session on December 18th. The Senate will conclude on December 19th. They will return to session on January 6th and January 5th, respectively.

With only two days left on the Senate calendar, they are unlikely to vote on the House bill this session. Most experts predict the bill is unlikely to pass regardless of when the vote is scheduled.

# # #

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

 

AI Adoption Risk in Home Health and Hospice

by Bill Dombi and Jason Bring, Arnall Golden Gregory LLP

AI Adoption in Home Health and Hospice

Accelerating Regulatory Risk

Law firm Arnall Golden Gregory LLP, Bill A. Dombi, Senior Counsel and Jason E. Bring, Partner, recently published an article on navigating the AI frontier. The article proposes legal guardrails for Home Health and Hospice providers. As AI adoption becomes more prevalent, so too does the risk of regulatory errors in nondiscrimination, HIPAA, and CMS reimbursement, among others.

by Bill Dombi and Jason Bring – Arnall Golden Gregory, LLP

Key Takeaways

AI adoption in home health and hospice...

Is accelerating regulatory risk with Section 1557 nondiscrimination rules, HIPAA obligations, and CMS reimbursement scrutiny creating new exposure around bias, PHI handling, ambient listening, AI-generated documentation, and improper reliance on predictive models

Common AI failure points

Unauthorized tools, biased algorithms, ambient-recording missteps, hallucinated documentation, and eligibility-prediction “coding bias,” now trigger audits, denials, False Claims Act exposure, breach allegations, and malpractice risk, especially where human oversight is weak or documentation is inconsistent.

Providers must strengthen AI governance and transparency

Including enterprise-grade vendor controls, business associate agreements, patient disclosure and consent protocols, model-bias testing, workforce training, documentation review, and a comprehensive AI Acceptable Use Policy backed by ongoing monitoring and interdisciplinary oversight.

Read the full article here

# # #

AI Adoption Risk Dombi
AI adoption risk Bring

AGG Healthcare and Post-Acute & Long-Term Care attorneys, Jason Bring and Bill Dombi, advise home health agencies, hospices, and technology vendors nationwide on AI governance, compliance, and reimbursement strategy. For questions about these issues or in general, please contact Jason and Bill.

Fraud and Abuse Compliance

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.

Fraud and Abuse Compliance

Why All Providers Should Have One

Providers may have heard or read about the importance of Fraud and Abuse Compliance Programs in their organizations. Despite the wealth of available information about Compliance Programs, many providers continue to express uncertainty about their value. 

Coincidentally, as we are preparing to publish this article, HHS publishes this report on the compliance audit of Guardian Home Care, LLC. 

Here are some of the questions providers often ask about Compliance Programs:

Why should we have a Fraud and Abuse Compliance Program?

First

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has clearly stated that all providers are now required to have current Compliance Programs that are fully implemented. 

Next

As a practical matter, when providers establish and maintain Compliance Programs, it clearly discourages regulators from pursuing allegations of fraud and abuse violations. Jody Hunt, formerly of the DOJ, says providers should create robust fraud and abuse compliance programs. Then providers can argue that they shouldn’t be liable for violations because their compliance programs demonstrate that they had no intent to commit fraud.

Technically speaking, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines make it clear that establishment and implementation of Compliance Programs is considered to be a mitigating factor. That is, if accusations of criminal conduct are made, the consequences may be substantially less severe as a result of a fully implemented Compliance Program.

Additionally

Providers with Compliance Programs are more likely to avoid fraud and abuse. This is because Programs routinely establish an obligation on the part of every employee to report possible instances of fraud and abuse and include training for all employees.

Compliance Programs may also help to prevent qui tam or so-called “whistleblower” lawsuits by private individuals, rather than by government enforcers, who believe that they have identified instances of fraud and abuse. There are significant incentives to bring these legal actions since “whistleblowers” receive a share of monies recovered as a result of their efforts. Some “whistleblowers” have received millions of dollars.  Compliance Programs make it clear that employees have an obligation to bring any potential fraud and abuse issues to the attention of their employers first.

Also…

The federal Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires providers to have Compliance Programs. In short, it’s the law!

Finally

The Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) requires providers who receive more than $5 million in monies from state Medicaid Programs per year to implement policies and procedures, provide education to employees and put information in their employee handbooks about fraud and abuse compliance. These requirements can be met through implementation of Fraud and Abuse Compliance Programs.

We don't receive reimbursement from the Medicare or Medicaid Programs.

Do we still need a Compliance Program?

Statutes and regulations governing fraud and abuse also apply to providers who receive payments from any federal and state healthcare programs, including Medicaid, Medicaid waiver and other federal and state health care programs, such as Tri-Care. Many private insurers have followed the federal government’s “lead” in terms of fraud and abuse enforcement.  So private duty providers must have compliance programs, too.

Should we just use the model guidance that is applicable to us?

We hear that the OIG has provided guidance for various segments of the healthcare industry regarding Compliance Programs. Specifically, the OIG has already published guidance for clinical laboratories, hospitals, home health agencies, skilled nursing facilities (SMFs), hospices, physicians’ practices, third-party billing companies and home medical equipment companies. The OIG will publish updated guidance for all providers, It has already done so for SNFs.

The answer is “No!” Guidance from the OIG is not a model Compliance Program. Guidance from the OIG consists of general guidelines and does not constitute a valid Compliance Program. In addition, the OIG has made it clear that Programs must be customized for each organization. 

Do we have to conduct internal audits first?

We have read that, before implementing Compliance Programs, providers must conduct expensive internal audits that can take many months to complete. Is this true?

While beginning the compliance process with an extensive internal audit is certainly one way to proceed, it is not the only viable way to work toward compliance. It is equally valid to begin with Compliance Programs that are customized for the organization that includes training for all employees about fraud and abuse and Compliance Programs. Then all staff members can subsequently participate in internal compliance activities, including audits, with a process in place to handle any issues that arise as a result of the audits.

We already have policies. Why do we need a Compliance Program too?

Compliance Programs are specific types of documents that routinely address issues that providers do not usually cover in internal policies and procedures. In addition, providers may not gain benefits under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines described in the first question above if there is no formal document called a Compliance Program.

We're accredited. Doesn't that mean we are in compliance?

On the contrary, Compliance Programs appropriately address potential fraud and abuse issues. They also include mechanisms for helping to ensure compliance such as processes for identification and correction of potential problems that are not addressed during the certification process. In other words, organizations may be accredited but fail to meet applicable compliance standards for fraud and abuse.

Will it help with investigations?

Will the fact that our organization has a Compliance Program make any difference with regard to the outcome of fraud and abuse investigations and the imposition of Corporate Integrity Agreements (CIA’s)? 

Yes, it may make a considerable difference based on statements from the OIG. If providers have Compliance Programs in place that are current and fully implemented, the OIG may be less aggressive in pursuing potential violations. When the OIG actually discovers problems with fraud and abuse in organizations, providers are usually asked to develop and implement a Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA). The OIG often requires CIA’s to include a process for stringent monitoring by the OIG on a continuous basis. These monitoring activities can be extremely burdensome to providers in terms of both time and money. Providers with valid Compliance Programs are not necessarily asked to develop and implement CIA’s. 

Fraud and Abuse Compliance

Final Thoughts

Now is the time for all providers to recognize and act upon the need to establish and maintain Compliance Programs. “Working on it” is no longer good enough.

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. 

What can Providers Give to Patients, Part 7

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.

What Providers can Give to Patients

Providers, including marketers, are tempted to give patients and potential patients free items and services. While providers usually have good intentions, they must comply with applicable requirements.

OIG Advisory Opinion

This article provides an example from OIG Advisory Opinion No. 09-11 that shows how the OIG applies exceptions described in this series of articles.

A Case Example

The request for this Advisory Opinion was submitted by a hospital that provides free blood pressure checks to anyone who requests the service during certain hours. The hospital said that it does not advertise free blood pressure checks, which are provided by a member of the nursing staff who follows specific guidelines and procedural checklists.

The hospital also said that free blood pressure checks are not conditioned on use of any other goods or services from the hospital or any other particular provider. No discounts are offered for follow-up services. Recipients of blood pressure checks are advised to see their own practitioners when results are abnormal. The hospital does not bill any payor, including the Medicare and Medicaid Programs, for this service.

OIG advisory opinion

OIG Analysis

In its analysis, the OIG first referenced the exception for preventive services described in Part 5 of this series.

The OIG then pointed out that the fair market value of this service, especially if recipients use the service more than once, may exceed the limits of $15 per service or $75 per year described in Part 2 of this series. Therefore, said the OIG, the services may constitute a kickback.

According to the OIG, blood pressure checks are preventive services. The key question, however, is whether the free care promotes the provision of other, non-preventive care reimbursed by the Medicare and/or Medicaid Programs.

Is It Promotional?

In this case, the OIG said that it is unlikely that free blood pressure checks will result in the provision of other services. The factual basis for this conclusion in the Advisory Opinion was that the hospital did not:

  • Make appointments with its practitioners for individuals with abnormal results
  • Offer individuals discounts for additional covered services
  • Otherwise promote its particular programs

Crafted with Care

“In sum,” said the OIG, “the Arrangement is appropriately crafted so as to avoid improper ties to the provision of other services…For these same reasons, we conclude that we would not impose administrative sanctions arising in connection with either the anti-kickback statute or the CMP on the Hospital in connection with the Arrangement.”

Final Thoughts

The 7 parts of this series describe and summarize the laws and exceptions to providing incentives, gifts, and help to patients in accordance with the Anti-Kickback Statute and the Civil Monetary Penalties Law. As long as you are following these regulations, providers should certainly use all of the exceptions available to them to provide better quality of care for patients.

# # #

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. 

Subsidies Undecided

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 

Subsidies undecided

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, 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

 

CMS Proposed Changes

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

CMS is Making Changes

Good or Bad?

CMS is making changes across Medicare and Medicare Advantage. From Star Ratings to Prescription Drug Prices to the Hospice benefit, CMS is embracing Make America Healthy Again. Will these initiatives benefit Medicare and Medicare Advantage recipients or the insurance companies who provide the plans?

Drug Payment Model

In early November, CMS announced a plan to lower prescription drug costs for Medicaid recipients. State Medicaid programs can opt in to the GENErating cost Reductions fOr U.S. Medicaid Model (GENEROUS). The pilot program is using the most-favored-nation pricing that was recently negotiated and announced by President Trump. Most-favored-nation pricing requires prescription drug manufacturers to charge the same low rate paid in other countries.

Limited Pilot

Beginning in 2026, CMS will negotiate with manufacturers of select drugs for lower pricing. Participating states will start using uniform, transparent coverage criteria. This is not criteria for inital coverage in Medicaid, but for standardizing access to high-cost medications.

Manufacturers are not required to participate in the GENEROUS Model, but can voluntarily apply. Participating manufacturers agree NOT to seek additional supplemental rebates or discounts outside the model price.

New Medicare Advantage Policies

CMS has proposed updates to the Medicare Advantage and Medicare Part D programs. The new plan would begin in CY 2027 and includes major changes to the Star Ratings system. CMS is also seeking feedback on new ways to modernize MA. 

Star Rating Changes

The proposed changes are supposed to incentivize plans to improve care. CMS suggests removing 12 unique measures that look at administrative processes and those that don’t highlight differences between plans. Star Rating measurements of care, outcomes, and patient experience will remain. 

Request for Feedback

CMS is seeking feedback on Medicare Advantage changes, including improving competition, refining risk adjustment, and aligning quality incentives to deliver greater value. CMS is open to either a limited model test or program-wide changes. Interested parties can submit feedback through January 26, 2026. Read the Proposed Rule here. Submit your comments.

Expanding Technology-Enabled Care

CMS may finally be recognizing what we’ve been promoting for 25 years: Care improves with technology support. 

CMS Proposed Changes<br />
Technology-based Care

The ACCESS model tests a new payment approach in original Medicare to expand access to technology-supported care options. CMS aims to increase technology-supported care options to improve health and prevent and manage chronic diseases. More than two-thirds of Medicare beneficiaries are dealing with high blood pressure, diabetes, chronic musculoskeletal pain, and depression.

An interest form is now available for the 10-year Advancing Chronic Care with Effective, Scalable Solutions (ACCESS) Model test. The model test begins July 1, 2026. The application to participate must be received by April 1, 2026.

Impact

As these programs roll out between now and 2029, the impact on insurance plans, payors, beneficiaries, and taxpayers will unfold. Will lower cost prescriptions and technology-based care lower insurance rates? Payor reform may be necessary to change out-of-pocket costs. Regulations may have to further incentivize payors to increase care when costs go down, particularly with value-based care models. 

Please take a few minutes to read the details on each of these proposals, add your comments, and sign up to participate. The industry needs reform and our aging family members deserve better.

# # #

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