Overtime Law Changes: An Interview with Angelo Spinola

by Kristin Rowan | Jan 23, 2026 | Admin, Legal

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

Overtime Law Changes

An Interview with Angelo Spinola

Recent Department of Labor (DOL) changes to the overtime law appear to be at odds with a court ruling. Last week, The Rowan Report reported on Pennsylvania’s 3rd circuit court decision allowing the DOL to interpret meaning and create the rule that 3rd party employers cannot use the exemption to overtime rule. They must pay overtime according to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The decision is in direct opposition to the DOLs intent to revert back to allowing the exemption and to its statement that it will no longer uphold the rule. The Rowan Report reached out to care at home attorney Angelo Spinola to get his take on the Pennsylvania court’s decision and how it impacts care at home.

Prior Statements

Angelo was a presenter at last year’s National Alliance for Care at Home (The Alliance) annual meeting, during which he discussed the DOL proposal to change the FLSA. In his remarks, Spinola emphasized that the exemption change is huge for home care. He also provided some specific examples showing how the change will benefit caregivers.

From the DOL

Overtime law changes, according to the DOL, will:

Reduce labor costs
Provide greater scheduling flexibility
Expand access to home care services
Reduce overhead for agencies

In Practice

Angelo added additional context from a real-world perspective.

First, you can still pay overtime. Payroll policies of any agency with an overtime program in place will supercede the DOL rule. However, those policies need to be written and part of your contractual agreement with the caregiver.

Secondly, some states have their own overtime laws, which also override the FLSA. Not every state will be impacted by the change.

Additionally, removing the overtime requirement brings back day rates instead of hourly pay, which can be beneficial for caregivers and patients. This reinstatement also impacts bonus payments. Currently, gift cards, bonuses, on-call premiums, and similar incentives are incorporated into rates for overtime. Without the exemption, agencies can bring back bonuses designed to encourage longevity, productivity, or other behaviors, and those incentives will not be subject to overtime rules.

The practical reality is, with overtime rules in place, many agencies will not allow caregivers to work more than 40 hours. Thus, patients end up with more unique caregivers, which leads to less continuity of care. The other consequence is that caregivers seek to make up those hours at other agencies or by taking on another part time job. Without the exemption, caregivers can work more hours, the patient gets fewer unique caregivers and benefits from improved continuity of care. Scheduling is less complicated without having to consider the part-time job.

In His Own Words

With the DOL proposal still undecided and its potential conflict with the recent Pennsylvania court decision, we sat down with Angelo to get his take on the decisions and the impact both would have on home care.

The Rowan Report:

Angelo, thank you for joining us today. I appreciate you taking the time to talk about the overtime rules. With the DOL no longer enforcing the rule as it stands and the Pennsylvania court case upholding it, we want to make sure we are relaying the right information and that our readers are following the right recommendations.

Angelo:

It definitely seems like it’s two different views on the same issue, and I think we will see that for a while, until and unless the Department of Labor actually issues new regulations and interpretations. They have alluded that they are going to do that, maybe by simply not enforcing the rule. Still, at the end of the day, it is the current rule, there is the requirement to pay overtime.

RR:

Can you speak to the PA decision, then, as it relates to that?

RR:

Can you speak to the PA decision, then, as it relates to that?

RR:

Does this case have any impact, then, on the DOL reverting back to pre-2013 when 3rd party agencies could take the exemption?

wAngelo:

If this court is taking the position that the DOL can decide, then that should not impact the DOL’s next subsequent decision to decide again that third parties can use the exemption.

Remember, this is just a Court of Appeals decision, and the court itself says that it is not precedential. What I wonder is, what happens now if the Department of Labor in the future decides that they no longer think that agencies should use these exemptions? Does this pave the way for that kind of future action? Prior to this case, the Chevron deference probably would apply, because the authority all points to the ability for third parties to be able to use the exemption.

When you look at when the exemptions were applied to the FLSA, there was no limitation of who could use them. The limitation was about what kind of work the employee performed, who they performed it for. If it was assistance with ADLs and IADLs in a personal home, then you could rely on the exemptions.

Then came the efforts to limit those exemptions over several years, via Congress and a Supreme Court challenge. In the Koch decision, in the early 2000s, the Supreme Court said, “Third-party employers can rely on the exemption, because there is nothing in the language that suggests they cannot.”

In response, the DOL took it in their own hands and changed it, before there was a limitation from the Chevron deference. Now they want to change it back. I think that is where the weight of authority is, so I think they will be able to survive any deference challenge.

I think this case actually supports that argument: “We get to decide what we want to do. Look at what Pennsylvania said.” Nevertheless, I still believe it’s going to be a challenge for the DOL to flip it back again. They will have to go through all that history of what Congress had said, and what the Supreme Court said. Still, this decision certainly helps any future administration, should they choose to flip things back to the way they sit today. All this assumes that the DOL does, in fact, change it, which I think they will.

Overtime Law Changes divides care at home industry

A House Divided

RR:

There is a portion of the home care industry that wants the exemption to stay as it is, and another that says, no, it needs to go back to the way it was. I wonder if that is in any way going to impact whether or not the Department of Labor in this administration moves forward, or maybe pauses on changing that language.

Angelo:

I think there’s a growing understanding of what the reinstatement of the exemptions would mean. There is a narrative that it must mean that caregivers will lose their right to overtime pay, and will therefore be compensated unfairly, meaning less. Agencies are coming around to understanding that isn’t going to happen, because the market will not allow it to happen. This explains why caregiver rates have increased in recent years. They will go work somewhere else if you don’t compensate them fairly. So, the nature of the compensation is likely to change. It may look more like bonuses, or incentives, or things that you would do for exempt employees.

RR:

I want to make sure I am presenting this correctly here. When this changes, will it open up some possibilities in home care? If a family is paying for 10 or 12 hours per day, paying for overtime makes a huge difference and they would likely opt for fewer hours or a second caregiver. But, with the exemption, you have fewer caregivers on one case, better continuity of care, and possibly more care hours.

Angelo:

That is exactly right. What agencies do now is they often limit the caregiver to 40 hours, and then that caregiver has to go find a job at a second agency if they want to work 70 or 80 hours. In that scenario, caregivers bounce around multiple clients, who have to utilize multiple caregivers, especially if they require a lot of hours. A lot of those clients have memory issues and a vulnerable immune system. On top of mental confusion issues, the more exposure you have to different people, the more unique bacteria and germs come into the house, the more at risk you are.

You can see how much better it is, on several levels, for a caregiver to work many hours with one client. That is usually the client’s preference anyway.

RR:

You said you think it’s pretty certain at this point that the Department of Labor is going to change that ruling back to the 1974 version. Do you anticipate lawsuits against that change?

Angelo:

I think we’re probably going to. It’s such a big deal, I would expect to see something. I would think that the advocacy groups and the unions are already likely prepared for that. When the change in 2013 was announced, the industry rallied, and we were prepared to file. So, it would not shock me in any way, if that same response returned.

RR:

I appreciate your time and helping all of the industry understand these sometimes very confusing changes in labor laws. I anticipate that once the Department of Labor makes their final decision, we’ll be back in touch to talk again about what it means, when it will be enforced, and what any pending lawsuits will have to say about it. We’ll keep everybody abreast of what these changes are going to mean for the industry.

Angelo:

Yeah, this will be one to track for sure. We are going be tracking this for the next 12 months at least.

RR:

I think for the industry and for the agencies that we talk to, the most important thing is following the law as it stands, regardless of what it is. What do they need to follow right now? What is the date on which they need to change what they’re doing, and whether or not a rule change gets overturned in another court case. They want to be in compliance, and we want to ensure what we report helps our readers to do just that.

Today, the overtime rule is in effect and agencies are required to pay overtime. That will continue to be true until the Department of Labor actually implements this change they’re talking about, regardless of what anybody else is saying.

Angelo:

That’s right. The only thing that really has changed right now is that the Department of Labor themselves are not enforcing the 2013 rule per the field assistance bulletin that went out, but that has no impact on private litigation.

RR:

Thank you so much. I really appreciate you taking the time to talk, and I’m sure I’ll see you next week.

Angelo:

Absolutely, I’ll see you at Home Care 100.

# # #

With two decades of legal experience, Angelo Spinola’s practice focuses on employment litigation with a special interest in the home health, home care and hospice industry. Bringing a wide breadth of knowledge across the health care spectrum, he works with an array of home-based care clients, including Fortune 500 organizations and franchisors, small businesses, and franchisees across multiple industries. Additionally, Angelo works closely with private equity firms and investment groups with respect to labor and employment issues that may arise during acquisitions and activities in these sectors.

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

Purpose-Built AI: Architecture, Scalability, Security

by Rowan Report | Jan 23, 2026 | Artificial Intelligence

by Isaac Greszes, Eleos

Purpose-Built AI for Care at Home

Architecture, Scalability, and Security

In part one of this 4-part series, we discussed how care at home agencies can realize the full impact of AI software that goes beyond the testing period. The best way to do this is to find purpose-built tech and evaluate AI solutions for real-world outcomes.

Part two focuses on AI architecture, scalability and security.

Architecture and Scalability Across the Tech Ecosystem

AI does not operate in isolation. It sits within a broader ecosystem of EHRs, compliance programs, quality initiatives, and IT infrastructure.
For care-at-home organizations, long-term outcomes depend on whether an AI platform can:

Adapt to evolving documentation and regulatory requirements
Scale reliably during census fluctuations
Integrate cleanly with existing systems
Improve over time without creating operational drag

Health informatics research increasingly highlights risks such as model drift — where AI performance degrades as populations, workflows, or clinical practices change — reinforcing the need for continuous monitoring rather than one-time deployment.

purpose-built AI architecture and scalability

Vendors with limited clinical depth or brittle configurations may show early promise in pilots, but often struggle to sustain efficiency and ROI at scale.

Security, Governance

and the Link to Long-Term Value

HIPAA compliance remains foundational, but AI introduces additional governance considerations related to transparency, accountability, fairness, and ongoing risk management.

Healthcare organizations increasingly evaluate AI vendors based on:

Independent security and privacy assessments
Clear contractual boundaries around data use
Explicit retention and deletion policies
Documented processes for monitoring AI behavior over time

Expectations

Recent federal regulation, including the ONC’s HTI-1 Final Rule, formalizes new transparency and risk-management expectations for AI-enabled clinical systems — extending well beyond traditional privacy frameworks.

Emerging standards such as ISO 42001, focused on AI management systems, reflect a broader shift toward formal governance of AI in high-risk domains like healthcare. While adoption is still evolving, these frameworks provide executives with a useful lens for assessing vendor maturity.

Strong governance is not only a risk-mitigation strategy — it is a prerequisite for sustaining outcomes, protecting organizational reputation, and maintaining provider trust.

A Practical Takeaway

AI has demonstrated the potential to reduce administrative burden, improve documentation quality, and deliver measurable ROI in healthcare — including regulated, care at home settings.

However, results are not guaranteed. They depend on evidence-backed design, workflow alignment, scalability, and governance discipline.

For care-at-home leaders, the most reliable path to value is not adopting AI quickly, but evaluating it rigorously — with a focus on how the technology is built, validated, and governed.

For organizations navigating pilot fatigue, the critical shift is not testing more tools, but selecting platforms designed for scale, governance, and long-term operational impact.

# # #

This is part 2 of a 4-part series. Read part 1 and come back next week for part 3, “From Evaluation to Execution.”

About Eleos

At Eleos, we believe the path to better healthcare is paved with provider-focused technology. Our purpose-built AI platform streamlines documentation, simplifies compliance and surfaces deep care insights to drive better client outcomes. Created using real-world care sessions and fine-tuned by our in-house clinical experts, our AI tools are scientifically proven to reduce documentation time by more than 70% and boost client engagement by 2x. With Eleos, providers are free to focus less on administrative tasks and more on what got them into this field in the first place: caring for their clients.

©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

LeadingAge and Alliance Join Dr. Oz

by Kristin Rowan | Jan 15, 2026 | CMS, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Regulatory

LeadingAge and Alliance Join Dr. Oz

CMS hosts listening session in LA

On January 9, 2026, CMS Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz hosted a listening session in Los Angeles to discuss fraud, waste, and abuse in home health and hospice. Dr. Oz was joined by CMS Director of the Center for Program Integrity Kim Brandt and Director of the Center for Medicare Chris Klomp.

Statement to Dr. Oz

Representatives from both LeadingAge and the National Alliance for Care at Home attended the session. As part of their ongoing collaboration and participation in combatting fraud, waste, and abuse, the two organizations sent a joint letter to Dr. Oz regarding recommendations to strengthen program integrity.

“We strongly support CMS’s ongoing efforts to strengthen program integrity and believe that fraud, waste, and abuse can be effectively prevented and addressed while reducing burden on legitimate providers furnishing critical services in the home. As CMS continues to refine its oversight strategies, we encourage the agency to adopt measures that are analytically rigorous, operationally feasible, and take a targeted risk-based approach, consistent with CMS’s statutory authorities.”

LeadingAge and the Alliance

CMS Fraud Prevention

CMS has identified areas of waste fraud and abuse they are actively working to combat. In 2025, CMS imposed nearly 500 payment suspension, stopping nearly $5 billion in payments. CMS identified $2.3 billion in overpayments and implemented automated edits to guard against improper payment. They also revoked Medicare billing from 4,780 providers and denied almost 112,000 claims for unnecessary services.

The Alliance

Members of National Alliance for Care at Home (The Alliance) attended the listening session with Dr. OZ, stating that program integrity is a key priority for the organization. The alliance continues to work closely with lawmakers and regulators to ensure providers are putting patients’ needs first without unnecessary or fraudulent claims.

“The Alliance appreciates the opportunity to continue our dialogue with CMS about ensuring program integrity across these essential home-based services. We share the administration’s goal of eliminating fraud, waste, and abuse in home health and hospice care, and will continue to partner with the agency as it pursues solutions that reduce the burden on legitimate providers and protect patient access to care at home.”

Dr. Steve Landers

President, The Alliance

LeadingAge

Members from LeadingAge also attended the listening session stating that fraud in any care setting is concerning and preventable. The organization continues to work with CMS to address fraud and strengthen regulatory safeguards.

“We thank CMS for initiating this productive meeting, and for the input from Administrator Oz, Deputy Administrator and Chief Operating Officer Kim Brandt, and Deputy Administrator and Director of Medicare Chris Klomp. We look forward to continuing collaboration on this important issue.”

Katie Smith Sloan

President and CEO, LeadingAge

Interview with LeadingAge

The Rowan Report reached out to LeadingAge for a comment on the listening session with CMS. We are scheduled to speak with Mollie Gurian, VP of Policy and Government Affairs, this afternoon. We will update this article with that information immediately following the interview.

# # #

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

Purpose-Built AI for Care at Home

by Rowan Report | Jan 15, 2026 | Artificial Intelligence, Home Health, Hospice, Outcomes

by Isaac Greszes, Eleos

Purpose-Built AI for Care at Home

How Care at Home leaders can move beyond AI pilots

Care at Home is increasingly turning to AI to address documentation burden, clinician burnout, and regulatory pressure. While AI has the potential to address these issues and more, practical results remain uneven, leaving agencies with a lot of experimentation, but little clarity on actual value.

Evaluating AI solutions should focus on real-world outcomes, how the solution fits into your existing workflow, whether the software is scalable, and how it handles changing regulations. You should also look for AI solutions that are built for care at home (purpose-built). This series of articles will help you make informed, risk-aware decisions about AI adoption.

AI is Coming Fast

Home health and hospice leaders are navigating a difficult balance: persistent workforce shortages, rising provider burnout, expanding documentation requirements, and increasing regulatory scrutiny — all within thin operating margins.

At the same time, AI has moved quickly from experimental to strategic. Many organizations are now evaluating AI not just for productivity, but for operational and administrative efficiency, clinician experience, compliance readiness, and financial performance.

And the stakes are high

Early results across the market have been inconsistent. Some organizations report meaningful reductions in administrative burden and a clear return on investment. However, others struggle to find value after adoption. The difference often lies not in whether AI was adopted, but how it was designed, supported, and governed.

The pilot problem

As AI adoption accelerates, many organizations find themselves caught in extended pilot cycles — testing multiple tools without committing to the operational changes required for scale. While pilots can validate technical feasibility, they rarely provide the consistency or measurement discipline needed to demonstrate sustained ROI in regulated care at home environments.

Quality over Quantity

Why the right evidence matters

In today’s AI market, product demonstrations are easy to produce. Documented outcomes are not.

Executive leaders should expect vendors to demonstrate real-world impact, supported by customer data, third-party validation, or peer-reviewed research. Credible AI partners should be able to explain how their results translate to care at home — and where limitations exist. The challenge is not the lack of information from pilots, but the lack of evidence those pilots results can be reproduced, measured, and sustained, in a care at home setting.

Objective Evidence that Matters

When evaluating AI platforms, leaders should look for evidence related to:

Documentation efficiency, such as reduced time per visit or faster note completion
Operational ROI, including quicker billing readiness or reduced rework
Compliance support, such as documentation completeness or audit preparedness
Provider experience, including reduced perceived administrative burden
Care outcomes, including patient engagement and satisfaction

AI solutions can impact efficiency and burnout. But, these outcomes are highly dependent on whether the solution was built for care at home, the quality of implementation, how easily it will integrate into your workflow, and governance. If a vendor cannot explain how results were achieved and whether they are reliable and repeatable outside the pilot, the vendor and the solution should be evaluated carefully.

General Purpose AI

And inconsistent results

Many AI tools marketed to healthcare organizations rely on general-purpose language models designed for tasks like summarization, chat, or content generation — not for producing structured clinical notes aligned to regulatory and reimbursement requirements.

Home health and hospice documentation often includes:

Clinical observations made in non-clinical environments
Structured requirements tied to reimbursement and regulation
Risk-sensitive language related to safety, decline, or end-of-life care
Significant variation across disciplines, visit types, and patient contexts

Where generic AI breaks down

In these settings, AI tools based on general-purpose language models introduce risks related to accuracy, hallucinations, bias, privacy, and workflow fit — because they were not designed to operate within structured clinical, regulatory, and reimbursement frameworks.

In practice, organizations report that the additional oversight required to validate or correct AI-generated output can reduce — or even negate — anticipated efficiency gains, limiting adoption and ROI. As a result, organizations often remain stuck in pilot mode — investing time and effort in validation without achieving the scale or consistency required for meaningful return.

The right question

When evaluating an AI solution, the right question is not whether the AI tool can record a conversation and translate it into notes or whether the tool can reduce documentation, but whether it can consistently support high-quality clinical documentation at scale without increading burden or creating compliance risks.

Purpose-Built AI

What it means and why it drives operational impact

In care at home environments, purpose-built AI should be evaluated less as a point solution and more as foundational infrastructure — one designed to support regulated clinical workflows consistently over time.

Many AI platforms label themselves as “purpose-built,” but leaders must look past marketing language to truly scrutinize the way the technology is designed and deployed. In regulated clinical environments, purpose-built AI typically incorporates:

Domain-specific clinical intelligence, informed by real documentation patterns
Provider involvement in defining structure, logic, and validation criteria
Structured outputs aligned to required note components, in addition to free-text summaries
Grounding mechanisms that reduce fabricated or misattributed content
Privacy-conscious data handling, with explicit limits on data retention and reuse

Research consistently shows that providers prefer AI systems that function as collaborative tools — preserving human oversight while reducing administrative load — rather than fully automated systems that completely bypass clinical judgment. These characteristics directly affect whether AI improves documentation time, supports compliance workflows, and earns provider trust — all prerequisites for driving ROI.
These design choices are what allow AI systems to move beyond experimentation and begin delivering durable efficiency, compliance support, and clinician adoption at scale.

# # #

This article is part 1 in a 4-part series. Come back next week for “Scalability, Security, and Governance.”

About Eleos

At Eleos, we believe the path to better healthcare is paved with provider-focused technology. Our purpose-built AI platform streamlines documentation, simplifies compliance and surfaces deep care insights to drive better client outcomes. Created using real-world care sessions and fine-tuned by our in-house clinical experts, our AI tools are scientifically proven to reduce documentation time by more than 70% and boost client engagement by 2x. With Eleos, providers are free to focus less on administrative tasks and more on what got them into this field in the first place: caring for their clients.

©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

Death of ALF Resident

by Kristin Rowan | Jan 15, 2026 | Admin, Clinical, Legal

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

Death of ALF Resident Forces Sale

5-year care ban

The 2024 death of assisted living facility (ALF) resident forces the sale of the facility by its owners and imposes a 5-year ban on the care of vulnerable adults. The owners of Brookhaven on 131st Assist Living, Levi and Holly Walker, were accused of wrongful death by the family Robert Pollmann. The Attorney General later joined case, adding neglect and consumer fraud to the charges.

Unattended and Unnoticed

85-year-old Pollmann, who suffered from dementia, was a resident of Brookhaven. His family sought a facility for his care because his dementia had made him an increased flight risk. Brookhaven assured the family they could care for Pollmann and handle the flight risk. Despite those reassurances, in June of 2024, Pollmann wandered out the door of the facility alone and his departure went unnoticed for 40 minutes. Pollmann was found 1/4 mile from the facility two days later dead from heat exposure. Search efforts were unsuccessful due in part to the extreme heat rendering thermal imaging ineffective.

Warning Bells

Arizona law requires ALFs to have door alarms. These alarms are the first warning and best defense against residents wandering and leaving the facility. According to prosecutors, the facility doors had alarms installed, but they were not functioning for at least six months prior to the incident and for at least a month after.

Learning Experience

In addition to the 5-year ban, the Walkers have to notify the AZ Attorney General if they ever apply to run a care home or provide care after that. The Pollmann family said in a statement that they hope their case will lead to stronger regulations and better enforcement to protect facility residents.

Final Thoughts

Aging in place is more comfortable for our loved ones, has a lower risk of infection and disease, lowers instances of delirium, and reduces hospitalization risk. Unfortunately, it is not always possible or advisable to keep a loved one at home when the dangers are high. When assisted living facilities become the better option, strong regulations and safeguards to ensure our most vulnerable populations are in the best hands are imperative.

# # #

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

UnitedHealth Causes Heightened Alarm

by Kristin Rowan | Jan 9, 2026 | Breaking News, CMS, Legal, Medicare Advantage, Outcomes, Regulatory

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 Grant, Cindy 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 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 | Jan 9, 2026 | CMS, Hospice

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 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 | Jan 9, 2026 | Legal

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 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 | Dec 18, 2025 | Caring for the Caregiver, Clinical, Vendor Watch

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 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 | Dec 18, 2025 | Regulatory

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 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