She had delighted in watching her dad, John Schapers, blow out the candles on his 90th birthday cake that February at the West Lawrence Care Center in the New York City borough. Then the home went into lockdown.

Soon her father was dead. The former union painter spiked a fever and was transferred to a hospital, where he tested positive for covid, his daughter said, and after two weeks on a ventilator, he died in May 2020.

But when Trever Schapers sued the nursing home for negligence and wrongful death in 2022, a judge dismissed the case, citing a New York state law hastily passed early in the pandemic. It granted immunity to medical providers for “harm or damages” from an “act or omission” in treating or arranging care for covid. She is appealing the decision.

“I feel that families are being ignored by judges and courts not recognizing that something needs to be done and changed,” said Schapers, 48, who works in the medical field. “There needs to be accountability.”

The nursing home did not return calls seeking comment. In a court filing, the home argued that Schapers offered no evidence that the home was “grossly negligent” in treating her father.

More than four years after covid first raged through many U.S. nursing homes, hundreds of lawsuits blaming patient deaths on negligent care have been tossed out or languished in the courts amid contentious legal battles.

Even some nursing homes that were shut down by health officials for violating safety standards have claimed immunity against such suits, court records show. And some families that allege homes kept them in the dark about the health of their loved ones, even denying there were cases of covid in the building, have had their cases dismissed.

Schapers alleged in a complaint to state health officials that the nursing home failed to advise her that it had admitted covid-positive patients from a nearby hospital in March 2020. In early April, she received a call telling her the facility had some covid-positive residents.

“The call I received was very alarming, and they refused to answer any of my questions,” she said.

About two weeks later, a social worker called to say that her father had a fever, but the staff did not test him to confirm covid, according to Schapers’ complaint.

The industry says federal health officials and lawmakers in most states granted medical providers broad protection from lawsuits for good faith actions during the health emergency. Rachel Reeves, a senior vice president with the American Health Care Association, an industry trade group, called covid “an unprecedented public health crisis brought on by a vicious virus that uniquely targeted our population.”

In scores of lawsuits, however, family members allege that nursing homes failed to secure enough protective gear or tests for staffers or residents, haphazardly mixed covid-positive patients with other residents, failed to follow strict infection control protocols, and brazenly misled frightened families about the severity of covid outbreaks among patients and staff.

“They trusted these facilities to take care of loved ones, and that trust was betrayed,” said Florida attorney Lindsey Gale, who has represented several families suing over covid-related deaths.

“The grieving process people had to go through was horrible,” Gale said.

A Deadly Toll

ËØÈËÉ«ÇéƬHealth News found that more than 1,100 covid-related lawsuits, most alleging wrongful death or other negligent care, were filed against nursing homes from March 2020 through March of this year.

While there’s no full accounting of the outcomes, court filings show that judges have dismissed some suits outright, citing state or federal immunity provisions, while other cases have been settled under confidential terms. And many cases have stalled due to lengthy and costly arguments and appeals to hash out limits, if any, of immunity protection.

In their defense, nursing homes initially cited the federal , which Congress passed in December 2005. The law grants liability protection from claims for deaths or injuries tied to vaccines or “medical countermeasures” taken to prevent or treat a disease during national emergencies.

The PREP Act steps in once the secretary of Health and Human Services declares a “,” which happened with covid on . The on May 11, 2023.

The law carved out an exception for “willful misconduct,” but proving it occurred can be daunting for families — even when nursing homes have long histories of violating safety standards, including infection controls.

Governors of at least 38 states issued covid executive orders, or their legislatures passed laws, granting medical providers at least , according to one consumer group’s tally. Just how much legal protection was intended is at the crux of the skirmishes.

Nursing homes answered many negligence lawsuits by getting them removed from state courts into the federal judicial system and asking for dismissal under the PREP Act.

For the most part, that didn’t work because federal judges declined to hear the cases. Some judges ruled that the PREP Act was not intended to shield medical providers from negligence caused by inaction, such as failing to protect patients from the coronavirus. These rulings and appeals sent cases back to state courts, often after long delays that left families in legal limbo.

“These delays have been devastating,” said Jeffrey Guzman, a New York City attorney who represents Schapers and other families. He said the industry has fought “tooth and nail” trying to “fight these people getting their day in court.”

Empire State Epicenter

New York, where covid hit early and hard, is ground zero for court battles over nursing home immunity.

Relatives of residents have filed more than 750 negligence or wrongful death cases in New York counties since the start of the pandemic, according to court data ËØÈËÉ«ÇéƬHealth News compiled using the judicial reporting service Courthouse News Service. No other area comes close. Chicago’s Cook County, a jurisdiction where private lawyers for years have aggressively sued nursing homes alleging poor infection control, recorded 121 covid-related cases.

Plaintiffs in hundreds of New York cases argue that nursing homes knew early in 2020 that covid would pose a deadly threat but largely failed to gird for its impact. Many suits cite inspection reports detailing chronic violations of infection control standards in the years preceding the pandemic, court records show. Responses to this strategy vary.

“Different judges take different views,” said Joseph Ciaccio, a New York lawyer who has filed hundreds of such cases. “It’s been very mixed.”

Lawyers for nursing homes counter that most lawsuits rely on vague allegations of wrongdoing and “boilerplate” claims that, even if true, don’t demonstrate the kind of gross negligence that would override an immunity claim.

New York lawmakers added another wrinkle by repealing the immunity statute in April 2021 after Attorney General Letitia James could give nursing homes a free pass to make “financially motivated decisions” to cut costs and put patients at risk.

So far, appeals courts have ruled lawmakers didn’t specify that the repeal should be made retroactive, thus stymying many negligence cases.

“So these cases are all wasting the courts’ time and preventing cases that aren’t barred by immunity statutes from being resolved sooner and clogging up the court system that was already backlogged from COVID,” said attorney Anna Borea, who represents nursing homes.

Troubled Homes Deflect Suits

Some nursing homes that paid hefty fines or were ordered by health officials to shut down at least temporarily because of their inadequate response to covid have claimed immunity against suits, court records show.

Among them is Andover Subacute and Rehabilitation nursing home in New Jersey, which made when authorities found 17 bodies stacked in a makeshift morgue in April 2020.

Federal health officials $220,235 after issuing a critical 36-page report on covid violations and other deficiencies, and the state halted admissions in February 2022.

Yet the home has won court pauses in at least three negligence lawsuits as it appeals lower court rulings denying immunity under the federal PREP Act, court records show. The operators of the home could not be reached for comment. In court filings, they denied any wrongdoing.

In Oregon, at Healthcare at Foster Creek, calling the Portland nursing home “a serious danger to the public health and safety.” The May 2020 order cited the home’s “consistent inability to adhere to basic infection control standards.”

Bonnie Richardson, a Portland lawyer, sued the facility on behalf of the family of Judith Jones, 75, who had dementia and died in April 2020. Jones’ was among dozens of covid-related deaths at that home.

“It was a very hard-fought battle,” said Richardson, who has since settled the case under confidential terms. Although the nursing home claimed immunity, her clients “wanted to know what happened and to understand why.” The owners of the nursing home provided no comment.

No Covid Here

Many families believe nursing homes misled them about covid’s relentless spread. They often had to settle for to connect with their loved ones.

Relatives of five patients who died in 2020 at the Sapphire Center for Rehabilitation and Nursing in the Flushing neighborhood in Queens filed lawsuits accusing the home’s operators of keeping them in the dark.

When they phoned to check on elderly parents, they either couldn’t get through or were told there was “no COVID-19 in the building,” according to one court affidavit.

One woman grew alarmed after visiting in February 2020 and seeing nurses wearing masks “below their noses or under their chin,” according to a court affidavit.

The woman was shocked when the home relayed that her mother had died in April 2020 from unknown causes, perhaps “from depression and not eating,” according to her affidavit.

A short time later, that dozens of Sapphire Center residents had died from the virus — her 85-year-old mother among them, she argued in a lawsuit.

The nursing home denied liability and won dismissal of all five lawsuits after citing the New York immunity law. Several families are appealing. The nursing home’s administrator declined to comment.

Broadening Immunity

Nursing home operators also have cited immunity to foil negligence lawsuits based on falls or other allegations of substandard care, such as bedsores, with little obvious connection to the pandemic, court records show.

The family of Marilyn Kearney, an 89-year-old with a “history of dementia and falls,” sued the Watrous Nursing Center in Madison, Connecticut, for negligence. Days after she was admitted in June 2020, she fell in her room, fracturing her right hip and requiring surgery, according to court filings.

She died at a local hospital on Sept. 16, 2020, from sepsis attributed to dehydration and malnutrition, according to the suit.

Her family argued that the 45-bed nursing home failed to assess her risk of falling and develop a plan to prevent that. But Watrous fired back by citing an April 2020 declaration by Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont, a Democrat, granting health care professionals or facilities immunity from “any injury or death alleged to have been sustained because of the individual’s or health care facility’s acts or omissions undertaken in good faith while providing health care services in support of the state’s COVID-19 response.”

Watrous denied liability and, in a motion to dismiss the case, cited Lamont’s executive order and affidavits that argued the home did its best in the throes of a “public health crisis, the likes of which had never been seen before.” The operators of the nursing home, which closed in July 2021 because of covid, did not respond to a request for comment. The case is pending.

Attorney Wendi Kowarik, who represents Kearney’s family, said courts are wrestling with how much protection to afford nursing homes.

“We’re just beginning to get some guidelines,” she said.

One pending Connecticut case alleges that an 88-year-old man died in October 2020 after experiencing multiple falls, sustaining bedsores, and dropping more than 30 pounds in the two months he lived at a nursing home, court records state. The nursing home denied liability and contends it is entitled to immunity.

So do the owners of a Connecticut facility that cared for a 75-year-old woman with obesity who required a lift to get out of bed. She fell on April 26, 2020, smashing several teeth and fracturing bones. She later died from her injuries, according to the suit, which is pending.

“I think it is really repugnant that providers are arguing that they should not be held accountable for falls, pressure sores, and other outcomes of gross neglect,” said Richard Mollot, executive director of the Long Term Care Community Coalition, which advocates for patients.

“The government did not declare open season on nursing home residents when it implemented COVID policies,” he said.

Protecting the Vulnerable

Since early 2020, U.S. nursing homes have residents’ deaths, according to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data. That’s about 1 in 7 of all recorded U.S. covid deaths.

As it battles covid lawsuits, the nursing home industry says it is “struggling to recover due to ongoing labor shortages, inflation, and chronic government underfunding,” according to Reeves, the trade association executive.

She said the American Health Care Association has advocated for “reasonable, limited liability protections that defend staff and providers for their good faith efforts” during the pandemic.

“Caregivers were doing everything they could,” Reeves said, “often with limited resources and ever-changing information, in an effort to protect and care for residents.”

But patients’ advocates remain wary of policies that might bar the courthouse door against grieving families.

“I don’t think we want to continue to enact laws that reward nursing homes for bad care,” said Sam Brooks, of the Coalition for the Protection of Residents of Long-Term Care Facilities, a patient advocacy group.

“We need to keep that in mind if, God forbid, we have another pandemic,” Brooks said.

Bill Hammond, a senior fellow at the Empire Center for Public Policy, a nonpartisan New York think tank, said policymakers should focus on better strategies to protect patients from infectious outbreaks, rather than leaving it up to the courts to sort out liability years later.

“There is no serious effort to have that conversation,” Hammond said. “I think that’s crazy.”

ËØÈËÉ«ÇéƬHealth News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

ËØÈËÉ«ÇéƬHealth News senior correspondent Jordan Rau discussed how most nursing homes don’t have enough personnel to meet new federal staffing rules on Apple News’ “Apple News Today” on April 26.

• Read Rau’s “Biden Administration Sets Higher Staffing Mandates. Most Nursing Homes Don’t Meet Them.”

ËØÈËÉ«ÇéƬHealth News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

• One resident purchased a bullhorn with a siren to get nurses’ and aides’ attention because he was often left sitting in his own stool, one commenter recounted.
• Nurses at one facility declared a “med holiday,” according to a dietitian, and threw away all the drugs for a shift because they didn’t have time to pass them out.
• A day shift nurse found a resident choking on vomit and having seizures after a night when there had been only one nurse and one aide on duty — for 100 residents.

Hundreds of comments like these of officials at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services last month to stick to plans to set minimum numbers of registered nurses and nurse aides for homes, despite the industry’s insistence it’s infeasible. CMS added a third mandate for minimum total staffing.

The agency also toughened requirements for the self-assessments each home must perform to determine whether they have enough skilled workers to properly care for their residents. The assessment can mean a home with residents who are especially ill or in need of extensive assistance should exceed minimum staffing mandates.

President Biden’s crackdown on nursing home staffing is among the most significant health-care regulatory moves he’s pursuing in what could be his last year in the White House. That it comes in an election year, when the president is counting on improving his support among older voters and their families, only raises the stakes — though nursing homes have until 2026 to come into compliance. Labor unions representing nurses and aides have strongly backed the plan.

Still, CMS rebuffed calls from resident advocates to require all nursing homes to meet the new requirements.

The industry as well as rank-and-file nurses raised concerns about finding enough staff to meet the new federal requirement. A licensed practical nurse from rural Minnesota wrote: “We currently offer sign on bonuses, referral bonuses, higher wages than we have ever had, and still no applications are received.”

CMS is allowing nursing homes exemptions from the staffing minimums if they are in areas with workforce shortages. CMS also will allow homes to request an exemption from one of the toughest mandates in the regulation: having a registered nurse on-site around-the-clock. If they’re in an area with a shortage of RNs, they can request to have one on-site for just 16 hours a day. (That’s still double the existing requirement.) CMS estimates that a quarter of the nation’s 15,000 nursing homes will end up obtaining exemptions from part or all of the staffing rules

The final regulation hasn’t entirely pleased anyone. Most advocates for patients still think the staffing minimums are too low and will allow some homes to continue to provide substandard care. And the nursing home industry says it can’t find or afford the extra staff — and its lobbyists are working Congress, and probably the White House should Biden lose, to overturn the rules.

This article is not available for syndication due to republishing restrictions. If you have questions about the availability of this or other content for republication, please contact NewsWeb@kff.org.

ËØÈËÉ«ÇéƬHealth News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Even when physicians determine these patients need to be admitted to the hospital, they often wait for hours — sometimes more than a day — in the ER in pain and discomfort, not getting enough food or water, not moving around, not being helped to the bathroom, and not getting the kind of care doctors deem necessary.

“You walk through ER hallways, and they’re lined from end to end with patients on stretchers in various states of distress calling out for help, including a number of older patients,” said Hashem Zikry, an emergency medicine physician at UCLA Health.

Physicians who staff emergency rooms say this problem, known as ER boarding, is as bad as it’s ever been — even worse than during the first years of the covid-19 pandemic, when hospitals filled with desperately ill patients.

While boarding can happen to all ER patients, adults 65 and older, who account for nearly 20% of ER visits, are especially vulnerable during long waits for care. Also, seniors may encounter boarding more often than other patients. The best estimates I could find, published in 2019, before the covid-19 pandemic, suggest that 10% of patients were boarded in ERs before receiving hospital care. About 30% to 50% of these patients were older adults.

“It’s a public health crisis,” said Aisha Terry, an associate professor of emergency medicine at George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences and the president of the board of the American College of Emergency Physicians, which sponsored a summit on boarding in September.

What’s going on? I spoke to almost a dozen doctors and researchers who described the chaotic situation in ERs. They told me staff shortages in hospitals, which affect the number of beds available, are contributing to the crisis. Also, they explained, hospital administrators are setting aside more beds for patients undergoing lucrative surgeries and other procedures, contributing to bottlenecks in ERs and leaving more patients in limbo.

Then, there’s high demand for hospital services, fueled in part by the aging of the U.S. population, and backlogs in discharging patients because of growing problems securing home health care and nursing home care, according to Arjun Venkatesh, chair of emergency medicine at the Yale School of Medicine.

The impact of long ER waits on seniors who are frail, with multiple medical issues, is especially serious. Confined to stretchers, gurneys, or even hard chairs, often without dependable aid from nurses, they’re at risk of losing strength, forgoing essential medications, and experiencing complications such as delirium, according to Saket Saxena, a co-director of the geriatric emergency department at the Cleveland Clinic.

When these patients finally secure a hospital bed, their stays are longer and medical complications more common. And finds that the risk of dying in the hospital is significantly higher for older adults when they stay in ERs overnight, as is the risk of adverse events such as falls, infections, bleeding, heart attacks, strokes, and bedsores.

Ellen Danto-Nocton, a geriatrician in Milwaukee, was deeply concerned when an 88-year-old relative with “strokelike symptoms” spent two days in the ER a few years ago. Delirious, immobile, and unable to sleep as alarms outside his bed rang nonstop, the older man spiraled downward before he was moved to a hospital room. “He really needed to be in a less chaotic environment,” Danto-Nocton said.

Several weeks ago, Zikry of UCLA Health helped care for a 70-year-old woman who’d fallen and broken her hip while attending a basketball game. “She was in a corner of our ER for about 16 hours in an immense amount of pain that was very difficult to treat adequately,” he said. ERs are designed to handle crises and stabilize patients, not to “take care of patients who we’ve already decided need to be admitted to the hospital,” he said.

How common is ER boarding and where is it most acute? No one knows, because hospitals aren’t required to report data about boarding publicly. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services retired a measure of boarding in 2021. New national measures of emergency care capacity have been proposed but not yet approved.

“It’s not just the extent of ED boarding that we need to understand. It’s the extent of acute hospital capacity in our communities,” said Venkatesh of Yale, who helped draft the new measures.

In the meantime, some hospital systems are publicizing their plight by highlighting capacity constraints and the need for more hospital beds. Among them is in Boston, which announced in January that ER boarding had risen 32% from October 2022 to September 2023. At the end of that period, patients admitted to the hospital spent a median of 14 hours in the ER and 26% spent more than 24 hours.

Maura Kennedy, Mass General’s chief of geriatric emergency medicine, described an 80-something woman with a respiratory infection who languished in the ER for more than 24 hours after physicians decided she needed inpatient hospital care.

“She wasn’t mobilized, she had nothing to cognitively engage her, she hadn’t eaten, and she became increasingly agitated, trying to get off the stretcher and arguing with staff,” Kennedy told me. “After a prolonged hospital stay, she left the hospital more disabled than she was when she came in.”

When I asked ER doctors what older adults could do about these problems, they said boarding is a health system issue that needs health system and policy changes. Still, they had several suggestions.

“Have another person there with you to advocate on your behalf,” said Jesse Pines, chief of clinical innovation at US Acute Care Solutions, the nation’s largest physician-owned emergency medicine practice. And have that person speak up if they feel you’re getting worse or if staffers are missing problems.

Alexander Janke, a clinical instructor of emergency medicine at the University of Michigan, advises people, “Be prepared to wait when you come to an ER” and “bring a medication list and your medications, if you can.”

To stay oriented and reduce the possibility of delirium, “make sure you have your hearing aids and eyeglasses with you,” said Michael Malone, medical director of senior services for Advocate Aurora Health, a 20-hospital system in Wisconsin and northern Illinois. “Whenever possible, try to get up and move around.”

Friends or family caregivers who accompany older adults to the ER should ask to be at their bedside, when possible, and “try to make sure they eat, drink, get to the bathroom, and take routine medications for underlying medical conditions,” Malone said.

Older adults or caregivers who are helping them should try to bring “things that would engage you cognitively: magazines, books … music, anything that you might focus on in a hallway where there isn’t a TV to entertain you,” Kennedy said.

“Experienced patients often show up with eye masks and ear plugs” to help them rest in ERs with nonstop stimulation, said Zikry of UCLA. “Also, bring something to eat and drink in case you can’t get to the cafeteria or it’s a while before staffers bring these to you.”

We’re eager to hear from readers about questions you’d like answered, problems you’ve been having with your care, and advice you need in dealing with the health care system. Visit  to submit your requests or tips.

ËØÈËÉ«ÇéƬHealth News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services are the most substantial changes to federal oversight of the nation’s roughly 15,000 nursing homes in more than three decades. But they are less stringent than what patient advocates said was needed to provide high-quality care.

Spurred by disproportionate deaths from covid-19 in long-term care facilities, the rules aim to address perennially sparse staffing that can be a root cause of missed diagnoses, severe bedsores, and frequent falls.

“For residents, this will mean more staff, which means fewer ER visits potentially, more independence,” Vice President Kamala Harris said while meeting with nursing home workers in La Crosse, Wisconsin. “For families, it’s going to mean peace of mind in terms of your loved one being taken care of.”

When the regulations are fully enacted, 4 in 5 homes will need to augment their payrolls, CMS estimated. But the new standards are likely to require slight if any improvements for many of the 1.2 million residents in facilities that are already quite close to or meet the minimum levels.

“Historically, this is a big deal, and we’re glad we have now established a floor,” Blanca Castro, California’s long-term care ombudsman, said in an interview. “From here we can go upward, recognizing there will be a lot of complaints about where we are going to get more people to fill these positions.”

The rules primarily address staffing levels for three types of nursing home workers. Registered nurses, or RNs, are the most skilled and responsible for guiding overall care and setting treatment plans. Licensed practical nurses, sometimes called licensed vocational nurses, work under the direction of RNs and perform routine medical care such as taking vital signs. Certified nursing assistants are supposed to be the most plentiful and help residents with daily activities like going to the bathroom, getting dressed, and eating.

While the industry since February 2020, homes say they are still struggling to compete against better-paying work for nurses at hospitals and at retail shops and restaurants for aides. On average, nursing home RNs an hour, licensed practical nurses make $31 an hour, and nursing assistants are paid $19 an hour, according to the from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

CMS estimated the rules will ultimately cost $6 billion annually, but the plan omits any more payments from Medicare or Medicaid, the public insurers that cover most residents’ stays — meaning additional wages would have to come out of owners’ pockets or existing facility budgets.

The American Health Care Association, which represents the nursing home industry, called the regulation “an unreasonable standard” that “creates an impossible task for providers” amid a persistent worker shortage nationwide.

“This unfunded mandate doesn’t magically solve the nursing crisis,” the association’s CEO, Mark Parkinson, said in a statement. Parkinson said the industry will keep pressing Congress to overturn the regulation.

Richard Mollot, executive director of the Long Term Care Community Coalition, a New York City-based advocacy nonprofit, said “it is hard to call this a win for nursing home residents and families” given that the minimum levels were below what studies have found to be ideal.

The plan was welcomed by labor unions that represent nurses — and whom President Joe Biden is counting on for support in his reelection campaign. Service Employees International Union President Mary Kay Henry called it a “long-overdue sea change.” This political bond was underscored by the administration’s decision to have Harris announce the rule with SEIU members in Wisconsin, a swing state.

The new rules supplant the vague federal mandate that has been in place since the 1980s requiring nursing homes to have “sufficient” staffing to meet residents’ needs. In practice, inspectors rarely categorized inadequate staffing as a serious infraction resulting in possible penalties, federal records show.

Starting in two years, most homes must provide an average of at least 3.48 hours of daily care per resident. About 6 in 10 nursing homes are already operating at that level, a .

The rules give homes breathing room before they must comply with more specific requirements. Within three years, most nursing homes will need to provide daily RN care of at least 0.55 hours per resident and 2.45 hours from aides.

CMS also mandated that within two years an RN must be on duty at all times in case of a patient crisis on weekends or overnight. Currently, CMS requires at least eight consecutive hours of RN presence each day and a licensed nurse of any level on duty around the clock. An inspector general report nursing homes didn’t meet those basic requirements.

Nursing homes in rural areas will have longer to staff up. Within three years, they must meet the overall staffing numbers and the round-the-clock RN requirement. CMS’ rule said rural homes have five years to achieve the RN and nurse aide thresholds.

Under the new rules, the average nursing home, which has around 100 residents, would need to have at least two RNs working each day, and at least 10 or 11 nurse aides, the administration said. Homes could meet the overall requirements through two more workers, who could be RNs, vocational nurses, or aides.

Homes can get a hardship exemption from the minimums if they are in regions with low populations of nurses or aides and demonstrate good-faith efforts to recruit.

Democrats praised the rules, though some said the administration did not go nearly far enough. Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), the ranking member of the House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, said the changes were “modest improvements” but that “much more is needed to ensure sufficient care and resident safety.” A Republican senator from Nebraska, Deb Fischer, said the rule would “devastate nursing homes across the country and worsen the staffing shortages we are already facing.”

Advocates for nursing home residents have been pressing CMS for years to adopt a higher standard than what it ultimately settled on. A CMS-commissioned that the quality of care improved with increases of staff up to a level of 4.1 hours per resident per day — nearly a fifth higher than what CMS will require. The consultants CMS hired in preparing its new rules did not incorporate the earlier findings in their evaluation of options.

CMS said the levels it endorsed were more financially feasible for homes, but that assertion didn’t quiet the ongoing battle about how many people are willing to work in homes at current wages and how financially strained homes owners actually are.

“If states do not increase Medicaid payments to nursing homes, facilities are going to close,” said John Bowblis, an economics professor and research fellow with the Scripps Gerontology Center at Miami University. “There aren’t enough workers and there are shortages everywhere. When you have a 3% to 4% unemployment rate, where are you going to get people to work in nursing homes?”

Researchers, however, have been skeptical that all nursing homes are as broke as the industry claims or as their books show. A by the National Bureau of Economic Research estimated that 63% of profits were secretly siphoned to owners through inflated rents and other fees paid to other companies owned by the nursing homes’ investors.

Charlene Harrington, a professor emeritus at the nursing school of the University of California-San Francisco, said: “In their unchecked quest for profits, the nursing home industry has created its own problems by not paying adequate wages and benefits and setting heavy nursing workloads that cause neglect and harm to residents and create an unsatisfactory and stressful work environment.”

[Update: This article was updated at 3:30 p.m. ET on April 24, 2024, with a statement issued by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to clarify when the minimum staffing thresholds for RNs and aides working at rural nursing homes will take effect. CMS said those minimum levels will begin in five years, in May 2029, not in four years as originally stated in the text of the regulation.]

ËØÈËÉ«ÇéƬHealth News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Lester credits the chats for keeping her out of the hospital and reducing the need for clinic visits to manage chronic conditions including depression, fibromyalgia, and hypertension.

“Just knowing someone is going to check on me is comforting,” said Lester, 73, who lives with her dogs, Sophie and Dolly, in Independence, Kansas.

have two or more chronic health conditions, . That makes them eligible for a federal program that, since 2015, has rewarded doctors for doing more to manage their health outside office visits.

But while the service, called Chronic Care Management, reduced emergency room and in-patient hospital visits and lowered total health spending, uptake has been sluggish.

shows just 4% of potentially eligible enrollees participated in the program, a figure that appears to have held steady through 2023, according to a Mathematica analysis. About 12,000 physicians billed Medicare under the CCM mantle in 2021, according to the latest Medicare data analyzed by ËØÈËÉ«ÇéƬHealth News. (The Medicare data includes doctors who have annually billed CCM at least a dozen times.)

By comparison, federal data shows about 1 million providers participate in Medicare.

Even as the strategy has largely failed to live up to its potential, thousands of physicians have boosted their annual pay by participating, and auxiliary for-profit businesses have sprung up to help doctors take advantage of the program. The federal data showed about 4,500 physicians received at least $100,000 each in CCM pay in 2021.

Through the CCM program, Medicare pays to develop a patient care plan, coordinate treatment with specialists, and regularly check in with beneficiaries. Medicare pays doctors a monthly average of , for 20 minutes of work with each, according to companies in the business.

Without the program, providers often have little incentive to spend time coordinating care because they can’t bill Medicare for such services.

Health policy experts say a host of factors limit participation in the program. Chief among them is that it requires both doctors and patients to opt in. Doctors may not have the capacity to regularly monitor patients outside office visits. Some also worry about meeting the strict Medicare documentation requirements for reimbursement and are reluctant to ask patients to join a program that may require a monthly copayment if they don’t have a supplemental policy.

“This program had potential to have a big impact,” said , an Emory University health policy expert on chronic diseases. “But I knew it was never going to work from the start because it was put together wrong.”

He said most doctors’ offices are not set up for monitoring patients at home. “This is very time-intensive and not something physicians are used to doing or have time to do,” Thorpe said.

For patients, the CCM program is intended to expand the type of care offered in traditional, fee-for-service Medicare to match benefits that — at least in theory — they may get through Medicare Advantage, which is administered by private insurers.

But the CCM program is open to both Medicare and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries.

The program was also intended to boost pay to primary care doctors and other physicians who are paid significantly less by Medicare than specialists, said Mark Miller, a former executive director of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, which advises Congress. He’s currently an executive vice president of Arnold Ventures, a philanthropic organization focused on health policy. (The organization has also provided funding for ËØÈËÉ«ÇéƬHealth News.)

Despite the allure of extra money, some physicians have been put off by the program’s upfront costs.

“It may seem like easy money for a physician practice, but it is not,” said Namirah Jamshed, a physician at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

Jamshed said the CCM program was cumbersome to implement because her practice was not used to documenting time spent with patients outside the office, a challenge that included finding a way to integrate the data into electronic health records. Another challenge was hiring staff to handle patient calls before her practice started getting reimbursed by the program.

Only about 10% of the practice’s Medicare patients are enrolled in CCM, she said.

Jamshed said her practice has been approached by private companies looking to do the work, but the practice demurred out of concerns about sharing patients’ health information and the cost of retaining the companies. Those companies can take more than half of what Medicare pays doctors for their CCM work.

Physician Jennifer Bacani McKenney, who runs a family medicine practice in Fredonia, Kansas, with her father — where Carrie Lester is a patient — said the CCM program has worked well.

She said having a system to keep in touch with patients at least once a month has reduced their use of emergency rooms — including for some who were prone to visits for nonemergency reasons, such as running out of medication or even feeling lonely. The CCM funding enables the practice’s medical assistant to call patients regularly to check in, something it could not afford before.

For a small practice, having a staffer who can generate extra revenue makes a big difference, McKenney said.

While she estimates about 90% of their patients would qualify for the program, only about 20% are enrolled. One reason is that not everyone needs or wants the calls, she said.

While the program has captured interest among internists and family medicine doctors, it has also paid out hundreds of thousands of dollars to specialists, such as those in cardiology, urology, and gastroenterology, the ËØÈËÉ«ÇéƬHealth News analysis found. Primary care doctors are often seen as the ones who coordinate patient care, making the payments to specialists notable.

A federally funded found the CCM program saves Medicare $74 per patient per month, or $888 per patient per year — due mostly to a decreased need for hospital care.

The study quoted providers who were unhappy with attempts to outsource CCM work. “Third-party companies out there turn this into a racket,” the study cited one physician as saying, noting companies employ nurses who don’t know patients.

Nancy McCall, a Mathematica researcher who co-authored the 2017 study, said doctors are not the only resistance point. “Patients may not want to be bothered or asked if they are exercising or losing weight or watching their salt intake,” she said.

Still, some physician groups say it’s convenient to outsource the program.

UnityPoint Health, a large integrated health system based in Iowa, tried doing chronic care management on its own, but found it administratively burdensome, said Dawn Welling, the UnityPoint Clinic’s chief nursing officer.

For the past year, it has contracted with a Miami-based company, HealthSnap, to enroll patients, have its nurses make check-in calls each month, and help with billing. HealthSnap helps manage care for over 16,000 of UnityHealth’s Medicare patients — a small fraction of its Medicare patients, which includes those enrolled in Medicare Advantage.

Some doctors were anxious about sharing patient records and viewed the program as a sign they weren’t doing enough for patients, Welling said. But she said the program has been helpful, particularly to many enrollees who are isolated and need help changing their diet and other behaviors to improve health.

“These are patients who call the clinic regularly and have needs, but not always clinical needs,” Welling said.

Samson Magid, CEO of HealthSnap, said more doctors have started participating in the CCM program since Medicare increased pay in 2022 for 20 minutes of work, to $62 from $41, and added billing codes for additional time.

To help ensure patients pick up the phone, caller ID shows HealthSnap calls as coming from their doctor’s office, not from wherever the company’s nurse might be located. The company also hires nurses from different regions so they may speak with dialects similar to those of the patients they work with, Magid said.

He said some enrollees have been in the program for three years and many could stay enrolled for life — which means they can bill patients and Medicare long-term.

ËØÈËÉ«ÇéƬHealth News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

President Joe Biden, in a March 22 speech

The cost of insulin in the United States has risen considerably in recent years, with some estimates finding that Americans have paid around as much for the drug as people in other developed countries.

But recent changes by the federal government and drug manufacturers have started to drive insulin prices down, something President Joe Biden often mentions at campaign events.

Biden told the crowd at a in Reno, Nevada, that he’s fought for years to allow Medicare to negotiate with drug companies.

“How many of you know someone who needs insulin?” Biden asked. “OK, well, guess what? It was costing 400 bucks a month on average. It now costs $35 a month.”

We’ve heard Biden make this point several times on the campaign trail — in , he has said beneficiaries were paying “as much as” $400 a month — so we wanted to look into it.

The Inflation Reduction Act, which Biden signed in 2022, caps out-of-pocket insulin costs at $35 a month for Medicare enrollees. The cap took effect in 2023. In response, three drug manufacturers said to reduce the price of insulin to $35 through price caps or savings programs.

The legislation also helped patients by clarifying how much they would have to pay for insulin and other drugs.

But Biden overstated the average monthly cost that Medicare beneficiaries were paying before the law.

One government estimate for out-of-pocket insulin costs found that people with diabetes enrolled in Medicare or private insurance paid an average of $452 a year — not a month, as Biden said. That’s according to a by the Department of Health and Human Services using 2019 data. Uninsured users, however, paid more than twice as much on average for the drug, or about $996 annually.

About Half of US Insulin Users Are on Medicare

More than 37 million Americans have diabetes, and more than 7 million of them need insulin to control their blood sugar levels and prevent dangerous complications. Of the Americans who take the drug, about .

It’s unlikely that many Medicare enrollees were paying the $400 out-of-pocket monthly average Biden referred to, though it could be on target for some people, especially if they’re uninsured, drug pricing experts told us.

“It would be more accurate to say that it could cost people on Medicare over $400 for a month of insulin, but the average cost would have been quite a bit lower than $400 on Medicare,” said Stacie Dusetzina, a health policy professor at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine.

, also called the Medicare prescription drug benefit, helps beneficiaries pay for self-administered prescriptions. The benefit has several phases, including a deductible, an initial coverage phase, a coverage gap phase, and catastrophic coverage. What Medicare beneficiaries pay for their prescriptions often depends on which phase they’re in.

“It is confusing, because the amount that a person was supposed to pay jumps around a lot in the Part D benefit,” Dusetzina said. For example, she said, Medicare beneficiaries would be more likely to pay $400 a month for insulin during months when they hadn’t yet met their deductible.

Mariana Socal, an associate scientist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said it’s also difficult to estimate insulin’s precise cost under Medicare because individual prices hinge on other factors, such as how many other prescription medications patients take.

“Because the Medicare program has multiple instances where the patient is required to pay a coinsurance (percentage of the drug’s cost) to get their drug, it is very likely that patients were paying much more than $35 per month, on average, before the cap established by the Inflation Reduction Act went into effect,” Socal wrote in an email.

There are different ways to , including through a pump, inhaler, or pen injector filled with the medicine.

, HHS researchers estimated that about 37% of insulin fills for Medicare enrollees cost patients more than $35, and 24% of fills exceeded $70. Nationally, the average out-of-pocket cost for insulin was $58 per fill, typically for a 30-day supply, the report found. Patients with private insurance or Medicare paid about $63 per fill, on average.

For people with employer-sponsored insurance, the average monthly out-of-pocket spending on insulin in 2019 was $82, according to a by the Health Care Cost Institute, a nonprofit that studies health care prices. The study found that the majority of patients were spending an average of $35 a month, or lower, on the drug. But among the “8.7% of individuals in the highest spending category,” the median monthly out-of-pocket spending on insulin was about $315, the study said.

Our Ruling

Biden said Medicare beneficiaries used to pay an average of $400 per month for insulin and are now paying $35 per month.

The Inflation Reduction Act capped the monthly price of insulin at $35 for Medicare enrollees, starting in 2023. The change built in price predictability and helped insulin users save hundreds of dollars a year.

However, most Medicare enrollees were not paying a monthly average of $400 before these changes, according to experts and government data. Costs vary, so it is possible some people paid that much in a given month, depending on their coverage phase and dosage.

Research has shown that patients with private insurance or Medicare often paid more than $35 a month for their insulin, sometimes much more, but not as high as the $400 average Biden cited.

We rate Biden’s statement Half True.

PolitiFact copy chief Matthew Crowley contributed to this report.

our sources

WhiteHouse.gov, “,” , March 19, 2024

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “,” Jan. 24, 2023

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “,” revised Oct. 26, 2023

Bloomberg Law, “,” Oct. 26, 2023

The American Diabetes Association, “,” accessed March 28, 2024

NPR, “,” March 1, 2023

WhiteHouse.gov, “,” March 2, 2023

Health Care Cost Institute, “,” Oct. 15, 2021

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “,” updated November 2023

KFF, “,” July 28, 2022

ËØÈËÉ«ÇéƬHealth News, “America Worries About Health Costs — And Voters Want to Hear From Biden and Republicans,” March 8, 2024

USA Facts, “,” April 15, 2023

The Associated Press, “” Aug. 5, 2018

USA Today, “,” Jan. 3, 2024

Email interview with Mariana Socal, associate scientist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, March 28, 2024

Email interview with Stacie Dusetzina, professor of health policy at Vanderbilt University, March 29, 2024

ËØÈËÉ«ÇéƬHealth News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

More than 100 million Americans don’t have regular access to primary care, a number that has nearly doubled since 2014. Yet demand for primary care is up, spurred partly by record enrollment in Affordable Care Act plans. Under pressure from increased demand, consolidation, and changing patient expectations, the model of care no longer means visiting the same doctor for decades.

ËØÈËÉ«ÇéƬHealth News senior correspondent Julie Appleby breaks down what is happening — and what it means for patients.

Primary Care Disrupted

Known as the “front door” to the health system, primary care is changing. Under pressure from increased demand, consolidation, and changing patient expectations, the model of care no longer means visiting the same doctor for decades. ËØÈËÉ«ÇéƬHealth News looks at what this means for patients.

Credits

ËØÈËÉ«ÇéƬHealth News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Pain shot through her left knee and ankle. After summoning her husband on her phone, with difficulty she made it back to the house.

And then began the run-around that so many people face when they interact with America’s uncoordinated health care system.

Gilliam’s orthopedic surgeon, who managed previous difficulties with her left knee, saw her that afternoon but told her “I don’t do ankles.”

He referred her to an ankle specialist who ordered a new set of X-rays and an MRI. For convenience’s sake, Gilliam asked to get the scans at a hospital near her home in Sudbury, Massachusetts. But the hospital didn’t have the doctor’s order when she called for an appointment. It came through only after several more calls.

Coordinating the care she needs to recover, including physical therapy, became a part-time job for Gilliam. (Therapists work on only one body part per session, so she has needed separate visits for her knee and for her ankle several times a week.)

“The burden of arranging everything I need — it’s huge,” Gilliam told me. “It leaves you with such a sense of mental and physical exhaustion.”

The toll the American health care system extracts is, in some respects, the price of extraordinary progress in medicine. But it’s also evidence of the poor fit between older adults’ capacities and the health care system’s demands.

“The good news is we know so much more and can do so much more for people with various conditions,” said Thomas H. Lee, chief medical officer at Press Ganey, a consulting firm that tracks patients’ experiences with health care. “The bad news is the system has gotten overwhelmingly complex.”

That complexity is compounded by the proliferation of guidelines for separate medical conditions, financial incentives that reward more medical care, and specialization among clinicians, said Ishani Ganguli, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

“It’s not uncommon for older patients to have three or more heart specialists who schedule regular appointments and tests,” she said. If someone has multiple medical problems — say, heart disease, diabetes, and glaucoma — interactions with the health care system multiply.

Ganguli is the author of a showing that Medicare patients spend about three weeks a year having medical tests, visiting doctors, undergoing treatments or medical procedures, seeking care in emergency rooms, or spending time in the hospital or rehabilitation facilities. (The data is from 2019, before the covid pandemic disrupted care patterns. If any services were received, that counted as a day of health care contact.)

That study found that slightly more than 1 in 10 seniors, including those recovering from or managing serious illnesses, spent a much larger portion of their lives getting care — at least 50 days a year.

“Some of this may be very beneficial and valuable for people, and some of it may be less essential,” Ganguli said. “We don’t talk enough about what we’re asking older adults to do and whether that’s realistic.”

Victor Montori, a professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, has for many years raised an alarm about the “treatment burden” that patients experience. In addition to time spent receiving health care, this burden includes arranging appointments, finding transportation to medical visits, getting and taking medications, communicating with insurance companies, paying medical bills, monitoring health at home, and following recommendations such as dietary changes.

Four years ago — in a paper titled “” — Montori and several colleagues found that 40% of patients with chronic conditions such as asthma, diabetes, and neurological disorders “considered their treatment burden unsustainable.”

When this happens, people stop following medical advice and report having a poorer quality of life, the researchers found. Especially vulnerable are older adults with multiple medical conditions and low levels of education who are economically insecure and socially isolated.

Older patients’ difficulties are compounded by medical practices’ increased use of digital phone systems and electronic patient portals — both frustrating for many seniors to navigate — and the time pressures afflicting physicians. “It’s harder and harder for patients to gain access to clinicians who can problem-solve with them and answer questions,” Montori said.

Meanwhile, clinicians rarely ask patients about their capacity to perform the work they’re being asked to do. “We often have little sense of the complexity of our patients’ lives and even less insight into how the treatments we provide (to reach goal-directed guidelines) fit within the web of our patients’ daily experiences,” several physicians wrote in a on reducing treatment burden.

Consider what Jean Hartnett, 53, of Omaha, Nebraska, and her eight siblings went through after their 88-year-old mother had a stroke in February 2021 while shopping at Walmart.

At the time, the older woman was looking after Hartnett’s father, who had kidney disease and needed help with daily activities such as showering and going to the bathroom.

During the year after the stroke, both of Hartnett’s parents — fiercely independent farmers who lived in Hubbard, Nebraska — suffered setbacks, and medical crises became common. When a physician changed her mom’s or dad’s plan of care, new medications, supplies, and medical equipment had to be procured, and new rounds of occupational, physical, and speech therapy arranged.

Neither parent could be left alone if the other needed medical attention.

“It wasn’t unusual for me to be bringing one parent home from the hospital or doctor’s visit and passing the ambulance or a family member on the highway taking the other one in,” Hartnett explained. “An incredible amount of coordination needed to happen.”

Hartnett moved in with her parents during the last six weeks of her father’s life, after doctors decided he was too weak to undertake dialysis. He passed away in March 2022. Her mother died months later in July.

So, what can older adults and family caregivers do to ease the burdens of health care?

To start, be candid with your doctor if you think a treatment plan isn’t feasible and explain why you feel that way, said Elizabeth Rogers, an assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical School. 

“Be sure to discuss your health priorities and trade-offs: what you might gain and what you might lose by forgoing certain tests or treatments,” she said. Ask which interventions are most important in terms of keeping you healthy, and which might be expendable.

Doctors can adjust your treatment plan, discontinue medications that aren’t yielding significant benefits, and arrange virtual visits if you can manage the technological requirements. (Many older adults can’t.)

Ask if a social worker or a patient navigator can help you arrange multiple appointments and tests on the same day to minimize the burden of going to and from medical centers. These professionals can also help you connect with community resources, such as transportation services, that might be of help. (Most medical centers have staff of this kind, but physician practices do not.)

If you don’t understand how to do what your doctor wants you to do, ask questions: What will this involve on my part? How much time will this take? What kind of resources will I need to do this? And ask for written materials, such as self-management plans for asthma or diabetes, that can help you understand what’s expected.

“I would ask a clinician, ‘If I chose this treatment option, what does that mean not only for my cancer or heart disease, but also for the time I’ll spend getting care?’” said Ganguli of Harvard. “If they don’t have an answer, ask if they can come up with an estimate.”

We’re eager to hear from readers about questions you’d like answered, problems you’ve been having with your care, and advice you need in dealing with the health care system. Visit  to submit your requests or tips.

ËØÈËÉ«ÇéƬHealth News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Jason George began noticing in September that Medicaid payments had stalled for some of his assisted living facility residents, people who need help with daily living.

Guardian Group Montana, which owns three small facilities in rural Montana, relies on the government health insurance to cover its care of low-income residents. George, who manages the facilities, said residents’ Medicaid delays have lasted from a few weeks to more than six months and that at one point the total amounted to roughly $150,000.

George said the company didn’t have enough money to pay its employees. When he called state health and public assistance officials for help, he said, they told him they were swamped processing a high load of Medicaid cases, and that his residents would have to wait their turn.

“I’ve mentioned to some of them, ‘Well what do we do if we’re not being paid for four or five months? Do we have to evict the resident?’” he asked.

Instead, the company took out bank loans at 8% interest, George said.

Montana officials finished their initial checks of who qualifies for Medicaid in January, less than a year after the federal government lifted a freeze on disenrollments during the height of the covid-19 pandemic. More than 127,200 people in Montana lost Medicaid with tens of thousands of cases still processing, according to the latest state data, from mid-February.

Providers who take Medicaid have said their state payments have been disrupted, leaving them financially struggling amid the unwinding. They’re providing care without pay, and sometimes going into debt. It’s affecting small long-term care facilities, substance use disorder clinics, and federally funded health centers that rely on Medicaid to offer treatment based on need, not what people can pay.

State health officials have defended their Medicaid redetermination process and said they have worked to address public assistance backlogs.

Financial pinches were expected as people who legitimately no longer qualify were removed from coverage. But the businesses have said an overburdened state workforce is creating a different set of problems. In some cases, it has taken months for people to reapply for Medicaid after getting dropped, or to access the coverage for the first time. Part of the problem, providers said, are long waits on hold for the state’s call center and limited in-person help.

The problem is ongoing: George said two Guardian residents were booted from Medicaid in mid-March, with the state citing a lack of information as the cause.

“I have proof we submitted the needed information weeks ago,” he said.

Providers said they’ve also experienced cases of inconsistent Medicaid payments for people who haven’t lost coverage. It can be hard to disentangle why payments suddenly stop. Patients and providers are working within the same overstretched system.

Jon Forte is the head of the Yellowstone County health department in Billings, which runs health centers that provide care regardless of patients’ ability to pay. He said that at one point some of the clinics’ routine Medicaid claims went unpaid for up to six months. Their doctors are struggling to refer patients out for specialty care as some providers scale back on clientele, he said.

“Some have honestly had to stop seeing Medicaid patients so that they can meet their needs and keep the lights on,” Forte said. “It is just adding to the access crisis we have in the state.”

Payment shortfalls especially hurt clinics that base fees on patient income.

David Mark, a doctor and the CEO of One Health, which has rural clinics dotted across eastern Montana and Wyoming, said the company anticipated making about $500,000 in profit through its budget year so far. Instead, it’s $1.5 million in the red.

In Yellowstone County, Forte said, the health department, known as RiverStone Health, is down $2.2 million from its anticipated Medicaid revenue. Forte said that while state officials have nearly caught up on RiverStone Health’s direct Medicaid payments, smaller providers are still seeing delays, which contributes to problems referring patients for care.

Jon Ebelt, a spokesperson for the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services, said Medicaid can retroactively pay for services for people who have lost coverage but are then found eligible within 90 days. He said the state’s average redetermination processing time is 34 days, the average processing time for applications is 48 days, and, when processing times are longer, it’s often due to ongoing communication with a client.

Ebelt didn’t acknowledge broader Medicaid payment delays, but instead said a provider may be submitting claims for Medicaid enrollees who aren’t eligible. He rejected the idea that individual examples of disruptions amount to a systemic problem.

“We would caution you against using broad brush strokes to paint a picture of our overall eligibility system and processes based on a handful of anecdotal stories,” Ebelt said in an emailed response to a ËØÈËÉ«ÇéƬHealth News query.

Ebelt didn’t directly answer questions about continued long waits for people seeking help but instead said continued coverage depends on individual beneficiaries submitting information on time.

Montana’s average call center wait time is 30 minutes — putting it among states with the highest average wait times. Mike White, co-owner of Caslen Living Centers, which has six small assisted living facilities across central and southwestern Montana, said some family members allowed the company to manage residents’ Medicaid accounts to help avoid missing deadlines or paperwork. Even so, he said, the company is waiting for about $30,000 in Medicaid payments, and it’s hard to reach the state when problems arise.

When they do get through to the state’s call center, the person on the other end can’t always resolve their issue or will answer questions for only one case at a time.

“You don’t know how long it’s going to take — it could be two months, it could be six months — and there’s nobody to talk to,” White said.

Ebelt said long-term care facilities were on how to prepare for the unwinding process. He said new Medicaid cases for long-term care facilities are complicated and can take time.

Stan Klaumann lives in Ennis and has power of attorney for his 94-year-old mom, who resides in one of Guardian’s assisted living homes. Klaumann said that while she never lost coverage, the state didn’t make Medicaid payments toward her long-term care for more than four months and he still doesn’t know why.

He said that since last fall the state hasn’t consistently mailed him routine paperwork he needs to fill out and return in exchange for Medicaid payments to continue. He tried the state’s call center, he said, but each time he waited on hold for more than two hours. He made four two-hour round trips to his closest office of public assistance to try to get answers.

Sometimes the workers told him that there was a state error, he said, and other times that he was missing paperwork he’d already submitted, such as where money from selling his mom’s car went.

“Each time I went, they gave me a different answer as to why my mother’s bills weren’t being paid,” Klaumann said.

Across the nation, people have reported system errors and that led states to drop people who qualify. At least 28 states paused procedural disenrollments to boost outreach to people who qualify, . Montana stuck to its original time frame and has a higher procedural disenrollment rate than most other states, .

Stephen Ferguson, executive director of Crosswinds Recovery in Missoula, said the substance use disorder program doesn’t have a full-time person focused on billing and sometimes doesn’t realize clients lost Medicaid coverage until the state rejects thousands of dollars in services that Crosswinds submits for reimbursement. After that, it can take months for clients to either get reenrolled or learn they truly no longer qualify.

Ferguson said he’s writing grant proposals to continue to treat people despite their inability to pay.

“We’re riding by the seat of our pants right now,” he said. “We are unsure what next month or the next quarter looks like.”

ËØÈËÉ«ÇéƬHealth News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).