Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program to save billions. Cut costs for 10 drugs, 2026

Published in RINewsToday on August 19, 2024

On Aug. 16, 2022, President Joe Biden signed into law the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA), which aimed to reduce the federal budget deficit, invested in domestic energy production while promoting the use of clean energy.  The historic federal law (Public Law 117-169) also lowered the health cost for millions of older Americans by lowering the high cost of prescription drugs by granting Medicare the power to directly negotiate drug prices with drug companies 

 IRA also created the first ever annual cap on out-of-pocket drug costs for Medicare beneficiaries,  capping the cost of each covered insulin at $ 35 per month, and the law also made the Affordable Care Act market plans more affordable.

On Aug. 15, 2024, just one day before IRA’s 2nd Anniversary, Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris unveiled the new lower prices for 10 drugs in which Medicare and drug companies negotiated under the new Medicare Drug Price Negotiation program. As a result, the negotiated prices will save the Medicare program some $6 billion.

Before a crowd of thousands at the Price George’s Community College in Largo, Maryland, Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris who has become the presumptive Democratics nominee for president, made the announcement. 

“We finally beat Big Pharma,” said  Biden.

 Sixty-five million Medicare beneficiaries give Medicare “collecting bargaining power,” noted the Vice President. “And now Medicare can use that power to go toe-to-toe with Big Pharma and negotiate lower drug costs,” said Harris.

And that they did. 

Medicare’s Bargaining Power Puts the Brakes on Rising Drug Costs

 Empowered by the passage of IRA, Medicare was able to negotiate 38-79% discounts on 10 life-saving drugs that treat heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and other serious conditions.  These include popular, brand name drugs such as Eliquis, Jardiance, Farxiga, and Stelara — some of the expensive and commonly prescribed medications in the Medicare program.

 The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced on Aug. 15, 2024, beneficiaries will now save $1.5 billion in out-of-pocket drug costs thanks to newly announced prices negotiated by the Medicare program with Big Pharma. The negotiated prices will save the Medicare program some $6 billion in costs. 

According to CMS, “the selected 10 drugs accounted for $50.5 billion in total Part D gross covered prescription drug costs, or about 20%, of total Part D gross covered prescription drug costs between June 1, 2022 and May 31, 2023, which is the time period used to determine which drugs were eligible for negotiation.”    8 Eight of the 10 drugs selected for this year’s negotiation program raised their prices in 2024 – after all 10 drugs were already priced three to eight times higher in the United States than in other countries, noted the federal agency.

The new prices take effect in January, 2026.  Under the IRA’s provisions, Medicare will select up to 15 more drugs covered under Part D for negotiation by Feb.1, and those prices will take effect in 2027. It will expand 20 drugs starting in 2028, says CMS. 

“It’s no exaggeration to say that this a truly historic moment.  We have been advocating for Medicare to have the power to negotiate drug prices with Big Pharma since 2003, when prescription drug coverage was added to the program,” said Max Richtman, President and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM).  “Unfortunately, the law literally forbade Medicare from negotiating prices with drug makers. The Inflation Reduction Act finally changed that, he said.

According to Richtman, billions saved are proof that the federal government can, and should, leverage its buying power to save Medicare beneficiaries  money — in this case, giving relief to millions of seniors of not having to pay for high drug costs. “This is momentous news for Medicare beneficiaries and the Medicare program itself,” he says.

“The negotiated prices of these first 10 drugs are a great start. We would like to see even more drugs included more rapidly in the negotiation process so that seniors can reap the maximum cost-savings that this process can provide,” said Richtman.                                                                                    

Responding to the White House’s announcement of new details about Medicare drug price negotiations, in a statement Richard Fiesta, Executive Director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, noted that it took more than two decades of activism on the ground, advocacy by thousands of members and the Biden Administration to push for passage of IRA, giving Medicare the power to negotiate fair prices to patients and taxpayers.

 “The savings are staggering. The new prices are 60% lower on average with two drugs slashed by more than 75% per month,” says Fiesta. “Combined with the $ 2,000 out-of-pocket cap on drug costs that will take effect in January, millions of Americans will not be healthier and more financially secure,” he says.

 Fiesta notes, according to the U.S. Congressional Budget Office, in future years, the prices of additional drugs will be negotiated and Medicare will save about $ 100 billion over 10 years. 

While Biden and Democratic lawmakers see the value of granting Medicare the power to negotiate with Drug Companies to lower high drug costs,  no GOP lawmaker voted to pass Biden’s IRA last year, a proposal that allowed Medicare to negotiate with drug companies to lower the cost of drugs.

Not Everyone is On Board 

The drug price policies of IRA were the topic of a Sept. 20, 2023  hearing of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of. House of Representatives’ Energy & Commerce Committee. The hearing, “At What Cost: Oversight of How the IRA’s Price Setting Scheme Means Fewer Cures for Patients,” GOP lawmakers sitting on the panel and four witnesses warned how the drug price negotiations could hurt or help market conditions for new medicines.

 At the hearing, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rogers (R-WA) warned that the “Democrat’s drug pricing control scheme was going to do immense harm to patients by crushing drug innovation.  She charged that “unaccountable bureaucrats -not cutting-edge science- backed with entrepreneurial initiative- dictate the value of new cures.”

At press time, GOP lawmakers have remained silent as to their thoughts about last week’s announcement of Medicare lowering the drug prices for ten of the most expensive drugs in Medicare.  

But not President and CEO Steve Ubl – Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) President and CEO Steve Ubl quickly released a statement.

 “The administration is using the IRA’s price-setting scheme to drive political headlines, but patients will be disappointed when they find out what it means for them. There are no assurances patients will see lower out-of-pocket costs because the law did nothing to rein in abuses by insurance companies and PBMs who ultimately decide what medicines are covered and what patients pay at the pharmacy,” he said.

“As a result of the IRA, there are fewer Part D plans to choose from and premiums are going up. Meanwhile, insurers and PBMs are covering fewer medicines and say they intend to impose further coverage restrictions as the price-setting scheme is implemented. More than 3 million beneficiaries taking medicines with government-set prices will pay more in 2026,” adds Ubi.

Reflecting Roger’s opening hearing statement last year, Ubi noted: “The IRA also fundamentally alters the incentives for medicine development. Companies are already changing their research programs as a result of the law, and experts predict this will result in fewer treatments for cancer, mental health, rare diseases and other conditions. Medicine development is a long and complex process, and the negative implications of these changes will not be fully realized for decades to come.

“The ironically named Inflation Reduction Act is a bad deal being forced on American patients: higher costs, more frustrating insurance denials and fewer treatments and cures for our loved ones.” charges Ubi.

Following in PHARMA’s footsteps, drug companies also issued statements opposing the power given to Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices.  Novartis, manufacturer of Entresto, one of the 10 selected medicines participating in the price setting process issued a statement.   It called the negotiations “unconstitutional,” predicting “it would have long-lasting and devastating consequences for patients by limiting access to medicines now and in the future.”

Seniors Support Allowing Medicare to Negotiate Drug Costs 

As Congress began debated the merits of the IRA, a national poll of older Americans tracked wide-support for its provisions to reduce skyrocketing drug costs.

According to KFF Health Tracking Poll, a Oct. 12, 2021 poll, few accepted PHARMA and drug makers dire warnings that  high drug prices are necessary for supporting research into new drugs.  Giving the federal government the buying power to negotiate lower drug prices with drug makers and those enrolled in private plans were “favored by large majorities across the political partisans, even if they hear arguments from both sides,” said the San-Francisco-based  national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues.

KFF poll findings indicated that  83% of the public favor allowing the federal government to negotiate with drug companies to lower drug prices on behalf of people enrolled in Medicare beneficiaries and private plans. “This includes 91% of Democrats, 85% of independents, and 76% of Republicans, as well as majorities of seniors (84%), who would be most affected by such a provision, the findings indicate.

As older voters go to the polls, one thing is clear.  Lowering the cost of pharmaceuticals is a bipartisan issue.   When the dust settles after the November elections, those taking the reins of Congress must not forget this fact and continue to push for policies that will continue to work of IRA.

For fact sheet on Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, go to https://www.cms.gov/files/document/fact-sheet-negotiated-prices-initial-price-applicability-year-2026.pdf

Rhode Island nursing home bill veto response

Published in RINewsToday on July 1, 2024

With the adjourning of the General Assembly on the early morning of June 14, out of thousands of bills thrown into the legislative hopper in this year’s legislative session, 249 bills passed both chambers.  At press time, Gov. Dan McKee has vetoed five bills, including one to create a Rhode Island Nursing Home Workforce Standards Advisory Board (WSB).

Just weeks after the General Assembly overwhelmingly approved the establishment of a 13-member advisory board to keep state leaders informed on current market conditions, wages, benefits and working conditions in Rhode Island’s nursing home industry, McKee vetoed the legislation. The final vote count for H 7733 A was 63-7 in the House and 37-0 in the Senate for S 2621 A.

WSB would advise the General Assembly and the RI Department of Labor and Training on market conditions, wages, benefits and working conditions in the nursing home industry; recommend minimum statewide compensation and working standards for nursing home workers; propose minimum standards for nursing home training programs and assist in ensuring compliance by employers with the recommended standards.

This advisory board would consist of three members representing nursing home employers, three representing nursing home workers, two representing community organizations that work with the Medicaid population, one member representing a joint labor-management multi-employer nonprofit training fund, and representatives of the Health and Human Services secretary, the Department of Labor and Training, the Department of Health and the Long-Term Care State Ombudsman.

Reasons Gov. wielded his veto pen

On June 26, Gov. McKee’s 2-page veto message to House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi (D-Dist. 13, Warwick) and Senate President Dominick Ruggerio (D- Dist. 4, Providence, North Providence) outlined his objections to creating the WSB.   

“Rhode Island needs comprehensive solutions to resolve its critical nursing home emergency and support residents, workers and the long-term care facilities,” stated McKee, stressing that the Act didn’t meet that need.

McKee noted that letters submitted by nursing homes and assisted living facilities opposing this legislation charged that the Act didn’t address real issues faced by facilities, including “years of underfunding, increased costs and the lack of available workforce in the state.”

The Board created by the Act focused narrowly on only working conditions and wages without consideration for the key constraints such as reimbursement, the governor told lawmakers.  This will not “generate the comprehensive solutions Rhode Island needs to address the nursing home emergency,” he added.

Aging advocacy groups call for an override of the veto

“Governor McKee’s veto of legislation to create the WSB is a significant setback in our efforts to improve the quality of care in Rhode Island’s nursing homes and to find a way out of the nursing home crisis,” charges Kathleen Gerard, Director of Advocates for Better Care in Rhode Island (ABC-RI) in a statement quickly released after the governor’s veto.

“The veto yet again underscores the reality that the McKee administration has created no framework or plan to stabilize our state’s broken nursing home system,” says Gerard. “Instead of once again catering to the concerns of for-profit facility owners, Governor McKee must prioritize the needs of thousands of nursing home residents and caregivers who continue to suffer from the staffing crisis,” she adds.

According to Gerard, Governor McKee says that the WSB is not a sufficiently comprehensive solution, but the governor himself has proposed no alternative solutions. “In fact, when convening his own closed-door nursing home advisory board, he initially included only industry representatives, then perfunctorily invited union representatives for the final meeting, but failed to include consumer advocates, Long Term Care Ombudsmen, or Medicaid experts,” charged Gerard.  

Gerard notes that the only recommendation from the industry members in this group was to indefinitely suspend enforcement of the Nursing Home Staffing and Quality Care Act—a course of inaction which lacked any basis in evidence and did nothing to ameliorate any of the critical problems with care in Rhode Island nursing homes. “In fact, that course only hurt the facilities that were consistently meeting minimum staffing requirements,” she says.

“Governor McKee’s veto of the WSB is a devastating blow to the residents of Rhode Island’s nursing homes,” says Raise the Bar on Resident Care Coalition in a released statement. Currently, 34 out of 74 nursing homes are rated by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services at two CMS stars or lower, indicating a dire need for improvement in care standards, notes the resident advocacy coalition. 

According to WSB, the legislation creating the Nursing Home Workforce Standards Board would have ensured better training and working conditions for caregivers, which are essential for enhancing the quality of resident care. Rhode Island ranked second in the nation for serious nursing home deficiencies in the last three years, highlighting the urgent need for comprehensive solutions that prioritize the health and safety of residents.

Raise the Bar urges the Rhode Island General Assembly to override McKee’s veto. “The WSB bill was a necessary step towards ensuring better wages, benefits, and training for caregivers, and higher quality care for residents,” says the advocacy coalition, calling on the McKee administration “to remember its promises and create a comprehensive plan to end the nursing home crisis in Rhode Island.”

“The Senior Agenda Coalition of RI (SACRI) is extremely disappointed with Governor Dan McKee’s veto of the legislation passed by the House and Senate to create a Nursing Home Workforce Standards Advisory Board, andn we are calling for the general assembly to override the veto”, said Diane Santos, SACRI’s Chair, in a statement.

There are significant issues impacting the state’s nursing homes from how they are financed; the adequacy of staffing levels, training and wages; and the quality monitoring process, stated Santos. “As the state’s population grows older there will be an ongoing need to provide quality nursing home care for those with high support needs. It is critical that the many issues facing the nursing home industry be addressed,” she said.

ABC-RI and Raise the Bar strongly urge the Rhode Island General Assembly to override McKee’s veto and allow the creation of the WSB. 

In response to the aging advocacy groups calling for a veto override, House Speaker Shekarchi and Senate President Ruggerio issued statements pledging to review the Governor’s veto messages and to confer with each other and lawmakers to determine their response.  

Provider groups give thumbs-up to Gov. McKee’s veto

The state’s largest nursing home provider group agrees with Gov. McKee’s veto of the Workforce Standards Advisory Board, says John E. Gage, President and CEO of the Rhode Island Health Care Association. “This legislation would have set a precedent, establishing an Advisory Board with a narrow and ill-defined mission that failed to recognize the myriad of challenges facing nursing homes in Rhode Island and across the nation,” says Gage,  “these challenges include chronic Medicaid underfunding, skyrocketing costs, a historic workforce shortage, and the existing staffing mandate that is unfunded and fails to address the workforce crisis and includes draconian fines and penalties.”

According to Gage, S 2621A and H 7733A would also have replicated the many layers of existing oversight authority that exists at both state and federal levels – including CMS, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the RI Executive Office of Health & Human Services, the RI Department of Health, and the RI Department of Labor & Training, among others.

“There needs to be a comprehensive solution to the current environment of care facing Rhode Island’s nursing homes,” says Gage, stressing that this strategy should include workforce training programs, student loan forgiveness for RI nursing home professionals including RNs, LPNs and CNAs who are trained and choose to remain in RI to work in long-term care settings.

“In addition, reimbursement from Medicaid must become and remain adequate to cover the increasing cost of care in all settings, and changes are needed to address the staffing mandate passed back in 2021,” says Gage, noting that the bill was passed in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic without addressing the workforce crisis and failing to provide sufficient funding that would be needed to layer in sufficient staff to meet the metrics, if those staff could be found.

Gage says that if fully implemented and enforced, fines would amount to $100 million in the first full year of enforcement – closing the majority of facilities, displacing thousands of vulnerable residents from their homes and devastating access to care for Rhode Island seniors.

LeadingAge RI agrees with RIHCA’s detailed observations about this issue and the Governor’s veto message, which highlight the myriad of entities already in place to oversee and enforce nursing home care, says James Nyberg, Executive Director of LeadingAgeRI. “Furthermore, the Governor noted the need for a more comprehensive solution to the nursing home emergency, and steps are already being taken or are in place towards this goal,” he said.

According to Nyberg, the Governor and General Assembly just made a significant investment in the chronically underfunded industry in this year’s budget, which will benefit all residents and staff.  In addition, the industry has regular meetings with the Health Department and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to  discuss any quality-of-care issues and how to mitigate and resolve them immediately, he says, noting that these meetings are frank and productive. 

Nyberg noted that the industry, and individual nursing homes, also provide countless hours of educational programming to support and improve quality of care.  “All nursing home providers are working to overcome the challenges facing the industry, and demonizing them is disrespectful to the thousands of individuals who work 24/7/365 to care for our older Rhode Islanders,” he says.

As the dust settles…

Last Monday, Gov. McKee’s veto message was sent to House Speaker Shekarchi and Senate President Ruggerio to notify them of his veto. Now they can either let the veto stand or allow it to die.  Overriding the veto can occur if three-fifths of members in both chambers vote to affirm the bill’s passage. This vote would need to take place before the start of the new law-making session in January.

As the dust settles after McKee’s vetoing of legislation to create a WSB, with the overwhelming support of the General Assembly and the lobbying of resident advocacy groups opposing McKee’s veto, will the General Assembly have the political will to act and override the governor’s veto, especially during a time when lawmakers are just beginning their political campaigns? 

We’ll see…

Advocates, providers on new Nursing Home mandates

Published in RINewsToday on April 29, 2024

In the shadow of Rhode Island’s ongoing staffing shortage, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued its 329-page final rule on Nursing Home Minimum Staffing Standards (CMS 3442-F) on April 22 in the Federal Rule. 

CMS affirmed its commitment to hold nursing homes accountable for providing safe and high-quality care for the nearly 1.2 million residents living in Medicare-and Medicaid-certified long-term care facilities.  

According to CMS, over 46,000 public comments submitted in response to the proposed rule. Central to this final rule are new comprehensive minimum nurse staffing requirements, which aim to significantly reduce the risk of residents receiving unsafe and low-quality care within nursing homes.

Just the Nuts and Bolts

CMS say that central to its final rule are new comprehensive minimum nurse staffing requirements that would significantly reduce the risk of residents receiving unsafe and low-quality care within nursing homes.  The agency is finalizing a total nurse staffing standard of 3.48 hours per resident day (HPRD), which must include at least 0.55 HPRD of direct registered nurse (RN) care and 2.45 HPRD of direct nurse aide care. Facilities are given the flexibility to use any combination of nurse staff (RN, licensed practical nurse [LPN] and licensed vocational nurse [LVN], or nurse aide) to account for the additional 0.48 HPRD needed to comply with the total nurse staffing standard.

CMS is also finalizing enhanced facility assessment requirements and a requirement to have an RN onsite 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to provide skilled nursing care. 

This final rule provides a staggered implementation timeframe for facilities to meet the minimum nurse staffing standards and 24/7 RN requirement based on geographic location as well as possible exemptions for qualifying facilities for some parts of these requirements based on workforce unavailability and other factors. The requirements of this final rule prioritize safety and health care quality while taking into consideration the unique workforce challenges some nursing homes are facing, especially those operating in rural areas. 

CMS will closely monitor and evaluate the provisions of this final rule, including but not limited to, the minimum staffing standards, the 24/7 RN requirement, the exemption process, and the definition of rural, as they are implemented over the next several years to determine whether any updates or changes are necessary in the future. 

Additionally, to increase transparency related to compensation for workers, CMS will also require states to collect and report on the percent of Medicaid payments that are spent on compensation for direct care workers, and support staff, delivering care in nursing facilities and intermediate care facilities, for individuals with intellectual disabilities. 

Provider, advocate positions on new CMS final rule

At press time, the RI Department of Health (RIDOH) had no comments about CMS’s new final rule released last week, say Joseph Wendelken, RIDOH’s public information officer.  The state agency is reviewing the rule and assessing its impact and applicability in Rhode Island,” he says.

With the final rules release, senior advocates and providers are expressing their opinion about its impact.

Former President Donald Trump, who is challenging President Joe Biden for the presidency, has not addressed quality of care in nursing homes with a formal position.  Kathleen HerenRhode Island’s Ombudsman, speculates that by releasing the CMS mandate before the upcoming presidential election, President Biden is just trying “to establish a record” of enhancing quality of care in nursing homes.

“Nursing homes cannot find  Registered nurses (RN), and Nursing Assistances to hire,” notes Heren.  The CMS mandate will force nursing homes to downsize, like we have just seen happen at the Scandinavian Home,” she predicts.

According to Heren, the final CMS rules do not include the minimum staffing of LPNs. More important, “it’s an unfunded mandate,” she says.

Gerontologist Deb Burton, MS, executive director of RI Elder Info, is pleased to see a Federal minimum staffing mandate of 3.48 hours of daily nursing care. “It’s important to understand mandates don’t make workers appear and a minimum staffing mandate is only an average amount of time allotted for care across all residents in the facility,” she says, noting that this rule doesn’t mean each resident will receive 3.48 hours of care each day.

According to Burton, the CMS Nursing Home Compare website, as of April 2024, notes there are 6 Rhode Island facilities that would not meet the lower federal minimum staffing mandate if it were enacted today. “The workforce shortage and the dire need to increase Medicaid reimbursements to attract and retain adequate staff with a proper wage are common topics of meetings,” says Burton. 

“When workers say ‘It’s only me on the floor – do I help the resident eat their supper or take the other resident to the bathroom? I can’t do both,’ – we need to listen,” says Burton. “The new federal minimum staffing mandate is a good step forward, but we need more. One day it will likely be us waiting for that workers’ help,” she warns. 

Like other RI senior advocates, Maureen Maigret, policy director for the Senior Agenda Coalition of RI, sees the importance of CMS releasing its final rules.  “It is important that these regulations have been finalized as providing for minimum nurse staffing levels in nursing homes helps  ensure residents across the country will receive quality and resident-centered care,”  she says. 

According to Maigret, Rhode Island has had a provision for 24/7 RN coverage even before the state’s minimum staffing law was passed so that is not a new requirement here. She pointed out the regulations will also promote transparency and accountability by requiring public reporting on how much of the Medicaid payments are spent on direct care staff and that the federal government has committed to invest over $75 Million in an initiative to increase the number of nurses working in nursing homes through such things as financial incentives for tuition reimbursement.   

“We are dismayed that the Biden Administration is moving forward with this one-size-fits-all staffing mandate,” says John E. Gage, President and CEO of the Rhode Island Health Care Association. “In the midst of a historic and deepening caregiver shortage, this unrealistic policy will put access to care at risk for countless seniors in Rhode Island and across the country,” he warns, noting that when nursing homes can’t find nurses and/or certified nursing assistants (CNAs), they will be forced to downsize or, even worse, close their doors altogether, leaving seniors with fewer options to receive the care they need.

New final rule just another unfunded mandate

Like the 2021 RI staffing law, the Federal rule is an unfunded mandate, charges Gage. “Every nursing home wants more workers, but rather than blanket mandates from Washington, we need supportive policies and investments that will help us recruit and retain caregivers, he states.

According to Gage, nationally, the nursing home workforce has declined by 124,200 individuals (-7.8%) since the start of the pandemic. Rhode Island’s numbers are even worse, down 1,495 individuals (-15.3%). Gage calls on Congress to step up and support the bipartisan Protecting America’s Seniors’ Access to Care Act, which would prevent CMS from enforcing this unfunded and flawed mandate.

“Together with our national association, the American Health Care Association (AHCA), we will continue to fight for more common-sense solutions and do everything we can to preserve access to care for Rhode Island seniors,” says Gage.

“The good news about the Biden Administration’s final rule, there are phase-ins over multiple years that will provide an opportunity to challenge the mandates through legislation and/or possible AHCA litigation on the national level,” adds Gage. “The federal mandate highlights how much of an outlier RI’s staffing mandate is.  The RI statute has the highest staffing metrics and the highest fines in the country – 10% above the federal standards.  Without the Executive Actions of Governor McKee, RI nursing homes would be fined $90 million in the first full year of enforcement – devastating facilities and forcing further closures.  RI excludes hours worked by administrative nurses from counting toward the RN metric, yet they are included in the federal standards.  RI also excludes med techs’ and nurse aides in training’s hours from the CNA metric, while CMS includes them,” noted Gage.

Gage adds that the CMS final rules consider Rhode Island to be “urban.” As a result, the state has 2 years to phase-in the 24×7 RN requirement.

Rhode Island regulations and law have required 24×7 RN coverage in nursing homes for many decades, says Gage. “While challenging to maintain compliance given the shortage of registered nurses, this should not be a major concern for RI facilities,” he adds, noting that there will be 3 years to comply with the required 0.55 HPRD for RNs and 2.45 HPRD for CNAs. 

Additionally, Gage says that there are also waiver opportunities in certain circumstances.  “During the implementation phase, facilities and all stakeholders must be laser-focused on building a sufficient pipeline of qualified nurses and CNAs to the nursing home workforce,” he says.  

Like Gage, James Nyberg, executive director LeadingAgeRI, sees the CMS mandate as less onerous than the RI staffing mandate that “fortunately” remains suspended. “We remain concerned about the impact of this national mandate on providers in Rhode Island, and its broader impact on consumers and the health care industry,” he says.

According to Nyberg, the state’s current workforce shortages are already preventing nursing homes from filling open positions, limiting new admissions, and forcing organization closures (six nursing homes have already closed since the COVID pandemic began and two more have embarked on significant downsizing). 

“These challenges are also resulting in backlogs at hospitals, which are unable to discharge patients due to reduced capacity in nursing homes,” says Nyberg, noting that LeadingAgeRI is working with numerous stakeholders on various initiatives to develop a pipeline of workers. “But the simple fact is that it will take time and an infusion of resources,” he adds.

“CMS proposes to spend $75 million on a nursing home staffing campaign.  That amount might help a state like Rhode Island, but that money is national, so it is a drop in the bucket in terms of the support the industry needs, states Nyberg.  “On the home front, we have been working with the Administration and the General Assembly to provide an infusion of funding to try and rescue the homes from their dire financial straits and try to stabilize the industry.  But the federal mandate, and all the related details and requirements embedded in the rule, do nothing to further that cause,” he says.

For the Minimum Nursing Standard final rules, go to https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2024-08273.pdf

For the CMS Fact Sheet  on Minimum Nursing Standard final rules, go to https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/medicare-and-medicaid-programs-minimum-staffing-standards-long-term-care-facilities-and-medicaid-0