Biden administration sets higher staffing mandates for nursing homes

Here is the problem most nursing homes don’t meet them.
by Jordan Rau
KFF Health News

The Biden administration finalized nursing home staffing rules Monday that will require thousands of them to hire more nurses and aides — while giving them years to do so.

The new rules 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.

Image by Alexa from Pixabay

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 has increased wages by 27% 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 earn $40 an hour, licensed practical nurses make $31 an hour, and nursing assistants are paid $19 an hour, according to the most recent data 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.

nurse with patient
Photo: PEXELS/Anna Shvets

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 KFF analysis found.

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 found that nearly a thousand 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 four years to achieve the RN and nurse aide thresholds, although there was some confusion within CMS, as its press materials said rural homes would have five years.

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 study in 2001 found 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 study published in March 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.”

KFF Health 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 KFF.

Telehealth access for low-income households is coming to an end

by Sarah Jane Tribble

California Healthline



For Cindy Westman, $30 buys a week’s worth of gas to drive to medical appointments and run errands.

It’s also how much she spent on her monthly internet bill before the federal Affordable Connectivity Program stepped in and covered her payments.

“When you have low income and you are living on disability and your daughter’s disabled, every dollar counts,” said Westman, who lives in rural Illinois.

Over 23 million people are enrolled in Congress' 2021 discount program providing online/telephone healthcare services. That could all end this month or in May.
Photo: Tech Journal/Pixabay

More than 23 million low-income households — urban, suburban, rural, and tribal — are enrolled in the federal discount program Congress created in 2021 to bridge the nation’s digital connectivity gap. The program has provided $30 monthly subsidies for internet bills or $75 discounts in tribal and high-cost areas.

But the program is expected to run out of money in April or May, according to the Federal Communications Commission. In January, FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel asked Congress to allocate $6 billion to keep the program running until the end of 2024. She said the subsidy gives Americans the “internet service they need to fully participate in modern life.”

The importance of high-speed internet was seared into the American psyche by scenes of children sitting in parking lots and outside fast-food restaurants to attend school online during the covid-19 pandemic. During that same period, health care providers and patients like Westman say, being connected also became a vital part of today’s health care delivery system.

Westman said her internet connection has become so important to her access to health care she would sell “anything that I own” to stay connected.

Westman, 43, lives in the small town of Eureka, Illinois, and has been diagnosed with genetic and immune system disorders. Her 12-year-old daughter has cerebral palsy and autism.

She steered the $30 saved on her internet toward taking care of her daughter, paying for things such as driving 30 minutes west to Peoria, Illinois, for two physical therapy appointments each week. And with an internet connection, Westman can access online medical records, and whenever possible she uses telehealth appointments to avoid the hour-plus drive to specialty care.

“It’s essential for me to keep the internet going no matter what,” Westman said.

Expanding telehealth is a common reason health care providers around the U.S. — in states such as Massachusetts and Arkansas — joined efforts to sign their patients up for the federal discount program.

“This is an issue that has real impacts on health outcomes,” said Alister Martin, an emergency medicine physician at Massachusetts General Hospital. Martin realized at the height of the pandemic that patients with means were using telehealth to access covid care. But those seeking in-person care during his ER shifts tended to be lower-income, and often people of color.

“They have no other choice,” Martin said. “But they probably don’t need to be in the ER action.” Martin became a White House fellow and later created a nonprofit that he said has helped 1,154 patients at health centers in Boston and Houston enroll in the discount program.

At the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, a federal grant was used to conduct dozens of outreach events and help patients enroll, said Joseph Sanford, an anesthesiologist and the director of the system’s Institute for Digital Health & Innovation.


Estimates of how many low-income U.S. households qualify for the program vary, but experts agree that only about half of the roughly 50 million eligible households have signed on.

“We believe that telehealth is the great democratization to access to care,” Sanford said. New enrollment in the discount program halted nationwide last month.

Leading up to the enrollment halt, Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) led a bipartisan effort to introduce the Affordable Connectivity Program Extension Act in January. The group requested $7 billion — more than the FCC’s ask — to keep the program funded. “Affordability is everything,” Welch said.

In December, federal regulators surveyed program recipients and found that 22% reported no internet service before, and 72% said they used their ACP-subsidized internet to “schedule or attend healthcare appointments.”

Estimates of how many low-income U.S. households qualify for the program vary, but experts agree that only about half of the roughly 50 million eligible households have signed on.

“A big barrier for this program generally was people don’t know about it,” said Brian Whitacre, a professor and the Neustadt chair in the Department of Agricultural Economics at Oklahoma State University.

Whitacre and others said rural households should be signing up at even higher rates than urban ones because a higher percentage of them are eligible.

Yet, people found signing up for the program laborious. Enrollment was a two-step process. Applicants were required to get approved by the federal government then work with an internet service provider that would apply the discount. The government application was online — hard to get to if you didn’t yet have internet service — though applicants could try to find a way to download a version, print it, and submit the application by mail.

When Frances Goli, the broadband project manager for the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes in Idaho, began enrolling tribal and community members at the Fort Hall Reservation last year, she found that many residents did not know about the program — even though it had been approved more than a year earlier.

Goli and Amber Hastings, an AmeriCorps member with the University of Idaho Extension Digital Economy Program, spent hours helping residents through the arduous process of finding the proper tribal documentation required to receive the larger $75 discount for those living on tribal lands.

“That was one of the biggest hurdles,” Goli said. “They’re getting denied and saying, come back with a better document. And that is just frustrating for our community members.”

Of the more than 200 households Goli and Hastings aided, about 40% had not had internet before.

In the tribal lands of Oklahoma, said Sachin Gupta, director of government business and economic development at internet service provider Centranet, years ago the funding may not have mattered.

“But then covid hit,” Gupta said. “The stories I have heard.”

Elders, he said, reportedly “died of entirely preventable causes” such as high blood pressure and diabetes because they feared covid in the clinics.

“It’s really important to establish connectivity,” Gupta said. The end of the discounts will “take a toll.”


This article was produced by KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

KFF Health 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 KFF.

KFF Health 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 KFF. Subscribe to KFF Health News' free Morning Briefing.

As gun violence is rises to epidemic levels, many traumatized Americans now live in fear

Photo: Kerttu/Pixabay
by Liz Szabo
KFF Health News


A majority of Americans say they or a family member has experienced gun violence, such as witnessing a shooting, being threatened by a person with a gun, or being shot, according to a sweeping new survey.

The national survey of 1,271 adults conducted by KFF revealed the severe physical and psychological harm exacted by firearm violence, especially in minority communities.

Nearly 1 in 5 respondents, including 34% of Black adults, 18% of Hispanic adults, and 17% of white adults, said a family member had been killed by a gun.

The survey “confirms that firearm-related injuries are ubiquitous,” said Dr. Selwyn Rogers, a surgeon and founding director of the UChicago Medicine trauma center. “For every person killed, there are two or three people harmed. These are people who have had fractures, who may have been paralyzed or disabled.”

Beyond causing physical injuries, gun violence has left many Americans living with trauma and fear, Rogers said.

Just over half of adults say gun-related crimes, injuries, and deaths are a “constant threat” or “major concern” in their communities. Black and Hispanic adults were more likely than white adults to describe gun violence as a constant threat or major concern. About 3 in 10 Black or Hispanic adults say they feel “not too safe” or “not safe at all” from gun violence in their neighborhoods. (Hispanics can be of any race or combination of races.)


Photo: StockSnap/Pixabay

Women also reported high rates of concern about firearm violence, with 58% saying gun-related crimes are a constant threat or major concern, compared with 43% of men. More than half of intimate partner homicides are committed with guns.

Parents are worried about their children as well.

About 1 in 4 parents of children under 18 say they worry daily or almost daily about gun violence, the KFF survey found, and 84% of adults report having taken at least one precaution to reduce their family’s risk from gun violence. More than one-third of adults say they have avoided large crowds, such as at music festivals or crowded bars, for example.

Gun violence surged during the pandemic. There were a record 48,830 firearm-related deaths in 2021, an increase of 23% from 2019, according to an analysis by the Pew Research Center. The increase among children was even sharper. Firearm deaths among Americans under 18 — which include those due to homicide, suicide, and gun-related accidents — increased 50%, from 1,732 in 2019 to 2,590 in 2021.

Guns have become the leading cause of death among children and adolescents ages 1 to 19, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The pandemic also coincided with a huge increase in gun purchases, which grew an estimated 64% from 2019 to 2020.

According to the KFF survey, 29% of adults have purchased a gun at some point to protect themselves or their families, with 44% of parents of children under 18 keeping a gun in the home. Yet 78% of parents in gun-owning households fail to follow safety recommendations, such as locking guns and ammunition, storing guns unloaded, and storing guns and ammunition separately, practices that have been shown to reduce the risk of thefts, accidents, and suicides.

Photo: Skitterphoto/Pixabay

Dr. Abdullah Pratt, an emergency physician at the UChicago Medicine trauma center, has lost a dozen close friends to gun violence, including his brother. His father never recovered from that loss and died about seven years later, at age 64.

“As soon as my brother got killed, he stopped taking his medications and started chain-smoking out of nowhere,” Pratt said.

Gun violence also wears away communities, Pratt said.

In neighborhoods with high crime rates, the daily drumbeat of loss can lead residents to conclude there’s no point in voting, going to school, or trying to improve their lives. “They think, ‘What am I voting for if I can’t have basic access to safety on a day-to-day basis?’” Pratt said.

And while mass shootings and homicides grab headlines, Rogers, the surgeon, noted that suicides account for more than half of firearm-related deaths in the U.S. and cause ripples of grief throughout a community. Researchers estimate that every suicide leaves at least six people in mourning.

Pratt said he feels guilty he wasn’t able to help a close friend who died by suicide with a gun several years ago. The man had recently lost a job and had his car repossessed and came to Pratt to talk about his troubles. Instead, Pratt spent the visit asking for parenting advice, without realizing how much his friend was hurting.

“There were no red flags,” Pratt said. “A couple days later, he died.”

Gun violence has also shaped the trajectory of Bernice Grisby’s life.

Grisby, now 35, was shot for the first time when she was 8, while playing on the swings at her school in Oakland, California. She was shot a second time at age 15, when she was talking to friends after school. One of her friends died that day, while another lost an eye; Grisby was shot in the hip and experiences chronic pain from the wound.

Two of her brothers were fatally shot in their 20s. Her 15-year-old daughter was recently robbed at gunpoint.

Rather than leaving Oakland, Grisby is trying to save it. She works as a street counselor to young people at high risk of gun violence through Oakland’s East Bay Asian Youth Center, which aims to help young people living in poverty, trauma, and neglect.

“My life is a gift from God,” Grisby said. “I am happy to be here to support the youth and know that I am making a difference.”


KFF Health 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 KFF.