AHA Opposes CMS Nursing Home Staffing Requirements
The American Hospital Association (AHA) has sent letters to the Senate and House urging them to support legislation that would prevent the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) from enforcing its final rule on minimum staffing requirements for long-term care facilities. The AHA argues that the establishment of minimum staffing requirements would stifle innovation in care delivery and possibly cause nursing homes to reduce capacity or shut down altogether, even if they're performing well on quality and safety metrics.
The CMS' rule, finalized in April, requires all nursing homes that receive federal funding through Medicare and Medicaid to deliver 3.48 hours of daily direct care per patient, with specific requirements for the amount of care provided by registered nurses and nurse aides. The AHA claims that this "one-size-fits-all" approach would create more problems than it solves, particularly in rural and underserved communities that may not have the workforce levels to support these requirements.
The nursing home industry has widely criticized the rule, with the American Health Care Association (AHCA) arguing that it sets an "unreasonable standard" that could lead to widespread closures of nursing homes. Labor unions, on the other hand, have praised the rule as a major step towards strengthening the long-term care workforce and ensuring quality care for patients.
The AHA has called on Congress to disapprove the mandate and prohibit CMS from implementing or enforcing it. The organization argues that safely staffing healthcare facilities requires clinical judgment and flexibility, rather than rigid regulatory requirements. With the fate of the rule hanging in the balance, it remains to be seen how lawmakers will respond to the AHA's plea.
The controversy surrounding the minimum staffing requirements highlights the ongoing debate over how best to ensure quality care for patients in long-term care facilities. While proponents of the rule argue that it is necessary to protect patient safety and well-being, opponents claim that it would lead to unintended consequences such as reduced access to care and increased costs.