The Blocked Rule: Minimum Staffing Standards for Nursing Homes
The
rule, announced by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in April 2024, sought to address chronic staffing shortages in nursing homes by imposing the first-ever federal minimum staffing standards for long-term care facilities. Issued by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the regulation required nursing homes to:
- Employ a registered professional nurse (RN) 24 hours per day, seven days a week, a significant increase from the existing federal requirement of eight hours per day.
- Maintain total nurse staffing, including nurse aides, at a minimum of 3.5 hours per resident per day (HPRD), ensuring a baseline level of care for residents.
The Biden administration framed the rule as a critical step to improve care quality for the 1.2 million residents in Medicare- and Medicaid-certified facilities, citing systemic issues exposed during the COVID-19 pandemic, such as understaffing leading to neglect and poor health outcomes. CMS argued that higher staffing levels would enhance resident safety, reduce infections, and improve overall care, aligning with the
Federal Nursing Home Reform Act’s (FNHRA) goal of protecting residents’ “health, safety, and dignity”.
The Lawsuit: Basis for Challenging the Rule
The lawsuit by the American Health Care Association (AHCA), a major nursing home industry group, and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, among others, in May 2024 argued that the rule was unlawful on several grounds:
Exceeding Statutory Authority: The plaintiffs contended that HHS and CMS lacked the authority to impose such stringent staffing mandates. Federal law, specifically the Social Security Act, explicitly requires nursing homes to have an RN on-site for eight consecutive hours per day and to provide “sufficient” staff to meet residents’ nursing needs. The plaintiffs argued that the new rule’s 24/7 RN requirement and 3.5 HPRD standard went beyond what Congress had authorized, effectively rewriting the law.
Financial and Operational Burdens: The nursing home industry highlighted the practical challenges of compliance, citing workforce shortages and financial strain. The AHCA claimed that the mandate would force many facilities to close, displacing vulnerable seniors, as the industry already struggles to hire and retain staff amid a national shortage of healthcare workers. At least one operator, LaVie Care Centers, blamed the staffing rule for
its bankruptcy filing.
Arbitrary and Capricious Rulemaking: The plaintiffs argued that CMS failed to adequately justify the rule’s immediate implementation and did not tailor the staffing requirements to the diverse needs of nursing home populations, as required by federal law. They claimed the 3.5 HPRD formula was a “one-size-fits-all” approach that ignored facility-specific factors.
The Court’s Ruling: Legal Basis for Blocking the Rule
Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on April 7, 2025, vacating key provisions of the CMS rule. His decision rested on the following legal bases:
Lack of Congressional Authority: Kacsmaryk ruled that HHS and CMS exceeded their statutory authority under the Social Security Act. He noted that Congress had explicitly set the RN staffing requirement at eight hours per day, and the 24/7 RN mandate went beyond this limit. Similarly, the 3.5 HPRD standard was deemed inconsistent with the law’s requirement for “sufficient” staffing tailored to residents’ needs, as it imposed a rigid national formula.
Failure to Tailor Requirements: The court found that CMS did not meet statutory requirements to customize staffing levels based on the specific needs of each facility’s resident population. Kacsmaryk criticized the 3.5 HPRD formula as an unlawful “one-size-fits-all” approach, arguing that it did not account for variations in resident acuity or facility resources.
Procedural Deficiencies: The judge held that CMS failed to adequately explain the need for immediate implementation of the rule, a requirement under the Administrative Procedure Act. This procedural lapse further supported the decision to block the mandate.
Impact on Quality of Care: RN Staffing and Health Outcomes
Vacating the staffing rule raises significant concerns about the quality of care in nursing homes, particularly given the establishment view of well-documented correlation between RN staffing levels and resident health outcomes. In a later article I will address critically recent challenges to this establishment view. Regardless, studies have consistently shown that higher RN and LPN staffing is associated with generally better physical and psychological outcomes for residents, while understaffing contributes to neglect, infections, and increased mortality.
Physical Health Outcomes:
- A 2021 study published in Health Affairs found that nursing homes with higher RN staffing levels (at least 0.75 hours per resident per day) had significantly lower rates of hospitalizations, pressure ulcers, and infections compared to facilities with lower RN staffing. The study estimated that increasing RN staffing to this level could prevent 136,000 hospitalizations annually.
- During the COVID-19 pandemic, a 2022 CMS report highlighted that nursing homes with RN staffing below 0.4 HPRD had a 30% higher mortality rate from the virus, as understaffed facilities struggled with infection control and timely care. See, CMS, “Nursing Home Staffing and COVID-19 Outcomes” (2022).
- The blocked rule’s requirement of 3.5 HPRD, including RN presence 24/7, aimed to address these issues by ensuring consistent oversight and care. Without this mandate, facilities may continue to operate with insufficient RN staffing, potentially leading to increased physical health risks for residents, such as falls, medication errors, and untreated infections.
Psychological Health Outcomes:
- A 2019 study in The Gerontologist found that higher RN staffing was associated with lower rates of depression and anxiety among nursing home residents. RNs, with their advanced training, are better equipped to recognize and address psychological distress, provide emotional support, and coordinate mental health interventions.
- Understaffed facilities often rely on chemical restraints (e.g., psychotropic medications) to manage resident behavior, a practice that led to litigation in the Talevski case, where the Supreme Court affirmed residents’ rights under the FNHRA to be free from unnecessary restraints. The blocked staffing rule could have reduced such practices by ensuring RNs were available to implement non-pharmacological interventions, improving residents’ psychological well-being.
Impact on Families of Nursing Home Residents
Families who depend on nursing homes to keep their loved ones safe and well face significant challenges as a result of this ruling. To family members, the decision removes a federal safeguard that could have ensured consistent care, leaving families with heightened uncertainty and potential risks:
Increased Risk of Neglect and Abuse:
- Understaffing is a leading cause of neglect and abuse in nursing homes, as overworked staff may lack the time to provide adequate care. The NHRA requires personalized care plans and regular reviews, but without sufficient RNs, these plans may not be implemented effectively. Families may worry about their loved ones experiencing preventable issues like pressure ulcers, dehydration, or untreated infections due to inadequate staffing.
- For example, in the Talevski case, a family discovered that their father was chemically restrained with psychotropic medications due to understaffing at a county-owned facility, leading to his deterioration. Families will likely worry that such incidents may become more common without mandated staffing improvements.
Emotional and Financial Strain:
- Families often choose nursing homes expecting professional care that they cannot provide themselves, particularly for loved ones with complex needs like dementia. The ruling may force families to spend more time monitoring their loved ones’ care or hiring private caregivers to fill gaps, increasing emotional and financial burdens.
- If facilities close due to financial pressures, as the AHCA warned, families may face the trauma of relocating their loved ones, potentially to facilities farther away or with even lower staffing levels.
Aging in Place Planning
One positive effect of the court's decision, and the controversy surrounding it, is that more potential residents and families of potential residents will take seriously the need to age in place, and implement comprehensive aging in place planning. If you would like to know more, subscribe to this blog. You will be receive periodic notifications of online aging in place planning workshops. If you can't or don't want to wait, there is a recorded, somewhat dated, workshop available here:
https://bit.ly/Aging-in-Place-Workshop. You can watch this presentation in the comfort of your home, and share it with your successor trustees and health care agents.
Aging in Place Planning is a comprehensive estate, financial, and health care plan orienting your decision-making and resources to make aging in place more attainable, likely, and enforceable by your trusted advisors and fiduciaries, all to the goal of avoiding non-hospital institutional care entirely. It incorporates reducing the risks of guardianship, and protecting assets from a court-appointed guardian.
Aging in Place Planning can be incorporated into any existing estate plan. It can be can be used in conjunction with irrevocable trust planning to shield assets from nursing home spend down, or as an alternative to such planning if it is deemed unnecessary or unacceptable.
Advocacy Challenges
The NHRA provides for ombudsmen to investigate and address nursing home issues, but without federal staffing mandates, families may need to rely more heavily on these advocates to ensure care quality. Ombudsmen, too, are often overstretched, and their ability to enforce improvements may be compromised by increased demand resulting from the consequences of inadequate staffing. Of course, like any funded resource, the ombudsmen program is limited without robust federal backing.
Broader Implications and Critical Analysis
The ruling reflects a broader tension between regulatory oversight and industry autonomy in healthcare. While the AHCA and nursing homes argue that the mandate was unworkable amid workforce shortages, critics assert that it was a necessary step to protect vulnerable residents. The decision also highlights the political divide on healthcare policy: Congressional Republicans and the Trump administration, including CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz, have signaled opposition to the rule, while Democrats sought to preserve it.
The establishment narrative—both from CMS and the industry—has obvious gaps. CMS’s rule, while well-intentioned, did not adequately address the root causes of staffing shortages, such as low wages, poor working conditions, vaccine mandates, and a lack of training programs, which continue to drive nurses away from the industry. Mandatory staffing may, actually miss the point entirely, since it is the nature of the resident population that dictates needs; some populations require less from an RN, and more from either LPNs or aids. Finally, staffing is not likely a panacea for the inherent risks of institutional care, many of which lead to rehospitalizations, the real target of federal effort.
On the other hand, the AHCA’s claim that the mandate would lead to widespread closures may be overstated, as some facilities might have adapted by leveraging technologies like telehealth, and future demand may slow as a result of greater reliance on hospital-at-home, the former as specifically suggested by Oz.
Regardless, from a resident and family perspective, the ruling is a setback. The public will likely perceive that without federal enforcement, care quality may remain inconsistent, particularly in underfunded facilities, leaving families to bear the burden of advocacy and oversight.
A focus on either providing more alternatives to institutional care or encouraging and financing aging in place where possible might provide greater and more satisfying solutions. Reconsideration and reorientation of long-term care in the U.S. is long overdue.
Conclusion
The federal judge’s decision to block the Biden-era nursing home staffing rule on April 7, 2025, removes a critical safeguard intended to improve care quality for nursing home residents. The rule aimed to address systemic understaffing by mandating 24/7 RN coverage and a minimum of 3.5 HPRD, but the court ruled that CMS exceeded its authority, citing inconsistencies with congressional legislation and procedural deficiencies. The ruling is likely to perpetuate understaffing, increasing risks of neglect, infections, and psychological distress for residents, as evidenced by studies showing the benefits of higher RN staffing.
For families, the decision heightens concerns about safety and well-being, potentially requiring greater involvement and resources to ensure adequate care. While the nursing home industry celebrates the ruling, the long-term impact on vulnerable residents underscores the need for alternative solutions, such as state-level mandates or incentives to address workforce shortages, to uphold the FNHRA’s promise of dignity and care for nursing home residents.
