Tech-Enabled Home Care Trends of Note – The National Law Review

The traditional world of Medicare-certified home health and hospice is changing rapidly. To the surprise of many, though the pandemic has been an accelerant, the reasons are more fundamental, and at the core are forces affecting the health care sector as a whole. Those forces were on full display at the sellout 20th annual HC100 Conference in Phoenix this week. I had the privilege of listening to former CMS Administrator Seema Verma, former Vice President Al Gore, the CEOs of all major home health firms, and their investors over a three day state of the industry conference.  I also moderated a panel lead by Seth Sternberg and Jessie Brumbach, CEO and Chief Brand Officer for Honor Home Health, respectively.
Major takeaways:
1. The Workforce – No one is surprised by the labor shortages in this sector given the relative wage and benefit levels and competition for workers. What was key is that the labor shortage in the health sector is, for the foreseeable future, permanent given boomer health care needs, nursing shortages, and competitive career paths for younger people. Companies such as Honor Home Health have focused on employing technology in the labor market to professionalize caregivers in the nonskilled area to reduce churn and grow census.
2. New Delivery Models – All avenues lead to better non-inpatient options for consumers, plans and health systems. Almost 200 Hospitals are now participating in the CMS hospital at home waiver program allowing full Diagnosis-Related Group (DRG) payment. Extensions of those waivers with CMS is now pivotal. Many companies have evolved models for care combining clinical, tech, and logistics, including Medically Home. The pending Choose Home Care Act that would allow Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) eligible discharges to home from acute care settings would be a major boost to the SNF at home model (which has, to date, largely been a function of bundled payment episodes and Accountable Care Organization (ACO) agreements for home care as a downstream provider to hospitals and physician groups). Many of these programs are promising, but the patient focus is narrow and will not replace broader in-home tech enabled non-skilled care models.
3. Technology and Data – Proving savings and better outcomes through data is easier said than done in some cases; however, technology can provide the conduit for that when combined with caregiver collection and education. Many Substance Use Disorder (SUD) providers have done a good job at those and compiled excellent outcomes data over several years to engage plans. Nevertheless, apart from the waivers for telemedicine associated with the pandemic, getting tech adoption at the caregiver level is harder in home health where a more senior workforce may be resistant to technology in place of in-person visits or delegating virtual care to others. Reimbursement in fee-for-service (FFS) is still an issue for both Telemedicine and Remote Patient Monitoring (RPM).
4. Medicare Advantage and Value-Based Care – Value-based care (VBC), mostly through Medicare Advantage (MA) advancement and not through Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Innovation Center (CMMI) programs, will continue to ramp. Without tech to blunt a labor shortage and collect good data, providers will be up against it when negotiating with these plans. VBC is not an option now; it’s a core deliverable. Pricing and planning for it are hard, but necessary.
5. Personal Care – Traditional FFS home health and hospice have often viewed non-skilled home care as an adjacent non- core service offering. That is changing rapidly as evidence builds that non-clinical care addressing social determinants of health can provide better and cheaper outcomes. Large platforms are evolving providing tech enabled home care that are partnering with MA plans, self-insured plans, and FFS providers under risk arrangements. Getting the labor supply side rationalized in this space will be the big hurdle. Tech will be a huge factor.
6. Primary Care and Home Health-Longitudinal Care – Integrating primary in-home care with home health, palliative care, and hospice—especially for complex patients—has been a winner to date (see Landmark, Dispatch, Heal). MA has fully embraced this model for complex patients and the admission, readmission, length of stay (LOS), and discharge data support this. Retention of primary care physicians interested in this space is a key focus of these firms as is technology deployment and logistics for durable medical equipment (DME), transportation, and personal care support. These firms feed right into the new delivery model themes mentioned above.
2022 will be an exciting and changing year for home health care—the move to tech-enabled home care in a much more expanded way than in the past will move ahead, fueled by technology and substantial investment dollars coming from private equity and strategics supporting new delivery models.

About this Author
Christopher J. Donovan is a partner with Foley & Lardner LLP. He focuses his practice on advising companies and their investors and lenders in mergers and acquisitions, recapitalizations, buyouts and restructurings as well as advising on a broad range of commercial arrangements. Mr. Donovan has particular experience in the health service, particularly post-acute, and life sciences sectors. He has a unique blend of deep regulatory as well as corporate and finance experience to bring to a transaction as a result of his consummating dozens of health and life science…
As a woman owned company, The National Law Review is a certified member of the Women's Business Enterprise National Council
You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review’s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC’s  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  
Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 
Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.
The National Law Review – National Law Forum LLC 3 Grant Square #141 Hinsdale, IL 60521  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 or toll free (877) 357-3317.  If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.