Advocacy in Action (May 2024): Nursing Home Minimum Staffing Rule

Libby Hastings • May 15, 2024

Recently, we have been disheartened by legislative actions that undermine efforts to improve staffing standards in nursing homes, particularly in Kansas. H.R. 5796, co-sponsored by Representatives Tracey Mann, Jake LaTurner, and Ron Estes, seeks to disapprove a federal staffing standard minimum rule that would greatly benefit residents of nursing facilities. Similarly, S.3410, co-sponsored by Senators Roger Marshall and Jerry Moran, aims to address the same issue in the Senate. If passed, these legislations would prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services from implementing the final settings rule for minimum staffing in nursing facilities. 

 

The Nursing Home Minimum Staffing Rule finalized on April 22nd will require all nursing homes that receive federal funding through Medicare and Medicaid to have 3.48 hours per resident per day (hprd) of total staffing, including a defined number from both registered nurses (0.55 hprd) and nurse aides (2.45 hprd). It will also require facilities to have a registered nurse onsite 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

 

At the heart of this issue is the need for adequate staffing levels in nursing homes. Research consistently shows that higher staff-to-resident ratios lead to better outcomes for residents, including reduced rates of infections, fewer falls, and improved overall quality of life. By opposing the implementation of a federal staffing standard minimum rule, these legislators are failing to prioritize the well-being of vulnerable older adults in Kansas and across the nation.

 

Additionally, it's disappointing to see the nursing home industry diverting attention away from the real issue at hand. Instead of lobbying against essential staffing regulations, they should be directing their efforts towards hiring and retaining qualified staff, ensuring fair wages, and creating supportive work environments. Working in a nursing facility is a skilled job that deserves respect, and addressing the staff shortage requires dedicated time and attention.

 

However, amidst these challenges, we find hope in the actions of the Biden administration and advocacy organizations who have pushed for measures to improve staffing standards in nursing homes. We applaud their commitment to addressing this critical issue and urge them to continue their efforts.

 

In Kansas, the Medicaid program spends $95,000-$108,000 annually per resident for often sub-standard care. The state allocates approximately $862 million to long-term care facilities, yet Kansas ranks 46th in addressing the shortage of nurses and nurse aides. Taxpayers deserve greater value for their money, and older Kansans deserve improved long-term care options given the consistently poor performance of many in this industry.

 

We cannot afford to ignore this problem any longer. To effectively address the staffing shortage problem in Kansas, we must also look to other states for guidance and best practices. By learning from successful initiatives implemented elsewhere, we can tailor solutions to suit the unique needs of our state's long-term care facilities. Furthermore, it's crucial to foster a collaborative effort that includes the voices of long-term care residents and staff in these discussions. By actively involving those directly impacted by staffing challenges, we can develop more comprehensive and effective strategies to ensure quality care for all individuals in nursing homes.

 

We encourage our readers to act. Contact your Kansas Congressional delegates and share your stories about why staffing is critical to improving quality metrics across the board.

 

Your voices matter, and together, we can make a difference in the lives of countless individuals in long-term care facilities.

 


A nursing home room with two hospital beds and a wheelchair
By Libby Hastings May 31, 2026
Kansas has announced that it is exiting the Money Follows the Person (MFP) program, citing a drastic reduction in and possible elimination of federal funding. According to the Kansas Department for Aging and Disability Services (KDADS), the state had planned to reinstate the program on July 1 after several years of inactivity. Instead, Kansas is now withdrawing from the program altogether. For many Kansans, this decision represents a significant missed opportunity. The MFP program was created to help states rebalance their long-term services and supports systems by making it easier for people to move from institutional settings, such as nursing facilities, back into homes and communities. The program provided funding for critical transition expenses, including home modifications, furniture, bedding, kitchen supplies, and other necessities that help make community living possible. At its core, MFP recognized a simple truth: most people want to live in their own homes and communities, not institutions. Research consistently shows that older adults overwhelmingly prefer to age in place. In an AARP survey, 75 percent of older adults reported wanting to remain in their homes as they age. Yet many feel they will eventually have no choice but to move into a facility because the supports needed to remain at home are unavailable or unaffordable. Programs like MFP help bridge that gap. When people remain in nursing facilities despite being able to live safely in the community, there are consequences, not only for the individual, but for the state as a whole. First, individuals lose autonomy and control over their daily lives. Living in the community allows people to decide when they wake up, what they eat, who they spend time with, and how they participate in their neighborhoods. These choices may seem small, but they are fundamental to dignity and quality of life. Second, unnecessary institutionalization can contribute to social isolation. People living in their own homes can remain connected to friends, family, faith communities, volunteer opportunities, and local activities. Community integration promotes both physical and emotional well-being. Third, keeping people in nursing facilities when they could thrive in the community often comes at a higher cost to the Medicaid system. Home and community-based services are frequently less expensive than institutional care while also aligning with what most people prefer. Helping individuals remain in the least restrictive setting can benefit both taxpayers and the people receiving services. Finally, programs like MFP help remove barriers that prevent people from exercising their right to choose where they receive care. Transitioning from a nursing facility to the community is often not as simple as opening the front door and leaving. Many individuals need assistance securing housing, obtaining household items, modifying their homes for accessibility, or coordinating services. Without dedicated funding and support, these barriers can become insurmountable. Kansas has made progress over the years in expanding home and community-based services, but significant challenges remain. Housing shortages, workforce shortages among direct care workers, and waiting lists for services continue to make community living difficult for many people. The loss of Money Follows the Person means one fewer tool available to help Kansans return home.
The Kansas Capitol's second-floor rotunda features various flags, murals, and statues.
By Barb Conant May 1, 2026
2026 legislative wrap-up for long-term care advocates in Kansas.