This bill adds a new subsection to Social Security Act §1862 that forbids Medicare payments to hospitals and skilled nursing facilities owned or controlled by specified firms: private equity funds, corporations controlled by private equity, and real estate investment trusts. Facilities owned by such covered firms at the date of enactment get a three‑year transition period before the payment ban applies.
The statute defines key terms (affiliate, control, corporation, covered firm) and sets a 10 percent voting‑securities threshold as a presumptive control marker. It also gives affected facilities the procedural protections of section 1128(f) (notice, hearing, and judicial review) and makes covered firms jointly and severally liable for penalties or obligations arising from violations.
The bill targets financialized ownership structures that policymakers say change incentives in acute and post‑acute care and would force CMS to identify and block Medicare reimbursement to those providers.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends title XVIII to prohibit Medicare payments to any hospital or skilled nursing facility owned or controlled by a ‘covered firm’—defined to include private equity funds, entities they control, and REITs. It provides a three‑year grandfather for facilities already owned by covered firms on the enactment date and preserves due‑process procedures under section 1128(f).
Who It Affects
Medicare‑participating hospitals and skilled nursing facilities with ownership links to private equity, PE‑owned corporations, or REITs; the private equity and REIT firms that hold those assets; and CMS, which would need to implement eligibility checks and enforcement. Patients in markets dominated by such owners may experience downstream effects.
Why It Matters
The bill would use Medicare payment eligibility as a blunt regulatory lever to curtail financialized ownership of inpatient and post‑acute facilities—potentially accelerating ownership changes, altering transaction structures, and exposing covered firms to joint liability. Compliance officers, transaction teams, and CMS contractors will need new processes to trace complex ownership and apply the 10% voting threshold.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill inserts a single, focused prohibition into the Medicare statute: facilities owned or controlled by a ‘‘covered firm’’ are not eligible to receive payments under title XVIII. That eligibility bar applies to both hospitals and skilled nursing facilities, which rely heavily on Medicare reimbursements for operating revenue.
The text does not create alternative funding or carve outs except for a limited transition for existing ownerships.
A facility in place at enactment that is owned or controlled by a covered firm escapes immediate exclusion; the facility remains eligible for Medicare payments for three years from enactment. After that three‑year period, any such facility becomes ineligible unless its ownership changes to a noncovered owner.
The bill preserves procedural protections by tying notice, hearing, and judicial review rights to the mechanisms already used in section 1128(f), so CMS must follow established administrative‑law pathways when taking adverse payment actions under this provision.The statutory definitions are the operational heart of the bill. ‘‘Covered firm’’ reaches private equity funds (defined by reference to the Investment Company Act exemptions and by the fund’s role as a control person), corporations owned or controlled by private equity, and REITs as defined in Internal Revenue Code §856. The bill also defines ‘‘affiliate’’ and ‘‘control,’’ with an explicit 10 percent voting securities threshold creating a concrete bright line: holding 10 percent or more of voting securities is treated as control for these purposes, subject to Secretary discretion for other control indicators.
Finally, the bill attaches joint and several liability to covered firms for penalties or obligations assessed against an ineligible facility, which expands downstream financial exposure beyond the operating entity to its investors.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill makes hospitals and skilled nursing facilities owned or controlled by a ‘‘covered firm’’ ineligible for Medicare payments under title XVIII.
Facilities owned by a covered firm on the enactment date are grandfathered for three years; after that, they lose eligibility unless ownership changes.
The statute treats direct or indirect ownership of 10% or more of voting securities as control, creating a presumptive threshold for affiliation.
It defines a ‘‘private equity fund’’ by reference to Investment Company Act exemptions and requires that fund (or an affiliate) act as a control person of the investee to qualify as a covered firm.
Covered firms are jointly and severally liable for any penalties or obligations imposed on an ineligible hospital or skilled nursing facility, and affected facilities receive the notice, hearing, and judicial‑review rights of section 1128(f).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Payment prohibition for facilities tied to covered firms
This entry creates the substantive prohibition: CMS may not make Medicare payments to hospitals or skilled nursing facilities owned or controlled by a covered firm or its affiliate. Practically, CMS would need criteria and processes to determine eligibility at the facility level and to flag ineligible providers in claims and enrollment systems.
Three‑year grandfather for existing ownership
The bill delays enforcement against facilities already owned or controlled by covered firms on the date of enactment for three years. That transition window gives owners time to divest, restructure ownership, or otherwise plan for loss of Medicare revenue, but it also sets a firm deadline that could accelerate sales or restructuring activity near the end of the window.
Procedural protections: notice, hearing, judicial review
Rather than invent a new administrative process, the bill ties enforcement procedure to section 1128(f), which governs exclusion proceedings and includes notice, opportunity for hearing, and judicial review. That means affected facilities will litigate eligibility issues under familiar administrative standards and timelines, but it also imports the evidentiary and procedural limits of that regime.
Joint and several liability of covered firms
If a facility is found in violation, the covered firm (or affiliate) that owns or is affiliated with the facility becomes jointly and severally liable for penalties or obligations imposed on the facility. This provision extends financial risk from the operating entity to upstream investors and could influence sale negotiations, indemnities, and the structuring of management contracts.
Operational definitions: affiliate, control, covered firm, private equity fund, REIT
The bill supplies working definitions that will determine scope. ‘‘Affiliate’’ follows the usual control language. ‘‘Control’’ includes power to direct management or policy and captures a 10% voting securities threshold as a presumptive indicator. The definition of ‘‘private equity fund’’ hinges on a fund that would be an investment company but for certain exemptions in the Investment Company Act and that acts (directly or through an affiliate) as a control person of the company. ‘‘Covered firm’’ explicitly lists private equity funds, corporations owned/controlled by PE, and REITs (using the IRC §856 definition). These definitions shift the fight from policy to fact-finding on ownership structures and investor roles.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Medicare program and taxpayers — by removing reimbursement to facilities owned by private equity or REITs, the bill aims to limit payments to entities that policymakers argue prioritize investor returns over care quality or long‑term viability.
- Hospitals and SNFs owned by traditional nonprofit or physician‑led owners — these operators may face less competition from financially motivated buyers and could see market value advantages where PE/REIT owners are excluded from Medicare.
- Labor and unionized staffs in some markets — if the bill deters financial owners prone to aggressive cost cutting, workers in affected facilities could retain employment terms that would otherwise be at‑risk under private‑equity ownership models.
Who Bears the Cost
- Private equity firms and REITs that own hospitals or skilled nursing facilities — they face loss of Medicare revenue streams, increased divestiture pressure, and joint liability exposure under the statute.
- Hospitals and skilled nursing facilities with covered‑firm ownership — even with the three‑year transition, these facilities risk severe revenue shocks, closure, or sale, especially in markets with high Medicare patient shares.
- CMS and Medicare contractors — the agency must develop ownership‑verification systems, monitor complex affiliations, adjudicate disputes under 1128(f), and absorb administrative costs of enforcement and appeals.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is straightforward: the bill uses Medicare payment denial to curb ownership models critics say harm quality and stability, but that same blunt instrument risks reducing provider viability and patient access in communities served largely by PE‑ or REIT‑owned facilities; regulators must choose between disciplining financialized ownership and preserving continuous access to Medicare‑covered care, a trade‑off with no technical fix inside the bill.
Implementation hinges on ownership tracing through complex, layered structures. Private equity and REIT ownership commonly runs through multiple holding companies, separate management entities, and investment vehicles; the 10% voting threshold gives CMS a concrete metric but will not resolve cases where control is exercised through contractual rights, management agreements, or economic leverage below the voting threshold.
The Secretary’s discretion to identify other means of control opens room for litigation over how broadly ‘‘control’’ is applied.
The private equity definition references exemptions to the Investment Company Act and requires that a fund act as a control person; that language leaves uncertainty about funds that are passive investors, funds that exercise control through third‑party managers, and certain hybrid structures (e.g., infrastructure or credit funds). Joint and several liability raises transaction‑level consequences: investors, sponsor entities, and portfolio companies may renegotiate indemnities or avoid investments in the sector, with implications for access to care in thin markets.
Finally, using Medicare payment eligibility as the enforcement lever is blunt—it may prompt facility closures or transfer of care burdens to other providers, creating real access and uncompensated care risks that the bill does not address.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.