CMS Wants to Stop Making Nursing Home Buyers Tear Out Old Rooms

On Thursday the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services proposed cutting rules across all 21 types of providers it pays, from hospitals to hospices, and put the savings at about $320 million a year and 3.26 million hours of staff time.¹ The headlines went to hospital obstetric training. The line I care about is a few hundred pages in. Today, when someone buys an older nursing home and gets it recertified, the building has to meet a two-residents-per-room and private-bathroom standard written in 2016. CMS wants to stop that.² That is a rule about who is allowed to take over a failing building, and it decides whether those beds stay open. If you own anything in senior care, this is the page you want.

Key Highlights

• The action: CMS released the Cutting Administrative Requirements for Excellence in Patient Care (CARE) proposed rule, CMS-3484-P, revising the conditions every Medicare and Medicaid provider must meet to get paid.³
• Who saves most: Nursing homes, at an estimated $142.6 million a year, ahead of hospitals at $123.2 million.⁴
• The quiet change: Existing nursing homes would no longer have to meet the two-per-room and in-room bathroom standards just because they changed owners or reopened after a gap.⁵
• The paperwork: Rescinding a Medicaid report on how much of each payment goes to worker pay saves 13,605 nursing facilities 285,705 hours a year, or $26.6 million.⁶
• The idea: The Ensign Group (ENSG), which has added 122 operations since 2024 mostly by taking over other people's buildings, closed at $181.08 on Friday.⁷

What The Rule Actually Does

The conditions of participation are the price of admission to Medicare and Medicaid. A provider that fails them cannot bill either program, which for a nursing home means it cannot operate. CMS says it reviewed the conditions for all 21 provider and supplier types and went looking for rules that were "obsolete, outdated, and excessively burdensome".³

For hospitals and critical access hospitals, the rule removes staff training requirements on transfer protocols, emergency readiness and obstetric care, and drops obstetric-specific quality improvement requirements that were due to take effect Jan. 1, 2027.⁸ It removes the requirement that patient care areas have exterior windows or doors for natural light and ventilation, and it adopts the 2024 editions of the fire and life safety codes.³

For nursing homes, the list is longer. The rule removes the requirement to educate staff about the COVID-19 vaccine, offer it and document it, ends routine respiratory illness reporting outside a declared emergency, changes when the state ombudsman must be told about emergency transfers, and exempts existing facilities from the room occupancy and bathroom standards.⁹ It also rescinds the Medicaid reports on the share of nursing facility payments spent on direct care workers and support staff.¹⁰

And it asks questions, which is where the next round of deregulation usually starts. CMS wants comment on loosening physician supervision of nurse anesthetists, letting physician assistants and nurse practitioners do visits in nursing homes that a physician must do today, and lowering the barriers to certifying new transplant programs.³

The Room Rule Nobody Is Talking About

Here is how the current standard works. Nursing homes newly certified after Nov. 28, 2016, must have no more than two residents per bedroom and a bathroom with at least a commode and sink in each room.² Older buildings can still have up to four residents in a room.¹¹

I think the trap is the phrase "newly certified." You can see it if you follow one deal. When an operator buys a building, or a building closes and someone tries to reopen it, the facility can count as newly certified. Then a 1970s building with three-bed rooms and shared bathrooms has to be gutted before anyone can admit a resident. CMS says it plainly: these requirements "can create significant barriers for new providers seeking to take over operations and re-open a facility," and renovations "may create significant financial challenges, potentially deterring new providers from re-opening facilities, particularly in areas that already have limited access to long-term care services".²

The fix is narrow. CMS would delete "newly certified" and tie the standard to when the state approved construction plans. Buildings approved for construction or reconstruction after Nov. 28, 2016, still have to meet the two-per-room and bathroom rules. Older buildings would no longer be forced to meet them because they changed hands or had a gap in operations.² Trade coverage read it the same way: the exemption applies "when an operator wants to take over operations".¹²

CMS did not put a dollar figure on this change. I searched the regulatory impact analysis; the room exemption has no line item. That is the part I think the market will miss. The quantified savings are paperwork. The unquantified one is a capital expense that could decide whether a deal pencils at all.

Scale matters here. There are around 15,000 nursing homes caring for about 1.25 million residents a day, according to CMS's own count as of January 2026.¹³ Every one of those buildings approved before Nov. 28, 2016, would become easier to sell to a better operator.

The Paperwork Part, In Numbers

The Medicaid reporting rescission is the cleanest number in the rule. The requirement came out of the 2024 nursing home staffing rule. When CMS repealed that rule's minimum staffing standards in December 2025, it left the transparency report in place.¹⁴

CMS estimates each nursing facility would have spent 21 hours a year on it: eight hours of a compensation specialist, two of a programmer and one of an operations manager. Across 13,605 nursing facilities, that is 285,705 hours and $26.6 million a year.⁶ Over 10 years, the full rescission saves $305.5 million and about 3.3 million hours, of which $275.8 million lands on nursing facilities.¹⁵

Look at who carried that cost, and you will see the whole problem with reporting mandates. States and the federal government save less than $700,000 each over a decade. The operators save $276 million. That is the pattern with most reporting mandates: the agency that wants the data pays almost nothing to ask, and the people who have to produce it pay almost everything.

The Free-Market Read

The strongest case for the 2016 room standard is real, and I want to give it its due. Crowded rooms spread infection, and a nursing home is where infections kill. Residents lose privacy and dignity in a three-bed room with a shared bathroom down the hall. CMS itself has urged providers to move to a maximum of double occupancy for those reasons.¹⁶ If you watched what happened in nursing homes in 2020, you do not wave that away, and I do not.

But the question the rule actually answers is not "are single and double rooms better?" They are. The question is "what happens to an old building when its owner fails?" Under the current standard, the answer is often that nobody buys it, because the buyer has to fund a full renovation before admitting one resident. The building closes. The residents move, sometimes far from family, often into another old building with the same three-bed rooms, run by someone who never had to recertify. The standard does not upgrade those rooms. It strands them.

That is the free-market point in one sentence: a rule that blocks a change of ownership protects the incumbent operator, not the resident. The resident is better off with a competent new owner and an old room than with an empty building. New construction still has to meet the two-per-room standard, so the long-run upgrade path stays in place. What changes is that capital can flow to the operators who run buildings well, which is how bad nursing homes get fixed.

The reporting rescission is a different argument. The transparency report was meant to show how much Medicaid money reaches workers. The data has some value. But it was built as the measuring stick for a staffing mandate that no longer exists, and at 21 hours a facility it costs more than most small operators spend on far more useful quality work. One industry commenter told Skilled Nursing News that reporting the percentage of Medicaid dollars spent on direct care compensation "misses the target," and the reason is simple: it says nothing about whether care is good.¹⁰ I agree. Measure outcomes, not ratios.

Winners And Losers

• Acquisitive operators: The companies that grow by buying underperforming buildings and turning them around get a cheaper path to recertify what they buy. This is the group the room exemption was written for.
• Sellers of older buildings: A building that no longer needs a mandatory gut renovation to change hands is worth more to a buyer. That includes nursing home real estate owners whose tenants fail.
• Rural and thin markets: CMS's own reasoning points to areas with limited access to long-term care, where a closed building may not be replaced at all.
• Hospitals: They get $123.2 million a year in savings, mostly from training and quality rules that had not yet taken effect.²
• Losers: Consultants and software vendors selling compliance with the reporting and training mandates, and advocates who wanted the transparency data to build the case for the next staffing rule.

The Bear Case

This is a proposed rule. Comments run 60 days after it appears in the Federal Register⁹, and publication is scheduled for Nov. 10, which puts the deadline around Jan. 9, 2027.¹⁷ The final rule could narrow the room exemption or drop it.

The politics just changed. Democrats won majorities in both the House and the Senate on Tuesday.¹⁸ A new Congress cannot easily undo an agency rule on its own, but it can hold hearings on nursing home conditions, and a future administration can reverse a rule this one finalizes. A deregulatory rule is only as durable as the next election.

And the bigger money in nursing homes is not in this rule. Medicaid rates, Medicare skilled nursing payment updates and labor costs move operator margins far more than $142.6 million spread across 15,000 facilities. If state Medicaid budgets tighten, no amount of paperwork relief offsets it.

The Idea: The Ensign Group (ENSG)

If the room exemption is written for anyone, it is written for operators like Ensign. Its whole model is buying struggling skilled nursing buildings, installing local leadership and turning them around. Since 2024, it has sourced, closed and transitioned 122 new operations, and in the third quarter and since it added 22 more, with 2,373 skilled nursing beds across Florida, Colorado, Washington and Texas.¹⁹ Recently acquired operations are now 22% of its portfolio, and its chief investment officer said 50 to 60 acquisitions a year "is totally doable, if not more".²⁰

The model works. Third-quarter revenue rose 14.5% to $1.48 billion, adjusted earnings per share rose 23.8% to $2.03, and the company raised its 2026 guidance to $7.94 to $8.02 a share.¹⁹ Occupancy in buildings it has owned longer was 84.1%, and in its transitioning buildings 86.1%.¹⁹

Yet the stock went nowhere. Ensign closed at $181.08 on Friday, down 1.0% over the past year, while the SPDR S&P 500 ETF rose 9.7%.²¹ At the midpoint of its own guidance, the stock trades at about 22.7 times this year's adjusted earnings, by my calculation, against a trailing GAAP multiple of 26.95.²²

What the market may be missing. My view is simple. Investors have treated nursing homes as a policy risk for years: staffing mandates, Medicaid cuts, ownership disclosure. This rule runs the other way. It lowers the cost of the exact transaction Ensign does dozens of times a year, and CMS did not even try to put a number on it. If the exemption survives into the final rule, Ensign's pipeline of older buildings gets cheaper to convert.

Risks. Medicaid funding is the biggest, because states set those rates and state budgets can tighten. Nineteen of the 22 newest operations are leases, not real estate purchases¹⁹, so its acquisition pace also depends on landlords. Litigation and insurance costs hit every operator in this industry. And the room exemption is proposed, not final.

What would prove me wrong. If CMS drops the room exemption from the final rule, the thesis loses its edge. If Ensign's pace of new operations slows well below the 50 to 60 a year management called manageable, or occupancy in transitioning buildings stops rising, the turnaround engine is stalling. I keep score on every idea here, winners and losers: the FMR Idea Scorecard.

What To Watch Next

• Nov. 10, 2026: Scheduled Federal Register publication of CMS-3484-P, which starts the 60-day comment clock.¹⁷
• About Jan. 9, 2027: Comments close. Watch what the nursing home trade groups and resident advocates say about the room exemption.
• Jan. 1, 2027: The date the hospital obstetric training and quality rules take effect if CMS does not finalize the removal in time.
• Ensign's fourth-quarter report: The count of new operations and transitioning occupancy.

I track dated catalysts like these on the FMR Catalyst Calendar. For the last health care rule I covered, see HHS Cut 14 Health IT Rules, Not 34, and for the employer side of health costs, PBMs Must Now Show 131,102 Employer Plans What They Keep.

Related analysis

• HHS Cut 14 Health IT Rules, Not 34. The Retreat Is the Signal.
• PBMs Must Now Show 131,102 Employer Plans What They Keep
• The Week in Deregulation: Drug Middlemen, Repo and Bank Exams

Know someone who runs, owns or invests in senior care? Forward this one along.

The Free Markets Report is provided by Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC. All opinions and views mentioned in this report constitute our judgments as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time. Information within this material is not intended to be used as a primary basis for investment decisions and should also not be construed as advice meeting the particular investment needs of any individual investor. Trading signals produced by the Free Markets Report are independent of other services provided by Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC or its affiliates, and positioning of accounts under their management may differ. Please remember that investing involves risk, including loss of principal, and past performance may not be indicative of future results. Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC, its members, officers, directors and employees expressly disclaim all liability in respect to actions taken based on any or all of the information on this writing. Nothing in this report shall be construed as an offer to provide investment advice or services. Nothing in this report shall be construed to be an offer to provide investment advisory services. Nothing in this report shall be construed as an offer or solicitation to buy or sell any security. The Free Markets Report is for informational purposes only and does not constitute a complete description of our investment services or performance. THE INFORMATION IN THIS REPORT HAS BEEN PREPARED WITHOUT REGARD TO THE INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF INDIVIDUALS WHO MIGHT RECEIVE IT. THE INVESTMENTS DISCUSSED MAY NOT BE SUITABLE FOR ALL INVESTORS. INVESTORS MUST MAKE THEIR OWN INVESTMENT DECISIONS BASED ON THEIR OWN PARTICULAR FINANCIAL SITUATIONS AND OBJECTIVES. This report is not an offer to provide investment advice or services. Nothing in this report shall be construed as an offer to provide investment advice or services. Nothing in this report shall be construed to be an offer to provide investment advisory services in any jurisdiction in which Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC is not authorized to provide such services. All investments involve risk, including the risk of loss of principal. No representation is being made that any security, account, or strategy is or is likely to achieve results similar to those shown. Investing in securities involves risks, and there is always the potential of losing money when you invest in securities. Before investing, consider your investment objectives, and Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC's charges and expenses. This report is not a prospectus and does not contain all of the information necessary to fully evaluate any security or strategy discussed, including, but not limited to, the risk of adverse effects of related market developments. You should not rely solely on the information contained in this report, and should seek advice based on your situation from a licensed investment professional. Carefully consider the investment objectives, risks, charges, and expenses of any investment product before investing. This report may not be copied or distributed without the express written consent of Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC. Any decisions made based on any or all of the information in this writing are the sole responsibility of the user, and the user should exercise caution and take appropriate advice before acting.