Advantum Health
Download checklist
CMS Proposed Rule

CMS is proposing major changes to Medicare enrollment. We are helping providers prepare.

On July 6, CMS proposed significant changes to Medicare provider enrollment. This hub explains what they could mean operationally and what organizations can begin reviewing now.

Read the operational breakdown ↓ Download the readiness checklist →
Proposed rule, not final. Public comment period open through August 31, 2026.
Comments due Aug 31, 2026 Providers, suppliers and industry organizations may submit feedback before CMS finalizes the rule.
Review the official proposal and comment docket →
At a glance

Six changes worth knowing now

A short summary of selected provisions. The full breakdown below goes deeper on each.

{{ item.n }}

{{ item.title }}

{{ item.body }}

Read the detail →
Operational breakdown

What the proposed rule means for providers

The proposal changes more than forms and reporting timelines. It would expand CMS's enforcement authority, increase the potential financial consequences of enrollment gaps and require organizations to look more closely at who, what and which relationships must be reported.

Provider enrollment has never been just paperwork. Inaccurate, incomplete or outdated enrollment information can already lead to payment interruptions, denials, deactivation or revocation. What changes under this proposal is the potential reach and severity of those consequences.

On July 6, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services published the CY 2027 Home Health Prospective Payment System proposed rule, which includes a far-reaching package of changes to Medicare provider enrollment. Although the enrollment provisions appear within a home health payment rule, they would apply across Medicare provider and supplier types unless CMS specifically limits a provision to certain categories.

The practical takeaway is simple: accurate and current Medicare enrollment information could become even more important to protecting billing privileges and revenue.

01

Enrollment revocations could reach further into the past

Under current regulations, some revocations take effect retroactively, while others take effect prospectively. The proposal would establish retroactive effective dates for every Medicare enrollment revocation ground, with the date tied to the underlying noncompliance or triggering event, for example the date a provider fell out of compliance, lost a license or began billing from a noncompliant location.

That creates the possibility that CMS could seek repayment for claims dating back to the applicable noncompliance rather than simply ending billing privileges going forward. For providers, this raises the value of identifying enrollment gaps early. A problem that remains undiscovered for months may carry consequences reaching back to when it began, not merely to when CMS finds it.

02

The claims-submission period after a revocation would shrink from 60 days to 15

CMS currently generally allows a revoked provider or supplier 60 calendar days to submit claims for eligible items and services furnished before the applicable cutoff. The proposal would reduce that period to 15 calendar days from the date of the revocation letter.

That distinction matters. The 15-day clock would begin when the revocation letter is issued, even when the effective date of the revocation reaches further into the past. Operationally, organizations would have far less time to identify outstanding claims, resolve internal processing issues and complete submission. Revenue cycle, enrollment, compliance and finance teams would need a coordinated response ready before a revocation occurs, not after the letter arrives.

60
days today
15
days proposed
03

CMS would expressly identify more clinical leadership roles as managing employees

Medicare enrollment applications already require providers to disclose managing employees, individuals who exercise operational or managerial control or directly or indirectly conduct day-to-day operations. CMS is proposing to expressly identify several clinical roles within that definition:

  • Medical directors
  • Clinical directors
  • Departmental heads
  • Supervising physicians
  • Nursing directors
  • Alternate administrators

CMS also makes clear that not every clinical employee would automatically be reportable. The individual must still meet the managing-employee definition based on their actual control or responsibility. Providers should review what people actually do, not rely exclusively on titles or traditional assumptions about who belongs on an enrollment application.

04

Affiliation disclosures could reach much further

When CMS requests affiliation information during initial enrollment or revalidation, current rules generally require disclosure of certain relationships from the previous five years involving a provider with a defined disclosable event. CMS proposes removing that five-year limitation. If the other requirements are met, a reportable affiliation could need to be disclosed regardless of how long ago it existed.

The agency would also broaden the definition of an affiliation to include additional marketing, business, fulfillment, financial, managerial and beneficiary relationships. Records that appear complete under the current standard may not be sufficient under the proposal. Providers may need the ability to reconstruct older ownership, management, contracting and business relationships if CMS requests the information.

05

A denial could trigger a reapplication bar of up to 10 years

CMS can currently impose a reapplication bar of up to 10 years when an enrollment application is denied because false or misleading information was submitted or required information was omitted. The proposal would allow CMS to impose a reapplication bar following any enrollment denial reason, not only a false-information denial.

That makes the accuracy, completeness and eligibility behind an initial application even more consequential. A denial may no longer mean simply correcting the issue and promptly applying again.

06

CMS would add new denial and revocation grounds

The proposed rule includes several new or expanded grounds for taking action against an enrollment. Selected examples:

Geographic concentration risk
CMS could revoke an enrollment when a provider operates within a limited geographic area containing an excessive number of providers. An actual finding of fraud would not be required, though CMS says the provision is not meant to target good-faith providers.
Shared office or suite
CMS could deny a new enrollment when the proposed location is in the same office or suite as another provider whose enrollment has been denied or revoked, when circumstances justify it.
Certain misdemeanor convictions
CMS could deny or revoke enrollment based on certain federal or state misdemeanor convictions involving sexual assault or financial misconduct within the preceding 10 years.
Change-in-majority-ownership noncompliance
CMS could act against a home health agency, hospice or DMEPOS supplier that fails to comply with change-in-majority-ownership requirements, including attempts to circumvent the 36-month rule.
07

Private-equity and REIT disclosures would expand to more enrollment forms

CMS is proposing to require organizations completing additional Medicare enrollment applications to identify whether disclosed organizations are private-equity companies or real estate investment trusts. The additional forms would include:

  • Form CMS-855B for clinics, group practices and certain other suppliers
  • Form CMS-855S for DMEPOS suppliers
  • Form CMS-20134 for Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program suppliers

CMS previously established related disclosures for providers using Form CMS-855A. The new proposal would expand that visibility further into Medicare Part B supplier enrollment.

Act now

What providers can do now

The rule is not final, but providers do not have to wait to improve the quality of their enrollment information. The most useful work now protects the organization regardless of which provisions CMS ultimately finalizes.

  1. 1Reconcile enrollment records with current operations. Compare Medicare data with current ownership, locations, licenses, managing employees and services.
  2. 2Review clinical leadership responsibilities. Identify medical, clinical and nursing leaders who exercise operational or managerial control.
  3. 3Recheck adverse actions. Confirm reportable final adverse actions have been evaluated for all owners, managing employees, officers and directors.
  4. 4Review ownership and affiliation records. Determine whether you can identify current and historical relationships if CMS requests them.
  5. 5Evaluate location information. Confirm every enrolled practice location is current, operational and accurately represented.
  6. 6Review ownership-change restrictions. Home health agencies, hospices and DMEPOS suppliers should review transactions for 36-month-rule exposure.
  7. 7Establish an internal enrollment owner. Assign accountability for gathering updates across departments and getting changes to the enrollment team on time.
Assess

Where does your organization stand?

Our readiness checklist translates the proposal into practical questions for enrollment, compliance and legal teams. Not every item will apply to every organization, but it can help identify records, roles and processes worth reviewing now. Any item you cannot confirm with confidence deserves review.

Download the readiness checklist →
What the checklist covers
{{ c.title }}
{{ c.sub }}
Roundtable

Our enrollment team breaks it down

Coming soon
Provider Enrollment Services roundtable

Coming soon: an operational roundtable with Advantum's Provider Enrollment Services team. We will discuss the provisions carrying the greatest risk, what providers may be overlooking and the readiness work that makes sense before the rule is final.

Watch our Provider Enrollment Services team walk through the proposal, the highest-stakes changes and the practical steps to prepare.

Follow Advantum on LinkedIn for the release → Watch the roundtable →
Stay current

We are tracking this as it develops

We are breaking down the proposal one operational issue at a time through the comment period. Follow Advantum on LinkedIn and return here for new resources, expert commentary and final-rule updates.

Follow Advantum on LinkedIn →
Get ahead of it

Questions about the operational impact?

Advantum's Provider Enrollment Services team is evaluating the proposal and helping clients maintain accurate, current enrollment information. Connect with us to discuss your organization's questions.

Connect with our enrollment team →

See where your organization stands

Advantum's Provider Enrollment Services team can review your enrollment information against the proposal and help you prioritize the work that matters most before the rule is final.

Request a readiness assessment →
Official sources
{{ s.title }}
{{ s.source }}

Advantum's submitted comment letter will be added here once available.