The Trump Administration is Jeopardizing The Lives of Thousands of Elderly Americans
February 3, 2026
Yesterday, the Trump administration repealed one of the biggest public health achievements you’ve never heard of. A new Department of Health and Human Services rule rescinded a 2024 Biden rule—known as the nursing home staffing mandate—requiring a registered nurse to be on site around the clock, and imposing minimum ratios of nursing staff to nursing home residents. The mass media overlooked the move when it was announced in December, perhaps because it was framed as an expansion of rural and tribal healthcare. A more straightforward announcement would have noted that the repealed Biden rule, by adding staff at 94% of US nursing homes, would have improved care for 3.2 million Americans. Most poignantly, according to the Penn Davis Institute for Health Economics, the Biden staffing mandate could have saved nearly 13,000 lives per year. As the University of Chicago public health scholar R. Tamara Konetzka explained to theNew York Times: “Staffing is everything in terms of nursing-home quality.”
Economists conventionally peg the value of a statistical life at $10 million for each life saved. This implies that the Biden rule would have justified $130 billion in annual costs. At most, according to the industry, the rule would have cost nursing homes $6.8 billion per year, by forcing them to hire up to 102,000 new nurses or aides. (The Biden administration projected half that level of costs.)
The evidence supporting staffing mandates is robust. California passed the nation’s first nursing home staffing mandate in 1999. Although compliance remains uneven, the nurses’ unions that urged the reform regard it as a success. RAND economist Patricia Tong found in her empirical review that a rise of 0.29 nursing hours per resident per day lowered mortality by 4.6%. Indeed, this is the main underpinning of the 13,000 lives figure.
The idea of a minimum staffing ratio gained new currency after the Covid pandemic killed 172,000 nursing home residents. Multiple studies reinforced the connection between staffing levels and patient outcomes: New York’s attorney general reported that understaffed homes suffered higher fatality rates. Separately, a JAMA Network article found that letting mildly-ill nurses work while masked actually saved lives by maintaining adequate staffing levels. In response to this mounting evidence, five state legislatures embraced new staffing mandates—as did the Biden administration.
The nursing home sector dug in its heels, arguing that a staffing floor would drive countless homes out of business, especially in rural and tribal areas. Advocates for nurses, patients, and consumers counter that the sky never fell after California regulated staffing. Moreover, the Biden rule would have exempted facilities with special hiring challenges, while giving homes in rural and tribal areas more time to comply.
Twenty state attorneys general in red states joined trade groups in challenging the mandate legally. In American Health Care Association v. Kennedy, the Trump-appointed Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk vacated the staffing mandate nationally, on the grounds that the Social Security Act’s provision for “sufficient” staff didn’t authorize specific ratios or 24/7 coverage.
While an appeal of this decision was pending, industry lobbyists pushed for congressional action. An early version of the Senate’s Big Beautiful Bill embraced a total repeal of the Biden staffing rule—but the Senate Parliamentarian ruled that an outright repeal of the mandate would be non-budgetary in nature, and therefore couldn’t be part of a budget reconciliation act. Instead, the enacted version of the big bill delayed enforcement of the nursing home rule by ten years.
A decade of delay wasn’t enough for the nursing home industry or its allies. After the big bill’s passage on July 4, administration lawyers urged the White House to scrap the staffing mandate completely. According to an expose last week in the New York Times, in August nursing home executives donated about $4.8 million to the MAGA Inc.a political action committee supporting President Donald Trump.. Then the leading donors and industry lobbyists pleaded their cause directly with the President over lunch at his golf course outside Washington DC. In September, the Department of Health and Human Services dropped its appeal of the Texas district court ruling, and in December, it issued the interim rule that became final on Feb. 2. The American Health Care Association disputes that the golf-course meeting or the political donations were key drivers of the staffing rule’s repeal.
The timeline suggests a troubling correlation between industry influence and policy outcomes. Supposing—hypothetically—that political contributions do drive policy, $4.8 million in donations would be a bargain for the nursing home industry in order to avoid up to $6.8 billion in extra annual staffing costs. But from the perspective of society as a whole, $4.8 million would be a low price for protecting the lives of elderly Americans. The nursing home staffing rule may have lived a short life, but its demise will cast a long shadow over some of America’s most vulnerable people.
Values-Based InvestingRelated
See all
