Updated March 2026 As a leader in Colorado’s home care community, we have always believed that our industry is only as strong as its integrity. The Department of Health Care Policy and Financing (HCPF) has now released an updated February 2026 draft of the proposed Provider Accountability Rule (8.7420), reflecting stakeholder feedback received between January 15 and February 5, 2026. This post has been updated to reflect that revised language. For families, caregivers, and providers, understanding what changed and what it means matters now more than ever.
What Is Rule 8.7420 and Why Does It Matter?
We have all seen the shift in how home care is discussed online. From unsolicited social media DMs to Facebook group messages promising guaranteed pay without context, the noise can be overwhelming. The proposed rules specifically identify and prohibit practices such as providing structured responses to families or influencing how limitations are described during assessments to artificially secure more hours. This practice is deeply concerning. When agencies influence how limitations are presented in a way intended to inflate care needs, they aren't just bending the rules. They are jeopardizing the long-term stability of the caregiver’s career and harming the overall solvency of the very programs that sustain us. These programs were designed to alleviate the nursing shortage and provide a sustainable path for loved ones to stay at home. Harming the system's integrity eventually leads to the very draconian cuts we are currently seeing. Rule 8.7420 establishes binding requirements for how Home and Community-Based Services (HCBS) and Community First Choice (CFC) Provider Agencies may market themselves, communicate with members, and handle potential conflicts of interest. The rule's stated purpose is straightforward: to ensure that Medicaid members and their representatives receive accurate, accessible, and non-coercive information about services and to prevent improper inducements or misrepresentation. Critically, the February update added language making clear that the rule shall not limit a Member's right to receive information, make an informed choice, or participate in person-centered planning.
Inducement (Revised)
An Inducement is now defined as any offer or transfer of a thing of value offered for the purpose of influencing a Medicaid Member or their representative to select, change, or continue enrollment with a Provider Agency. This includes cash, "sign-on bonuses" for members or their families, gift cards, prizes, and discounts. Key clarification added: Inducement does not include services or supports that are part of a prior authorized Person-Centered Support Plan.
Marketing (Revised)
Marketing now means targeted communication, outreach, or material primarily intended to influence a Member's or their representative's choice of Provider Agency or services. Important carve-outs added in February:
- General advertising, required noticing, or broadly distributed educational information is not marketing.
- Responses to Member-initiated inquiries or follow-up communication made with documented Member consent are not marketing, provided such communication is not misleading, deceptive, or coercive.
Solicitation (Revised)
Solicitation now means targeted outreach with intent to directly encourage, pressure, persuade, or steer a Member to enroll with or transfer to a specific Provider Agency. Clarification added: Communication initiated by the Member or follow-up communication made with documented consent does not constitute solicitation.
What's Prohibited and What's Not
The February draft sharpened the line between aggressive marketing and legitimate outreach. On the prohibited side, agencies cannot offer inducements (cash, gift cards, sign-on bonuses) to influence provider selection, make unsolicited direct contact for marketing purposes, misrepresent services or eligibility, imply state endorsement, or suggest a member's benefits are at risk if they don't stay with a particular agency.
Any ad or communication referencing caregiver pay must now include this disclaimer:
"Payment is available only after Medicaid Colorado Health First eligibility and service authorization. Not all individuals qualify. Timing may vary."
On the conflict-of-interest side, agencies cannot coach members to exaggerate or misrepresent their functional limitations to secure more hours, or attempt to improperly influence assessment scores or care plan decisions. What is permitted, and the February draft made this explicit, is helping a member accurately describe their needs, communicating with case managers for routine coordination, and participating in Person-Centered Support Planning meetings when invited and documented.
What Compliant Agencies Can Still Do
The original draft left a lot of providers uncertain about where the line was. The February update answered many of those questions. Agencies may respond to member-initiated inquiries, distribute factual educational materials, coordinate care with case managers, participate in community health events, and collect contact information that's voluntarily offered. Small promotional items of nominal value are still permitted under federal OIG guidance.
The short version: agencies that lead with education and respond to members rather than chasing them have nothing to worry about.
Our Take: Wage Leadership Over Gimmicks
At CFC, we've never competed on gift cards or transfer bonuses and this rule is exactly why. Our approach is built on Wage Leadership and Transparency: higher hourly wages, a real career path, and no tricks. The February update actually reinforced something we've always believed: lawful employment compensation is not a conflict of interest. What crosses the line is using anything of value to steer a member's decision, and the state is now drawing that boundary clearly.
Documentation and Enforcement
Agencies must retain marketing materials, outreach scripts, and consent documentation for six years. The February draft added an important clarification: routine care coordination communications don't need to be logged. That's a meaningful relief — and for agencies already running tight compliance programs, it's simply confirmation of good practice.
On enforcement, violations can range from warning letters and corrective action plans to payment suspension or referral to the Attorney General. A notable addition in February: the Department will now weigh good-faith compliance efforts when deciding on consequences.
Still a Draft. But the Direction Is Clear
Rule 8.7420 remains under stakeholder review with no Medical Services Board date set. Language may continue to change. We'll keep monitoring every update and ensure our practices stay ahead of whatever the final rule requires.
Transparency isn't a compliance checkbox for us. It's how we operate.
0 Comments