CMS Published the Names of America's 50 Worst Hospices, Then Deleted the Page. The List Is Coming Back, and Nobody Knows Their Score.

The Problem

Hospice is one of the strangest payment arrangements in American healthcare. Medicare pays a hospice a flat daily rate, about $218 a day for routine home care in the first 60 days, regardless of whether a nurse visits that day or not. Across 148 million service days in 2024, that flat rate added up to $28.3 billion in Medicare hospice payments, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. Fifty-three percent of Medicare decedents used hospice in 2024, the highest share ever recorded, with more than 1.8 million beneficiaries served by over 6,700 providers.

Flat per-day payment creates an obvious incentive: enroll patients, then visit them as little as possible. A July 2026 Government Accountability Office analysis found that Medicare hospice spending nearly doubled from $15.5 billion to $27.5 billion between 2015 and 2024, driven partly by 32 percent enrollment growth and 15 percent longer average stays, with long stays over 180 days accounting for the majority of spending. Low-visit hospices averaged about 2.5 visits per patient per week versus 5.5 at high-visit hospices, which means Medicare effectively paid the low-visit operators twice as much per visit. Had routine home care been paid per visit instead of per day, Medicare would have spent $9.1 billion rather than $16.7 billion. That $7.6 billion gap is the sound of an incentive working exactly as designed.

Ownership has shifted underneath these economics. For-profit hospices grew from 66 percent to 74 percent of all agencies between 2018 and 2022, with the total agency count jumping 27 percent to 5,861, per a January 2025 ASPE analysis. A JAMA study found roughly 16 percent of U.S. hospice providers are owned by private equity firms or publicly traded companies, and that acquired agencies shift toward lower-acuity, longer-stay patients. Margins tell the rest: the average Medicare fee-for-service hospice margin fell to 8 percent in 2023, down from 14.2 percent in 2020, with for-profits at 13.7 percent and nonprofits in aggregate losing money at negative 1.3 percent, per MedPAC via Hospice News.

Congress noticed. Tucked into the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, the Hospice Act of 2020 ordered CMS to build a Special Focus Program that would identify the worst-performing hospices and subject them to intensified oversight. CMS finalized the SFP in its CY 2025 rulemaking: an algorithm scoring every active hospice on four inputs (condition-level survey deficiencies, substantiated complaints, the claims-based Hospice Care Index, and CAHPS Hospice Survey scores), as McKnight's reported on the selection criteria, selecting 50 hospices each fourth quarter for the following year. Selection meant surveys every six months, suspension of deemed accreditation status, progressive enforcement remedies, and a termination track out of Medicare. In December 2024, CMS published the first 50 names. In January 2025, a multi-state coalition of hospices and associations sued over the methodology. On February 14, 2025, CMS announced it was ceasing implementation "to further evaluate the program," and then removed the participant list, the methodology, and the Q&A from its SFP page entirely, as the Center for Medicare Advocacy documented.

Here is the part nobody in the industry can price: the statute still mandates the program. A redesigned SFP is a rulemaking away, not an act of Congress away. When it returns, the selection algorithm will score trailing data, surveys, complaints, and claims from the preceding 12 to 24 months. Every one of America's 6,700 hospices is generating its comeback-year SFP score right now, blind. Operators cannot see their percentile. Acquirers cannot diligence it. Boards cannot govern it. Nobody can see the single most consequential number in a hospice's regulatory life except, eventually, CMS.

Market Size

Base TAM calculation: Start with the 6,700 Medicare-certified hospices in MedPAC's 2024 count. A monitoring product priced at a blended $16,800 per year (single-site operators at $749/month, portfolios higher) reaches a core TAM of $112.6 million at full penetration. That penetration assumption is aggressive, but the willingness-to-pay logic is unusual: the average hospice collects roughly $4.2 million a year in Medicare revenue ($28.3 billion divided by 6,700 providers), and SFP selection puts that entire revenue stream on a termination track. An $18,000 annual subscription represents about four-tenths of one percent of revenue to monitor an existential risk. Few B2B products sell against stakes that asymmetric.

Honestly, the realistic near-term SAM is smaller and should be stated plainly. At 15 percent hospice penetration over three years, the SaaS layer reaches roughly 1,000 accounts and $16.9 million in ARR. Add the diligence module: hospice M&A ran 35 deals in 2024 per The Braff Group, collapsed to just 7 in the first half of 2025, then rebounded to 16 deals in Q4 2025, the strongest quarter since 2021, per Mertz Taggart via Hospice News. At 40 deals a year and $18,500 per pre-acquisition SFP screen, diligence adds about $740,000 annually. Near-term SAM: approximately $17.6 million. That is a real business and a modest venture outcome, a tension the counterargument section takes seriously.

Phase two expands the same scoring engine to home health, where MedPAC counts over 12,000 agencies operating under Medicare's Home Health Value-Based Purchasing model, which adjusts payments up or down on measured performance. At $12,000 a year per agency, the home health expansion adds up to $144 million in TAM. Combined TAM across both settings: approximately $257 million.

The Product

A regulatory radar platform that reconstructs each hospice's Special Focus Program risk score from public data, then keeps it current. Four modules:

• SFP score reconstruction: CMS published its selection methodology, a user's guide, and the underlying data before scrubbing the SFP page in February 2025, and the four input domains remain public through other channels: state survey deficiency data and substantiated complaints via Care Compare downloadable databases, the Hospice Care Index from Medicare claims, and CAHPS Hospice Survey results. Quarterly ingestion replicates the published scoring logic per CMS Certification Number, and outputs a percentile rank against the national distribution plus a "distance to cutoff" metric showing how close a hospice sits to the selection threshold. When CMS relaunches with revised weights, the model re-calibrates from the new rulemaking.
• Early-warning feed: New survey citations, complaint filings, and HCI drift trigger alerts within days of appearing in public files, rather than at the next quarterly Care Compare refresh. A hospice learns it has entered the risk band months before CMS runs its Q4 selection.
• Remediation playbooks: Each deficiency tag maps to the specific score inputs it moves, so quality teams prioritize plans of correction by SFP impact rather than by surveyor emphasis. Correction timelines get tracked against the six-month survey cadence that SFP selection imposes.
• Acquisition diligence module: Screens targets on SFP risk, runs the 36-month change-of-ownership clock (extended to hospices in the CY 2025 final rule, which resets enhanced oversight on qualifying transactions), and flags "high risk" Medicare screening categorization and managing-employee disclosure issues from the same rulemaking. Mertz Taggart's managing partner told Hospice News that "many transactions fail due to clinical and compliance diligence," with buyers specifically worried about payment clawbacks in Arizona, California, Nevada, and Texas. This module turns that diligence from a three-week consultant engagement into a same-day screen.

Unit Economics

Metric	Value
Single-site subscription (Watchtower Solo)	$749/month
Portfolio subscription (2-20 sites)	$1,499/month base + $149/site
Enterprise / PE platform license	~$60,000/year
Pre-acquisition diligence report	$18,500 per target
Blended ARPA	$16,800
Customer acquisition cost	$5,400
Expected LTV (3.2-year avg retention × ARPA)	$53,800
LTV:CAC ratio	10:1
Gross margin (software)	86%
Startup cost (18-month runway)	$2.6M
Break-even	~21 months at ~320 accounts

Methodology note: CAC of $5,400 reflects a conference-and-channel motion: NHPCO and state association conferences plus partnerships with hospice M&A advisors and healthcare law firms, who already sell into the exact buyer. A 3.2-year retention assumption mirrors compliance products that embed in quarterly board reporting; once a hospice's SFP percentile appears in its board deck, removing it requires an affirmative decision to fly blind. $2.6 million in startup cost covers 18 months of an 11-person team (5 engineers/data, 2 regulatory analysts, 2 sales, 1 designer, 1 CEO), CMS data pipeline infrastructure, and the legal review required before publishing any reconstructed risk ranking. Break-even at 320 accounts implies roughly 5 percent of the addressable for-profit and multi-site segment, concentrated in the four enhanced-oversight states where buyer anxiety is highest.

Competitive Landscape

Company	What It Does	SFP Score?	Notes
WellSky / Axxess / Homecare Homebase / MatrixCare	Hospice EHRs with quality-reporting and HIS/CAHPS submission modules	No. They report the inputs; none reconstructs the SFP selection score or benchmarks it nationally.	Embedded incumbents; partnership or acquisition path, not direct competition
Simione / Corridor / Fazzi	Hospice consulting: mock surveys, QAPI programs, plans of correction	No. Retrospective and manual, at $300+/hour, engaged after citations land.	Channel partners, not competitors; they need the score to sell remediation
CMS Care Compare	Publishes the raw quality data: HCI, CAHPS, quality measures	No. Raw files with no scoring, no percentile, no alerts, no forward look.	Free; the data source, not the product
Healthcare law firms	FCA defense, survey appeals, transaction diligence	No. Reactive, engaged when enforcement starts.	Referral channel for the diligence module
This startup	Forward SFP risk score per CCN, early-warning alerts, remediation prioritized by score impact, acquisition screens	Core product: the number CMS will not show you until it is too late	Seeking $2.6M Seed

The gap is not data access. Every input to the SFP algorithm is public. Synthesis is the gap: nobody converts the scattered CMS files into the one number that determines whether a hospice faces surveys every six months or operates unbothered. EHR vendors could build this, but their roadmaps serve documentation workflows, not regulatory forecasting, and none has. Consultants monetize the aftermath. CMS itself published the methodology and then deleted it, which tells you everything about whether the government will productize this.

Go-to-Market

Phase 1 (months 1-8): Rebuild the deleted list. Publish a free, lawyer-reviewed "SFP Risk Watchlist" reconstructing risk scores for the highest-risk decile, marketed to hospice executives through state association channels. That watchlist becomes the lead magnet; the paid product is your own score with drill-down. Sign three M&A advisory firms (the Braff Group and Mertz Taggart archetypes) as diligence-module design partners. Target the four enhanced-oversight states first: Arizona, California, Nevada, and Texas, where buyers already price compliance risk into deals.

Phase 2 (months 9-16): Roll out PE portfolio licenses. Private equity and public companies own an estimated 16 percent of hospices and run platform-and-roll-up strategies that multiply SFP exposure with every acquisition. A single portfolio license covering 30 to 100 sites at $60,000-plus a year lands enterprise ARR in one contract. Kinderhook's $1.1 billion take-private of Enhabit in February 2026, with 117 hospice locations across 34 states, shows the buyer universe is active and well capitalized. Launch the remediation module so quality teams buy the score and the fix together.

Phase 3 (months 17-24): Extend the engine to home health agencies under HHVBP, where payment adjustments already move real dollars on measured performance. Pursue EHR partnerships (WellSky, Axxess) to embed the score inside the documentation workflow, converting competitors into distribution. Target 320 accounts and break-even.

Why Now

Five forces are converging to make this product viable in 2026 and not before.

First, the suspended list. CMS named 50 hospices in December 2024, was sued in January 2025, and suspended the SFP on February 14, 2025 to "further evaluate" it. But the Hospice Act of 2020 still requires the program, industry groups from LeadingAge to the National Alliance for Care at Home say they support an SFP in spirit, and CMS told providers it would "further explore options for program implementation and further rulemaking." A redesigned SFP arrives by rulemaking, and rulemaking scores historical data. Selection happens in Q4; the lookback window is the trailing 12 to 24 months. A hospice's comeback-year score is already half-written, and the pen is in its own hand.

Second, oversight pressure is at a maximum. GAO's July 2026 finding that spending nearly doubled in a decade, with low-visit hospices effectively paid twice as much per visit as high-visit ones and a $7.6 billion gap between per-day and per-visit payment, is the kind of chart that ends up in congressional hearings. MedPAC has recommended eliminating hospice rate updates for 2026 and again for 2027. When Congress squeezes payment and demands accountability simultaneously, enforcement programs stop being optional.

Third, margin compression removed the easy answer. At an 8 percent average Medicare margin, with nonprofit hospices losing money outright, operators cannot simply hire their way to safety or absorb a six-month survey cycle as a cost of doing business. Precision matters more when slack disappears. A $749 monthly subscription that tells a $4 million-revenue hospice exactly where it stands is the cheapest form of risk reduction it can buy.

Fourth, the CY 2025 final rule quietly rebuilt the diligence minefield. CMS extended the 36-month change-of-ownership rule to hospices, categorized hospices as "high risk" for Medicare screening (triggering fingerprinting for 5-percent-plus owners), and required administrators and medical directors to be disclosed as managing employees, per analysis of the final rule. Every acquisition now carries enrollment and ownership tripwires that did not exist two years ago, which is why Mertz Taggart reports deals dying specifically on clinical and compliance diligence.

Fifth, DOJ enforcement is accelerating on a separate track. In July 2025, the DOJ-HHS False Claims Act Working Group announced healthcare fraud enforcement priorities. Hospice settlements keep coming: Evercare paid $18 million, SouthernCare paid $24.7 million, and in December 2025 the Apex wound-care owners were sentenced to over 14 years and ordered to pay more than $1 billion in restitution, with a related $309 million FCA settlement, per Arnold and Porter's FCA analysis. SFP or no SFP, the enforcement direction is one way.

Original Contribution: The Relaunch Window

A framing nobody has published: the compliance clock for the SFP's return is already running, during the suspension. CMS's published design selected 50 hospices each fourth quarter for the following calendar year, scoring trailing survey, complaint, claims, and CAHPS data. Any SFP 2.0 rulemaking in 2026 or 2027 will necessarily evaluate historical performance, because a quality program cannot score the future. That means a substantial share of every hospice's comeback-year SFP inputs, likely half or more of the lookback window, is being generated before the relaunch is even announced. Operators behaving as if the suspension paused their risk are misreading the situation: the suspension paused CMS's publishing, not the data collection. Care Compare still refreshes. Surveys still happen. Complaints still file. That mental model ("the program is dead, we can relax") is exactly backwards, and the inversion is the product's entire reason to exist.

A second, quantified estimate: the uncertainty band. CMS's design targeted roughly the bottom 10 percent of hospices, about 670 of 6,700, and selected 50 from that pool each year. That puts the effective cutoff near the 0.75th percentile of the national distribution. Hospices ranked between roughly 50th and 150th worst sit within a single bad survey cycle of selection: one condition-level deficiency, one substantiated complaint cluster, one weak CAHPS quarter. Call it approximately 100 hospices living "one deficiency away" from six-month surveys and a termination track at any given moment, with no way to know their distance from the line. This estimate assumes the relaunched algorithm keeps a similar 50-per-year selection size and that score noise is dominated by survey timing rather than structural quality differences; if CMS selects more hospices per cycle or smooths scores across years, the band widens. Either way, roughly a hundred providers are flying blind within spitting distance of the list.

Limitations

Several structural weaknesses deserve direct statement. First, algorithm replication risk is real. CMS scrubbed the published methodology and will redesign the weights before relaunching; the four input domains are likely stable (they track the statute's intent and the industry's own criticisms), but the exact scoring formula, the selection count, and the lookback windows could all change. A product built on the 2024 methodology needs a re-calibration sprint with every rulemaking, and there will be a window after each final rule where the model is an educated approximation.

Second, public data lags reality. Care Compare refreshes quarterly, complaint data can trail events by six to twelve months, and CAHPS scores move slowly. That "early warning" is early relative to CMS's annual selection, not relative to the underlying events. A hospice that implodes in March may not appear risky in public data until fall.

Third, the SAM is honestly modest. Seventeen to eighteen million dollars in near-term SAM makes this a strong vertical SaaS business and a weak venture-scale story, a point the counterargument develops fully. Pricing power depends on fear of a program that does not currently exist in active form.

Fourth, measurement creates gaming. Once hospices can see their SFP score, some will optimize the metric rather than the care: timing survey responses, managing complaint intake, steering CAHPS respondents. Distinguishing genuine quality improvement from score cosmetics would be essential, and the platform's marketing must not become a how-to guide for the latter.

Strongest Counterargument

The most forceful case against this startup is that the flagship use case depends on a government program that may never return in recognizable form. CMS suspended the SFP nineteen months ago. Trump's CMS has shown no urgency to relaunch it, an interim final rule to repeal the Biden nursing-home staffing rule is reportedly under OMB review, and the political winds in Washington favor deregulation over new enforcement machinery. A founder could spend two years and $2.6 million building a radar for a storm that never arrives, selling $749 subscriptions against a hypothetical.

A second objection compounds the first: even if the SFP returns, CMS could publish the scores itself. CMS already publishes Care Compare star ratings and the Hospice Care Index; adding a public SFP percentile would cost the agency almost nothing and would instantly commoditize the core product. That history is not encouraging for the startup: CMS built the algorithm, published one list, and deleted it. An agency willing to do that is not a reliable platform partner.

Both objections have force, but they misidentify what the product actually is. The durable asset is not an SFP clone; it is a continuously updated regulatory risk model for the most enforcement-exposed corner of post-acute care. Survey citations, complaint volumes, ownership changes, and DOJ enforcement patterns create risk whether or not a program named "SFP" exists. Meanwhile the diligence module sells against M&A risk that is live today, not against a future rulemaking. And the "CMS publishes it free" objection has a market precedent that cuts the other way: CMS has published nursing-home star ratings for over a decade, and a thriving industry of reputation-management and analytics vendors sells against those free ratings, because raw publication is not the same as an actionable, forward-looking, board-ready risk number. Free data and a useful product are different things; the entire information-services economy is built on that gap.

The Bottom Line

Medicare's $28.3 billion hospice benefit pays a flat daily rate whether patients are visited or not, spending doubled in a decade, three-quarters of agencies are for-profit, and the government's answer, a program to name and intensively oversee the worst performers, was published once, sued once, and suspended. But the law behind it survived. Somewhere in the next rulemaking cycle, 50 hospices will learn their names are on a list that brings surveys every six months and a path to termination, and the data that put them there is being generated right now. Reconstructing that score from public data, keeping it current, and selling the distance-to-cutoff to the operators and acquirers with the most to lose is a focused, defensible, genuinely useful business. It will not be a unicorn. It could be the single most valuable dashboard in a $28 billion industry that currently flies blind.

What You Can Do

If you operate a hospice, pull your agency's Care Compare downloadable files this week: your Hospice Care Index trend, your CAHPS scores versus national percentiles, and your survey history for condition-level deficiencies. If you cannot assemble those four inputs into a single view in an afternoon, you have confirmed the product gap personally. Track your substantiated complaint count separately, since complaints are the fastest-moving input and the one most operators ignore until surveyors arrive. If you are acquiring hospices, add an SFP-risk screen to your diligence checklist alongside the 36-month ownership clock and high-risk screening flags, and price the four enhanced-oversight states accordingly. And if you are choosing hospice care for a family member, the same public files work for you: compare Hospice Care Index and CAHPS scores across agencies in your ZIP code on Care Compare, and treat a pattern of condition-level deficiencies as disqualifying, because CMS does.

Related

📰 EMS Documentation Revenue Intelligence — another Medicare-billing information gap: ambulance services losing revenue to documentation, the same perverse-incentive structure in a different uniform

📰 PT Payer Rate Intelligence — physical therapy practices negotiating against payer rate sheets they cannot see, the provider-side mirror of this information asymmetry

📰 Pharmacy PBM Reimbursement Audit — pharmacies clawing back revenue from opaque middlemen, the same "the data exists but you can't see your number" problem