New OIG Guidance Raises Concerns About Sign-On Bonuses in Family Caregiver Models

The US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) has issued Advisory Opinion 25-12, providing important guidance for home care providers regarding the use of sign-on bonuses and recruitment incentives, particularly in Medicaid-funded family caregiver and agency models.

Overview of the Advisory Opinion
OIG reviewed a proposed arrangement in which a home care agency planned to offer sign-on bonuses to prospective caregivers, many of whom were expected to be family members of Medicaid beneficiaries. These caregivers would effectively influence or determine the selection of the agency providing services to their relatives. The bonuses were publicly advertised and structured in a way that OIG determined could improperly influence provider choice.

OIG’s Determination
OIG concluded that the proposed arrangement presented a significant risk under:

The Federal Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS), and
The Beneficiary Inducements Civil Monetary Penalty (CMP) Law.

While OIG reaffirmed that sign-on bonuses are generally permissible as part of routine employee recruitment, it emphasized that the bonuses in this case were closely tied to securing Medicaid-reimbursed business, rather than solely to hiring staff.

Why This Matters
This opinion underscores a critical compliance principle for home care providers:

Recruitment incentives may become unlawful if they are perceived as influencing a beneficiary’s choice of provider for federally funded services.

OIG highlighted several risk factors, including:

Incentives offered to individuals able to direct or steer provider selection;
Targeting family caregivers of Medicaid beneficiaries;
Public marketing that links employment incentives to service enrollment; and
Lack of separation between hiring decisions and Medicaid revenue generation.

Practical Compliance Considerations
Providers—especially those operating family caregiver, PAS, Consumer Directed-like, or Self-Directed Medicaid programs—should carefully evaluate recruitment and marketing practices:

Ensure bonuses are clearly tied to employment, not referrals or enrollment;
Avoid incentive structures that implicitly reward provider selection;
Maintain clear separation between recruitment, marketing, and intake functions; and
Review bonus programs with legal counsel for AKS and CMP compliance.

Bottom Line
Advisory Opinion 25-12 serves as a caution that even common labor-market practices can pose federal compliance risks when they intersect with beneficiary choice and Medicaid-funded services. Providers should take proactive steps to ensure recruitment strategies remain compliant as family caregiver models continue to expand. If you have any questions, please contact Fady Sahhar, Physical Disabilities & Aging Division Director.

< Previous Post

Next Post >

ODP Updates the MAAC on Paid Relative Caregiving & Travel Limitations

By Tim Sohosky • May 29, 2026

On Thursday, May 28, the Office of Developmental Programs (ODP) provided an update to the Medical Assistance Advisory Committee (MAAC) regarding current policies and upcoming regulatory changes following a recent Commonwealth Court decision. On February 17, 2026, the PA Commonwealth Court issued a decision in Dunkelberger v. Department of Human Services that determined that ODP’s limitations on provider model services (specifically the 40/60-hour caps and 90-day travel maximums) were null and void. The decision was based on process rather than policy validity; the Court found that these limitations were not properly promulgated as regulations in accordance with the Commonwealth Documents Law and Regulatory Review Act. To maintain a balanced approach between flexibility and oversight, ODP is moving forward with the following actions: Regulatory Amendments: ODP will amend regulations to establish formal authority for setting service delivery limits that support individual welfare and program integrity. Self-Directed Model Agreements: ODP has already modified agreements for self-directed models to clarify limits on overtime, combined relative service provision, and travel restrictions. Travel Restrictions: Due to the inability to monitor services effectively over long distances, service provision will now be limited to Pennsylvania and contiguous states. Waiver Changes: ODP will seek modifications through the amendment process to the Consolidated, P/FDS, Community Living, and Adult Autism Waivers to include: New requirements for agencies providing IHCS and Companion services to disclose a DSP's relationship to participants; and Strengthened programmatic oversight and integrity measures. Life Sharing Alternative: For participants requiring more than 60 hours of paid care from a relative, the Life Sharing (24/7) service model remains the recommended alternative. ODP anticipates a public comment period for these proposed waiver changes beginning in January 2027.

Two men with intellectual disabilities working happily on a tablet.

Shapiro Administration's Strategic Investments in ID/A Community Lead to Highest Number of Pennsylvanians Ever Served in HCBS

By Tim Sohosky • May 28, 2026

Press Release from DHS : Published May 27, 2026

ODP Provides Updates to PBC 2026/27 Residential Pay-for-Performance

By Cathy Barrick • May 28, 2026

The Office of Developmental Programs (ODP) has shared ODPANN 26-039 . The purpose of this communication is to provide updated details about the Residential Performance-Based Contracting (PBC) Pay-for-Performance (P4P) initiatives for Fiscal Year 2026/27. Updates are provided in red . Please review the announcement for more details. Visit here to access the Pay for Performance (P4P): Residential Rural Capacity Expansion Plan template .