California Adopts Sweeping Emergency Regulations for Hospice Providers: What the New Rules Require and How to Prepare

On June 22, 2026, emergency regulations promulgated by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) and codified at Title 22, California Code of Regulations, sections 74800 through 74908, took effect.

The emergency regulations establish detailed licensing, operational, staffing, and governance standards for hospice agencies. This new regulatory framework applies immediately to both existing hospice licensees and applicants for initial licensure. Although the emergency regulations are temporary, CDPH has indicated that it intends to make them permanent.

What You Need to Know

• First Comprehensive Framework. For the first time since the California Hospice Licensure Act of 1990, hospice providers are operating under a comprehensive, enforceable regulatory framework.
• Detailed Standards Across All Operations. The emergency regulations establish detailed requirements for staffing ratios (12:1 nurse-to-patient cap), geographic service areas (two-hour response guarantee), management qualifications, ownership and change-of-ownership (CHOW) approval, documentation standards, and corporate governance.
• No Grandfathering: Immediate Compliance Required. These regulations apply to existing licensees with no transition period or grandfathering; providers must immediately demonstrate compliance across all requirements, and CDPH surveyors are conducting unannounced inspections with enforcement authority to issue citations, require corrective action plans, or suspend licenses.

These regulatory changes are significant. The good news, however, is that hospice providers in California now have clarity into codified standards that CDPH surveyors can, and will, rely on, as well as a roadmap to achieve compliance.

Background: A Regulatory Response Years in the Making

The emergency regulations are the culmination of a multi-year legislative and enforcement campaign targeting fraud in California’s hospice sector. In March 2022, the California State Auditor issued Report 2021-123, which found widespread indicators of hospice fraud and abuse concentrated in Los Angeles County. The State Auditor documented, among other things, a single individual listed as the administrator for dozens of hospice agencies at once (27 in the most egregious instance), multiple agencies sharing a single business address or operating without signage, and newly licensed agencies being marketed for sale as “never billed.”

The California Legislature responded to this news in stages. Senate Bill 664 (2021) imposed a moratorium on new hospice licenses. Assembly Bill 2673 (2022) expanded licensure requirements, restricted CHOWs, and directed CDPH to adopt emergency regulations implementing the State Auditor’s recommendations. Assembly Bill 177 (2024) extended CDPH’s regulatory deadline to January 1, 2026, and tied the expiration of the licensing moratorium to the adoption of the emergency regulations.

The enforcement backdrop is equally significant. According to the Office of Governor Gavin Newsom, CDPH has revoked more than 280 hospice licenses in roughly the past two years, with approximately 300 additional agencies under evaluation for revocation. At the federal level, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) cited payment suspensions affecting hundreds of Los Angeles hospices when it announced a nationwide enrollment moratorium (discussed below). In adopting the regulations, CDPH formally declared that a “factual emergency” exists in hospice oversight, a declaration that allowed the rules to move from filing to effectiveness on an expedited basis.

What the Regulations Require

The regulations are extensive, and providers should consult counsel to ensure awareness and understanding of the new landscape. Several provisions warrant particular attention:

Nurse Staffing Ratio

The regulations establish a 12:1 nurse-to-patient ratio: a licensed nurse (registered nurse or licensed vocational nurse) with primary responsibility for direct patient care may be assigned no more than 12 patients at any one time. This is a hard cap: a hospice may not exceed the ratio even for low-acuity patients. Layered on top of the ratio, hospices must maintain a patient acuity system that may require lower caseloads based on clinical, caregiver, psychosocial, and treatment-related factors, reviewed at least annually by a committee at least half composed of registered nurses providing direct patient care. Providers must also ensure 24/7 availability of licensed nursing, and scheduling systems must be able to demonstrate compliance on any given day.

Geographic Service Area Limits and the “Unmet Need” Formula

Under the new rules, a hospice must guarantee that a licensed nurse can appear in person within two hours of learning that a patient has a medical need or safety concern, a requirement that effectively bounds the size of any service area a hospice may claim. Service areas must be calculated using actual driving distances sampled during peak traffic hours, with supporting documentation, and hospices may not admit patients outside their approved geographic service area. This will likely have particularly significant impacts in high-density metro areas with congested peak traffic windows, such as those in Southern California (a region already under considerable federal and state scrutiny).

In addition, licensure applicants must demonstrate an “unmet need” for hospice services in each county of the proposed service area, using a formula set out in the regulations that compares the population likely eligible for hospice care against the capacity of existing licensed hospices in the county. Counties that fail the formula cannot be included in the approved service area. The “unmet need” requirement is designed to prevent the oversaturation and clustering of agencies documented in the State Auditor’s report, but it also raises strategic questions for legitimate operators seeking to expand: the formula counts existing licenses without evaluating the quality or adequacy of incumbent providers’ services.

Change of Ownership: Longer Timelines, Broader Triggers

The regulations materially reshape hospice transactions. A transfer of 50 percent or more of beneficial ownership constitutes a full CHOW requiring an advance application submitted 120 days before closing and CDPH approval before the transaction is consummated. Transfers of beneficial ownership of 5 percent or more (but less than 50 percent) require a streamlined 120-day advance application and CDPH approval before closing, not merely post-closing disclosure. Each approved CHOW resets the statutory five-year restriction on subsequent transfers, and changes in management personnel or governing body composition must be reported within 10 business days.

Critically, the regulations reach beneficial and indirect ownership, not just nominal license holders, reflecting CDPH’s focus on practical control of hospice operations. Minority investments, layered holding structures, and indirect ownership changes may now constitute regulated CHOWs. An unapproved or unreported ownership change can result in license revocation and loss of licensure eligibility. Notably, these new CHOW requirements are in addition to any other existing regulatory reporting or disclosure obligations, such as to the California Office of Health Care Affordability (OHCA), should the proposed transaction meet OHCA’s materiality thresholds.

Management Qualifications and Accountability

The regulations impose education and experience requirements for key hospice leadership positions, including administrators, directors of patient care services, medical directors, and their required designees (formally appointed alternates who must satisfy the same qualifications as the primary role), along with training requirements for first-time administrators. They also limit the number of agencies that management personnel may oversee concurrently, a direct response to the State Auditor's finding of a single individual listed as the administrator for 27 hospice agencies, with a narrow exception for designated rural areas. License applications now require 10 years of employment and adverse-action history for individuals holding a 5 percent or greater ownership or control interest, identity verification, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General exclusion screening, and proof of financial capacity to operate for at least 90 days.

Physical Presence, Documentation, and Enforcement

Aimed squarely at the “hospice mill” pattern (where operators cluster unlicensed or covertly operating agencies in shared buildings under concentrated ownership while billing Medicare for nonexistent or medically unnecessary services), the new regulations require an established place of business with exclusive possession of unshared commercial office space and permanent interior and exterior signage. Medical records requirements are more prescriptive, including timelines for documenting significant changes in condition, structured rules for record addenda, and confidentiality standards aligned with the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act.

On enforcement, hospices will now be subject to unannounced inspections at any time and must provide surveyors access to patient records, billing data, personnel files, and electronic systems. Grounds for license denial, suspension, or revocation include fraudulent billing, falsified documentation, improper eligibility determinations, failure to maintain the 12:1 nurse caseload or two-hour response requirements, recent professional discipline of management personnel, privacy violations, and patient safety failures.

Why These Regulations Matter

The emergency regulations convert what had been a largely paper-based licensure process into a substantive gatekeeping and oversight regime. The following particular areas deserve special emphasis:

First, compliance risk has fundamentally changed for existing operators. These are not aspirational standards or guidance documents; they are licensing regulations that surveyors are now expected to enforce. A hospice that cannot document nurse caseloads, two-hour response capability, acuity assessments, or timely management-change reporting may have a citable compliance gap, regardless of the quality of its clinical care. In practical terms, documentation deficiencies may result in citations requiring a formal plan of correction, and failure to implement that corrective plan may lead to license suspension or revocation.

Second, the transactional landscape for hospice deals in California has been reshaped. The 120-day advance approval requirement, the 5 percent disclosure threshold, the reach into indirect and beneficial ownership, and the resetting five-year transfer restriction all must be built into deal timelines, diligence checklists, and investment structuring from the outset. Buyers, sellers, and investors (including private equity sponsors with layered ownership structures) should assume that CDPH review will be a gating item for any hospice transaction and should also consider how OHCA review might overlap or factor into any proposed deal structure.

Third, market entry remains constrained. The statutory moratorium on new hospice licenses runs until January 1, 2027. The governing statute sets the moratorium's end date as January 1, 2027, or one year after the date the emergency regulations are adopted, whichever is sooner (Health and Safety Code section 1751.70), and the moratorium provisions are in any event repealed as of January 1, 2027. Because the regulations were adopted in 2026, the one-year-after-adoption date falls in 2027, so January 1, 2027, controls. Providers planning new licensure should treat January 1, 2027, as the operative date. Even after the moratorium lifts, the “unmet need” formula will limit issuance of new licenses and service-area expansions. A further overlay is the federal CMS enrollment moratorium. This six-month moratorium, which began on May 13, 2026, imposes heightened oversight on California’s hospice providers and practically freezes any activity that would require new Medicare enrollments. Each of these (the state moratorium, the federal CMS enrollment moratorium, and the CHOW timelines) operates on separate clocks, and providers should be prepared to track each independently and navigate how all three intersect.

Finally, although these are emergency regulations and are temporary by design, CDPH has indicated it intends to pursue a regular rulemaking to make the requirements permanent. Providers should treat the current rules as the new baseline, not a passing measure. That said, the standard rulemaking process will offer the provider community and other interested stakeholders a meaningful opportunity to submit comments and advocate for refinements. The intervening period will also provide additional details to inform the development and adoption of the permanent regulations.

What Hospice Providers Should Do Now

California’s emergency hospice regulations represent the most significant change to hospice oversight in the state in more than three decades. In response, hospice providers should take the following actions:

• Conduct a Comprehensive Gap Analysis: Providers and other interested stakeholders should begin with a comprehensive gap analysis against the full regulatory text, comparing current policies, staffing models, service areas, documentation practices, and governance structures to the new requirements. Because there is no general grandfathering, that analysis should be treated as urgent rather than aspirational, and counsel should be consulted to analyze existing processes in consideration of these new regulatory requirements and to help navigate implementation of new measures to achieve compliance.
• Audit Staffing and Scheduling Systems: Staffing and scheduling systems deserve immediate attention. Providers should confirm that no licensed nurse carries more than 12 patients at any time, that a compliant patient acuity system is in place and subject to the required committee review, and that scheduling records can affirmatively demonstrate compliance to a surveyor.
• Validate Service-Area Coverage: Service areas should be validated against the two-hour response standard using the prescribed peak-traffic methodology, with documentation retained. Providers serving broad geographies should assess whether their current footprint remains defensible and whether their admission practices ensure no patient is admitted outside the approved area.
• Integrate Regulatory Requirements into Transaction Planning: Any provider contemplating a transaction (whether a sale, recapitalization, minority investment, or restructuring) should map its ownership structure and licensure history early, build the 120-day CDPH approval process into the closing timeline, evaluate whether OHCA’s materiality thresholds are met, and evaluate how the five-year transfer restriction affects investment horizons and exit rights. Ownership and management changes that previously seemed routine may now require a new advance regulatory approval.
• Maintain Records and Documentation for Inspections: Providers should prepare for unannounced surveys by ensuring that patient records, billing data, personnel files, and electronic systems can be produced promptly, and by verifying that management personnel information on file with CDPH is current, that all required leadership positions are filled by qualified individuals, and that any professional discipline issues among management are identified and addressed.
• Engage in the Permanent Rulemaking Process: Providers and industry stakeholders should engage with the forthcoming permanent rulemaking. The emergency rulemaking process offered little opportunity for input, but the regular rulemaking process will give the provider community a real opportunity to push back. Providers with operational concerns about specific requirements (the “unmet need” formula, the service-area methodology, the staffing ratio’s interaction with rural coverage) should document those concerns now and be prepared to submit substantive comments.

* * * *

For additional information about the issues discussed in this Insight, please contact the attorney(s) listed on this page or the Epstein Becker Green Health Care and Life Sciences attorney who regularly handles your legal matters.