The nation’s largest labor representative of nursing home caregivers filed a brief opposing the lawsuit against the federal staffing mandate for nursing homes, arguing that the new requirements will help address the national shortage of staff at facilities. 

The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) represents over 150,000 nursing home workers in 23 states.

Last year, Iowa and 19 other states filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration to prevent the implementation of minimum staffing requirements as put forth in the finalized minimum staffing rule issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). In January, a federal judge in Iowa denied the states’ request for an injunction to immediately block the new rule while the case is being litigated.

The states, along with several industry associations, including the American Health Care Association (AHCA), claim that the staffing mandate poses “an existential threat” to the industry, forcing struggling nursing homes to close due to difficulties in finding qualified staff.

The union, on the other hand, argues in its “friend of the court” brief that the states’ claims confuse the workforce shortage with the effects of understaffing, underpaid positions, and poor working conditions. The SEIU points out that it is chronic understaffing that has led to increased workloads and a higher risk of injury for employees, making nursing home jobs less attractive.

The union also references workforce studies from 2022 and 2023, which highlight how poor staffing and working conditions lead to high turnover rates. They argue that improving staffing levels through the federal staffing mandate would help reduce turnover, improve care, and attract more workers to the industry, ultimately easing the caregiver shortage.

The union’s intervention, however, won’t impact the outcome of the lawsuit, according to Mark Reagan, managing shareholder at Hooper, Lundy & Bookman.

“The thrust of the SEIU brief should have no material impact on the determination of that issue but, instead, reflects policy arguments about whether mandatory requirements around greater staffing would ‘be a good thing,’” Reagan told Skilled Nursing News. “As such, the points made are really just advocacy.”

The issue central to the case that has the power to determine the outcome ultimately is whether or not CMS has the authority to adopt the mandatory numerical ratios or whether only Congress has that authority, he said.

“Also, amicus briefs often have little significance at the District Court level,” Reagan added. “Circuit Courts and SCOTUS are far more open to those briefs from non-parties. Not all District Court judges will accept them at this stage and, if they do, the content rarely has impact unless it is directly relevant to the legal issues and not otherwise included in the briefing submitted by the parties.”