On this page
Pandemic lawsuit shields were linked to thinner aide staffing, which makes liability a staffing lever
Horwitz and colleagues published a study in JAMA Health Forum, which DocWireNews reported in August 2026. It covers more than 13,000 US nursing homes between 2018 and 2023. Many states had temporarily shielded facilities from lawsuits over resident harm during the pandemic, under what are called tort immunity laws. States adopted these laws at different times. The authors used that spread, together with federal records of daily care hours per resident. They found that facilities in immunity states provided about 2.5% fewer total staff hours per resident per day than comparable facilities elsewhere. The drop showed up in certified nursing assistant time. The study found no significant change in registered nurse or licensed practical nurse hours.
How big is the staffing drop, and who measured it?
On average, nursing homes in states with tort immunity logged about 2.5% fewer total staff hours per resident per day, with the decline concentrated among certified nursing assistants.
Treat 2.5% as a headline average, not a benchmark. It is a relative change in total hours. The coverage gives no absolute hours per resident and no separate aide figure. If licensed hours barely moved, as reported, aide hours must have fallen by more than 2.5% on their own, because aides are only part of the total. We can't say by how much.
We have read DocWireNews's account, not the full paper. The "natural experiment" label describes a before-and-after comparison across states, not a randomised trial. The authors adjusted for COVID infection rates and facility characteristics. The coverage doesn't say whether state wage levels or Medicaid payment were handled. Check the paper for that before you quote the figure to your board.
Why would lawsuit protection lower aide hours?
The authors' reading is that legal accountability pushes operators to keep care hours up, so removing it weakened that incentive. The study shows association, not proof of that mechanism.
That is a hypothesis consistent with the data, not something the data demonstrate. States that granted immunity may have differed in ways the model missed. The licensed-staff result is also worth noting. Aide hours are plausibly the easiest to trim, though the study doesn't test that.
The coverage cites earlier research linking higher staffing, aide time especially, to fewer complications and better monitoring. That is where a dip would be expected to hurt.
What does this mean for a DON or administrator now?
Expect CNA hours per resident per day to draw outside scrutiny, and keep a written rationale for any dip. Researchers now link weaker legal accountability to thinner aide coverage.
The CNA schedule is the DON's to defend. Record what drove any shortfall, such as vacancies, agency availability or census, separately from decisions to cut hours. That record helps with a surveyor's questions and with any later claim from a family.
Our earlier piece on nurse leadership under scrutiny made the point that pressure arrives from several directions. This study adds that the outside incentives keeping staffing honest are legal as well as regulatory. If protections eased in your state, don't assume the pressure eased with them.
What should I ask my staffing or analytics vendor?
Ask which years their staffing benchmarks draw on, and whether they adjust for state liability rules. Benchmarks built on pandemic-era data may carry the dip this study describes.
The study window of 2018 to 2023 means the dip sits inside the data any multi-year peer comparison would use. A peer median that includes immunity-state facilities can make a thinner schedule look normal. Ask who defines "adequate": the vendor, a state minimum or a peer median. Ask for CNA hours reported separately from total hours, since the total can hide an aide-specific shift.
Also ask who measured any staffing-improvement claim. A figure drawn from the vendor's own customers describes facilities that chose to buy the product. That is a different sample from the federal data behind this study.
Frequently asked questions
Does the study prove immunity caused staffing cuts?
No. It reports an association from an observational comparison across states. The authors conclude that immunity was associated with lower staffing. They argue that legal accountability can influence how much care residents receive.
Did nurse staffing change?
Not significantly, according to DocWireNews. The study found no significant change in registered nurse or licensed practical nurse numbers. The reduction was concentrated among aides.
Do these protections still apply?
The coverage describes them as temporary but doesn't name states or say whether they have lapsed. Check your own state's current rules with counsel.
Sources: DocWireNews; journal article: Horwitz et al., JAMA Health Forum, 2026.