Did US hospitals receive extra payments for COVID-19 patients under CARES Act?

1. How the law explicitly boosted Medicare payments for COVID-19 hospitalizations

Congress amended Medicare inpatient payment rules to increase the DRG weighting for discharges diagnosed with COVID-19 by 20% for the duration of the public health emergency; the statutory text in the CARES Act directs Medicare to apply that add‑on and CMS issued implementing guidance and FAQs ^{[2] [4] [5]}. Analysts and legal summaries repeatedly state the Act “increases Medicare payments for treating COVID‑19 patients by 20%,” and CMS rulemaking and later IPPS materials reference those pandemic-era payment changes ^{[3] [6]}.

2. Broader, non‑Medicare relief: the $100 billion Provider Relief Fund

The CARES Act established at least $100 billion in emergency funding for health‑care providers (the Provider Relief Fund, PRF) to cover COVID‑related expenses and lost revenue; HHS distributed an initial $30 billion, with further tranches and program rules to follow, and required recipients to attest to terms such as limits on balance billing for COVID care ^{[7] [1] [8]}. Reporting and policy analyses note the PRF and later congressional actions together provided roughly $178 billion across related laws to providers, and the distribution approach and formulas generated debate and uneven outcomes across hospitals ^[9].

3. What the payments actually meant for hospitals’ finances

Multiple sources show the aid materially reduced projected losses: one policy analysis reported hospital operating margins fell far less once CARES Act funding was counted (citing data on margins with and without CARES funding), and the Provider Relief Fund was explicitly intended to reimburse health‑care expenses and lost revenue attributable to COVID‑19 ^{[9] [1]}. But coverage also emphasizes that the 20% DRG add‑on and sequestration relief were partial offsets and might not match actual increased costs or lost elective revenue from the pandemic ^[4].

4. Who got the money, and controversies over distribution

HHS initially distributed much of the first $30 billion based on each provider’s share of Medicare fee‑for‑service payments in 2019, drawing criticism that the approach favored larger or wealthier hospitals; later “high‑impact” payments targeted hospitals with many COVID admissions, but analyses found inequities remained—richer hospitals often received larger grants while some hard‑hit safety‑net and Hispanic‑serving hospitals were undercompensated ^{[7] [9] [8]}. Critics and researchers flagged that allocation formulas and pace of distributions drove uneven results ^[9].

5. Limits, conditions and accountability attached to funds

Provider Relief payments came with conditions: funds were to cover COVID‑related expenses or lost revenue not reimbursed from other sources, recipients had to agree not to charge COVID patients more than in‑network cost‑sharing in many cases, and large recipients had reporting requirements and later audit and return scrutiny ^{[1] [7] [8]}. Some health systems later announced plans to return portions of grants, reflecting evolving guidance and public scrutiny ^[9].

6. Competing perspectives and open questions

Supporters say CARES Act payments were crucial to prevent widespread hospital closures and blunt financial shocks, pointing to large aggregate sums and measurable improvement in margins when funds are counted ^{[9] [1]}. Critics argue distribution formulas initially advantaged hospitals with higher Medicare revenues and private‑pay mixes, leaving some safety‑net providers short despite later corrective distributions ^{[9] [8]}. Available sources do not mention granular, nationwide per‑hospital tallies beyond HHS’s posted distributions and periodic CDC/CMS data releases ^[8].

7. Bottom line for your original question

Yes—under the CARES Act hospitals received extra federal payments both through Medicare payment changes (a temporary 20% DRG add‑on for COVID‑19 inpatient discharges and temporary sequestration relief) and large Provider Relief Fund disbursements intended to reimburse COVID‑related expenses and lost revenue; how much each hospital received depended on allocation formulas, attestation, and later program rules, and the distribution generated debate about equity and adequacy ^{[2] [3] [1] [9]}.