The tech conversation & the trust conversation are the same conversation. Updated sep 30, 2026. I recently joined Amy Hirsch and Joe Zazworsky, both Directors of Clinical Practice at BAYADA, on stage at the Home Healthcare News FUTURE Conference in Austin for a session called "From Skepticism to Buy-In." The premise was uncomfortable for someone who works for a technology company to sit with: AI adoption in home-based care doesn't rise or fall on the tool. It rises or falls on whether clinicians trust it enough to use it. By the end of the session, it was clear that the conversation about the technology and the conversation about trust aren't actually two conversations - they're the same one. A few themes kept surfacing, and I left the stage more convinced than ever that the technology itself is rarely the hard part. Success requires consistency. It's not about clinicians refusing outright; it's about everyday use instead of treating the tool as a nice-to-have supplement. When AI is built into daily workflow, not layered on top of it, adoption sticks. That's why AI-supported clinical solutions only succeed when they're actively supported at every level of an organization, from executives to the clinician standing in a patient's living room. Leaders have to visibly believe in the tool before clinicians ever will. The real variable isn't the software. It's leadership engagement paired with process clarity. When a leader kicks off a rollout with genuine energy, sets clear expectations, and holds people accountable, clinicians notice immediately. Pair that with a streamlined SOP (everyone knowing who decides what, and when), and adoption moves faster. Watch for the all-or-nothing trap. When leaders lean too hard on metrics, they can swing into an "always follow the tool" or "don't use it" trap - and both erode trust. Questioning clinicians for not following a recommendation to the letter signals you trust the product more than the people using it, which is backwards! Clinical products have to be created, vetted, delivered, and adopted at the clinical level, which means clinicians need room to apply clinical judgment, not just comply. A recommendation is there to support the conversation around a decision, not replace it: clinical AI solutions should never stand in for clinical judgment. Leaders need to protect that judgment while promoting AI tools as something that enhances and facilitates evidence-based discussion. The other trap is slow-rolling implementation instead of treating go-live like a real go-live, the way you would with an EMR. Listening has to be a loop, not a survey. Its implementations typically run 8-10 weeks with a weekly call, and the clients who succeed build their own internal support alongside ours: a Teams channel, a regular meeting, a point person, or a designated superuser. Feedback must reach product and data science and actually show up in what gets prioritized. Clinicians can tell the difference between being heard and being humored. This matters long after launch, too: for AI solutions to keep benefiting patients, they have to evolve alongside compliance standards, regulations, and payer requirements. The loop has to run continuously, not just during rollout. My advice for Monday morning: Get behind the product yourself. Kick off with real energy. Put crystal-clear, written expectations in front of your team, with accountability attached. Build internal support beyond your vendor. And use the product yourself, every day, for 30 days. Clinicians notice when leadership asks something of them it hasn't tried itself. Stepping back, home health, hospice and palliative care organizations are facing a sourcing problem on top of the adoption problem - more point solutions than any organization can realistically vet without creating redundancy. Figuring out what's actually needed, which vendor fits, and how to avoid stacking redundant tools has become one of the most time-consuming challenges HH and HPC leaders face, part of why Mosai exists: to support the full patient journey instead of adding one more disconnected tool to the pile. Sharing the stage with BAYADA was a good reminder that the technology conversation and the trust conversation are the same conversation. Get the second one right, and adoption follows. If your team is thinking through its own AI adoption strategy, Mosai'd love to show you how Mosai supports providers through every stage of that journey. Request a demo to see it in action.

Wolf Popper LLP files class action lawsuit against BAYADA Home Health Care over data breach. Case Updates | 08/25/2026 Wolf Popper LLP, together with co-counsel Kreher & Trapani LLP, represents a class of individuals whose personal and medical information was compromised in a data breach affecting BAYADA Home Health Care, Inc. ("BAYADA"), one of the largest home health care providers in the country. The lawsuit alleges that an unauthorized person accessed BAYADA's computer network and copied files containing patients' private medical and personal information, and that BAYADA waited far longer than the law allows before telling anyone. According to the complaint, an unauthorized actor accessed BAYADA's systems and copied data between February 18, 2026 and March 2, 2026. BAYADA discovered the intrusion on March 2, 2026, but did not complete its review of the affected data until July 1, 2026, and did not begin mailing notice letters to affected individuals until on or about July 17, 2026 - 137 days after discovery. The complaint alleges this exceeded the 60-day notification deadline set by HIPAA's Breach Notification Rule, 45 C.F.R. § 164.404(b), by more than ten weeks. The named plaintiff, Maria D. Cappuccino, brings the case as court-appointed guardian of Angelo J. Monaco, an incapacitated person who received home- and community-based services through BAYADA under Pennsylvania's Consolidated Waiver program. Per BAYADA's notice letter, the information involved for Mr. Monaco included his name, admission date, date of birth, diagnosis, diagnosis code, Medicaid identification, medical record number, payor authorization number, procedure type, subscriber member number, treating and referring physician, treatment cost information, and treatment location. Across the broader affected population, the complaint alleges the categories of compromised information include name, date of birth, diagnosis and medical or physical treatment information, provider information, health insurance plan information, prescription information, hospital admission and discharge information, disability information, and Social Security numbers. The complaint further alleges that BAYADA reported to the Texas Attorney General that at least 1,270 individuals were affected, and reported to the Vermont Attorney General that at least 6,097 Vermont residents alone were affected - a figure the complaint contends suggests the nationwide total is far larger, though BAYADA has not disclosed an overall number. The lawsuit alleges that BAYADA's offer of twelve months of single-bureau credit monitoring through Cyberscout, a TransUnion company, is inadequate to address the risks created by the breach, given that stolen medical and Medicaid information cannot be changed or cancelled and creates a lifetime risk of medical identity theft and fraudulent billing that standard credit monitoring is not designed to detect. The class action asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and declaratory judgment on behalf of a nationwide class, as well as a claim under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law on behalf of a Pennsylvania subclass. The case is Cappuccino, as guardian of Angelo J. Monaco v. BAYADA Home Health Care, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-10946, filed August 25, 2026 and pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Contact Instructions * Phone: Adam Savett - (212) 451-9655 * Phone: Chet Waldman - (212) 451-9624 * Phone: Matthew Insley-Pruitt - (212) 451-9621 * Email: [email protected] * Contact Us

BAYADA Home Health Care - data breach investigation (#838). Ahdoot & Wolfson is investigating a possible class action lawsuit against BAYADA Home Health Care, following reports of a large data breach. Recently, there was an alleged cyberattack targeting BAYADA Home Health Care. The alleged breach potentially exposed patient information. The incident has raised concerns about data security and prompted investigations into the impact on affected individuals. * Compromised Data Volume: Pending investigation. * Patient Information: Possibly including names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, medical information, health insurance information, addresses, driver's license numbers, payment information, and other personally identifiable information. * Medical Records: Patient records and related healthcare information. * Operational Documents: Internal business records and communications. * Potential Risks: Increased risk of identity theft, financial fraud, phishing attacks, and other misuse of personal information. If you were a patient of BAYADA Home Health Care, your personal information may have been compromised in this recent data breach. Please complete the form below, and one of its attorneys will contact you promptly to discuss your potential legal rights.