Grandma used to say beware the man who doesn’t stop talking: He often has nothing to say.

Benevolent as I typically am to all points of view, I could hear Grandma’s warning in my head when I read a press release that came across my screen last week.

I wanted to play sportscaster Keith Jackson and yell, “Whoa, Nellie!” about this poorly executed forensic speech and debate exercise.

The object of my bewilderment? A no-doubt well-intentioned joint press release from LTCCC and the Center for Medicare Advocacy, a pair of consumer-advocacy groups whose next positive statement about skilled nursing providers would be their first.

Their push is to create medical-loss ratio rules for nursing homes. In other words, leveraging providers to prove that “x” amount of public funding is going toward direct resident care, or other designated uses. Such a program might eventually prove to have merit, but until the case-building against skilled providers gains more credence, it’s going to be an uphill battle, folks.

The lead argument is that nursing homes have experienced double-digit Medicare profits for the last 17 years, per MedPAC calculations. We at McKnight’s write about these MedPAC pronouncements every year, noting that the “M” in MedPAC pertains only to Medicare. The problem is Medicare funds only a fraction of nursing home care, while Medicaid does most of the rest.

The March 2018 MedPAC report refers to a 11.4% profit margin. That, however, is for fee-for-service Medicare only. That represents just 11% of total facility days and 20% of facility revenue.

In other words, 89% of days and 80% of revenue come from other payers, mostly Medicaid, which sport a negative-2.3% margin. Combined, the Medicare and non-Medicare margin for providers is 0.7%.

That’s a far cry from double-digit profits so many critics cite.

The tortured logic and statistic abuse gets worse. Still in the first paragraph of the joint consumer groups’ letter, they say that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services “finalized a new payment system that provides for $820 million in increased payments to nursing homes and two billion dollars in savings over the next ten years. For-profit operators will also receive an additional windfall as a result of recent reductions in federal taxes on business.”

Statements like this leave a person breathless — like a sprinter gasping for air in the back of the hog barn at the state fair.

First, the new payment system is not responsible for the $820 million increase. The pay raise is mandated by law and represents a 2.4% market basket update. Last year, the raise was just 1%, which also was specified by law.

Second, the alleged $2 billion in savings is just a projection, which many providers doubt. Furthermore, “savings” in this context does not mean anything special for providers. It simply refers to funding that is taken out of the overall stream.

Then — we’re still in the first paragraph, mind you — there’s another lollapalooza. The advocates claim providers will reap a huge windfall from the Trump Administration’s new tax scheme. The only problem is, as we were reminded last week, providers struck out and are NOT going to enjoy any extra tax cuts.

And so it goes.

It’s reasoning like the above that makes it tough to take anything that follows too seriously. It doesn’t help the consumer advocates’ case and it surely doesn’t help nursing homes’ image to be overzealously tarred this way.

In this case, the consumer advocates are rallying to get a medical loss ratio into play for government funding. Insurance companies are bound by such restrictions, they point out. (Not that insurance sellers  still haven’t abused the system …)

The letter-writers go on to claim that the nation’s largest nursing home association is in favor of these ratios. That compelled me to check in with the American Health Care Association, which essentially was accused of proving a common foe’s point.

One of the smartest guys around when it comes to payment issues was having little of it.

“For decades, states and the federal government have struggled with Medical Loss Ratio definitions,” Mike Cheek, AHCA’s senior vice president for reimbursement policy, told me by email. “Both levels of government have been unsuccessful. Implementing an unproven policy at a time when nursing facilities are struggling, buildings closing, companies declaring bankruptcies and the sector is preparing for the coming gray tsunami would be irresponsible.”

Irresponsible. Now there’s a fitting word for this entire scenario.

Follow Editor James M. Berklan @JimBerklan.