Is there an arms race involving using technology for submitting claims and auditing them? In one example, an electronic health record system was deployed that would increase reimbursements. It would do this by inserting into patient charts default templates that allowed physicians and others to copy in information from patient records – assuming, of course, that the information was more or less the same.
This would save a great deal of time, particularly for specialists who routinely handle the same type of case day after day.
Research found that this significantly increased the amount of reimbursements that the healthcare provider was able to obtain.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), however, soon got hold of the news and then modified their recovery audit program so that it would use information systems to identify any default templates or any copy-and-paste of data, or any cloned records. In this way, more than $1 billion in Medicare reimbursements were recovered.
It is difficult to know whether the claims themselves were faulty, or whether the demand for reimbursement was simply based on the fact that some data was replicated or cloned, even though that data itself was accurate for the patient.
The problem here, of course, is that even cloned data can be perfectly accurate, particularly if the patient has more or less identical problems to another patient.[1]
Of course, it is too early to say, but this case appears to indicate a double standard emerging in the use of machine, learning and artificial intelligence. That lesson is that if the technology is used for the benefit of the provider in a way that may increase the amount of reimbursement they are able to obtain, then it is assumed to be invalid.
On the other hand, if the machine learning and artificial intelligence is used to audit or crack down on the healthcare provider and take away their revenue, then it is presumed to be valid. In general, there is no way to correct such an implicit bias in the overall auditing framework.
There is certainly an arms race in competing technologies. One army is operated by the healthcare providers. The other army is operated by the auditors. These two armies are competing against each other, and are constantly employing the most advanced technologies in order to optimize their positions.
For the healthcare providers, the goal is to make sure that they are equitably paid for all of the services they are providing. For the payers, which is usually the government or insurance companies, the desire is to make sure that the amount they pay is a small as possible, and that absolutely nothing considered fraud or waste or abuse is paid for.
Each innovation of one side produces another innovation on the other. Like what we may have observed in the arms race in strategic thermonuclear weapons, we can expect that eventually, it will be necessary to have a type of arms control treaty.
What would this look like? In the case of Medicare fraud, the only possible solution is that no claim that is false can be accepted and paid for.
The only way to have an outcome such as this is for all of the research and development (R&D) to be put into developing real-time screening systems that operate simultaneously, as the claim is being entered. If extra information is needed, the provider will be told immediately and given the chance to supplement the information. If the information is not clear enough, the same will happen. The system might “hold” the claims for a minimum period, such as 45 days, giving time for the provider to enter the required supplemental information. Over time, the number of improper claims will go down and be practically zero.
And in this way, use of artificial intelligence and machine learning can be used to eliminate the auditing profession altogether. That is, however, something that may be far in the future.
Artificial intelligence in Medicare auditing for healthcare claims is a common thing. It is part of a technology war between providers and auditors in order to increase or decrease revenues, depending on which side one is on. Regardless of the warning signs, the investment in this area continues to accelerate, without any intervention or regulation.
In an industry so concerned with standards and details criteria for decisions, it is astonishing that there are no standards for the quality of AI and no way of verifying whether the software is good or horrible.
The healthcare provider is left in a position of having to present legal arguments against something not understandable, and against decisions for which there is no record of how they are made.
[1] Ganju, Kartik K., Hilal Atasoy, and Paul A. Pavlou. “Do electronic health record systems increase medicare reimbursements? The moderating effect of the recovery audit program.” Management Science 68, no. 4 (2022): 2889-2913. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1287/mnsc.2021.4002
You are probably aware that many Medicare Advantage (MA) plans are claiming that due to new rules issued by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Directly contradicting another person can carry the potential to feel antagonistic or rude. But in the realm of compliance, it’s also often necessary. Rules are
Please log in to your account to comment on this article.
Expert presenters Kathy Pride, RHIT, CPC, CCS-P, CPMA, and Brandi Russell, RHIA, CCS, COC, CPMA, break down complex fracture care coding rules, walk through correct modifier application (-25, -57, 54, 55), and clarify sequencing for initial and subsequent encounters. Attendees will gain the practical knowledge needed to submit clean claims, ensure compliance, and stay one step ahead of payer audits in 2026.
Accurately determining the principal diagnosis is critical for compliant billing, appropriate reimbursement, and valid quality reporting — yet it remains one of the most subjective and error-prone areas in inpatient coding. In this expert-led session, Cheryl Ericson, RN, MS, CCDS, CDIP, demystifies the complexities of principal diagnosis assignment, bridging the gap between coding rules and clinical reality. Learn how to strengthen your organization’s coding accuracy, reduce denials, and ensure your documentation supports true medical necessity.
Denials continue to delay reimbursement, increase administrative burden, and threaten financial stability across healthcare organizations. This essential webcast tackles the root causes—rising payer scrutiny, fragmented workflows, inconsistent documentation, and underused analytics—and offers proven, data-driven strategies to prevent and overturn denials. Attendees will gain practical tools to strengthen documentation and coding accuracy, engage clinicians effectively, and leverage predictive analytics and AI to identify risks before they impact revenue. Through real-world case examples and actionable guidance, this session empowers coding, CDI, and revenue cycle professionals to shift from reactive appeals to proactive denial prevention and revenue protection.
Sepsis remains one of the most frequently denied and contested diagnoses, creating costly revenue loss and compliance risks. In this webcast, Angela Comfort, DBA, MBA, RHIA, CDIP, CCS, CCS-P, provides practical, real-world strategies to align documentation with coding guidelines, reconcile Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 definitions, and apply compliant queries. You’ll learn how to identify and address documentation gaps, strengthen provider engagement, and defend diagnoses against payer scrutiny—equipping you to protect reimbursement, improve SOI/ROM capture, and reduce audit vulnerability in this high-risk area.
Stay ahead of the 2026-2027 audit surge with “Top 10 Audit Targets for 2026-2027 for Hospitals & Physicians: Protect Your Revenue,” a high-impact webcast led by Michael Calahan, PA, MBA. This concise session gives hospitals and physicians clear insight into the most likely federal audit targets, such as E/M services, split/shared and critical care, observation and admissions, device credits, and Two-Midnight Rule changes, and shows how to tighten documentation, coding, and internal processes to reduce denials, recoupments, and penalties. Attendees walk away with practical best practices to protect revenue, strengthen compliance, and better prepare their teams for inevitable audits.
As AI reshapes healthcare compliance, the risk of biased outputs and opaque decision-making grows. This webcast, led by Frank Cohen, delivers a practical Four-Pillar Governance Framework—Transparency, Accountability, Fairness, and Explainability—to help you govern AI-driven claim auditing with confidence. Learn how to identify and mitigate bias, implement robust human oversight, and document defensible AI review processes that regulators and auditors will accept. Discover concrete remedies, from rotation protocols to uncertainty scoring, and actionable steps to evaluate vendors before contracts are signed. In a regulatory landscape that moves faster than ever, gain the tools to stay compliant, defend your processes, and reduce liability while maintaining operational effectiveness.
Get clear, practical answers to Medicare’s most confusing regulations. Join Dr. Ronald Hirsch as he breaks down real-world compliance challenges and shares guidance your team can apply right away.
Federal auditors are zeroing in on Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility (IRF) and hospital rehab unit services, with OIG and CERT audits leading to millions in penalties—often due to documentation and administrative errors, not quality of care. Join compliance expert Michael Calahan, PA, MBA, to learn the five clinical “pillars” of IRF-PPS admissions, key documentation requirements, and real-life case lessons to help protect your revenue.
Happy National Doctor’s Day! Learn how to get a complimentary webcast on ‘Decoding Social Admissions’ as a token of our heartfelt appreciation! Click here to learn more →
CYBER WEEK IS HERE! Don’t miss your chance to get 20% off now until Dec. 1 with code CYBER25
CYBER WEEK IS HERE! Don’t miss your chance to get 20% off now until Dec. 2 with code CYBER24
