Sometimes it is important to say, “I screwed up.”
For 18 years, Fredrikson’s health law group has done free webinars. The most recent one was about internal and external audits. During it, I mentioned that there was a proposed rule that would change the definition of “identified,” with respect to an overpayment, under the 60-day rule. I said that the rule was proposed, but it’s possible that it would never be finalized.
A couple of listeners immediately challenged me, noting they thought that the revised rule took effect Jan. 1. Perhaps the only thing I can say in my defense is that at least I acknowledged the possibility that I could be wrong, noting that I wasn’t aware of the change, but I’d certainly been wrong before. I have been wrong before – and I was wrong then! The 2025 fee schedule has a provision finalizing the proposed change to the definition of “identification.” The listeners questioning me were correct. One of those listeners was Nina Youngstrom. She did exactly what you should do when you think someone has made a mistake; she sent me the citation supporting her position.
The new definition changes language in 42 CFR § 401.305(a)(2). Historically, an overpayment was “identified” when a person knew, or should have known, through the exercise of due diligence, that they had received an overpayment – and, importantly, quantified the amount. The preamble to the old rule indicated that if you were reasonably prompt in conducting your investigation, you hadn’t violated the rule, suggesting that in most cases, finishing your query within six months was adequate.
The new language removes the language about quantification and uses the knowledge requirement found in the False Claims Act. Under this new regulation, as soon as you know about the facts or circumstances giving rise to a potential overpayment, the 60-day rule is triggered, but the regulation says the deadline for reporting and returning the overpayment is delayed until the earlier of “the date that the investigation of related overpayments has concluded and the aggregate amount of the initially identified overpayments and related overpayments is calculated” – or “the date that is 180 days after the date on which the initial identified overpayment was identified.”
Under the change, you still get 180 days to figure out, if you have an overpayment. While that is good, it is definitely shorter than the timeframe that previously existed. Historically, that six-month window was not hard-and-fast. Presumably, if there were good reason for your calculation to take longer, you could use it. In addition, under the old rule, after you determined the amount, you had an additional 60 days to send in the money. Under the new rule, the check appears to be due literally the day you calculate the amount of the overpayment. Considering how long it can take the government to cut a check, that seems quite unreasonable.
While part of this article is making sure people know about the rule, another part is noting that I am fallible. You can, and should, question everything I say. The final point I will share is, if I could find a way, I’d take back those words that…I said.
EDITOR’S NOTE: This article was originally published Monday, Dec. 8 by RACmonitor as a special bulletin. Many people are still seething mad about Aetna’s devious
On Nov. 21, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that Dr. Ameet Vohra and his company, Vohra Wound Physicians Management, one of the nation’s
Please log in to your account to comment on this article.
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.
Only ICD10monitor delivers what you need: updates on must-know changes associated with the FY26 IPPS, including new ICD-10-CM/PCS codes, CCs/MCCs, and MS-DRGs, plus insights, analysis and answers to your questions from two of the country’s most respected subject matter experts.
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.
During this essential RACmonitor webcast Michael Calahan, PA, MBA Certified Compliance Officer, will clarify the rules, dispel common misconceptions, and equip you with practical strategies to code, document, and bill high-risk split/shared, incident-to & critical care E/M services with confidence. Don’t let audit risks or revenue losses catch your organization off guard — learn exactly what federal auditors are looking for and how to ensure your documentation and reporting stand up to scrutiny.
Learn how to navigate the proposed elimination of the Inpatient-Only list. Gain strategies to assess admission status, avoid denials, protect compliance, and address impacts across Medicare and non-Medicare payors. Essential insights for hospitals.
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
