If overpayments are found, then the extrapolation recoupment number will go up; if underpayments are found, the extrapolation will go down.
EDITOR’S NOTE: This is Part I in a RACmonitor exclusive three-part series that exposes how some auditors can skew the universe of claims to their advantage by hiding zero-paid claims.
When claims are submitted for payment, some are paid, while some are not. Those claims submitted but not paid are known as “zero-paid claims.” Often, in a computer record of a provider, a zero-paid claim will have all of the customary information, such as patient name, identification number, the doctor’s name, the procedure billing code, the dates of service, and the value of the procedure. But instead of showing a payment received, the record will show a zero. The healthcare provider was paid nothing. Why is that? That’s not in the record.
When the statistical part of an audit takes place, the contractors have long ago fallen into the habit of screening out all of these zero-paid claims up front. They do this when they pull the claims from the master database of all claims submitted. This step in the statistical methodology is hidden from the provider, and only obliquely referred to.
With these extracted claims, the auditor creates what it usually refers to as a “universe” file. These are the claims that will be the subject of the audit. But note, this list of claims is not the true universe. Instead, it is an extract of the actual universe, but with the zero-paid claims excluded. They are hidden from sight.
After this pseudo-universe file is created, the auditor then pretends this is when the statistical process begins. It proceeds to take the sample and analyze the claims.
The auditor starts to look for overpayments. These are claims that were paid, but should not have been. Each claim in the sample is subjected to the strictest possible interpretation of the rules. Here, the auditor has one single objective: finding something wrong with a claim so it can be rejected. Even the most minor of matters will be blown up into a full rejection of the claim. A simple typo can lead to tens of thousands of dollars in penalties. In 90 percent or more of the audits, claim rejections have nothing whatsoever to do with fraud. This is how the auditor will then come up with an outrageous extrapolation number.
Yet in Section 8.4.4.4. of the Medicare Program Integrity Manual, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) standard calls for identification of all underpayments – not only overpayments, but also underpayments. And in Section 8.4.5.2, it calls for the auditor to record underpayments as negative overpayments when performing the extrapolation.
What this means is that the Program Integrity Manual demands that the auditor look not only for overpayments, but also carefully look for any underpayments.
If overpayments are found, then the extrapolation recoupment number will go up; if underpayments are found, the extrapolation will go down.
But if the auditor is looking only for overpayments, then it means the extrapolation number can only go up – and against the provider. The recoupment demand can only grow larger, and the provider never will receive credit for claims that should have been paid, but were not. It is a one-way street, always going uphill against the provider, never downhill.
Where are those claims that should have been paid? What we find is that they are not there. They are hidden away, missing in action. When all zero-paid claims are screened out at the beginning of the audit, it forgoes the provider ever getting credit for a claim not paid that should have been. These claims are never even considered by the army of coders and evaluators. They are not even listed in the universe file.
A more accurate name for this so-called “universe” file provided by the auditor is “the file where all claims that might give you credit have been screened out.”
If the auditor was fair, then all submitted claims would be in the “universe” file from which the sample is taken. That is often not what happens.
This practice of hiding the zero-paid claims has gone on for years, and it needs to stop.
Programming Note: Listen to the live reporting of Edward M. Roche this coming Monday on Monitor Mondays, 10 Eastern.
We’ve trained ourselves to audit documentation, audit codes, audit teams – but now we need to ensure we have added something else to the list:
The Unified Program Integrity Contractors (UPICs) were developed to ensure the integrity of Medicare and Medicaid by identifying and recovering improper payments. Established to streamline
Please log in to your account to comment on this article.
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.
This third session in our 2026 IPPS Masterclass will feature a review of FY26 changes to the MS-DRG methodology and new technology add-on payments (NTAPs), presented by nationally recognized ICD-10 coding expert Christine Geiger, MA, RHIA, CCS, CRC, with bonus insights and analysis from Dr. James Kennedy.
This second session in our 2026 IPPS Masterclass will feature a review the FY26 changes to ICD-10-PCS codes. This information will be presented by nationally recognized ICD-10 coding expert Christine Geiger, MA, RHIA, CCS, CRC, with bonus insights and analysis from Dr. James Kennedy.
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.
RACmonitor is proud to welcome back Dr. Ronald Hirsch, one of his most requested webcasts. In this highly anticipated session, Dr. Hirsch will break down the complex Two Midnight Rule Medicare regulations, translating them into clear, actionable guidance. He’ll walk you through the basics of the rule, offer expert interpretation, and apply the rule to real-world clinical scenarios—so you leave with greater clarity, confidence, and the tools to ensure compliance.
Bring your questions and join the conversation during this open forum series, live every Wednesday at 10 a.m. EST from June 11–July 30. Hosted by Chuck Buck, these fast-paced 30-minute sessions connect you directly with top healthcare experts tackling today’s most urgent compliance and policy issues.
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. 2 with code CYBER24
