Lack of auditor response leads to an ALJ hearing.
“A stitch in time saves nine” is a pretty famous heuristic expression, but most people I know do not have any idea what it means. Simply stated, it means that taking the time to do something correctly now will save time that otherwise would be spent fixing up the mess later.
And that is exactly the issue I am addressing here. If the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) would take the time to address the failures and flaws of the appeals process in the front end, they could same themselves (and providers) the expense of cleaning up the mess in the back end.
Bear Grylls, former Special Air Service (SAS) member and lifetime adventurer, once said that “the rules of survival never change, whether you’re in a desert or in an arena.” I would opine that this is also true for healthcare providers. I know I have said this before, but it can tend to feel like we are at war with CMS. From the proposed evaluation and management (E&M) changes, which appear punitive in nature, to the updates in Chapter 8 of the Program Integrity Manual, which disregards basic standards of statistical practice, to the total lack of due process when it comes to CMS audits, the only conclusion I can reach is that the government dislikes healthcare providers. The “why” for this conclusion may seem illusory, but in my opinion, it has to do with money. Healthcare costs a lot in this country, and the government feels under significant pressure to reduce those costs any way they can. So rather than engage in intelligent and intellectual discussions regarding policy, it’s simply easier to demonize those to whom the payments go. And that is our healthcare providers.
Over the past many years, I have worked on, been the statistical expert for, or testified in hundreds of post-audit extrapolation cases. This is not because I’m so popular, but because there are so many of these extrapolation audits going on. And while I am not opposed to the use of extrapolation, like most other statisticians, I know that extrapolation must be based upon a statistically valid and representative sample. If it’s not, not only does it expand upon the findings of an overpayment, but it significantly exaggerates errors that often are the result of flaws in the extrapolation and sampling methodologies. In those cases, extrapolation is simply unacceptable.
One might think that we are fortunate that the government allows us five levels of appeal. My initial thought is that if the appeal process were fair and reasonable, we wouldn’t need five levels. The first two, which consist of reconsideration and redetermination, are completely worthless. In fact, barely any favorable findings occur at those first two levels. They are, in essence, nothing more than a rubber stamp for the auditor’s findings.
Most recently, I have been getting form-letter responses back from the Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) and the Qualified Independent Contractors (QICs) with respect to Unified Program Integrity Contractor (UPIC) audits. In general, this is a seven-page document that does nothing more than echo Section 8.4.2 of the Program Integrity Manual. It ends with a few pages that contain a mathematical formula and a repeat of the initial findings. Yet I have rarely seen any specific response to the challenges I have submitted on behalf of the client. For example, I might object to the way that the sample was created, or maybe the sample size. Or there may be objections regarding the way the stratification was developed or even that there wasn’t stratification when there should have been. In many cases, I might object to the methodologies used to determine the extrapolation. My reports are often long, very detailed, and contain supporting citations, graphs, charts, and tables. Yet the response is a form letter. And again, there is nothing specific regarding the objections that were raised. What does this mean? Well, that’s pretty simple. This means they don’t read the report. And I’ve always suspected that this was the case. But at the first two levels, they could care less about any objections to statistical processes or extrapolation. In fact, often, filing an objection to the statistical process of extrapolation and sampling at the first two levels of appeal is nothing more than an expensive formality for the provider.
But how would I know that this is really the case? Maybe they do read my reports and they just simply have the same exact answer every single time. Maybe my reports are exactly the same every time, in which case the form letter would be appropriate. But that’s just not the case. Proof of this, however, came to light quite recently. I was engaged with a physician provider that was subject to an extrapolation audit. The reconsideration appeal was handled by SafeguardServices LLC, the Northeast UPIC contractor. In this case, in stark violation of several sections of Chapter 8 of the Program Integrity Manual, the original auditor failed to provide the requisite data. They did not provide any documentation supporting the sample selection methodology. They did not provide data files that contained the universe or sample frame. In fact, contrary to Chapter 8, they failed to provide information necessary to both replicate and validate their audit findings, specifically the sampling and extrapolation methodology.
So in this case, rather than filing an objection to the sampling and extrapolation statistical methods, which I could not do because I did not have the information necessary to conduct an appropriate analysis, we simply filed a report that identified the fact that the auditor failed to provide the requisite information. Does anybody want to guess what SafeguardServices LLC sent back to the provider? It was the same form letter that they send when an objection to the statistical processes is filed. Nowhere within any of the documents submitted as part of the appeal response did they address the fact that the auditor failed to provide the requisite information. They just sent back that same form letter, in which they opined that the auditor conducted the audit appropriately. You would think that they would at least have a different form letter for that.
I hope you can see that the only conclusion I could draw from this is that they do not read the reports that are submitted to them as part of the appeal process. If they did, why wouldn’t they address the fact that we did not receive what we were supposed to receive from the auditor? Don’t you think that somewhere in their response they would have either agreed with us or they would’ve contested it? But they did neither. They simply sent a form letter saying that they believed that the audit was conducted appropriately. So, how would they know that? Well, either they had access to the data, which means that the information was available and wasn’t provided to us, or they didn’t have access to the data, which means that they responded that it was done appropriately without having any evidence to back it up. Either way, it is wrong on all levels.
We are currently in a crisis of due process when it comes to appealing government audits. As it stands, it takes close to three years to get an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hearing when the guidelines say that a provider should be able to get a hearing within 90 days. In fact, I just testified as a statistical expert at an ALJ hearing for an analysis I performed in 2015. While the government is running around like a chicken with its head cut off trying to find ways to catch up on the backlog of hearing requests, they’re doing nothing to address the problem on the front end.
While throwing more money at the problem and adding more judges will certainly help to clear up that backlog, it does nothing to stem the flow from the source. If we don’t address the lack of integrity and honesty involved in the first two levels of appeal, providers are going to continue to request ALJ hearings at a growing rate because they feel it is the only place where they may get a fair shake. Why should we even waste our time at the first two levels of appeal if there is not going to be an honest review of the provider’s objections? Maybe the reason is to discourage the provider from entering the appeal process at all. Knowing that it could take up to three years and tens of thousands of dollars in expenses to get your case heard, the provider often just gives up.
Back to Bear Grylls: while we are not in the desert or an arena, the rules of survival remain the same. We are in the fight of our lives, and the complete lack of due process or fairness not only challenges a provider’s ability to do its job, it challenges the future quality of healthcare. Maybe one of the problems is that CMS confuses motion for progress. I bought my wife a little plaque one day as a funny gift. It read, “if you want to be proud of me every day, lower your expectations.” And I guess that is what it has come to for me. In order for me to continue to work in this industry, particularly as a physician advocate, I have learned to lower my expectations. How sad.
My opinion can be summed up in this simple quote from American author Charles Bukowski: “the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy, you vote first and take orders later; in a dictatorship, you don’t have to waste your time voting.”
And that’s the world according to Frank.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has recently made a declaration to cease the public comment period for their proposed regulations. By
As you may recall, last week I critiqued a webinar on the two midnight rule. As you will recall it was not pretty. Today I
Please log in to your account to comment on this article.
Physician queries are essential for accurate documentation and claims data, but they are increasingly scrutinized by payors, leading to denials and revenue leakage. This webcast, led by industry expert Cheryl Ericson, RN, MS, CCDS, CDIP, provides actionable strategies to craft compliant queries, reduce denials, and enhance revenue integrity. Attendees will gain insights into clinical validation queries, how to avoid common pitfalls, and learn best practices to defend against query denials. Don’t miss this opportunity to refine your query process and protect your organization’s financial health.
Master the complexities of heart failure coding with this expert-led webcast by Emily Montemayor, CCS, CMBCS, COC, CPC, CPMA. Discover strategies to ensure compliance with ICD-10-CM guidelines, documentation integrity, and capture comorbidities like CKD and hypertension. Learn how to resolve coding challenges, improve documentation practices, and submit clean claims to minimize denials and safeguard your organization’s financial health. With practical insights and real-world examples, this session equips you to prevent revenue leakage, enhance compliance, and secure optimal reimbursement—all while supporting better patient outcomes.
Prepare your organization for the 2025 OPPS updates with expert insights from Tiffani Bouchard, CCS, CRCR, a Revenue Integrity Professional with over 30 years of experience. This webcast will address critical challenges in charge capture and coding, providing clarity on APC policies, C-APC packaging, exclusions, and payer-specific requirements. Attendees will learn actionable strategies to ensure compliance, optimize reimbursement, and mitigate risks of claim denials. Gain the knowledge needed to implement updates effectively, educate your team, and maintain seamless revenue cycle operations in the face of evolving OPPS complexities.
Join Beth Wolf, MD, CPC, CCDS, for an in-depth webcast on the FY2025 spinal fusion MS-DRG updates. Discover key changes in DRG classification, understand impacts on documentation and CMI, and learn strategies to ensure compliance.
Dr. Ronald Hirsch dives into the basics of Medicare for clinicians to be successful as utilization review professionals. He’ll break down what Medicare does and doesn’t pay for, what services it provides and how hospitals get paid for providing those services – including both inpatient and outpatient. Learn how claims are prepared and how much patients must pay for their care. By attending our webcast, you will gain a new understanding of these issues and be better equipped to talk to patients, to their medical staff, and to their administrative team.
Hospitals face growing challenges in measuring observation metrics due to inconsistencies in classification, payer policies, and benchmarking practices. Join Tiffany Ferguson, LMSW, CMAC, ACM, and Anuja Mohla, DO, FACP, MBA, ACPA-C, CHCQM-PHYADV as they provide critical insights into refining observation metrics. This webcast will address key issues affecting observation data integrity and offer strategies for improving consistency in reporting. You will learn how to define meaningful metrics, clarify commonly misinterpreted terms, and apply best practices for benchmarking, and gain actionable strategies to enhance observation data reliability, mitigate financial risk, and drive better decision-making.
The 2025 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule brings significant changes to payment rates, coverage, and coding for physician services, impacting practices nationwide. Join Stanley Nachimson, MS., as he provides a comprehensive guide to understanding these updates, offering actionable insights on new Medicare-covered services, revised coding rules, and payment policies effective January 1. Learn how to adapt your practices to maintain compliance, maximize reimbursement, and plan for revenue in 2025. Whether you’re a physician, coder, or financial staff member, this session equips you with the tools to navigate Medicare’s evolving requirements confidently and efficiently.
Dr. Ronald Hirsch provides critical details on the new Medicare Appeal Process for Status Changes for patients whose status changes during their hospital stay. He also delves into other scenarios of hospital patients receiving custodial care or medically unnecessary services where patient notifications may be needed along with the processes necessary to ensure compliance with state and federal guidance.
Copyright © 2025 RACmonitor. Powered by MedLearn Media.
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
