Ok, I will admit that I am a glass-half-empty guy.
I would love to always see the positives in things, but someone has to be pessimistic and find the risks and dangers. And as a result, a lot of my segments and articles are criticisms. Of course, I consider all of my complaints as fully justified, but I am a bit biased.
And as you all know, much of my attention is often directed at insurance companies. I recently heard of one health system that was being paid rates significantly lower than Medicare rates from one payer for all their contracts – and despite that feeble payment rate, they also had over 25 percent of their claims denied. The system gave notice that they were going to go out of network, and the payer undertook a public relations blitz in the community about the greedy health system demanding a huge raise in rates – without ever mentioning the current payment rates or the denials.
I suspect that every one of you faces similar issues, perhaps less severe, from many payers with ambiguous ever-changing rules and constant battles to get paid for the care you provide.
But while the utilization review (UR), clinical documentation integrity, appeals, and revenue integrity teams are fighting the payer day in and day out to get paid, and are facing pressure from the C-suite to reduce denials, reduce observation stays, and increase the case mix index, in many health systems, the hospital’s population health teams are partnering with those same payers to develop value-based payment programs. These programs have many structures, but in most of them, the health system shares in savings when the overall cost of care is reduced. Imagine that – a common goal.
Now, I understand that there are many new models of care being developed, and perhaps the C-suite has to hedge their bets so they are not left behind, but it seems important to be transparent with the staff about that overall strategy. Telling the UR team to fight a payer more aggressively to get more inpatient admissions approved and get more denials overturned at the same time that the hospital’s value-based team is working hand in hand as partners with that same payer to maximize savings may be necessary in the current healthcare environment, but this does not seem to be an effective way to improve the morale of those handling the admission and clinical validation and readmission denials (and fighting the payer, day in and day out).
It reminds me of the times when, at my hospital, we had patients who were stuck in the hospital without medical necessity. When I suggested transferring them to our hospital-owned nursing facility, I was rebuffed, because the patient had no payment source and it would adversely affect the facility’s financial statement. So instead of costing the hospital $500 a day at the nursing home, it was costing the hospital $1,500 a day keeping them in an inpatient bed. I am not an MBA, but I know that spending $1,500 a day is more costly than $500 a day.
So, does anyone ever look at the big picture? If the value-based arrangements are great and bring in tons of cash, let the UR and other staff stop aging prematurely from their brutal and frustrating fights with that same payer. Retailers all use the loss leader method of attracting customers: advertising a few items at a price below cost to get the customers in the door who will then buy other merchandise as well. Maybe health systems should start considering hospitalized patients as their loss leaders, giving away care to attract more value-based lives and money.
NOTE: The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views, policies, or opinions of R1 RCM, Inc., R1 Physician Advisory Services (R1 PAS), or MedLearn Media.
It is a bummer when you get hoisted on the petard of intellectual inconsistency. Whether it is different medical professionals with different approaches to a
In a recent article, I described a documentation environment governed by two distinct and often competing controlling systems. The first is the regulatory framework established
Please log in to your account to comment on this article.
Sepsis sequencing continues to challenge even experienced coding and CDI professionals, with evolving guidelines, documentation gaps, and payer scrutiny driving denials and data inconsistencies. In this webcast, Payal Sinha, MBA, RHIA, CCDS, CDIP, CCS, CCS-P, CCDS-O, CRC, CRCR, provides clear guideline-based strategies to accurately code sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock, assign POA indicators, clarify the relationship between infection and organ dysfunction, and align documentation across teams. Attendees will gain practical tools to strengthen audit defensibility, improve first-pass accuracy, support appeal success, reduce denials, and ensure accurate quality reporting, empowering organizations to achieve consistent, compliant sepsis coding outcomes.
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.
In this timely session, Stacey Shillito, CDIP, CPMA, CCS, CCS-P, CPEDC, COPC, breaks down the complexities of Medical Decision Making (MDM) documentation so providers can confidently capture the true complexity of their care. Attendees will learn practical, efficient strategies to ensure documentation aligns with current E/M guidelines, supports accurate coding, and reduces audit risk, all without adding to charting time.
Join Ronald Hirsch, MD, FACP, CHCQM for The PEPPER Returns – Risk and Opportunity at Your Fingertips, a practical webcast that demystifies the PEPPER and shows you how to turn complex claims data into actionable insights. Dr. Hirsch will explain how to interpret key measures, identify compliance risks, uncover missed revenue opportunities, and understand new updates in the PEPPER, all to help your organization stay ahead of audits and use this powerful data proactively.
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.
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
