Analyze Twice, Refund Once: Lessons Learned

Last week one of my clients in the southeastern United States got a series of letters from a collection agency following up on a situation that occurred nearly two years ago. Around that time, a company contracted with a state Medicaid agency audited this group and denied some claims because they weren’t signed and others because the professional’s title didn’t appear in the note.

The client engaged me to write a letter to the auditing company. In that letter, I explained that the assertion that a claim should be denied if the chart was unsigned or if the author’s credentials were not included in the note was not based on anything in law.

We never received a reply. Now, nearly two years later, a collection agency wrote a terse letter demanding that my client pay.

The letter was very poorly written. The subject line was incomprehensible because some words were replaced with nonsense ASCII- like characters. The client called me, quite concerned, because of the threatening tone of the letter. As a result, they were prepared to surrender and submit the requested payment.

This really bothered me. The original audit findings were baseless. The claims in this case were handwritten by the same physician, yet the auditor claimed it couldn’t tell who had provided the service. That’s just silly.

The client called me because they were worried paying would be an admission of wrongdoing. I told them that it would be possible to craft a letter in such a fashion that the refund would not constitute such an admission.

However, I didn’t think that was the ideal response.

When someone shakes you down, you need to stand up to them. In this case, that proved remarkably easy. I called the collection agency and told them the story. They indicated that if we had any objection to the debt, they would record the information and notify the state agency and put the collection on hold.

A five-minute phone call solved the problem. There is an important lesson here. Do not be afraid to push back. That principle applies whether someone is attempting to recover an overpayment from you or whether you are considering a refund. Challenge conventional wisdom.

In woodworking, there is a saying: “measure twice, cut once.” We need a similar expression for overpayments and refunds. Perhaps it would be “analyze twice, refund once.” Once you’ve chosen to concede in an overpayment case or voluntarily refund money, it’s very difficult to un-ring the bell. It isn’t impossible; I’ve recovered money clients voluntarily refunded, but it requires considerable effort.

In the last few weeks I’ve talked with several clients who unnecessarily refunded money or surrendered in an overpayment case. Having heard their frustration as they realized they acted rashly, I want to end this article with a plea. Before you cut a check that’s more than a few thousand dollars, please, please, please call creative legal counsel and confirm that you don’t have an easy basis for making a challenge.

A five or 10-minute phone call should cost no more than $100 and can save thousands or even millions of dollars.

Analyze twice: once alone, once with creative counsel. It may allow you to keep your hard-earned money.


David M. Glaser, Esq.

David M. Glaser is a shareholder in Fredrikson & Byron's Health Law Group. David assists clinics, hospitals, and other health care entities negotiate the maze of healthcare regulations, providing advice about risk management, reimbursement, and business planning issues. He has considerable experience in healthcare regulation and litigation, including compliance, criminal and civil fraud investigations, and reimbursement disputes. David's goal is to explain the government's enforcement position, and to analyze whether this position is supported by the law or represents government overreaching. David is a member of the RACmonitor editorial board and is a popular guest on Monitor Mondays.

Related Stories

Leave a Reply

Please log in to your account to comment on this article.

Featured Webcasts

Mastering Good Faith Estimates Under the No Surprises Act: Compliance and Best Practices

Mastering Good Faith Estimates Under the No Surprises Act: Compliance and Best Practices

The No Surprises Act (NSA) presents a challenge for hospitals and providers who must provide Good Faith Estimates (GFEs) for all schedulable services for self-pay and uninsured patients. Compliance is necessary, but few hospitals have been able to fully comply with the requirements despite being a year into the NSA. This webcast provides an overview of the NSA/GFE policy, its impact, and a step-by-step process to adhere to the requirements and avoid non-compliance penalties.

Mastering E&M Guidelines: Empowering Providers for Accurate Service Documentation and Scenario Understanding in 2023

Mastering E&M Guidelines: Empowering Providers for Accurate Service Documentation and Scenario Understanding in 2023

This expert-guided webcast will showcase tips for providers to ensure appropriate capture of the work performed for a visit. Comprehensive examples will be given that demonstrate documentation gaps and how to educate providers on the documentation necessary to appropriately assign a level of service. You will gain clarification on answers regarding emergency department and urgent care coding circumstances as well as a review of how/when it is appropriate to code for E&M in radiology and more.

June 21, 2023
Breaking Down the Proposed IPPS Rule for FY 2024: Top Impacts You Need to Know

Breaking Down the Proposed IPPS Rule for FY 2024: Top Impacts You Need to Know

Set yourself up for financial and compliance success with expert guidance that breaks down the impactful changes including MS-DRG methodology, surgical hierarchy updates, and many new technology add-on payments (NTAPs). Identify areas of potential challenge ahead of time and master solutions for all 2024 Proposed IPPS changes.

May 24, 2023

Trending News