CMS Announces New Appeal Rights – Process Still to Be Determined

Appeal rights appear much narrower than many expected.

Earlier this year, a federal appeals court issued an opinion on Barrows v. Becerra, a long-running class action lawsuit. Filed by a group of Medicare beneficiaries, the suit alleged they had to pay out of pocket for skilled nursing care—despite being hospitalized for over three days—because their stay was outpatient and did not meet the statutory requirement that part A skilled nursing benefits are only available to patients who have an inpatient admission of at least three days. The court in that opinion required that the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services develop an appeal process for such patients. It was unclear how this process would work, and which patients would be given appeal rights.

Without fanfare, and first noted by the Center for Medicare Advocacy, CMS has released some details on the claims & appeals page, and the details provided seem to raise more questions than provide answers. First, CMS notes that the process for patients to file an appeal has not yet been developed. Affected patients, if they find this page on, will at least be able to know if they are eligible for an appeal.

But interestingly, and unexpectedly, this appeal will not be a concurrent process—as with the current Medicare inpatient discharge appeal process—but will be retrospective. Many thought that this process would be available to patients who are hospitalized and are told that their status is being is being changed from inpatient to outpatient via the condition code 44 process. This information will come as a relief to many, as the prospect of patients remaining hospitalized while their appeal is being adjudicated would exacerbate an already worsening capacity problem.

To be eligible for this appeal, a patient must have not only had their status changed from inpatient to outpatient (via the condition code 44 process, the only way to compliantly change a traditional Medicare beneficiary to outpatient), but they must also have received observation services after the status change, and in addition had either (1) a three or more day hospital stay and then transferred to a skilled nursing facility or (2) not have Medicare part B coverage for their hospital stay.

As this will be a retrospective process, involvement of the utilization review team in the appeal process will be limited, except perhaps to review such cases to ensure that the condition code 44 change was appropriate and compliantly executed including the required written notice being furnished to the patient. Currently, there are no specific requirements for that notice, but this process may lead CMS to develop a standard form to be provided to patients whose status is changed, to inform them of appeal rights should their outpatient stay extend for at least three days.

Since the appeal process will determine if the patient was properly changed from inpatient to outpatient, there are financial considerations. If the appeal determination is that the patient should have remained inpatient, and therefore should have had access to part A skilled nursing facility (SNF) benefits, CMS will need to establish a process to ensure the SNF refunds any payment received from the patient and pay the SNF the appropriate part A rate. Since some of these cases date back to 2009, it will be interesting to see how CMS calculates the appropriate SNF payment. The question of interest payments on those funds may also come into play but would require speculation. In addition, the hospital may need to refund any part B payments made by the patient and since the determination is that the patient should have remained inpatient, the hospital may be entitled to receiving a DRG payment for that stay, instead of the outpatient payment it received. That calculation will also be complex.

In summary, this appeal right seems to be much narrower than many expected for patients going forward. The affected patients are most likely going to be those who were hospitalized prior to the Two-Midnight rule, when long observation stays were sadly the norm, and patients were faced with paying for their SNF care out of pocket. The patient’s need for at least a three day stay after their status change with the receipt of necessary observation services should never happen today.

We will know more as details emerge.


Ronald Hirsch, MD, FACP, CHCQM, CHRI

Ronald Hirsch, MD, is vice president of the Regulations and Education Group at R1 Physician Advisory Services. Dr. Hirsch’s career in medicine includes many clinical leadership roles at healthcare organizations ranging from acute-care hospitals and home health agencies to long-term care facilities and group medical practices. In addition to serving as a medical director of case management and medical necessity reviewer throughout his career, Dr. Hirsch has delivered numerous peer lectures on case management best practices and is a published author on the topic. He is a member of the Advisory Board of the American College of Physician Advisors, a member of the American Case Management Association, and a Fellow of the American College of Physicians. Dr. Hirsch is a member of the RACmonitor editorial board and is regular panelist on Monitor Mondays. The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views, policies, or opinions of R1 RCM, Inc. or R1 Physician Advisory Services (R1 PAS).

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