CMS Announces New Settlement Options for Medicare Appellants

A low volume appeals settlement and an expanded Settlement Conference Facilitation process are two initiatives to improve the Medicare claims appeal process.

On Friday, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals (OMHA) announced two new settlement options for Medicare providers and suppliers: a low-volume appeals settlement (LVA) and an expanded Settlement Conference Facilitation (SCF) process.

CMS and OMHA indicated that these initiatives are “part of the broader Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) commitment to improving the Medicare claims appeals process.”

The LVA settlement provides eligible appellants an opportunity to settle eligible appeals at 62 percent of the net allowed amount, and it is available to appellants with a low volume of appeals pending at OMHA and the Medicare Appeals Council. CMS defines “low volume” as fewer than 500 Medicare Part A or Part B claim appeals pending at OMHA and the Council, combined, as of Nov. 3, 2017. To be eligible, the billed value of each appeal must be $9,000 or less. CMS notes on its website that “certain other conditions” will need to be met for appeals to be eligible, but does not describe these conditions. Instead, CMS instructs interested appellants to continue to monitor its website for specific details in the coming weeks.

While no further details are currently available on the LVA settlement, it is expected that it will be similar to the previous hospital appeals settlements offered by CMS in October 2014 (colloquially known as the “68 percent settlement”) and September 2016 (the “66 percent settlement”). These prior settlements were offered to certain hospitals with eligible inpatient status claims pending in the Medicare appeals process. According to CMS’s website, the 68 percent settlement successfully cleared 346,000 claims from the Medicare appeals system through agreements between CMS and hospitals. As a result of this success, CMS offered the second round (at 66 percent) to eligible hospitals at a minor reduction in the settlement percentage. Despite that, CMS intended the second round to be an attractive alternative to awaiting administrative law judge (ALJ) hearings in the backlogged Medicare appeals process.

While some eligible hospitals did accept the 66 percent settlement, other hospitals rejected the offer on principal (or in hopes of a more attractive alternative dispute resolution option) and maintained their position in queue for ALJ hearings. It is anticipated that CMS may adopt similar eligibility criteria and settlement procedures for the most recently announced 62 percent settlement. Whether eligible appellants should participate in this settlement depends on a variety of factors and the specific details of the settlement, which, again, have yet to be released. However, when evaluating the costs and benefits to participation, there are a few general principles to keep in mind. First, appellants should know their history of ALJ wins and losses and understand the recent trends in favorable Part A rulings on appeal by ALJs. Specifically, in years past, Part A providers and suppliers enjoyed more favorable rulings on appeal than those heading to ALJ hearings today. Also, there is a wide range in favorable rulings on appeals from ALJs, from as low as 18 percent to as high as 85 percent. Therefore, although as a matter of principle some appellants may not be willing to settle their claims at 62 percent of the net payable amount, there is value to a guaranteed payout in today’s appeals climate. Medicare providers and suppliers should periodically review CMS’s website for additional details on this program in the coming weeks.

Medicare providers and suppliers likewise should monitor OMHA’s website in the coming weeks for additional details on the expanded SCF process. Little detail is currently available on this process, only that “certain appellants that are not eligible for the LVA option” can participate in the expanded SCF. This program is an alternative to an ALJ hearing that allows eligible participants to negotiate a settlement percentage with CMS in a non-binding mediation process. Claim-by-claim determinations on an appellant’s eligible claims are not made, but an appellant does have the opportunity through SCF to present the strengths of its claims generally. Based upon information from national provider organizations, CMS has settled appeals through SCF for more and less than the 62 percent settlement offer.

The voluntary nature of the prior SCF process was attractive to Medicare appellants who could explore a settlement with CMS, and if it was not reached, their claims would simply return to the ALJ appeals process in the order in which they were originally received. By participating in SCF, appellants forfeited neither their hearing rights nor the time already invested in awaiting an ALJ hearing. Because OMHA and CMS are incentivized to reduce the appeals backlog at the ALJ level of appeal, it is expected that the expanded SCF will be voluntary as well.

Although additional details of each program are forthcoming, the LVA and expanded SCF are promising additions to the many alternative dispute resolution programs offered by CMS and OMHA in recent years. While past programs primarily targeted appellants with high-volume appeals, the recently announced programs reveal that OMHA and CMS are now looking to include appellants with lower-volume appeals in the alternative resolution processes. The expansion of alternative resolution programs is necessary, as the current average processing time for an ALJ appeal is in excess of 1,082 days, according to recent statistics published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In context, today’s average processing time is 12 times longer than the 90-day adjudication timeframe allowed under federal law. And despite the many alternative resolution programs offered in the past three years, the average processing times for ALJ appeals has steadily risen. OMHA’s and CMS’s announcements of the expansion of the SCF and the 62 percent settlement are another step in the right direction, but to make substantial movement at stopping the deluge of newly filed appeals while meaningfully reducing the appeals backlog, CMS and OMHA will need to continue offering new and expansive resolution programs with attractive terms to Medicare providers and suppliers.

A low volume appeals settlement and an expanded Settlement Conference Facilitation process are two initiatives to improve the Medicare claims appeal process 

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Andrew Wachler Esq.

Andrew B. Wachler, Esq. is a partner with Wachler & Associates, P.C. Mr. Wachler has been practicing healthcare law for over 30 years. He counsels healthcare providers, suppliers and organizations nationwide in a variety of healthcare legal matters. In addition, he writes and speaks nationally to professional organizations and other entities on healthcare law topics such as Medicare and 3rd party payor appeals, Stark law and Fraud and Abuse, regulatory compliance, enrollment and revocation, and other topics. He often co-speaks with Medicare and other government officials. Mr. Wachler has met with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) policy makers on numerous occasions to effectuate changes to Medicare policy and obtain fair and equitable reimbursement for health systems.

Related Stories

Leave a Reply

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

Featured Webcasts

I022426_SQUARE

Fracture Care Coding: Reduce Denials Through Accurate Coding, Sequencing, and Modifier Use

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.

February 24, 2026
Mastering Principal Diagnosis: Coding Precision, Medical Necessity, and Quality Impact

Mastering Principal Diagnosis: Coding Precision, Medical Necessity, and Quality Impact

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.

December 3, 2025

Proactive Denial Management: Data-Driven Strategies to Prevent Revenue Loss

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.

November 25, 2025
Sepsis: Bridging the Clinical Documentation and Coding Gap to Reduce Denials

Sepsis: Bridging the Clinical Documentation and Coding Gap to Reduce Denials

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.

September 24, 2025

Trending News

Featured Webcasts

Top 10 Audit Targets for 2026-2027 for Hospitals & Physicians: Protect Your Revenue

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.

January 29, 2026

AI in Claims Auditing: Turning Compliance Risks into Defensible Systems

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.

January 13, 2026
Surviving Federal Audits for Inpatient Rehab Facility Services

Surviving Federal Audits for Inpatient Rehab Facility Services

Federal auditors are zeroing in on Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility (IRF) and hospital rehab unit services, with OIG and CERT audits leading to millions in penalties—often due to documentation and administrative errors, not quality of care. Join compliance expert Michael Calahan, PA, MBA, to learn the five clinical “pillars” of IRF-PPS admissions, key documentation requirements, and real-life case lessons to help protect your revenue.

November 13, 2025

Trending News

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