MAC advice to one hospital seems too good to be true.
Boy, do I have a story to tell.
Now, let me start by noting that I am relaying information provided by a case management leader and did not have access to any medical records, nor was I able to listen in to the calls that took place. As always, before you do anything, be sure to check with your legal and compliance staff to be sure they support what you are doing. I am also not going to name the hospital nor the Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) involved, but would be happy to provide that information to someone from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).
That said, here is the situation. As you know, CMS has in place a required prior authorization program for specific outpatient procedures performed in the hospital outpatient department, where data has shown increases in utilization. Included in that program are two codes for cervical spine fusion, 22551 and 22552. At this hospital, a patient was scheduled for this surgery, and the prior authorization request was submitted to the MAC and approved.
The surgery proceeded and the patient was discharged from the recovery room. The chart went to coding and the surgery performed was coded as 22830 and not 22551. That code was placed on the outpatient claim and the claim submitted. And lo and behold, the claim was rejected. It turns out that 22830 is on the inpatient-only list.
Well, the hospital called the MAC and were told that since they were within the timely filing period and they received a denial, they could simply submit an inpatient claim and get paid. The MAC never asked if there was an inpatient admission order in the record. The manager was not sure that this advice was sound, so asked for confirmation.
First things first: what happened here? The surgery that was actually performed was 22830. That is exploration of spinal fusion, a procedure that occurs for a patient who previously had a spinal fusion. So, submitting 22551 for prior authorization made no sense in this clinical situation. That was the manager’s first mission: figure out who dropped the ball. Who obtained the prior authorization, and what information did they have that would lead them to the completely wrong surgery? I would hope that the surgeon knew the patient previously had surgery. Maybe their policy is simply to designate every planned fusion as a 22551 simply to get a prior authorization, just in case. If so, that potentially creates a world of hurt when the planned surgery is actually an inpatient-only surgery, as happened here.
But the even bigger issue is that the MAC told them simply to rebill the stay as inpatient. Is this correct? Can every hospital bill inpatient-only surgeries as inpatient, even without an inpatient order? Everyone tries to ascertain that an inpatient-only surgery is being planned, and tries to get the order, but some slip through. Surgeries also change in the OR, and sometimes the surgeon ends up doing an inpatient-only surgery that was not planned. The Medicare Benefit Policy Manual allows the billing of inpatient admission without an order in rare and unusual circumstances if the intent to admit can be established, but this MAC seems to be going much, much further with their instruction to this hospital. No caveats about establishing intent. No caveats about how often this can occur.
I do think that CMS wants to pay hospitals for the work they do. I do think that CMS has established a process for hospitals to get paid for inpatient-only surgeries without an inpatient order, but it should not be a regular occurrence. I truly don’t know what to do with this advice from this MAC to this hospital. Since CMS won’t answer questions about specific cases, hospitals must rely on the MAC to give accurate and compliant recommendations.
I so want this recommendation to be true, but it seems almost too good to be true. I would love to hear from you if you got the same or a different response when you contacted your MAC on a similar issue.
Programming note: Listen to Dr. Ronald Hirsch every Monday as he makes his rounds on Monitor Mondays with Chuck Buck and sponsored by R1-RCM.
Picture this: You are driving through an area you don’t know well. It is a cold day. You stop to get gas. You fill the
Federal health officials have announced the launch of the Comprehensive Regulations to Uncover Suspicious Healthcare (CRUSH) initiative. The announcement was framed as a decisive step
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
