Durable medical equipment (DME) suppliers have a target on their backs. It is likely that they are subjected to the most frequent audits of any type of healthcare provider. The CERT (Comprehensive Error Rate Testing) audits seem to be the most frequent.
Although DME represents a small percentage of expenditures on healthcare, in 2015 (the last year for which data is available), the improper payment rate was found to be 39.9 percent. This was much higher than for inpatient hospitals (6.2 percent), physician/lab/ambulance (12.7 percent) and non-inpatient hospital facilities (14.7 percent). The average for all improper payments was 12.1 percent, accounting for $43.3 billion. But the 39.9-percent improper payment amount for DME accounted for only $3.2 billion.
DMEs Get More Audits than Other Healthcare Suppliers
How many audits are performed on DME suppliers? It is not uncommon for such a supplier to have fully one-third of their claims subjected to a CERT audit. It takes approximately 90 days for an audit to be resolved, and until that time passes, the DME does not get paid. One DME with two facilities receives about one CERT audit per day, and each time it must go through the entire fire drill of submitting documentation to back up its claim. Luckily, unlike for Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) audits, the CERT audits allow for electronic submission of documentation, and this helps ease the process for the DME supplier.
Supposedly, there is a way to lessen the number of CERT audits. If a supplier gets a good record, then the number of audits should go down. But the auditors never assess this based on the final outcome of the audit (when the claim denial is reversed), but instead only look at the initial audit. It is a catch-22 situation.
One of the most common DME targets for audit seems to be oxygen, which is marked by a cluster of different codes such as transtrachael oxygen catheter (A4608), oxygen tubing (A4616), portable liquid oxygen system (E0433), oxygen supplies regulator (E1353), oxygen supplies stand/rack (E1355), oxygen concentrators (E1390, 91, 92), portable gas oxygen system (K0738), liquid or compressed oxygen (E0431, 42, 43, 44) , and oxygen with water vapor (E1405,6).
Another audit target is the CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure) machine. This keeps people from suffocating while they are sick. This includes the CPAP full face mask (A7030), nasal devices, headgear, chinstraps, filters, tubing exhalation ports, water chambers (A7031-47+), and more. According to one source, these two items (oxygen and CPAP) receive audits almost every time they are claimed.
RAC Audits Make DME Suppliers Continue to Provide Services, Even if Claims are Denied
The RAC audits are considered to be particularly troublesome. DME suppliers report a common pattern of RACs using local coverage determination (LCD) rules that do not match the time period for the claim. This happens because LCDs frequently are updated, sometimes twice per year. This is a common problem, but in order to get it corrected, a DME must go through the regular process of redetermination, reconsideration, then appeals to the administrative law judge (ALJ) and MAC (Medicare Administrative Contractor). This requires the use of consultants, attorneys, and lots of staff to handle the paperwork.
Of particular note is that during the appeal period (which, as we know, can now extend out years because of the backlog), DMEs are unable to take back their equipment from the patient. Yes, that’s right: the patient gets a hospital bed, the RAC says the claim is denied, but the DME supplier must leave the bed with the patient until the appeals process is completed. This means that years can go by without getting paid.
RAC Audits Ignore Medical Necessity
What is amazing about RAC audits is the often completely unreasonable nature of their claim rejections. Just to give one example from a recent appeal, there was an 89-year-old female patient with dementia caused by Alzheimer’s disease with a broken rib, unable to even turn over in bed, and unable to walk. The RAC reportedly denied that the patient needed a hospital bed. There are so many cases like this. Why?
The RACs make these completely irrational decisions because they do not use medical necessity to determine if a claim will be paid. This may distinguish the DME world from any other part of the healthcare community. Claims often are denied because the RAC claims that documentation is not sufficient. For example, even though the patient has signed a delivery form acknowledging the receipt of the equipment, this is not always considered to be acceptable. Another example: even if all of the paperwork is in order for a wheelchair, the claim may be denied unless someone has visited the patient’s residence and confirmed that the home or apartment is such that a wheelchair can fit through the doors.
There also is the common practice of claiming that the device is not medically necessary because the physician has not conducted seemingly every possible test under the sun. For example, in one case, the physician wrote that the patient was unable to walk around, but that in itself was not enough to merit a wheelchair
RACs Are Not Always Reasonable
RACs also are not always easy to work with. In one case, a DME supplier was “raided” by a RAC, which then seized a number of records. The RAC claimed that some records were missing. After finding the records, the owner of the DME supplier personally put the boxes of records in his trunk and drove hundreds of miles to deliver the records to the RAC. But when he arrived, they refused to accept them.
All I can conclude is that the auditing of the DME suppliers is excessive and medically irrational.
Price Fixing
But medical irrationality is not the only problem. As we shall see, the government (the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS) operates in a model that allows it to fix the prices in the market.
The MMA, also known by its full name, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, (https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/house-bill/1) is 26,485 lines long and around 188,000 words. §302, Payment for Durable Medical Equipment; Competitive Acquisition of Certain Items and Services, starts on line 10,081. This calls for competitive bidding for DME in each major area of the country. The way this works is that CMS (actually a for-profit subcontractor) will first determine the demand for a certain type of DME in an area. Then it will ask for bids from DME suppliers. The top three bidders will be selected. For example, Company A will supply 40 percent of the equipment at a price of $100 per unit; Company B will supply 20 percent of the equipment at a price of $105 per unit; and Company C will supply the remaining 20 percent of the market at $110 per unit.
Once these contracts are let out, then all other suppliers of that equipment in the area are locked out of the market for three years (see §1847(b)(3)(B)). In other words, there is no more competition, no open and free market. This appears to contradict §1847(b)(2)(A)(iv), which says that “access of individuals to a choice of multiple suppliers in the area is maintained.” Competitors are locked out, and many go out of business.
The January 2017 fee schedule is published online here: (https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/DMEPOSFeeSched/DMEPOS-Fee-Schedule-Items/DME17-A.html). There are 2,897 different items, and for each of those, there are 114 different pricing lines. The government sets the prices.
Last year, DME suppliers were told out of the blue that their prices would be reduced to only 51 percent of the previous rates. Of course, this should have had the effect of lowering the cost of medical services and supplies, but it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with supply and demand or the free competitive markets.
It is not possible to count the number of DME suppliers that have been driven out of business. Although the CMS website has a list of suppliers, sources report that it is out of date and highly inaccurate. As a result, it is not possible to calculate the number of companies that have gone bankrupt. Even if a DME supplier goes out of business, they remain in the database.
Yes, DME suppliers are the whipping boy of the healthcare world.
Federal officials announced this week that one of the nation’s largest health insurers has agreed to pay $117.7 million to resolve fraud allegations. The False
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS’s) $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Program was designed by the Trump Administration to reshape healthcare delivery in
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.
Federal auditors are intensifying their focus on inpatient psychiatric facilities, using advanced data analytics to spotlight outliers and pursue high‑dollar repayments. In this high‑impact webcast, Michael Calahan, PA, MBA, Compliance Officer and V.P., Hospital & Physician Compliance, breaks down what regulators are really targeting in IPF-PPS admissions, documentation, treatment and discharge planning. Attendees will learn practical steps to tighten processes, avoid common audit triggers and protect reimbursement and reduce the risk of multimillion-dollar repayment demands.
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.
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
