For all of the Monitor Monday listeners who tuned in to the April 21 airing1 or read my April 23 RACmonitor post titled “Weaponizing the OIG”2, there is an important update to share that comes straight from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG).
The OIG’s Public Affairs team corresponded after last month’s segment to share a revised portal page and accompanying press release3 for tips related to the administration’s gender health Executive Order, indicating that HHS itself is the proper reporting body, not the OIG.
This subtle nuance is important, because as the OIG’s Public Affairs articulated to me, “tips pertaining specifically to waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicare, Medicaid, and/or HHS program should be submitted to HHS-OIG via the agency’s hotline” – which is the standard methodology, predating the current administration. I sincerely appreciate the OIG’s correspondence on the matter and have updated Monitor Monday listeners during the May 12 airing of the show4.
During the May 12 podcast4, we broke news on the long-awaited HHS review on gender health5. On May 1, the Assistant Secretary for Health and Office of Population Affairs delivered on the request from the President, in Executive Order 14187 Sec 3(ii), to “publish evidence-based review of the literature on best practices to promote the health of children who assert gender dysphoria”6, within a 90-day deadline. The White House made clear in that Executive Order the conclusion was already foregone: labeling care that thousands of youth currently receive across this country as “immoral, unjust, and disproven”6.
With those conclusions already established and directed to HHS6, what do you think this “comprehensive” review reached as its summation? No surprise: it essentially confirmed5 the hypothesis of the White House back in January6. Although there is lots to unpack in a full dissection of the document itself5, several salient questions about its construct immediately come to mind.
1) How exactly does clandestine authorship by eight anonymous contributors “help maintain the integrity of this process”5?For comparison, CMS-4208-F was posted within weeks of the aforementioned document, and it included a full list of contributors and contacts for the public to liaise with regarding questions or content7. Does providing the names of the authors with a “commitment to scientific principles,”5 like every other medical publication – complete with conflict-of-interest disclosures – somehow lessen the integrity or de-legitimize its process?
2) To quote the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who indicated that the report follows the “gold standard of science,”5 it begs the question: does it typically take more than 90 days to compile a systematic review? For context, most medical research papers take months or years to gather data and assess the scientific rigor used. Peer review then takes another few months. The names, affiliations, and conflicts-of-interest of all authors are reported to allow readers to assess the credibility of the content. Yet none of that happened with this report. The “comprehensive” review is 266 pages of formal content with 12 additional pages of appendices5. This prompts a more concerning question: was this all drafted by these eight contributors during the 90-day window, or did they have pre-fabricated opinions and “research” already produced by their own activist organizations?
3) What “post-publication peer review” will “begin in the coming days,” from the May 1 date of this HHS post5? Will it be submitted to a reputable journal with a standard, rigorous methodology for review? Will it include a panel of topical experts whose credentials are recognized by their international peers in the fields of gender health and pediatrics, as well as mainstream professional societies? Or will its content be verified in secret by a collection of marginalized, fringe physicians who are using this report as an avenue to gain legitimacy after failing to meet the norms and expectations of modern medicine?
Since its release, there has been both praise and criticism of this report by HHS5, across the political, medical, and cultural spectrums. But one objective truth cannot be understated: it was ordered by an individual, who specified it reach a pre-ordained outcome6.
This is not my opinion; this is written in the original Executive Order, which now lives within the Federal Register6. For that, the review is inherently flawed, and it cannot be blindly accepted as a basis by which the care of tens of thousands is blatantly abandoned overnight.
If HHS is truly committed to protecting children’s health8, there are qualified professionals out there who can partner with them and properly study gender health – but that would require humbly acknowledging that there is such a thing in the first place.
References
EDITOR’S NOTE:
The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of MedLearn Media. We provide a platform for diverse perspectives, but the content and opinions expressed herein are the author’s own. MedLearn Media does not endorse or guarantee the accuracy of the information presented. Readers are encouraged to critically evaluate the content and conduct their own research. Any actions taken based on this article are at the reader’s own discretion.
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
