Providers should consider how to optimize the patient’s health status prior to discharge to hospice.
In his RACmonitor article of Aug. 8 regarding the recent proposed final rule for inatient amission orders, Dr. Ronald Hirsch reported that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) added inpatient transfers to hospice to those admissions subject to a reduced DRG payment if their length of stay is less than the geometric mean minus one day, effectively including transition to hospice as a transfer DRG situation.
Authority for CMS to do this comes from the 2018 budget (Section 4.12.4 c of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018). Per the article, “in the commentary, CMS said that commenters objected to this change because ‘such payment policies would dissuade transfers to hospice care.’”
The commenters’ objections are telling. And frankly, there must be change.
First, let’s look at potential exposure. The latest list from CMS of MS-DRGs for 2018 includes the geometric and arithmetic lengths of stay for each. A quick perusal reveals that for many DRGs the GMLOS is shorter than previous years. The most common ones are in the 3.5-day range with the higher weighted DRGs only in the 12 to 13-day range. To my mind this creates an exposure that can be overcome with thoughtful Day 1 discharge planning.
Let’s ask ourselves why hospice referrals are made, for what purpose. Why a rush? If death is imminent, why refer to hospice at all? Are acute medical interventions that could strengthen chances of success with hospice given consideration? And why are many hospices so willing to enroll patients when death is expected in a day or two? Hospices face penalties for too short overall lengths of stay.
Referrals to hospice are frequently the result of misunderstandings of the purpose of hospice. I can say this now, as my own understanding has evolved. If the aforementioned rule becomes final, more thoughtful action in discharge planning will also have to become the rule in a revenue-sensitive environment.
A story to illustrate my inquiries: my mother was admitted to hospice for end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). For two years, until her passing, they kept her at home, without a single hospitalization. “Don’t make me have to see you die on a ventilator,” I pleaded, although the decision to enter hospice was hers and her doctor’s alone. Imagine, no family consultation! I objected until I understood the end-stage COPD program objectives.
Another example: a family that insisted that their loved one, near death, die at home. Hospice enrolled the fragile patient. The patient died, en route, alone. This happened over my objections. The outcome was foreseeable.
Both illustrate the CMS concerns about hospice transitions of care: one positive, one not.
We should expect better of ourselves, and hospices. Hospitals can develop palliative care that will meet patient and family needs without hospice. Family aftercare needs can be met in many ways. Perhaps another day or two of acute care will optimize the patient’s health status, positively impacting the hospice experience.
I am a true believer in hospice. Not one of my patients referred for end-stage disease management has returned to the hospital in the last six months. Under the new rule, hospice enrollment for those near death will be revealed as problematic. Referrals intended to save patients from frequent crisis and hospital utilization will become more common.
Do the hospices seeking your referrals offer open-ended disease management programs? Are we planning for the transition to hospice, or just throwing in the towel?
Demand better of hospice, and ourselves.
EDITOR’S NOTE: The author of this article used AI-assisted tools in its composition, but all content, analysis, and conclusions were based on the author’s professional
While the coverage of telehealth is definitely a good thing, it has caused needless confusion. I would like to address a little of that today.
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
