Healthcare pricing is a complicated minefield.
A recent RACmonitor article written by Govind Goyal described enforcement of the price transparency rule. At the Chicago-Kansas City HCCA Regional Conference, Linda Wawzenski, the Deputy Chief of the Civil Division in the Chicago U.S. Attorney’s Office, spent a significant portion of her talk discussing pricing-related issues.
I’ve never heard a U.S. Attorney spend any time talking about healthcare pricing, so I interpret this as indicating enforcement of the No Surprises Act, price transparency requirements, and other regulatory and common law issues related to healthcare pricing is about to increase. While the term fraud is used far too liberally when discussing healthcare issues, I think that healthcare pricing may be the area where that term can be legitimately used somewhat regularly.
Much of the problem is that determining the actual charge for most healthcare services is incredibly difficult. The figure that appears on a healthcare bill is often dramatically different from the amount anyone will actually pay for the service.
That’s a problem.
When you send a patient a charge for $500, but the patient has insurance and that insurance is contracted to pay $350 for the services, and you’re going to accept that $350 as payment in full, what was your charge for the service? Many people would say that the charge was $500 because that was the amount on the bill. But if you know you will take the $350 payment and call it a day, there is a pretty strong argument that your actual charge is $350. The NSA requires providers to give good faith estimates to patients who will not be using insurance to pay for a claim when they’re scheduling a service more than three days in advance. What price will you quote a patient in a situation where your billed charge is $500 but nearly every patient gets the service for 75 percent or less of that sum? This is not a hypothetical question. These are the sort of issues that arises every day in healthcare. If you are quoting them $350, why should an indemnity insurer be expected to pay more?
More than 20 years ago, a congressional committee investigated why uninsured patients often paid more than any other patient for a hospital service. To address that, some organizations offer cash discounts. Others will give uninsured patients a discount equal to the average discount given to insurers. Each solution comes with drawbacks. I encourage you to carefully reconsider all your pricing strategies and figure out whether they comply with various laws.
For example, it may be appealing to give a 10 percent discount to a patient who pays on the day of service. But it’s important to understand someone can characterize that as charging 10 percent interest for payment a day after the initial service. That sort of interest rate will violate state usury laws in most locations. It isn’t crazy to take that risk, but you need to understand it.
It’s common to rationalize certain prompt payments as meriting a discount because you don’t need to generate a bill to the patient. But many insurers include a provision in their contracts prohibiting you from charging the insurer for generating a bill. You need to make sure that the discount doesn’t result in you inadvertently violating some of your payer contracts.
The bottom line is that healthcare pricing is a complicated minefield, and many organizations haven’t carefully considered how discounts offered to one group may allow a different group to argue you’re committing healthcare fraud. This is a good time to take a step back and carefully review all your pricing policies to minimize the risk that you wind up being the subject of an investigative report, or worse yet, a government investigation.
Programming note: Listen to healthcare attorney David Glaser’s “Risky Business” report every Monday on Monitor Mondays, 10 Eastern.
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.
In the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS’s) ongoing attempts to conquer fraud, waste, and abuse, it launched the WISeR (Wasteful and Inappropriate Service
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
