To understand the difference it is helpful to know the regulatory hierarchy.
Last week’s article describing how Local Coverage Determinations (LCDs) are not binding prompted a question: what about National Coverage Determinations (NCDs)?
Are NCDs afforded more weight than LCDs? The answer is a resounding “yes.” NCDs are binding, but people often misunderstand how to apply them.
Before exploring how people misunderstand NCDs, it is helpful to consider the regulatory hierarchy. The U.S. Constitution is the controlling authority, the ultimate “law of the land.” Since both Medicare and Medicaid are federal government programs, they must comply with all constitutional provisions, including the right to due process. It may not always feel this way, but the programs must be fair. Next come statutes, which we would typically call laws. For Medicare, the laws are generally found in the Social Security Act. Since Medicaid is a joint federal and state program, both federal and state laws apply.
Immediately below statutes in the hierarchy are regulations. Federal regulations are found in the Code of Federal Regulations, while their state counterparts appear in something that’s usually called the “state administrative code,” but might also be called state rules, state regulations, or something similar. Regulations are the lowest level of authority that is still binding. Many people will refer to regulations as “rules.” I strongly encourage you to reserve the term “rule” for a regulation. Provisions of materials such as a “program manual” or “policy” should be called “guidance” rather than a rule, because they lack the legal authority conferred upon regulations/rules.
Regulations are typically going to be binding legal authority, while guidance will not. The only time a statute or rule is not authoritative is if it contradicts a higher authority. Statutes can’t violate the Constitution, and regulations can’t violate either the Constitution or a statute. Finally, there are all of the other guidance found in manuals, LCDs, the Medicare Learning Network, and other documents. They are not binding, and shouldn’t be treated as if they are.
Let’s return to NCDs. First, how do we know that NCDs are binding? A federal statute says so. 42 U.S.C. §1395hh(a)(1) says nothing other than an NCD may change benefits unless promulgated as a regulation. Under that statute, NCDs are treated as analogous to regulations. That makes some sense because they go through a comment period, similar to a regulation. This article opened with a claim that people misapply NCDs. What does that mean? People often read an NCD and conclude that particular treatments are not covered. However, unless it explicitly says otherwise, an NCD only extends coverage. It doesn’t limit coverage. If an NCD says “for condition A, treatments 1, 2, and 3 are covered,” that NCD is not limiting the overage of treatment 4. Instead, typical medical necessity rules apply to treatment 4. The NCD limits coverage only if it said something like “treatment 4 is not covered” or “no other treatment can be covered.” Absent that language, treatments or conditions not mentioned by an NCD remain covered. That principle is articulated in the Medicare National Coverage Determination Manual, CMS Pub. 100-03, Chapter 1. The foreword says “where coverage of an item or service is provided for specified indications or circumstances but is not explicitly excluded for others, or where the item or service is not mentioned at all in the CMS Manual System, the Medicare contractor is to make the coverage decision, in consultation with its medical staff, and with CMS when appropriate, based on the law, regulations, rulings, and general program instructions.”
The bottom line is that NCDs are binding, but they are not nearly as limiting as most people think. Unless the NCD specifically states that a service is uncovered, or includes the statement that “all other services are uncovered,” the NCD does not prevent you from billing Medicare for a treatment that the patient’s physician believes is medically appropriate.
Programming Note:
Listen to David Glaser live every Monday during Monitor Monday, 10-10:30 a.m. EST.
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.
Compliance teams get nervous when rules are not followed. And when an expired form is used, they get really nervous. Thankfully, there is one fewer
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
