Remember that just because a MAC says it, doesn’t mean it is true.
It seems reasonable to expect Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) to make sure that their FAQs are accurate, but in fact, there are often problems with MAC publications. An NGS FAQ about shared visits has had at least two significant errors, one recently corrected, and one still in print.
A client contacted me about 10 days ago because they read a FAQ that NGS had posted on shared visits and consultations. They wanted to confirm its accuracy. The publication had one question in particular at issue: “Can a consultative service in a hospital setting be performed on a split/shared basis?”
NGS’s original answer:
“CMS (the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) rules on consultative services have not changed, despite the use of standard E/M (evaluation and management) coding for inpatient and outpatient consultative services, since 2010. When a provider requests a consultative opinion of another provider, the consulting provider must perform the service independently and cannot split/share the required elements of the consultative E/M service.”
That answer was published on Jan. 3, 2022. I came a bit unglued when reading it, because it is so very terribly wrong.
As I’m sure most of you know, Medicare basically banished the idea of a consultation about a decade ago. The term still appears in a few contexts, including in the Stark Law, but Medicare doesn’t recognize consultations as a type of E&M visit. Requests for an opinion aren’t billed as a consultation code. You just use a standard E&M code for a new visit, initial hospital visit, or other traditional E&M service.
There should be absolutely no doubt that standard E&M codes can be billed as shared visits when in the hospital. In fact, that is why we have shared visit codes.
One of the phrases I found particularly offensive was the claim that “CMS rules on consultative services have not changed.” That statement is accurate only in the sense that there are not, and never have been, any regulations governing consultations. The word “rules” should be used to refer to regulations. Manual provisions are merely guidance, not rules. Since there have never been any regulations about consultations, saying that the rules have not changed is akin to saying there have been no changes to the posted speed limit on the surface of Saturn. True, but grossly misleading.
So, I was prepared to really rip into NGS, but it turns out that there is one piece of good news. Right after my client asked me this question, NGS realized their error. The new answer to the question says: “As of 1/1/2022, CMS has confirmed that consultative services may be performed on a split/shared basis.” That answer was revised on March 18, literally the day after the client asked me about it. Kudos to NGS for recognizing their error. But I can’t give them too much credit, because they had a categorically wrong FAQ up for two and a half months. Worse yet, the FAQ still includes a different, equally incorrect answer.
The NGS FAQ (found here) asks “what requirements apply to documentation for consultative services?” Now, remember, CMS doesn’t pay for consultations, so the obvious answer is “none.” Yet for reasons I can’t fathom, NGS says that “the attending physician/NPP (non-physician practitioner) who is requesting the consultation must enter a consultation request in the medical record.” What a bunch of hooey. To repeat, what had been billed using a consultative code is now just a traditional E&M service. There is no requirement that anyone record who is requesting an E&M service. NGS just made this up.
I understand that Medicare is complicated. But the MACs should be better about accurately conveying Medicare policy. The mistakes in the FAQ are quite basic.
It is important to remember that just because a MAC says it, doesn’t mean it is true.
Programming Note: Listen to David Glaser’s live reporting every Monday on Monitor Mondays, 10 Eastern.
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
At times, it can seem as though the chips are stacked against hospitals. There are a multitude of organizations collecting hospital claim data and monetizing
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
