Here’s a quick quiz. Imagine that a National Coverage Determination (NCD) lists six conditions for which a treatment is covered. During a review you find dozens of patients who received the treatment for a seventh, unlisted condition. Which of the following is true?
In a recent poll of Monitor Mondays listeners, only 22 percent of respondents chose e), which is the best answer. Let’s look at why, and why so few people chose it.
The first answer, a) is the most clearly incorrect. An NCD only applies to Medicare patients. Therefore, the assertion that you must refund every patient is completely inaccurate.
Private insurers can adopt Medicare rules, but they do not automatically apply. If you have a contract with a private insurer, and that contract incorporates Medicare policy, then you must likely follow Medicare policy. But absent a contract, or if the contract does not incorporate Medicare rules, Medicare policy is irrelevant. Even Medicaid doesn’t automatically follow Medicare rules. While Medicaid is a combination of a state and federal program, the coverage rules are generally determined at the state level.
The second answer is closer to being correct, but there’s a trap, and this is where a deep understanding of Medicare rules is important. The forward to the Medicare NCD Manual includes the following statement:
“Where coverage of an item/service is provided for specified indications or circumstances but is not explicitly excluded for others, or where the item/service is not mentioned at all in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) NCD Manual, the Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) has the discretion 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.”
Under this text, unless the NCD explicitly excludes coverage, the coverage is determined by the contractor. In other words, it has to be proper to bill the service, because absent a bill, the contractor can’t make a determination. (Some might argue “wait, you could ask the contractor without submitting a claim,” but that would not result in a “determination” under Medicare law. There would be no ability to appeal from the contractor’s review unless that review was a determination under the Medicare program.)
In the question above, the NCD lists six situations in which the treatment is covered, but it does not specify that other situations are uncovered. While there is a widespread belief among contractors, compliance professionals, and even healthcare attorneys that only the specified conditions are covered, that conclusion is explicitly contradicted by the Manual language quoted above.
If b) were correct, c) would also be true (or at least, close to true). You would have 60 days from the date that you quantify the overpayment to make a refund. The preamble to the 60-day rule makes it clear that you are permitted time to review the situation and quantify the overpayment before the clock starts. The preamble suggests that six months will generally be a reasonable amount of time. Once the overpayment is quantified, you then would have 60 days to make a payment.
The fourth answer, d) suggests that a refund isn’t required, but you may not bill for new patients. The first half of the answer is correct, but the second is wrong. When a Medicare rule is ambiguous, I often conclude that there is not an overpayment because the law is unclear. In an ambiguous situation, I may recommend that the client refrain from billing, but that is an option, not a requirement. It is a risk management decision, not a legal requirement. If you conclude that it is improper to bill going forward, barring a change in the law, you should also be refunding for past services. Only when the decision not to bill is optional can you refrain from giving a refund. That is why the final answer, e), is the best. A refund is not required, and you may (but need not) opt to bill going forward.
This is another example of the importance of carefully reviewing all Medicare policy, and of leveraging healthcare counsel that is not too quick to require a refund. When an organization provides medically necessary services to a patient, it is reasonable for the organization to receive payment for that care. The good news is that the rules, regulations, and policies of the Medicare program recognize this point.
As long as you fully understand them, you can avoid needlessly refunding money for the medical care you appropriately provided.
It is a bummer when you get hoisted on the petard of intellectual inconsistency. Whether it is different medical professionals with different approaches to a
In a recent article, I described a documentation environment governed by two distinct and often competing controlling systems. The first is the regulatory framework established
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
