New Extrapolation Restriction Already a Boon for Providers Facing Audit Scrutiny

New Extrapolation Restriction Already a Boon for Providers Facing Audit Scrutiny

The new rule also highlights how bad some auditors can be at explaining when offering a provider a rare bit of good news.

Earlier this year, I reported on the new extrapolation rules for all audits, including those performed by Recovery Audit Contractors (RACs), Unified Program Integrity Contractors (UPICs), Targeted Probe-and-Educate (TPE) auditors, Comprehensive Error Rate Testing (CERT), etc. You know, that alphabet soup.

The biggest change was that no extrapolation may be run if the error rate is under 50 percent. This was an exciting and unexpected new protection for healthcare providers.

A client of mine, an internal medicine facility in Alabama, received a notice of overpayment for over $3 million. This was the first case in which I saw the 50-percent error rate rule in action. Normally, I always tell clients that the first two levels of appeals are rubber stamps. In other words, don’t expect to win. The Qualified Independent Contractor (QIC) and the entity that conducted the audit saying “you owe money” are not going to overturn themselves.

However, in this case, we were “partially favorable” at the QIC level. “Partially favorable” normally means mostly unfavorable. However, the partially favorable decision took the error rate from over 50 percent to under 50 percent. We regrouped. Obviously, we were going to appeal, because the new extrapolation was still over $1 million. However, before our Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hearing, we received correspondence from Palmetto saying that our overpayment was $0.

Confused, we wrote to the ALJ, pointing out that Palmetto said our balance was zero. The Judge wrote back, saying that certainly, the money has already been recouped, and the practice would get a refund if he reversed the denials. “Ok,” we said, and attended a telephonic hearing. We were unsuccessful at the hearing, and the ALJ upheld an alleged overpayment of over $1 million. We argued that the extrapolation should be thrown out due to the error rate being under 50 percent. The Judge still ruled against us, saying that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has the right to extrapolate, and the courts have upheld it. Ok, but what about the new rule?

Later, we contacted Palmetto to confirm what the zero-balance meant. The letter read as if we did not owe anything, yet we had an ALJ decision mandating us to pay over $1 million. That was a seriously curious juxtaposition. After many hours of chasing answers, spending time on hold with multiple telephone answerers of Palmetto, we learned that apparently, because the error rate dropped below 50 percent after the QIC level, Palmetto “wrote off” the nominal balance. Since an extrapolation was no longer allowed, the miniscule amount that Palmetto thought we owed wasn’t enough to pursue. However, the letter sent to us from Palmetto did not explain, “hey, we are writing off your overpayment because the error rate fell below 50 percent.” No, it was vague. We didn’t even know if it was true.

It took us reaching out to Palmetto and getting an email confirmation that Palmetto had written off the alleged overpayment due to the error rate dropping to resolve the matter. Even the ALJ misinterpreted the letter, which tells me that Palmetto should revise its notices of write-offs.

If Palmetto unilaterally dismisses or writes off any balance that is allegedly owed, the letter should explicitly explain this, because providers and attorneys are not accustomed to receiving correspondence from a Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC), CMS, Palmetto, or any other auditing entity with good news. If we get good news from an auditing entity, that correspondence should be explicit.

Regardless, this was a huge win for me and my client, who was positively ecstatic with the outcome. Tune in next week, during which I will tell a story of how we battled successfully a qui tam action against a facility of nine specialists due to a disgruntled employee who tried to blow the whistle on my specialists and their facility…falsely! 

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Knicole C. Emanuel Esq.

For more than 20 years, Knicole has maintained a health care litigation practice, concentrating on Medicare and Medicaid litigation, health care regulatory compliance, administrative law and regulatory law. Knicole has tried over 2,000 administrative cases in over 30 states and has appeared before multiple states’ medical boards. She has successfully obtained federal injunctions in numerous states, which allowed health care providers to remain in business despite the state or federal laws allegations of health care fraud, abhorrent billings, and data mining. Across the country, Knicole frequently lectures on health care law, the impact of the Affordable Care Act and regulatory compliance for providers, including physicians, home health and hospice, dentists, chiropractors, hospitals and durable medical equipment providers. Knicole is partner at Nelson Mullins and a member of the RACmonitor editorial board and a popular panelist on Monitor Monday.

Related Stories

Who is Whom Among the MACs?

Today, I am going back to basics by turning a spotlight on the Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs). The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)

Read More

Leave a Reply

Please log in to your account to comment on this article.

Featured Webcasts

Mastering Principal Diagnosis: Coding Precision, Medical Necessity, and Quality Impact

Mastering Principal Diagnosis: Coding Precision, Medical Necessity, and Quality Impact

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.

December 3, 2025

Proactive Denial Management: Data-Driven Strategies to Prevent Revenue Loss

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.

November 19, 2025
Sepsis: Bridging the Clinical Documentation and Coding Gap to Reduce Denials

Sepsis: Bridging the Clinical Documentation and Coding Gap to Reduce Denials

Sepsis remains one of the most frequently denied and contested diagnoses, creating costly revenue loss and compliance risks. In this webcast, Angela Comfort, DBA, MBA, RHIA, CDIP, CCS, CCS-P, provides practical, real-world strategies to align documentation with coding guidelines, reconcile Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 definitions, and apply compliant queries. You’ll learn how to identify and address documentation gaps, strengthen provider engagement, and defend diagnoses against payer scrutiny—equipping you to protect reimbursement, improve SOI/ROM capture, and reduce audit vulnerability in this high-risk area.

September 24, 2025

Trending News

Featured Webcasts

Surviving Federal Audits for Inpatient Rehab Facility Services

Surviving Federal Audits for Inpatient Rehab Facility Services

Federal auditors are zeroing in on Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility (IRF) and hospital rehab unit services, with OIG and CERT audits leading to millions in penalties—often due to documentation and administrative errors, not quality of care. Join compliance expert Michael Calahan, PA, MBA, to learn the five clinical “pillars” of IRF-PPS admissions, key documentation requirements, and real-life case lessons to help protect your revenue.

November 13, 2025
E/M Services Under Intensive Federal Scrutiny: Navigating Split/Shared, Incident-to & Critical Care Compliance in 2025-2026

E/M Services Under Intensive Federal Scrutiny: Navigating Split/Shared, Incident-to & Critical Care Compliance in 2025-2026

During this essential RACmonitor webcast Michael Calahan, PA, MBA Certified Compliance Officer, will clarify the rules, dispel common misconceptions, and equip you with practical strategies to code, document, and bill high-risk split/shared, incident-to & critical care E/M services with confidence. Don’t let audit risks or revenue losses catch your organization off guard — learn exactly what federal auditors are looking for and how to ensure your documentation and reporting stand up to scrutiny.

August 26, 2025

Trending News

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. 2 with code CYBER24