The Good-Faith Estimates regarding co-workers pose a cautionary quandary.
On Friday, Dec. 2the federal government issued a FAQ delaying implementation of the requirement that Good-Faith Estimates (GFEs) under the No Surprises Act would need to include information from co-providers.
Originally, the government had indicated that after Jan. 1, 2023, the GFE would need to include the charges from the facility and all professionals, including surgeons, anesthesiologists, and the like. The delay is indefinite, “pending further rulemaking.” You can find the FAQ here.
The document is worded in a way that is a bit complicated. It explains that “HHS (the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) is extending enforcement discretion, pending future rulemaking, for situations in which GFEs for uninsured (or self-pay) individuals do not include expected charges from co-providers or co-facilities.”
In plain English, I think it is pretty clear that they are saying “you do not need to include charges from a co-provider.” However, the precise wording, explaining that penalties will not be used when a GFE does not include information about a co-provider, raises the question of whether they would “exercise discretion authority” if you opt to include co-provider information – but that proves to be inaccurate. One may think that given that the government is suspending the need to include information from co-providers, it would be weird for the government to penalize you for including more than what’s required. But there is definitely an argument that including misleading information is worse than having no information. When there is no information, patients have the ability to ask for details. But inaccurate information misleads patients. In other words, if you don’t have 100-percent confidence that you have a system for including accurate information about co-providers, the smart play may be to omit the information for now, until it is required.
The government is offering leniency if you can’t get the right information to patients, but it isn’t clear that they are promising you a pass if the form is wrong.
It is easy to forget (or at least it is easy for me to forget) that the states are actually the primary enforcers of this rule, with the feds stepping in only when the states fail to do so. That leaves us with this rather alarming sentence at the end of the bulletin:
“HHS encourages states that are primary enforcers of these requirements to take a similar approach and will not consider a state to be failing to substantially enforce these requirements if it takes such an approach while HHS is exercising enforcement discretion.”
The obvious implication is that the federal government believes that if they wanted to, the states could disregard this FAQ and choose to penalize organizations that do not include information from co-providers. Hopefully, they won’t, but that is a caution to consider. We haven’t heard much about state enforcement, but that is something to keep in the back of your head.
As I write this, fog is pouring off of Lake Superior. May the evaporating water be a metaphor for the evaporating stress of meeting the co-provider requirements before the new year!
Programming note: Listen to healthcare attorney David Glaser’s live “Risky Business” report every Monday on Monitor Mondays with Chuck Buck at 10 Eastern.
There is a lot of talk lately about the need to follow orders given by a member of law enforcement. I would like to explore
Remember the backlog at the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) level of review? Where providers routinely waited years for hearings, while recoupments proceeded and cash flow
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
