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.
Here are my thoughts on what to expect when the federal shutdown finally ends. First, the lights don’t all flick back on at once. Agencies
Back in June, I was on the Monitor Mondays broadcast discussing the initial momentum within the Trump Administration for a single, national provider directory. Now,
Please log in to your account to comment on this article.
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.
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.
Only ICD10monitor delivers what you need: updates on must-know changes associated with the FY26 IPPS, including new ICD-10-CM/PCS codes, CCs/MCCs, and MS-DRGs, plus insights, analysis and answers to your questions from two of the country’s most respected subject matter experts.
Get clear, practical answers to Medicare’s most confusing regulations. Join Dr. Ronald Hirsch as he breaks down real-world compliance challenges and shares guidance your team can apply right away.
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.
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.
Learn how to navigate the proposed elimination of the Inpatient-Only list. Gain strategies to assess admission status, avoid denials, protect compliance, and address impacts across Medicare and non-Medicare payors. Essential insights for hospitals.
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
