When Your Compliance Plan Hits a Sour Note
David M. Glaser, Esq.
January 15, 2026
Monitor Mondays listeners know that I end each segment with a song. Normally the topic drives the song, but to start the new year, the
There are 50 Shades of Grey in federal prepayment review.
I hate wishy-washy laws. If a law exists, in my mind, it should be specific. However, that is not always the case.
Let me give an example. Let’s take, for example, prepayment review (PPR).
In North Carolina and many other states, PPR is statutorily defined in a two-page-long statute. Here, is Statute 108C-7, and it says, in the pertinent part:
“The provider shall remain subject to the prepayment claims review process until the provider achieves three consecutive months with a minimum seventy percent clean claims rate, provided that the number of claims submitted per month is no less than fifty percent of the provider’s average monthly submission of Medicaid claims for the three-month period prior to the provider’s placement on prepayment review. If a provider does not submit any claims following placement on prepayment review in any given month, then the claims accuracy rating shall be zero percent for each month in which no claims were submitted. If the provider does not meet the seventy percent clean claims rate minimum requirement for three consecutive months within six months of being placed on prepayment claims review, the Department may implement sanctions, including termination…”
Juxtapose this to the federal regulations applicable to Medicare:
42 CFR 405.903 is a much terser regulation. It states that a contractor may select a claim(s) for prepayment review. In conducting PPR, a contractor may issue additional documentation requests to a provider. But the regulation does not specify how many, a percentage, or any time frame. I find the federal regulation to be underwhelming and non-specific.
The federal regulation also allows a provider to have 45 days to submit documentation unless good cause exists for the lateness, but the contractor conducting the PPR can decide if good cause exists. Remember, the state statute for PPR states that penalties will be wielded upon failure of PPR. In Medicare, PPR will result in an initial determination under section 405.920, which states:
“After a claim is filed with the appropriate contractor in the manner and form described in subpart C of part 424 of this chapter, the contractor must:
(a) Determine if the items and services furnished are covered or otherwise reimbursable under title XVIII of the Act;
(b) Determine any amounts payable and make payment accordingly; and
(c) Notify the parties to the initial determination of the determination in accordance with § 405.921.”
Notice that the federal regulation details much less, seemingly leaving much to the discretion of the contractor. There is no penalty mentioned; instead, the contractor is given complete authority to decide how to proceed.
Programming note: Listen to the live RAC Report by healthcare attorney Knicole Emanuel, Mondays on Monitor Mondays, 10 a.m. EST.
Monitor Mondays listeners know that I end each segment with a song. Normally the topic drives the song, but to start the new year, the
EDITOR’S NOTE: The author of this article used AI-assisted tools in its composition, but all content, analysis, and conclusions were based on the author’s professional
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.
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.
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.
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
