We often talk about length of stay, and you all should know by now that I absolutely hate when the Medicare geometric mean length of stay (GMLOS) is used as a goal for every patient in each Diagnosis-Related Group (DRG).
I’ll repeat my mantra: the goal length of stay for every patient is when every single day of their hospital stay is spent providing medically necessary hospital care. If they don’t require hospital care, they shouldn’t be in the hospital.
Well, last week saw the publication of another article that demonstrates the importance of reducing avoidable days. This study looked at patients 75 years of age and older who were admitted to the hospital but were required to be kept in the ED overnight due to the lack of an inpatient bed. Compared to patients who did not have to board in the ED, the boarded patients had a 41-percent higher risk of dying in the hospital, more adverse events (including falls and nosocomial infections), and longer overall lengths of stay.
Now, this data is probably not a surprise to anyone, but sometimes you do need data to motivate change. Maybe it’s worth risking a bad patient satisfaction score from the patient upstairs who wants to stay another day but has no medical necessity, in order to save another patient from harm or even death.
Moving on, Kepro, the Quality Improvement Organization (QIO), released their November newsletter, which included what they called an immediate advocacy success story. In this case, it was an inpatient who was not happy with the attending physician and their impending discharge, so their representative filed a discharge appeal. Kepro ruled in favor of the patient. As Kepro describes it, “However, in the appeal determination provided to the facility, the Kepro peer reviewer had requested a neurological consult, but the attending physician at the hospital refused to do the consult and wrote another discharge order.”
Kepro states that they then contacted the hospital director of quality and patient safety, who then contacted the patient’s case manager to discuss the request for the consult by the Kepro reviewer with the attending.
Wait a minute. First, this started as a discharge appeal. In a discharge appeal, the QIO is supposed to determine if ongoing hospital care is warranted, not whether additional consultations by specialists are required. Their reviewer determined that ongoing hospital care was necessary, and the hospital and attending complied. They likely did not issue the Hospital-Issued Notices of Noncoverage (HINN) 12 and would not have charged the patient for the inpatient days, awaiting the appeal determination. But when the determination was issued and the attending informed, the attending apparently did not feel that a neurology consultation was necessary, so they did not order one – and in addition, they felt that at the point the appeal determination was received, the patient was stable for discharge (so the attending again ordered discharge).
As Kepro describes it, this evolved into an immediate advocacy issue concerning the quality of care provided by the physician, since that consultation was not ordered. In that case, section 5035.3 of the QIO Manual requires the QIO to contact the practitioner and give the practitioner an opportunity to participate.
Kepro did no such thing. I would bet that, as at many hospitals, the attending has no idea who the director of quality is, and yet Kepro considered that person to be representing the physician’s views. We have all played the telephone game as children; the likelihood that the information received and conveyed by the attending physician matched what the QIO medical director said and heard is small.
Now, don’t get me wrong: patients have a right to appeal their discharge and request help through the immediate advocacy process provided by the QIOs, but the QIOs really need to follow the rules, just as we do. In this case, it seems that the QIO medical director should have called the attending physician to discuss not only the rationale for the neurology consultation but also the patient’s concern about their care.
Picture this: You are driving through an area you don’t know well. It is a cold day. You stop to get gas. You fill the
Federal health officials have announced the launch of the Comprehensive Regulations to Uncover Suspicious Healthcare (CRUSH) initiative. The announcement was framed as a decisive step
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
