Even self-proclaimed “experts” don’t always deliver reliable information about a thorny piece of federal legislation.
Over the last month I have taken in two presentations about the No Surprises Act (NSA), offered by a trade group that I generally consider to be highly reputable.
Each contained significant errors. During the first presentation, a panel of antitrust experts was discussing price transparency. I asked about a recently delayed provision of the No Surprises Act that will ultimately require co-convenors such as a hospital and a surgeon who is performing a surgery at the hospital to coordinate to issue a combined good-faith estimate.
If such a hospital employs surgeons, the sharing of price information means that competitors are sharing price data – which isn’t inherently illegal, but makes it much easier to argue that there are improper agreements regarding price. While I know something about antitrust law, I would not call myself the world’s top antitrust expert, and I was curious if lawyers who analyze such matters full-time might see the issue differently.
To my surprise, they dismissed the premise of the question, arguing that there was no requirement that the physician and the hospital share pricing data. Apparently, these lawyers knew antitrust law, but not the No Surprises Act. They were mistakenly believing that the posting requirements found in the Price Transparency provision apply to the No Surprises Act. In fact, they argued with me rather vociferously, asserting that merely posting prices was sufficient, until another member of the audience echoed the existence of that No Surprises Act requirement.
In the second presentation, last week, someone asked the speaker whether physician practices were required to issue good-faith estimates. The presenter, who claimed to be an expert on the No Surprises Act, indicated that he believed that the law only applied to hospitals.
On the one hand, I am sympathetic to the confusion. The No Surprises Act has various tentacles that can make it difficult to understand. It is true that one portion of the law only applies to services delivered at hospitals, ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs), freestanding emergency departments, and in air ambulances. But there is a second portion of the law that applies to any licensed healthcare entity or professional.
It is true that the government made things confusing by using the term “facilities” to describe both portions of the law, with “facilities” defined once as limited to hospitals/EDs/ASCs/air ambulances, and the second time as all licensed healthcare professionals and entities. It was a terrible error for the government to use different definitions for the same word. But the fact remains that an expert should know that the good-faith estimate requirement is in the portion of the rule applying broadly to all licensed professionals and organizations. Clinics, nursing homes, home health agencies, physical therapists, and the like are all required to offer good-faith estimates. Currently, that requirement is limited to individuals who are not using insurance to pay for their care, but that is slated to change in the future. But back to my main point, which is that you cannot blindly rely on anyone or anything to be a categorically accurate reporter of information. I can’t be too indignant. I make mistakes, at times learning about provisions I did not initially know were there.
George Washington apocryphally said, “I cannot tell a lie.” But even the most honest among us can be wrong. I am not really able to identify a great solution to the problem I am describing. I guess what I am saying is that when there is a disagreement about the interpretation of a legal provision, do not let the pedigree of the speaker or the reputation of the organization, law firm, or consultant prevent you from considering the possibility that they are wrong.
Programming note: Listen to healthcare attorney David Glaser’s “Risky Business” report on Monitor Mondays with Chuck Buck.
As the federal government shutdown drags on, an alarming message began circulating across the healthcare community: “physicians won’t get paid until the government reopens.” The
“PAYGO” (Pay-As-You-Go) refers to a budget enforcement rule designed to impose fiscal discipline: when lawmakers pass legislation that increases mandatory spending or reduces revenue without
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
