Most compliance decisions involve balancing risk.
EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is a summary of a recent broadcast segment on Monitor Monday by the author.
Generally speaking, people do a terrible job evaluating risk. Let’s look at a real-world example. There have been some recent accidents involving automated vehicles, including one in which the vehicle struck and killed a pedestrian.
We asked Monitor Monday listeners to assume we could predict the annual number of vehicle-related deaths in the U.S. if all cars were automated. What would be a “tolerable” number of deaths? That is, what are the most deaths you would permit in a year before banning automated cars as “unsafe?” Think about it for a moment. What number would you choose, and how would you reach the conclusion? Here are the figures from the poll of listeners asked that very question:
| 1. 1 death per year | 38% |
| 2. 40 deaths per year | 31% |
| 3. 400 deaths per year | 12% |
| 4. 4,000 deaths per year | 9% |
| 5. 30,000 deaths per year | 4% |
| 6. 100,000 deaths per year | 3% |
The question is designed to get at an interesting quirk of perception. When an automated car kills someone, our brains tend to think those automated cars are dangerous and we should ban them. But each year in the US somewhere around 40,000 people are killed in collisions with a motor vehicle. Many of those are a result of human error. While 38 percent of respondents indicated one death is too many and fully 69 percent would have agreed to ban automated cars if they resulted in 40 deaths a year, if you consider the question scientifically, we’re better off with automated cars if they kill fewer people than already die on the roads. In short, if they kill 40,000 or fewer people, automated cars represent an improvement over the status quo.
What does this have to do with healthcare risk? We often focus on the risk associated with action, while discounting the risk associated with inaction. Change seems riskier than the status quo. For example, when I’ve recommended that a client voluntarily disclose a situation to the contractor, I am often asked “won’t we get in trouble?” The answer, of course, is that the self-disclosure may result in further questions.
In my experience, additional scrutiny is quite rare, but it’s certainly possible. But focusing on the risks associated in the disclosure is terribly misguided. A better question is whether the risk associated with the voluntary disclosure is higher or lower than the risk of staying quiet. In fact, the analysis is even a bit more complicated.
Often, we must compare the small risk of an event that has a very high cost with the larger risk of an event with a very small cost. For whatever reason, our brain seems to place more weight on risks associated with change than they do with the risks that come with the status quo. It seems we also undervalue the probability of something happening if that something hasn’t happened already. The fact that you have not yet had a car accident, or not yet been caught breaking a Medicare rule, offers little insight about the risk of either in the future.
Another quirk of the way our brains work is that we feel worse about losing something we already hold than gaining something new. Michael Lewis’s book The Undoing Project does a great job of explaining research by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. (If you’ve never read a Michael Lewis book, you should! While I preferred The Big Short, Moneyball, and The Blind Side, The Undoing Project is still a very good read.) This psychological trait can cause leaders of an organizations to hesitate to pay back money already received. Now, to be clear, I think my job as a lawyer is to help healthcare organizations keep money when it has provided a valuable service to a patient. The desire to keep that money isn’t flawed. But it is necessary to analyze the situation objectively, without emotion or bias.
Most compliance decisions involve balancing risk. After you conduct a review of your coding, you have to decide whether to share the results. If you do, a recipient may choose to take the results and use them in a whistleblower case. But failure to share the results may cause people to be unduly suspicious.
Either choice comes with risk. Balancing that risk is a key part of running a compliance program. When you evaluate that risk, make sure you do it objectively and rationally.
Just as automated cars may seem scarier than current cars, some compliance actions may seem scarier than they are.
Program Note:
Listen to David Glaser every Monday on Monitor Mondays, 10-10:30 a.m. EDT.
It’s two weeks into November, and still no Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) Final Rule from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Now,
As this year’s federal government shutdown is crowned the longest in history, we’re finally seeing progress towards a reopening. This weekend the Senate voted 60-40
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
