When considering coding protocols, it’s vitally important to differentiate between “requirements” and “recommendations.”
In June I did a Monitor Mondays segment and a RACmonitor article discussing whether physicians are required to include words describing a diagnosis, or whether listing a code is sufficient. I was not able to locate any requirement in an authoritative source that physicians use actual words.
The idea for the article arose after a Coding Clinic Q&A addressed a query seeking clarification of whether there was an official policy or guideline on the subject. The response asserted that there were regulatory and accreditation directives, but it failed to cite a single one. This led me to conclude that while a text description of the diagnosis might me be superior, it was not required. Coding Clinic had made the far-too-common mistake of characterizing something as a requirement, absent any authority.
Fast forward to last week, when Chris Gallagher wrote a rebuttal under the headline “Yes, Doctors are Required to use Words.” The rebuttal tries to cut me some slack by saying that perhaps it was “taking what might have been meant as a light-hearted post too seriously,” but I am afraid that the rebuttal didn’t take the original article seriously enough. Gallagher made exactly the same mistake the Coding Clinic article did. Had she said, “there is no requirement, but it is still a good practice,” that would have been a fair point to make. I would even have agreed.
But the thesis of my article was that there is no REQUIREMENT that physicians use words, rather than a code. The rebuttal spends considerable time explaining what coding is and why coders are important. I don’t quibble with any of that. I did not, and would not, assert that coders are unimportant. I was explaining that there is no statute or regulation requiring the use of words rather than text. If Ms. Gallagher wished to attack that conclusion, her article should have included a citation to authority. It did not.
It’s important to remember that the only binding authorities for Medicare are the Medicare statutes, the regulations, National Coverage Determinations (NCDs), and, probably Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) rulings. To accurately claim that anything is “required by Medicare,” one must be able to cite at least one of those sources. While Ms. Gallagher may feel that words are preferable, recommended, or even demonstrably superior, that is very, very different than required. Statements from trade groups, lawyers, consultants, and even CMS officials are not binding authority.
On LinkedIn, the American Health Information Management Association (AHIMA) posted Ms. Gallagher’s article, and a number of coders jumped on the bandwagon, talking about a “requirement” for physicians to use words. Let me reemphasize this: there are real reasons that words may be preferable. A one-digit typo in a code number will be much harder to detect than a typo in a text description, for example. But many of the LinkedIn posts mistakenly claim to cite “binding” authority. LCDs got a chunk of attention. I didn’t spend time analyzing the LCDs, because they can’t change the discussion.
Let’s revisit the regulatory hierarchy. LCDs are not binding. While an organization may choose to follow an LCD, the federal regulations specifically allow an administrative law judge (ALJ) to disregard an LCD. In the Asceracare case, the court of appeals explained that a hospice is not required to follow an LCD’s definition of a terminal illness, explaining LCDs are not binding and should not be considered “the exact criteria used for determining terminal illness.” Coding Clinic is not a federal regulation. While it can say something is “not appropriate,” absent support from a regulation or NCD, citing to Coding Clinic is like citing advice from Dear Abby or Miss Manners. In other words, it might be polite or wise, but it’s not something required by law.
Sorting through situations like this is a challenge for any compliance program. On Aug. 24, RACmonitor will be hosting a webinar offering strategies for dealing with problems like this one. You may register HERE.
Programming Note:
Listen to David Glaser’s “Risky Business” segment, Mondays on Monitor Mondays, 10 Eastern.
As of Jan. 1, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) initiated a three-year phase-out of the Inpatient-Only (IPO) List, which fundamentally reshapes how
For nearly a decade after the late-2000s Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) policy changes, work Relative Value Units (RVUs) felt like a stable
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
