Sometimes, life is predictable.
Eclipses are a great example. (You should plan on seeing the next total solar eclipse, on April 8, 2024! It’ll be visible across a large swath of the country, from Texas to Maine.) It’s the stuff of legend, how people once used the ability to predict an eclipse to appear magical.
But sometimes, life gets complicated, and the thing that we predicted would happen, doesn’t. In the compliance world, failed predictions can generate significant compliance headaches. I have stated my thoughts about the disadvantages of having detailed compliance policies many times. It is quite common for policies created with the intention of helping an organization stay out of trouble to wind up doing exactly the opposite. There may be no better illustration of this point than policies regarding internal audits.
First, I don’t like the term “audit.”
I know that the sentencing guidelines, the source document for compliance plans, include “auditing and monitoring” as one of the seven key elements in an effective compliance plan. But I learned a lesson 30 years ago. My client had a policy to perform internal evaluation and management (E&M) audits. The government asserted that every time an audit found a physician’s documentation to be deficient, there was an obligation to issue a refund. The fact that my client called these reviews “audits” appeared to add a level of scientific precision to the process that simply didn’t exist.
But as regular readers here know, “if it isn’t written, it wasn’t done” isn’t the law; it’s an expression and a misleading one at that.
While Medicaid in many states has an explicit documentation requirement, Medicare only requires documentation for very limited services, such as teaching physician services and anesthesia services. The government used my client’s “internal audit” process against it. While we ultimately prevailed in the case, it took a while.
Most organizations with a compliance policy have one that calls for internal audits. Let us assume that the policy wisely uses the term “review,” rather than “audit.” There’s still another big problem the policy can cause. Many policies include specific details about the frequency of the reviews. Let’s say your policy calls for a certain number of charts to be reviewed annually or quarterly. Then, along comes some unexpected event – perhaps a global pandemic or a workforce shortage. Suddenly, what was happening quarterly or annually is happening semi-annually, or every few years.
Is your organization violating any laws if it conducts reviews slightly less frequently? Absolutely not. But can someone suggest that you aren’t taking compliance seriously because you are failing to follow your very own policy? Absolutely.
To be clear, I am not suggesting you shouldn’t perform reviews.
I am saying that doing reviews without a written policy is at least as good as doing reviews with one, but failing to do reviews is worse if you have a policy than if you don’t. The bottom line is that having the policy doesn’t offer any material help, but it can most certainly hurt.
When something can only make things worse, it seems foolish to do it. Therefore, I would recommend that you conduct regular reviews, but without having a formal policy purporting to “require” them.
Programming note: Listen to healthcare attorney David Glaser’s “Risky Business” segment every Monday 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
We’ve trained ourselves to audit documentation, audit codes, audit teams – but now we need to ensure we have added something else to the list:
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
