Some payers will take back the fee-for-service payment if the wrong diagnosis code is selected.
There have been many conversations had since the healthcare industry moved to ICD-10-CM, and many more guidelines developed regarding when to query a physician, which has sparked even more debate.
Guideline 19 in ICD-10-CM states:
“The assignment of a diagnosis code is based on the provider’s diagnostic statement that the condition exists. The provider’s statement that the patient has a particular condition is sufficient. Code assignment is not based on clinical criteria used by the provider to establish the diagnosis.”
But, in fact, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) has weighed in on the importance of provider documentation through risk adjustment programs. The italicized excerpts below indicate their review and ongoing work of hierarchical condition category (HCC) coding for Medicare Advantage programs:
From a provider standpoint, we have taken a backseat, being as in most situations regarding risk adjustment coding, our best opportunity for receiving a piece of the pie has been charging for compiling our medical records for review by the managed care associations; remember, we still mainly receive our reimbursements from fee-for-service functions.
So it begs the question, from a provider standpoint, what is in a diagnosis code? We know that we need the right ones in order to get services or procedures approved. We know that the use of them will help us meet certain quality measures. Theoretically, we understand the importance of tying them to the patient journey, and documenting appropriately for compliance, helping establish medical necessity.
What most of us didn’t realize (and now are starting to realize) through contract review and denials or takebacks is that certain health plans are starting to change the language in provider contracts, giving themselves the right to take back the provider’s fee-for-service payment if they select the wrong diagnosis code.
That’s right: if you choose the wrong code, and it happened to hit a risk adjustment model code, and upon audit, your documentation does not hit that level of specificity sought for the condition, you forgo your payment. One contract goes on to say that you also must agree to their proprietary bundling software (you don’t get access to it), and no appeal rights are afforded.
As the language in provider contracts continues to get updated, this issue will continue to grow in importance. Once again, it’s important to not place a lot of value on Guideline 19. It’s important to query providers in the absence of documentation when those codes can influence further payments, outside of fee-for-service functions. It’s important that your documentation reaches the level of specificity found in the code.
Clinical documentation improvement and awareness of the risk adjustment models are extremely important for us, as we move forward. Now is the time to review your documentation to make sure it is robust enough to withstand an audit.
Programming Note:
Listen to Rhonda Buckholtz report this story live during Talk Ten Tuesday today, 10-10:30 a.m. EST.
Healthcare has been transitioning toward a more digital, interconnected ecosystem for many years, but the pace and magnitude of current changes represent a fundamental shift.
H.R. 1 doesn’t directly rewrite ICD-10 or CPT, but it does change the environment in which you’re coding. The impact is mostly indirect – through
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.
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.
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.
Prepare for the 2025 CMS IPPS Final Rule with ICD10monitor’s IPPSPalooza! Click HERE to learn more
Get 15% OFF on all educational webcasts at ICD10monitor with code JULYFOURTH24 until July 4, 2024—start learning today!
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
