This article will feature one part poll, one part legal discussion.
First, the poll: do you have the sense that administrative law judge (ALJ) hearings are getting harder to win?
Last month I participated in a hearing in a case with a million-dollar overpayment. The hearing seemed to go really well. At the end, both my client and I were confident that the judge had really listened to our arguments.
So, imagine our surprise when the second business day after the hearing, at 8 a.m., we received a lengthy faxed decision ruling against us. It was hard to believe such a lengthy decision could have been turned around so fast.
Just a few days later, a client in the southeast called me and asked if I could talk to their appeals team. They indicated that the team is becoming depressed because they are losing so many ALJ appeals. They wanted to know if this experience reflected on them or was part of a wider trend.
A few days after that, a client in the southwestern U.S. called with a virtually identical query. So here’s my question to you: does it feel like ALJs are more likely to rule for the contractors? Please feel free to email me your thoughts.
The second topic involves situations in which there is an internal disagreement about whether to make a refund or to change make a change in policy prospectively. When two people disagree about how to interpret a provision, each of them should lay out all of the evidence they have supporting their position.
I’ve talked about the regulatory hierarchy, and I think it’s useful to consider this from the top down. What does the Constitution say? Are there any statutes or laws that are relevant? What federal or state regulations exist? Is there a national coverage determination (NCD)? I think it’s helpful to consider them in precisely that order, because sort of like paper covers rock and rock smashes scissors, statutes cover a regulation, and the Constitution smashes both.
When one of the participants has a statute, regulation, or NCD that answers the question, they beat anyone pointing to a local coverage determination (LCD), Medicare manual, Medicare contractor bulletin, or anything else, because LCDs, manuals, and bulletins are merely guidance, and not binding.
It is somewhat common to encounter situations where the only evidence people will cite will be from manuals or contractor FAQs. I wanted to re-emphasize that I can’t think of a situation in which a refund is required simply because of language in a manual or a carrier issuance. In the absence of a statute or regulation, you might change your policy going forward, but I would discourage you from cutting a refund check if the services were provided and were medically necessary.
The bottom line is that if someone believes that you are breaking a rule, it is both reasonable and wise to ask them to, in the words of Aretha Franklin, prove it, prove it, prove it.
Prove it to me. If you do it with r-e-s-p-e-c-t, they should feel appreciative of the opportunity to present their arguments.
Listen to healthcare attorney David Glaser every Monday morning for his “Risky Business” segment on Monitor Mondays with Chuck Buck, 10 Eastern.
EDITOR’S NOTE:
The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of MedLearn Media. We provide a platform for diverse perspectives, but the content and opinions expressed herein are the author’s own. MedLearn Media does not endorse or guarantee the accuracy of the information presented. Readers are encouraged to critically evaluate the content and conduct their own research. Any actions taken based on this article are at the reader’s own discretion.
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
Is your hospital ready for hybrid measures? Many clinical documentation integrity (CDI) departments have incorporated Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) quality measures into
Please log in to your account to comment on this article.
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.
This third session in our 2026 IPPS Masterclass will feature a review of FY26 changes to the MS-DRG methodology and new technology add-on payments (NTAPs), presented by nationally recognized ICD-10 coding expert Christine Geiger, MA, RHIA, CCS, CRC, with bonus insights and analysis from Dr. James Kennedy.
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.
RACmonitor is proud to welcome back Dr. Ronald Hirsch, one of his most requested webcasts. In this highly anticipated session, Dr. Hirsch will break down the complex Two Midnight Rule Medicare regulations, translating them into clear, actionable guidance. He’ll walk you through the basics of the rule, offer expert interpretation, and apply the rule to real-world clinical scenarios—so you leave with greater clarity, confidence, and the tools to ensure compliance.
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
