How New York Hospitals Rely on Sepsis-2

Which definition of the deadly condition will be applied in the Empire State has been a hot topic of late.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is partial transcript of remarks made by Dennis Jones during a recent RACmonitor-produced Monitor Mondays broadcast.

First, let me remind everyone that I am in the finance department of my hospital (Montefiore Nyack): a boring accountant type whose days are consumed with reading explanation of benefits documents and realizing that most CARC (claim adjustment reason codes) codes mean pretty much the same thing.

I am not one to explain the finer points of sepsis criteria.

However, let me nonetheless review the recent developments in New York State regarding UnitedHealthcare’s application of the Sepsis-3 criteria to review claims.

To begin with, UnitedHealth Care (UHC) published an October 2018 network bulletin on Sepsis-3. In the bulletin, UHC proclaimed that it would use the criteria in its claim reviews. 

New York State has a unique circumstance regarding the application of Sepsis-3 criteria that goes back to a tragic incident in 2012.

That year, a young boy named Rory Staunton, 12 years old, cut his arm in gym class while diving for possession of a basketball.

The gym teacher dressed the wound, but before the next day, Rory was sick with a fever and leg pain and vomiting. Rory saw a pediatrician who referred him to the emergency room of a New York City hospital.

The hospital saw the symptoms and treated Rory for a flu bug that was going around. The boy was discharged prior to the result of lab tests that would have shown the presence of a blood infection.

Sadly, Rory later died from sepsis, which could have been successfully treated if it had been recognized early.

New York State subsequently passed Rory’s Regulation, which requires hospitals to take the following action:

  • To have in place evidence-based protocols for the early recognition and treatment of patients with severe sepsis/septic shock that are based on generally accepted standards of care
  • To submit sepsis protocols required pursuant to paragraph (4) of this subdivision to the Department (of Health) for review on or before July 1, 2013.

At the time, Sepsis-2 criteria were widely accepted for the purpose of identifying and treating sepsis.

When UHC published its intent to utilize Sepsis-3 criteria, it was in conflict with the New York State Department of Health (NYS DOH) regulations.

On Dec. 18, 2018, the Greater New York Healthcare Association (GNYHA) and the Healthcare Association of New York (HANY) sent a letter to the NYS DOH pointing out the differences between the Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS)-based Sepsis-2 definition and the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA)-based Sepsis-3 definition. 

In the letter, the hospital associations stated:

Sepsis-2 bases the recognition of sepsis on SIRS criteria and therefore allows clinicians to consider a sepsis diagnosis much earlier in the advancement of the disease. The criteria prompt clinicians to initiate rigorous monitoring and treatment protocols to avoid escalation of sepsis into organ dysfunction, further morbidity, and mortality.

The letter went on to state:

We believe insurers that are adopting the Sepsis-3 definition are doing so not for the purpose of improving the quality of care, but simply as a mechanism to down-code claims and reduce payments to providers.

As a result, the NYS DOH pointed out the regulatory issue in a letter to UHC, and on Jan. 3, 2019, UHC issued a statement defending its use of Sepsis-3 criteria, but conceding that “nonetheless, UnitedHealthcare will not apply Sepsis-3 to NY providers until such time as NY adopts the updated criteria.”

This may sound like a temporary reprieve, but since the Sepsis-2 criteria identify possible cases of sepsis earlier, at the cost of the possibility of some false-positive sepsis cases, New York State may not be in a hurry to change its current sepsis definition and Rory’s Regulation.

HANYS has stated that it will continue to push back against the use of Sepsis-3 criteria by other payers.

Comment on this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Stanley Nachimson, MS

Stanley Nachimson, MS is principal of Nachimson Advisors, a health IT consulting firm dedicated to finding innovative uses for health information technology and encouraging its adoption. The firm serves a number of clients, including WEDI, EHNAC, the Cooperative Exchange, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and No World Borders. Stanley is focusing on assisting health care providers and plans with their ICD-10 implementation and is the director of the NCHICA-WEDI Timeline Initiative. He serves on the Board of Advisors for QualEDIx Corporation. Stanley served for over 30 years in the US Department of Health and Human Services in a variety of statistical, management, and health technology positions. His last ten years prior to his 2007 retirement were spent in developing HIPAA policy, regulations, and implementation planning and monitoring, beginning CMS’s work on Personal Health Records and serving as the CMS liaison with several industry organizations, including WEDI and HITSP. He brings a wealth of experience and information regarding the use of standards and technology in the health care industry.

Related Stories

Leave a Reply

Please log in to your account to comment on this article.

Featured Webcasts

Mastering Principal Diagnosis: Coding Precision, Medical Necessity, and Quality Impact

Mastering Principal Diagnosis: Coding Precision, Medical Necessity, and Quality Impact

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.

December 3, 2025

Proactive Denial Management: Data-Driven Strategies to Prevent Revenue Loss

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.

November 19, 2025
Sepsis: Bridging the Clinical Documentation and Coding Gap to Reduce Denials

Sepsis: Bridging the Clinical Documentation and Coding Gap to Reduce Denials

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.

September 24, 2025

Trending News

Featured Webcasts

Surviving Federal Audits for Inpatient Rehab Facility Services

Surviving Federal Audits for Inpatient Rehab Facility Services

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.

November 13, 2025
E/M Services Under Intensive Federal Scrutiny: Navigating Split/Shared, Incident-to & Critical Care Compliance in 2025-2026

E/M Services Under Intensive Federal Scrutiny: Navigating Split/Shared, Incident-to & Critical Care Compliance in 2025-2026

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.

August 26, 2025

Trending News

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. 2 with code CYBER24