Medicare Audits: Who Bears the Burden in Your State?

Where the burden lies could make a difference when it comes to the RACs.

In a legal lawsuit, one party is initially presumed to be correct and gets the benefit of the doubt, while the other side bears the burden of proof. When a party bearing the burden of proof meets its burden, it switches to the other side.

Does it matter which state you live, reside, or do business in when it comes to extrapolated overpayments by Recovery Audit Contractors (RACs)? The answer is yes.

Why do I think this is an important topic? Two cases, one in Kentucky and one in Mississippi, were initiated recently, and each applied the burden exactly opposite from the other. If you reside in Kentucky and you are hit with an extrapolated Medicare or Medicaid overpayment, the burden is on Kentucky’s single state agency (or the contracted company hired to perform audits) to show that the extrapolation is valid. However, in Mississippi, the burden is on the healthcare provider.

Where does the burden lie in your state? It’s important to know because the outcome of these cases shifts to whoever bears the burden. In Kentucky, where the burden rested on the state, the provider won. But in Mississippi, where the burden laid on the provider, the provider lost.

The Kentucky case, from November 2018, found that the state acted arbitrarily and outside the scope of its authority by using uncodified methods of extrapolation when addressing alleged overpayments, applied the incorrect rule of law when determining the proper role of SCR §3.130(3.4), and rendered a decision in a final order that was not supported by substantial evidence in the record. The provider successfully got the court to throw out the extrapolation.

The court held that extrapolation methods, approved by statute for use to identify unacceptable medical billing practices and to refer appropriate cases to the Medicaid Fraud and Abuse Control Unit or the United States Attorney’s Office, were not appropriate for use in audits conducted by third-party contractors hired by the state to determine exact amounts deemed to be overpaid to medical providers.

Then we have Genesis Hospice Care, LLC v. Miss. Division of Medicaid, decided April 18, 2019.

The Medicaid provider appealed an alleged overpayment of $1,941,285 for hospice care allegedly provided to terminally ill patients that were not medically necessary.

The court held that the state agency could use statistical sampling as part of an audit to determine how much the Division overpaid the Medicaid provider for unsubstantiated hospice claims; the 75-claim audit still required countless man-hours to copy records, conduct an initial review, hire a consultant for a second review, send the records to the peer-review panel for a third review, and then make a demand for repayment and allow for an administrative appeal – and in the hearing officer’s view, to individually audit all 808 claims would have been impossible.

The difference between Kentucky and Mississippi – the burden. When the burden lay on the provider, the state won. When the burden lay on the state, the provider won.

Programming Note:

Listen to Knicole Emanuel every Monday on Monitor Monday, 10-10:30 a.m. EST.

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Knicole C. Emanuel Esq.

For more than 20 years, Knicole has maintained a health care litigation practice, concentrating on Medicare and Medicaid litigation, health care regulatory compliance, administrative law and regulatory law. Knicole has tried over 2,000 administrative cases in over 30 states and has appeared before multiple states’ medical boards. She has successfully obtained federal injunctions in numerous states, which allowed health care providers to remain in business despite the state or federal laws allegations of health care fraud, abhorrent billings, and data mining. Across the country, Knicole frequently lectures on health care law, the impact of the Affordable Care Act and regulatory compliance for providers, including physicians, home health and hospice, dentists, chiropractors, hospitals and durable medical equipment providers. Knicole is partner at Nelson Mullins and a member of the RACmonitor editorial board and a popular panelist on Monitor Monday.

Related Stories

Leave a Reply

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

Featured Webcasts

I022426_SQUARE

Fracture Care Coding: Reduce Denials Through Accurate Coding, Sequencing, and Modifier Use

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.

February 24, 2026
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 25, 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

Top 10 Audit Targets for 2026-2027 for Hospitals & Physicians: Protect Your Revenue

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.

January 29, 2026

AI in Claims Auditing: Turning Compliance Risks into Defensible Systems

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.

January 13, 2026
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

Trending News

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