Last week, one of my clients got a letter from a state Attorney General. The letter requested information about two of the organization’s former employees. When the client forwarded me the letter, I suggested that I would call the author and confirm that my client wasn’t a target of the investigation. My client was nervous. “Won’t having a lawyer call on my behalf make me look guilty?” the client asked, continuing “Don’t only guilty people need lawyers?”
There is much to unpack there. I’ll start with a common adage: when a lawyer represents themselves, they have a fool for a client. Experience has taught that even lawyers benefit by bringing in another pair of eyes to handle problems. If lawyers shouldn’t represent themselves, it is extra clear that a non-lawyer shouldn’t.
There are many reasons for this. First, you don’t know what you don’t know. Again, a fresh pair of eyes can be helpful. But there are other benefits to having a lawyer make contact.
If you call an investigator, nothing will stop them from starting to interrogate you. They can ask anything they want. If you’re worried about how it will look having a lawyer call on your behalf, imagine how it will look if you try to shut down an agent’s questions – when, mid-call, you regret not engaging counsel. Worse yet, let’s say that you make some factual mistake during the call. You’re now on the hook for making a false statement during an investigation. Having a lawyer make the call on your behalf provides an inherent buffer, lowering the risk that the call takes an unexpected turn.
Second, I wouldn’t tie yourself in knots trying to determine whether a particular course of action looks guilty or not. After all, agents are well-aware of the fact that people think it makes them look bad to get a lawyer. The result could be some sort of psychological Catch-22: guilty people don’t retain counsel for fear of looking guilty. You may arouse suspicion by NOT engaging counsel. Don’t get trapped by mind games about appearances. Focus on substance.
But I really want to emphasize the strongest argument for engaging counsel. If you’ve ever watched a cop show or read a newspaper article about investigations, you know the length to which a government agent will go to try to keep someone from engaging counsel.
There is a reason for that.
People who have counsel are less likely to get convicted. Agents don’t want people to get counsel, because it makes their work more difficult. And that should tell you all you need to know. This point is illustrated brilliantly by a Gary Larson cartoon. The cartoon features a man talking to a shark in a boat, as other sharks circle hopefully. The shark says “I’ll tell my people you’re going to stay in the boat, but I warn you, they’re not gonna like it.”
It’s absolutely true that government agents will be annoyed at you for getting counsel. But the reason for their displeasure is that their job will be harder.
Larson’s The Far Side offers the perfect analogy. Would you rather jump in the water and have happy sharks (government agents), or stay in the boat – that is, engage counsel and refuse to talk, and annoy them? Personally, I am staying in the boat. Finally, the letter ends with the statement “Please note that the data regarding investigations is confidential, and I request that you treat this information accordingly.” Just a reminder that while the STATE may be required to keep the information confidential, YOU are not. The government’s request is just that: a request. That’s importantly distinguishable from a requirement.
With the release of new October 1 codes, coders noted some areas where they were hoping for some additional guidance or clarification. With the release
Data has become one of the most powerful assets in healthcare, but its value is realized only when leaders possess the literacy to interpret, question,
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. 1 with code CYBER25
CYBER WEEK IS HERE! Don’t miss your chance to get 20% off now until Dec. 2 with code CYBER24
