Well, I’ve got a couple of updates for you in the absolute roller coaster that is the No Surprises Act’s Independent Dispute Resolution (IDR) process!
The federal government officially filed their formal notice of an intent to appeal the ruling on the Texas Medical Association’s (TMA’s) third lawsuit, conveniently called TMA III, regarding the calculation of the qualifying payment amount (QPA) in the IDR process.
There isn’t really any supporting documentation of what exactly their argument will be, but this is the first step in the process after the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced their plans to appeal in guidance released early this month citing the outcomes of the most recent TMA cases.
This appeal is separate from the government’s appeal of TMA II back in the spring, but will be heard in the same court: the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. In that case, both sides have filed their written briefs, and a hearing will likely be scheduled next.
With all this up in the air, and CMS stating that they did not intend to issue interim guidance about the TMA III ruling, given the fact they planned to appeal, some thought we were more in a holding pattern as those appeals played out; after all, there are no lawsuits still pending in Texas courts at this time.
But very late last Friday afternoon, the government issued a proposed rule making changes to the IDR process; although it does not address the TMA ruling directly, it still features quite a few changes that aim to address many of the criticisms the process has faced over the months.
Take, for example, the backlog in the IDR process, which is partially a result of the unexpectedly high numbers of disputes submitted, as well as those that end up being ineligible. Under this new proposal, an eligibility review process the government can invoke when dispute volumes are high would be created, and payers would be required to include additional information in their initial payment or notice of denial of payment that would hopefully make eligibility easier to determine (and open negotiations more meaningful).
Another concern has been the ease of access to the IDR process. Many providers have expressed concern that the process is not as accessible as it should be, whether due to what they believe to be overly restrictive batching rules or the mandatory administrative fee.
The newly released proposed rule appears to address some of these concerns, because it broadens the batching provisions, allowing batching of claims related to a single patient encounter, those billed under the same service code (or a comparable code on a different system), and for certain specialties like anesthesiology, radiology, and pathology. With the proposed changes, those items and services could be billed under service codes belonging to the same Category/CPT code section.
It also proposes that the administrative fee be collected by the government directly from the disputing parties and that a reduced rate be implemented in certain situations where it would be unfair to charge the full amount.
According to the administration, the proposed rule is meant to “improve communication between payers, providers, and certified IDR entities (and) create a more efficient dispute resolution process, (changing) the administrative fee structure to improve accessibility.” In that early October guidance I mentioned, CMS stated that any proposals regarding the QPA methodology would require a lot of resources and take months rather than weeks, so it’s not entirely unlikely that everyone will be waiting for the resolution of the TMA appeals for the next big changes in guidance.
With how many ups and downs the IDR process has gone through lately, you never know!
For decades, clinical documentation integrity (CDI) programs have been synonymous with inpatient care. They evolved from early efforts to improve Diagnosis-Related Group (DRG) accuracy into
The 2026 Medicare Physician Schedule Final Rule includes several distinct policy changes in which the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) modifies how it
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. 2 with code CYBER24
