Skip to main content
Subscribe
  • Sign Up Free
  • Login
  • Subscribe
  • News
    • Current News
    • Providers
    • Insurance
    • Government
    • Finance
    • Technology
    • Safety & Quality
    • Digital Health
    • Transformation
    • ESG
    • People
    • Regional News
    • Digital Edition (Web Version)
    • Patients
    • Operations
    • Care Delivery
    • Payment
    • Midwest
    • Northeast
    • South
    • West
  • Blogs
    • AI
    • Deals
    • Layoff Tracker
    • HIMSS 2023
  • Opinion
    • Breaking Bias
    • Commentaries
    • Letters
    • From the Editor
  • Events & Awards
    • Awards
    • Conferences
    • Galas
    • Virtual Briefings
    • Webinars
    • Nominate/Eligibility
    • 100 Most Influential People
    • 50 Most Influential Clinical Executives
    • Best Places to Work in Healthcare
    • Excellence in Governance
    • Health Care Hall of Fame
    • Healthcare Marketing Impact Awards
    • Top 25 Emerging Leaders
    • Top Innovators
    • Diversity in Healthcare
      • - Luminaries
      • - Top 25 Diversity Leaders
      • - Leaders to Watch
    • Women in Healthcare
      • - Luminaries
      • - Top 25 Women Leaders
      • - Women to Watch
    • Digital Health Transformation Summit
    • ESG: The Implementation Imperative Summit
    • Leadership Symposium
    • Social Determinants of Health Symposium
    • Women Leaders in Healthcare Conference
    • Best Places to Work Awards Gala
    • Health Care Hall of Fame Gala
    • Top 25 Diversity Leaders Gala
    • Top 25 Women Leaders Gala
    • - Hospital of the Future
    • - Value Based Care
    • - Hospital at Home
    • - Workplace of the Future
    • - AI and Digital Health
    • - Future of Staffing
    • - Hospital of the Future (Fall)
  • Multimedia
    • Podcast - Beyond the Byline
    • Sponsored Podcast - Healthcare Insider
    • Sponsored Video Series - One on One
    • Sponsored Video Series - Checking In with Dan Peres
  • Data & Insights
    • Data & Insights Home
    • Hospital Financials
    • Staffing & Compensation
    • Quality & Safety
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • Data Archive
    • Resource Guide: By the Numbers
    • Surveys
    • Data Points
  • Newsletters
  • MORE+
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Media Kit
    • Jobs
    • People on the Move
    • Reprints & Licensing
MENU
Breadcrumb
  1. Home
  2. Government
June 09, 2015 12:00 AM

RAC program requires major changes for improved transparency

Dr. Ann Sheehy
  • Tweet
  • Share
  • Share
  • Email
  • More
    Reprints Print
    Sheehy

    Congress is paying increased attention to outpatient (observation) and inpatient status determinations for hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries and to the Recovery Audit program charged with enforcement of such determinations. Recovery auditors, commonly referred to as recovery audit contractors, have returned an estimated $5.4 billion to the Medicare trust funds (PDF) in improper payments, yet hospitals and providers have argued that the contingency-fee-based RAC program is fraught with inaccurate auditing and myriad inefficiencies, wasting Medicare dollars.

    Such opposing views reflect a major issue plaguing the RAC program: lack of transparency in data reporting. At a May 2014 House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee hearing on “Current Issues in the Medicare Program,” it was clear that the CMS, RACs and hospitals all use different figures to make their claims on appeals accuracy and financial recoupment. One year later, these problems were still apparent at a similar May 20, 2015 Senate Special Committee on Aging hearing. As a practicing physician and researcher who testified at the former hearing and watched the latter, I was struck by the reality that data that would never pass muster in the research world was being used by the CMS and by RACs to shape federal policy.

    In the complex audit and appeals process, when a hospital's Medicare claim is audited, the recovery auditor either agrees with the claim or issues a determination of “improper payment.” If the auditor alleges improper payment, the hospital may contest this decision either by entering into the pre-appeals discussion period or by entering into Level 1 of the appeals process. Both discussion and appeals involve a similar amount of labor and cost for the hospital. If a hospital does not contest the auditor's decision, under some circumstances the hospital can rebill Medicare Part B to recoup some payment for the services delivered.

    As an example of the need for data transparency, a recent study combining more than 100,000 Medicare encounters and associated Complex Part A audit and appeals data from Johns Hopkins Hospital, University of Utah Hospital and University of Wisconsin Hospital found that 33% of RAC improper payment determinations contested and won by the three hospitals occurred in the discussion period. Yet decisions in favor of a hospital in discussion do not appear in federal reports of RAC accuracy, as discussion is technically not part of the formal appeals process. In addition, the CMS uses flawed methodology to determine appeals success (PDF), such that “… a single claim … denied at the first and second levels (of appeals) and then overturned at the third level would result in a 33% overturn rate—instead of 100%”. Therefore, the 9% hospital appeals success rate cited by CMS Deputy Administrator and Director Sean Cavanaugh at the May 20 Senate Aging Committee hearing markedly underestimates the actual RAC error rate. Both lawmakers (see H.R. 2156) and the CMS (PDF) have developed measures to penalize auditors that have overturn rates exceeding 10%. Although such efforts are laudable, these methodological concerns make such measures less meaningful in evaluating auditor performance and ensuring accountability.

    And what exactly are “improper payments?” At the three study hospitals, the average time in appeals was 555 days, prompting the hospitals to concede or withdraw cases, causing these dollars to be logged as “improper payments.” The current appeals backlog incited CMS to issue a “68 cents on the dollar” settlement if a hospital agreed to settle all outstanding appeals. Although CMS encouraged hospitals to accept the settlement, these reconciled cases were also considered “improper payments.” Currently, time spent in appeals, a likely reason behind many “improper payments,” does not appear in federal reports.

    Current practices—such as omitting the discussion period in measures of RAC accuracy—beg for improved transparency in data reporting. Congress and the CMS must mandate that the RACs accurately report existing data, including:

  • Overturns in the discussion period
  • Use of final appeals decisions only to calculate appeals success rates
  • Percentage of claims audited and appealed each year by type of audit (Complex Part A, Complex Part B, semi-automated, and automated)
  • Total time in appeals
  • Time at each level of appeals and number of cases that exceed CMS' own 60 (Level 1 and 2) (PDF) and 90 (Level 3)-day timeline (PDF).
  • Fortunately, amendments to the bill discussed by the Senate Finance Committee on June 3, 2015, contain many of such transparency measures. Surveillance and auditing is necessary to maintaining integrity in the Medicare program. Equipped with accurate data, Congress and Medicare will know exactly how to fix the recovery audit program, the most important piece to solving the hospital observation care problem.

    Dr. Ann Sheehy is an associate professor at the University of Wisconsin Department of Medicine and division head of hospital medicine.

    Letter
    to the
    Editor

    Send us a letter

    Have an opinion about this story? Click here to submit a Letter to the Editor, and we may publish it in print.

    Recommended for You
    congress prescription drugs
    PBMs, Big Pharma face off in House hearing
    Biden COVID copy_i_i.jpg
    Biden administration asks employers to help more workers who lose Medicaid
    Most Popular
    1
    Centene to lay off 2,000 workers
    2
    How health systems are battling price-gouging allegations
    3
    Senate advances bill to temporarily aid hospitals, health centers
    4
    Elevance, Blue Cross Louisiana halt $2.5B proposed deal
    5
    Tower Health to sell urgent care centers, close others
    Sponsored Content
    Modern Healthcare Alert: Sign up for this breaking news email to be kept in the loop as urgent healthcare business news unfolds.
    Get Newsletters

    Sign up for enewsletters and alerts to receive breaking news and in-depth coverage of healthcare events and trends, as they happen, right to your inbox.

    Subscribe Today
    MH Magazine Cover

    MH magazine offers content that sheds light on healthcare leaders’ complex choices and touch points—from strategy, governance, leadership development and finance to operations, clinical care, and marketing.

    Subscribe
    Connect with Us
    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • RSS

    Our Mission

    Modern Healthcare empowers industry leaders to succeed by providing unbiased reporting of the news, insights, analysis and data.

    Contact Us

    (877) 812-1581

    Email us

     

    Resources
    • Contact Us
    • Help Center
    • Advertise with Us
    • Ad Choices
    • Sitemap
    Editorial Dept
    • Submission Guidelines
    • Code of Ethics
    • Awards
    • About Us
    Legal
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Privacy Request
    Modern Healthcare
    Copyright © 1996-2023. Crain Communications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
    • News
      • Current News
      • Providers
      • Insurance
      • Government
      • Finance
      • Technology
      • Safety & Quality
      • Digital Health
      • Transformation
        • Patients
        • Operations
        • Care Delivery
        • Payment
      • ESG
      • People
      • Regional News
        • Midwest
        • Northeast
        • South
        • West
      • Digital Edition (Web Version)
    • Blogs
      • AI
      • Deals
      • Layoff Tracker
      • HIMSS 2023
    • Opinion
      • Breaking Bias
      • Commentaries
      • Letters
      • From the Editor
    • Events & Awards
      • Awards
        • Nominate/Eligibility
        • 100 Most Influential People
        • 50 Most Influential Clinical Executives
        • Best Places to Work in Healthcare
        • Excellence in Governance
        • Health Care Hall of Fame
        • Healthcare Marketing Impact Awards
        • Top 25 Emerging Leaders
        • Top Innovators
        • Diversity in Healthcare
          • - Luminaries
          • - Top 25 Diversity Leaders
          • - Leaders to Watch
        • Women in Healthcare
          • - Luminaries
          • - Top 25 Women Leaders
          • - Women to Watch
      • Conferences
        • Digital Health Transformation Summit
        • ESG: The Implementation Imperative Summit
        • Leadership Symposium
        • Social Determinants of Health Symposium
        • Women Leaders in Healthcare Conference
      • Galas
        • Best Places to Work Awards Gala
        • Health Care Hall of Fame Gala
        • Top 25 Diversity Leaders Gala
        • Top 25 Women Leaders Gala
      • Virtual Briefings
        • - Hospital of the Future
        • - Value Based Care
        • - Hospital at Home
        • - Workplace of the Future
        • - AI and Digital Health
        • - Future of Staffing
        • - Hospital of the Future (Fall)
      • Webinars
    • Multimedia
      • Podcast - Beyond the Byline
      • Sponsored Podcast - Healthcare Insider
      • Sponsored Video Series - One on One
      • Sponsored Video Series - Checking In with Dan Peres
    • Data & Insights
      • Data & Insights Home
      • Hospital Financials
      • Staffing & Compensation
      • Quality & Safety
      • Mergers & Acquisitions
      • Data Archive
      • Resource Guide: By the Numbers
      • Surveys
      • Data Points
    • Newsletters
    • MORE+
      • Contact Us
      • Advertise
      • Media Kit
      • Jobs
      • People on the Move
      • Reprints & Licensing