Billing and Coding Compliance
Healthcare billing and coding compliance, revenue integrity, and arrangements with referral sources represent one of the highest-risk areas for healthcare providers because they directly affect federal and state healthcare program payments. This area is a primary focus of the Department of Justice (DOJ), Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG), Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and State Medicaid Fraud Control Units. OIG guidance makes clear that billing and coding oversight is a core compliance responsibility, and failure to address it increases organizational risk. Most enforcement actions arise from systemic process failures, not intentional fraud. However, if billing risk is known but not addressed, it becomes a potential fraud issue.
Billing and coding errors are the primary drivers of False Claims Act (FCA) liability, OIG exclusions, and DOJ investigations. Identifying a systemic error can trigger overpayment obligations under the 60-Day Rule, where failure to make repayment may be viewed as fraud. Compliance Officers may also risk personal liability and be accused of “knowing and ignoring” problems. However, many Compliance Officers are reluctant to review billing and coding compliance because it is resource-intensive and technically complicated. It may require expertise lacking in the office, such as certified coders, making Compliance Officers hesitant to challenge coding decisions made by specialists, interpret complex CPT, ICD-10, and payer-specific rules, and defend findings to leadership or regulators. Billing and coding errors can trigger FCA liability, Civil Monetary Penalties (CMPs), Corporate Integrity Agreements (CIAs), and exclusion from federal healthcare programs. It is therefore common to engage a consulting firm to assist in ensuring compliance by testing codes. The following are compliance areas related to billing and coding:
- Medical Necessity. Services not supported by clinical documentation or that fail to meet payer coverage criteria, such as National Coverage Determinations (NCDs) and Local Coverage Determinations (LCDs). Errors are common in inpatient admissions, diagnostic testing, therapy services, home health, and hospice.
- Upcoding and Overcoding. This involves billing higher-level Evaluation and Management (E/M) codes than are supported by the documentation. Common examples include excessive use of Level 4–5 E/M, critical care, and high-complexity procedures.
- Unbundling. This occurs when services that must be billed together are billed separately. It is common with surgical procedures, laboratory panels, and imaging services.
- Modifier Misuse. Inappropriate use of modifiers, such as -25, -59, -76, -91, can be used to bypass edits or increase reimbursement. Modifier -59 abuse remains a top audit issue and a major focus for enforcement agencies.
- Documentation Integrity. Errors or fraud are common with cloned or templated notes, copy-and-paste errors, and inconsistent clinical narratives. Documentation must support medical necessity, not just code selection.
- Time-Based Billing Errors. Common errors include incorrect calculation of time, missing start/stop times, and billing based on scheduled rather than actual time. This is common in E/M (2021+ rules), therapy, and critical care.
- Incident-To and Supervision Failures. This occurs when services are billed under a provider without proper supervision and is particularly risky in physician practices, behavioral health, and rural health clinics.
- Duplicate Billing. This involves billing the same service twice, by multiple departments, or by related entities.
Effective billing and coding compliance requires ongoing audits, data analytics, appropriate methodologies, and corrective action monitoring. Healthcare compliance officers are reluctant to review billing and coding compliance not because it is unimportant, but because it is a high-enforcement-risk area that is legally complex and politically sensitive. In addition, many compliance departments are understaffed and/or lack the expertise to properly assess compliance in this area, making sustained review difficult. As a result, organizations often engage expert consultants to assist.
For more information on this topic, contact [email protected].
