Video: Every Case Tells a Story| Webinar: ACR/CHEST ILD Guidelines in Practice

An official publication of the ACR and the ARP serving rheumatologists and rheumatology professionals

  • Conditions
    • Axial Spondyloarthritis
    • Gout and Crystalline Arthritis
    • Myositis
    • Osteoarthritis and Bone Disorders
    • Pain Syndromes
    • Pediatric Conditions
    • Psoriatic Arthritis
    • Rheumatoid Arthritis
    • Sjögren’s Disease
    • Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
    • Systemic Sclerosis
    • Vasculitis
    • Other Rheumatic Conditions
  • FocusRheum
    • ANCA-Associated Vasculitis
    • Axial Spondyloarthritis
    • Gout
    • Psoriatic Arthritis
    • Rheumatoid Arthritis
    • Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
  • Guidance
    • Clinical Criteria/Guidelines
    • Ethics
    • Legal Updates
    • Legislation & Advocacy
    • Meeting Reports
      • ACR Convergence
      • Other ACR meetings
      • EULAR/Other
    • Research Rheum
  • Drug Updates
    • Analgesics
    • Biologics/DMARDs
  • Practice Support
    • Billing/Coding
    • EMRs
    • Facility
    • Insurance
    • QA/QI
    • Technology
    • Workforce
  • Opinion
    • Patient Perspective
    • Profiles
    • Rheuminations
      • Video
    • Speak Out Rheum
  • Career
    • ACR ExamRheum
    • Awards
    • Career Development
  • ACR
    • ACR Home
    • ACR Convergence
    • ACR Guidelines
    • Journals
      • ACR Open Rheumatology
      • Arthritis & Rheumatology
      • Arthritis Care & Research
    • From the College
    • Events/CME
    • President’s Perspective
  • Search

Medicare Bills Under the Magnifying Glass

Christopher Guadagnino, PhD  |  Issue: December 2009  |  December 1, 2009

REFINEMENTS IN PERMANENT RAC PROGRAM

All new issues a RAC wishes to pursue for overpayments must be validated by CMS or an independent RAC validation contractor and posted to a RAC’s Web site before widespread review.

  • Each RAC must hire a physician medical director as well as certified coders. A provider may request the credentials of the individuals making medical review determinations and request to speak to a RAC’s medical director regarding a claim denial.
  • RACs cannot audit claims earlier than three years from the start of the program, with a maximum look-back date of October 1, 2007 (replacing a four-year look-back period in the demo).
  • RACs are limited to requesting 10 medical records per 45 days from a solo physician, 20 medical records from a small practice of two to five physicians, 30 from a group of six to 15, and 50 from a large group of more than 16 physicians.
  • RACs must send a detailed review results letter to providers following all complex reviews within 60 calendar days of the receipt of the medical records.
  • RACs must pay back contingency fees when an improper payment determination is overturned at any level in the appeals process (demo RACs were allowed to retain them on determinations overturned on second- and third-level appeal).
  • RACs must have in place by January 1, 2010 a Web-based claim status platform that will allow providers to track the status of medical record submissions to RACs.
  • A RAC validation contractor will conduct a thirdparty review of RAC claim determinations and provide annual accuracy scores for each RAC.

Demo Program Lessons

In 2005, a RAC demonstration project was launched in California, Florida, and New York, states selected because they are the largest states in terms of Medicare utilization. The demonstration was expanded in 2007 to include Massachusetts, South Carolina, and Arizona.

ad goes here:advert-1
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE

Some physicians who were audited by a demo project RAC found the experience to be onerous. Some RACs demanded multiple physician repayments for claims that had previously been reviewed and adjudicated by a local Medicare carrier, misapplied codes, demanded hundreds of medical records from single practices, exceeded time limits for reviewing claims, interpreted clinical guidelines inappropriately, and applied new regulations retroactively to previously performed procedures, according to Michael Schweitz, MD, a rheumatologist from West Palm Beach, Fla., who was audited during the RAC demo program, and who testified before a Congressional committee last spring about RAC activities. “One six-physician practice was asked to pay back $100,000” in alleged overpayments, says Dr. Schweitz.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 | Single Page
Share: 

Filed under:Billing/CodingLegislation & AdvocacyPractice Support Tagged with:Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)Practice ManagementRecovery Audit Contractor

Related Articles

    Understanding & Preparing for Payer Audits

    June 21, 2018

    Audit activity among Medicare and most third-party payers has increased in response to pressure to reduce healthcare costs. The return of billions of dollars to Medicare, Medicaid and third-party programs through these medical audit reviews has also increased. For example, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 2014 Annual Report estimated that the Centers for Medicare &…

    Recovery Audit Contractors: What Are the Facts?

    March 1, 2009

    In March of 2008, by Section 302 of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (CMS) Recover Audit Contractor (RAC) program was made a permanent addition to the Centers’ goal preventing fraud, waste, and abuse in the Medicare system.

    Different Payer Audits Require Different Preparation & Response

    June 21, 2018

    For a provider of healthcare services, payer audits are always a possibility. Both government and private payers consistently monitor providers to prevent fraud, overpayment, and improper billing or coding procedures. Audits can be nerve-racking and intimidating, even if a provider is billing correctly. Improper billing can lead to civil and criminal sanctions. To alleviate some…

    Practice Page

    June 13, 2011

    Ready, Set … RAC Audits

  • About Us
  • Meet the Editors
  • Issue Archives
  • Contribute
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us
  • Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 1931-3268 (print). ISSN 1931-3209 (online).
  • DEI Statement
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Cookie Preferences