The audit situation in U.S. healthcare has changed a lot in recent years. Payers like Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers now focus more on clinical proof of documentation than just whether codes are correct or signatures are missing. This means payers check if serious diagnoses like sepsis, acute respiratory failure, and severe malnutrition are truly supported by medical records. Denials often happen because doctors and payers see clinical information differently, not just due to coding mistakes.
Gina Stewart, VP of Coding Quality & Education at e4health, says that “audit readiness for high-risk diagnoses is not a periodic activity—it is a sustained operational posture.” This means healthcare groups must always check and improve their coding and documentation. Practices should move from just dealing with denials to stopping them before they happen by using standard documentation questions, second-level reviews, and special pre-bill audits on high-risk cases.
Emily Montemayor, a coding support manager with over ten years of experience, says that “misapplied codes, inconsistent documentation, or a misinterpreted procedure can easily lead to denied claims, audits, or lost revenue.” She adds that “even minor coding mistakes can cause big money and legal problems.”
Pre-bill audits mean checking medical records before sending claims to catch and fix mistakes. Instead of checking every claim, focusing on high-risk diagnoses and procedures works better and doesn’t slow billing. Gina Stewart’s study showed that even checking a small number of high-risk charts each week had a return on investment over 740%. One review of 100 cases found $35,000 in avoidable losses at a labor cost of $4,125.
This method lowers denials and also helps doctors improve their documentation clearly and early. Creating dashboards to track audit results helps keep checking and improving over time.
Working together with Clinical Documentation Improvement (CDI) experts and coding teams helps make documentation more consistent and compliant. Sharing query standards, training materials, and audit reports means clinicians and coders “tell the same story” in both medical language and billing codes.
This agreement helps make claims stronger in payer audits and lowers contradictions that payers find suspicious. Joining policies and procedures between departments is important for audit preparation.
Payer rules can be complicated, especially in states like Florida that have different Medicaid and Medicare plans. A Miami-based coding service called IHBS highlights local coding knowledge, focused on modifier use, payer documentation rules, and handling bilingual documents.
Regular training sessions, such as monthly CMS updates or specialty workshops, help coders stay updated and make fewer errors. Training based on audit results also fills knowledge gaps quickly, helping more claims get accepted.
Doctors’ clinical documentation must be clear, complete, and specific. Educating providers briefly with examples from their own charts encourages better documentation without seeming like a punishment. Gina Stewart says providers respond better when feedback is about improving patient care and operations, not just coding compliance.
Good documentation clearly links diagnoses with treatment reasons, shows medical necessity, and avoids unclear language that payers might see as not enough.
Routine medical coding audits done by internal or outside experts find problems like undercoding, overcoding, or wrong use of modifiers and CPT codes. These audits review compliance and help find lost revenue by showing gaps in reimbursements across payers.
The U.S. healthcare system loses up to $935 million a week due to billing mistakes that regular audits could reduce. As coding rules and payer policies keep changing, audits help practices avoid denials, fines, and paying money back.
Artificial intelligence (AI) and automation are becoming important tools to improve audit readiness and coding accuracy. These tools can reduce manual mistakes, improve documentation matching, and speed up billing processes.
AI systems like ENTER’s AI-based revenue cycle management combine payer rules and coding logic to cut claim denials. According to Becker’s Healthcare, claim denials went up 23% in the U.S. from 2016 to 2022, mainly because of documentation errors and payer mismatches. AI can lower coding errors by up to 70%, fixing problems before claims are sent.
AI checks claims in real time to confirm charges, medical necessity, and modifiers. This speeds up claims and raises first-pass acceptance rates by as much as 30%. Auburn Community Hospital used ENTER’s system and cut claim rejections by 28%, plus lowered average payment waiting time from 56 to 34 days in 90 days.
AI also helps pre-bill audits by automatically flagging charts that need more review based on high-risk diagnoses or payer denial patterns. Predictive analytics predict denial risks, revenue shortfalls, and staff needs, letting leaders plan resources better.
This stops denials before payment instead of reacting after. For example, Banner Health raised its clean claims rate by 21% and got back over $3 million in lost money within six months using AI tools.
Automating routine revenue cycle tasks like checking eligibility, capturing charges, sending claims, and posting payments cuts staff work by up to 40%. Automation also improves accuracy and frees coders and billing teams to focus on tricky cases that need human skill.
Real-time dashboards help front and back office teams work together better, cutting delays and speeding financial work. These platforms also show patient payment details more clearly, helping patient satisfaction and self-pay collections as high-deductible plans grow.
Still, using AI and automation has challenges like fitting in with old systems, costs, and changing how staff work. To succeed, there needs to be training guided by people, custom fitting to provider workflows, continuous staff learning, and tracking performance with key measures.
Jordan Kelley, CEO of ENTER, says AI platforms must fit user environments to keep accuracy and acceptance. When done right, these tools help healthcare groups maintain financial health and work flexibility over time.
In states like Florida, medical practices deal with special payer challenges, such as Medicaid-managed care plans and bilingual documents. Groups like IHBS in Miami focus on these local rules, offering certified coders trained in state payer policies and language needs.
Knowing local requirements helps avoid denials due to wrong modifier use or missing documentation rules, especially in places with many Spanish-speaking patients. Adding this expertise strengthens audit readiness and eases payer relations.
The webcast focuses on accurately coding for pacemakers, defibrillators, CCM, and new CCM-D procedures using existing and 2025 Category III CPT codes, highlighting documentation pitfalls and coding errors.
The presenter is Emily Montemayor, a Medical Coding Support Manager with over a decade of healthcare experience and expertise in revenue integrity, compliance, and auditing.
The complexity arises from rapid advancements in cardiac device technology, evolving payer expectations, inconsistent documentation, and the introduction of new coding rules and procedures.
Inaccurate coding can lead to denied claims, audits, lost revenue, and significant financial and compliance repercussions for healthcare organizations.
Participants will identify key cardiac devices, distinguish coding protocols, apply new codes confidently, recognize documentation pitfalls, and improve audit readiness.
The session is ideal for coding educators, compliance staff, clinical documentation integrity specialists, health information management professionals, and coding managers.
The program has been approved for 1.5 continuing education hours by AAPC and 1.5 continuing education units by AHIMA, although approval doesn’t endorse the program content.
It provides clarity and practical guidance on coding procedures amidst rapidly changing regulations and technology, helping coders stay compliant and confident.
Common pitfalls include misapplied codes, inconsistent documentation, and misunderstanding of procedure specifics, which can lead to coding errors.
It strengthens audit readiness by aligning coding practices with payer expectations and supporting defensible claims, ensuring optimized reimbursement for services rendered.
Simbo is using AI agents to automate all phone related workflows. Connect now to know more.
Schedule AI Agents Demo Now© Since 2019, Simbo AI.
