Medicare and Medicaid Auditor Double-Dipping: A Growing Concern for Healthcare Providers

Healthcare Attorney Raises Double-Dipping Concerns

Healthcare attorney Knicole Emanuel has brought attention to a troubling practice affecting Medicare and Medicaid providers, in which auditors potentially conduct overlapping audits on the same claims. Writing for ICD10monitor, Emanuel explores whether multiple audit entities can legitimately review identical records, raising significant compliance and financial concerns for healthcare organizations.

The RAC Program and Regulatory Framework

Recovery Audit Contractors operate under distinct regulatory frameworks, with Medicaid RACs governed by 42 CFR Subpart F and Medicare programs falling under 42 CFR Subchapter B. These post-payment auditors are typically staffed by certified coders and licensed practical nurses who review claims to identify overpayments and underpayments.

The RAC program spans five regions, with Regions 1-4 handling Medicare Part A and Part B claims, while Region 5 focuses specifically on Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies along with Home Health and Hospice services.

When Multiple Audits Become Problematic

Emanuel acknowledges that random sampling audits, such as those conducted by the Comprehensive Error Rate Testing program, may legitimately overlap with other reviews since auditors have no knowledge of concurrent audits when selecting claims. However, she expresses concern about Recovery Audit Contractors potentially overlapping their own audit activities.

The financial implications become severe when auditors engage in what Emanuel describes as attempting to recoup money twice for identical services on the same date. This practice particularly impacts extrapolated audits, where the universe of claims can be so extensive that providers may miss overlapping reviews, especially when conducted by different audit companies.

Real-World Impact on Healthcare Organizations

Documentation exists of actual double-dipping cases affecting healthcare providers. In one documented instance, a healthcare organization faced audits from two separate RACs covering overlapping time periods. The first audit examined claims from 2014 to 2016, while the second focused on 2015 claims, creating direct overlap in the reviewed period.

This scenario creates devastating financial consequences for providers, who must defend the same claims twice through separate appeal processes. The situation becomes more complex when different auditors reject identical claims for varying reasons, potentially creating conflicting determinations that must be resolved through separate Administrative Law Judge proceedings.

Financial and Operational Consequences

The double-dipping phenomenon creates multiple layers of financial burden for healthcare organizations. Providers face doubled recoupment demands for overlapping claims, increased legal and administrative costs for defending identical claims multiple times, and extended appeal processes that can stretch across several years.

The Medicare Program Integrity Manual provides guidance requiring separate audits for multi-year periods, yet coordination mechanisms to prevent duplicate auditing appear insufficient. This regulatory gap leaves providers vulnerable to redundant audit exposure without clear recourse.

Recommendations for Healthcare Organizations

Healthcare organizations should implement robust audit tracking systems to identify potential overlapping reviews, engage qualified legal counsel experienced in Medicare and Medicaid litigation, and maintain detailed documentation of all audit communications and timelines.

Organizations should also consider hiring statistical experts to review extrapolated audit methodologies for potential overlaps, particularly when facing multiple simultaneous audit activities from different contractors.

Healthcare organizations navigating audit oversight and potential double-dipping scenarios can benefit from specialized guidance. Contact James Moore’s healthcare practice team to discuss how these developments may impact your organization.

All content provided in this article is for informational purposes only. Matters discussed in this article are subject to change. For up-to-date information on this subject please contact a James Moore professional. James Moore will not be held responsible for any claim, loss, damage or inconvenience caused as a result of any information within these pages or any information accessed through this site.