Bindinglaw

US · guidance

CMS Pub. 100-08, ch. 3, § 3.6

Determinations Made During Review

activein force · 2026-08-25 – presentas-observed

This section applies to MACs, CERT, Recovery Auditors, and UPICs, as

indicated.

A. General

The MACs, CERT, Recovery Auditors, and UPICs shall be able to differentiate the type

of determination made, ensuring that limitation of liability determinations are

appropriate.

When the MAC determines, through prepayment data analysis or postpayment review,

that an inappropriate claim has been submitted; or the Recovery Auditor determines, in

post-payment review, that an improper payment has been made, the MAC and Recovery

Auditor shall verify that the error represents an unacceptable practice and not just an

explainable aberrancy. Some legitimate reasons for anomalous data include:

• The provider may be associated with a medical school, research

center, or may be a highly specialized facility, for instance, the

facility may be a Medicare- dependant hospital or CAH, which

might skew the type of claims submitted; or

• The community in which the provider practices may have special

characteristics such as socio-economic level or a concentration of a

specific age group that leads to an apparent aberrancy in the use of

certain services.

The MACs, CERT, Recovery Auditors, and UPICs have the discretion to make other

determinations during the review of a claim to avoid or identify improper payments for

such things as duplicate claims, etc. Other examples are listed below:

Example 1: A Medicare policy states that when three (3) procedures are performed

during the same operative session, Medicare pays 100 percent for the first, 50 percent for

the second and 25 percent for the third. A claim is identified where all three (3)

procedures were paid at 100 percent.

Example 2: A claim was paid using the fee schedule from the prior year.

Example 3: A Medicare payment policy states that in order to pay for a capped rental

item, consideration shall be given to whether the item was in “continuous use” by the

beneficiary for a specified time period. A claim is found to have been paid out of

compliance with this policy provision.

If, at any time, the medical review detects potential fraud, MACs, CERT, and Recovery

Auditors, shall refer the issue to the appropriate UPIC.

History

(Rev. 10365; Issued: 10-02-20; Effective: 08-27-20; Implementation: 08-27-20)

Provenance

Source
cms.gov
Retrieved
2026-08-25
Edition
iom-2026-08-25
Content hash
c064d08cc7f93061b9ab97ec569e5c2225713570a062a275f247d237a75a5a67
View the official source →

The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.

Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.

Coverage · API docs

Bindinglaw

Point-in-time US law with the receipt attached. Source URL, retrieval time, content hash, and validity dates on every answer.

curl api.binding.law/v1/law/coverage

© 2026 binding.law · a Jubal, Inc. productAttorneys and firms never pay. Ever.