US · guidance
CMS Pub. 100-08, ch. 3, § 3.7.3.1
Evaluation of Prepayment Edits
This section applies to MACs.
The MACs shall develop prepayment edits based on the findings of data analysis,
followed by identification and prioritization of identified problems. The MACs shall
evaluate all service-specific and provider-specific prepayment edits as follows:
• Automated edits shall be evaluated annually, and
• Non-medical record review or medical record review edits shall be evaluated
quarterly.
The edit evaluations are to determine their effectiveness on the provider or service area
while assessing the effect of the edit tasks on workload. The MACs shall consider an edit
to be effective when it has a reasonable rate of denial relative to suspensions and a
reasonable dollar return on cost of operation or potential to avoid significant risk to
beneficiaries. The MACs shall revise or replace edits that are ineffective. Edits may be
ineffective when payments or claims denied are very small in proportion to the volume of
claims suspended for review. It is appropriate to leave edits in place if sufficient data are
not available to evaluate effectiveness, for instance, a measurable impact is expected, or a
quarter is too brief a time period to observe a change. The MACs shall analyze
prepayment edits in conjunction with data analysis to confirm or re-establish priorities.
The MACs should replace existing effective edits to address problems that are potentially
more costly, if appropriate.
History
(Rev. 721; Issued: 06-09-17; Effective: 07-11-17; Implementation: 07-11-17)
Provenance
- Source
- cms.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-25
- Edition
- iom-2026-08-25
- Content hash
1bd3b9da6d9627fbf74bc4a8cff3d1bb79cafd275ed2638b742fea3a8ec46a39
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.