US · guidance
CMS SOM App. G, Tag J-0161
§491.11(a) The clinic . . . carries out, or arranges for, a biennial evaluation of its
total program.
(b) The evaluation includes review of:
(1) The utilization of clinic . . . services, including at least the number of patients
served and the volume of services;
(2) A representative sample of both active and closed clinical records; and
(3) The clinic’s . . . health care policies.
(c) The purpose of the review is to determine whether:
(1) The utilization of services was appropriate;
(2) The established policies were followed; and
(3) Any changes are needed.
Interpretative Guidelines §491.11(a) - (c)
The clinic’s program evaluation must be reviewed at least biennially. This evaluation
may be done by RHC staff or through arrangement with other appropriate professionals.
The RHC must have documentation of who conducts the review or portions of the
review, and what their qualifications are to do so.
The evaluation must include, at a minimum, the number of patients served and the
volume of services provided. The evaluation should be able to determine whether the
RHC provides appropriate types and volume of services based upon the needs of its
patient population. It should also be able to evaluate whether RHC patient policies were
followed and whether or not changes to the policies or to procedures are warranted.
A RHC that has been certified for less than one year may not have done a program
evaluation. However, the RHC must have a written plan that specifies who is to do the
evaluation, when and how it is to be done, and what will be covered within the
evaluation.
The evaluation must also include a review of a representative sample of both active and
closed clinical records of RHC patients. The sample must also include at least 5 percent
of the RHC’s current patients or 50 records, whichever is less. The purpose of the review
is to determine whether utilization of the RHC’s services was appropriate, i.e., whether
practitioners adhere to accepted standards of practice and adhere to the RHC’s guidelines
for medical management when diagnosing or treating patients. The review also must
evaluate whether all personnel providing direct patient care adhere to the RHC’s patient
care policies. The evaluation of practitioners must be conducted by an MD or DO; if
there is only one MD or DO practicing in the RHC, it is expected that the RHC will
arrange for an outside MD/DO to review the selected sample of records of RHC patients
cared for by the RHC’s MD/DO. The evaluation of whether the RHC’s patient care
policies were followed may be conducted by an MD/DO, a non-physician practitioner, an
RN, or other personnel who meet the RHC’s qualifications criteria.
The evaluation findings must be documented in a summary report, and must include
recommendations, if any, for corrective actions to address problems identified in the
evaluation. If a RHC has developed a QAPI program and that program meets/exceeds
the regulatory requirements for a Program Evaluation, the QAPI program would be
acceptable.
Survey Procedures § 491.11 (a) - (c)
• Is there evidence that the evaluation is completed at least biennially and includes
review of the number of patients served and the volume of services provided?
• Is there evidence of a review of a representative sample of RHC records?
• Does the sample include the required minimum number of records?
• Who conducts which portions of the review? Are they qualified to do so?
• Is there evidence of findings and recommendations from the review, and do the
findings address each required component?
History
Rev. 200, Issued: 02-21-20; Effective: 02-21-20, Implementation: 02-21-20
Provenance
- Source
- cms.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-07-22
- Edition
- som-2026-07-22
- Content hash
26398f78e7018213d4ac50c2e11ce9a51152ddc3267abcdb10f30f723e678d21
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.