Medicare & Medicaid, week of Aug 30, 2026

CMS reports $1.6 billion in Medicare laboratory program integrity actions across revocations, suspensions, recoupments and referrals

Summary

CMS’s August 28 laboratory announcement combines projected savings, suspended payments, recoupments and referral-related prevention. Its examples describe rapid billing intervention, but the headline total is not a single recovered sum or an adjudication that every associated claim was fraudulent.

What changed

CMS announced August 28 that its Medicare laboratory program-integrity work had stopped more than $1.6 billion in potentially improper payments. The total combines four different measures: $732 million in savings associated with revoking 157 providers, over $500 million halted through 185 suspensions arising from an investigation of 600 laboratories, more than $276 million recouped from 442 identified overpayments, and $127 million prevented through 85 contractor law-enforcement referrals. Only the recoupment category describes money already paid and then recovered. The announcement does not establish that the entire aggregate was recovered or that fraud was adjudicated for every associated claim.

The agency describes using artificial intelligence and machine-learning models to flag unusual Medicare fee-for-service billing before payment, including tests without a supporting ordering-provider relationship, unperformed services and upcoding. Named areas include pathogen detection, high-complexity drug tests and genetic testing. One example involved fourteen nonoperational laboratories and more than $24 million billed, with $12 million held under suspension and an additional $7 million recouped. Two Texas examples involved $1.2 million and $1.9 million in denied claims followed by suspension or enrollment action. These accounts illustrate different enforcement tools and stages; the release creates no new provider reporting duty. Any organization-wide sampling or enrollment review is a recommended response to the signal, rather than a mandate in this announcement.

Why it matters

The distinct categories matter when interpreting the size and timing of program-integrity exposure. As an operational inference, laboratory compliance teams can use the named billing patterns to choose monitoring samples, without treating the announcement as a finding against their own laboratory.

Response type

Validate

Confidence

High

Who this affects

Health systems, Provider networks

Jurisdiction

Federal

Primary owner

Revenue Cycle

Affected functions

Compliance, Revenue Cycle, Coding, Clinical Operations, Provider Enrollment, Finance, Legal

First seen

Aug 30, 2026

Last materially changed

Aug 30, 2026

Why it is still here

Retained for the source-specific assessment or implementation described in Recommended action. This dated issue does not establish that the organization has completed that work.

What to do nextAs a self-directed review, sample the organization’s laboratory claims in the named test categories for clinical support, the ordering relationship and evidence the service occurred. Check relevant laboratory enrollment records and assign follow-up for discrepancies. Present any proposed monitoring change as an internal control decision, not a new requirement imposed by this release.

1. Pull twelve months of laboratory claims in pathogen detection, high complexity drug testing and genetic testing, and chart the monthly volume and dollar trend by billing identifier. Revenue Cycle · due Sep 13, 2026
2. Sample the highest volume test codes and confirm an ordering provider relationship, a signed order, and a medical necessity record for each sampled claim. Compliance · due Sep 27, 2026
3. Inventory every Medicare laboratory billing identifier the organization controls or manages, including joint ventures and managed arrangements, and confirm enrollment data and revalidation ownership. Provider Enrollment · due Sep 27, 2026
4. Confirm the process for receiving and escalating a Medicare payment suspension or revocation notice, including who is notified within one business day and who leads the corrective response. Compliance · due Oct 4, 2026
5. Report the volume trend, the sample error rate, and the enrollment inventory to the compliance committee with a recommendation on prepayment self monitoring. Compliance · due Oct 18, 2026

Permalink: #cms-medicare-laboratory-payment-integrity-actions · Development ID GC-2026-0009

CMS opens the second CY 2027 Medicare Plan Finder benefit and drug-pricing preview through September 11

Summary

CMS schedules the second 2027 benefit and drug-pricing preview for September 8–11. Plans need to compare the display with their submissions, accounting for the preview’s stated pricing and data limits.

What changed

CMS’s September 1 memorandum sets the second 2027 Medicare Plan Finder benefit and drug-pricing preview for September 8 at 6 a.m. through September 11 at 11:59 p.m., Eastern. The preview is still ahead of this edition’s September 5 coverage cutoff. The memo lists no known issues and describes resolved displays, including D-SNP Part A cost sharing, drug tiers and prior-authorization/referral labels. Those are statements about the preview, not a certification of each plan’s submitted data.

Plans are encouraged to compare benefits with HPMS reports. Updates submitted after the preview’s data-as-of date will not appear, and 2026 Medicare-defined rates are displayed because 2027 rates were not yet released at the memo date. Drug pricing reflects submitted formulary, excluded-drug and pricing files, shows individual benefit phases without applying their thresholds, and can show cash price when a location or supply frequency is unavailable. CMS recommends representative comments for widespread defects. These limits distinguish a useful submission check from a final beneficiary cost quotation.

Why it matters

Comparing like-for-like data helps separate expected preview behavior from a real submission or display defect. An expired review window does not prove an organization’s work was completed.

Response type

Validate

Confidence

High

Who this affects

Health systems, Provider networks

Jurisdiction

Federal

Primary owner

Managed Care

Affected functions

Managed Care, Finance, IT, Compliance

What to do nextArrange the September 8–11 benefit and pricing checks, compare the appropriate HPMS submissions and submit representative comments for distinct defects before the stated Eastern-time close.

1. Compare each CY 2027 plan-benefit preview with its HPMS benefit report and record exceptions, including D-SNP Part A cost sharing and prior-authorization or referral displays. Any intermediate preparation date is an internal target; it does not replace the source’s operative deadline. Managed Care · due Sep 10, 2026
2. Compare drug-pricing preview results with submitted formulary, excluded-drug and drug-pricing files, then submit representative CMS comments for each distinct defect before the preview closes at 11:59 p.m. Eastern. Any intermediate preparation date is an internal target; it does not replace the source’s operative deadline. Managed Care · due Sep 11, 2026

Permalink: #cms-cy2027-second-plan-benefit-drug-pricing-preview · Development ID GC-2026-0083

CMS opens CY 2027 Medicare Advantage provider-directory preview and sets September 18 attestation deadline

Summary

The MA provider-directory preview opens September 8 and continues on an ongoing basis. CMS separately sets September 18 for annual officer attestation and production-ready data.

What changed

CMS’s September 2 memorandum opens the 2027 Medicare Advantage provider-directory preview in HPMS on September 8, with continuing availability and feedback until further notice. The September 4 final technical guide, version 1.5, separately gives September 18 as the annual attestation deadline and production-ready-data target before the planned October 1 release. Both September milestones remain ahead at the coverage cutoff.

The guide covers specified individual MA plans and calls for public machine-readable or FHIR-based JSON, correct provider-to-contract/plan/segment relationships and attestation by an authorized CEO, CFO or COO. Plans must update information within thirty days of learning of a change. Daily checks distinguish fatal submission failures, record-level errors and warnings; fatal submissions are withheld, while warnings may remain displayed. The preview lets a plan test practitioner and facility NPIs, but technical validation cannot establish that the provider information itself is accurate.

Why it matters

Annual attestation, technical validity and continuing network-data accuracy are separate controls. Passing one does not satisfy the others.

Response type

Implement

Confidence

High

Who this affects

Health systems, Provider networks

Jurisdiction

Federal

Primary owner

Managed Care

Affected functions

Managed Care, Provider Enrollment, IT, Compliance, Executive Leadership

What to do nextConfirm preview access, test representative plan and segment searches, address validation findings and route evidence to the authorized officer before September 18. Treat intermediate preparation dates as internal targets.

1. Confirm HPMS preview access for every affected MA contract and test representative practitioner and facility NPIs across all plan and segment combinations. Any intermediate preparation date is an internal target; it does not replace the source’s operative deadline. Managed Care · due Sep 11, 2026
2. Validate each public index and constituent JSON or FHIR file from an external network, including syntax, authentication-free access, compression, HTTP headers, file limits and contract-plan-segment relationships. Any intermediate preparation date is an internal target; it does not replace the source’s operative deadline. IT · due Sep 14, 2026
3. Review HPMS validation results and correct fatal errors, missing plan segments and stale provider data before the production target. Any intermediate preparation date is an internal target; it does not replace the source’s operative deadline. Provider Enrollment · due Sep 16, 2026
4. Route the final evidence to an authorized CEO, CFO or COO and complete the CY 2027 provider-directory attestation in HPMS. Any intermediate preparation date is an internal target; it does not replace the source’s operative deadline. Executive Leadership · due Sep 18, 2026

Permalink: #cms-cy2027-ma-provider-directory-preview-attestation · Development ID GC-2026-0084

Noridian finalizes two MolDX coverage policies for California effective October 12 and retires the thrombophilia policy October 11

Summary

Noridian’s August 27 notices finalize two MolDX policies for October 12 and retire the older thrombophilia policy October 11. Coverage remains conditional on each policy’s clinical and testing criteria; a test’s name alone does not establish coverage.

What changed

Noridian announced August 27 that two MolDX local coverage determinations for Jurisdiction E, including California, will take effect for services on or after October 12. L40242 addresses hereditary thrombophilia testing, with billing article A60272; L40222 addresses non-next-generation-sequencing targeted molecular panels used to guide cancer therapy, with article A60239. Noridian separately announced retirement of L36155, its hypercoagulability and thrombophilia policy covering Factor V Leiden, Factor II prothrombin and MTHFR, effective October 11. The retirement and new-policy dates need to be mapped to service dates, rather than assuming an order placed earlier automatically uses the former coverage basis.

The finalized hereditary-thrombophilia criteria require qualifying clinical circumstances, a result that guides management, appropriate validated genetic content and MolDX technical assessment, with limits on repeat testing. The non-NGS cancer-panel policy also requires all stated criteria: the result must inform treatment, the method must meet the specified feasibility or turnaround conditions, and validation and technical assessment requirements still apply. It expressly warns that reference to a test does not automatically imply coverage. Laboratory menus and medical-necessity checks therefore need the operative indications and associated coding articles, rather than only a replacement LCD number.

Why it matters

The effective and retirement dates create a defined transition for the coverage rules applied to services. Orders, laboratory information and billing screens should support the appropriate service-date policy and its clinical conditions, rather than treating finalization as unrestricted coverage.

Response type

Implement

Confidence

High

Who this affects

Health systems, Provider networks

Jurisdiction

Federal, California, Hawaii, Nevada

Primary owner

Coding

Affected functions

Coding, Revenue Cycle, Clinical Operations, Compliance, Utilization Management, HIM/CDI

First seen

Aug 30, 2026

Last materially changed

Aug 30, 2026

Why it is still here

Retained for the source-specific assessment or implementation described in Recommended action. This dated issue does not establish that the organization has completed that work.

What to do nextReview L40242, L40222 and articles A60272 and A60239 before the October transition. Map service dates, test menus, ordering documentation and coverage screens to the finalized criteria. Have the appropriate billing and clinical owners assess any applicable beneficiary-notice duties instead of assuming every test is covered or denied from its name.

1. Obtain L40242, L40222 and billing and coding articles A60272 and A60239, and record the covered indications and coding requirements for each. Any intermediate preparation date is an internal target; it does not replace the source’s operative deadline. Coding · due Sep 11, 2026
2. Map the current thrombophilia and non next generation sequencing targeted panel test menu, in house and send out, against the finalized indications and list every test that loses or changes coverage. Any intermediate preparation date is an internal target; it does not replace the source’s operative deadline. Clinical Operations · due Sep 25, 2026
3. Update the laboratory compendium, order sets, and medical necessity screening logic so the change takes effect on October 12, 2026 and the retired L36155 basis stops applying on October 11, 2026. Any intermediate preparation date is an internal target; it does not replace the source’s operative deadline. IT · due Oct 5, 2026
4. Decide and document the advance beneficiary notice position for tests that become non covered, and brief the ordering services in writing. Any intermediate preparation date is an internal target; it does not replace the source’s operative deadline. Revenue Cycle · due Oct 9, 2026
5. Audit a sample of thrombophilia and targeted panel claims in the first four weeks after the effective date and report the denial rate. Any intermediate preparation date is an internal target; it does not replace the source’s operative deadline. Compliance · due Nov 13, 2026

Permalink: #noridian-moldx-lcd-finalization-jurisdiction-e · Development ID GC-2026-0011

CMS proposes a new annual Acute Hospital Care at Home reporting requirement, comments close October 26

Summary

CMS is proposing an annual hospital-at-home services collection, with comments due October 26. The new CMS-10971 tool would describe clinician visits, food and pharmacy services; the notice seeks OMB approval and does not itself establish an approved reporting start date.

What changed

CMS’s August 27 Paperwork Reduction Act notice proposes a new Acute Hospital Care at Home Quantity, Intensity, and Mix of Services data collection, CMS-10971. It opens a sixty-day comment opportunity ending October 26, before submission to the Office of Management and Budget for approval. The tool would quantify services furnished to hospital-at-home patients, including clinician visits, food services and pharmacy services. The notice describes an annual collection and estimates 365 respondents, 13,000 annual responses and 13,000 annual burden hours. Those are estimated totals for the collection, not thirteen thousand hours per hospital.

The notice ties the work to section 6210(c) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026 and explains that CMS will use the information to report to Congress. Its scope includes patients admitted from an emergency department and patients transferred from an inpatient hospital unit under the initiative. Hospitals participate through waivers at the CMS Certification Number level. CMS invites input on necessity, usefulness, burden estimates, clarity and ways technology could reduce reporting effort. Because this is a request for a new control number, the proposed data fields and burden should be evaluated separately from any claim that an approved collection is already in operation.

Why it matters

Participating programs can assess whether existing records support the proposed counts while the collection is still open for comment. The notice establishes a proposal and estimates, so planning should not presume a final operational reporting requirement or an approved start date.

Response type

Comment

Confidence

High

Who this affects

Health systems

Jurisdiction

Federal

Primary owner

Clinical Operations

Affected functions

Clinical Operations, Compliance, Quality, HIM/CDI, Finance, Case Management

First seen

Aug 30, 2026

Last materially changed

Aug 30, 2026

Why it is still here

Retained for the source-specific assessment or implementation described in Recommended action. This dated issue does not establish that the organization has completed that work.

What to do nextConfirm hospital-at-home participation and ask the program’s data owners how the proposed clinician, food and pharmacy service counts could be produced. Compare the estimated effort with actual systems and decide whether to submit comments by October 26. Monitor separately for OMB approval and implementation instructions.

Permalink: #cms-acute-hospital-care-at-home-qims-data-collection · Development ID GC-2026-0010

Medi-Cal requires quarterly validation of the public fee for service provider directory beginning October 1, 2026, with Provider Portal Transaction Center access at stake

Summary

DHCS’s August 26 notice requires quarterly validation of the public fee-for-service provider directory starting October 1. Administrators have a forty-five-day window and must save completed survey responses; missed updates affect every user’s Transaction Center access in the organization.

What changed

DHCS’s August 26 Medi-Cal notice says Provider Portal administrators must complete all Public Fee-For-Service Provider Directory survey questions within forty-five days beginning October 1. The same update or validation duty recurs each quarter, under the cited federal directory provision. Administrators must state whether each location accepts new fee-for-service patients, managed care patients or both, then save the directory after reviewing and answering every question. The notice gives the start and length of the window rather than a separate calendar end date.

The announced consequence is organization-wide: all users lose Provider Portal Transaction Center access if the required quarterly update is not completed. A processor who loses access must contact the organization’s portal administrator to update the directory and restore it. DHCS lists the Telephone Service Center for access problems and the Provider Enrollment Division’s inquiry channel for other directory questions. Naming a primary and backup administrator and checking service-location responses with patient access are practical controls suggested by this access dependency; the notice itself does not prescribe that internal staffing structure.

Why it matters

The directory update affects more than the person completing it because the stated access consequence reaches every Transaction Center user in the organization. Accurate location-level answers and a recurring owner can reduce avoidable access disruption.

Response type

Implement

Confidence

High

Who this affects

Health systems, Provider networks

Jurisdiction

California

Primary owner

Provider Enrollment

Affected functions

Provider Enrollment, Revenue Cycle, Compliance, IT, Patient Access

First seen

Aug 30, 2026

Last materially changed

Aug 30, 2026

Why it is still here

Retained for the source-specific assessment or implementation described in Recommended action. This dated issue does not establish that the organization has completed that work.

What to do nextConfirm the organization’s portal administrators and prepare the service-location answers before October 1. Assign a primary and backup owner for the recurring quarterly update, save the completed directory and retain confirmation. Use the stated administrator and support channels if access is lost.

1. Inventory every Medi-Cal Provider Portal organization identifier the organization holds and identify the current administrator for each. Any intermediate preparation date is an internal target; it does not replace the source’s operative deadline. Provider Enrollment · due Sep 18, 2026
2. Name a primary and a backup administrator per organization identifier and confirm both can reach the Provider Portal Directory survey. Any intermediate preparation date is an internal target; it does not replace the source’s operative deadline. Provider Enrollment · due Sep 25, 2026
3. Confirm with patient access and the service line owners, per service location, whether the location is accepting new fee for service patients, managed care patients, or neither. Any intermediate preparation date is an internal target; it does not replace the source’s operative deadline. Patient Access · due Oct 9, 2026
4. Complete and save the first directory validation inside the window that opens October 1, 2026, and record the submission date. This target date sits well inside the 45 day window rather than at its end. Any intermediate preparation date is an internal target; it does not replace the source’s operative deadline. Provider Enrollment · due Oct 31, 2026
5. Put the validation on a recurring quarterly calendar with the named owners, and confirm the escalation path if Provider Portal Transaction Center access is lost. Any intermediate preparation date is an internal target; it does not replace the source’s operative deadline. Revenue Cycle · due Nov 13, 2026

Permalink: #medi-cal-public-fee-for-service-provider-directory-quarterly-validation · Development ID GC-2026-0015

California challenges Medicaid and CHIP funding restrictions scheduled for October 13

Summary

California’s September 2 lawsuit challenges October 13 Medicaid and CHIP reimbursement restrictions. The filing seeks relief; it does not itself suspend the rule or establish a later court outcome.

What changed

California announced September 2 that twenty-one attorneys general and Pennsylvania’s governor challenged the federal Medicaid and CHIP reimbursement rule scheduled for October 13. The complaint in the District of Massachusetts seeks a declaration that the rule is unlawful and an order preventing implementation. Those are the coalition’s requested remedies and legal arguments, not an adjudicated outcome. The August 13 final rule applies to Medicaid beneficiaries under eighteen and separate CHIP beneficiaries under nineteen, with different ages for the two programs.

The rule addresses federal matching and payment for defined pharmaceutical and surgical interventions. It permits a hormone-therapy taper of up to six months for beneficiaries receiving that therapy on October 13, and its definition excludes specified treatment of medically verifiable disorders of sexual development, interventions for other purposes and treatment of complications. It does not prohibit care delivered through state-only or private funding outside the federally matched programs. Organizations need to distinguish service, age, funding and transition conditions and check applicable court orders and California instructions before applying payment changes.

Why it matters

A pending challenge and an operative payment rule have different effects. An organization’s response depends on the particular services, beneficiaries and funding arrangements, not the lawsuit’s existence alone.

Response type

Assess

Confidence

Moderate

Who this affects

Health systems, Provider networks

Jurisdiction

Federal, California

Primary owner

Legal

Affected functions

Legal, Managed Care, Revenue Cycle, Clinical Operations

What to do nextHave legal and payer-contracting owners confirm applicable court orders and DHCS payment instructions. Identify affected claims by service, age and funding source, then prepare conditional billing and continuity-of-care steps without assuming the filing stayed the rule.

1. Verify court orders and current DHCS payment direction before issuing operating instructions. Legal
2. Identify affected claims and continuity-of-care workflows by funding source. Managed Care
3. Prepare billing changes contingent on operative legal requirements. Revenue Cycle

Permalink: #medicaid-chip-gender-affirming-care-litigation · Development ID GC-2026-0022

OIG identifies $587.7 million in Part D payments involving obsolete prescription labeling

Summary

OIG attributes $587.7 million in ineligible Part D payments to obsolete prescription labeling and oversight gaps. The audit recommends a sponsor-rejection timeframe; it does not itself impose a universal new cutoff.

What changed

OIG’s audit, issued August 31 and posted September 2, found $587.7 million in ineligible Part D payments for five drugs during 2021–2023. Payments continued more than a year after corresponding brand-name products switched to over-the-counter use, while generic products retained obsolete prescription-only labels. The finding concerns the identified drugs and audited period. It is neither a newly imposed fine on every sponsor nor a statement that the entire amount has already been recovered.

OIG found that CMS’s formulary reference file relied on outdated FDA prescription-status information and that CMS had not specified when sponsors should reject payments after an Rx-to-OTC switch. CMS concurred with the recommendation to issue that timeframe guidance. The report separately describes FDA’s December 2025 policy that manufacturers update labels as early as possible and within six months of the brand switch. That manufacturer-labeling period should not be converted into a universal six-month sponsor-rejection rule that the audit did not establish.

Why it matters

Label status, formulary reference data and sponsor payment edits may change on different schedules. Treating one timetable as another can obscure the actual control gap.

Response type

Assess

Confidence

High

Who this affects

Health systems, Provider networks

Jurisdiction

Federal

Primary owner

Managed Care

Affected functions

Managed Care, Compliance, Revenue Cycle

What to do nextReview how pharmacy and plan systems detect Rx-to-OTC changes, identify affected products and resolve stale reference data. Monitor CMS’s response to the audit for sponsor-specific rejection guidance before treating a proposed timeframe as final.

Permalink: #oig-partd-otc-labeling-payments · Development ID GC-2026-0023

OIG flags organ acquisition reimbursement and documentation risks

Summary

OIG separates an estimated $380 million organ-counting policy conflict from $154,210 in specifically unsupported reimbursement. The findings call for different policy and documentation responses.

What changed

OIG’s organ-acquisition audit, issued September 1 and posted September 3, reviewed costs for 2017–2022. Of 180 sampled organs reported as Medicare usable, forty-three were not used in Medicare-covered transplants and twelve were never transplanted. Medicare reimbursed $2.8 million for those fifty-five organs. OIG estimated approximately $380 million across the six-year period and identified a conflict between CMS guidance and the statutory limit on reimbursement for organs used in Medicare-covered transplants. That estimate is not an organization-specific liability assessment or a direction to recover the entire estimated amount.

The guidance assumed that an organ furnished to a procurement organization or another transplant center would be used for a Medicare transplant, which did not always happen. Separately, two centers lacked documentation for five reported organs, producing $154,210 in unallowable reimbursement. OIG recommended recovery of that amount and revised organ-counting guidance. CMS concurred with recovery but did not specifically concur or nonconcur with the guidance recommendation. The documentation finding and wider policy conflict should therefore be tracked separately.

Why it matters

Traceable organ counts and supporting records matter even while CMS’s broader guidance remains in question. An aggregate estimate should not be treated as a facility’s repayment obligation.

Response type

Assess

Confidence

High

Who this affects

Health systems, Provider networks

Jurisdiction

Federal

Primary owner

Finance

Affected functions

Finance, Clinical Operations, Compliance, Legal

What to do nextCompare reported organ counts with transplant-use and supporting documentation, retaining an audit trail. Escalate actual discrepancies for reimbursement and legal review, and monitor changes to CMS counting guidance without assuming a blanket recovery policy.

Permalink: #oig-organ-acquisition-cost-reimbursement · Development ID GC-2026-0024

Medi-Cal fee-for-service hospices must use the new attestation portal within five days of election

Summary

Medi-Cal’s September 1 hospice notice separates the five-calendar-day portal attestation from the signed election form, which stays in the member’s medical record.

What changed

DHCS’s September 1 notice requires licensed and certified hospices to submit a Medi-Cal Hospice Attestation through the Provider Portal after counseling a fee-for-service member, obtaining informed consent and securing a signed DHCS 8052 election notice. The electronic attestation serves as official notice to DHCS and must be submitted within five calendar days of the member electing hospice. This is the fee-for-service process described in that dated notice, not a requirement inferred from a later reminder.

The signed DHCS 8052 is not uploaded to DHCS through this workflow. The hospice retains it in the member’s medical record and must make it available on request or for a state or federal audit. DHCS points providers to a step-by-step portal guide and hospice support. A submission confirmation therefore serves a different purpose from the signed election evidence; neither substitutes for the other. Reconciling admissions to timely portal confirmations and retained forms is a practical way to detect missing steps.

Why it matters

Electronic notification and documented informed consent are separate obligations. The short calendar-day window makes handoffs and access problems operationally important.

Response type

Implement

Confidence

High

Who this affects

Health systems, Provider networks

Jurisdiction

California

Primary owner

Clinical Operations

Affected functions

Clinical Operations, Revenue Cycle, Provider Enrollment, IT, Compliance

What to do nextConfirm access for relevant fee-for-service hospice records, reconcile elections to submission confirmations within five calendar days and retain signed DHCS 8052 forms. Escalate access or missed-submission problems using DHCS’s support channels; internal review dates do not extend the rule.

1. Confirm access for each fee-for-service hospice NPI and identify any admissions awaiting attestation. Any intermediate preparation date is an internal target; it does not replace the source’s operative deadline. Provider Enrollment · due Sep 8, 2026
2. Reconcile September elections to portal confirmations, retain informed consent, and escalate missed five-calendar-day submissions to DHCS. Any intermediate preparation date is an internal target; it does not replace the source’s operative deadline. Clinical Operations · due Sep 8, 2026
3. Check submission timeliness and associated claim outcomes during the first month; internal review date is not a DHCS extension. Compliance · due Sep 30, 2026

Permalink: #medi-cal-ffs-hospice-attestation-portal · Development ID GC-2026-0032

AB-220 Medi-Cal: subacute care services

Summary

Pending AB 220 would limit extra pediatric subacute criteria and duplicate authorization forms, with specific protections for return from an acute-hospital bed hold.

What changed

AB 220 would prevent a Medi-Cal managed care plan from imposing additional pediatric subacute eligibility criteria when the provider substantiates one of the listed statutory pathways. Those pathways describe particular technology and skilled-nursing dependencies; the medical-necessity determination is expressly for a potentially eligible patient transferring from acute care to subacute care. The proposal does not make every medically complex child eligible without the specified evidence. At this edition’s cutoff, it remains a proposal rather than an operative new plan requirement.

If DHCS develops a standard authorization or reauthorization form for pediatric or adult subacute services, plans would have to accept it as sufficient and could not demand their own separate form. The bill also bars a subsequent treatment authorization request when a patient returns from the specified bed hold for acute hospitalization. DHCS could sanction violations of those form and return-authorization provisions. Clinical criteria, the conditional standard-form rule and the bed-hold protection therefore address separate steps in a transfer and authorization workflow.

Why it matters

A transfer can be delayed by an extra clinical screen, a duplicate form or a repeat authorization request. Each proposed limit has a different trigger and scope.

Response type

Monitor

Confidence

Moderate

Who this affects

Health systems, Provider networks

Jurisdiction

California

Primary owner

Utilization Management

Affected functions

Utilization Management, Managed Care, Compliance, Legal, Clinical Operations

What to do nextCompare pediatric subacute criteria, authorization forms and acute-hospital bed-hold return procedures with the proposal. Monitor the bill and DHCS instructions; do not apply the proposed changes as enacted coverage.

Permalink: #ab-220-medi-cal-subacute-care-services-gc-2026-0055 · Development ID GC-2026-0055

AB-280 Health care coverage: provider directories

Summary

Pending AB 280 proposes a central provider-directory utility, common standards and reasonable-reliance protections, with specific integrated-plan and Medi-Cal scope exceptions.

What changed

AB 280 would require DMHC to select a central provider-directory utility and develop uniform standards for plans’ and insurers’ use of it to collect, manage and check directory completeness and consistency. Directories would be submitted for analysis and consistency reports, with provider-contract provisions supporting information updates and identification of the products in which the provider participates. The proposed compliance date is July 1, 2027. This is a pending proposal at the coverage cutoff, not evidence that a utility has already been selected or that a particular directory has been validated. The proposed utility rule has a specific exception for nonprofit plans with at least 3.5 million enrollees using a mutually exclusive single-medical-group geographic model: exclusively served or employed providers are exempt, while network providers contracting with more than one plan still use the utility. The AB 280 additions and amendments do not apply to the specified Medi-Cal managed-care contracts.

The bill would require coverage of covered benefits when an enrollee reasonably relied on inaccurate, incomplete or misleading directory information, with provider reimbursement at an agreed amount or, absent agreement, a reasonable and customary amount. The provider could not collect more than applicable in-network cost sharing, which would count toward in-network limits. It also addresses accurate restoration of removed listings within ten business days and a specified notice before removal following nonresponse. Directory accuracy, reasonable-reliance claims and provider participation data need coordinated review; the proposal does not make an inaccurate listing a promise of unlimited coverage for otherwise excluded benefits.

Why it matters

Directory data can affect access, member cost sharing and provider reimbursement, not just website search results. The proposed utility adds another operational dependency.

Response type

Monitor

Confidence

Moderate

Who this affects

Health systems, Provider networks

Jurisdiction

California

Primary owner

Managed Care

Affected functions

Managed Care, Provider Enrollment, IT, Compliance, Legal

What to do nextInventory directory data feeds and product-level participation records, identify reasonable-reliance complaint handling and assess readiness for a designated utility. Track the pending measure before changing coverage or payment rules.

Permalink: #ab-280-health-care-coverage-provider-directories-gc-2026-0056 · Development ID GC-2026-0056

AB-350 Health care coverage: fluoride treatments

Summary

Pending AB 350 addresses medically necessary fluoride varnish across medical and dental billing and proposes Medi-Cal guidance for members under twenty-one, with training and federal conditions.

What changed

AB 350 would require specified contracts and policies issued, amended or renewed from January 1, 2027 that cover pediatric fluoride varnish to cover medically necessary applications without cost sharing whether billed as a medical or dental benefit. Specialized coverage and Medicare supplements are excluded from that commercial provision, which also has a state-defrayal appropriation condition. Medi-Cal managed care is addressed separately through the proposed Medi-Cal benefit provisions. The bill remains pending at this edition’s cutoff; it does not establish a newly enacted universal cost-sharing prohibition.

For Medi-Cal members under twenty-one, the proposal directs DHCS to issue billing guidance and necessary EPSDT-consistent coverage updates by July 1, 2027, subject to utilization controls and federal approval and funding conditions. It would allow fluoride varnish without place-of-service restrictions when provided by an enrolled licensed medical or dental provider, or a trained qualified health/public-health professional working within scope and under the specified supervision. The supervising enrolled provider bills, verifies training and retains documentation. Training, supervision, enrollment and funding conditions therefore matter alongside the age and site-of-service changes.

Why it matters

A benefit can be administered through more than one billing channel while still requiring appropriate enrollment, supervision and training evidence.

Response type

Monitor

Confidence

Moderate

Who this affects

Health systems, Provider networks

Jurisdiction

California

Primary owner

Managed Care

Affected functions

Managed Care, Revenue Cycle, IT, Compliance, Clinical Operations

What to do nextReview medical/dental benefit routing, member age edits and workforce training records against the proposal. Monitor enactment and actual DHCS billing guidance rather than treating proposed dates or personnel rules as operative.

Permalink: #ab-350-health-care-coverage-fluoride-treatments-gc-2026-0057 · Development ID GC-2026-0057

AB-1682 Health care coverage: scalp cooling

Summary

Pending AB 1682 would cover prescribed FDA-cleared scalp cooling for chemotherapy-related hair loss in large-group coverage and conditionally in Medi-Cal.

What changed

AB 1682 proposes coverage of prescribed scalp cooling to reduce the incidence or severity of alopecia before, during or after chemotherapy involving hair-loss-inducing agents. The large-group contract and insurance provisions would apply to contracts issued, amended or renewed from January 1, 2027. They permit cost sharing, but on terms no less favorable than oncology supportive care under the same coverage. The proposal excludes specialized coverage and does not apply those commercial provisions to Medi-Cal managed care.

A separate Medi-Cal provision would cover the service subject to medical necessity, utilization controls, necessary federal approvals and available federal financial participation that is not jeopardized. Across the proposed provisions, scalp cooling means an FDA-cleared device or system; non-cleared cold caps and similarly marketed products are excluded. DHCS could issue implementation instructions without further regulatory action. Pending status at the coverage cutoff means these details support benefit-design preparation, rather than a representation that every chemotherapy patient already has this new entitlement.

Why it matters

Large-group contract timing, device clearance and Medi-Cal’s federal conditions prevent the proposal from being read as one blanket benefit across every product.

Response type

Monitor

Confidence

Moderate

Who this affects

Health systems, Provider networks

Jurisdiction

California

Primary owner

Managed Care

Affected functions

Managed Care, Revenue Cycle, IT, Clinical Operations, Compliance

What to do nextIdentify affected large-group products and prescribed devices, compare supportive-care cost sharing and assess Medi-Cal authorization and funding dependencies. Monitor the pending measure and governing implementation instructions.

Permalink: #ab-1682-health-care-coverage-scalp-cooling-gc-2026-0064 · Development ID GC-2026-0064

AB-1876 Health care coverage: nondiscrimination

Summary

Pending AB 1876 would strengthen plan and insurer nondiscrimination provisions and grievance notices while preserving legitimate, nondiscriminatory clinical and coverage decisions.

What changed

AB 1876 would prohibit discrimination in plan or insurance enrollment, benefits and claims on specified protected grounds, including race, color, national origin, age, disability and sex. Its sex-discrimination definition includes sex characteristics and intersex traits, pregnancy-related conditions, sexual orientation, gender identity and sex stereotypes. Proposed prohibitions address discriminatory benefit design and marketing, categorical gender-transition exclusions and other discriminatory service or cost-sharing restrictions. These are pending statutory changes at the cutoff, not a later enactment imported into this edition.

The text preserves denial or limitation for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons, including clinical appropriateness and reasonable medical-necessity requirements, while barring unlawful bias or pretext. It also preserves open enrollment and requires coverage documents to explain nondiscrimination and how to file a grievance, including relevant web and telephone information. Its disability provisions address the most integrated appropriate setting and risks of institutionalization or segregation. A review therefore needs to examine rationale, design and notices together, rather than assume the proposal eliminates all medical management or guarantees coverage of every requested treatment.

Why it matters

The reason for a coverage decision and how it is communicated can matter as much as the decision’s label. Clinical review and grievance processes need consistent, documented standards.

Response type

Monitor

Confidence

Moderate

Who this affects

Health systems, Provider networks

Jurisdiction

California

Primary owner

Compliance

Affected functions

Compliance, Legal, Managed Care, IT, Patient Access

What to do nextReview exclusions, benefit design, decision rationales and grievance notices for possible discriminatory effects or pretext. Keep legitimate clinical criteria distinct and monitor the pending bill before representing its provisions as enacted.

Permalink: #ab-1876-health-care-coverage-nondiscrimination-gc-2026-0068 · Development ID GC-2026-0068

AB-2499 Health care coverage: claims payments

Summary

Pending AB 2499 would require standard electronic supporting-document submission from May 26, 2028, including receipt confirmation and protections against system-only claim delays.

What changed

AB 2499 would require plans and insurers, from May 26, 2028, to accept electronic medical records and supporting documentation needed to process claims through a standard electronic submission method. They would need file-size capacity sufficient for typical claims documentation and electronic receipt confirmation, and could not deny, pend or delay a claim solely because their systems cannot accept material that otherwise meets stated requirements. The pending proposal addresses document intake; it does not by itself make every submitted claim complete, covered or payable.

Other lawful denial, pend and delay grounds remain available. The proposed requirement would not apply while acceptance is impaired by circumstances outside reasonable control, including power outages, natural disasters and cybersecurity incidents. A specific state or federal file-size, count or capacity standard would control if adopted. The text defines electronic submission to include a designated portal or submission under the relevant interoperability rules. Providers and payers can assess attachment capacity, receipt evidence and outage handling without treating the proposed 2028 start as an existing deadline.

Why it matters

Claims operations depend on proof that the right supporting records were received. Intake capacity and outage controls are distinct from substantive coverage and payment decisions.

Response type

Monitor

Confidence

Moderate

Who this affects

Health systems, Provider networks

Jurisdiction

California

Primary owner

Revenue Cycle

Affected functions

Revenue Cycle, IT, Managed Care, Compliance, Finance

What to do nextAssess electronic attachment channels, typical file sizes, receipt confirmations and outage escalation. Monitor the pending bill and applicable technical standards before setting a binding implementation deadline.

Permalink: #ab-2499-health-care-coverage-claims-payments-gc-2026-0078 · Development ID GC-2026-0078

AB-2571 Reimbursement for pharmacist services

Summary

Pending AB 2571 would expand pharmacist payment routes and advanced-practitioner reimbursement, with distinct commercial, Medi-Cal and FQHC/RHC conditions.

What changed

AB 2571 would add pharmacists enrolled as providers with a plan or insurer to specified payment routes and use a similar-services test, while preserving lawful scope of practice and protection against duplicate payment. Pharmacists in FQHCs and rural health clinics are included in that definition. The commercial-plan provision excludes Medi-Cal managed care, which is addressed under separate Medi-Cal sections. At the cutoff this is a proposal, not an established right to payment for every pharmacist service or every setting.

The proposed Medi-Cal changes set advanced pharmacist practitioner reimbursement at no less than eighty-five percent of physician-fee-schedule rates, including medication therapy management. FQHC/RHC provider recognition requires a state-plan amendment, other necessary federal approvals, federal participation and an appropriation. Medication therapy management retains contracts, covered specialty-drug categories, utilization protocols and funding conditions. Those distinct routes require attention to practitioner status, enrollment, scope, contract and the particular service; a headline percentage does not replace the conditions for an eligible claim.

Why it matters

Commercial network rules, Medi-Cal fee-schedule rules and FQHC/RHC reimbursement do not operate as one interchangeable payment entitlement.

Response type

Monitor

Confidence

Moderate

Who this affects

Health systems, Provider networks

Jurisdiction

California

Primary owner

Managed Care

Affected functions

Managed Care, Revenue Cycle, Finance, Provider Enrollment, Compliance

What to do nextMap pharmacist credentials, enrollment and service arrangements by payer and setting. Assess proposed contracting and reimbursement changes, then monitor enactment, federal approval, funding and DHCS instructions before changing claims.

Permalink: #ab-2571-reimbursement-for-pharmacist-services-gc-2026-0079 · Development ID GC-2026-0079

October Medicare and Medi-Cal claims changes combine service dates, systems updates and Noridian limitations

Summary

October claims preparation combines laboratory and Medi-Cal applicability dates, October 5 systems updates and selected Noridian service limitations on October 2–4.

What changed

CMS’s August 27 MLN Connects newsletter describes October 1, 2026 clinical laboratory fee schedule and CLIA updates, including annual and quarterly CLIA edits, new waived-test updates and new or deleted CPT codes. It also points home-health users to the October grouper release, version 07.2.26. The official August 27 R13934OTN listing, CR 14429, identifies the October HIPAA EDI front-end update with October 5 implementation. Separately, R13929CP, CR 14588, implements the October Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Database changes on October 5. That instruction carries a January 1, 2026 general service effective date but includes record-specific exceptions in its code attachment, so not every individual code change starts on the same date.

The physician-fee update changes payment-file records and directs contractors not to search for previously paid claims to retract or retroactively pay them; contractors must adjust affected claims brought to their attention and give providers 30 days’ notice before implementing the changes. For the October transition, the September 3 CMS newsletter reiterates that notice and adjustment process. DHCS’s August 31 notice applies the Medi-Cal NCCI edits to claims received on or after October 1. CMS MM14561 gives October 1 general effectiveness and October 5 implementation for SNF consolidated-billing edits, while individual table entries carry their own dates. Noridian’s September 1 notice schedules Common Working File dark days October 2–4, limiting specified portal claim-status, reopening and redetermination functions, selected IVR services and eligibility-related customer assistance; it does not announce a complete shutdown of all portal services.

Why it matters

Different service, claim-received and systems dates can affect which edits or payment records apply to a claim. A release calendar alone cannot demonstrate accurate pricing, correct claim routing or completion of retrospective adjustments.

Response type

Implement

Confidence

High

Who this affects

Health systems, Provider networks

Jurisdiction

Federal, California

Primary owner

Revenue Cycle

Affected functions

Revenue Cycle, IT, Coding, Finance

What to do nextAssign owners for laboratory/CLIA, EDI, physician-fee and home-health changes. Verify the applicable code-record dates and installed versions, reconcile representative claims, and bring affected physician-fee claims to the MAC rather than assuming an automatic search. Use the Medi-Cal claim-received boundary, follow CMS’s October 5 SNF implementation date with table-specific exceptions, and plan affected Noridian inquiries around October 2–4.

Permalink: #october-2026-medicare-claims-processing-updates · Development ID GC-2026-0012

2027 Medicare HCPCS releases and $0.270 clotting-factor fee have separate service and system dates

Summary

The 2027 clotting-factor furnishing fee starts with January 1 services, while CMS schedules separate effective and implementation dates for all four HCPCS quarters.

What changed

CMS issued R13937CP on August 27 under CR 14580 to set the 2027 clotting-factor furnishing fee at $0.270 per unit. The fee applies to dates of service beginning January 1, 2027; contractor implementation is January 4. CMS includes the furnishing fee in the published national clotting-factor payment limits. Where the payment limit is absent from the average-sales-price or not-otherwise-classified pricing files and separate payment for the factor is allowed, contractors add the furnishing fee separately. The fee is separately payable only when its costs are not already paid through another payment system, so the update does not authorize duplicate reimbursement.

The separate August 27 R13938CP, CR 14586, gives the download and implementation instructions for the complete 2027 quarterly HCPCS files, including existing, new, revised and discontinued codes. Effective dates are January 1, April 1, July 1 and October 1; the corresponding implementation dates are January 4, April 5, July 5 and October 4, 2027. CMS expects files approximately six weeks before each quarter and directs contractors to obtain them through its cloud process after notification, test and load the releases, and follow instructions for corrected files. This annual instruction replaces the former quarterly change-request process; it does not itself establish a new coverage policy for every code in the files.

Why it matters

A January 4 systems milestone does not move the furnishing fee’s January 1 service applicability or the effective dates of later HCPCS quarters. Pricing and code-file ownership must cover the full year.

Response type

Implement

Confidence

High

Who this affects

Health systems, Provider networks

Jurisdiction

Federal

Primary owner

Revenue Cycle

Affected functions

Revenue Cycle, IT, Coding, Finance

First seen

Aug 30, 2026

Last materially changed

Aug 30, 2026

Why it is still here

Retained for 2027 pricing and quarterly code-file preparation, with January 1 service applicability and January 4 first systems implementation tracked separately.

What to do nextAssign pharmacy/revenue-cycle review of the $0.270 furnishing fee for January 1 onward services, checking whether it is already included in the factor payment limit. Schedule HCPCS file receipt, testing and implementation for each quarter and retain separate effective-date and systems-date controls.

Permalink: #january-2027-medicare-hcpcs-file-and-clotting-factor-updates · Development ID GC-2026-0014

Medicare colorectal biomarker coverage: June 8 effective date, January 4 claims implementation

Summary

Medicare covers qualifying colorectal biomarker screening under detailed patient and test criteria; January 4 claims implementation follows the June 8 coverage effective date.

What changed

CMS issued R13921NCD and R13921CP on August 27 under CR 14581, with coverage effective for services on or after June 8, 2026, and claims-system implementation on January 4, 2027. NCD 210.3 covers noninvasive colorectal biomarker screening once every three years when ordered by a physician, physician assistant, nurse practitioner or clinical nurse specialist who will use the results to manage the patient. Patients must be aged 45 through 85, asymptomatic, and at average risk. The exclusions include a personal history of adenomatous polyps, colorectal cancer or inflammatory bowel disease and a family history of colorectal cancer, adenomatous polyps, familial adenomatous polyposis or hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. A positive result from a previous noninvasive biomarker screening test also falls outside the asymptomatic criterion. Patients must receive counseling on test performance and the importance of follow-on colonoscopy after a positive result.

The test must have FDA marketing authorization with a colorectal screening indication, meet required FDA postapproval-study conditions for continued coverage, and be processed in a CLIA-certified laboratory. Its FDA-labeled performance against the recognized standard must meet either sensitivity of at least 90% with specificity of at least 87%, or sensitivity of at least 79% with specificity of at least 90%. Other indications not otherwise specified in the Act, regulations or the NCD remain nationally noncovered. The claims instructions identify ColoSense code 0421U and waive its deductible and coinsurance when the NCD criteria are met. Frequency edits require at least 35 months since the last covered screening, implementing the three-year interval. Contractors will not search their files for affected June 8 onward claims, but may adjust claims brought to their attention; the January systems date therefore does not promise automatic retrospective payment.

Why it matters

Ordering eligibility, laboratory/test qualification and claims edits must agree. Treating the January systems date as the start of coverage, or promising waived cost sharing without the NCD criteria, can misdirect patients and billing staff.

Response type

Implement

Confidence

High

Who this affects

Health systems, Provider networks

Jurisdiction

Federal

Primary owner

Coding

Affected functions

Coding, Revenue Cycle, Clinical Operations, IT, Quality

First seen

Aug 30, 2026

Last materially changed

Aug 30, 2026

Why it is still here

Retained for patient-eligibility, coding and claims preparation ahead of January 4, 2027 systems implementation; coverage already applies to qualifying June 8 onward services.

What to do nextHave clinical and coding owners verify patient risk, symptoms, counseling, test eligibility and the screening interval. Align 0421U cost-sharing logic with the NCD, track January 4 implementation, and refer potentially affected June 8 onward claims to the MAC for possible adjustment without assuming an automatic search or guaranteed adjustment.

Permalink: #ncd-210-3-colorectal-cancer-non-invasive-biomarker-tests · Development ID GC-2026-0013

CMS refreshes hospice telecommunications recertification reporting guidance

Summary

CMS’s September revision refreshes hospice telecommunications claim instructions without substantive article changes. January 1 service applicability and January 4 systems implementation remain separate dates.

What changed

CMS revised MM14495 on September 2 to update the change-request release date, transmittal numbers and links, expressly stating that the article’s substance did not change. The instruction applies from January 1, 2027, with January 4 systems implementation. It concerns hospice claims reporting a face-to-face recertification encounter conducted through telecommunications by a hospice physician or hospice nurse practitioner. The revised article is implementation guidance, rather than a newly announced September clinical eligibility standard.

The instructions use G0679 and line-item detail, with a separately dated line for each service under the appropriate discipline’s revenue code. MACs return claims using G0679 with bill types other than 81X/82X or a revenue code other than 0657. The descriptor treats the encounter as an administrative expense; reporting the code does not create a separately payable clinical visit. CMS also explains the statutory basis for identifying virtual-platform encounters involving specified contractual or payment arrangements. Template changes need to preserve those conditions and the distinction between service applicability and system implementation.

Why it matters

A reporting code, an encounter’s clinical eligibility and a payment entitlement are separate questions. Claim templates should reflect the actual combinations and dates.

Response type

Validate

Confidence

High

Who this affects

Health systems, Provider networks

Jurisdiction

Federal

Primary owner

Revenue Cycle

Affected functions

Revenue Cycle, Coding, Clinical Operations, IT

What to do nextReview hospice telecommunication recertification claim templates against MM14495, including provider discipline, bill type, revenue code and service-date lines. Plan January 1 applicability and January 4 systems checks separately; do not assume the reporting code is a new payable visit.

Permalink: #hospice-telecommunications-recertification-coding · Development ID GC-2026-0025

CMS opens separate comment windows for Medicaid quality, pharmacy, BHP and Part D collections

Summary

CMS has two different collection-comment windows: October 2 for Medicaid reporting and quality collections, and November 2 for pharmacy, BHP and 2028 Part D application information.

What changed

CMS’s September 2 OMB-review notice seeks comments through October 2 on CMS-10249 and CMS-10553. These concern Money Follows the Person administrative reporting and Medicaid managed-care quality information, including state strategies, evaluations and quality-rating displays. A separate September 1 proposed-collection notice allows comments through November 2. It addresses retail drug acquisition-cost surveys, Basic Health Program information and applications for 2028 Part D contracts. Both opportunities remain ahead of the September coverage cutoffs, but they should not be given one shared deadline.

The September 1 notice describes monthly pharmacy acquisition-cost surveys supporting NADAC and proposed BHP information changes that distinguish program funding from eligibility. It also describes applications for Part D contracts and service-area expansion; the information collection does not itself award a contract or bypass the applicable application and CMS approval processes. The notices invite assessment of usefulness, burden and information quality. Organizations should match feedback to the correct collection and procedural stage rather than treating a PRA proposal as a final change in program eligibility or payment.

Why it matters

Different collections and procedural stages require separate routing. Combining their deadlines can cause a missed comment opportunity or an inaccurate implementation assumption.

Response type

Comment

Confidence

High

Who this affects

Health systems, Provider networks

Jurisdiction

Federal

Primary owner

Managed Care

Affected functions

Managed Care, Compliance, Finance

What to do nextIdentify affected Medicaid quality, pharmacy, BHP and Part D application teams. Assess the relevant collection and route any feedback to its specified October 2 or November 2 process; track a later approval or final instruction separately.

Permalink: #cms-pra-medicaid-quality-partd-applications · Development ID GC-2026-0026

CMS explains January Medicare Secondary Payer adjustment-code processing

Summary

CMS’s January MSP processing update changes how specified adjustment codes are handled. Providers must preserve the primary payer’s CAS adjustments rather than recoding them to obtain automated processing.

What changed

CMS issued MM14553 on September 4 for the August 21 change request addressing specified Medicare Secondary Payer claim adjustment reason codes. The Part A MAC/FISS changes are effective January 1, 2027, with implementation January 4. Some codes are handled systematically, while others suspend for manual review or deny. MACs may return claims Medicare cannot process and identify the reason on remittance advice, allowing correction and, where appropriate, resubmission to the primary payer or Medicare. A returned claim is not automatically payable after resubmission.

Primary payers and Medicare communicate adjustments through the CAS segment of an 835 remittance or paper advice. Providers must transfer the primary payer’s CAS adjustments unchanged to the 837 institutional claim submitted for Medicare secondary payment. Systems use those amounts and CARCs to calculate payment, so a mapping change should not alter the underlying adjustment merely to force a particular processing route. The January implementation concerns handling of the specified codes; it does not replace accurate coordination-of-benefits reporting.

Why it matters

Secondary-claim payment depends on preserving the primary payer’s information as well as using the correct processing rules. A technical workaround that changes that information can create a separate accuracy problem.

Response type

Validate

Confidence

High

Who this affects

Health systems, Provider networks

Jurisdiction

Federal

Primary owner

Revenue Cycle

Affected functions

Revenue Cycle, Coding, IT

What to do nextMap affected CARCs and expected FISS handling, verify unchanged transfer of CAS adjustments and prepare representative tests before January implementation. Route returned or suspended claims using the stated reason rather than assuming they all warrant the same resubmission.

Permalink: #medicare-secondary-payer-adjustment-code-processing · Development ID GC-2026-0031

Noridian opens three proposed MolDX policies for comments through October 11

Summary

Noridian’s three proposed MolDX policies accept comments through October 11. They concern different molecular-testing questions and are not final coverage instructions.

What changed

Noridian’s August 31 Jurisdiction E notice opens review of three proposed MolDX LCDs for the August 27–October 11 comment period. DL40435 concerns transcriptional biomarkers for treatment decisions in renal carcinoma; DL40427 covers next-generation sequencing for hematologic malignancies and suspected malignancies; DL40411 concerns genome-wide detection of copy-number alterations and structural variants in hematologic neoplasms. The notice identifies Part B contractor jurisdictions including northern and southern California, Hawaii/Pacific territories and Nevada.

The notice links the individual proposals through the Medicare Coverage Database and asks commenters to identify the specific policy in each submission. Each addresses a different test and clinical question, so comments should connect the relevant test menu and supporting evidence to that proposal. Publishing a draft for comment does not make its coverage criteria final or implement a current billing change. The October 11 opportunity remains open at each September coverage cutoff; later finalization or revision is not presumed.

Why it matters

Policy-specific review can identify whether a proposal affects an actual testing service. Treating draft criteria as operative could lead to premature coverage or billing changes.

Response type

Comment

Confidence

High

Who this affects

Health systems, Provider networks

Jurisdiction

Federal, California, Hawaii, Nevada

Primary owner

Coding

Affected functions

Coding, Clinical Operations, Revenue Cycle, Compliance

What to do nextCompare relevant tests with each actual proposed LCD and decide whether to submit policy-specific evidence by October 11. Keep this review separate from implementation of already-finalized MolDX changes.

Permalink: #noridian-moldx-proposed-lcds-october-comments · Development ID GC-2026-0033

CMS adjusts September plan payment user fees

Summary

The September MARx cycle adjusts annual COB and MA-PD education fees, while PDPs have no September NMEC assessment. Earlier MLR remittances belong to the August payment reconciliation.

What changed

CMS’s August 31 MARx memorandum describes the September payment scheduled for September 1 and the final annual user-fee adjustments. The September coordination-of-benefits collection rises from 7.2 to 7.4 cents per member to reach the 2026 total of $0.65 after January–August collections. The MA-PD National Medicare Education Campaign rate rises from 0.021% to 0.029% for the September cycle to reach $108.9 million annually. PDPs have no September NMEC assessment because their $11.4 million maximum was reached in August. These are adjustments for that payment cycle, not permanent monthly rates.

Required 2024 medical-loss-ratio remittances were included in the August 2026 payment and identified on the Plan Payment Report by the MLR adjustment code. That is a separate reconciliation item from September user fees. The memorandum also explains consolidated parent tickets: a plan that has already reported an issue need not submit duplicate action when its ticket is consolidated. Finance teams can use the stated plan-type exceptions and payment months to investigate differences, without assuming the announced schedule proves an individual payment was received.

Why it matters

A fee catch-up, a plan-type exception and an earlier MLR adjustment explain different remittance items. Combining them can produce an incorrect reconciliation.

Response type

Validate

Confidence

High

Who this affects

Health systems, Provider networks

Jurisdiction

Federal

Primary owner

Finance

Affected functions

Finance, Managed Care, Compliance

What to do nextReconcile September COB and MA-PD NMEC adjustments, check the PDP exception and examine August MLR entries separately. Follow up unresolved payment differences through the MAPD Help Desk without duplicating a consolidated ticket.

Permalink: #september-marx-plan-user-fee-adjustments · Development ID GC-2026-0045