HI215 Unit 8 Chargemaster Audit Example

Course	HI215 Reimbursement Methodologies
Unit	Unit 8
Paper type	Chargemaster audit
Length	About 870 words, 6 pages double-spaced
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Purdue University Global
Program	BS in Health Information Management
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for HI215 Unit 8

Forty Radiology Lines, Six Problems, One of Them Deleted Last January: A Unit 8 Chargemaster Audit Testing a Composite Hospital's Imaging Charges Against the Current Code Set, the Required Revenue Codes and What the Department Actually Does

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

HI215: Reimbursement Methodologies

Unit 8 Chargemaster Audit

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The hospital, its chargemaster lines and its prices are composite; the audit tests, the revenue code categories and the sources cited are real.

What this part is doingThe method note explains how the forty lines were chosen, because a sample audit means little unless the reader knows what it represents.

Method

Sample: all 22 radiology lines touched by the most recent annual code update, plus 18 drawn at random from the remaining 212. Tests applied to every line: whether the procedure code is valid for the current year; whether the revenue code matches the service category; whether the description matches the code; whether the line was used in the past 24 months; whether the billing unit matches the code's defined unit; and whether a code is present where one is required. Sources: the current code set, the uniform billing revenue code categories, the department's procedure list and two years of utilization data from the billing system.

Findings

Finding 1. A line still carries a procedure code that was deleted in the most recent annual update. Any claim using it fails payer edits and is rejected. Correction: replace with the successor code named in the update and inactivate the old line. Owner: chargemaster coordinator. Finding 2. A knee MRI line is assigned revenue code 0350, the computed tomography category, instead of a code in the 061X magnetic resonance range. Outpatient claims pair revenue and procedure codes, and the mismatch triggers edits and misstates the hospital's cost reporting by department. Correction: reassign to 0614. Owner: coordinator with radiology finance. Finding 3. A line described as "CT abdomen with contrast" carries the code for CT abdomen without contrast. Every use underbills the service and mismatches the radiologist's claim. Correction: assign the code for the with-contrast study. Owner: coordinator with a radiology coder. Finding 4. Iodinated contrast is charged per 100-milliliter bottle, while the supply code used is defined per milliliter. A claim showing one unit for a 100-milliliter dose reports 1 percent of what was given. Correction: change the billing unit to per milliliter and the charge to match. Owner: coordinator with pharmacy. Finding 5. Two lines for lymphangiography have not been used in 24 months; the department confirms it no longer performs the procedure. Correction: inactivate. Owner: radiology director. Finding 6. A radiopharmaceutical line has no supply code, although payers require one for separately payable agents. Correction: add the code. Owner: coordinator with nuclear medicine. Two of the six errors lose money on every use, two cause rejections, and two are clutter. Only the audit sorted them.

Consequences, Ranked

Findings 3 and 4 understate every claim that uses them and so lose revenue silently, without any rejection to signal a problem. Findings 1, 2 and 6 cause rejections or edits, which cost staff time but at least announce themselves. Finding 5 is housekeeping. The ranking puts silent revenue loss first because it is the hardest to detect without an audit.

What this part is doingThe consequences are ranked by how visible each error is, since the errors that never trigger a rejection are the ones only an audit finds.

How the Errors Got There

None of the six problems was created by a single careless entry. The deleted code survived because the annual update was applied to the coding software but not checked against the chargemaster, two systems maintained by different people. The MRI line was copied from a CT line when the hospital added its second magnet, and the revenue code came along with the template. The contrast unit dates from a time when the supply was billed as a single item and the code's definition later changed. The unused lymphangiography lines were never retired because nobody owns the decision to retire a service. These causes matter more than the six fixes, because each one will produce new errors next year unless the process changes: a joint review of code updates by coding and chargemaster staff, a rule against copying lines between service categories, and an annual list of zero-use lines sent to department directors for a keep or retire decision.

What this part is doingTracing each error to how it was created turns six corrections into three process changes, which is what prevents the next audit from finding the same problems.

Pricing and Transparency

The audit tests codes and units, not whether prices are reasonable. Prices on the chargemaster are list prices, and at some hospitals they run many times the cost of the service; a study of the 50 hospitals that mark up the most found them charging more than ten dollars for every dollar of cost (Bai & Anderson, 2015). Federal rules now require hospitals to publish their standard charges, including a machine-readable file of the items and services on their chargemaster (45 C.F.R. § 180.50, 2024). Every error found here would also appear in that public file, which is a further reason to correct it.

Recommendations

Correct the six findings within 30 days. Run this test set on every line touched by each annual code update before January 1. Review revenue code assignments for all imaging lines once a year. Add a unit-of-measure check for every supply and drug line. Report audit results to the revenue integrity committee, and keep revenue and procedure code pairings consistent with the outpatient billing instructions in Medicare's claims processing manual (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [CMS], 2024).

What this part is doingThe recommendations make the audit recurring and tie it to the annual code update, which is when most chargemaster errors are created.

References

Bai, G., & Anderson, G. F. (2015). Extreme markup: The fifty US hospitals with the highest charge-to-cost ratios. Health Affairs, 34(6), 922-928. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2014.1414

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (2024). Medicare claims processing manual, Chapter 4: Part B hospital (including inpatient hospital Part B and OPPS).

45 C.F.R. § 180.50 (2024). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/section-180.50

HI215 Unit 8 instructions, in plain terms

Unit 8 usually asks you to audit a sample of chargemaster lines and report findings. Explain how the sample was chosen, since a sample audit means little without that. List the tests applied to each line, such as code validity, revenue code match, description match, recent use, unit of measure and required codes. Report each finding with the line, what was tested, what was found, the consequence and the correction, and assign an owner. Rank findings by their effect on revenue and compliance. Look for the causes behind errors, since process fixes prevent recurrence. Note how chargemaster accuracy relates to price transparency. Recommend a recurring audit schedule. Findings are usually presented as a table or numbered list with a short method note and recommendations.

Inside the HI215 Unit 8 example

The audit opens with a method note explaining the sample of 22 updated lines and 18 random ones, and the six tests applied. Six numbered findings follow, each with its consequence, correction and owner. A highlighted line sorts the errors into money lost, rejections and clutter. A ranking section puts silent underbilling first, explained in a margin note. A section traces how each error was created and proposes three process changes, with another margin note. A transparency section cites research on extreme hospital markups and the federal rule requiring public standard charges. Recommendations tie the audit to the annual code update. Each finding names the department that must help fix it.

HI215 Unit 8 rubric: what earns full points

Chargemaster audits are generally graded on method, accuracy and practical value. Points go to a clearly described sample and test set, and to findings that state the consequence and correction for each line. Credit rises for ranking findings by their real effect, especially silent revenue loss, and for tracing errors to the processes that created them. Instructors value owners assigned to every correction and a recurring audit plan. Linking chargemaster accuracy to transparency requirements adds context. Clear presentation and citations complete the rubric. Audits that report findings without consequences, or recommend fixes without owners, usually receive partial credit. Graders also notice whether the method could be repeated next year by someone else.

HI215 Unit 8 help from the desk

An audit that never explains its sample leaves the reader unable to judge whether six findings are many or few. State the method first. Another weakness is treating every finding as equally urgent, when underbilling lines lose money silently on every use. Check units of measure on drug and supply lines, a common and costly error. Do not stop at fixing lines; ask how each error got there. Remember that the chargemaster feeds the public price file. Give every correction an owner and a date. Send us the lines your section provides and we can run the tests and write the findings and recommendations.

Get an HI215 Unit 8 example written to your instructions

Chargemaster extracts in coursework range from ten lines to a few hundred. Send whatever sample the Unit 8 assignment supplies, a spreadsheet works best, together with the instructions and your rubric. The audit table, root cause and maintenance plan are fitted to that extract and delivered in 24-48h. The first custom sample is free. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.

More HI215 papers and BS in Health Information Management samples

HI215 Unit 8 questions, answered

Who owns the chargemaster in a hospital?

Usually finance or a revenue integrity team holds it, but no single department can maintain it alone. Clinical departments know what they perform, coding knows the current code sets, and compliance knows what a description may promise. The example's recommendation rests on that split, which is why its maintenance calendar names four signers rather than one.

Is a chargemaster the same as a price list for patients?

It holds the gross charges, which are the starting point for any bill, but most payers never pay those figures. Contracts, fee schedules and prospective rates decide the actual payment. The example touches that gap only where a charge set too low caps what a lesser-of contract returns, since that is where the price column affects reimbursement directly.

How large should the audit sample be?

As large as the prompt specifies, and where it is silent, large enough to cover the lines most likely to be wrong. The example draws every line affected by the latest code update plus a random selection from the rest, then says so in its method note. A sample that is described can be judged; one that is not described cannot.

Where can I find a free HI215 Unit 8 sample paper?

The full Unit 8 audit of forty radiology lines, with six findings and their corrections, is open on this page.

Why does a unit-of-measure error matter on a chargemaster line?

Because the claim reports the wrong quantity, so a dose billed as one unit when the code is defined per milliliter reports a small fraction of what was given.