When a claim is audited, whether by a commercial payer, a CMS Recovery Audit Contractor, or your own employer's compliance team, the auditor has one question: does this note support the code that was billed? Your documentation either answers that question or it does not.

A cautionary habit
I have many older colleagues who still document very long notes, full of elements like "PERRLA" and a complete cranial-nerve examination, on a patient who came in for knee pain. I am not convinced those elements were always actually checked. Beyond adding nothing to the visit's level under the current rules, that kind of reflexive, possibly-unperformed documentation is a quiet liability: if an auditor asks whether you truly examined the cranial nerves of a patient with isolated knee pain, "it is in my template" is not a comfortable answer. Document what you did, not what the template defaults to.

You document under time pressure, between patients, often at the end of an exhausting day, so any documentation advice has to respect that reality. The good news is that a compliant, audit-ready note is not a longer note or a more complicated note. It is a note that clearly articulates what you did and why you did it. That is also a better clinical note, one that communicates your thinking to anyone who reads it later.

What Auditors Actually Look For

An auditor reviewing an E/M claim will look for evidence of two of three MDM elements (or documented time), depending on which basis you used for coding. They are specifically looking for:

For problems addressed: Are the conditions named? Does the note say you actively managed them, or does it just mention they exist? "Patient has hypertension" is not the same as "Reviewed blood pressure control; hypertension remains well-managed on current regimen; no medication changes at this time."

For data reviewed: Does the note name specific data? "Reviewed labs" is weaker than "Reviewed today's CMP and CBC, no significant changes; potassium remains stable on current diuretic dose." The latter names what was reviewed and reflects your interpretation.

For risk: Is the management decision explicit? "Continue current medications" is weaker than "Continuing metformin at current dose; will recheck renal function in 3 months given mild CKD." The latter reflects active monitoring for drug toxicity, which is moderate risk.

The Specificity Principle

Audits are lost on vagueness. The single most effective documentation habit is specificity: name the problem, name the data, name the decision. Vague language like "discussed at length," "reviewed records," or "ongoing management" gives an auditor nothing to credit. Specific language like "reviewed outside rheumatology note from [date], consistent with our current management plan" is creditable and clinically accurate.

The copy-paste problem
Copy-and-paste documentation, pulling forward the same note text from a prior visit, is one of the highest-risk documentation practices for audit purposes. When an auditor sees notes that are identical across multiple visits, it raises questions about whether the documented care actually occurred and whether the code selection reflects the current encounter. Use templates to prompt documentation, not to generate it automatically.

The "Medical Necessity" Foundation

Every service billed must be medically necessary, meaning it was clinically appropriate for the patient's condition and consistent with established standards of care. The code level must not only be supported by the MDM documentation; the visit itself must be appropriate. An auditor who finds a pattern of high-complexity visits for patients with minor complaints will look harder at the underlying documentation.

Medical necessity is not a separate documentation requirement, it flows from the rest of the note. If your note accurately reflects a complex patient with multiple conditions requiring active management, medical necessity is established naturally. If the note is thin and the code is high, that gap is where audits find problems.

Time-Based Documentation: The Non-Negotiable

If you use time as the basis for your code selection, you must document the total time. Period. A claim billed on a time basis without documented time cannot be defended under audit. The documentation can be a single sentence: "Total physician time for today's visit, including pre-visit record review, evaluation, counseling, and documentation: *** minutes." That is sufficient.

A note about your story in the note
Clinical notes serve multiple purposes: they communicate your thinking to other providers, they document the care you provided for medico-legal purposes, and they support the billing code you submit. All three are served by the same habit: write notes that tell the honest, specific clinical story of what you did and why. That story is your best protection in any audit.
Previous GuideGuide 20: Undercoding