diff --git a/.claude/settings.json b/.claude/settings.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000..32bb40a --- /dev/null +++ b/.claude/settings.json @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@ +{ + "permissions": { + "allow": [ + "mcp__mempalace__mempalace_kg_query", + "mcp__mempalace__mempalace_search", + "mcp__trilane__trilane_search", + "mcp__mempalace__mempalace_status", + "mcp__mempalace__mempalace_diary_read", + "mcp__granola__get_account_info", + "mcp__trilane__trilane_list_workspaces", + "Bash(launchctl list *)", + "Bash(launchctl print *)", + "Bash(brew list *)" + ] + } +} diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore index cdd1d62..9b44613 100644 --- a/.gitignore +++ b/.gitignore @@ -8,3 +8,4 @@ data/ node_modules/ .DS_Store .vercel +.claude/settings.local.json diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index 4020116..cb336fb 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ # Signal CGM powered by STTIL Solutions -B2B CGM coverage worklist tool for DMEPOS suppliers. Ingests CSV shipment data +B2B CGM documentation worklist tool for DMEPOS suppliers. Ingests CSV shipment data (Brightree/WellSky exports), calculates coverage expiration per patient using device wear-day rules, and produces a prioritized worklist for proactive outreach — so small DME teams act before claims deny, not after. diff --git a/TERAX.md b/TERAX.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5f415a4 --- /dev/null +++ b/TERAX.md @@ -0,0 +1,127 @@ +# Signal — Terax AI Context + +> Dev and terminal work only. Strategy, brand, and pilot decisions stay in Claude Code. +> Use @path references in the AI Composer to pull in specific files before asking questions. + +--- + +## What Signal Does + +Signal is a B2B CGM documentation readiness tracker for DMEPOS suppliers. A supplier exports their order data as a CSV (from Brightree or similar), Signal evaluates each patient against documentation requirements (6-month qualifying visit, PECOS enrollment, SWO, resupply eligibility), and produces a stoplight report so staff can prioritize outreach before claims are submitted. + +Signal identifies gaps. It does not contact anyone. + +**Core value:** Shifts supplier staff time from reactive (denial appeals after the fact) to proactive (preventing denial conditions before supplies ship). + +--- + +## PHI Architecture — Non-Negotiable + +- STTIL never stores patient names, SSNs, DOBs, or contact info +- Sole crosswalk key: `patient_id` (the DME's internal MRN or account number) +- AI/calculation layer sees: `patient_id`, `device_type`, `shipment_date`, `quantity`, `payer` — nothing else +- All logs hash `patient_id` before storing — never raw +- If a proposed change would require storing additional PHI fields, stop and flag it + +--- + +## Level 1 Stack (Active) + +| Layer | Tool | +|-------|------| +| Hosting | Hostinger VPS — data never leaves VPS | +| Language | Python (FastAPI) | +| Database | PostgreSQL (encrypted at rest, audit logs) | +| Orchestration | n8n self-hosted (24-hr batch trigger) | +| Notifications | Self-hosted Mailcow — encrypted email to DME staff only | +| Frontend | signal-ui/ | + +--- + +## Active Files — Start Here + +``` +python-backend/core/coverage_calculator.py # main eligibility logic +python-backend/core/audit_logger.py # hashed logging +python-backend/config/payer_rules.json # wear days and payer rules — reference for all calculations +signal-ui/ # frontend +research/dmepos-research-v3.md # full market context + verified stat index (updated May 2026) +research/cgm-market-research-synthesis-v1.md # stat verification summary (May 2026) +docs/hipaa-deployment-analysis-v1.md # compliance reference +docs/sttil-brand-system-v1.md # brand (read-only reference) +pitch/ # pitch assets and whitepaper +``` + +--- + +## Market Context — Key Verified Stats (May 2026) + +Use these. Do not invent or derive alternatives. + +| Stat | Source | Use For | +|------|--------|---------| +| 30.86% pre-pay error rate | CGS MAC Jurisdiction B Q2 2024 | Denial prevention pitch — measures near-submission risk | +| 32.8% error rate / 68.6% from docs | CERT 2019 | LinkedIn and public copy — "nearly 1 in 3", "over two-thirds from docs" | +| 67.6% absent documentation | CMS 2024 MLN | Whitepaper / gate framing — post-payment audit | +| $1.9B DMEPOS improper payments | OIG FY2024 | Market context only | + +**Do not use:** "94.2%" (derived, not citable), "63% write-off" (modeled, not citable). + +Full verified stat table: `research/dmepos-research-v3.md` Section 14. + +--- + +## Urgency Anchors (Active) + +- Synapse Health mandatory for Medicare CGM: August 1, 2026 +- PA exemption cycle (90% affirmation rate): June 1, 2026 first cycle +- 7 new HCPCS codes added to Required PA List: April 13, 2026 +- DMEPOS enrollment moratorium in effect: February 27, 2026 +- CGM competitive bidding: January 1, 2028 + +--- + +## What Is Tabled — Do Not Build + +| Item | Why | +|------|-----| +| Dexcom OAuth API | Requires vendor agreement + PHI scope expansion | +| Prescriber fax automation | Phase 2 — Level 1 manual outreach sufficient | +| Patient-facing SMS | PHI to third party — needs BAA + consent layer | +| Consortium / Level 2-3 features | Needs 15+ paying Level 1 suppliers first | +| Convex | Not needed until real-time sync requirements emerge | + +--- + +## VPS — Common Terax Commands + +```bash +# Connect +ssh root@72.62.134.75 + +# Check running Signal services +ssh root@72.62.134.75 "docker ps --format 'table {{.Names}}\t{{.Status}}\t{{.Ports}}'" + +# View Signal API logs (live) +ssh root@72.62.134.75 "docker logs signal-api --tail 50 -f" + +# Restart Signal API +ssh root@72.62.134.75 "docker compose -f /opt/signal/docker-compose.yml restart signal-api" + +# Check Caddy (reverse proxy) +ssh root@72.62.134.75 "docker logs caddy --tail 30" + +# Run local tests before deploy +cd python-backend && pytest core/ -v +``` + +--- + +## Dev Rules + +- Work Level 1 scope only +- Reference `payer_rules.json` for all wear-day calculations — do not hardcode +- Use "resupply" not "refill" (CGM supply allowances are exempt from Medicare refill rules) +- Never suggest adding PHI fields beyond `patient_id` +- Flag any vendor integration that would require a new BAA +- If asked about Phase 2/3 scope, acknowledge and defer — do not spec or build diff --git a/docs/hipaa-deployment-analysis-v1.md b/docs/hipaa-deployment-analysis-v1.md index 42f206e..2fd2109 100644 --- a/docs/hipaa-deployment-analysis-v1.md +++ b/docs/hipaa-deployment-analysis-v1.md @@ -512,7 +512,7 @@ STTIL Solutions Contact: [CONTACT] PURPOSE This Letter of Intent confirms [SUPPLIER NAME]'s intent to participate in a 30–60 day free proof-of-concept pilot of -Signal CGM, a coverage worklist tool for DMEPOS suppliers. +Signal CGM, a documentation worklist tool for DMEPOS suppliers. PILOT SCOPE - Historical shipment data for approximately [N] CGM patients @@ -531,7 +531,7 @@ Supplier will: STTIL Solutions will: 1. Process the anonymized file using Signal CGM's coverage calculator -2. Return a coverage worklist with synthetic patient IDs +2. Return a documentation worklist with synthetic patient IDs 3. Not attempt to re-identify any patient from the anonymized data 4. Delete the anonymized data file within 30 days of pilot conclusion diff --git a/docs/sttil-brand-system-v1.md b/docs/sttil-brand-system-v1.md index b24bdfe..b4650b1 100644 --- a/docs/sttil-brand-system-v1.md +++ b/docs/sttil-brand-system-v1.md @@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ The brand earns trust through specificity. It does not perform warmth. It demons Not a generic software company. A specialist that understands CMS coding, PA workflows, and the cash flow math of competitive bidding. **Signal** (Signal Powered by STTIL Solutions): -> The CGM coverage worklist that prevents denials before they happen. +> The CGM worklist that prevents denials before they happen. See full product brand extension: `signal-cgm-brand-extension-v1.md` diff --git a/pitch/signal-asset-package-v1.md b/pitch/signal-asset-package-v1.md index ab9aa11..7194800 100644 --- a/pitch/signal-asset-package-v1.md +++ b/pitch/signal-asset-package-v1.md @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ CMS projects CGM beneficiaries to exceed 3.2 million by 2028. ## What Signal Does -Signal is a B2B coverage worklist tool built for DMEPOS supplier back-office +Signal is a B2B documentation worklist tool built for DMEPOS supplier back-office teams. It replaces manual spreadsheet tracking with an automated, rule-driven coverage clock. diff --git a/pitch/signal-whitepaper-v2.md b/pitch/signal-whitepaper-v2.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..1ba9e76 --- /dev/null +++ b/pitch/signal-whitepaper-v2.md @@ -0,0 +1,118 @@ +# The Documentation Gap + +## Why Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) Claim Performance Is Decided Before Claims Submission + +_Published by STTIL Solutions_ +_A reference for CGM suppliers, Revenue Cycle Management teams, and other billing professionals_ + +--- + +## The Core Problem + +Clean claim performance in CGM is not primarily a billing problem. It is a documentation problem, and the gap opens upstream, not at claims submission. + +Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) compliance reporting is clear: 67.6% of improper payments for glucose monitoring supplies during the 2024 reporting period were attributed to missing documentation. Not insufficient. Absent. The documentation records were unable to be created, collected, or verified before the CGM claim was filed. + +By the time a denial, write-off, or audit flag appears in your billing queue, capital exposure is already at risk. The window to address it closed before the supplies left the building. + +This paper maps five checkpoints in the CGM documentation chain where that window is open, what tends to go wrong at each one, and why resupply is where the most preventable risk lives. + +--- + +## The Resupply Context + +The majority of CGM claim volume is not first-time dispensing. It's at resupply. And resupply introduces a documentation dynamic that first-time workflows often miss: the documentation is never static. + +Provider Enrollment, Chain, and Ownership System (PECOS) enrollment changes. Prior authorizations expire. The qualifying visit requirement creates a recurring window that runs on the patient's care calendar, not the billing calendar. SWO currency must be confirmed against the order being fulfilled now, not the file from the original onboarding. + +For resupply, documentation review is not a one-time event. It is a recurring checkpoint for every shipment. Each resupply cycle carries its own exposure, and that exposure is determined before any CGM supplies goes out the door. + +--- + +## The Five Checkpoints + +The CGM documentation chain minimally has five distinct points where gaps form. Each one precedes billing and likely outside the control of the supplier. Each one shapes the outcome of a claim that has yet to be filed. + +### 1. The Qualifying Visit + +Coverage eligibility for CGM rests on clinical documentation from a qualifying physician encounter. The treating physician's notes must reflect the coverage criteria: insulin treatment type, frequency of adjustment, and medical necessity. Not inferred from the order. In the chart. + +For resupply, the qualifying visit anchors the entire downstream timeline. If the encounter is not documented before the resupply window opens, the chain is already misaligned before a single order is processed. + +### 2. The Standard Written Order + +The SWO must be current, complete, and field-matched to the claim before supplies ship. A prescriber change not reflected in the SWO, an outdated quantity, or a mismatch between the order and the claim creates an exception the claim cannot survive on its own. + +For resupply, this means confirming the SWO against the specific order being fulfilled now, not the record on file from the original dispensing. + +### 3. PECOS Enrollment + +The prescriber on record must have active PECOS enrollment at the time supplies ship, not when they were added to your system. Physicians move practices, change enrollment categories, or allow enrollment to lapse. + +Supplies shipped against an order from a prescriber with a lapsed enrollment carry that exposure from the moment they go out the door. It is one of the most common and most preventable sources of capital risk in the resupply documentation chain. + +### 4. Prior Authorization Currency + +PA must be active and aligned with the specific HCPCS codes on the current shipment. Not just present; aligned. Authorization windows expire, and code list requirements can shift mid-coverage-period without direct notice to the supplier. + +For resupply, confirming PA currency before anything ships is the only point in the workflow where this exposure can be addressed without financial consequence. + +### 5. Proof of Delivery (POD) + +POD documentation must be complete and consistent with the claim before the claim is filed. For mail-order and ship-and-service delivery, the shipment invoice and carrier tracking record must be linked. For in-person, the signed delivery slip must match the claim on description, quantity, and date. + +One mismatch is enough to change the outcome on an otherwise clean claim. By the time it surfaces as a denial, the product has long since left the building. + +--- + +## What the Data Shows + +CMS compliance reporting on glucose monitoring supplies is unambiguous: + +67.6% of improper payments during the 2024 reporting period were attributed to absent documentation. Records that were not available, collected, or in place at the time of audit. + +Documentation-related causes consistently account for the majority of DMEPOS improper payments across audit cycles, outpacing billing errors and coverage determinations as the primary driver. + +These are not billing errors caught after the fact. They are upstream documentation gaps. Documentation that was not generated or verified before the supplies were delivered or a claim was filed. + +--- + +## What This Means Operationally + +The teams with the strongest clean claim rates are not faster at denial management. They have upstream documentation visibility. + +For resupply workflows specifically, that means the ability to confirm, per patient, per shipment: + +- Whether the qualifying visit is documented before the resupply window opens +- Whether the SWO is current and field-matched to this order, not the original file +- Whether PECOS enrollment is active for the prescriber on record right now +- Whether the PA on file covers the codes on this specific shipment +- Whether POD documentation will be complete and linked before the claim is filed + +Most RCM platforms surface claim status at the payer response stage. The denial work queue is a lagging indicator. The exposure it reflects was created before the resupply was ever initiated. + +The question is whether your documentation chain is visible before anything ships, or only after the remittance comes back. + +--- + +## A Note on Payer Variation + +The SWO framework governs Medicare DMEPOS, but suppliers working across Medicare, Medicaid, and commercial payers face variation in documentation requirements. That variation is not always communicated when requirements change. + +| Requirement | Medicare DMEPOS | Medicaid | Commercial Payers | +| ------------------- | ------------------------------------- | ------------------------------ | -------------------------------- | +| Order standard | SWO (eff. Jan 1, 2020) | Varies by state | Varies; some still reference CMN | +| Face-to-face | Required for designated items | Varies | Varies | +| PECOS enrollment | Required | Provider enrollment equivalent | Credentialing varies | +| Prior authorization | Required for PA-designated codes | Varies | Varies by plan and product | +| Proof of delivery | Required; specific field requirements | Required; varies | Required; varies | + +A current, payer-specific documentation matrix is a working operational tool, not a one-time setup. + +--- + +_The documentation gap is real, measurable, and addressable before the supplies ever leave the building._ + +_STTIL Solutions builds tools for CGM suppliers and care teams that surface documentation status upstream. Learn more at sttilsolutions.com_ + +_CMS data references: CMS Glucose Monitoring Supplies compliance tip (updated February 2026); CMS Standard Documentation Requirements (Article ID 55426); CGS Medicare Final Rule CMS-1713-F SWO FAQ; LCD L33822 Glucose Monitors._ diff --git a/pitch/the-documentation-gap-whitepaper.md b/pitch/the-documentation-gap-whitepaper.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f00bbd8 --- /dev/null +++ b/pitch/the-documentation-gap-whitepaper.md @@ -0,0 +1,118 @@ +# The Documentation Gap + +## Why Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) Claim Performance Is Decided Before Claims Submission + +_Published by STTIL Solutions_ +_A reference for CGM suppliers, Revenue Cycle Management (RCM) teams, and other billing professionals_ + +--- + +## The Core Problem + +Clean claim performance in CGM is not primarily a billing problem. It is a documentation problem, and the gap opens upstream, not at claims submission. + +Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) compliance reporting is clear: 67.6% of improper payments for glucose monitoring supplies during the 2024 reporting period were attributed to missing documentation. Not insufficient. Absent. The documentation records were unable to be created, collected, or verified before the CGM claim was filed. + +By the time a denial, write-off, or audit flag appears in your billing queue, capital exposure is already at risk. The window to address it closed before the supplies left the building. + +This paper maps five checkpoints in the CGM documentation chain where that window is open, what tends to go wrong at each one, and why resupply is where the most preventable risk lives. + +--- + +## The Resupply Context + +The majority of CGM claim volume is not first-time dispensing. It's at resupply. And resupply introduces a documentation dynamic that first-time workflows often miss: the documentation is never static. + +Provider Enrollment, Chain, and Ownership System (PECOS) enrollment changes. Prior authorizations expire. The qualifying visit requirement creates a recurring window that runs on the patient's care calendar, not the billing calendar. Standard Written Order (SWO) status must be confirmed against the order being fulfilled now, not the file from the original onboarding. + +For resupply, documentation review is not a one-time event. It is a recurring checkpoint for every shipment. Each resupply cycle carries its own exposure, and that exposure is determined before any CGM supplies go out the door. + +--- + +## The Five Checkpoints + +The CGM documentation chain minimally has five distinct points where gaps form. Each one precedes billing and is likely outside the direct control of the supplier. Each one shapes the outcome of a claim that has yet to be filed. + +### 1. The Qualifying Visit + +Coverage eligibility for CGM rests on clinical documentation from a qualifying physician encounter. The treating physician's notes must reflect the coverage criteria: insulin treatment type, frequency of adjustment, and medical necessity. Not inferred from the order. In the chart. + +For resupply, the qualifying visit anchors the entire downstream timeline. If the encounter is not documented before the resupply window opens, the chain is already misaligned before a single order is processed. + +### 2. The Standard Written Order + +The SWO must be current, complete, and field-matched to the claim before supplies ship. A prescriber change not reflected in the SWO, an outdated quantity, or a mismatch between the order and the claim creates an exception the claim cannot survive on its own. + +For resupply, this means confirming the SWO against the specific order being fulfilled now, not the record on file from the original dispensing. + +### 3. PECOS Enrollment + +The prescriber on record must have active PECOS enrollment at the time supplies ship, not when they were added to your system. Physicians move practices, change enrollment categories, or allow enrollment to lapse. + +Supplies shipped against an order from a prescriber with a lapsed enrollment carry that exposure from the moment they go out the door. It is one of the most common and most preventable sources of capital risk in the resupply documentation chain. + +### 4. Prior Authorization (PA) Status + +PA must be active and aligned with the specific Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes on the current shipment. Not just present; aligned. Authorization windows expire, and code list requirements can shift mid-coverage-period without direct notice to the supplier. + +For resupply, confirming PA status before anything ships is the only point in the workflow where this exposure can be addressed without financial consequence. + +### 5. Proof of Delivery (POD) + +POD documentation must be complete and consistent with the claim before the claim is filed. For mail-order and ship-and-service delivery, the shipment invoice and carrier tracking record must be linked. For in-person, the signed delivery slip must match the claim on description, quantity, and date. + +One mismatch is enough to change the outcome on an otherwise clean claim. By the time it surfaces as a denial, the product has long since left the building. + +--- + +## What the Data Shows + +CMS compliance reporting on glucose monitoring supplies is unambiguous: + +67.6% of improper payments during the 2024 reporting period were attributed to absent documentation. Records that were not available, collected, or in place at the time of audit. + +Documentation-related causes consistently account for the majority of Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics and Supplies (DMEPOS) improper payments across audit cycles, outpacing billing errors and coverage determinations as the primary driver. + +These are not billing errors caught after the fact. They are upstream documentation gaps. Documentation that was not generated or verified before the supplies were delivered or a claim was filed. + +--- + +## What This Means Operationally + +The teams with the strongest clean claim rates are not faster at denial management. They have upstream documentation visibility. + +For resupply workflows specifically, that means the ability to confirm, per patient, per shipment: + +- Whether the qualifying visit is documented before the resupply window opens +- Whether the SWO is current and field-matched to this order, not the original file +- Whether PECOS enrollment is active for the prescriber on record right now +- Whether the PA on file covers the codes on this specific shipment +- Whether POD documentation will be complete and linked before the claim is filed + +Most RCM platforms surface claim status at the payer response stage. The denial work queue is a lagging indicator. The exposure it reflects was created before the resupply was ever initiated. + +The question is whether your documentation chain is visible before anything ships, or only after the remittance comes back. + +--- + +## A Note on Payer Variation + +The SWO framework governs Medicare DMEPOS, but suppliers working across Medicare, Medicaid, and commercial payers face variation in documentation requirements. That variation is not always communicated when requirements change. + +| Requirement | Medicare DMEPOS | Medicaid | Commercial Payers | +| ------------------- | ------------------------------------- | ------------------------------ | -------------------------------- | +| Order standard | SWO (eff. Jan 1, 2020) | Varies by state | Varies; some still reference Certificate of Medical Necessity (CMN) | +| Face-to-face | Required for designated items | Varies | Varies | +| PECOS enrollment | Required | Provider enrollment equivalent | Credentialing varies | +| Prior authorization | Required for PA-designated codes | Varies | Varies by plan and product | +| Proof of delivery | Required; specific field requirements | Required; varies | Required; varies | + +A current, payer-specific documentation matrix is a working operational tool, not a one-time setup. + +--- + +_The documentation gap is real, measurable, and addressable before the supplies ever leave the building._ + +_STTIL Solutions builds tools for CGM suppliers and care teams that surface documentation status upstream. Learn more at sttilsolutions.com_ + +_CMS data references: CMS Glucose Monitoring Supplies compliance tip (updated February 2026); CMS Standard Documentation Requirements (Article ID 55426); CGS Medicare Final Rule CMS-1713-F SWO FAQ; LCD L33822 Glucose Monitors._ diff --git a/pitch/whitepaper-gate-demo.html b/pitch/whitepaper-gate-demo.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..2f75ccd --- /dev/null +++ b/pitch/whitepaper-gate-demo.html @@ -0,0 +1,307 @@ + + + + + +Whitepaper Gate — Demo + + + + + +
+
+ + + + + +
+
Whitepaper
+

The Documentation Gap

+

Why CGM claim performance is decided before claims submission. A reference guide for CGM suppliers, RCM teams, and billing professionals.

+ +
+
+
67.6%
+
of improper payments attributed to absent documentation
+
CMS, 2024
+
+
+
5
+
upstream checkpoints where documentation gaps form before billing
+
Signal framework
+
+
+ + +
Free. Takes 30 seconds to access.
+
+ + + +
+
One quick step
+

Who should we address this to?

+

Enter your details below and the whitepaper opens immediately.

+ +
+
+
+ + +
+
+ + +
+
+ + +
+
+ + +
+
+ +

Your information is used only to share relevant Signal updates. No spam.

+
+
+ + + +
+
+
+ + + +
+
+ Sent to — the whitepaper is below. +
+
+ +
+

Overview

+
The Core Problem
+

Clean claim performance in CGM is not primarily a billing problem. It is a documentation problem, and the gap opens upstream, not at claims submission.

+

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) compliance reporting is clear:

+ +
+
67.6%
+
of improper payments for glucose monitoring supplies during the 2024 reporting period were attributed to missing documentation. Not insufficient. Absent. The documentation records were unable to be created, collected, or verified before the CGM claim was filed.
+
CMS Glucose Monitoring Supplies Compliance Tip, February 2026
+
+ +

By the time a denial, write-off, or audit flag appears in your billing queue, capital exposure is already at risk. The window to address it closed before the supplies left the building.

+ +
+ Demo shows first section only. Full whitepaper renders here after form submit. +
+
+
+ + +
+ + + + + diff --git a/pitch/whitepaper-sample.html b/pitch/whitepaper-sample.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..1021930 --- /dev/null +++ b/pitch/whitepaper-sample.html @@ -0,0 +1,566 @@ + + + + + +The Documentation Gap — STTIL Solutions + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ STTIL Solutions + Signal +
+

The Documentation Gap

+

Why Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) Claim Performance Is Decided Before Claims Submission

+
+ Published May 2026 + Reference Guide + sttilsolutions.com +
+
+ +
+ + +
+

Overview

+
The Core Problem
+

Clean claim performance in CGM is not primarily a billing problem. It is a documentation problem, and the gap opens upstream, not at claims submission.

+

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) compliance reporting is clear:

+ +
+
67.6%
+
of improper payments for glucose monitoring supplies during the 2024 reporting period were attributed to missing documentation. Not insufficient. Absent. The documentation records were unable to be created, collected, or verified before the CGM claim was filed.
+
CMS Glucose Monitoring Supplies Compliance Tip, February 2026
+
+ +

By the time a denial, write-off, or audit flag appears in your billing queue, capital exposure is already at risk. The window to address it closed before the supplies left the building.

+

This paper maps five checkpoints in the CGM documentation chain where that window is open, what tends to go wrong at each one, and why resupply is where the most preventable risk lives.

+
+ + +
+

Context

+
The Resupply Context
+

The majority of CGM claim volume is not first-time dispensing. It is at resupply. And resupply introduces a documentation dynamic that first-time workflows often miss: the documentation is never static.

+

Provider Enrollment, Chain, and Ownership System (PECOS) enrollment changes. Prior authorizations expire. The qualifying visit requirement creates a recurring window that runs on the patient's care calendar, not the billing calendar. Standard Written Order (SWO) status must be confirmed against the order being fulfilled now, not the file from the original onboarding.

+

For resupply, documentation review is not a one-time event. It is a recurring checkpoint for every shipment. Each resupply cycle carries its own exposure, and that exposure is determined before any CGM supplies go out the door.

+
+ + +
+

Framework

+
The Five Checkpoints
+

The CGM documentation chain minimally has five distinct points where gaps form. Each one precedes billing and is likely outside the direct control of the supplier. Each one shapes the outcome of a claim that has yet to be filed.

+ +
+ +
+
1
+
+

The Qualifying Visit

+

Coverage eligibility for CGM rests on clinical documentation from a qualifying physician encounter. The treating physician's notes must reflect the coverage criteria: insulin treatment type, frequency of adjustment, and medical necessity. Not inferred from the order. In the chart.

+
For resupply: the qualifying visit anchors the entire downstream timeline. If the encounter is not documented before the resupply window opens, the chain is already misaligned before a single order is processed.
+
+
+ +
+
2
+
+

The Standard Written Order

+

The SWO must be current, complete, and field-matched to the claim before supplies ship. A prescriber change not reflected in the SWO, an outdated quantity, or a mismatch between the order and the claim creates an exception the claim cannot survive on its own.

+
For resupply: this means confirming the SWO against the specific order being fulfilled now, not the record on file from the original dispensing.
+
+
+ +
+
3
+
+

PECOS Enrollment

+

The prescriber on record must have active PECOS enrollment at the time supplies ship, not when they were added to your system. Physicians move practices, change enrollment categories, or allow enrollment to lapse.

+
For resupply: supplies shipped against an order from a prescriber with a lapsed enrollment carry that exposure from the moment they go out the door. It is one of the most common and most preventable sources of capital risk.
+
+
+ +
+
4
+
+

Prior Authorization (PA) Status

+

PA must be active and aligned with the specific Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes on the current shipment. Not just present; aligned. Authorization windows expire, and code list requirements can shift mid-coverage-period without direct notice to the supplier.

+
For resupply: confirming PA currency before anything ships is the only point in the workflow where this exposure can be addressed without financial consequence.
+
+
+ +
+
5
+
+

Proof of Delivery (POD)

+

POD documentation must be complete and consistent with the claim before the claim is filed. For mail-order and ship-and-service delivery, the shipment invoice and carrier tracking record must be linked. For in-person, the signed delivery slip must match the claim on description, quantity, and date.

+
For resupply: one mismatch is enough to change the outcome on an otherwise clean claim. By the time it surfaces as a denial, the product has long since left the building.
+
+
+ +
+
+ + +
+

Data

+
What the Data Shows
+

CMS compliance reporting on glucose monitoring supplies is unambiguous: 67.6% of improper payments during the 2024 reporting period were attributed to absent documentation. Records that were not available, collected, or in place at the time of audit.

+

Documentation-related causes consistently account for the majority of Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics and Supplies (DMEPOS) improper payments across audit cycles, outpacing billing errors and coverage determinations as the primary driver.

+

These are not billing errors caught after the fact. They are upstream documentation gaps. Documentation that was not generated or verified before the supplies were delivered or a claim was filed.

+
+ + +
+

Operations

+
What This Means Operationally
+ +
+

The teams with the strongest clean claim rates are not faster at denial management. They have upstream documentation visibility.

+
+ +

For resupply workflows specifically, that means the ability to confirm, per patient, per shipment:

+ + + +

Most Revenue Cycle Management (RCM) platforms surface claim status at the payer response stage. The denial work queue is a lagging indicator. The exposure it reflects was created before the resupply was ever initiated.

+

The question is whether your documentation chain is visible before anything ships, or only after the remittance comes back.

+
+ + +
+

Reference

+
A Note on Payer Variation
+

The SWO framework governs Medicare DMEPOS, but suppliers working across Medicare, Medicaid, and commercial payers face variation in documentation requirements. That variation is not always communicated when requirements change.

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
RequirementMedicare DMEPOSMedicaidCommercial Payers
Order standardSWO (eff. Jan 1, 2020)Varies by stateVaries; some still reference Certificate of Medical Necessity (CMN)
Face-to-faceRequired for designated itemsVariesVaries
PECOS enrollmentRequiredProvider enrollment equivalentCredentialing varies
Prior authorizationRequired for PA-designated codesVariesVaries by plan and product
Proof of deliveryRequired; specific field requirementsRequired; variesRequired; varies
+ +

A current, payer-specific documentation matrix is a working operational tool, not a one-time setup.

+
+ + +
+

The documentation gap is real, measurable, and addressable before the supplies ever leave the building.

+

STTIL Solutions builds tools for CGM suppliers and care teams that surface documentation status upstream.

+

sttilsolutions.com

+
+ +
+ + + + + + + diff --git a/test-data/generate_samples.py b/test-data/generate_samples.py new file mode 100644 index 0000000..44b8d98 --- /dev/null +++ b/test-data/generate_samples.py @@ -0,0 +1,50 @@ +"""Generate 25 CSV test files covering all flag states.""" +import csv +import random +import os +from datetime import date, timedelta + +random.seed(42) + +DEVICE_TYPES = ["dexcom_g7", "dexcom_g6", "freestyle_libre_3", "omnipod_5"] +PAYERS = ["Medicare Part B", "Medicaid - GA", "BCBS - FL", "Aetna", "UnitedHealth", "Cigna", "Humana"] +COMPONENTS = {"dexcom_g7": "sensor", "dexcom_g6": "sensor", "freestyle_libre_3": "sensor", "omnipod_5": "pod"} + +# Shipment date ranges to trigger different flag states +TODAY = date.today() +DATE_BUCKETS = { + "OK": (TODAY - timedelta(days=10), TODAY - timedelta(days=1)), + "VISIT_DUE": (TODAY - timedelta(days=400), TODAY - timedelta(days=250)), # old visit, no recent qualifier + "OUT_OF_COVERAGE": (TODAY - timedelta(days=600), TODAY - timedelta(days=500)), # way too old + "REFILL_WINDOW": (TODAY - timedelta(days=30), TODAY - timedelta(days=25)), # inside resupply window +} + +OUTPUT_DIR = os.path.dirname(os.path.abspath(__file__)) + +for i in range(1, 26): + flag = random.choice(list(DATE_BUCKETS.keys())) + bucket = DATE_BUCKETS[flag] + delta = (bucket[1] - bucket[0]).days + ship_date = bucket[0] + timedelta(days=random.randint(0, max(delta, 1))) + + device = random.choice(DEVICE_TYPES) + component = COMPONENTS[device] + payer = random.choice(PAYERS) + quantity = random.choice([1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 14]) + + filename = f"sample-batch-{i:02d}-{flag.lower()}.csv" + filepath = os.path.join(OUTPUT_DIR, filename) + + with open(filepath, "w", newline="") as f: + writer = csv.writer(f) + writer.writerow(["patient_id", "device_type", "shipment_date", "quantity", "payer", "component"]) + # 3-8 rows per file + num_rows = random.randint(3, 8) + for j in range(num_rows): + pid = f"PT-{1001 + (i-1) * 10 + j}" + row_ship = ship_date + timedelta(days=random.randint(-5, 5)) + writer.writerow([pid, device, row_ship.isoformat(), random.choice([1, 2, 3, 6, 9]), payer, component]) + + print(f"Wrote {filename} ({num_rows} rows, flag={flag})") + +print(f"\nDone — 25 files in {OUTPUT_DIR}") \ No newline at end of file