.jpg)
Strong documentation is the single most reliable shield you have in a Medicare audit. CMS requires DMEPOS suppliers to maintain complete, legible records for seven years, and reviewers will scrutinize three pillars every time: a compliant order, proof of medical necessity, and airtight proof of delivery. If any pillar wobbles, recoupments follow, even when the care was appropriate.
The Foundation: the Standard Written Order and a disciplined intake procedure
Before you dispense or ship, make sure a Standard Written Order (SWO) is in your file with every required element: beneficiary name or Medicare Beneficiary Identifier (MBI), order date, a general description of the item (sufficient to identify what was provided), quantity if applicable, the treating practitioner’s name or NPI, and the practitioner’s signature. Build your intake around capturing these elements up front so you’re never back-filling under deadline pressure.
Some items also carry face-to-face and written-order-prior-to-delivery (WOPD) rules; for those categories, the SWO must be communicated to the supplier before delivery and the encounter must occur within the required timeframe. Calibrate your intake checklist to the item you’re dispensing so you don’t ship before you have the right paperwork in place.
The Core Question: Proving medical necessity
For surgical dressings and other wound-care supplies, chart what Medicare contractors expect to see: wound location, size/measurements, depth or stage as relevant, drainage/exudate, debridement status, and the clinical rationale for the chosen product and change frequency. Treating practitioner notes should be updated each visit, and must support ongoing use and quantities. Align your quantities and change frequency with the Local Coverage Determination (LCD) for your area to avoid “excess utilization” denials.
Link each product to the documented condition. Your file should make it obvious why this beneficiary needed this dressing type, size, and number of units at this frequency. When LCDs specify typical change frequencies, treat those as guardrails unless your notes justify a deviation.
Proof of delivery: the Achilles’ heel of many DME claims
Auditors deny otherwise valid claims because proof-of-delivery (POD) is missing a date, an address, or a signature. Familarize yourself the rules for each delivery method, and ensure that you follow them to the letter. For supplier-delivered items, maintain a beneficiary (or designee) signature and a document that lists the patient’s name, a description of each item, quantities, and the delivery date.
Common avoidable errors include illegible signatures, missing or mismatched dates, descriptions that don’t identify the item dispensed, and shipping records that prove dispatch but not delivery. Build spot-checks into your workflow and use a standardized POD template to keep these pitfalls out of your files.
Seeking Order: organization and rapid retrieval
An audit-proof file is organized the same way every time. Create a consistent structure, medical necessity support ( including physician notes, measurements, photos if used, LCD cross-references), supplier documentation (invoices, serial/lot numbers), and proof of delivery. Index everything by claim number and date so you can retrieve a complete file on short notice.
You should build quality control into the routine of your business. Schedule brief, regular internal reviews of a sample of recent claims to confirm the accuracy and organization of the information auditors would collect. Small corrections of errors caught internally are a far more affordable investment than having to defend against a substantial Medicare contractor extrapolation audit after the fact.
A system that works for you
When you operationalize the pillars of an audit-proof documentation system, through checklists, templates, and recurring self-audits, documentation stops being a burden and becomes a business asset that protects revenue and credibility with contractors. If you’d like help designing a documentation system that tracks the latest CMS and DME MAC requirements, Health Law Alliance can help you build an audit-proof documentation system tailored to your DME operation. Schedule a free consultation today!
MORE ARTICLES BY CATEGORY
When a Wound Care Audit Hits, Call Counsel First: How Specialized Attorneys Protect Your Practice
Medicare is intensifying scrutiny of wound care, OIG’s work plan spotlights skin-substitutes and related services, while CMS’s CERT program still finds sizable fee-for-service improper payments - so a targeted audit can escalate quickly to payment suspensions and referrals if mishandled.
Read More >>When Inventory Discrepancies Become Audit Nightmares: Understanding One of the Most Common and Costly Audit Findings
Inventory reconciliation is one of the most scrutinized areas in PBM and payer audits and even small discrepancies can trigger major financial, reputational, and regulatory fallout.
Read More >>Collateral Consequences of PBM Audits: What Pharmacies Need to Know
PBM audits can quickly escalate from routine reviews into high-stakes enforcement actions with lasting financial, reputational, and regulatory consequences for pharmacies.
Read More >>Victory for an Independent Pharmacy: Health Law Alliance Successfully Reverses Over $30,000 in PBM Inventory Discrepancy Findings
Health Law Alliance successfully overturned more than $30,000 in alleged inventory discrepancy findings asserted by Express Scripts’ Special Investigations Unit (SIU) against a Texas pharmacy.
Read More >>




