(a) Definitions. For the purposes of aggregating claims to meet the amount in controversy requirement for an ALJ hearing or judicial review:

(1) “Common issues of law and fact” means the claims sought to be aggregated are denied, or payment is reduced, for similar reasons and arise from a similar fact pattern material to the reason the claims are denied or payment is reduced.

(2) “Delivery of similar or related services” means like or coordinated services or items provided to one or more beneficiaries.

(b) ALJ review. To be entitled to a hearing before an ALJ, the party must meet the amount in controversy requirements of this section.

(1) For ALJ hearing requests, the required amount remaining in controversy must be $100 increased by the percentage increase in the medical care component of the consumer price index for all urban consumers (U.S. city average) as measured from July 2003 to the July preceding the current year involved.

(2) If the figure in paragraph (b)(1) of this section is not a multiple of $10, then it is rounded to the nearest multiple of $10. The Secretary will publish changes to the amount in controversy requirement in the Federal Register when necessary.

(c) Judicial review. To be entitled to judicial review, a party must meet the amount in controversy requirements of this subpart at the time it requests judicial review.

(1) For review requests, the required amount remaining in controversy must be $1,000 or more, adjusted as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section.

(2) [Reserved]

(d) Calculating the amount remaining in controversy—(1) In general. The amount remaining in controversy is computed as the actual amount charged the individual for the items and services in the disputed claim, reduced by—

(i) Any Medicare payments already made or awarded for the items or services; and

(ii) Any deductible and/or coinsurance amounts that may be collected for the items or services.

(2) Limitation on liability. Notwithstanding paragraph (d)(1) of this section, when payment is made for items or services under section 1879 of the Act or § 411.400 of this chapter, or the liability of the beneficiary for those services is limited under § 411.402 of this chapter, the amount in controversy is computed as the amount the beneficiary would have been charged for the items or services in question if those expenses were not paid under § 411.400 of this chapter or if that liability was not limited under § 411.402 of this chapter, reduced by any deductible and/or coinsurance amounts that may be collected for the items or services.

(3) Item or service terminations. When a matter involves a provider or supplier termination of Medicare-covered items or services that is disputed by a beneficiary, and the beneficiary did not elect to continue receiving the items or services, the amount in controversy is calculated in accordance with paragraph (d)(1) of this section, except that the amount charged to the individual and any deductible and coinsurance that may be collected for the items or services are calculated using the amount the beneficiary would have been charged if the beneficiary had received the items or services the beneficiary asserts should have been covered based on the beneficiary's current condition, and Medicare payment were not made for the items or services.

(4) Overpayments. Notwithstanding paragraph (d)(1) of this section, when an appeal involves an identified overpayment, the amount in controversy is the amount of the overpayment specified in the demand letter, or the amount of the revised overpayment if the amount originally demanded changes as a result of a subsequent determination or appeal, for the items or services in the disputed claim. When an appeal involves an estimated overpayment amount determined through the use of statistical sampling and extrapolation, the amount in controversy is the total amount of the estimated overpayment determined through extrapolation, as specified in the demand letter, or as subsequently revised.

(5) Coinsurance and deductible challenges. Notwithstanding paragraph (d)(1) of this section, for appeals filed by beneficiaries challenging only the computation of a coinsurance amount or the amount of a remaining deductible, the amount in controversy is the difference between the amount of the coinsurance or remaining deductible, as determined by the contractor, and the amount of the coinsurance or remaining deductible the beneficiary believes is correct.

(6) Fee schedule or contractor price challenges. Notwithstanding paragraph (d)(1) of this section, for appeals of claims where the allowable amount has been paid in full and the appellant is challenging only the validity of the allowable amount, as reflected on the published fee schedule or in the published contractor-priced amount applicable to the items or services in the disputed claim, the amount in controversy is the difference between the amount the appellant argues should have been the allowable amount for the items or services in the disputed claim in the applicable jurisdiction and place of service, and the published allowable amount for the items or services.

(e) Aggregating claims to meet the amount in controversy—(1) Aggregating claims in appeals of QIC reconsiderations for an ALJ hearing. Either an individual appellant or multiple appellants may aggregate two or more claims to meet the amount in controversy for an ALJ hearing if—

(i) The claims were previously reconsidered by a QIC;

(ii) The appellant(s) requests aggregation of claims appealed in the same request for ALJ hearing, or in multiple requests for an ALJ hearing filed with the same request for aggregation, and the request is filed within 60 calendar days after receipt of all of the reconsiderations being appealed; and

(iii) The claims that a single appellant seeks to aggregate involve the delivery of similar or related services, or the claims that multiple appellants seek to aggregate involve common issues of law and fact, as determined by an ALJ or attorney adjudicator. Only an ALJ may determine the claims that a single appellant seeks to aggregate do not involve the delivery of similar or related services, or the claims that multiple appellants seek to aggregate do not involve common issues of law and fact. Part A and Part B claims may be combined to meet the amount in controversy requirements.

(2) Aggregating claims that are escalated from the QIC level for an ALJ hearing. Either an individual appellant or multiple appellants may aggregate two or more claims to meet the amount in controversy for an ALJ hearing if—

(i) The claims were pending before the QIC in conjunction with the same request for reconsideration;

(ii) The appellant(s) requests aggregation of the claims for an ALJ hearing in the same request for escalation; and

(iii) The claims that a single appellant seeks to aggregate involve the delivery of similar or related services, or the claims that multiple appellants seek to aggregate involve common issues of law and fact, as determined by an ALJ or attorney adjudicator. Only an ALJ may determine the claims that a single appellant seeks to aggregate do not involve the delivery of similar or related services, or the claims that multiple appellants seek to aggregate do not involve common issues of law and fact. Part A and Part B claims may be combined to meet the amount in controversy requirements.

(f) Content of request for aggregation. When an appellant(s) seeks to aggregate claims in a request for an ALJ hearing, the appellant(s) must—

(1) Specify all of the claims the appellant(s) seeks to aggregate; and

(2) State why the appellant(s) believes that the claims involve common issues of law and fact or delivery of similar or related services.

[70 FR 11472, Mar. 8, 2005, as amended at 74 FR 65335, Dec. 9, 2009; 82 FR 5109, Jan. 17, 2017; 84 FR 19870, May 7, 2019]