Pass the ACDIS Clinical Documentation Specialist CCDS Questions and answers with CertsForce

Under the FY 2026 Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program (HACRP), applicable subsection (d) hospitals in the worst-performing quartile based on the Total HAC Score receive a 1% payment reduction on applicable Medicare fee-for-service payments. CMS defines the worst-performing quartile as hospitals whose Total HAC Score is above the 75th percentile.

The FY 2026 program incorporates the CMS Patient Safety and Adverse Events Composite (PSI 90) plus five healthcare-associated infection measures: CLABSI, CAUTI, specified surgical-site infection, MRSA bacteremia, and C. difficile infection.

A single HAC does not automatically trigger the hospital-wide 1% HACRP reduction. Likewise, CMI is not the criterion used to determine HACRP penalties.

It is also important for CCDS candidates to distinguish the HAC Reduction Program from the separate DRA HAC/POA payment provision. CMS explicitly identifies them as distinct programs.

Accurate documentation and coding are important because quality measures rely on reliable clinical data, but CDI activity must remain focused on accurately representing the clinical record rather than manipulating quality metrics.

CCDS Reference Topics: HAC Reduction Program; PSI 90; HAI measures; quality payment; hospital performance.

=========

This is an appropriate clinical validation query because the provider has documented a diagnosis while the available clinical information appears inconsistent with that diagnosis.

The CDI specialist should not automatically accept every documented diagnosis when substantial contradictory clinical evidence exists. Conversely, CDI cannot independently delete the physician's diagnosis or replace the physician's clinical judgment.

The query should objectively identify the documented severe malnutrition and relevant contradictory findings—for example, stable weight, adequate nutritional intake, and absence of documented muscle or fat loss—and ask the provider to clarify whether severe malnutrition remains clinically appropriate, whether another nutritional condition better describes the patient, whether the diagnosis has been ruled out, or whether additional clinical reasoning supports it.

The query must remain neutral and should not mention the MCC status or potential reimbursement effect of severe malnutrition.

The August 2026 ACDIS/AHIMA compliant-query guidance supersedes previous editions and is the current foundational standard for compliant documentation clarification.

CCDS Reference Topics: Clinical validation; malnutrition; conflicting clinical indicators; compliant queries; documentation integrity.

=========

The record contains a significant clinical-documentation discrepancy. A TIA is characterized by transient neurologic dysfunction without acute infarction, whereas this patient's MRI demonstrates an acute cerebral infarction and the patient continues to have a persistent focal neurologic deficit.

Therefore, the provider should be asked to clarify the final diagnosis.

The CDI specialist cannot independently replace TIA with cerebral infarction, even though the clinical findings strongly favor an infarction. Provider documentation must reconcile the diagnostic evidence.

Automatically reporting both conditions could also misrepresent the encounter when one diagnosis has effectively been superseded by subsequent findings.

The query should objectively present the initial TIA documentation, MRI-confirmed infarction, persistent right-sided weakness, and resolution of aphasia, then ask the physician to clarify the final neurologic diagnosis.

This scenario illustrates why concurrent CDI review must continue beyond initial admission documentation. Early diagnoses may evolve as diagnostic testing becomes available.

Accurate stroke documentation affects principal diagnosis, severity representation, rehabilitation planning, risk adjustment, quality reporting, and longitudinal patient history.

CCDS Reference Topics: Cerebral infarction; TIA; imaging; conflicting documentation; diagnostic evolution.

=========

An MS-DRG relative weight is primarily a measure of relative resource consumption. CMS explains that each MS-DRG is assigned a payment weight representing the average resources required to treat cases in that MS-DRG relative to the average resources required for cases across all DRGs.

A relative weight greater than 1.0 generally represents a case group expected to consume more resources than the overall Medicare inpatient average, whereas a weight below 1.0 reflects comparatively lower expected resource utilization. CMS recalibrates MS-DRG relative weights periodically using national cost and claims information.

Severity of illness often correlates with resource consumption because clinically complex patients commonly require additional diagnostics, monitoring, interventions, medications, procedures, and length of stay. Nevertheless, severity of illness is not itself the definition of relative weight.

Hospital quality measures are evaluated through separate quality programs. Likewise, an individual hospital's billed charges do not directly define the MS-DRG relative weight assigned nationally, although standardized cost and charge data contribute to CMS's broader methodology for recalibrating weights.

Understanding relative weight is essential for CDI because documentation affects code and MS-DRG assignment, while the MS-DRG's relative weight influences the standardized IPPS payment calculation.

CCDS Reference Topics: MS-DRG relative weight; IPPS methodology; resource utilization; reimbursement fundamentals.

=========

Medicare's Indirect Medical Education (IME) adjustment uses the hospital's resident-to-bed ratio as the principal measure of teaching intensity. CMS explains that the IME adjustment factor is calculated using a hospital's ratio of residents to beds. Therefore, the correct answer is inpatient beds.

IME is an additional IPPS payment intended to recognize the higher indirect patient-care costs associated with operating an approved teaching program. These costs are distinguished from Direct Graduate Medical Education payments, which reimburse qualifying direct costs associated with residency training.

The number of admissions is not the denominator in the IME teaching-intensity calculation. Likewise, emergency-department beds are not simply combined with inpatient beds for the standard resident-to-bed ratio, and disproportionate-share payment rates represent a separate IPPS adjustment related principally to hospitals caring for substantial numbers of low-income patients.

For the CCDS examination, the important distinction is that IPPS reimbursement involves more than the base MS-DRG payment. Adjustments may include IME, disproportionate-share hospital provisions, wage-index effects, outlier payments, and other statutory mechanisms.

CCDS Reference Topics: IPPS reimbursement; teaching hospitals; IME adjustment; resident-to-bed ratio.

=========

PACT stands for Post-Acute Care Transfer. The PACT policy is part of Medicare's IPPS transfer-payment framework and can modify the normal full MS-DRG payment when a qualifying inpatient stay ends with an early transfer or discharge to specified post-acute settings.

CMS applies transfer-payment methodology when applicable conditions are met, including circumstances involving selected discharges to skilled nursing facilities, inpatient rehabilitation facilities, long-term care hospitals, psychiatric facilities, and certain home-health arrangements. For home health, the timing and relationship of post-discharge care can be relevant.

The policy exists because a short acute-care hospitalization followed by transfer to another care setting may not involve the same hospital resource utilization as a conventional discharge completing the expected course of inpatient treatment. Accordingly, the transferring hospital may receive a calculated transfer payment rather than the unrestricted full MS-DRG amount.

For CDI professionals, PACT illustrates why accurate discharge disposition and documentation can affect reimbursement even when the principal diagnosis, procedures, CCs, and MCCs are correctly captured.

CCDS Reference Topics: IPPS; MS-DRG reimbursement; discharge disposition; transfer payment policy.

=========

The maximum payment reduction under the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program is 3%. CMS expresses this through a payment adjustment factor ranging from 1.0, indicating no reduction, to 0.97, representing the maximum 3% reduction.

The HRRP links Medicare payment to excess readmission performance for specified clinical populations. CMS applies the resulting adjustment to applicable Medicare fee-for-service base operating DRG payments.

This program should not be confused with other Medicare hospital quality-payment initiatives. The HAC Reduction Program imposes a 1% reduction on hospitals in the worst-performing quartile, while Hospital Value-Based Purchasing uses a 2% reduction-and-redistribution mechanism.

CMS's FY 2026 IPPS final rule also finalized changes to HRRP methodology that begin with the FY 2027 program year, including incorporation of Medicare Advantage data into the six readmission measures and shortening the applicable performance period from three years to two.

For CDI, the central obligation remains ensuring that the clinical record accurately portrays patient severity, conditions treated, discharge circumstances, and comorbid disease burden.

CCDS Reference Topics: HRRP; readmission measures; quality reimbursement; payment adjustments; risk adjustment.

=========

Severe protein-calorie malnutrition is the correct answer. This question is adapted from an official CCDS sample question published by ACDIS.

Under the FY 2026 MS-DRG Definitions Manual, E43, unspecified severe protein-calorie malnutrition, is classified as an MCC. In contrast, moderate and mild protein-calorie malnutrition codes are classified as CCs rather than MCCs.

An MCC can materially affect MS-DRG assignment when the applicable DRG family differentiates cases by MCC status and when no exclusion or other grouper rule prevents the effect. However, the financial effect is never sufficient justification for a query. Documentation must be clinically supported and reflect the patient's actual condition.

A dietitian may document detailed nutrition findings and malnutrition criteria, but the reportable diagnosis ordinarily requires documentation by the provider responsible for establishing diagnoses. Therefore, when strong nutritional indicators exist but the provider has not documented malnutrition, a compliant query may be appropriate.

For CCDS preparation, candidates should understand both the clinical characteristics of malnutrition and its coding/reimbursement classification.

CCDS Reference Topics: MCCs; malnutrition; MS-DRG methodology; documentation requirements; IPPS.

=========

CMS publishes the complete MCC and CC lists as part of the FY 2026 IPPS Final Rule supporting tables. Specifically, the FY 2026 final-rule page identifies Table 6I as the Complete MCC List and Table 6J as the Complete CC List, along with additions, deletions, and the CC exclusion list.

These files are critical reference resources when assessing MS-DRG severity logic. Nevertheless, classification as an MCC or CC does not automatically mean that the diagnosis changes a particular case's MS-DRG. Principal-diagnosis exclusions, procedure logic, DRG structure, and the presence of another MCC can affect whether a diagnosis alters final assignment.

The Hospital Consumer Assessment survey relates to patient experience rather than diagnosis severity classification. The Physician Fee Schedule governs professional reimbursement and does not contain the inpatient MS-DRG MCC/CC classification system. National Coverage Determinations address Medicare coverage for particular services rather than MS-DRG severity categories.

CDI specialists should use the current CMS version applicable to the discharge date. CMS identifies MS-DRG Version 43.1 as effective April 1 through September 30, 2026.

CCDS Reference Topics: MCC; CC; CMS Definitions Manual; IPPS; MS-DRG severity.

=========

The principal concern is the selective destruction of unanswered queries. A compliant query-retention policy should be consistent, defensible, and auditable rather than dependent on whether the physician provided a response or whether the query affected billing.

Organizations may structure query retention differently depending on legal requirements, health-record policy, technology, and organizational governance. Queries may be part of the permanent health record or retained as another retrievable business record, depending on policy. The key point is that disposition should not be manipulated to hide unanswered or inconvenient clarification activity.

Destroying unresolved queries can impair auditability, create an appearance that the organization is selectively preserving only favorable documentation activity, and undermine the integrity of the CDI process.

The 2026 ACDIS/AHIMA guidelines are the current foundational standard for query-practice design and supersede prior versions.

A query need not automatically remain in the permanent medical record forever; retention requirements depend on applicable organizational and legal policies. What is unacceptable is an inconsistent approach designed to remove evidence based on outcome.

CCDS Reference Topics: Query retention; compliance; auditability; organizational policy; documentation integrity.

=========