Appeals and Grievances timeliness failures rarely happen because teams do not understand the rules. Most payer organizations know the timelines, track them closely, and invest significant effort in meeting them. Yet the same findings reappear across audits, corrective action plans, and enforcement cycles.
From CMS’s perspective, this repetition is the signal.
When A&G timeliness issues recur, CMS does not see isolated misses. It sees systemic operational weakness. Patterns matter more than intent, and repetition matters more than explanations. This is why timeliness failures escalate quickly from compliance observations to audit findings and, in some cases, enforcement actions.
Why CMS treats repeat A&G timeliness failures as systemic
Appeals and Grievances timeliness failures are rarely caused by a lack of regulatory knowledge. Most payer organizations understand CMS timelines well and track them diligently. Yet the same findings continue to surface across audits, corrective action plans, and enforcement cycles.
For CMS, repetition is the signal.
When A&G timeliness issues recur, CMS does not see isolated misses. It sees systemic operational weakness. Patterns outweigh intent, and recurrence outweighs explanations. That is why repeated timeliness failures quickly move from observations to audit findings and, in some cases, enforcement.
CMS evaluates patterns, not individual cases
CMS audits assess how processes perform in aggregate, across time, case types, and urgency levels. In its program audit overview, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services states that audits are designed to evaluate whether organizations have effective systems, controls, and operational processes in place, not just documentation.
When late resolutions reappear after a corrective action plan, CMS interprets this as evidence that the system did not change.
Source: CMS Program Audit Overview
Repetition signals operational design issues, not effort gaps
A&G teams often respond to missed timelines by working harder. They escalate cases late in the cycle, add manual checkpoints, and rely on experienced staff to intervene before deadlines. CMS does not interpret this as success.
If timeliness improves only during periods of heightened scrutiny and then degrades, CMS concludes that effort compensated for weak design. From a regulatory lens, this confirms that the issue is structural, not behavioral.
The operational reasons A&G timeliness failures repeat
Timeliness failures tend to recur because the same operational constraints remain in place, even after audits or CAPs conclude.
Intake and triage are not designed for scale
Timeliness failures often start at intake. When cases are misclassified, urgency is not identified correctly, or documentation requirements vary by channel, delays cascade through the lifecycle. These issues intensify as volumes rise.
CMS views repeated intake-related delays as evidence that prioritization logic and triage workflows are not robust enough to scale.
Source: CMS Parts C & D Enrollee Grievances, Organization Determinations, and Appeals Guidance
Manual escalation masks root causes
Late-stage escalation is one of the most common reasons organizations appear to meet timelines. Cases move forward because someone intervenes, not because workflows function predictably.
CMS detects this through timing patterns. Resolution spikes near deadlines, repeated overrides, and inconsistent timestamps signal hidden rework.
The Office of Inspector General has found that 13% of Medicare Advantage appeals were decided late while 18% of payment denials were overturned on appeal, indicating execution failures and operational deficiencies rather than missing policies.
Source: OIG, Medicare Advantage Appeal Outcomes and Timeliness (OEI-09-18-00260)
Staffing and capacity models lag reality
Repeated timeliness failures often reflect staffing models that do not align with volume variability, case complexity, or delegated workload. Adding temporary resources or redistributing work may reduce pressure temporarily, but CMS expects durable solutions.
From an audit lens, recurring delays tied to capacity indicate that the operating model does not support regulatory demand consistently.
Delegated A&G workflows weaken sponsor control
Delegated entities frequently contribute to timeliness risk. Differences in processes, systems, and oversight maturity create uneven execution. Even when sponsor teams perform well, delegated delays surface in aggregate data.
CMS holds the sponsor accountable regardless of where the failure occurs. Repeated delegate-related delays signal weak oversight, not shared responsibility.
Source: CMS Program Audit Protocols – Appeals, Grievances, and Organization Determinations
Why corrective action plans often fail to stop repeat findings
CAPs focus on behaviors, not systems
Corrective action plans often emphasize training, reminders, and policy reinforcement. These actions address symptoms, not structure. When workflows remain unchanged, timeliness issues resurface once scrutiny fades.
CMS looks for evidence that corrective actions altered how cases move through the system. Without structural change, CMS considers the CAP ineffective.
Short-term fixes do not satisfy CMS expectations
CMS expects to see sustained improvement over time. Temporary gains during a CAP monitoring period do not offset long-term instability. When the same issues appear in subsequent audits, CMS escalates its response.
This escalation reflects CMS’s conclusion that the organization has not addressed the root cause.
How CMS validates that timeliness issues are systemic
Audit sampling across time and scenarios
CMS audit protocols sample cases across different timeframes, case types, and urgency levels. This approach exposes repeat behavior that point-in-time reporting cannot hide.
Use of timestamps over narratives
CMS prioritizes timestamps because they reflect execution. Narratives explain why delays occurred, but patterns in data show how often they occur. CMS trusts patterns over explanations.
The Office of Inspector General has reinforced this view in its reviews of Medicare Advantage appeals, noting that delays often stem from workflow and operational deficiencies rather than missing policies.
Source: OIG, Medicare Advantage Appeal Outcomes and Timeliness.
Why CMS escalates repeat A&G timeliness failures
Repetition increases member risk
Late A&G decisions can delay care, disrupt continuity, and expose members to financial harm. From CMS’s perspective, repeated delays represent unmanaged risk, not administrative error.
Systemic failures undermine program integrity
CMS views systemic timeliness failures as threats to program integrity. When plans cannot execute consistently, CMS questions whether beneficiaries receive the protections required under Medicare Advantage and Medicaid programs.
This is why repeat findings move from observations to formal audit findings and, in some cases, civil monetary penalties.
Source: CMS Civil Monetary Penalties Database
What A&G leaders should take away
From fixing cases to fixing flow
Sustainable timeliness improvement requires redesigning how cases move, not intervening when they stall. CMS looks for stable flow, not heroic recovery.
From compliance ownership to operational accountability
A&G timeliness is not owned by compliance alone. It reflects intake design, system integration, staffing strategy, and delegate oversight. CMS expects accountability across the enterprise.
From short-term recovery to long-term stability
CMS considers timeliness failures systemic when they repeat because repetition proves that the operating model did not change. The only way to stop repeat findings is to change how execution happens every day, not just during audits.
CMS is consistent on this point.
Timeliness failures repeat when operations stay the same.
An execution-first perspective from Inovaare
At Inovaare, we work closely with health plans that struggle not because they lack awareness of A&G timelines, but because their operating models were never designed to scale execution consistently.
Across audits, corrective actions, and modernization efforts, the pattern is the same: timeliness failures repeat when workflows rely on manual recovery instead of embedded controls.
When intake, triage, decisioning, and oversight rely on manual recovery instead of embedded controls, delays resurface no matter how strong the intent. Lasting improvement starts with making execution visible, traceable, and consistent across systems, teams, and delegated entities. That visibility is what allows leaders to move from reacting to delays to preventing them.
Redesign A&G workflows to prevent repeat timeliness findings
Go beyond metrics to see where execution truly fails. Explore
Request a personalized demo/walkthrough
Relevant reads
Appeals & Grievances: From Cost Center to Strategic Intelligence Unit
Why CMS audits are designed to test operations, not just documentation
A payer’s guide to selecting the right A&G technology partner