In Appeals and Grievances (A&G) compliance, timeliness is not just a metric. It is an operational signal CMS uses to assess whether a health plan’s processes, staffing, systems, and workflows are stable and compliant.
Timeliness patterns reveal how work flows through the organization, how bottlenecks form, and how consistently decisions are made under rules that have been clear for years, but are still among the most frequently cited elements in audit findings.
Unlike documentation artifacts, which can be assembled or scrubbed, timeliness patterns expose what actually happens at scale, the essence of CMS’s operational evaluation.
Why A&G timeliness matters more than ever to CMS
CMS treats A&G timeliness as a direct indicator of how well a health plan protects members under pressure. When decisions are delayed, the impact is not abstract. It affects access to care, financial liability, and trust in the program. That is why CMS continues to use timeliness patterns as a lens into operational maturity, not just compliance posture.
Timeliness as a proxy for operational maturity
Timeliness shows whether processes work predictably at scale. A plan that consistently meets timelines demonstrates stable intake, routing, staffing, decisioning, and oversight. A plan that misses timelines intermittently or clusters resolutions near deadlines signals fragility in those same areas.
CMS uses timeliness as a proxy for operational maturity because it cannot be manufactured after the fact. Unlike documentation, timestamps reflect real execution.
How CMS links timeliness to member impact and program integrity
CMS views delays in appeals and grievances as direct risks to beneficiaries. Late decisions can delay access to care, create financial exposure, or undermine trust in the program.
That is why CMS regulations define strict timelines and why timeliness failures often escalate beyond corrective action into enforcement when they repeat.
How CMS defines and measures A&G timeliness
CMS has defined A&G timelines clearly for years, but how those timelines are met matters more than the rule itself. CMS does not simply check whether deadlines were technically satisfied. It evaluates how consistently plans meet timelines across case types, urgency levels, and volumes, and whether extensions reflect real member benefit or operational strain.
Standard vs expedited timelines and what they signal
CMS sets clear expectations for how quickly plans must resolve grievances and appeals. For example:
- Standard grievances generally require notification within 30 days
- Expedited cases require decisions within 72 hours
- Certain quality-of-care grievances require action within 24 hours
These timelines are not arbitrary. They reflect CMS’s expectation that plans can triage urgency, prioritize correctly, and execute without manual heroics.
Source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Parts C & D Enrollee Grievances and Appeals Guidance
https://www.cms.gov/medicare/appeals-and-grievances
When extensions are allowed and how CMS interprets them
CMS allows extensions only under defined circumstances and requires documentation of why the extension benefits the enrollee.
Frequent extensions, even when technically allowed, raise questions for CMS. Patterns of extensions often indicate staffing gaps, routing inefficiencies, or reliance on manual escalation rather than stable workflows.
Why “technically on time” is not the same as operationally sound
Meeting timelines by resolving cases minutes before deadlines may satisfy a rule, but it does not signal operational strength. CMS evaluates whether timelines are met consistently and comfortably, not barely and repeatedly.
The timeliness patterns CMS pays closest attention to
CMS does not evaluate timeliness one case at a time. It looks for patterns that repeat across populations and over time. These patterns reveal whether workflows scale, whether prioritization works, and whether execution depends on stable processes or last-minute intervention.
Repeated delays in standard cases
Consistent lateness in standard cases suggests baseline workflow problems. These delays often stem from intake backlogs, unclear ownership, or inefficient handoffs between systems and teams.
Late resolution spikes near deadlines
Clusters of case closures just before deadlines indicate manual intervention. CMS treats these spikes as evidence of hidden rework and unsustainable operating models.
Expedited cases that behave like standard workflows
Expedited cases should follow different paths. When their timelines mirror standard cases, CMS infers that prioritization logic is weak or overridden.
Inconsistent timeliness across service types or channels
Wide variation by channel, service type, or delegate points to fragmented processes and uneven oversight. CMS expects consistency regardless of how or where cases enter the system.
What late A&G decisions reveal about your operations
Late A&G decisions rarely start with a missed deadline. They usually reflect upstream breakdowns in intake, triage, staffing, or oversight. CMS interprets these delays as signals of how work actually flows through the organization, especially during volume spikes or complex cases.
Intake and triage breakdowns
Late decisions often start at intake. Poor classification of urgency delays downstream routing and cascades into missed timelines.
Manual escalation and rework loops
When teams rely on emails, spreadsheets, or last-minute escalations to meet deadlines, CMS sees the operational instability behind the success.
Staffing and capacity misalignment
Persistent delays reflect staffing models that do not match volume patterns. CMS interprets this as an execution risk, not a temporary shortage.
Weak delegation oversight
Delegated entities that miss timelines expose sponsor plans to audit findings. CMS holds the plan accountable for oversight, regardless of where the failure occurred.
Why documentation cannot offset poor timeliness performance
Documentation can explain intent, but it cannot change execution. CMS places greater trust in timestamps and resolution patterns than in narratives written after the fact. When timeliness issues repeat, documentation becomes context, not a defense.
Policies describe intent, timeliness shows execution
A policy can state compliance. Timeliness proves it. CMS trusts timestamps because they reflect what actually happened.
Why CMS trusts timestamps over narratives
Narratives can explain delays. Data shows patterns. CMS prioritizes patterns because they reveal systemic issues.
How audit sampling exposes systemic delay patterns
CMS audit protocols sample across cases and timeframes. This approach surfaces repeat behaviors that no amount of documentation can obscure.
Source: Office of Inspector General, Medicare Advantage Appeal Outcomes and Timeliness
https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/OEI-09-18-00260/
Key findings:
- 13% of Medicare Advantage appeals were decided late
- 18% of payment denials were overturned on appeal
These outcomes reflect operational failures, not missing policies.
How CMS uses A&G timeliness in audits and enforcement
CMS uses A&G timeliness to distinguish isolated errors from systemic risk. Persistent patterns influence audit findings, shape corrective action expectations, and, when unresolved, contribute to enforcement decisions. Timeliness is one of the clearest ways CMS evaluates whether corrective actions actually worked. Explore Appeals & Grievances solution
Timeliness as a recurring audit finding area
A&G timeliness consistently appears in CMS program audit findings because it connects directly to member harm and operational execution.
How patterns influence corrective action plans
CMS looks for evidence that plans have addressed root causes. When timeliness issues recur, CMS views CAPs as ineffective.
When timeliness issues escalate to enforcement
Between 2020 and 2023, CMS issued hundreds of civil monetary penalties tied to Part C and D operational failures, many citing systemic process deficiencies rather than documentation gaps.
Source: CMS Civil Monetary Penalties Database
https://www.cms.gov/medicare/compliance-and-audits/civil-monetary-penalties-cmps
What payer leaders should take away from A&G timeliness trends
For payer leaders, timeliness should shift from a compliance report to an operational insight. The same patterns CMS sees are visible internally if teams know where to look. Managing A&G timeliness effectively requires ownership beyond compliance and a clear focus on how execution happens day to day.
From SLA tracking to operational intelligence
Timeliness metrics should reveal where workflows strain, not just whether deadlines were met.
From individual misses to pattern management
Single misses matter less to CMS than recurring patterns. Leaders should manage trends, not exceptions.
From compliance reporting to execution ownership
A&G timeliness is not just a compliance responsibility. It reflects how operations, IT, staffing, and oversight function together.
CMS does not use timeliness to punish plans. CMS uses it to understand whether operations protect beneficiaries consistently.
Timeliness patterns do not lie. They tell CMS exactly how your organization runs.
Explore A modern Appeals & Grievances solution for compliant, scalable execution
Built to reduce delays, surface patterns, and scale execution. Standardize intake, prioritize urgency, and maintain end-to-end traceability. Request a personalized demo/walkthrough
Appendix
- CMS Parts C & D Enrollee Grievances and Appeals Guidance
https://www.cms.gov/medicare/appeals-and-grievances - OIG Medicare Advantage Appeal Outcomes and Timeliness (OEI-09-18-00260)
https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/OEI-09-18-00260/ - CMS Civil Monetary Penalties Database
https://www.cms.gov/medicare/compliance-and-audits/civil-monetary-penalties-cmps
Relevant Reads
Why CMS audits are designed to test operations, not just documentation
2026 CMS Program Audit Update: What Plans Must Do To Align
A payer’s guide to selecting the right A&G technology partner
The Payer Operating Model 2030: What Connected, AI-Powered Health Plans Will Look Like