Medicare - Solutions for Workers' Compensation and Liability Settlements

18/Jan/2022

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released a revised Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set-Aside Arrangement (WCMSA) Reference Guide (“Reference Guide”) Version 3.5 on January 10, 2022. This Reference Guide replaces Version 3.4 which was released on October 4, 2021. When comparing the two Reference Guides, a new section 4.3 and new language has been added. Below indicates the new section and language added in the (WCMSA) Reference Guide Version 3.5.

To download the new WCMSA Reference Guide v3.5  Click Here.

CMS’s Version 3.5 Reference Guide, Section 1.1 includes the following changes:

Clarification has been provided regarding the use of non-CMS-approved products to address future medical care (Section 4.3).

Section 4.3 The Use of Non-CMS-Approved Products to Address Future Medical Care

A number of industry products exist with the intent of indemnifying insurance carriers and CMS beneficiaries against future recovery for conditional payments made by CMS for settled injuries. Although not inclusive of all products covered under this section, these products are most commonly termed “evidence-based” or “non-submit.” 42 C.F.R. 411.46 specifically allows CMS to deny payment for treatment of work-related conditions if a settlement does not adequately protect the Medicare program’s interest. Unless a proposed amount is submitted, reviewed, and approved using the process described in this reference guide prior to settlement, CMS cannot be certain that the Medicare program’s interests are adequately protected. As such, CMS treats the use of non-CMS-approved products as a potential attempt to shift financial burden by improperly giving reasonable recognition to both medical expenses and income replacement.

As a matter of policy and practice, CMS will deny payment for medical services related to the WC injuries or illness requiring attestation of appropriate exhaustion equal to the total settlement less procurement costs before CMS will resume primary payment obligation for settled injuries or illnesses. This will result in the claimant needing to demonstrate complete exhaustion of the net settlement amount, rather than a CMS-approved WCMSA amount.

Keep in mind the WCMSA Reference Guide states:

There are no statutory or regulatory provisions requiring that you submit a WCMSA amount proposal to CMS for review. If you choose to use CMS’ WCMSA review process, the Agency requests that you comply with CMS’ established policies and procedures.

Take Aways

While CMS added Section 4.3, this language is not entirely new or at least not entirely unexpected. Similar currently existing Reference Guide language has for years included warnings about what could happen if parties failed to adequately consider Medicare’s future interests in WC settlements. For example, language from previous Reference Guide versions indicated in Section 8.0 that even for examples where a settlement did not meet CMS workload review thresholds “The settling parties must consider CMS’ future interests even though the case would not be eligible for review. Failure to do so could leave settling parties subject to future recoveries for payments related to the injury up to the total value of the settlement” (Example 1) and “Not establishing some plan for future care places the settling parties at risk for recovery from care related to the WC injury up to the full value of the settlement” (Example 2).

Also in prior versions of the Reference Guide in Section 4.1.4, CMS has warned of its ability and intention to deny injury-related medical services when it said that “If Medicare’s interests were not reasonably considered, Medicare will refuse to pay for services related to the WC injury (and otherwise reimbursable by Medicare) until such expenses have exhausted the entire dollar amount of the entire WC settlement. Medicare may also assert a recovery claim, if appropriate.”

On a positive note, CMS has now clarified in the new language in Section 4.3 that it will allow for a procurement cost reduction when there is a denial of service when there was no approved WCMSA submission. The new language clearly explains that the denial of service amount will not exceed the gross settlement minus procurement costs. This is more reasonable than denying services up to the entire amount of the settlement as it had previously listed or perhaps denying services up to double the amount of services. The double damages concept has been sometimes misstated in industry circles. (In court cases, even double damages claims have first determined the recovery damages by determining the conditional payment amount after applying a procurement cost reduction and then doubling that amount). The new language actually helps with this issue.

However, perhaps even more troubling is whether funds earmarked to help protect Medicare’s future interests as WCMSA funds are actually used for the intended purpose. According to the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. (NCCI) 2018 research brief updating its 2014 survey on WCMSAs, approximately ninety-eight percent (98%) of the Workers’ Compensation cases settled with the injured worker choosing to self-administer their MSA funds. This 2018 NCCI update published research brief included a sample of over 11,500 WC settlements between 2010 and 2015.

Perhaps to address this gap between what is said will be done (i.e. WCMSA allocation reports) and what actually is done (the administration of settlement dollars to pay for injury-related medical items, services, and expenses including prescription drug expenses, CMS already has the following language recommending professional administration in its Reference Guide in Section 17:

“CMS highly recommends professional administration where a claimant is taking controlled substances that CMS determines are “frequently abused drugs” according to CMS’ Part D Drug Utilization Review (DUR) policy. That policy and supporting information are available on the web at https://cms.gov/Medicare/Prescription-Drug- Coverage/PrescriptionDrugCovContra/RxUtilization.html.

Claimants may also administer their own WCMSAs, if State law allows. Claimants should submit annual self-attestations, just as a professional administrator would. This arrangement is subject to the same rules and reporting requirements as any other WCMSA. See Section 17.5 for more on this annual attestation. Although beneficiaries may act as their own administrators, it is highly recommended that settlement recipients consider the use of a professional administrator for their funds.”

Perhaps CMS felt that its existing high recommendation language for professional administration was sufficient to encourage settling parties to avoid pitfalls of incompetent administration of WCMSAs. But has CMS or any other entity ever done research to see what percentage of self-administered MSA funds were properly and fully exhausted before any injury-related medical bills were submitted to Medicare? If a non-submit WCMSA comes in at 80% of the CMS methodology submitted and approved WCMSA (80% because it follows an evidence-based drug tapering program guideline often seen in a state-based Workers’ Compensation medical protocol like the MTUS in California for example) but the WCMSA funds are professionally administered, wouldn’t that seem to protect Medicare’s real-world interests rather than a CMS submitted and approved WCMSA allocation report but self-administered by an injured claimant?

Stay Up To Date

Count on Medivest to help you navigate your risk tolerance in light of the new CMS WCMSA Reference Guide language and see if we can’t find the right balance to reasonably protect Medicare’s interests in your settlement. Medivest will continue to monitor changes occurring at CMS and will keep its readers up to date when such changes are announced. For questions regarding these updates, please reach out to a Medivest representative in your area by clicking here or call us direct at 877.725.2467.

Medivest

14/Jul/2021

On May 12, 2021, the Court of Appeals of Iowa published its opinion number 20-1250 in Forbes v. Benton County Agricultural Society and reminded everyone that in order to avoid surprises that lead to bad settlement results, plaintiffs in liability cases or employers in Workers’ Compensation cases, should always perform a lien investigation into the existence of any lien holders, entities, or plans that could assert a claim for reimbursement of paid claim charges (for this article, all simply referred to as liens). The next steps upon identifying any such liens would be to follow up with lien resolution audit, analysis, and negotiation. While the negotiation of the lien is often finalized after settlement, it is a form of malpractice for an attorney to move to settlement without first inquiring as to whether liens exist.

In August of 2017, Larry Forbes sustained an injury while on the premises of the Benton County Iowa fairgrounds, and hired an attorney to file a negligence action. After initial discovery, counsel for the Benton County Agricultural Society (Ag. Society), made an offer to Forbes’s counsel to settle for $10,000.

The letter referenced TRICARE but not Medicare and stated: “Based on information you have provided to date, Mr. Forbes had an excellent recovery, and his actual medical bills totaled $2,732, for which TRICARE apparently had a subrogation interest.” Burris added: “There is no indication that Mr. Forbes had to pay anything out-of-pocket, or that the medical providers are actually charging anything beyond the $2,732 paid.”

After negotiating, Forbes agreed to settle his suit with the Ag. Society for $12,500. In return, Forbes would dismiss the suit with prejudice. Counsel for the Ag. Society then informed Forbes’ counsel that if Forbes was Medicare eligible, her client would require “final CMS letter, showing the amount owed, if any, in reimbursement to Medicare.” However, after reaching the agreement, Forbes’ attorney learned that Medicare was pursuing a Medicare lien in the amount of $25,482 for reimbursement of conditional payments it made toward Forbes injury related medical expenses. Forbes’ attorney attempted to renegotiate the settlement once the existing Medicare conditional payments came to light. However, the Ag. Society pushed back, insisting Forbes accepted the agreed upon terms of the settlement and was aware of his obligations to Medicare. The Ag. Society moved to enforce the settlement by filing a motion for summary judgment.

When the case went to court, Forbes argued the agreement was unenforceable and claimed there was a “mutual mistake” because the parties failed to reach a “meeting of the minds.” The Iowa District Court for Benton County disagreed with Forbes and ruled in favor of the Ag. Society granting it summary judgment, based on its position that the settlement contract was enforceable. The Court of Appeals of Iowa affirmed the District Court’s ruling, reaching its affirmation under the theory that settlement agreements are essentially contracts and because the District Court properly applied contract law. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals confirmed that the lower court record showed a “meeting of the minds,” and that Forbes therefore, bore the risk of the mistake.

The Court of Appeals provided a detailed analysis on how a party may be considered to bear the risk of a mistake such as when:

“(a) the risk is allocated to him by agreement of the parties, or

(b) he is aware, at the time the contract is made, that he has only limited knowledge with respect to the facts to which the mistake relates but treats his limited knowledge as sufficient, or

(c) the risk is allocated to him by the court on the ground that it is reasonable in the circumstances to do so.”

The court decided that Forbes bears the risk of mistake in two of these exceptions:

“The first of those two exceptions is called “conscious ignorance.” See id. cmt. c. Under that exception, even if Forbes did not agree to bear the risk of mistake, he was aware when he agreed to the settlement that he had limited knowledge about potential Medicare payments. And despite that uncertainty, he “undertook to perform” the bargain. See id. In doing so, he assumed the risk of the mistake. See id. We agree with the district court that Forbes had exclusive access to his medical records and the ability to investigate whether Medicare would seek a recovery claim.

On the second exception, even if Forbes were not consciously ignorant about the possibility of a Medicare recovery claim, the district court was still reasonable in assigning the risk of mistake to him. See Pathology Consultants v. Gratton, 343 N.W.2d 428, 438 (Iowa 1984); see Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 154 cmt. a. As the court noted, Forbes’s fall occurred nearly two years before he sued. In that time, he had the opportunity and the burden to inquire thoroughly into the payment of his medical bills. It made sense for the court to allocate the risk of any mistake to Forbes.”

The full opinion and summary of the case can be read here: https://www.iowacourts.gov/courtcases/12533/embed/CourtAppealsOpinion.

Takeaways

Lien Investigation should be addressed during the pendency of any liability claims to determine who is paying for the injured party to recover from their injury and whether they will be asserting any subrogation/reimbursement right lien. This is especially important for those who are eligible/enrolled in any type of government issued medical insurance plan such as Medicare, Medicaid, VA/TRICARE/CHAMPVA, or who works/worked for a government entity (Such as FELA or FEHBA), or whose health plan is governed by federal law (such as an ERISA plan).

Patience is a virtue, especially in Lien Resolution and Lien Investigation. CMS’ guidelines allow for up to a 45-day response per inquiry. VA/TRICARE/CHAMPVA often take longer. Parties should take this into consideration and be proactive and inquire as to liens early in the case, so that if a settlement opportunity arises, they are able to have an accurate picture of all outstanding liens at the right time. Otherwise, they may be settling prematurely and as Mr. Forbes learned, at their peril.

Neglecting to address liens at the start of settlement is taking an unnecessary risk. Working with an experienced lien resolution group will often produce faster response times and outstanding resolution results. This is due in part to familiarity with the various lien processes, having lien holder contacts on file, use of electronic portals and secure email systems of recovery agents, use of proprietary diagnosis review software. Knowing which remedies may be available when, and how to best use the facts of cases in favor of the injured party when applicable.

Medivest can help you navigate through the complexities of lien resolution while you work toward a desired settlement outcome. Call us to today to speak to one of our highly trained settlement consultants for a free lien case consultation. For more information about Medivest or to refer a case, please call 877.725.2467 | Monday – Friday 8 am to 5 pm EST.

2101139_Sales_CMS-GHP-Alert-User-Guide-Update.fw_.png

Medivest

01/Jul/2021

On June 28th, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) made two announcements. The first is notice of the updated MMSEA Section 111 Group Health Plan (GHP) User Guide, while the second concerns a new technical alert regarding the inclusion of Part D information in Section 111.

Updated MMSEA Section 111 Group Health Plan (GHP) User Guide and GHP 270/271 Health Care Eligibility Benefit Inquiry and Response Companion Guides

A summary of the updates that have been made in Version 6.2 of the MMSEA Section 111 GHP User Guide are listed here:

The CMS electronic file transfer (EFT) file-naming conventions for inbound and outbound files have been updated (Section 8.1.1).

To provide more accurate direction to submitters, instead of receiving the RX 07 error code (Beneficiary does not have Part D enrollment), Disposition Code 51 will be returned for those records where the submitted individual is not entitled to Medicare Part D (Appendix D).

A new Modifier Type Code (PVR) and Name (From a provider) have been added for unsolicited MSP response files, and the DTM code (Name of employer submitting the Data Match Questionnaire Response) has been removed (Section 7.2.10.6).

The following will become effective December 11, 2021:

Under the Substance Use-Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment (SUPPORT Act) for Patients and Communities, Section 111 Responsible Reporting Entities (RREs) who provide primary prescription drug coverage must submit this information through the Section 111 process. To support their efforts, the Query-Only Response File layout will be updated to provide the most recent Part D enrollment information for beneficiaries. Additionally, process steps for installing and configuring the HIPAA Eligibility Wrapper (HEW) software will also be provided (HEW Query-Only Response File Record – Version 4.0.0, Appendix I).

The full guide can be downloaded here at CMS.gov.

Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) Mandatory Reporting Provisions Section 111 of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act (MMSEA) of 2007

The purpose of the latest alert is to notify Group Health Plan (GHP) RREs of changes being made to the Query Only Response File. Effective December 13, 2021, RREs will need to provide current Part D enrollment information for a beneficiary if the profile indicates that it provides network primary prescription drug coverage via Section 111 reporting. Additionally, three new fields will be added to the Query Only Response File layout.

The full alert can be downloaded here at CMS.gov.

For questions regarding these updates and how they may affect you and/or your clients workers’ compensation or liability settlements, please contact Medivest here or call us at 877.725.2467.

Medivest

08/Jun/2021

On June 23rd, 2021 at 1pm EST, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will host a webinar regarding the implementation of the Provide Accurate Information Directly (PAID) Act. The full notice can be read below:

CMS will be hosting a webinar to discuss upcoming impacts to Section 111 Non-Group Health Plan (NGHP) Responsible Reporting Entities (RREs) related to the PAID Act, which was signed into law on December 11, 2020. The intention of the PAID Act is to help NGHP Responsible Reporting Entities better coordinate benefits by providing additional beneficiary Part C and Part D enrollment information. This webinar will cover what the PAID Act is, details of the NGHP Section 111 Query Response File changes, information on the scheduled testing period and implementation timeframes. The webinar will also be followed by a live questions and answer session with staff from CMS and the Benefits Coordination & Recovery Center.

Questions for this town hall can be submitted in advance to PL110-173SEC111-comments@cms.hhs.gov. Please have your questions submitted no later than June 16, 2021.

Date: Wednesday, June 23, 2021
Time: 1:00 PM ET

Webinar URL: https://www.mymeetings.com/nc/join.php?i=PWXW2072056&p=9205987&t=c

and

Conference Dial In: 888-469-1074
Conference Passcode: 9205987

Please note that for this webinar you will need to use both the webinar link and conference call information above to access both the visual and audio portion of the presentation. Please plan to join at least 15 minutes prior to the start of the presentation.

Additional information on the PAID Act can be found here. If you have questions on how topics discussed in this webinar this may affect your clients, please contact Medivest here or call us at 877.725.2467.

Medivest

02/Jun/2021

How Attorneys in Washington and Other States Should Prepare Their Clients and Themselves for Lump-Sum Settlements

Last month, Washington state governor Jay Inslee signed a bill into law that will allow injured workers to receive Workers’ Compensation (WC) settlements as lump-sum settlements for the first time. Included in the bill, S.B. 5046 was an emergency clause that made it take effect immediately once it was signed. Previously, injured workers in Washington state were required to receive WC settlements via structured settlement (annuitized) payments over time. The COVID-19 Pandemic may have influenced this change and only time will tell if the decision will be good for the State of Washington. Funding of WC settlements by structured settlements have always provided a sort of safety net so that if a WC claimant failed to preserve settlement funds in any one year, there would be another round of funding to help cover the medical needs of the claimant going forward.

Are There Risks with Lump-sum Settlements?

Lump-sum settlements offer the advantage of receiving money immediately, which can be helpful when large bills are looming overhead. However, injured workers who receive lump-sum settlements are naturally prone to misuse the medical portion of their settlement funds for several reasons. Disregarding any malicious intent, its not uncommon for misuse to occur due to:

Lack of Expertise – Inability to seek or negotiate for the best price on products and services due to a lack of knowledge about fee schedules, rates, coordination of benefits, medical billing department practices and policies, and negotiation.
Dependence on Willpower – Decisions are at the mercy of the beneficiary’s self-control.
Outside Influences – Life circumstances, including needs and wants, or even manipulation by family members or friends creates pressure to spend imprudently.

Workers’ Compensation claimants may face sanctions from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the agency charged with administering the Medicare program, which include denial of future medical care under Medicare for the WC related injury that was compensated, and obligation of repayment to Medicare for conditional payments made by Medicare, which can potentially be up to double the amount owed or otherwise carry high interest on unpaid Medicare Secondary Payer statute (MSP) debt. However, consequences of misuse of funds are not limited to just the claimants. Their attorneys may also share responsibility.

What Does This Mean for Attorneys in Washington State?

Attorneys in Washington, and any other state that allows lump-sum payments for Workers’ Compensation settlements, must make every effort to ensure that their clients are considering Medicare’s future interest in their settlement and have a plan for future care that will protect Medicare from being prematurely billed for any injury related and Medicare allowable future medical component of the WC settlement. CMS identifies the legal support providing why an attorney could be in its cross-hairs as a target of a MSP recovery penalty for a claimant’s misuse of funds in its April 22, 2003 memorandum.

CMS may sue for repayment from all parties involved in the settlement, including the claimant’s attorneys. Double damages may also be sought against the “primary payer” under the authority of 42 CFR 411.24(c)(2), and if the government is unable to recover against the “primary payer,” against the “beneficiary.” 42 CFR 411.24(l)(1).
CMS outlines the “ethical and legal obligations” of attorneys representing Workers’ Compensation claimants when their clients chose to “ignore Medicare’s interests in a Workers’ Compensation case,” citing to the CFR section that gives CMS a claim against the attorneys.

How to Protect Future Medicals and Your Own Future

For the protection of all parties involved, CMS highly recommends Professional Administration for a Medicare Set-Aside account. It effectively eliminates or significantly reduces the likelihood of misuse of MSA funds, assuring the settling parties remain in compliance with the letter and spirit of the MSP thereby protecting both the claimant and attorney. Additionally, Medivest’s Professional Administration services can often stretch the medical portion of the settlement funds, helping to ensure that medical funds are available for a longer period of time than if self-administered.

Medivest can help you navigate through Medicare Secondary Payer compliance complexities while you work toward a desired settlement outcome. Call us to today to speak to one of our highly trained settlement consultants for a free lien and MSP futures case consultation. For more information about Medivest or to refer a case, please call 877.725.2467 | Monday – Friday 8 am to 5 pm EST.

Sandy Simpson

29/Apr/2021

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released a revised Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set-Aside Arrangement (WCMSA) Reference Guide (“Reference Guide”) Version 3.3 on April 19, 2021. This Reference Guide replaces Version 3.2 which was released on October 5, 2020. There are a few notable changes when comparing the two Reference Guides. The blue highlights below indicate the updated changes provided in Reference Guide Version 3.3.

CMS’s Version 3.3 Reference Guide includes the following changes:

The CDC Life Table link was updated (Section 3).
Language around surgeries to be covered by seed money in a structured settlement was clarified, and a disclaimer was added to the proposal review reference tools list in Appendix 4, along with the Conduent Strataware® tool (Sections 5.2 and 9.4.4, Appendix 4).
Miscellaneous clarifications were added as follows (Sections 9.4.5, 10.2, 16.2, and 4):
- On pricing: include refills when pricing intrathecal
- On documentation: clarification was added on Consent to Release
- On WCMSA Portal case access: clarification was added on case access for Professional Administrators who are not the original
The Major Medical Centers table was updated for a Missouri entry (Appendix 7).

To download the new WCMSA Reference Guide v3.3 Click Here.

Change 1 – CDC Life Table Updated Link

Section 10.3

CMS Update: “CMS will project the cost of the claimant’s future treatment over the claimant’s life expectancy, using the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Tables https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr69/nvsr69-12-508.pdf

Please see the WCMSA site (http://go.cms.gov/wcmsa) for additional information.”

Change 2 – Seed Calculations Include Cost of First Surgery/Procedure for Each Injured Body Part

Section 5.2

Language around surgeries to be covered by seed money in a structured settlement was clarified.

Medivest’s Takeaway: Of these announced changes, the change of most significance is the clarification that CMS expects seed calculations to be evaluated for each affect body part of an injured worker. Text has been inserted in multiple locations for this purpose. We have placed references to the applicable Reference Guide section where the updated language appears and have quoted various portions of the existing language along with the revised/inserted language for context below, with the revised language appearing in blue highlight.
CMS’ Update: “A WCMSA can also be established as a structured arrangement, where payments are made to the account on a defined schedule to cover expenses projected for future years. In a structured WCMSA, an initial deposit is required to cover the first surgery or procedure for each body part, and/or replacement and the first two years of annual payments. The initial deposit (“seed money”) is followed by subsequent annual deposits (or a shorter time period if CMS agrees to such), based on the anniversary of the first deposit. If in any given coverage year, the deposited funds are not exhausted (i.e., used up, spent), they are carried forward to the next period and added to the next annual deposit. The whole fund, including carry-forwards, must be exhausted before Medicare will pay primary for any WC injury-related medical expenses. If the fund is exhausted appropriately in a given annual period, Medicare will pay primary for further WC injury-related medical expenses during that period. In the next annual period, the replenished WCMSA funds again must be used, until the WCMSA amount is appropriately exhausted.”

Section 9.4.4

Medivest’s Takeaway: Slight changes were also made under 9.4.4 Medical Review, Step Six, to clarify that seed calculations are to be performed for each affected body part/injured area as follows:
CMS’ Update – Section 9.4.4: “When annuity is selected, the submitter provides a proposed “seed” or initial deposit amount. This amount should include the cost of the first surgery/procedure for each body part, if any. The seed includes the first two years of the annual amount. See Section 05 – Cover Letter in this guide for instructions on how to calculate the seed amount, with an example.54r3efd

The seed includes the cost of the first surgery/procedure for each body part, including all costs such as prescription drugs, physician fees, anesthesia fees, and facility fees. If the surgery is preceded by an associated trial, i.e., trial SCS or trial intrathecal (IT) pump, the cost of the trial is also included since it is considered part of the same procedure. If there are no surgeries, the first procedure (if any, such as injections) is included. Series of spinal injections are not included, but series of knee visco supplementation are included if three are anticipated to be accomplished as a series of three weekly injections.

The first replacement of Durable Medical Equipment (DME), prosthesis, or orthotics is included in the seed funds if the cost of such items exceeds $500.

The seed includes the cost of surgeries, procedures, drugs, or replacement items as noted above. It does not include the cost of diagnostic studies, complications, and hospitalizations for non-surgical treatment.”

Other locations where the per body part is referenced include in 10.1 Section 05-Cover Letter:

on page 39:

. . .

“Note: Where the WCMSA is to be funded by a structured settlement, the cover letter

must disclose whether any portion of the projected prescription drug expenses has been included in the lump sum required to cover the first surgery/procedure for each body part,

and/or replacement and the first two years of annual payments.”

. . .

As well as in two places on page 40 under the same section:

“Example:

Total WCMSA = $301,826.90

Cost of first surgery for each body part, and/or the first procedure/replacement =

$10,191.40”

. . .

“Step 2. Identify the cost of the first surgery for each body part and the first

procedure/replacement ($10,191.40)”

Appendix 4-1 | WCRC Proposal Review Reference Tools

CMS’ Update: “Strataware® is a tool, for repricing medical bills to state mandated fee schedules, as well as usual, customary and recommended (UCR) rates.”

Change 3 – Pricing Updates Includes refills when pricing intrathecal pumps

Section 9.4.5 | Medical Review Guidelines Intrathecal (IT) Pumps

Pricing clarification was updated for Intrathecal pumps to stress that pump refills should be projected for the claimant’s life expectancy.

CMS Update: “The WCRC follows the most recent guidance from CMS on intrathecal (IT) pump pricing and frequencies. Permanent placement of IT pump devices are included every 7 years: the claimant’s life expectancy is divided by 7, decimals are dropped, and the whole number is used for determining replacement over the life expectancy. Pricing includes necessary pump refills over the claimant’s life expectancy.”

“Pricing for Spinal Cord Stimulator (SCS) Surgery

. . .

Consider the number of leads to be used.

Analysis Services: CMS LCDs (L34705 and L35648) can be billed every 30 days and more frequently in the first month. It should be priced four times in the first 30 days, monthly for the first year, and twice a year after the first year.

5. LCD L34705 – SCS (Dorsal Column Stimulation) – “Generally, electronic analysis services (CPT codes 95970, 95971, 95972, and 95973) aren’t considered medically necessary when provided more often than once every 30 days. More frequent analysis may be necessary in the first month after implantation.”

6. LCD L35648 – SCS for Chronic Pain – Under Utilization Guidelines: “Generally, electronic analysis services (CPT codes 95970, 95971, 95972 and 95973) aren’t considered medically necessary when provided more often than once every 30 days. More frequent analysis may be necessary in the first month after implantation.

Section 10.2 | Consent to Release Note

CMS’ Update: “Consent to Release documents must be signed (by hand or electronically) with the full name of either the claimant, matching the claimant’s legal name, or by the claimant’s authorized representative, if documentation establishing the relationship is also provided. It must be a full signature, not initials.”

Section 16.2 | Amended Review

On WCMSA Portal case access: clarification was added on case access for Professional Administrators who are not the original submitter.

CMS’ Update:
- In the event that treatment has changed due to a state-specific requirement, a life-care plan showing replacement treatment for denied treatments will be required if medical records do not indicate a change. Requests for changes to treatment plans will not be accepted without supporting medical documentation.
- The approval of a new generic version of a medication by the Food and Drug Administration does not constitute a reason to request an amended review for supposed changes in projected pricing. CMS will deny the request for re-review if submitters fail to provide the above-referenced justifications with the request for re-review. Submitters will not be permitted to supplement the request for re-review, nor will they be developed.
- Re-review and amended review requests may be made electronically or by mail.

See the WCMSAP User Guide at https://www.cob.cms.hhs.gov/WCMSA/assets/wcmsa/userManual/WCMSAUserManual.pdf for details on electronic submission. Professional Administrators who are not the original submitter, see Section 19.4.

Section 19.4 | Change of Submitter

Provides Helpful Information to Professional Administrators that did not submit the WCMSA on How to Gain Access on the WCMSA Portal case access: clarification was added on case access for Professional Administrators who are not the original submitter.

CMS’ Update: Professional Administrators whose EIN does not match the EIN of the original submitter, contact BCRC to gain access to the case via the WCMSA Portal; otherwise you must submit by mail. Submitter changes will not be accepted after settlement, and does not constitute a reason for a re-review (See Section 16.0 for re-review requirements). CMS will not provide copies of existing documentation to the new submitter. Any documentation must be obtained from the incumbent submitter or insurer.”

Change 4 – The Major Medical Centers table was updated for a Missouri entry (Appendix 7)

Click Here for the updated list of Major Medical Centers by State, NPI, and ZIP Code with the new Missouri entry.

Medivest will continue to monitor changes occurring at CMS and will keep its readers up to date when such changes are announced. For questions, feel free to reach out to the Medivest representative in your area by clicking here or call us direct at 877.725.2467. For any specific questions regarding MSAs of any type click here.

Sandy Simpson

05/Apr/2021

NPRM: Miscellaneous Medicare Secondary Payer Clarifications and Updates (CMS-6047)

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Office of Management and Budget (OIRA/OMB) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) dated 03/00/2021 found here.

Essentially the proposed rule would clarify existing Medicare Secondary Payer Act (MSP) obligations associated with payment for future injury related and Medicare allowable medical items, services, and expenses, including prescription drug expenses (Future Medicare Allowable Medicals) related to settlements, judgments, awards, payments, or other arrangements (Settlements) paid by primary plans such as liability insurance plans (including self-insureds), No Fault plans, or Workers’ Compensation plans. Specifically, this rule would clarify that an individual Medicare beneficiary is responsible to satisfy Medicare’s interests with respect to Future Medicare Allowable Medicals related to such Settlements, in addition to the already well known and regulated obligation for Medicare beneficiaries and their attorneys to satisfy Medicare’s past interest in such Settlements by verifying the existence of and resolving any conditional payments (i.e. “Medicare liens”) stemming from Settlements.

This proposed rule would also remove obsolete regulations. While it is projected to focus on the protection of Medicare’s interests in the previously unregulated liability and No Fault Settlement market, the new NPRM could provide additional clarification regarding protecting Medicare’s future interests in Workers’ Compensation Settlements as well

Is this NPRM update laying the groundwork to issue the long awaited LMSA Regulations/Guidance? Only time will tell. Medivest will continue to monitor the OIRA/OMB website for any NPRM updates to keep you informed. You can be assured that Medivest is here to help guide you through some of the complexities associated with MSP compliance.

OIRA/OMB has issued similar proposed release date Notices of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) for CMS regarding this RIN 0938-AT85 as follows:

Proposed Release Date: 03/00/2021 – https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202010&RIN=0938-AT85
Proposed Release Date: 08/00/2020 – https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201910&RIN=0938-AT85
Proposed Release Date: 02/00/2020 – https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201910&RIN=0938-AT85
Proposed Release Date:10/00/2019 – https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201904&RIN=0938-AT85
Proposed Release Date: 09/00/2019 – https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201810&RIN=0938-AT85

To stay up to date regarding any changes with LMSA Regulations/Guidance, please visit Medivest’s blogs:

Take Aways

Considering and protecting Medicare’s past interests has become the industry standard and a “no brainer” for all NGHP settlement types – liability, self-insurance, No Fault, and Workers’ Compensation.
Whether the announced guidance comes this August or not, it makes sense to help ensure that Medicare’s future interests are protected in accordance with existing federal law, i.e. the MSP.
Helping to ensure that Medicare is not prematurely billed for injury related futures for any settlement type is the right thing to do and helps protect the Medicare Trust Funds.

Sandy Simpson

21/Dec/2020

As we enter the final weeks of 2020, Medicare Secondary Payer Act (MSP) stakeholders will have to continue to wait for Liability Medicare Set-Aside (LMSA) Regulation/Guidance to be released. The last time the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) mentioned the LMSA Regulation/Guidance it was scheduled to be released in August 2020. Professionals in the MSP industry have speculated that new regulations or guidelines are not likely to be published until March 2021, however as of December 17, 2020 no announcement date has been set. CMS first announced a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to be issued in September of 2019 but has delayed the announcement multiple times over the past two years. The NPRM would “clarify existing Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) obligations associated with future medical items and services related to liability (including self-insurance), no fault insurance, and workers’ compensation settlements, judgements, awards or other payments. Specifically, this rule would clarify that an individual or a Medicare Beneficiary must satisfy Medicare’s interest with respect to future medical items and services related to such settlements, judgements, awards, or other payments. This proposed rule would also remove obsolete regulations.”

Injured individuals, their attorneys, and entities settling liability claims, including consultants that assist in the settlement process such as structured settlement and MSP compliance planners/consultants (Settlement Professionals) interested in complying with the MSP and ensuring that Medicare will not make payments for injury related and Medicare covered medicals post settlement, have regularly read and interpreted the CMS Stalcup Handout dated 05/25/2011, characterizing the obligation of considering and protecting Medicare’s interests in liability and Workers’ Compensation settlements as being one and the same (see below). Furthermore, in the absence of specific regulations or guidance directed toward liability settlements, Settlement Professionals have also read and interpreted the guidance issued by CMS in its Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set-Aside Arrangement (WCMSA) Reference Guide v 3.2.

The WCMSA Reference Guide of course only gives examples of situations where Workers’ Compensation settlements fall outside the workload review thresholds allowing for review by CMS but in the two examples it provides in Section 8.1 titled Review Thresholds, it indicates that “not establishing some plan for future care places settling parties at risk for recovery from care related to the WC injury up to the full value of the Settlement.” In the same section of the Reference Guide, CMS indicates in another example, “The settling parties must consider CMS’ future interests even though the case would not be eligible for review.” Because of the double damages provision allowed for recovery actions under the MSP, and regardless of what CMS’ enforcement position has been in the past, insurance carriers, Self-Insureds, and attorneys representing injured plaintiffs have taken precautions to reduce the likelihood of any recovery against them for future conditional payments. Many have surmised that this is only a plaintiff issue and have argued insurance companies and Self-Insured need not worry about Medicare covered futures. Nobody knows exactly where the future guidance in this area is going to fall but it is clear that Medicare’s Trust Funds need protecting because as recently as 2018, Congress predicted Medicare’s Part A Trust Fund to be depleted in 2026.*

Highlights from the CMS Stalcup Handout 05/25/2011

…“Medicare’s interests must be protected; however, CMS does not mandate a specific mechanism to protect those interests. The law does not require a ‘set-aside’ in any situation. The law requires that the Medicare Trust Funds be protected from payment for future services whether it is a Workers’ Compensation or Liability case. There is no distinction in the law.”

…here is no formal CMS review process in the liability arena as there is for Workers’ Compensation. However, CMS does expect the funds to be exhausted on otherwise Medicare covered and otherwise reimbursable services related to what was claimed and/or released before Medicare is ever billed. CMS review is decided on a case by case basis.

…“Each attorney is going to decide, based on the specific facts of each of their cases, whether or not there is funding for future medicals and if so, a need to protect the Trust Funds.”

Click here to download entire memo

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued the following Notices of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) regarding RIN 0938-AT85:

To stay up to date regarding any changes with LMSA Regulations/Guidance, please visit Medivest’s blogs::

Take Aways:

Considering Medicare’s interests in any settlement with some type of analysis regarding the protection of those interests has become the industry standard for all NGHP settlement types – liability, self-insurance, No Fault, and Workers’ Compensation.
Whether the announced guidance comes out soon or not, doesn’t it make sense to help ensure that Medicare’s future interests are considered and protected in accordance with existing federal law – i.e. the MSP?
Helping to ensure that Medicare is not prematurely billed for injury related future Medicare covered medicals for any settlement type is the right thing to do and helps protect the Medicare Trust Funds.

Medivest will continue to monitor the OMB website for any NPRM updates in order to keep you informed. Count on Medivest to help guide you through some of the complexities associated with MSP compliance.

* Medicare has two Trust Funds. One for Part A that covers hospital insurance for the aged and disabled and one for both Part B that mainly covers doctors’ visits and Part D that covers prescription medications, for the same population of Medicare enrollees. It was announced in June 2018 that the Part A Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is projected to be depleted in 2026, three years earlier than predicted just a year ago. The Part B and D Trust Fund is not as bad off due to a financing system with yearly resets for premium and general revenue income and is projected to have adequate funding for the next ten years and beyond.

Total Medicare expenditures were reported to be $710 billion in 2017. Medicare expenditures were projected to increase at a faster pace than either aggregate workers’ earnings or the economy, and to increase from approximately 3.7 percent in 2017 to between 6.2 percent and 8.9 percent as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 2029, causing substantial strain on our nation’s workers, the economy, Medicare beneficiaries, and the Federal budget.

A 2018 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the two Medicare Trust Funds recommended a legislative response [2] to help protect the Part A Trust Fund. However, instead of waiting years for Congress to act, if parties to third party or workers’ compensation settlements involving Medicare beneficiaries [3], proactively address both past and future interests of Medicare, that could help slow Medicare Trust Fund depletion, in line with the above-described intent of the MSP.

Natt Reifler, Esq., CMSP, VP of MSP Compliance

19/Dec/2020

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services provided an alert on November 25, 2020 that it reviewed the costs related to collecting Medicare’s conditional payments and compared the cost to CMS recovery amounts, and decided to leave the threshold for physical trauma-based liability insurance settlements (including self-insurance settlements) at $750. Additionally, CMS indicated it will keep the $750 threshold for No-Fault insurance and Workers’ Compensation settlements, where the No-Fault insurer or Workers’ Compensation entity does not otherwise have ongoing responsibility for medicals (ORM). Otherwise, once ORM reaches $750 for either No Fault or Workers’ Compensation plan claims, those payments need to be reported for Medicare beneficiaries via Section 111 Reporting. These described reporting thresholds do not apply to settlements for alleged ingestion, implantation, or exposure cases.

Take Aways:

Those settlements falling under any of the above described categories of insurance or self-insurance commonly referred to as Non-Group Health Plans (NGHP) will not need to be reported under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (MSP) via Section 111 and will also not be subject to recovery claims by Medicare under the MSP.

See this web link for the CMS Alert regarding these NGHP reporting thresholds: https://www.cms.gov/files/document/2021-recovery-thresholds-certain-liability-insurance-no-fault-insurance-and-workers-compensation.pdf

Medivest

01/Sep/2020

Click here for a downloadable copy of this blog

On Friday August 21, 2020, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced a $53,295 settlement of Medicare Secondary Payer Act, 42 U.S.C. §1395y(b)(2) (“MSP”) debt. The settlement described in the press release demonstrates the U.S. Government’s continued interest and intent in enforcing the recovery provisions of the MSP.

Headlines on MSP recovery often focus on plaintiff attorneys who fail to adequately address Medicare conditional payment reimbursement claims, often called Medicare liens by attorneys and Medicare beneficiaries. However, at fault parties and their insurance carriers need to pay close attention to these MSP recovery actions. That is because the MSP provides for joint and several liability of primary plans such as liability carriers and self-insureds, including the potential for double damages, even after settlement proceeds have been paid and a release has been signed.

While the plaintiff attorney is the focus of the headline “Harrisburg Law Firm Pays $53,295 To Reimburse Medicare Program” the press release indicates that one of the defendants in the underlying improper drug dispensing case, paid $33,750 of the $53,295 to the U.S. for settlement of the MSP debt. Insurance carriers or self-insureds sometimes insist on forwarding the lien payment to Medicare because they don’t want to pay a settlement to the plaintiff, only to later be asked to pay the Medicare portion (or more) again, if the plaintiff’s attorney has not timely paid the lien.

There is no information about why the plaintiff’s firm did not pay the amount demanded, but ultimately paid $19,545.15 toward the debt in this settlement with the U.S. Government. The conditional payments were described in the press release as being $84,353 with the ultimate settlement amount being $53,295. This seems to indicate that a 36.82% procurement cost reduction was allowed. The settlement did not include a double damages request or even include any additional interest.

It is not clear from the press release whether there were any appeals over the amount of Medicare’s demand “determination” that led to the delayed payment of the lien and whether the release agreement contemplated the defendant/primary plan agreeing to pay the Medicare debt from withheld settlement funds. Did the parties do their due diligence in investigating the debt? Did they coordinate with each other over whether any Conditional Payment Letters contained amounts not related to the claimed/released injuries? Did they coordinate their respective settlement notification/reporting to make sure that the ICD codes reported from the plaintiff and defense were aligned, and to help prevent an overreach in the future by Medicare in potentially flagging more than just injury related claims.

Could it have been similar to the recent Osterbye case in which the parties seemed to rely on Conditional Payment Letters as opposed to the official Medicare demand at the time of settlement? See JOSEPH C. OSTERBYE, as Administrator of the ESTATE OF…, Slip Copy (2020) 2020 WL 3546869, June 30, 2020. In Osterbye, the Administrator of an estate of a deceased Medicare beneficiary sued the U.S. Government and the primary plan defendant alleging that there was a mistake of fact as to the amount owed to Medicare when the plaintiff failed to recognize that two files had been opened for the same case. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had “initiated” a separate conditional payment claim with Medicare without disclosing to plaintiff the amount of the separate conditional payment amount and arguing that plaintiff would not have settled the case if he had known that Medicare had a lien for over $100,000.00. At the time of settlement, the Conditional Payment Letter that the plaintiff was in possession of only indicated about $13,000.00 in conditional payments. In Osterbye, the NJ U.S. District Court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss on the basis that the settlement may have been entered into based on mistake of fact indicating that the facts of the settlement will have to be investigated. A similar issue was also addressed in the Langone state court case referenced in a prior blog article where parties mistakenly relied on Conditional Payment Letters instead of a demand letter.

Take Aways:

While some insist MSP recovery obligations are solely a plaintiff’s concern, defendants should pay close attention to make sure the debt is satisfied or otherwise resolved – Medicare will issue a case closed letter once the debt is satisfied even when a compromise is reached for an amount lower than the demand

Not all courts will be as accommodating to the plaintiff’s attorney as in the Osterbye Court. Instead of a second bite at the settlement apple, the plaintiff’s attorney in Osterbye could have just as easily been accused of legal malpractice by the injured party, if there was a lack of disclosure or lack of competence by the attorney in verifying the proper amount of Medicare’s demand

Plaintiff and defense should cooperate with each other over what steps are being taken to confirm conditional payment resolution, including whether either party has hired a third party to investigate, audit, and/or negotiate the demand balance

Both parties should know that it is imperative to obtain a demand letter as opposed to a Conditional Payment Letter prior to settling a case unless the correct procedures have been taken via the Medicare Secondary Payer Recovery Portal to provide the 120 day anticipation of settlement notification and to request the Final Conditional Payment Calculation within 3 days of a settlement the details of which need to be timely reported

Plaintiff attorneys should be proactive in addressing Medicare’s past interests in a settlement by auditing payment summary forms to dispute non-injury related items, should timely notify Medicare of the settlement details to obtain procurement cost reductions, and should also consider whether lien resolution via waiver or compromise of the procurement cost reduced demand may be a suitable option to help the injured party retain more of the settlement proceeds.

Newer Posts

Older Posts

CLASSIC LIST

WCMSA Reference Guide Version 3.5 Updates of Significance

CMS’s Version 3.5 Reference Guide, Section 1.1 includes the following changes:

Section 4.3 The Use of Non-CMS-Approved Products to Address Future Medical Care

Keep in mind the WCMSA Reference Guide states:

Take Aways

Stay Up To Date

The Perils of Failing to Investigate for Medicare and Other Liens

Takeaways

CMS Announcements: GHP Alert and User Guide Update

Updated MMSEA Section 111 Group Health Plan (GHP) User Guide and GHP 270/271 Health Care Eligibility Benefit Inquiry and Response Companion Guides

Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) Mandatory Reporting Provisions Section 111 of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act (MMSEA) of 2007

CMS Announces PAID Act Webinar

Washington State Passes Lump-Sum Workers’ Comp Bill

How Attorneys in Washington and Other States Should Prepare Their Clients and Themselves for Lump-Sum Settlements

Are There Risks with Lump-sum Settlements?

What Does This Mean for Attorneys in Washington State?

How to Protect Future Medicals and Your Own Future

WCMSA Reference Guide Version 3.3 Updates of Significance

Change 1 – CDC Life Table Updated Link

Change 2 – Seed Calculations Include Cost of First Surgery/Procedure for Each Injured Body Part

Change 3 – Pricing Updates Includes refills when pricing intrathecal pumps

Change 4 – The Major Medical Centers table was updated for a Missouri entry (Appendix 7)

Liability Settlement Alert Regarding Protecting Medicare’s Future Interests

NPRM: Miscellaneous Medicare Secondary Payer Clarifications and Updates (CMS-6047)

OIRA/OMB has issued similar proposed release date Notices of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) for CMS regarding this RIN 0938-AT85 as follows:

To stay up to date regarding any changes with LMSA Regulations/Guidance, please visit Medivest’s blogs:

Take Aways

Looking Forward to 2021 and a NPRM Update Regarding LMSA Regulation/Guidance

Medicare Secondary Payer NGHP Reporting Thresholds to Remain the Same

Take Aways:

Is Paying a Third Party Liability Medicare Lien Only the Concern of the Plaintiff?

Take Aways:

Recent Posts

Latest update to MMSEA Section 111 NGHP User Guide

WCMSA Reference Guide Version 4.0 Updates of Significance