Blog

CLASSIC LIST

MedicareAhead.jpg

Protecting Medicare’s interests in a settlement is a legal requirement. In 1980 Congress enacted the Medicare Secondary Payer Statute (42 U.S.C. 1395y(b) or MSP), giving Medicare rights as a “Secondary Payer”. While the MSP does not specifically state how a party should protect Medicare’s future interests, the MSP law prohibits Medicare from making a payment where there is a primary payer involved but provides one exception for what is known as conditional payments. Medicare may make a payment under certain circumstances when a primary payer is involved such as a liability carrier or self-insured, and the primary payer has not yet demonstrated its payment obligation by settling a case or paying a judgment. These payments are called conditional payments because the Medicare payment is conditioned upon being reimbursed by the primary payer. The right to reimbursement is a direct statutory right of the U.S. for recovery of conditional payments, that carries steep interest assessments over 10% for demands not paid within 60 days and when left unpaid, can lead to recovery of double damages in litigation. The MSP also provides a right of subrogation where the U.S. is subrogated to the rights that Medicare beneficiaries have. It is important to know that along with the rights of the U.S. under traditional Medicare, which encompasses Medicare Part A and Part B, Medicare Advantage Plans also known as Medicare Advantage Organizations (Medicare Part C), and Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Plans, may assert a private cause of action under the MSP against primary payers and in some cases, those who receive payment from primary payers.

The MSP outlines what plans are deemed primary to Medicare. These plans or types of insurance are auto insurance, liability insurance including self-insured plans, workers’ compensation and no-fault insurance. Collectively, these are referred to as Non-Group Health Plans or NGHP. Medicare’s interests in a settlement applies not only to past payments (think Medicare liens) but to future medicals as well. When describing conditional payments and the right of the government to reimbursement, the MSP does not distinguish between pre-settlement conditional payments and post-settlement conditional payments. Therefore, Medicare’s rights to recovery may apply to post-settlement conditional payments anytime Medicare is prematurely billed for injury related medicals after settlement. In the Workers’ Compensation context, the policy of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), as the agency that runs Medicare, traditionally has looked to the employer or insurance carrier for the employer as the debtor for reimbursement of conditional payments arising prior to settlement. In the liability context, the Medicare beneficiary is considered the debtor for conditional payments. Because the MSP allows recovery from both the primary payer and any person or entity that receives payment from a primary payer such as the contingency fee of an attorney being paid from settlement proceeds, attorneys need to be aware of how to protect not only their clients but themselves from collection actions under the MSP.

Completing a Medicare lien investigation and reimbursing Medicare for past payments related to a claim is what most parties will do to consider Medicare’s past interests in a case. However, the most frequently overlooked piece when settling a liability claim is determining how much of the settlement money is being paid to compensate for future medicals and of that amount, how much of that would ordinarily be covered by Medicare. In other words, some trial attorneys may look at all the available damages when proceeding with a case but may not realize that they should also demonstrate a consideration of Medicare’s future interests regarding the future medicals. The repercussions of not addressing Medicare’s future interests in a case could result in Medicare denying payments for case related medical items, services, and/or expenses. This is Medicare’s primary enforcement mechanism post settlement. If done properly, actions taken during the representation of the injured plaintiff (whether enrolled in Medicare at the time of the representation or not) will help ensure that the injured Medicare beneficiary will have funds available to get the treatment they need and future Medicare entitlement for case-related body parts. Protecting Medicare, and the Medicare beneficiary, is a long-term play.

There are several options regarding how to consider Medicare in a settlement. The options will largely depend on the details of the case and there is not a single method that can be applied across the board. The Medicare Set-Aside (MSA) allocation is used frequently on workers’ compensation claims as a method to estimate Medicare’s future interests in a case. Medicare has offered guidance and put in place a voluntary submission process by which they will review MSA allocations that meet certain workload review threshold categories and will issue an approval (or counter approval) on the proposed amount. CMS, as the sub agency under DHHS that runs the Medicare program, publishes a WCMSA Reference Guide that outlines the format for MSA allocation reports and what information should be provided to have the MSA reviewed. Even though there is a well-established process for review of WCMSAs, there is no law requiring the completion of a MSA allocation on a WC case or any case.

As of July 2019, Medicare has avoided setting up a formalized process for review of liability MSAs and has not issued formal guidance or regulations regarding liability MSAs. It is this lack of guidance or a formalized process (like there is in WC) that has led many to believe they do not need to be concerned with Medicare’s future interests in a case. The general approach is to determine whether Medicare made conditional payments pre-settlement and if so, pay the pre-settlement Medicare lien (or negotiate it to satisfactory resolution), and close out the case. This approach is only the first step in adequately addressing and protecting Medicare’s interests. If you only consider Medicare’s past interests, you are placing you and your clients at risk.

Medicare will actually be aware of the case and the associated injuries. They are tracking this information via the MSP’s Mandatory Insurer Reporting (MIR) provision that comes out of Public Law Section 111 and is most commonly known as Section 111 reporting. Section 111 reporting is codified in the MSP under 42 U.S.C. §1395y(b)(8) and establishes MIR for either ongoing payment obligations or total payment obligations demonstrated by payments made by auto insurance, liability insurance including self-insureds, workers’ compensation plans or insurance, or no-fault insurance. If payment of over $750 is made regarding a claim of an individual who is a Medicare beneficiary, the primary payer (source of funds) is required to electronically report the amount of the payment, the date of the payment, the name of the Medicare beneficiary, date of the incident, and all the medical codes associated with the claimed injury (sometimes referred to as the Big 5), and a huge number of other data fields to Medicare. The information becomes integrated into what is known as the common working file for that Medicare claimant. Medicare places electronic markers for the claimant and for the medical codes (ICDs and CPTs) associated with the claimed injury. This information is ultimately used to “track the case” to ensure that Medicare is reimbursed for past payments (liens) and to help Medicare avoid making payments for future medical care related to the case for which it is not the primary payer. Medicare uses this information to monitor the file, check for unpaid liens, and notify parties of discrepancies. The MSP initially described penalties of $1000 per day per claim but was later amended in 2012 with the SMART Act and now describes financial penalties of “up to $1,000 per day per claimant” for noncompliance of any primary payer. CMS has not yet promulgated regulations regarding exactly how civil money penalties will be assessed and whether there will be safe-harbors for bona fide errors associated with the reporting process.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provided indications in December of last year that CMS will be providing two Notices of Proposed Rulemakings (NPRMs) related to the enforcement of the MSP. Each are scheduled to be issued no later than September 2019. While the first could relate to any NGHP cases, because WC already has both regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations addressing Workers’ Compensation cases as well as a Reference Guide concerning WCMSAs, and no-fault claims don’t typically have future obligations, many in the industry have surmised that this first rulemaking will address protecting Medicare’s future interests in liability cases and putting back on the table the adoption of regulations or at least guidance (like a LMSA Reference Guide) on a possible review and approval process with workload review thresholds for CMS review of Liability Medicare Set-Asides (LMSAs). The second NPRM that is scheduled for the same time period will relate to the civil monetary penalties associated with non-compliance with Section 111 reporting. Once these two NPRMs are released, the best practice compliance behaviors for parties on both sides of liability cases should become even more clear.

Medicare’s primary enforcement mechanism regarding protection of Medicare’s future interests and the Medicare Trust Funds is denial of payments for medicals related to compensated third party injuries. However, what happens when Medicare’s computer system doesn’t catch a body part or claim previously compensated in a third-party settlement? Anytime and every time Medicare pays for those injury related medicals when it should not have, those conditional payments accrue as a growing collection action on behalf of Medicare. Our company has seen demands for payment that have included requests for reimbursement of post settlement medicals. We have also seen an uptick in recovery actions by the Department of Justice concerning collection of conditional payments. In March of 2019, a law firm in Maryland agreed to pay $250,000 to resolve a Medicare conditional payment demand on a case where the firm had already disbursed net settlement proceeds to its client. Last June, it was a law firm in Philadelphia that reached settlement with the Department of Justice to reimburse Medicare for conditional payments that were not paid out of trust and had already been disbursed to the client. Just because a plaintiff’s medicals might have been paid for by Medicare after a settlement in the past, does not mean that Medicare won’t deny those items or services in the future, or that it won’t demand repayment when it determines it made conditional payments. Imagine what could happen if Medicare began searching every single payment it makes and brushing that payment up against every settlement over $750 reported by insurance carriers. This is the future and could lead to some eye-popping dollar figures related to parties and legal representatives that failed to pay past Medicare liens and regularly fail to prevent future Medicare liens.

We should also not lose sight of the fact that if an injured individual does not set aside funds for injury related Medicare covered medicals and settlement funds are no longer available, that individual may not be able to get the treatment they need. Sadly, we often see that the MSA funds are the only funds remaining after about five years following a settlement. On a positive note, if MSA funds are exhausted and exhausted properly with the attestations and accounting that CMS likes to see, Medicare will typically step in and become the primary payer for those case related items going forward. Even though there is no law requiring the preparation of a MSA allocation, it is the safest and most conservative approach that can be taken. The injured party will obtain a detailed report outlining anticipated future medical care costs that are normally covered by Medicare. Along with a non-qualified report that typically comes along with a MSA allocation, you will have a better economic picture of all items, services and expenses reasonably expected in the injured plaintiff’s future. Obviously there will often be cases with such significant injuries and accommodations to living and transportation that could also benefit from an evaluation by an economist to take inflation into consideration and Life Care Plans that examines case management costs and some other costs that may not be evaluated in a MSA to help round out the best evidence to build your client’s case.

With a healthy respect for the extraordinary reach of the MSP, if the MSA funds administered are the total amount of funds projected in a LMSA and CMS is notified of the settlement and the amount of the MSA (different from asking CMS to review a LMSA), chances are less likely that there will either be a denial of the payment of post settlement injury related Medicare covered medicals after proper exhaustion or that post-settlement conditional payments would ever arise. Of course, when LMSAs are apportioned, questions abound whether Medicare may ever demand exhaustion of a full projected MSA versus an apportioned dollar amount that takes various factors into consideration of why a liability case may settle for less than full value. We could receive some indication of answers once regulations are promulgated regarding liability futures. However, in the meantime, a MSA allocation offers valuable protections regardless of whether an apportionment is calculated, because the MSA helps limit the extent of Medicare’s reach into a settlement. Without it, the default position taken by CMS for liability cases is that without a plan for future care, the entire settlement will be treated as the amount compensated for as future Medicals. Therefore, CMS would look for the entire value of the settlement to be exhausted in payment of future Medicals before Medicare would pick up coverage for that injury. Contemplating the MSA allocation in the settlement and making sure MSA funds are spent according to Medicare guidelines via professional administration is the safest and most conservative approach that can be taken to not only protect Medicare’s interests in a case, but to protect an attorney and their client from collection actions by CMS, helping to provide peace of mind for your injured clients.

 


chess-handshake-blog.jpg
25/Mar/2019

The following is a press release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announcing a Medicare Secondary Payer Act (MSP)[1] MSP non-compliance settlement with the U.S. by a plaintiff law firm from Maryland that failed to properly address or make Medicare conditional payment reimbursement (i.e. pay a Medicare lien) from the proceeds of a medical malpractice settlement secured for a firm client in 2015.  This MSP non-compliance settlement is similar to the one we wrote about from June of 2018 regarding a plaintiff law firm in Pennsylvania.

“Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney’s Office
District of Maryland
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, March 18, 2019

Maryland Law Firm Meyers, Rodbell & Rosenbaum, P.A., Agrees to Pay the United States $250,000 to Settle Claims that it Did Not Reimburse Medicare for Payments Made on Behalf of a Firm Client

Baltimore, Maryland – United States Attorney for the District of Maryland Robert K. Hur announced that Meyers, Rodbell & Rosenbaum, P.A., a law firm with offices in Riverdale Park and Gaithersburg, has entered into a settlement agreement with the United States to resolve allegations that it failed to reimburse the United States for certain Medicare payments made to medical providers on behalf of a firm client.

“Attorneys typically receive settlement proceeds for and disburse settlement proceeds to their clients, so they are often in the best position to ensure that Medicare’s conditional payments are repaid,” said U.S. Attorney Robert K. Hur. “We intend to hold attorneys accountable for failing to make good on their obligations to repay Medicare for its conditional payments.”

According to the settlement agreement, in and prior to 2012, Medicare made conditional payments to healthcare providers to satisfy medical bills for a client of the firm. Under the Medicare statute and regulations, Medicare is authorized to make conditional payments for medical items or services under certain circumstances, with the requirement that when an injured person receives a tort settlement or judgment, those receiving the proceeds of the settlement or judgment, including the injured person’s attorney, are required to repay Medicare for the conditional payments.

In December 2015, with the firm’s assistance and representation, the client received a $1,150,000 settlement in a medical malpractice action stemming from the client’s injuries. After Medicare was notified of the settlement, Medicare demanded repayment of the Medicare debts incurred from those conditional payments, but the firm refused to pay the debt in full, even when the debt became administratively final.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the firm agreed to pay the United States $250,000 to resolve the Government’s claims. The firm also agreed to (1) designate a person at the firm responsible for paying Medicare secondary payer debts; (2) train the designated employee to ensure that the firm pays these debts on a timely basis; and (3) review any outstanding debts with the designated employee at least every six months to ensure compliance.

This settlement reminds attorneys of their obligation to reimburse Medicare for conditional payments after receiving settlement or judgment proceeds for their clients. This settlement should also remind attorneys not to disburse settlement proceeds until receipt of a final demand from Medicare to pay the outstanding debt.

U.S. Attorney Robert K. Hur commended Eric Wolfish, Assistant Regional Counsel, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the General Counsel, Region III, for his work in the investigation. Mr. Hur thanked Assistant United States Attorney Alan C. Lazerow, who handled the case.

# # #

Take Aways:

  • Because the MSP grants both a direct lien right and a subrogation right to the U.S. to collect Medicare’s conditional payments, parties to a settlement should inquire, evaluate, confirm, and address all injury related Medicare expenditures for past medicals prior to, or at a minimum, at the time of settlement.
  • Because the MSP grants a private cause of action (MSP PCOA)[2] and Medicare Advantage Plans that privately administer traditional Medicare coverage for enrolled Medicare beneficiaries (MAO’s) have successfully availed themselves of this MSP PCOA against primary plans[3], parties should also inquire, evaluate, confirm, and address all injury related MAO payments for past medicals as described above.
  • While the Eleventh Circuit recently ruled that MSP private cause of action double damages could only be brought against primary plans[4], case law is not fully settled throughout the U.S. as to whether those other than primary plans like attorneys for Medicare beneficiaries would be liable for double damages under the MSP PCOA[5].  However, there is no doubt the double damages remedy clearly listed in the MSP’s direct cause of action provision applies in recovery actions by the U.S. Government against those who receive payments from primary plans, including Medicare beneficiaries and their attorneys[6].
  • When representing an injured party, doesn’t it make sense to address the issue at the time of representation instead of waiting to see whether the issue results in legal liability or a legal malpractice claim stemming from MSP non-compliance?
  • Due diligence is required for both the defense and plaintiff side to avoid unnecessary MSP non-compliance settlements/legal exposure.

[1] 42 U.S.C. 1395y(b)(2) et seq.

[2] “There is established a private cause of action for damages (which shall be in an amount double the amount otherwise provided) in the case of a primary plan which fails to provide for primary payment (or appropriate reimbursement) in accordance with paragraphs (1) and (2)(A).” 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(3)(A).

[3] See e.g. In re Avandia Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig.685 F.3d 353 (3d Cir. 2012)Humana Med. Plan, Inc. v. W. Heritage Ins. Co., 832 F.3d 1229 (11th Cir. 2016).

[4] MSPA Claims 1, LLC v. Tenet Florida, Inc. — F.3d —- 2019 WL 1233207 18-11816 (11th Cir. March 18, 2019).

[5]  In Aetna Life Ins. Co., v. Nellina Guerrera et al., No. 3:17-CV-621 (JCH), 2018 WL 1320666, (D. Conn. Mar. 13, 2018), grocery store Big Y’s motion to dismiss was denied after Big Y, the alleged tortfeasor in the liability action and thus, a primary plan, settled and paid a Medicare beneficiary. Aetna, a MAO, was allowed to proceed with a MSP private cause of action for double damages against Big Y. However, the court granted motions to dismiss by the Medicare beneficiary and the Medicare beneficiary’s attorney, because under the MSP PCOA scenario, they were not primary plans.

[6] MSPA Claims 1, LLC v. Tenet Florida, Inc. — F.3d —- 2019 WL 1233207 18-11816 at 6 (11th Cir. March 18, 2019) (“[u]nlike the private cause of action, the government’s cause of action broadly permits lawsuits against ‘any entity that has received a payment from a primary plan’ – a grant that includes medical providers.” citing 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(2)(B)(iii)(the MSP direct cause of action by the U.S.); Haro v. Sebelius, 747 F. 3d 1099, 1116 and U.S. v. Stricker, 524 F. App’x 500, 504 (11th Circ. 2013)(unpublished)).

 


AdobeStock_79618815-e1524493373873.jpeg
21/Mar/2019

Medicare Advantage Plan MSP Private Cause of Action Lawsuit Update

1. MSPA Claims 1, LLC v. Tenet Florida, Inc. — F.3d —- 2019 WL 1233207 18-11816 (11th Cir. March 18, 2019).

On March 18, 2019, in MSPA Claims 1, LLC v. Tenet Florida, Inc., the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals made it clear that while Medicare law as a whole and the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (MSP)[1] provisions in particular may be confusing, the MSP’s private cause of action provision [2] is clear[3]. MSPA Claims 1 (MSPA) appealed its dismissal by Defendant Tenet at the district court level in the Southern District of Florida. Because some changes had taken place since the dismissal, the appellate court indicated that MSPA was on solid legal footing if it had sued a primary plan instead of a medical provider. The take away of the Tenet case is that Medicare beneficiaries or entities such as Medicare Advantage Plans/Medicare Advantage Organizations (MAOs) that wish to bring private cause of action claims under the MSP may not bring those claims against medical providers and must only bring those MSP private cause of action double damages (MSP PCOA) claims against primary plans that fail to timely pay or reimburse the aggrieved party.

As a reminder, the MSP makes Medicare secondary to all primary plans including both Group Health Plans and Non Group Health Plans. Non Group Health Plan primary plans include Automobile Insurers, Liability Insurance (including Self Insurance),Workers’ Compensation (WC) Plans or Insurance, and No Fault Insurance.

In many other MSP PCOA MAO cases that have been reported, MAO’s have typically sued primary plans that failed to pay. Most courts that have evaluated the issue of the right of the MAO’s to bring MSP PCOA claims have acknowledged the right of MAO’s or their assigns to bring MSP PCOA claims against primary plans. By contrast, the Tenet case involved an assignee of a MAO that sued a medical provider. The dismissal of MSPA at the district court level for this case focused on deficiencies in MSPA’s assignment chain and not on which entity could be sued under the MSP private cause of action. The key MSP PCOA language that was analyzed in the Tenet case is as follows:

There is established a private cause of action for damages (which shall be in an amount double the amount otherwise provided) in the case of a primary plan which fails to provide for primary payment (or appropriate reimbursement) in accordance with paragraphs (1) and (2)(A).

42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(3)(A).

Comparing the limitations associated with the private cause of action with the public cause of action granted by the U.S. government in the MSP, the Eleventh Circuit clarified in Tenet that “[u]nlike the private cause of action, the government’s cause of action broadly permits lawsuits against ‘any entity that has received a payment from a primary plan’ – a grant that includes medical providers.” Id. (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(2)(B)(iii)(the MSP direct cause of action by the U.S.); Haro v. Sebelius, 747 F. 3d 1099, 1116 and U.S. v. Stricker, 524 F. App’x 500, 504 (11th Circ. 2013)(unpublished)). This means that while providers, attorneys, Medicare beneficiaries, or other entities that receive payment from a primary plan can be sued by the U.S. under the MSP for double damages, only primary plans themselves can be sued under the MSP PCOA.

Before reaching its decision, the Tenet court went through an analysis to confirm subject matter jurisdiction by determining whether MSPA had standing to pursue the claim. To that end, MSPA would need to show that it suffered an injury-in-fact, that was fairly traceable to the defendant’s conduct, and which was redressable by a favorable judicial decision. Id. at 2. The underlying federal claim revolved around the failure of the provider, Tenet, to pay a $286 medical bill on time. The bill was eventually paid approximately seven months late. Interestingly, the Eleventh Circuit explained that late payment was enough to show a concrete “injury-in-fact”. The Tenet court also explained why the assignment hurdles that had stopped MSPA at the district court level had been overcome at the time of the court’s decision. The district court evaluated the two-level assignment chain when the assignment chain was weak because the assignor, Florida Healthcare Plus (FHCP), had entered receivership proceedings and previously repudiated its assignment to La Ley, the entity that assigned the MSP PCOA claim to MSPA. The Eleventh Circuit in Tenet explained that just one week before its decision, FHCP entered into a settlement agreement with La Ley and MSPA that confirmed La Ley’s assignment of FHCP’s claim to MSPA and fully resolved the MSP Act assignment. Id. at 4. The court also dispelled Defendant/Appellee Tenet’s notion that an anti-assignment clause in a Hospital Services Agreement with assignee FHCP concerning the prohibition to assign hospital services would apply to the right of FHCP to assign its right (it received from the MAO) to La Ley that in turn assigned to MSPA the right to bring the MSP PCOA claim.

The Eleventh Circuit used established statutory interpretation rules to reach its final decision. MSPA argued that because paragraph (2)(A) that the private cause of action references makes a cross-reference to paragraph (2)(B), which establishes MSP conditional payment reimbursement and recovery (see MSP recovery actions by the U.S. and information on Medicare lien resolution and the new electronic payment functionality of the Medicare Secondary Payer Recovery Portal) rights, those recovery right concepts from paragraph (2)(B) should be incorporated back into the private cause of action. Essentially, MSPA was arguing that because other entities that receive payments from primary plans had obligations to reimburse Medicare for conditional payments and (2)(B) applies those recovery rights to this larger number of entities (“any entity that receives payment from a primary plan”), that the MSP PCOA could also be brought against any such entity that received a payment from a primary plan. This cross reference within a cross reference argument was shot down by the Tenet court as a “stretch.” Id. at 6. Alternatively, MSPA asked the court to rule in its favor based on authority from CMS promulgated regulations that afford MAOs the same MSP recovery rights as Medicare including the right to sue medical providers. Id. at 6 (citing 42 C.F.R.§§411.24(g), 422.108(f)). However, the Tenet court found the MSP statute to be clear and unambiguous and therefore, determined it unnecessary to look to the less authoritative CMS regulations for help with its interpretation of the MSP. Id. at 6. Because neither defendant was a primary plan, MSPA’s claim was dismissed.

2. MSPA Claims 1, LLC v. Infinity Property & Casualty Group, 2019 WL 1238852 (N.D. Al. March 18, 2019).

This second case was decided on the same day as the Tenet case but was heard at the federal trial level in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Alabama. This court falls within the same appellate jurisdiction (Eleventh Circuit) that decided the Tenet case. The same MSPA plaintiff discussed in the Tenet case above filed suit as an assignee of two different MAO’s on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries identified with their initials as representative examples (exemplars) for each of the two MAO’s. The asserted claims were MSP PCOA claims against insurance company, Infinity Property & Casualty Group, an undisputed primary payer. If the facts in this Infinity case were the same as those in the Tenet case except that the Defendant in this Infinity case was a primary payer instead of a medical provider, the case would have not been dismissed. However, the facts in this case were distinguishable from those of the Tenet case beyond who was sued. In the first claim of the Infinity case, MSPA was found by the court to have failed to show that Florida Healthcare Plus (FHCP – the same entity that was involved in a chain of assignments in the Tenet case), a MAO, had paid any medical bill connected to a claim of the exemplar Medicare beneficiary identified as D.W. The court seemed perturbed in announcing that Plaintiff MSPA knew what the court required but “due to a lack of either diligence or ability” failed to produce it. MSPA Claims 1, LLC v. Infinity Property & Casualty Group, 2019 WL 1238852 at 7 (N.D. Al. March 18, 2019). Without the connection to show that the MAO made a payment on behalf of the Medicare beneficiary, the Infinity court declared MSPA lacked standing to bring the claim.

The second claim of the Infinity case involved a MAO named Simply Healthcare Plans, Inc., its Management Service Organization (MSO) named InterAmerican Medical Center Group, LLC, and an exemplar Medicare beneficiary identified as B.G. The Infinity court pointed out that while the Eleventh Circuit in Western Heritage ruled that MAO’s accrue MSP PCOA recovery rights at the time they make conditional payments, the appellate court had not yet decided if the MSP statute also provides a private cause of action to MSO’s. Id. at 7 (citing Humana Medical Plan Inc. v. Western Heritage Ins., 832 F.3d 1229 (11th Cir. 2016). The Infinity court noted that district courts in the Eleventh Circuit and elsewhere overwhelmingly ruled that it does not. Id. (citing MSPA Claims I, LLC v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins., 322 F. Supp. 3d 1273, 1283 (S.D. Fla. 2018); MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC et al. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 1:17-CV-1541-JBM-JEH, 2018 WL 2392827, at *7 (C.D. Ill. May 25, 2018). The Infinity court cited one case in which a district court did not rule out the possibility of MSO’s having MSP PCOA rights, citing MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC v. Mercury General, 17-2525-AB and 17-2557-AB, 2018 WL 3357493, at *7 (C.D. Cal. May 23, 2018). The Infinity court followed the Eleventh Circuit’s Western Heritage reasoning that because the MSP does not provide conditional payment reimbursement authority to MSO’s and does not obligate MSO’s to make secondary payments to be reimbursed, the obligations of a MSO would be contractual as opposed to statutory. Id. at 8. Therefore, the court declined to expand the scope of potential plaintiffs under the MSP PCOA beyond those listed in Western Heritage (a MAO when the MAO makes a conditional payment for healthcare services, by a Medicare beneficiary when the Medicare beneficiary had healthcare services paid by Medicare (or a MAO), or a healthcare provider when that healthcare provider has not been fully paid for services provided to a Medicare beneficiary).

The Infinity court also pointed out some potential flaws in the assignment chain to the MSO from another entity called IMC which by contract, needed to approve the assignment of any purported MSP rights from the MSO to MSPA unless it was “ministerial in nature.” Because the evidence presented that the assignment was ministerial in nature failed to explain how it met the definition of that term in the contract, it failed the preponderance of the evidence standard, and the Infinity court found MSPA failed to show a valid assignment under its potential MSO claim.

Take Aways:

In the Eleventh Circuit (covering Florida, Georgia and Alabama), it is now clear that the following can sue a primary plan (only) under the MSP’s private cause of action:
• (1) a MAO when the MAO makes a conditional payment for healthcare services,
• (2) a Medicare beneficiary when the Medicare beneficiary had healthcare services paid by Medicare (or a MAO), or
• (3) a healthcare provider when that healthcare provider has not been fully paid for services provided to a Medicare beneficiary
____________________________________________________________
[1] 42 U.S.C. 1395y(b)(2) et seq.

[2] 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(3)(A).

[3] MSPA Claims 1, LLC v. Tenet Florida, Inc. — F.3d —- 2019 WL 1233207 18-11816 (11th Cir. March 18, 2019) (citing The Federalist No. 62, at 421 (James Madison) (Jacob E. Cook ed., 1961) and MSP Recovery, LLC v. Allstate Ins. Co., 835 F. 3d 1351, 1358 (11th Cir. 2016).

 


DrainStainless.jpg
13/Mar/2019

During the 21 years between 1980 and 2001, it is no secret that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) did very little to enforce the Medicare Secondary Payer statute (a series of provisions beginning at 42 U.S.C. §1395y(b) commonly referred to as the MSP).  This is surprising because the MSP prohibits Medicare from making payment when a primary payer should pay but makes only one exception for Medicare to be able to make payments conditionally provided it gets paid back.  Therefore, in those 21 years, protecting Medicare’s past interests would seem to have been on the minds of all settling parties on either side of Non Group Health Plan (NGHP) claims – Automobile, Liability (including self-insurance), Workers’ Compensation, or No Fault cases involving Medicare beneficiaries.

With enforcement actions by the U.S. becoming a reality, most parties to settlement have come to learn the importance of identifying conditional payments made by Medicare prior to judgments, settlements, awards or other payments. However, early on, many plaintiffs and their attorneys ignored their obligations to consider and protect both Medicare’s past and future interests, most often without consequences. Regarding Medicare’s past interests, they were hoping to never hear from Medicare again. Regarding Medicare’s future interests, they hoped that Medicare would not deny injured Medicare beneficiaries’ injury related treatment. While there still seems to be some clarification on the horizon coming from CMS with respect to the legal obligations to protect Medicare’s future interests, there is no longer doubt regarding parties’ obligations to address Medicare’s past interests and satisfy conditional payments.  However, negotiating the amount that CMS will accept as full payment, often through a process called the Medicare compromise process, may actually help protect the Medicare Trust Funds that the MSP was originally designed to protect[1].

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.

With good reason, many MSP compliance discussions focus on considering and protecting the future interests of Medicare and the allocation and administration tools designed to protect Medicare’s future interests.  Equally, if not more important due to the enforcement mechanisms currently in place, parties should address and protect Medicare’s past interests through Medicare lien resolution.  Because we know the obligation to address Medicare’s past interests exists, doesn’t it make sense to be proactive and seek opportunities to reduce/compromise the amount CMS will accept to fully resolve reimbursement of its conditional payment demands/Medicare liens? While it might seem that CMS would frown upon compromise requests, doesn’t it make more sense for CMS to encourage an open line of communication with settling parties and grant discounts to those who take the time to comply with the law as opposed to those settling parties that shirk their respective MSP responsibilities and ignore Medicare’s past interests?

CMS held a webinar today regarding an April 2019 upgrade to the Medicare Secondary Payer Recovery Portal (MSPRP) scheduled to allow for electronic payment of conditional payments for all NGHP matters. The portal’s payment functionality should speed up the payment of known non-disputed conditional payment amounts. For parties interested in reducing exposure to high interest rates (close to 10% currently) associated with late payment of conditional payment demands, this new electronic payment functionality of the MSPRP should be welcome news. Ideally, there will be an opportunity to reduce the requested conditional payment amounts by the procurement costs associated with obtaining the settlements. However, Medicare lien resolution often involves more than just reducing the injured party’s conditional payment obligation by the procurement costs.  As even better news, the compromise and waiver processes will not be affected by the electronic payments process.  Therefore, even when conditional payment/Medicare lien amounts are paid electronically via this new MSPRP process, CMS will still consider compromise or waiver requests, and issue refunds to the party providing payment (or as directed and authorized in writing by the paying party).

 


[1] The MSP is a series of statutory amendments to the Medicare law from 1965 which in turn amends the Social Security Act of 1935.

[2] Because this is the second consecutive finding that the difference between Medicare’s outlays and its financing sources will exceed 45 percent of Medicare’s outlays within 7 years, a Medicare funding warning was issued, requiring the President to submit proposed legislation to Congress within 15 days after the submission of the Fiscal Year 2020 Budget. Congress would then be required by law to consider the legislation on an expedited basis.

[3] The future interests of Medicare should be considered for any settlement regardless of claim type or Medicare enrollment status because the MSP does not make distinctions regarding Medicare’s payment status as a secondary payer for different claim types or about workload review threshold standards that currently exist in the Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set-Aside Arrangement (WCMSA) Reference Guide published by CMS.  Those workload review thresholds allowing review by CMS are triggered for WCMSAs involving Medicare beneficiaries for judgments, settlements, awards, or other payments (“Settlements”) over $25,000, and injured parties with a reasonable expectation of becoming enrolled in Medicare within 30 months of Settlement for Settlements over $250,000.  Section 8.1 of the new WCMSA Reference Guide makes it clear that even for WC cases where the workload review thresholds are not met, Medicare’s future interests should be considered via a future care plan (using “plan for future care” to allow the reader to determine the method by which the plan for the future care of the injured party should be prepared – even if not recommending, certainly implying a method such as commonly seen in Medicare Set-Aside allocation reports), or else the settling parties will be placed “at risk for recovery from care related to the WC injury up to the full value of the settlement.”  The industry is still waiting for regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations by CMS clarifying this issue for liability cases.  This coming fall, there may be further clarification regarding consideration and protection of Medicare’s future interests via new Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the NGHP area, with the hope that any resulting regulations will address comparative/contributory negligence, causation, policy limits, non-economic damages, and other factors unique to liability cases.

 


RoadtoSettlement-1200x600.jpeg
26/Feb/2019

It is perhaps cliché to say that life is made up of the decisions you make. But, overused maxims tend to communicate common truths, hence their ubiquity. Decision-making is mainly about choosing one of two or more options to achieve the most desirable outcome. Some decisions are straightforward and obvious. Many are not. Still more are tied up in the tension between what we want to do and what we should do. Values, discernment, and even willpower all factor into the process.

Decisions about money are among the most consequential. It therefore reasons that decisions involving large sums of money are highly consequential. Injury settlements are a prime example of how poor decision-making can produce unfortunate, even disastrous outcomes for both the injured and their families. Really no different than the lottery winner whose sudden wealth turns into debt and insolvency within a brief period, so the injured person who receives a cash settlement of any size is often just as unprepared and soon makes decisions that cannot be undone. Money, once spent, cannot be unspent.


“Where There Is No Vision, the People Perish”

Many people have very good intentions from the outset, but good intentions are not enough. General goals without specific plans to reach those goals will usually fall short. So, what are the missing plans that can cause settlement funds mismanagement?

  • a plan to get the most value out of every dollar spent
  • a plan to use the money for what it was intended
  • a plan to ensure the funds are insulated from poor decision-making

This type of planning helps set priorities and leads to the details needed to help the plan succeed. It is really no different than the priorities considered in good personal finance planning. Some settlement beneficiaries get this, but many do not. That’s because this is a problem common to almost all of us. Most of us do not fund our retirements as we should, do not save as we should, and often do not limit our spending as we should. Any bonuses we receive evaporate quickly. We live up to our means and, some how, when we receive a raise, we then live up to that new limit again. And for individuals with injuries who may not be able to work or whose treatment costs exceed expected costs over their lifetime, mismanagement of a fixed settlement amount will likely result in considerable hardship for the injured and their family.


The Advantages of a Professional Custodian

Once one considers how important it is to have a detailed plan for competent management of  settlement funds, the use of a professional custodian begins to make a lot of sense. Vesting a professional custodian with the responsibility for settlement funds decisions addresses the major problems created by the introduction of a large sum of money into an injured person’s finances.

We’ll look at the advantages of a professional custodian, but first, let’s consider the major factors that often negatively affect the decision-making process for a beneficiary handling their own funds:

  • 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, or the needs or even manipulation of family members or friends creates pressure to spend imprudently.

 

Again, these are pitfalls relatively common to all of us. It is easy for emotion and even rationalization to play into spending decisions. This is why there is certainly wisdom in building a wall around all or at least portions of a settlement to protect the funds and beneficiary alike.

Consider how a professional custodian’s decision-making process addresses the issues we’ve discussed:

  • Professional Expertise – Knowledge and experience in reviewing and repricing claims down to applicable fee schedules, and negotiating reductions in claims where possible.
  • Limited by Agreement – Discretion in spending decisions is limited by agreement. The custodian is not permitted to use the funds in any fashion not explicitly contemplated by the contract. Emotionality is factored out of the decision-making process.
  • Contingency Planning – In the event of specific circumstances, special exceptions can be planned for and facilitated.


Custodial Arrangements: Not just for Medicare Set-Asides

Medicare set-aside accounts, which are created as mechanisms to comply with federal law by protecting Medicare from paying when it should not, and which contain funds specifically limited to the Medicare allowable and injury-related expenses, are commonly administered by a professional custodian (or “professional administrator”). But, other settlement funds should be placed with a professional custodian as well. It’s also worth mentioning that the best way to ensure that settlement funds are used according to the dictates of a settlement is to place those funds with a third party that is bound to comply with the terms that establish their custodianship.

At Medivest, we frequently receive calls from beneficiaries who are interested in seeking some flexibility in how their professionally administered funds are spent. The most common reason for this request is that they have already spent their remaining settlement funds and the monies under our company’s charge are all that remain. It is not difficult in those circumstances to surmise what would have happened with those custodial funds had we not been “in the picture.”

As example has shown time and again, managing large sums of money is not a simple task, and requires proper planning ahead of time to prevent problems down the road. In each settlement, it makes sense to consider using a professional custodian if concerns about fund mismanagement are warranted. Medivest has been providing custodial services to injured beneficiaries for over twenty years. We’ve helped thousands of  individuals spend their settlement funds in a strategic and prudent manner in order to help stretch those funds to their benefit and the benefit of their families. If you have questions about how to integrate a custodial arrangement into a settlement, please do not hesitate to contact us.

 


compass.jpg
15/Jan/2019

CMS published the latest version of the WCMSA Reference Guide as Version 2.9 (Reference Guide or Guide) on January 4, 2019. In addition to changes announced in Section 1.1 of the Reference Guide titled Changes in This Version of the Guide, there are several other changes made that were not announced. The announced changes were as follows:

Version 2.9 of the guide includes the following changes:

• To eliminate issues around Development Letter and Alert templates auto populating with individual Regional Office (RO) reviewer names and direct phone numbers, these will now display the generic “Workers’ Compensation Review Contractor (WCRC)” and the WCRC customer service number “(833) 295-3773” (Appendix 5).
• Per CMS’ request, certain references to memoranda on cms.gov have been removed.
• The CDC Life Table has been updated for 2015 (Section 10.3).
• Updates have been provided for spinal cord stimulators and Lyrica (Sections 9.4.5 and 9.4.6.2)

Below, in numerical order, please find some of the main changes made by CMS, many of which were not announced in Section 1.1 quoted above. Sections, titles and additions have been bolded for emphasis and ease of reading.

A change in Section 4.1.1, titled Commutation and Compromise, on page 4, was one of the announced changes, and omits the previous Reference Guide’s reference to the July 2001 WC Regional Office (RO) Memorandum known in the industry as the Patel Memo. This is consistent with the statement in Section 1.0 that the Reference Guide “. . . reflects information compiled from all WCMSA Regional Office (RO) Memoranda issued by CMS, from information provided on the CMS website, from information provided by the Workers Compensation Review Contractor (WCRC), and from the CMS WCMSA Operating Rules. The intent of this reference guide is to consolidate and supplant all historical memoranda in a single point of reference. Please discontinue the reference of prior documents.” The concept is that the Reference Guide is the policy of CMS and prior documents or Memos it has issued should not be referred to or otherwise used to support a party’s position regarding matters addressed in the Reference Guide unless it continues to be referenced in the Reference Guide.

Section 4.2, titled Indications That Medicare’s Interests are Protected, has a new unannounced on page 5 bullet stating:

• CMS’ voluntary, yet recommended, WCMSA amount review process is the only process that offers both Medicare beneficiaries and Workers’ Compensation entities finality, with respect to obligations for medical care required after a settlement, judgment, award, or other payment occurs. When CMS reviews and approves a proposed WCMSA amount, CMS stands behind that amount. Without CMS’ approval, Medicare may deny related medical claims, or pursue recovery for related medical claims that Medicare paid up to the full amount of the settlement, judgment, award, or other payment.

Medivest’s take on the subject: CMS makes it sound enticing for Workers’ Compensation entities by using the word “finality.” Many parties have used the voluntary process to obtain approvals but have felt there has been a lack of consistency in review standards, especially from one contractor to another. Blogs and websites of many other companies that prepare Medicare Set-Aside (MSA) allocations indicate that they have experienced an increase in surprise counter highers over expenses like off-label prescription drug use as well as some other medical services when submitting WCMSAs to CMS for approval. As a result of what may have been perceived as a lack of consistency or perhaps a lack of confidence that the counter highers reflect real-world evidence-based needs of injured parties, many settling parties have seemed less inclined to choose submission as a regular practice, even when WC settlements fall within the CMS workload review thresholds, opting instead to follow the Medicare Secondary Payer Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b) et. seq. (MSP), and its corresponding regulations, instead of the voluntary policies of CMS.

On pages 8-9, under Section 8.1, titled Review Thresholds, two new unannounced examples have been included as follows:

Example 1: A recent retiree aged 67 and eligible for Medicare benefits under Parts A, B, and D files a WC claim against their former employer for the back injury sustained shortly before retirement that requires future medical care. The claim is offered settlement for a total of $17,000.00. However, this retiree will require the use of an anti-inflammatory drug for the balance of their life. 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
($17,000.00).

 

Example 2: A 47 year old steelworker breaks their ankle in such a manner that leaves the individual permanently disabled. As a result, the worker should become eligible for Medicare benefits in the next 30 months based upon eligibility for Social Security Disability benefits. The steelworker is offered a total settlement of $225,000.00, inclusive of future care. Again, the steelworker [typo fixed] is offered a total settlement of $225,000.00, inclusive of future care. Again, there is a likely need for no less than pain management for this future beneficiary. The case would be ineligible for review under the non-CMS-beneficiary standard requiring a case total settlement to be greater than $250,000.00 for review. 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.

Medivest’s take on the subject: These examples illustrate CMS’s position that Medicare’s future interests need to be considered even if the dollar amount of the judgment, settlement, award or other payment does not meet the CMS workload review thresholds. The examples emphasize that CMS considers the establishment of a plan for future care to be a priority and that CMS is serious about protecting Medicare’s future interests. These examples further spell out that CMS reserves the right to request an injured party to fully exhaust the amount of money equal to the entire settlement (not mentioning anything about allowing for a reduction of procurement costs such as attorney’s fees and costs expended to obtain the settlement typically allowed to be deducted under MSP regulations when parties timely request to resolve conditional payment/Medicare liens) when an injured party who is compensated for future medicals, fails to establish a plan for future care.

On page 9 under Section 9.0, titled WCMSA Submission Process Overview, CMS allows for a WCMSA proposal to be submitted either by paper or CD to the Benefits Coordination & Recovery Center or online via the WCMSA Portal (WCMSAP) and clarifies that these are the only acceptable submission delivery methods to be used.

In Section 9.4.5, titled Medical Review Guidelines, under the subsection heading Spinal Cord Stimulators on page 22, the following language was added to change the former policy of not including lead implantation in revision surgeries to the newly adopted policy whereby “Routine replacement of the neurostimulator pulse generator includes the lead implantation up to the number of leads related to the associated code. Revision surgeries should only be used where a historical pattern of a need to relocate leads exists.”

In Section 9.4.5, titled Medical Review Guidelines, under the subsection Pricing for Spinal Cord Stimulator (SCS) Surgery on page 22, the following text was inserted “SCS pricing is based on identification of: 1.) Rechargeable vs. Non-rechargeable and 2.) Single vs. Multiple Arrays (leads). If unknown, CMS will default to non-rechargeable single array.”

In Section 9.4.5, titled Medical Review Guidelines, under the subsection Pricing for Spinal Cord Stimulator (SCS) Surgery on page 22, the following language was deleted: “Preadmission Testing will be included where appropriate.”

In Section 9.4.5, titled Medical Review Guidelines, under the subsection Pricing for Spinal Cord Stimulator (SCS) Surgery, a table titled Table 9-3: Spinal Cord Stimulator Surgery CPT Codes on page 24, was expanded from three procedure (CPT) codes previously listed for Post Placement System Testing to a total of 12 including the same Post Placement System Testing as well as a series of CPT codes for Pre-Placement Psychological Testing, Anesthesia, and various other codes for the implantation procedures, etc. along with detailed descriptions of each.

In Section 9.4.6.2, titled Pharmacy Guidelines and Conditions, under the subsection Medically Accepted Indications and Off-Label Use, on page 28, there are now two detailed examples of off-label use instead of only one off-label use example in the prior version. The additional language appears in bold as follows:

Example 1: Lyrica (Pregabalin) is cited in MicroMedEx for an off-label medication use related to neuropathic pain from spinal cord injury, and a number of scientific studies indicate that Pregabalin shows statistically significant positive results for the treatment of radicular pain (a type of neuropathic pain). Spinal cord neuropathy includes injuries directly to the spinal cord or its supporting structures causing nerve impingement that results in neuropathic pain. Lyrica is considered acceptable for pricing as a treatment for WCMSAs that include diagnoses related to radiculopathy because radiculopathy is a type of neuropathy related to peripheral nerve impingement caused by injury to the supporting structures of the spinal cord.

 

Example 2: Trazodone” – which was previously described as – “Trazodone is approved by the FDA for the treatment of major depressive disorder,
but is commonly given off-label to treat insomnia. So the WCRC would include trazodone in a WCMSA if used to treat insomnia, if it is related to the workers’ compensation injury.”

Medivest’s take on the subject: This seems to be a situation where the new WCRC has been including more off-label drugs in its counter highers than the prior contractor, with the expensive drug Lyrica, gaining the most industry attention. Entities submitting WCMSAs for approval should be aware of the language referred to on page 28 of the Reference Guide that cites the Medicare IOM (Internet Only Manual) rules concerning Medicare covered off-label usage. The standard is as follows, “FDA approved drugs used for indications other than what is indicated on the official label may be covered under Medicare if the carrier determines the use to be medically accepted, taking into consideration the major drug compendia, authoritative medical literature and/or accepted standards of medical practice accepted, taking into consideration the major drug compendia, authoritative medical literature and/or accepted standards of medical practice.” Because this standard is so broad and the CMS and its WCRC seems to be taking an expansive approach to what types of off-label use is determined to be includable, parties seeking to control costs but still interested in CMS submission should consider professional consultations with treating physicians as to whether there are less costly medications and/or alternate treatment/prescription doses that can be utilized, implemented, and confirmed as equally effective, prior to submission.

Under Section 10.4 Section 20 – Life Care / Future Treatment Plan, page 43, a new statement “A Future Treatment Plan is required in the absence of a Life-Care Plan” makes it clear that there is a minimum requirement for future treatment to be listed in a submitted allocation in absence of a Life-Care Plan.

Medivest’s take on the subject: This is not really news because the term Future Treatment Plan existed in the prior Reference Guide’s title for this section. This seems to be a way to bring some consistency to the idea and to tie the term Future Treatment Plan together with the terms Future Treatment and Future Treatment Summary that also appear (and previously appeared) in the section.

In Section 10.5.2, titled Use of WC Fee Schedule vs. Actual Charges for WCMSA, on page 43, the state of Virginia was removed from the list of states that do not have a state Workers’ Compensation (WC) Fee Schedule. The states that do not have a WC fee schedule currently are Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Wisconsin. The Reference Guide instructs, “Do not use a fee schedule in a state that does not have a fee schedule.”

Under Section 16, titled Re-Review, there are three subheadings describing circumstances under which a party may request a Re-Review. Under the subheadings of Mathematical Error and Missing Documentation on page 55, the following unannounced Note was inserted:

Notes:
• Disagreement surrounding the inclusion or exclusion of specific
treatments or medications does not meet the definition of a mathematical error.

• Re-Review requests based upon failure to properly review already submitted records must include only the specific documentation referenced as a basis for the request.

Under the third subheading titled Amended Review, the criteria and information remained the same, but the information was reformatted as follows with a phrase added to last note bullet in bold:

• CMS has issued a conditional approval/approved amount at least 12 but no more than 48 months prior.

• The case has not yet settled as of the date of the request for re-review.

• Projected care has changed so much that the submitter’s new proposed amount would result in a 10% or $10,000 change (whichever is greater) in CMS’ previously approved amount.

• Where a re-review request is reviewed and approved by CMS, the new approved amount will take effect on the date of settlement, regardless of whether the amount increased or decreased.

• This new submission may be delivered in both paper and portal formats. Please see the WCMSAP User Guide for more information.

In order to justify that the projected care would result in a 10% or $10,000 change (whichever is greater), the submitter must return CMS’ Recommendation Sheet that was included in CMS’ conditional approval letter and identify the following:

• Line items that were included in the approved amount, but are for care that has already been provided to the beneficiary. Please identify where references to records indicating that the care has already been provided can be found in the updated proposal.

• Line items for care that is no longer required. Please identify where references to replacement treatment can be found in the updated proposal.

• If additional care is required that was not otherwise included in CMS’ conditional approved amount, please add line items.

Notes:
• 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.

• 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.

Under Section 17.3 Use of the Account on Page 57, the bolded language replaced prior language on the subject:

“Please note: If payments from the WCMSA account are used to pay for services other than Medicare-allowable medical expenses related to medically necessary services and prescription drug expenses for the WC settled injury or illness, Medicare will deny all WC-injury-related claims until the WCMSA administrator can demonstrate appropriate use equal to the full amount of the WCMSA.”

Medivest’s take on the subject: CMS is indicating that Administrators have the burden to show appropriate use of MSA funds and therefore, must keep accurate records to prevent mistaken denial of injury related Medicare covered claims by Medicare after MSA funds are exhausted.

Under Chapter 18 titled CMS Submission, after the sentence, “Additionally, the contractor must ensure that Medicare makes no payments related to the WC injury until the WCMSA has been used up”, the following language was added on page 60:

This is accomplished by placing an electronic marker in CMS’ systems used to pay or deny claims. That marker is removed once the beneficiary can demonstrate the appropriate exhaustion of an amount equal to the WCMSA plus any accrued interest from the account. For those with structured settlements, the marker is removed in any period where the beneficiary exhausts their available funds; however, it is replaced once the anniversary fund deposit occurs until the entire value of the WCMSA is demonstrated as entirely exhausted.

Medivest’s take on the subject: This is the first indication of an “electronic marker” and gives an idea of how the CMS computer system will be flagging those injury related medicals submitted for payment by Medicare, but that Medicare may deny.

In Appendix 4, WCRC Proposal Review Reference Tools on page 69, the link to CMS Memos and written references to CMS Memos going back to 2001 were removed.

All references in Appendix 5. Sample Letters to Sherri McQueen, as Acting Director, were changed to Sherri McQueen, Director, Financial Services Group Office of Financial Management.

In the Development Letter Sample, the CMS Regional Office Contact reference and contact phone numbers were removed and replaced with “the Workers’ Compensation Review Contractor (WCRC) at (833) 295-3773” on pages 81 and 85.

Medivest’s take on the subject:  The WCRC now has the responsibility to field calls regarding submission of WCMSAs instead of the CMS Regional Offices.

Medivest will continue to follow changes in policy at CMS and in the actions of its Workers’ Compensation Review Contractor, Capitol Bridge, LLC, and will keep our readers up to date on developing trends.

 


Medivest_Long_White

For the latest news, updates, and commentary on Medicare Secondary Payer issues visit the Medivest Blog. Read up on these current topics being discussed:

Copyright by Medivest 2021. All rights reserved.