menu trigger  menu trigger
Monday - Friday 8am to 5pm EasternSaturday and Sunday - CLOSED877.725.24674250 Alafaya Trail, Suite 212-322Oviedo, FL 32765

News

The Medivest Blog

DrainStainless.jpg
Natt Reifler, Esq., CMSP, VP of MSP Compliance
13/Mar/2019
lien resolutionmedicare

Protecting Medicare’s Past Interests (How Securing Medicare Lien Resolution Will Help Protect Dwindling Medicare Trust Funds)

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.

 

CONTINUE READING
RoadtoSettlement-1200x600.jpeg
Aaron Winnell
26/Feb/2019
Professional Administration

The Road to Settlement Funds Mismanagement is Paved with Good Intentions

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.

 

CONTINUE READING
compass.jpg
Natt Reifler, Esq., CMSP, VP of MSP Compliance
15/Jan/2019
msaworkers compensation

Announced and Unannounced Changes in the New WCMSA Reference Guide Now in Version 2.9 – A Peak Behind the CMS Curtain

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.

 

CONTINUE READING
CMS-Building-1200x600.png
Natt Reifler, Esq., CMSP, VP of MSP Compliance
31/May/2018
cmsPAID Act

The PAID Act Has a Nice Ring to It, Doesn’t It?

The two Congressmen that worked together to introduce the bill that became the SMART Act of 2012, amending the Medicare Secondary Payer statute (MSP)[1], have teamed up again, this time on May 18, 2018, to introduce the PAID Act, which stands for Provide Accurate Information Directly Act.  The PAID Act, introduced as House Bill 5881, is aimed at helping Medicare beneficiaries and parties that settle injury cases with beneficiaries get more complete injury-related medical payment reimbursement information than they get now.  The PAID Act would require the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the sub agency under the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) charged with the responsibility of running Medicare and creating regulations implementing the MSP, to provide insurance carriers and injured Medicare beneficiaries information about how much money has been spent toward injury-related Medicare covered medical items, services, and expenses (“Medicals”) by not only traditional Medicare (Parts A & B) as it does now, but privately administered Medicare Advantage (Part C) and Medicare Prescription Drug  (Part D) Plans, and the federally funded, predominantly state administered needs-based Medicaid plans, too.

As it exists, CMS provides various updates on mounting or finalized Medicals paid by traditional Medicare after being notified of upcoming settlements or receiving confirmation of settlements.  The updates are provided through the CMS web portal to parties that submit proof of authorization (Authorized Parties) to access the information.  The MSP provides direct statutory lien rights to the U.S. as well as equitable subrogation rights to the U.S. to arm Medicare with enforcement tools allowing it to be reimbursed for amounts conditionally paid that should be or should have been paid by Workers’ Compensation, Automobile Insurance, Liability Insurance including Self-Insurance, or No Fault Insurance (Primary Plans).  CMS provides the running total of the Medicare lien amount to help parties that want to settle know the amount to be paid to Medicare to satisfy its lien.  The SMART Act amendments to the MSP added a three year statute of limitations for the U.S. to bring recovery lawsuits enforcing Medicare’s conditional payment recovery rights and outlined demand amount update procedures and enabled regulations to be created by CMS, further defining  procedures for Authorized Parties to obtain updated and reliable information from the CMS portal on conditional payments by Medicare.

However, neither the MSP nor its SMART Act amendments contemplated the difficulties that Primary Plans, injured beneficiaries, and other Authorized Parties have experienced in getting updated information on prior injury-related medical payments made by Medicaid entities and/or the privately administered Medicare plans referenced above.  If CMS provided the payment information contemplated by the PAID Act in addition to the past payment of Medicals made by traditional Medicare, settling parties and their representatives would have a more efficient mechanism to determine proposed payment obligations toward a larger portion of past Medicals (collectively referred to in this article as Total Government Reimbursement Amounts).  When Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set-Asides (WCMSAs) are submitted to CMS for review or when any MSA allocation report is prepared, the standard is to project future costs for both medical services as well as prescription drug expenses.   However, CMS does not currently provide information about amounts paid for prescription drug expenses when parties or their authorized representatives request payment information through its web portal as those expenses are administered privately.  Therefore, the payment information available from CMS only provides part of the picture.

Primary Plans almost always condition payment of settlement funds on the agreement of beneficiaries to reimburse past conditional payments made by Medicare and often reference any applicable payment obligations to Medicaid[2] along with an acknowledgment by beneficiaries of their obligations to not prematurely bill Medicare for future Medicals pursuant to the MSP.  Payments for past Medicals by Part C, Part D and Medicaid Plans regarding settled injuries have not gotten the same attention that traditional Medicare conditional payments have because CMS is charged with the responsibility by the Secretary of HHS pursuant to the Federal Claims Collection Act[3]  to focus on the recovery rights of the U.S. under the MSP for conditional payments made through traditional Medicare.

The PAID Act sounds great in principle.  However, because the text of the bill will not be available until June 18, 2018, it is hard to say whether it will gain traction as written.  Because traditional Medicare’s lien rights are enforced by the U.S. pursuant to the MSP, the PAID Act will not likely need to reference prioritization of lien rights.  A wrinkle that has arisen is that private cause of action claims by Part C Plans or their assigns under the MSP are regularly being filed and it seems that MSP private cause of action claims could be filed by Part D plans too[4].  Sometimes, beneficiaries transfer between traditional Medicare coverage and Part C Plans from year to year.  Therefore, settling parties interested in addressing potential Medicare recovery rights should pay attention to the rights of Part C and Part D Plans for recovery of payment of past Medicals.  State legislatures, state Medicaid agencies, and courts asked to enforce Medicaid liens also need to consider the federal anti-lien statute[5] when addressing Medicaid lien matters alone or when Medicare has outstanding lien interests.

Putting the priority of Medicare liens over other liens to the side for a moment, the PAID Act would seem extremely helpful in providing a big picture look at the Total Government Reimbursement Amounts.  Congressman Gus Bilirakis (R-FL) stated that “this legislation will ensure that beneficiaries, Medicare and Medicaid have a clear and quick way to identify whether or not a participant has an MSP obligation, and provide information about how that obligation can be resolved.”  He further stated that “the PAID Act represents a ‘win-win-win’ for beneficiaries, plans, and the federal taxpayer.”  Congressman Ron Kind (D-WI) added that “Congress can save significant money for taxpayers and drive a better coordination of benefits if it mandates the sharing of certain information between CMS and settling parties.”

Medivest will continue to monitor the progress of this legislation and encourages readers to consider supporting it once the text of the PAID Act becomes available. The language of the bill will be available here next month.   Information about how to reach your local Congressional representative regarding the PAID Act may be found here.

[1] 42 U.S.C. §1395y(b) et. seq.  The MSP, a series of provisions that amend the Social Security Act and address both the order of payments for injury-related Medicare covered and otherwise reimbursable medical items, services and expenses like prescription drug expenses (Medicals) as well as the right of the U.S. Government to be reimbursed for any payments it makes for Medicals.

[2] Medicaid has lien rights derived from state law allowing it to reach portions of settlements that compensated medical bills paid by the respective state’s Medicaid agency as described under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Ahlborn case, cited in footnote four below, and as legislatively reinstated by the Bipartisan Budget Act (BBA) of 2018’s repeal of corresponding provisions of the BBA of 2013.

[3] 31 U.S.C. §3711, also known as the FCCA – requires the heads of legislative agencies to attempt to collect claims of the U.S. (and authorizes waivers and compromises of claims valued at up to $100,000 when a liable person does not have present/prospective ability to pay significant amount of claim or cost of collecting claim is likely to be more than amount recovered).

[4] The same MSP regulations in 42 C.F.R. § 422.108 are extended to Medicare Part D Plans via 42 C.F.R. § 423.462. Therefore, Part D Plans would likely be held to have the same MSP recovery rights as MAOs including the possibility of seeking double damages under the MSP private cause of action should a primary payer deny the Part D Plan reimbursement of due conditional payments.

[5] 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(a)(1).   See also, Wos v. E.M.A. ex rel. Johnson, 568 U.S. 627, 630, 133 S. Ct. 1391, 1395, 185 L. Ed. 2d 471 (2013)(“The anti-lien provision pre-empts a State’s effort to take any portion of a Medicaid beneficiary’s tort judgment or settlement not ‘designated as payments for medical care.’” citing Arkansas Dept. of Health and Human Servs. v. Ahlborn, 547 U.S. 268, 284, 126 S.Ct. 1752, 164 L.Ed.2d 459 (2006)).

CONTINUE READING

Newer Posts

Medivest_Long_White

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

Recent Posts

Copyright by Medivest 2024. All rights reserved.

The owner of this website has made a commitment to accessibility and inclusion, please report any problems that you encounter using the contact form on this website. This site uses the WP ADA Compliance Check plugin to enhance accessibility.