Close

1.877.725.2467 info@medivest.com

The Medivest Blog

Medicare Liens – Protecting Medicare’s Past Interests – The First Step of Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) Compliance for The Plaintiff Attorney
by

Medicare Liens – Protecting Medicare’s Past Interests – The First Step of Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) Compliance for The Plaintiff Attorney

Note: If you would like to read the edited version of this article as it appears in Advocate Magazine you can download a copy of it here.

A. How and When Medicare Liens Arise

Under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act, found at 42 U.S.C. §1395y(b) (MSP), Medicare has a right to be reimbursed for payments it has made for a Medicare beneficiary’s medical treatment when the Medicare beneficiary is compensated for the treated injury by a third-party source. While Medicare’s rights to recovery under the MSP are so strong that they have been described as a super lien, that does not mean that your client has to always pay the full amount requested by Medicare.

The MSP right to reimbursement includes both a direct statutory right and a subrogation right, with a variety of recovery remedies available to the U.S. Government. In some jurisdictions, similar MSP recovery rights extend to privately administered Medicare benefits under Part C (Medicare Advantage Organizations or MAO’s) and Part D Prescription Drug Plans via the MSP’s private cause of action provision. The recovery rights described exist without regard to the date of service for the medical items, services, or expenses (medicals). Most attorneys know that they should check to see if traditional Medicare or a MAO has paid for medicals related to a compensated injury and address paying the amount or negotiating payment for same from the settlement proceeds. This article will explore ways to secure satisfactory lien resolution, focusing on traditional Medicare liens.

It should be noted that if a Medicare beneficiary begins billing Medicare or a MAO for injury related medicals after the settlement date/date compensated for the tort claim, recovery rights associated with those post settlement medicals exist in the same way that recovery rights exist for pre-settlement injury related Medicare covered medicals. Under such a post settlement scenario, the need for a Medicare lien investigation and resolution could essentially start all again.

B. Medicare Secondary Payer statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b) (MSP)

1. History of the Medicare Act and the Medicare Secondary Payer Act.

a. Background and Scope – Both arise from the Social Security Act of 1935. Medicare is a federally funded single payer national healthcare insurance administered by the U.S. federal government, through the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) under authority of the Social Security Act of 1935. Medicare is funded by a payroll tax, premiums and surtaxes from beneficiaries, and general revenue. HHS delegates running the Medicare program and interpreting Medicare law and implementing regulations to the law to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Medicare covers medical expenses not on the list of exclusions found in 42 U.S.C. §1395y(a)(1) typically for U.S. Citizens (although exceptions exist allowing eligibility for some non-US Citizens as well), who are 65 and older, or younger than 65 with disability status determined by the Social Security Administration as well as people with end stage renal disease (ESRD) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS or Lou Gehrig’s Disease). It is made up of parts such as Part A (mainly inpatient hospital insurance and skilled nursing care) and Part B (doctor visits, durable medical equipment, outpatient hospital care and some physical and occupational therapy and some home health care), the two together are known as traditional Medicare; Part C, covering Part A and B services but administered by private insurers; and Part D, covering Prescription Drug Plans (PDPs) that are also administered by private insurers.

b. SSDI is for people who qualify under the Social Security Administration’s definition of disability. SSDI payments start about 5-6 months after SSDI eligibility is determined depending on the date eligibility is first established. Individuals approved for SSDI also become eligible and qualify for Medicare two years after they begin receiving the SSDI payments. Both SSDI and Medicare are entitlement-based in contrast with Medicaid and SSI, that are largely needs-based.

c. Since the Medicare law’s inception in 1965, Medicare has been secondary to Workers’ Compensation. Therefore, if an injury occurred while at work, the Workers’ Compensation carrier would take responsibility for payment of those injury related medicals in accordance with the applicable state statutory rates and procedures. However, in 1965, there was no provision in the law pertaining to payment of medical bills related to liability claims for injured Medicare beneficiaries. Therefore, Medicare would (most often) pay for all medical treatment within its scope, leaving private insurers (other insurance) to work out who would cover non-Medicare covered services.

2. The Medicare Secondary Payer Act (MSP) was Enacted in 1980.

a. In 1980, the Medicare Secondary Payer Statute (MSP) was enacted. 42 U.S.C. §1395y(b) et seq. is commonly called the MSP Act or MSP Statute and is also referred to as the Medicare Secondary Payer provisions of the Social Security Act (SSA). While it has different statutory references, it is the same law and has parallel sequences of each number and letter after the section 1395y or 1862 as follows: 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b) = 42 U.S.C. §1862(b) of the SSA.

b. The MSP mandates Medicare to be a secondary payer to other forms of health insurance such as group health plans (GHPs), as well as other payment sources such as non-group health plans (NGHPs) when these primary plans are responsible for payment.

c. A “primary plan” is defined in 42 U.S.C. §1395y(b)(2)(A) to mean “a group health plan or large group health plan to the extent that clause (i) applies, and – a workers’ compensation law or plan, – an automobile or liability insurance policy or plan (including a self-insured plan) – or no fault insurance, to the extent that clause (ii) applies. An entity that engages in a business, trade or profession shall be deemed to have a self-insured plan if it carries its own risk (whether by a failure to obtain insurance, or otherwise) in whole or in part. 42 U.S.C. 1395y(b)(2)(A)(ii).”

d. All plans other than the group health or large group health plans are categorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) as Non Group Health Plans (NGHPs). While the MSP applies to Group Health matters, it is in the NGHP area that the MSP compliance industry focuses its attention. NGHPs are those entities that demonstrate obligations of payment as primary payers by either statute (think workers’ compensation or no fault insurance) or by virtue of resolution of claims through settlement, judgment, award or other payment (think liability matters), regardless of whether liability is admitted. Most liability releases specifically deny liability for alleged liability claims. The payment obligation that triggers the MSP arises in the tort scenario when payment is made. There are no defenses listed in the MSP associated with how the demonstration of the obligation arises; when a party begins to make payments under a statute or contract for insurance such as workers’ compensation or under the state’s no fault law under terms of an insurance contract, or when a party settles a liability case, the payment obligation is “demonstrated” and the party responsible for payment is by the MSP, primary to Medicare.

e. The MSP was enacted to curb the rising costs of Medicare and designed to make insurers responsible for payment of injury related treatment primary payers and Medicare, the secondary payer. See Humana Medical Plan, Inc. v. Western Heritage Insurance Company, 832 F.3d 1229, 1234 (11th Cir. 2016). Regulations interpreting the MSP are found at 42 C.F.R. §411 et. seq.

f. To accomplish the goal of curbing Medicare costs, the MSP general rule – 42 U.S.C. §1395y(b)(2)(A) – prohibits Medicare from making payment when a primary plan should make the payment. Specifically, a Medicare payment may not be made
“to the extent that –
(i) payment has been made, or can reasonably be expected to be made, with respect to the item or service as required under paragraph (1) [pertaining to GHPs], or
(ii) payment has been made or can reasonably be expected to be made under a workmen’s compensation law or plan of the United States or a State or under an automobile or liability insurance policy or plan (including a self-insured plan) or under no-fault insurance.”

g. There is only one exception to the prohibition of Medicare making payment when there is a primary payer that should make the payment. The exception authorizes Medicare to make payments called conditional payments if a primary plan “has not made or cannot reasonably be expected to make payment with respect to such item or service promptly.” 42 U.S.C. §1395y(b)(2)(B)(i).

  • Prompt or promptly, when used in connection with primary payments, except as provided in § 411.50, for payments by liability insurers, means payment within 120 days after receipt of the claim. 42 C.F.R. § 411.21.
  • Under 42 C.F.R. §411.50, prompt or promptly, when used in connection with payment by a liability insurer means payment within 120 days after the earlier of the following:
    (1) The date a claim is filed with an insurer or a lien is filed against a potential liability settlement.
    (2) The date the service was furnished or, in the case of inpatient hospital services, the date of discharge. 42 C.F.R. § 411.50

The payments allowed to be made by Medicare are considered “conditioned on reimbursement” to Medicare by the primary plan. These payments could occur either before a settlement or after a settlement so settling parties should always address and make sure to resolve conditional payments a/k/a Medicare liens that arose prior to settlement from the settlement proceeds (even if negotiated to a compromised/reduced number) and additionally, due to the MSP, settling parties should also consider how to avoid conditional Medicare payments after a settlement.

h. Congress enacted the MSP provisions to address enforcement of Medicare as a secondary payer to WC and included the various other types of insurance as primary plans at that time.

i. Between 1980 and 2001, there was very little enforcement of the MSP.

j. CMS Memos of note. In July 2001, CMS issued the Patel memo which mentioned Medicare Set-Asides (MSAs) for the first time. In 2011 – the Stalcup Memo from the Dallas CMS Regional Office was the first time liability MSAs (LMSA’s) were mentioned in a CMS memo with the most detailed guidance on CMS’s position of a need to consider and protect Medicare’s interests for liability as well as Workers’ Compensation settlements to protect the Medicare Trust Funds in a manner consistent with the MSP.

k. The MSP gives Medicare both direct “lien rights” (42 U.S.C. §1395y(b)(2)(B)(iii)) to be able to collect its conditional payments as well as subrogation rights whereby the MSP subrogates the United States to “any right under this subsection of an individual or any other entity to payment with respect to such item or service under a primary plan.” 42 U.S.C. §1395y(b)(2)(B)(iv). This can be an important distinction when it comes to how CMS and courts interpret whether and to what extent an apportionment calculation may be performed to the outstanding conditional payment amount by discounting procurement costs including attorney’s fees and costs in securing the settlement, judgment or award. Actions by the U.S. on behalf of HHS/CMS via the MSP’s direct right of recovery (through the Department of Treasury or potentially the Department of Justice) against entities responsible for payment or those that have received some of the settlement proceeds is separate from its right of subrogation to recover reimbursement of Medicare conditional payments. The MSP’s direct right of recovery has in some cases been interpreted to not be limited by the equitable principle of apportionment stemming from the subrogation right. See Social Security Act, § 1862(b)(1), (b)(2)(B)(ii), as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1395y(b)(1), (b)(2)(B)(ii); 42 C.F.R. § 411.24(c). Zinman v. Shalala, 67 F.3d 841 C.A.9 (Cal.1995).

l. Considering Medicare’s future interests. Without a plan for future care, CMS’s policy regarding settlements has been to presume that the entire settlement amount is designed to compensate the injured party for future medical expenses. While CMS has not yet promulgated regulations regarding how Medicare beneficiaries should ideally protect Medicare’s future interests, because the MSP liability extends to the primary payer as well as any entity or person that receives payment from a primary payer, it is common for settling parties to discuss and consider and sometimes estimate Medicare’s potential future exposure (and therefore the potential recovery that could result from said exposure) on a case prior to settlement. This analysis may involve the use of a MSA allocation report.

m. Having an injured party agree to use other insurance or to agree not to bill Medicare is not adequate according to CMS’s Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set-Aside Arrangement (WCMSA) Reference Guide. This Reference Guide focuses on the voluntary submission process for MSA’s in the Workers’ Compensation realm that meet certain workload review threshold dollar/time frame criteria. In the absence of a corollary guide for liability settlements, the WCMSA Reference Guide stands as the current CMS policy for all NGHP matters such as liability (including self-insurance), automobile, Workers’ Compensation, and No Fault settlements. With respect to any matter or settlement inside or outside the WCMSA Reference Guide workload review thresholds, CMS has indicated that without a plan for future care, CMS could deny injury related medicals up to the entire amount of the settlement. (See discussion on pages 8-9, under Section 8.1, titled Review Thresholds).

n. Keep in mind that there is no reference to a MSA in the MSP or any of its corresponding regulations. While Liability MSA allocation reports (LMSA’s) are not currently being reviewed by CMS Regional Offices or the Workers Compensation Review Contractor (WCRC), the current contract that started in 2018 that the WCRC operates under, contemplated some level of review for LMSAs. While regulations or at least notification of regulations, are expected as early as October 2019 regarding protection of future interests for liability settlements, parties in the liability field (and Workers’ Compensation settlements outside of workload review threshold time periods/amounts) have generally been left to “read between the lines” as to what is an adequate consideration and protection of Medicare’s future interests. For those Medicare beneficiaries that are more risk adverse, an option exists to request the respective Regional Office (RO) to update the common working file of any Section 111 reported settlement with an agreed LMSA amount in an effort to help provide a ceiling to the amount of money that would need to be exhausted before Medicare should begin paying for the injured plaintiff’s injury related Medicare covered medicals. Attorneys should counsel their clients to explain these sensitive issues and document their files in a way that will help show how Medicare’s interests were considered in the settlement.

o. In conjunction with considering a Life Care Plan and possible consultation with an economist, plaintiffs’ counsel may also choose to obtain a LMSA to learn of potential future medical expenses (whether Medicare allowable and reimbursable or not) as an aid to understanding and articulating some of these important economic damages for his or her injured client. Defense counsel will typically want to do their own calculations according to the standards set by CMS policy to get a grasp on the Medicare exposure issue regarding future medicals. This article will not address the protection of Medicare’s future interests further, or the intricacies of equitable apportionment, as it relates to LMSA’s. However, evaluating a plan for future care such as setting aside a reasonable amount of funds for Medicare allowable and reimbursable future medicals, and restricting the spending of those funds to injury related Medicare allowable medicals, can often be a wise MSP compliance procedure. The balance of this article will focus on protecting Medicare’s past interests by investigating and addressing a variety of Medicare based conditional payment reimbursement claims (commonly referred to as liens) at or near the time of settlement.

C. Medicare’s Past Conditional Payment Recovery (Medicare Liens): Navigating the Medicare System to Obtain Lien Information and Tips on Lien Resolution

1. General Information.

a. The first step is to determine whether the injured party is eligible for and/or receiving federal benefits. If not a Medicare beneficiary, then Medicare could not have made any conditional payments that would need to be reimbursed. Sometimes, a settlement will take years to reach. Because a person deemed disabled under SSA’s definition, becomes enrolled in Medicare within two years of receiving Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), those who are in the pending application or appeals process for SSDI, are considered to have a reasonable expectation of becoming Medicare enrolled within 30 months. People with end stage diseases like End Stage Renal Disease or ALS have an expedited path to Medicare enrollment separate from the ordinary application SSDI process or via age eligibility.

b. Signed SSA Consent for Release of Information – Form SSA-3288 is required. Other authorization/representation (“Representation”) documents described below should be obtained as early as possible to help make the process run smoothly.

c. Lien searches are crucial to identify conditional payments to be addressed and resolved.

d. Communication with CMS for plaintiffs is accomplished through its Benefits Coordination and Recovery Center (“BCRC”) contractor and the respective CMS web portal called the Medicare Secondary Payer Recovery Portal (MSPRP). Medicare beneficiaries may access the MSPRP through their MyMedicare account via the MyMedicare.gov web site. Attorneys (and insurers) may access the MSPRP using the following MSPRP application link: https://www.cob.cms.hhs.gov/MSPRP/. There is a registration process that must occur before access to the MSPRP is permitted. There is also a User Guide available under the option entitled ‘Reference Material’ in the following link MSPRP application.

2. Steps involved in The Medicare Lien Investigation Process.

a. Claim notification/reporting of the claim to the BCRC by the beneficiary, attorney for beneficiary or other third-party representative for beneficiary starts the conditional lien “case development process.” This can be accomplished by calling the BCRC or reporting the claim via the MSPRP.

i) This is different from Mandatory Insurance Reporting under Section 111.
ii) If a liability claim has been reported via Section 111 reporting after settlement as a Total Payment Obligation to Claimant (TPOC), then a BCRC case will typically be opened at that time. In some instances, a Section 111 reported case won’t be opened because information may be missing.
iii) If the BCRC opens a case that was reported via Section 111 and an injured party’s attorney or third-party representative also provides notification of the claim, this could cause duplicate files. To prevent generation of a duplicate case, it is a best practice for a third-party representative to confirm with the BCRC whether or not a case has been established before providing notification of a claim.

b. Third-party representative requests various Authorization documents at this time if they didn’t get them at the time of verifying federal benefits depending on the type of case and what service is being provided.

c. Settling parties provide Authorization documents to third party representative:
i) For WC cases, a Letter of Authority (LOA) signed by commercial debtor/TPA and Consent to Release (CTR) signed by injured worker (IW) or
ii) For liability cases, a plaintiff specific attorney referral letter on referring attorney’s letterhead authorizing agent representative to resolve Medicare’s potential recovery claim and a Proof of Representation (POR) signed by the injured plaintiff. Alternatively, an attorney could sign the POR on behalf of the injured plaintiff naming the third party representative as long as they also provide a copy of the underlying Attorney/Client retainer agreement to help complete the chain of custody for the lien representation. For lien resolution matters, a POR/CTR combination form may be used. Certain language is to be included but CMS does not require that the exact “form” posted on its website is to be used.

d. Authorization documents are forwarded to BCRC and monitored for receipt.

e. The representative will then inform settling parties of the claim notification to the BCRC.

f. BCRC typically forwards commercial debtor claim files, such as those pertaining to employer responsibility for WC cases to the CRC to develop the case (specifically, this is the development of a traditional Medicare conditional lien case and takes about 21 business days). Generally, the CRC pursues primary plan payers for any commercial repayment associated with WC matters and the BCRC pursues recovery from Medicare beneficiary Claimants with copies to their representatives for liability matters after settlement. Sometimes there can be duplicate files generated when settlement information is provided to the BCRC and the settlement was also reported via Section 111. Prior to October 2014, the BCRC handled all NGHP collection matters while today there has been an attempt to bifurcate this process. There have been times when the BCRC has helped the CRC with backlog it experienced and generated and developed commercial debt recovery cases post the October 2014 timeframe. The various letters referenced below could be prepared and sent by either the CRC or BCRC but due to the focus in this article on tort claims, further references will be to the BCRC.

g. BCRC issues a Rights and Responsibilities letter after it is initially notified of a claim from a Medicare beneficiary, the attorney for the beneficiary, or a third party representative. It then performs a conditional payment search and most often issues a beneficiary a Conditional Payment Letter (CPL). A CPL does not have a specific time frame to which a beneficiary must respond. However, if the payment summary form that accompanies the CPL contains diagnosis codes belonging to pre-existing or co-morbid conditions unrelated to the claimed injury, it is a best practice to submit a dispute to the BCRC through the MSPRP to request removal of unrelated charges.

h. A Conditional Payment Notice (CPN) may be issued either in lieu of a CPL or after a CPL but prior to the issuance of a demand. A CPN is commonly issued when a settlement over $750 has occurred and a settlement called a Total Payment Obligation to Claimant (TPOC) has been reported through Section 111 reporting. Unlike a CPL, a CPN has a thirty-day time period beyond which CMS automatically generates a demand (Final Demand) for conditional payment reimbursement unless a timely dispute is made.

i. Settling parties provide any additional documentation helpful to assist with conditional payment dispute if applicable. For WC cases, this could include documentation of why an injury was not accepted by the WC carrier.

j. The BCRC issues revised conditional payment correspondence within approximately 11 business days of receipt of a dispute when the dispute is submitted via the MSPRP. Not all disputes are able to be submitted via the portal and when submitted by mail, the turnaround is closer to 45 days.

• Of note, pursuant to the regulation governing this process, 42 C.F.R. §411.39 (v-vi), the opportunity to dispute discrepancies is a one-time only event and does not have an appeals process; i.e. there is no administrative or judicial review of the decision of CMS regarding disputes at this stage (although there is an opportunity to appeal after the Final Demand is issued). However, each piece of conditional payment correspondence may be disputed in this fashion.

k. The applicable CMS contractor issues a Final Demand letter approximately 30 days after initial CPN or revised CPN (if the CPN had been disputed) or after notification of settlement by beneficiary/representative and any dispute (if CPL was issued). The request for a CPL alone does not trigger the sending of a Final Demand and the representative or beneficiary has to typically provide the settlement documents to trigger the Final Demand process in contrast to the process with CPNs, which by virtue of a Section 111 TPOC notification, trigger the Final Demand at 30 days from the CPN without the provision of settlement documents, mainly because Section 111 Reporting information is restricted to electronic data as opposed to documents.

l. A first level appeal called a Redetermination may be submitted in writing through the MSPRP and must be requested in writing within 120 days of the issuance of the Final Demand. The Final Demand is considered an Initial Determination and once issued by a Medicare contractor, beneficiaries, providers and suppliers (and Primary Plans for commercial recovery matters) may appeal the recovery amount as codified and described in the Code of Federal Regulations under 42 C.F.R. § 405, Subpart I. There are five levels of appeal: Redetermination, Reconsideration, ALJ hearing, Medicare Appeals Council Review, and U.S. District Court review. A party may not obtain review by a U.S. District Court unless and until they have exhausted the four initial administrative appeal stages; a process called exhaustion of administrative remedies. There is no threshold amount in controversy for the Redetermination to be reviewed. Any evidence to support the request for Redetermination is to be reviewed by the contractor. If the Redetermination is not favorable, the parties have 180 days from the date of the Redetermination to request a Reconsideration. Unlike the Redetermination, the Request for Reconsideration must be mailed and is reviewed by a Qualified Independent Contractor (QIC). There is no minimum amount in controversy to have a Reconsideration reviewed. Prior evidence submitted to the contractor is to be reviewed by the QIC along with any new evidence the Parties include in the Request for Reconsideration. If the Reconsideration is not favorable, the parties have 60 days after the receipt of the Reconsideration to request a Hearing in front of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), if it meets the amount in controversy requirements outlined in 42 C.F.R. § 405.1006. The current amount in controversy required to request an ALJ hearing is $160. The ALJ will review the evidence that is contained in the record of the previous two appeals. The ALJ will consider additional evidence if there is good reason the evidence was previously left out of the previous appeals. If the decision by the ALJ is unfavorable, the parties have 60 days from the date of the decision to request a Medicare Appeals Council Review (Council Review). There is no current amount in controversy needed to request a Council Review. The Council is to limit its review to the evidence contained in the record of the proceedings before the ALJ, unless the ALJ’s decision included a new issue that the parties did not address at an earlier stage. If the decision by the Council is unfavorable, the parties have 60 days from the date of the decision to file an action in U.S. District Court, if the file meets the amount in controversy for the appeal. The current amount in controversy for 2019 that must be met to file an action in a U.S. District Court is $1,630. This is the final appeal a party has in the Medicare appeals process. The decision by a federal district court described above is binding on all parties.

m. Interest begins accruing 60 days from demand and can be sent by CMS to the Department of Treasury (DOT) as soon as 120 days after demand. The DOT has remedies including the temporary diversion or suspension of federal benefits to the Medicare beneficiary such as SSI, SSDI, and Medicaid (partially federally funded) or even tax refunds through the Treasury Offset Program (TOPs) and use of privately contracted collection agency actions. Amounts over $100,000 can be referred to the Department of Justice.

n. While an appeal or dispute is pending, the contractor will cease all collection action on the case. However, interest will still accrue after the 60 days from the Final Demand time period, but the debt should not be transferred to the DOT until a determination is reached. 42 C.F.R. § 411.39 provides an overview of the entire conditional payment process, including timing for requests to obtain “final conditional payment amounts” (lien amounts) via the CMS web portal. “Once settlement, judgment, award, or other payment information is received, CMS applies a pro rata reduction to the final conditional payment amount in accordance with § 411.37 and issues a final MSP recovery demand letter.” 42 U.S.C. §411.39 (ix). Therefore, it is important to provide the attorney’s fees and costs in procuring settlement for CMS to take into consideration for its final demand.

o. Detailed information regarding the conditional payment recovery process may be obtained from the CMS website www.cms.gov and the MSPRP using this link: https://www.cob.cms.hhs.gov/MSPRP. The CMS website explains Medicare’s Recovery Process, the reporting of pending NGHP claims to the BCRC, and defines some important terms. It also has a sample cover sheet for communication, a sample Proof of Representation form, and a sample Consent to Release form as well.

3. Medicare Lien Resolution.

a. Road Map Overview

Because conditional payments are to be reimbursed and there is a direct statutory right providing the U.S. Government with rights of recovery including double damages, Department of Treasury offsets, and other remedies, the industry often refers to conditional payment claims as Medicare liens. We will use this terminology although it could be said that a lien usually needs some other action (such as a filing in a court) before it may be perfected.

When a party is engaged to secure a Medicare lien resolution, they want CMS to evaluate the fairness of the recovery of the entire Medicare lien amount compared to the net amount to be received by injured party after fees and costs are deducted. The goal is to get CMS to either waive the amount being requested or to reduce the amount being requested. If CMS agrees to no longer pursue the recovery claim, it is said to waive the recovery and if CMS agrees to reduce the amount it will accept as full payment, it is called a compromise of the recovery claim. There are several federal statutes and accompanying regulations that provide authority for CMS to compromise or waive Medicare liens. The statutes and regulations discussed below outline standards and factors that may be considered for full (waiver) or partial (compromise) reductions of Medicare lien amounts. These factors often focus on the ability of the injured party to pay the lien, costs the government would incur to pursue collecting the lien, as well as the injured party’s financial/physical circumstances.

b. Medicare Lien Waiver Process

The Medicare lien waiver process is a more involved process than the compromise process. Waiver requests typically focus on the financial position of the injured Medicare beneficiary, who may have higher expenses and/or lower income after sustaining an injury. After settlement occurs and funds are transferred, while the MSP technically still allows the U.S. to pursue the primary payer, when a Medicare beneficiary fails to satisfy a Medicare lien, the Medicare beneficiary is most often considered the debtor and pursued by CMS initially through the BCRC. Attorneys for Medicare beneficiaries can also be caught in the MSP cross hairs. Waiver requests for a Medicare beneficiary are sent to the BCRC. In turn, the BCRC typically asks for a SSA-632 form to be filled out with a variety of financial information about the beneficiary. Waiver determinations may be made by BCRC staff and are usually based on financial hardship.

In their demand letters, CMS typically informs beneficiaries that they may request a waiver or compromise if paying back the money would cause financial hardship or would be unfair for some other reason. The beneficiary is asked to provide a brief statement of any reasons why paying back the money would cause the financial hardship or would be unfair. CMS will send a form asking for information about income, assets, and expenses, and requesting an explanation of why it is believed the beneficiary is entitled to waiver of the overpayment. The determination for waiver including requests from CMS for additional information typically takes up to 120 days. An appeal may be filed if the beneficiary disagrees that they received an overpayment, disagrees with the amount of overpayment; or disagrees with any decision by CMS to not waive the repayment of the overpayment. The beneficiary must file an appeal within 120 days from the date of their receipt of this determination. CMS informs that if the beneficiary decides to appeal this determination further, they can have a friend, lawyer, or someone else help them.

To speed up the process and increase the likelihood of a positive outcome, it is a best practice when requesting a waiver to provide a full financial picture of the beneficiary, including either a completed SSA-632 form or as much of the information requested by that form as can be obtained, so BCRC staff will have adequate information to reach a fair determination. A waiver may be granted when continuing the collection would be against “equity and good conscience.”

Out of pocket expenses of beneficiaries may be considered. Beneficiaries should be advised to document out of pocket expense including having any copies of canceled checks to correlate with bills paid. A notarized/sworn statement may be considered along with canceled checks, corresponding bills and/or receipts etc. Examples of the type of out-of-pocket expenses and other factors that might support granting a waiver are also provided in what is known as the MSP Manual under Chapter 7.

If recovery would defeat the purpose of benefits under these titles, i.e., would cause financial hardship by depriving a beneficiary of income required for ordinary and necessary living expenses. Examples are provided as are examples of financial hardship with analysis provided as to what CMS would recommend under the hypotheticals provided. They also provide “waiver indicators” for and against granting waivers as well as examples of the letters used to provide notice of determinations regarding same.

The process takes about 120 days from start to finish for a waiver determination to be made. If a conditional payment demand has been paid, a waiver or compromise request may still be made, and a refund will be considered. If the BCRC makes a determination to refund all or part of the prior payment, the refund will typically take an additional 3-4 weeks, depending on whether payment had been made to the BCRC directly or whether it was made to the Department of Treasury after a referral of the debt to Treasury by the BCRC.

c. Medicare Lien Compromise Process

If there is not a significant financial or physical hardship to the Medicare beneficiary, but the dollar amount of the projected settlement is low compared with the likely settlement value and/or the Medicare lien amount, an alternative to a waiver request is a Medicare lien compromise request. To request a compromise, a third-party representative may offer to pay a specific dollar amount on behalf of the beneficiary to fully compromise the outstanding Medicare debt/lien amount. The requester must include the settlement amount (or settlement offer), the amount they are asking CMS to accept as full payment, and the actual or projected attorney fees and costs associated with procuring the settlement. Attorney fees and costs are omitted when the beneficiary is not represented by counsel. CMS, through the BCRC, either responds by accepting the offer or presenting an alternate proposed amount. At that point, the beneficiary must pay the countered amount or if accepted, pay the accepted amount within 60 days of the BCRC response, or else the offer is no longer valid.

d. Because of the high interest that the U.S. may charge pursuant to 45 C.F.R. § 30.13 (currently just under 10%) for failing to pay a final conditional payment demand within 60 days, the standard in the industry is to pay the demand and then request a waiver or compromise. Under 45 C.F.R. § 30.14(a), a debtor may either pay the debt within the 60-day period from the final demand or be liable for interest during the 120-waiver determination period, while on appeal, or while any formal or informal review of the debt is pending. If a waiver or compromise is granted, a refund will be issued to the entity and address payment was received from.

e. Statutory Bases for Waiver or Compromise of Medicare Conditional Payment Liens – Three Main Federal Statutory Provisions.

1) The Federal Claims Collection Act (FCCA) governs collections by the federal government and requires heads of legislative agencies to try to collect claims of the U.S. and authorizes compromise of claims up to $100,000 and waiver of claims, “. . . when it appears that no person liable on the claim has the present or prospective ability to pay a significant amount of the claim or the cost of collecting the claim is likely to be more than the amount recovered.” 31 U.S.C.A. § 3711(a)(3). The FCCA is also known as the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996.
2) Additionally, the MSP provides that “[i]f the Secretary determines that waiver of all or part of a conditional payment is “in the best interests of the program”, all or part of a conditional payment may be waived. 42 U.S.C. §1395y(b)(2)(B)(v). However, this general “best interests of the program” standard is rarely used as the basis for negotiating a compromise or waiver of a conditional Medicare lien. Instead, those in the lien resolution business typically request a waiver or compromise of the lien pursuant to the more detailed bases and factors listed in various regulations.
3) 42 U.S.C. §1395gg(c) a/k/a 256 H §1870(c) of the Social Security Act allows waivers of Medicare liens by CMS contractors when not granting the waiver would be unfair (“against equity and good conscience”).

f. Regulatory Basis for Waivers or Compromises of Conditional Payment Liens.

42 C.F.R. § 411.28 Waiver of recovery and compromise of claims. Pursuant to this regulation, CMS may waive recovery, in whole or in part, if the probability of recovery, or the amount involved, does not warrant pursuit of the claim. It references the general rules applicable to compromise of claims in both subpart F of part 401and under 42 C.F.R. § 405.376, as well as pertinent rules in subpart C of part 405.

Falling under subpart F of part 401 is 42 C.F.R. § 401.601 et seq. Under §401.601(c), if the claim exceeds $100,000, those claims are referred by CMS to the Department of Justice or the General Accounting Office for evaluation. Otherwise, collection of claims at or under this amount are handled initially by CMS and later referred to the Department of Treasury. 42 C.F.R. § 401.613 requires that the compromise amount “[b]ear a reasonable relation to the amount of the claim; and [b]e recoverable through enforced collection procedures.” Subsection (c) of the regulation follows the general principles of the FCCA in considering waiver or compromise. For example, CMS may compromise a claim for any one or combination of the following three factors:
(1) Inability of debtor or estate of deceased debtor to pay at the time or within a reasonable period of time;
(2) Probability of success in litigation. Difficult issues of law or lack of agreement on facts may be considered. This is a “step in the shoes” evaluation whereby the amount that CMS accepts in compromise under this provision should reflect how likely it would be for CMS to win and make a recovery; i.e. prevail on the legal question(s), obtain a full or partial recovery of a judgment, factoring in whether witnesses or evidence needed to support its case would be available and admissible, and the total court costs that would be assessed to CMS;
(3) Cost of collecting the claim. If the cost of collecting the claim does not justify the enforced collection of the full amount, CMS may discount an appropriate amount for the costs of collection it would have incurred if it had not been for the compromise.

Once CMS establishes that there is a basis under subsection (c), subsection (b) of the same regulation allows CMS to also consider:
(1) The age and health of the debtor if the debtor is an individual;
(2) Present and potential income of the debtor; and
(3) Whether assets have been concealed or improperly transferred by the debtor.

Furthermore, under subsection (d) entitled Enforcement policy, “CMS may compromise statutory penalties, forfeitures, or debts established as an aid to enforcement or to compel compliance, if it determines that its enforcement policy, in terms of deterrence and securing compliance both present and future, is adequately served by acceptance of the compromise amount.” 42 C.F.R. § 401.613.

Similar factors for evaluation of compromise requests are also described under 20 C.F.R. § 404.515 pertaining to recovery of overpayments from beneficiaries and under 42 C.F.R. § 405.376 pertaining to claims for overpayments against a provider or a supplier under the Medicare program.

g. Terms may be accepted on amounts due to CMS, but a debtor must submit a request to CMS in writing along with any information required by CMS to make a decision regarding the request. 42 C.F.R. § 401.607(c)(1). Usually, the maximum term is three years although this regulation provides hardship circumstances under which payment terms over three years may be granted.

h. While the Federal Claims Collection Act grants Medicare the right to compromise its claims, or suspend or terminate its recovery actions, only CMS claims collection officers may take this action. Contractors may not enter into negotiations (either pre- or post-settlement) with beneficiaries, or their attorneys or representatives, to compromise Medicare’s claim. If beneficiaries, or their attorneys or representatives, wish to discuss arrangements by which Medicare’s claim might be reduced (outside of a formal request for Medicare to waive its claim), the contractor either has the party make a request in writing to be forwarded to the applicable RO or refers the party to the appropriate RO directly.

i. The trend has been for CMS and its contractors to offer reductions through the compromise process. Therefore, it has become more common and efficient to make a request for a reduced lien balance rather than starting with a 120 determination of whether a waiver would be acceptable and then moving to (and waiting for) a compromise evaluation and determination. Please keep in mind that today, the answer to a request for a compromise is not appealable. There is currently no limit to the number of requests that may be made but after several requests, CMS seems to indicate it will not entertain additional requests. Waiver responses (Determinations) on the other hand are appealable and follow the same appeals process described regarding appeals of Final Demand amounts

4. MSP Rights of Recovery with Regulations and Case Law.

a. The MSP provides a statutory cause of action for double damages for failure of a primary plan to make payment or reimburse a conditional payment promptly. 42 U.S.C. §1395y(b)(2)(B)(iii). The MSP direct cause of action by the U.S. including double damages is distinct from any claim under a theory of subrogation although the MSP statute provides a subrogation right to the U.S thereby allowing claims of subrogation by the U.S. as well. There is an exception to recovery from Third Party Administrators (TPA) provided the TPA would not be able to recover the amount at issue from the employer or group health plan and is not under contract with the employer or group health plan at the time the recovery action is initiated. See U.S. v. Travellers Ins. Co., 815 F. Supp. 521 (D. Conn. 1992) (holding U.S. Government had direct right of recovery against insurer under MSP apart from its rights of subrogation but determined Government did not have a claim against insurance company when the insurance company was acting in the capacity as a TPA of an employer group health plan). There is also no claim against a TPA that provides administrative services when there is insolvency or bankruptcy of the employer or plan.

b. Recovery Time Limits.

• Three Year Statute of limitations. The U.S. must file suit within three years after the date of receipt of notice of settlement, judgment, award or other payment via paragraph 8 (which is the paragraph in the MSP that describes the Section 111 Reporting requirement). 42 U.S.C. 1395y(b)(2)(B)(iii). This was added to the MSP pursuant to the SMART Act amendments in 2012, effective in 2013. Therefore, if Section 111 Reporting was never provided, the U.S. could argue that the three-year SOL has not yet began to run. Furthermore, if there is an update to Section 111 Reporting with an update with new codes or new accepted body parts for example, the three years for those new codes and/or new accepted body parts would begin running from the date of the updated Section 111 Reporting.

• There is also a “time limit” under the MSP for claims for reimbursement requests. Notwithstanding any other time limits applying for employer group health plans, the U.S. may seek to recover conditional payments under the MSP where the request for payment is submitted to the “entity required or responsible under this subsection to pay with respect to the item or service (or any portion thereof) under a primary plan within the 3-year period beginning on the date on which the item or service was furnished.” 42 U.S.C. 1395y(b)(2)(B)(vi).

c. The ability to collect the double damages is described as being “in accordance with paragraph (3)(A)”, which is the private cause of action provision that Medicare Advantage Organizations and individual Medicare beneficiaries that have been “injured” have available to them. This is discussed in the next section below.

d. The U.S. may recover double damages from any entity that has received payment from a primary plan or from the proceeds of a primary plan’s payment to any entity. 42 C.F.R. § 411.24 indicates Medicare has a direct right of action against all primary payers responsible for making payment and a direct right of action against any person or entity that received a primary payment, including the Medicare beneficiary, medical provider, physician, attorney, state agency or private insurer. Furthermore, “CMS may initiate recovery as soon as it learns that payment has been made or could be made under workers’ compensation, any liability or no-fault insurance, or an employer group health plan.” 42 C.F.R. §411.24(b).

e. Case law against beneficiaries and/or their attorneys.

(i) In March 2019, a law firm in Maryland named Meyers, Rodbell & Rosenbaum, P.A., had to pay $250,000 to resolve a conditional payment demand on a case where the firm had already disbursed net proceeds of the settlement to its client. U.S. Attorney Robert K. Hur was quoted in a Department of Justice press release saying, “We intend to hold attorneys accountable for failing to make good on their obligations to repay Medicare for its conditional payments.”

(ii) On June 18, 2018, the Department of Justice announced in a press release that an attorney/law firm entered into an agreement to repay the U.S. $28,000 after failing to ensure that the attorney/law firm client reimbursed Medicare for conditional payments made related to the underlying injury. The law firm had already disbursed the net settlement funds to its client. The law firm of Rosenbaum & Associates in Philadelphia entered into a settlement with the DOJ agreeing to pay the government this money after the U.S. alleged attorney Rosenbaum failed to timely repay MSP debt. The firm additionally agreed to designate a person at the firm to be responsible for paying MSP debts, to train the designated employee to ensure that the firm pays these debts on a timely basis; and to review any outstanding debts with the designated employee at least every six months. Attorney Rosenbaum also acknowledged that he may be liable under the False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq.) for wrongful retention of government overpayments arising from the failure to timely repay the MSP debt.

(iii) Other cases have confirmed the above-referenced recovery rights of the U.S. to timely Medicare lien reimbursement. For example, a U.S. District Court granted summary judgment for $11,367.78 plus interest against an attorney for a Beneficiary, holding the attorney liable when Medicare’s conditional payments were not addressed/timely reimbursed from a third party settlement because the attorney had received his contingency fee from the proceeds of Primary Plan’s (liability) payment. See U.S. v. Harris, 2009 WL 891931 (N.D. WVa. 2009) aff’d 334 Fed. Appx 569 (4th Cir. 2009). See also, U.S. v. Weinberg, 2002 WL 32356399 (E.D. Pa. 2002)(Partial judgment was entered in favor of the U.S. against the Defendant attorney on the issue of liability).

(iv) In U.S. v. Sosnowski, 822 F. Supp. 570 (W.D. Wis. 1993), the U.S. was entitled to recover MSP conditional payments from a Beneficiary and his attorney but was denied the award of double damages because neither injured beneficiary nor attorney were a Primary Plan. In the Sosnowski case, the court placed more weight on the MSP wording “received primary payment from a primary plan” as opposed to the wording in the next phrase “or from the proceeds of a primary plan’s payment to any entity.” The wording in the regulations 42 C.F.R. § 411.24, “from the proceeds of a primary plan’s payment to any entity” would seem to make it clear that attorneys and Beneficiaries could be liable for double damages claims by the U.S. (or Medicare Advantage Plans under the MSP private cause of action – see below). If CMS gets more efficient at searching for all possible conditional payment reimbursements, it could become more aggressive with recovery actions against plaintiff attorneys and depending on the jurisdiction, may seek double damages from plaintiff and/or counsel.

f. Cases against Estates of Beneficiaries.

Cases in which CMS has proceeded against an estate of a Medicare beneficiary have yielded varying results. For example, CMS was successful in Benson v. Sebelius, 771 F. Supp. 2d 68, 75 (D.D.C. 2011) (Because plaintiff claimed his mother’s medical costs in pursuing his wrongful death action, medical expenses of mother were taken into consideration in calculating and negotiating wrongful death settlement award, and release to landlord where slip and fall occurred included any and all claims and rights including associated medical liens, no error was found when Medicare Appeals Board (in a de novo review) allowed CMS to recover its full medical expenses lien minus its procurement costs from the wrongful death settlement) (citing Mathis v. Leavitt, 554 F.3d 731, 733 (8th Cir.2009) (“Because appellants claimed all damages available under the Missouri wrongful death statute, the settlement, which settled all claims brought, necessarily resolved the claim for medical expenses.”); Cox v. Shalala, 112 F.3d 151, 154–55 (4th Cir.1997) (determining that Medicare was entitled to reimbursement for medical expenses from the proceeds of a wrongful death settlement because the settlement included recovery for decedent’s medical expenses); see also Brown v. Thompson, 374 F.3d 253, 262 (4th Cir.2004) (holding that CMS was entitled to reimbursement from the proceeds of a medical malpractice settlement pursuant to the MSP).

However, when the underlying wrongful death claim made no claim for medical expenses, there is a stronger argument that the Medicare lien does not extend to the estate of a deceased Medicare beneficiary. See Bradley v. Sebelius, 621 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir.2010) (U.S. was denied the ability to recover Medicare’s conditional payments when no medical expenses of decedent Medicare Beneficiary were claimed in wrongful death action by survivors).

g. Medicare conditional payments are most often thought of as payments made prior to settlement for which CMS has a lien right to recover and a cause of action for double damages if not reimbursed by the proceeds of settlement other than MSA money. This is why most insurance carriers and their defense counsel insist on including language in settlement releases to the effect that the injured party receiving the settlement acknowledges, accepts complete financial responsibility for, and will pay all Medicare conditional payment liens with the settlement proceeds as a condition of settlement. Strong consideration should be given to including liens of Medicare Advantage Organizations and Medicaid (which has its own secondary payer statutes per respective state law, with lien rights to settlement proceeds that are below the lien rights of Medicare, but enforceable against settlement proceeds to the extent of the medical bills paid under the Ahlborn case in the same or similar statements in the release.

h. Attorneys representing self-administering applicants or plaintiffs should take steps to document their files advising clients of the MSP and all rules and regulations associated with properly administering them and ideally, will help their clients stay compliant or recommend professional administration to help ensure proper exhaustion of funds set aside to protect Medicare’s future interests

i. Medicare Part C-Medicare Advantage and Part D-Prescription Drug Coverage

a. Medicare Advantage Organization (MAO) lien claims are addressed in a separate article in this issue.
b. Medicare Part D – Prescription Drug Plan (PDP) Coverage

This insurance is provided by private carriers but funded by Medicare. 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. Conclusion

Prior to settlement, steps should be taken to determine Medicare entitlement and/or SSDI status to determine if Medicare may have made conditional payments related to the claimed injury. Steps should also be taken by all parties to expand their lien search inquiries beyond traditional Medicare and SSDI searches to rule out MAO and/or PDP membership. A first step is obtaining a copy of the front and back of each and every type of insurance the injured client had from the time of the accident until the time retained (and beyond). You should ask whether they have switched or enrolled in different plans from the time of the accident until the present. Steps should be taken to get any conditional payments reimbursed promptly. Carriers will often require beneficiaries to make payment of these conditional payment/lien reimbursements a condition of the settlement. Regardless of the type of Medicare lien, always first confirm that the amounts requested relate to the claimed injury/body areas and are not associated with pre-existing conditions. Next, make sure to request a reduction of attorney’s fees and costs for any type of Medicare lien. Follow the logic set forth in 42 C.F.R. §411.37 for a reduction of conditional payments by the attorney fee percentage as well as the attorney’s costs. While the referenced regulation is in the portion of the MSP regulations dedicated to WC cases, based on cases like the Hinsinger v. Showboat Atl. City, 420 N.J. Super. 15, 19, 18 A.3d 229, 232 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law. Div. 2011) case, CMS seems to now recognize this reduction formula for liability cases as well as WC cases. This process of performing a pro rata reduction is mentioned in the regulations in 42 C.F.R. §411.39 (ix) “Once settlement, judgment, award, or other payment information is received, CMS applies a pro rata reduction to the final conditional payment amount in accordance with § 411.37 and issues a final MSP recovery demand letter.” Thankfully, when it comes to the conditional payment demand process for traditional Medicare liens, it is standard operating procedure for CMS, once notified (through the MSPRP or by written correspondence) to reduce its Medicare lien/conditional payment reimbursement claim by the pro-rata percentage of attorney’s fees and reduction of costs associated with procuring settlement prior to issuance of its Final Demand. Lastly, if the amount your client will be receiving as a net settlement is low in comparison with the amount being requested by Medicare, evaluate whether a request for a compromise or waiver may be appropriate and decide whether you will assist your client with this or outsource to attempt to reduce or waive the Medicare related lien.

* Attorney Natt Reifler is Vice President of Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance for Medivest. Medivest offers attorneys a variety of public and private lien resolution services as well as MSP compliance services, including Medicare and Medicare Advantage Plan lien resolution, Medicare Set-Aside allocation reports, Medical Cost Projections, Professional Administration, and Trust Advisor Services. Natt received his undergraduate degree from the University of Maryland Baltimore County and is licensed to practice law in the State of Florida. He graduated Cum Laude from Stetson University College of Law in 1995, practicing with the personal injury firm of Best & Anderson, P.A. until 1997. He then worked with a recovery law firm handling corporate creditor and collections matters for twenty years prior to joining Medivest in 2017. Natt has researched Medicare Secondary Payer law, manages Medivest’s Lien Resolution Department and has written many lien resolution and MSP related articles for the Medivest.com blog. He can be reached at nreifler@medivest.com.

“Table of Contents”

Under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act, Medicare has a right to be reimbursed for payments it has made for a Medicare beneficiary’s medical treatment when the Medicare beneficiary is compensated for the treated injury by a third-party source. That does not mean that your client has to always pay the full amount requested by Medicare. This article explores ways to secure Medicare lien resolution, focusing on satisfactory resolution of traditional Medicare liens.

Law Firm Pays Over $90,000 to Settle A Failure to Reimburse Medicare Claim Brought by U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland
by

Law Firm Pays Over $90,000 to Settle A Failure to Reimburse Medicare Claim Brought by U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland

Once again, a law firm was alleged to have failed to properly reimburse Medicare for conditional payments made by Medicare for injuries that were compensated in at least one settlement on behalf of an injured client. The press release, which can be found here involves a fact pattern a little different from a few other recent recovery actions by the U.S. Government related to alleged MSP violations. Often attorneys will refer liability cases to other attorneys or firms that handle personal injury, premises liability, and medical malpractice claims. The attorney that refers the case is typically allowed to share in the attorney’s fees obtained upon successful resolution. The fees obtained by the referring lawyer/firm are supposed to approximate and reflect a reasonable amount for the amount of work they do. Some attorneys do a thorough intake procedure and maintain contact with the client throughout the representation, are copied on all correspondence, and may provide input on strategy and procedure. After all, they have a responsibility to the injured party that originally contacted them in the first place. This matter involved six cases the U.S. Attorney’s office was investigating and of the six, four had been referred by the investigated firm to co-counsel. The firm was held responsible for the alleged failures to reimburse Medicare, regardless of whether they were a referring firm for a case handled by another firm or whether they were the handling the claim from start to finish.

We have provided other instances over the past few years where settlements were made with the Department of Justice including here and here.

However, Plaintiff attorneys in particular should be on high alert because the most recent enforcement actions have been focused on attorneys that disbursed funds to their clients after case finalization but failed to ensure that Medicare’s conditional payments were paid or otherwise resolved.

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 and confirm all injury-related Medicare expenditures for past medicals at the time of settlement.
  • Even if you “only” refer an injury case to another attorney who may do a majority of the work on the case, you should take an interest in verifying the existence of any liens that need to be addressed.
  • Due diligence is required for both the defense and plaintiff side to avoid unnecessary MSP legal exposure.
  • In addition to checking and verifying the correct demand amounts from CMS contractors, prior to settlement, steps should be taken by all parties to expand lien search inquiries beyond traditional Medicare (and Medicaid) to determine whether a Medicare Advantage Plan/Organization (MAP/MAO) or Prescription Drug Plan (PDP) made any conditional payments that could be recovered under the MSP. This is because the MSP private cause of action provision has been held in at least two federal circuits to apply to MAO’s and would likely be held to apply to PDP’s too.
  • There is value in evaluating Conditional Payment Summary forms that accompany the conditional payment correspondence from Medicare to confirm all entries on the form are injury-related and/or determine whether some entries should be disputed.
  • During the lien investigation process, parties should analyze whether a compromise (reduction) of a lien or potentially a waiver may be appropriate.

It is crucial for prospective settling parties to investigate conditional payment reimbursement amounts or work with an entity familiar with lien investigation procedures.
Medivest provides lien resolution services to help parties satisfactorily negotiate outstanding public and private health care matters including Medicare liens, Medicaid liens, Veterans Administration/TriCare liens, hospital liens, and doctors’ bills. Our lien resolution team works hard to dispute non-claim related bills, resolve and reduce outstanding bills/liens, and will seek refunds for amounts already paid when appropriate. Please reach out to discuss lien resolution today.

Updates on CMS’ Self-Administration Toolkit for Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set-Aside Arrangements
by

Updates on CMS’ Self-Administration Toolkit for Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set-Aside Arrangements

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services released Version 1.3 of the Self-Administration Toolkit for Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set-Aside Arrangements (WCMSAs) on October 10, 2019. The latest Self-Administration Toolkit Version 1.3 is now available to download here. Furthermore, the newest version of the WCMSAP User Guide was updated on October 7, 2019. That can be accessed here. It contains updates similar to those found in the updates to the Self-Administration Toolkit discussed in this article.

The three most notable changes included in Version 1.3 are as follows:

1.  A new method for submitting annual attestations electronically via the WCMSA portal (WCMSAP).

Section 8: Annual Attestation – of the Self-Administration Toolkit conformed its language to that of the WCMSA Reference Guide, Section 19.2 titled Death of The Claimant, and can be viewed here. Now, self-administering claimants can access and submit attestations via the same WCMSAP web portal that professional administrators use.

If you are a beneficiary administering your own account, you can submit your year attestation online by accessing the WCMSA Portal through the MyMedicare.gov website.

If you are a representative or other identified administrator for the account, you can log in directly to the WCMSA Portal to submit the yearly attestation. To access, go to https://www.cob.cms.hhs.gov/WCMSA/login

The WCMSAP User Guide, available under the Reference Materials header once you log in to the site, has details regarding the submission of attestations online.

CMS will be hosting two (2) webinars regarding the recent WCMSAP enhancements which will allow Medicare beneficiaries or their representatives to submit annual attestations electronically for approved WCMSAs.

  1. Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set-Aside (WCMSA) Electronic Attestation Enhancement Webinar. Click here for more information regarding this seminar taking place on Wednesday, October 30, 2017 at 1:00pm EST.
  2. Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set-Aside (WCMSA) Electronic Attestation Enhancement for Professional Administrators. Click here for more information regarding this seminar
    taking place on Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 1:00pm EST.

 

2.  A more detailed description of why WCMSA accounts are kept open for a period of time after the death of the Medicare beneficiary when WCMSA funds have not permanently exhausted.

Section 10: Inheritance – Added language regarding notifying the BCRC when death of the Medicare beneficiary occurs before the WCMSA is permanently exhausted. A summary follows: In such cases, the respective Medicare Regional Office (RO) and the BCRC will coordinate to help ensure all timely filed bills related to the WC claim have been paid. This may involve keeping the WCMSA account open for some time after the date of death, as health care providers can submit their bills to Medicare up to 12 months after the date of service. Any remaining WCMSA funds may be paid in accordance with the respective state law and administration agreement if applicable, once Medicare’s interests have been protected. Often the settlement itself will state how to spend funds after the death of the claimant and payment of care-related expenses.

 

3.  Updated mailing addresses for the Benefits Coordination and Recovery Center (BCRC)

Section 12: Where to Get Help – The mailing address to where WCMSA Proposals, Final Settlements, and Re-Review Requests are to be sent was updated to be consistent with the current WCMSA Reference Guide. That address is:

WCMSA Proposal/Final Settlement
P.O. Box 13889
Oklahoma City, OK 73113-8899

On Page 18 of the Self-Administration Toolkit

The mailing address for situations when the WCMSAP or MyMedicare.gov portals are not being used, self-administering claimants may submit attestations yearly account attestations and expenditure letters to the following address:

NGHP
P.O. Box 138832
Oklahoma City, OK 73113

 

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

Why You Should Not Ignore Medicare’s Interests in Your Liability Settlements

Why You Should Not Ignore Medicare’s Interests in Your Liability Settlements

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.

Law Firm to Pay $250,000 to U.S. For MSP Non-Compliance (Failing to Reimburse/Resolve Medicare Lien from Personal Injury Settlement Proceeds)
by

Law Firm to Pay $250,000 to U.S. For MSP Non-Compliance (Failing to Reimburse/Resolve Medicare Lien from Personal Injury Settlement Proceeds)

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)).

Medicare Advantage Plan MSP Private Cause of Action Suits – Eleventh Circuit Update
by

Medicare Advantage Plan MSP Private Cause of Action Suits – Eleventh Circuit Update

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).

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

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.

 

 

The Road to Settlement Funds Mismanagement is Paved with Good Intentions
by

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.

How to Use a Medicare Set-Aside Allocation (and, how NOT to)
by

How to Use a Medicare Set-Aside Allocation (and, how NOT to)

Administering Medicare Set-Aside (MSA) funds properly is a daunting task for most. Nuance in the Medicare formulary, ignorance about MSAs in the provider’s billing department, and complexity in medical coding all conspire to frustrate even the most diligent and well-meaning of beneficiaries. Truly, the successful MSA custodian has to be part educator, part negotiator, part coding wizard, and part accountant.

Conflated Ideas

In this area of compliance, it is not surprising that misunderstandings abound. One common misconception involves what can actually be paid for from a MSA account. This mistake sometimes has its origin in the failure to understand the MSA allocation report’s actual purpose. It probably does not help that the term “MSA” is sometimes used to describe both the funds in a MSA account and a MSA allocation report (“MSA allocation” or “MSA report”).

The properly prepared MSA report’s value lies in its final dollar amount. Medicare is given consideration through the establishment of an amount of money to be used to treat the injury, thereby shielding Medicare from premature payments on behalf of the beneficiary. This is necessitated by the fact that, by law[1], Medicare is secondary to workers’ compensation and liability injuries, pre and post-settlement. The amount established in the MSA allocation is intended to be spent prior to Medicare becoming primary. But also, the settlement is able to establish a limit to how much of the settlement proceeds must be isolated for the sole purpose of stepping in front of Medicare. According to the latest version of the Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set-Aside Arrangement (WCMSA) Reference Guide, where no arrangement is made for how future medicals shall be paid, Medicare may consider the entire settlement as primary[2].

An Estimate, not a Formulary

The mistake is in a literal application, not of the MSA report’s final dollar amount, but of the itemized detail of medical services and medications. It is common for a beneficiary, those counseling them, or those settling with them, to believe that only the specific items listed in the MSA report are covered by the MSA funds. It’s imagined that the beneficiary, when paying their bills, will reference the MSA allocation to determine whether a given medical expense is listed there, and if not, arrange to have it paid by other means. But, the MSA allocation is not an injury-specific formulary of allowed items any more than it is a prescription for care.

In actuality, anyone who has written a MSA allocation or administered MSA funds for a relatively short period of time knows that, at its best, the MSA allocation report is an educated guess. Moreover, the stock MSA allocation, if written to the government’s review standards, may project treatments in frequencies that would not ordinarily be expected, ballooning its amount, or completely ignore the inflationary nature of healthcare costs over time, deflating the final amount below reality’s expectation of the future. (That back x-ray costs $65 today. Do you imagine it will cost that in 10 or 15 years?) In the end, the final number is recognized as an adequate consideration of Medicare’s interests, but a supposition unlikely to hit future costs with absolute accuracy.

Consider all of the ways that actual injury expenses could differ from those in the MSA allocation report. Take prescription drugs as an example. A drug priced into a MSA report references a single NDC (National Drug Code), but that particular drug may have dozens of codes, representing different manufacturers, doses, forms, etc. It’s very likely your corner store pharmacy is going to fill your drug under a different code, and different price. The other corner store pharmacy right across from your corner store pharmacy may use still another code and price. A drug prescribed to treat a condition may become ineffective or create side effects undesired by the beneficiary and/or the prescribing physician. It is not uncommon for a physician to drop one medication in favor of another, or add or remove medications. This all changes the spend.

Also, the Medicare formulary changes annually. Something covered by Medicare today may not be covered in the future, and just because an expense was contemplated in a MSA report, it does not mean that the MSA funds should continue to cover it if that particular expense is no longer covered by Medicare. In summary, a beneficiary’s needs may change over time and the MSA allocation report is not designed to and cannot contemplate all of those changes at the time it is prepared.

What to Pay

So, what is actually to be paid from MSA funds? The answer is any and all Medicare allowable, injury-related expenses incurred on or after the date of settlement until the MSA funds are properly exhausted. Administration is all about stepping in front of Medicare to prevent any payment by it for injury-related expenses until MSA funds are gone. This is not accomplished by checking expenses against the list in the MSA allocation report. It is about identifying injury related expenses that Medicare would otherwise pay for and paying them at rates consistent with or below the applicable fee schedule. It is inaccurate to say that Medicare is responsible for any injury-related expenses not specifically contemplated by the MSA allocation. Such an assumption (though made more frequently than you may expect), if resulting in payments by Medicare for the injury while MSA funds still exist, represents an unlawful shift of burden to Medicare that may prompt a request for reimbursement if discovered.

In the event that real life is more expensive than the MSA report expected, what then? Medicare will assume primary responsibility for the injury’s Medicare allowable expenses once the MSA funds have been spent, provided those funds are spent properly. They will do this annually, in the case of temporary exhaustions, or from the point of permanent exhaustion onward. The key is the ability to demonstrate that the funds were spent according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service’s (CMS) guidelines. And what if the MSA report seems to have expected more expense than is actually realized? CMS wants those funds to remain in the MSA account in the event one of those unforeseen complications, hospitalizations, or changes in treatment comes along.

In conclusion, a MSA allocation is a valuable resource to any administrator of MSA funds to understand at a glance the nature of the injury and any co-morbid conditions that are specifically excluded. However, it should be used for what it was intended, namely, to arrive at an amount. Understanding the proper use of the MSA funds is critical to administering the funds correctly. A beneficiary who uses their MSA allocation report as a litmus test for what the MSA account can and cannot pay for may end up draining other settlement funds unnecessarily or end up shifting the burden to Medicare prematurely. Ultimately, improper administration places the beneficiary’s Medicare benefits at risk, as Medicare has the right to suspend benefits until it has recovered payments that should have been made by other primary funds.


[1] Medicare Secondary Payer Statute, 42 U.S.C. §1395y(b) a/k/a the MSP.

[2] See Section 8.1 titled Review Thresholds, Example 2 –“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.”

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

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.

How to Secure Medicare Lien Resolution (While Protecting Medicare’s Past Interests)
by

How to Secure Medicare Lien Resolution (While Protecting Medicare’s Past Interests)

Planning to protect Medicare’s future interests should be part of any diligent Medicare Secondary Payer Act[1] (MSP) compliance analysis.  However, because enforcement actions by the U.S. under the MSP have focused on reimbursement of Medicare for payments occurring prior to settlement, Medicare lien resolution (i.e. investigating and negotiating satisfactory payment of Medicare conditional payment reimbursement demands), should be placed at the top of the MSP compliance list by primary payers and those representing injured parties. We recently wrote about conditional payment correspondence from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) through its BCRC and CRC contractors, the updated functionality of the Medicare Secondary Payer Recovery Portal (MSPRP), and the importance of obtaining correct conditional payment amounts so settlements can move forward while protecting Medicare’s past interests. When the U.S. government’s conditional payment reimbursement amount (Medicare lien amount) is larger than a potential settlement amount or the payment of the full lien amount will take up a good portion of a Medicare beneficiary’s net settlement, a beneficiary will be less interested in settling. Enter Medicare lien resolution.

Medicare Lien Resolution Road Map

When we perform Medicare lien resolution, our goal is to get CMS to evaluate the Medicare lien amount compared to the net amount to be received by injured party after fees and costs are deducted. Additionally, we sometimes ask CMS to evaluate the Medicare lien amount compared to the weakened financial position/physical condition of the Medicare beneficiary after an accident. When the net settlement is unfairly low compared to the Medicare lien amount, CMS will often reduce the lien prior to settlement. There are several federal statutes and accompanying regulations that provide authority for CMS to reduce (compromise) or sometimes waive Medicare liens. The statutes and regulations outline standards and factors that may be considered for full or partial reductions of Medicare lien amounts. These factors often focus on the ability of the injured party to pay the lien, costs the government would incur to pursue collecting the lien, as well as the injured party’s financial/physical circumstances.

Medicare Lien Waiver Process

The Medicare lien waiver process is a more involved process than the compromise process. Waiver requests typically focus on the financial position of the injured Medicare beneficiary, who may have higher expenses and/or lower income after sustaining an injury. After settlement occurs and funds are transferred, while the MSP technically still allows the U.S. to pursue the primary payer (entity responsible for payment) when a Medicare beneficiary fails to satisfy a Medicare lien, the Medicare beneficiary is most often considered the debtor and pursued by CMS initially through the Benefits Coordination and Recovery Center (BCRC).  Attorneys for Medicare beneficiaries can also be caught in the MSP cross hairs.  Waiver requests for a Medicare beneficiary are sent to the BCRC. In turn, the BCRC typically asks for a SSA-632 form to be filled out with a variety of financial information about the beneficiary. Waiver determinations may be made by BCRC staff and are usually based on financial hardship.

To speed up the process and increase the likelihood of a positive outcome, it is a best practice when requesting a waiver to provide a full financial picture of the beneficiary, including either a completed SSA-632 form or as much of the information requested by that form as can be obtained, so BCRC staff will have adequate information to reach a fair determination. A waiver may be granted when continuing the collection would be against “equity and good conscience.” The process takes about 120 days from start to finish for a waiver determination to be made. If a conditional payment demand has been paid, a waiver or compromise request may still be made, and a refund will be considered. If the BCRC makes a determination to refund all or part of the prior payment, the refund will typically take an additional 3-4 weeks, depending on whether payment had been made to the BCRC directly or whether it was made to the Department of Treasury after a referral of the debt to Treasury by the BCRC.

Medicare Lien Compromise Process

If there is not a significant financial or physical hardship to the Medicare beneficiary, but the dollar amount of the projected settlement is low compared with the likely settlement value and/or the Medicare lien amount, an alternative to a waiver request is a Medicare lien compromise request. To request a compromise, a third-party representative may offer to pay a specific dollar amount on behalf of the beneficiary to fully compromise the outstanding Medicare debt/lien amount. The requester must include the settlement amount (or settlement offer), the amount they are asking CMS to accept as full payment, and the actual or projected attorney fees and costs associated with procuring the settlement. Attorney fees and costs are omitted when the beneficiary is not represented by counsel. CMS, through the BCRC, either responds by accepting the offer or presenting an alternate proposed amount. At that point, the beneficiary must pay the countered amount or if accepted, pay the accepted amount within 60 days of the BCRC response, or else the offer is no longer valid.

Letting a representative act on your client’s behalf in communicating and negotiating with CMS has helped lawyers save time and put more money in the pockets of their clients, while helping parties to the settlement comply with the MSP with respect to Medicare’s past interests.  Count on Medivest to help you with your Medicare lien resolution needs.


[1] 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(2) et seq.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Protecting Medicare’s Future Interests on the Horizon (For Auto, Liability (and Self-Insurance), No Fault, and Workers’ Compensation Cases)
by

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Protecting Medicare’s Future Interests on the Horizon (For Auto, Liability (and Self-Insurance), No Fault, and Workers’ Compensation Cases)

This week, under a “Miscellaneous Medicare Secondary Payer Clarifications and Updates” title, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provided information that in September of 2019 there will be a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and CMS, its sub agency that runs Medicare, to “ensure that beneficiaries are making the best health care choices possible by providing them and their representatives with the opportunity to select an option for meeting future medical obligations that fits their individual circumstances, while also protecting the Medicare Trust Fund.” The abstract acknowledges that “[c]urrently, Medicare does not provide its beneficiaries with guidance to help them make choices regarding their future medical care expenses when they receive automobile and liability insurance (including self-insurance) no fault insurance, and workers’ compensation settlements, judgments, awards, or payments, and need to satisfy their Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) obligations.” Interestingly, the projected NPRM will be geared to clarifying MSP obligations to protect Medicare’s future interests regarding injury related future medicals regardless of the case type.

Stakeholders in the MSP compliance community must always look first to the Medicare Secondary Payer statute (a series of provisions beginning at 42 U.S.C. §1395y(b) commonly referred to as the MSP) to help determine how to best comply with the statute. However, while the MSP prohibits Medicare from making payment when a primary payer should pay and makes an exception for Medicare to be able to make payments conditionally provided it gets paid back, no part of the MSP or any related regulation references the term Medicare Set-Aside (MSA) or addresses what a Medicare beneficiary’s obligations are under the law as it relates to Medicare’s future interests.

Because the law does not directly address MSAs or future interests of Medicare, parties look to case law interpreting the MSP, regulations issued by CMS, a Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set-Aside Arrangement (WCMSA) Reference Guide published by CMS, and MSP compliance companies and attorneys, to help guide MSP compliance decision making. While CMS has issued memos discussing MSAs and have clarified that there is no difference under the law between workers’ compensation and liability cases in terms of the need to consider and protect Medicare’s interests, uncertainty has remained as to the “how” and “when” as opposed to the “why”.

MSP stakeholders have been waiting for clarification from CMS regarding Liability Medicare Set-Asides (LMSAs) and No Fault MSAs for quite some time. It is generally understood that an injured party that receives payment from an injury complies with the MSP regarding Medicare’s future interests, when he or she does not prematurely bill Medicare for injury related Medicare covered medicals. In the workers’ compensation context, because CMS sets workload review thresholds at over $25,000 when an injured worker is a Medicare beneficiary and at over $250,000 when the injured worker has a reasonable expectation of becoming a Medicare beneficiary within 30 months, this has been a standard that many in the industry look to when trying to determine when to protect Medicare’s future interests in injury cases outside of the workers’ compensation field. This “when” has not yet been clarified by CMS. Confusion over the “how” to protect Medicare’s future interests has surrounded LMSAs because liability cases often settle for amounts lower than full case value due to questions over causation, comparative or contributory negligence or hybrids of those concepts, policy limits, caps on damages, along with the allowance for a variety of non-economic damages in liability cases. While the abstract describing the future Notice of Rulemaking does not use the term Medicare Set-Aside or MSA, it describes precisely what Medicare Set-Asides are designed to address.

As described, the proposed rule would address the protection of Medicare’s future interests in each of the Non Group Health Plan (NGHP) categories described in the MSP and its regulations, those being automobile and liability insurance (including self-insurance) no fault insurance, and workers’ compensation cases. The OMB notification defines the future action as a NPRM. Prior to the distribution of the Notice of Rulemaking, agencies typically publish a notice in the Federal Register called an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking or ANPRM, to “test out” a proposal or to solicit ideas before drafting its actual Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.  The ANPRM is often an intermediate step for an agency to let the public know it intends to take official action in creating a regulation in the Code of Federal Regulations pertaining to a statute. The statute this NPRM would relate to is the MSP. An ANPRM had been announced in 2012 and it sought public comment but was subsequently withdrawn.

We have also written about some private MSP stakeholder meetings in 2018 during which CMS indicated that, while subject to change, denial of service would be their primary enforcement mechanism with respect to injury related Medicare covered future medicals in the liability area when specifically discussing Liability Medicare Set-Asides (LMSAs). With the addition of a Mandatory Insurance Reporting (Section 111 Reporting) section in the MSP effective in 2009, and the collection of Medicare beneficiary injury data by CMS now approaching 10 years, it seems inevitable that denials of service will increase for Medicare beneficiaries who fail to set money aside to cover their injury related Medicare covered items, services, and expenses. Due to the private stakeholder meetings CMS has had, it is not known whether CMS will provide an ANPRM prior to the NPRM.

Therefore, it remains to be seen how soon regulations clarifying the obligations of parties to protect Medicare’s future interests will be promulgated. Medivest will continue to keep you apprised as this important Medicare future interest matter progresses.

Medicare Lien Investigation/Lien Resolution (Is Ignorance of MSPRP Procedures or Other CMS Access Channels a Valid Defense?)
by

Medicare Lien Investigation/Lien Resolution (Is Ignorance of MSPRP Procedures or Other CMS Access Channels a Valid Defense?)

Not following proper lien investigation procedures for the investigation and negotiation of Medicare liens can have far-reaching consequences on settling parties. Lien investigation means finding the dollar amount of conditional payments made by Medicare that are related to an injury for which another entity has the primary responsibility to pay under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (MSP)[1].  For a plaintiff and their attorney or even a defendant paying a third party settlement, there could be MSP conditional payment exposure with potential recovery actions from the U.S. government. In many areas of law, a party seeking to enforce a lien needs to first file a document in court, providing notice to the party against whom it seeks to enforce the lien.  The U.S.’s direct[2] statutory right to reimbursement of its conditional payments pursuant to the MSP does not require the filing of a document in court prior to becoming enforceable but does have a 60-day notice period from The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the agency that runs Medicare, after which interest begins accruing for parties that fail to pay CMS contractor final demands.  While the procedures establishing Medicare’s conditional payment reimbursement rights differ from other lien procedures, this direct reimbursement right of the U.S. under the MSP is often referred to as a lien right.

The Plaintiff in Mayo v. NYU Langone Medical Center, a New York state trial court case, seems to have gotten a second chance at settlement when the court vacated a Settlement Agreement in the amount of $725,000 when Plaintiff’s counsel received a letter soon after settlement requesting a much higher Medicare reimbursement than was originally discovered. While the court’s decision worked in favor of the Plaintiff this time, (giving the Plaintiff and attorney a second crack at a higher settlement or trial), if the motion was denied, the attorney might have been accused of committing legal malpractice.

In Mayo, the Plaintiff and Defendant each received different conditional payment letters from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). While not ideal, this can occur when duplicate files are generated from the two different contractors that CMS uses for collecting conditional payment reimbursements, often referred to as Medicare liens, stemming from liability/auto/self-insured, workers’ compensation and/or no-fault cases. The Plaintiff’s letter from the Benefits Coordination and Recovery Center (BCRC) indicated that Medicare’s conditional payment amount was $1,811.95. The Defendant’s letter from the Commercial Recovery Center (CRC) indicated that Medicare’s then existing lien amount for conditional payments was $2,824.50. Before requesting or obtaining a Final Demand from the CMS web portal, the parties created a written Settlement Agreement, agreeing to settle the matter in its entirety for $725,000 inclusive of what the parties contemplated as a “Medicare-final” conditional payment reimbursement of no more than $2,824.50. The Defendant never signed the Settlement Agreement. Prior to settlement funds being disbursed, a Final Demand from CMS was received by the Plaintiff, the Executor of an Estate of a Medicare beneficiary, asking for repayment of the shocking amount of $145,764.08.

The Plaintiff attempted to appeal the Final Demand amount at the first few administrative stages but was not able to be heard by a U.S. District Court because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.  Instead of completing all four administrative appeals before seeking federal court review, the Plaintiff went to state court and asked the court to void the Settlement Agreement. The Plaintiff argued that despite being in writing, the Settlement Agreement was unenforceable because it had not been signed by a representative for the Defendant and that there was a mutual mistake of fact concerning the Medicare lien amount. The court agreed with both arguments.

The CMS web portal, called the Medicare Secondary Payer Recovery Portal or MSPRP, was improved in July of 2018, to make it even easier for settling parties to obtain up to date conditional payment/lien reimbursement amounts. Congress, through the SMART Act amendments to the MSP[3], regulated by 42 C.F.R. § 411.39 of the Code of Federal Regulations, contemplated parties being able to rely on a download of a time and date stamped Final Conditional Payment Letter from the Medicare Secondary Payer Recovery Portal (MSPRP) provided there was proper notification/reporting of a pending settlement within 120 days prior to the anticipated settlement and after giving CMS at least 65 days to search for conditional payments to be reimbursed. The updated functionality of the web portal provides a tool allowing authorized users to view conditional payment correspondence and request electronic or paper copies of same.

On November 19, 2018, CMS announced a webinar on upcoming self-reporting functionality that will be added to the MSPRP in January 2019.  Medivest will monitor this MSPRP enhancement and has representatives that regularly communicate with CMS via phone, fax, mail and the CMS MSPRP web portal to help parties stay up to date with CMS and avoid misunderstandings like the one that occurred in the Mayo case.

Take Aways:

• It is crucial for prospective settling parties to investigate conditional payment reimbursement amounts or work with an entity familiar with lien investigation procedures.

• There is value in evaluating Conditional Payment Summary forms that accompany the conditional payment correspondence from Medicare to confirm all entries on the form are injury-related and/or determine whether some entries should be disputed[4].

• In addition to checking and verifying the correct demand amounts from CMS contractors, prior to settlement, steps should be taken by all parties to expand lien search inquiries beyond traditional Medicare (and Medicaid) to determine whether a Medicare Advantage Plan or Organization (MAP/MAO) made any conditional payments that could be recovered under the MSP.

• If a Claimant/Applicant is a Medicare Advantage Plan member and any payments by the Medicare Advantage Plan should have been paid by a primary payer, steps should be taken to get those conditional payments reimbursed promptly.

• During the lien investigation process, parties should analyze whether a compromise (reduction) of a lien or potentially a waiver may be appropriate.

• Medivest provides lien resolution services to help parties satisfactorily negotiate outstanding public and private health care matters including Medicare liens, Medicaid liens, Veterans Administration/TriCare liens, hospital liens, and doctors’ bills. Our lien resolution team works hard to dispute non-claim related bills, resolve and reduce outstanding bills/liens, and will seek refunds for amounts already paid when appropriate. Please reach out to discuss lien resolution today.


[1] 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(2) et. seq.

[2] The MSP also provides the U.S. subrogation rights, subrogating the U.S. to the rights of any Medicare beneficiary as follows:

(iv) Subrogation rights

The United States shall be subrogated (to the extent of payment made under this subchapter for such an item or service) to any right under this subsection of an individual or any other entity to payment with respect to such item or service under a primary plan.

42 U.S.C.A. § 1395y (West)

[3] The MSP law says,

(III) Use of timely web download as basis for final conditional amount
If an individual (or other claimant or applicable plan with the consent of the individual) obtains a statement of reimbursement amount from the website during the protected period as defined in subclause (V) and the related settlement, judgment, award or other payment is made during such period, then the last statement of reimbursement amount that is downloaded during such period and within 3 business days before the date of the settlement, judgment, award, or other payment shall constitute the final conditional amount subject to recovery under clause (ii) related to such settlement, judgment, award, or other payment.

42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(2)(B)(vii)(III).

The protected period defined in subclause (V) is a 65-day period that can sometimes be extended another 30 days after a party, their attorney or other representative (such as a MSP Compliance company) has notified CMS through the MSP recovery web portal of a pending liability insurance (including self-insurance), no-fault insurance, or workers’ compensation settlement, judgment, award or other payment (“Settlement”). The entire process is outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) at 42 C.F.R. § 411.39. If after the 65 day Protected Period, the date/time stamped Final Conditional Payment Letter is downloaded within three days of a settlement, parties may reasonably rely on that Final Conditional Payment Letter. There seems to be some uncertainty whether the MSPRP Final Conditional Payment Letter may be re-requested at a later date if the settlement occurs later.

[4] There should be primary diagnosis codes obtained from the insurance carrier’s/Responsible Reporting Entity’s report of the claim under Section 111 of the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (MSP). It is important to parse out payments for co-morbid and other non-injury related payments made by Medicare that don’t count as conditional payments because disputes may only be made once during this process. Once disputed, unless CMS responds within 11 days from receipt, the dispute will be considered granted.

Does Self-Administration Ever Make Sense?
by

Does Self-Administration Ever Make Sense?

Injured parties receiving lump sum settlements tend to spend their settlement money quickly. This quick spend risk is often described as dissipation risk. Statistics in a personal injury practice guide by The Rutter Group indicate that somewhere between 25 and 30% of accident victims spend all settlement money within two months of receiving the funds and that up to 90% of accident victims use all settlement proceeds within five years[1]. It would, therefore, seem prudent for attorneys representing injured parties to caution their clients about the quick spending tendency and to discuss ways to reduce that risk. One method to help reduce dissipation risk is the use of structured settlements with regular tax-free annuity payments, discussed in footnotes 4-6 of a prior blog article. Another option is using a professional administrator for payment of medical needs through Medical Custodial Accounts (MCAs) or via Medicare Set-Aside (MSA) accounts specifically designed to protect Medicare’s Trust Funds by preventing premature billing of Medicare for future injury related Medicare covered medical items and services (future medicals).  MSAs, which can and are often funded via structured settlement arrangements, are most often considered when the injured party is a Medicare beneficiary or has a reasonable expectation of becoming one within 30 months of judgment, settlement, award or other payment (settlement) (30-month Medicare window[2]), and the settlement compensates future medicals that would ordinarily be covered and reimbursable by Medicare.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) suggests in section 17.0 of its Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set Aside Arrangement (WCMSA) Reference Guide, currently in Version 2.8, that WCMSAs “should be administered by a competent administrator” and provides examples such as a professional administrator, a representative payee, the claimant, etc. Other than cases with traumatic brain injuries for which a court may render a person legally incompetent, the question becomes whether there should be a minimum level of competence for a person to be deemed capable of self-administering a WCMSA or a Liability MSA (LMSA).

CMS explains the administration process in section 17.5 of the WCMSA Reference Guide. Requirements for administration are summarized by CMS as follows:

• Claimants should submit annual self-attestations, just as professional administrators would.

• WCMSA funds must be deposited into interest-bearing accounts separate from any personal savings or checking accounts.

• WCMSA funds may only be used for medical services and prescription drug expenses related to the workers’ compensation injury that would normally be paid by/otherwise reimbursable by Medicare.

• CMS provides some examples of care/items that Medicare does not pay for including acupuncture, routine dental care, eyeglasses or hearing aids, and suggests that claimants get a copy of the booklet entitled “Medicare & You” for a more detailed list of non-Medicare covered items.

• CMS cautions that “if funds from the WCMSA are used to pay for services other than Medicare-allowable medical expenses related to medically necessary services and prescription drug expenses, Medicare will not pay injury-related claims until these funds are restored to the WCMSA account and then properly used up.”

• Even if a person is not a current Medicare beneficiary, the requirements and prohibitions are the same as if the injured party were a Medicare beneficiary.

• While whether to submit a WCMSA to CMS for review is voluntary, Claimants that lose Medicare entitlement after such CMS approval, “. . . are not entitled to release of WCMSA funds if they lose their Medicare entitlement. However, the funds in the WCMSA may be used for medical expenses specified in the WCMSA until Medicare entitlement is re-established or the WCMSA is exhausted.”

Are the above bullets easy to understand and follow? Does the WCMSA Reference Guide language clearly explain what is expected? Even if a person can understand what they are reading, are injured parties likely to comply with the described procedures?

Regarding WCMSAs, The National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. (NCCI) published a February 2018 research brief updating its 2014 study on WCMSA reviews. According to the 2018 NCCI brief, approximately 98% of all WCMSAs (from the study’s 11,000 MSA data sample between 2010 and 2015) were self-administered.

Shouldn’t CMS want to try to plug this 98% administration compliance hole? CMS has “highly recommended that settlement recipients consider the use of a professional administrator for their funds”, does that language go far enough to protect the Medicare Trust Funds, one of which (covering Medicare Part A hospital insurance) is on track to be exhausted in 2026, three years earlier than projected just a year ago?

Are injured parties flying blind when self-administering their MSA funds? How does the dissipation risk described above affect injured parties’ decision-making process? There is an entire industry devoted to helping injured parties consider and protect Medicare’s interests in accordance with the Medicare Secondary Payer Act[3] and that keep up with CMS policies on WCMSAs, LMSAs, and administration. Regardless of whether CMS might ever mandate professional administration, insurance carriers and attorneys for injured parties should want competent and professional compliance partners to dispute and negotiate Medicare conditional payment reimbursements, estimate future injury related Medicare covered medicals, and above all else, to help injured parties competently administer their Medicare Set-Aside funds.

After all, should injured parties really be the ones making payments, coordinating benefits and/or negotiating bills? Can they really be expected to keep up with the detailed accounting and  reporting expected by CMS? CMS has shown a rekindled interest in both review of WCMSAs and LMSAs with the increased scope of work and dollar amount of its awarded WCRC Contract and in its recoveries of conditional payments. Because best in class administrators provide network discounts for Durable Medical Equipment and Prescription Drug pricing through Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs), professional administration can help ease the burden of MSP compliance and save injured parties money.

Take Aways:

• Professional administration should be thoroughly discussed with injured parties by their attorneys. After all, lawyers are not only attorneys, but “Counselors at Law”.

• Insurance carriers and their attorneys should see also see value in minimizing MSP exposure.

• Even when outside the commonly referred to 30-month Medicare window, when future medicals are in play, parties to a settlement should strongly consider the use of a professional administrator, regardless of whether the primary driver is to coordinate and negotiate bills, or to reduce dissipation risk.

• The need for professional administration becomes even more apparent when the injured party is within the 30-month Medicare window, now combining the advantages of wiser spending with reduced MSP exposure.

• Allowing non-competent individuals to self-administer MSA funds turns a blind eye on our nations’ at-risk Medicare Trust Funds.

• MSP enforcement by CMS regarding past medicals will likely continue to proceed via the conditional payment recovery process. MSP enforcement by CMS regarding future medicals will likely be addressed through denial of Medicare coverage for injury related medicals when beneficiaries ignore the law or don’t keep accurate records of their Medicare covered medical spending.


[1] The Rutter Group, “California Practice Guide: Personal Injury” Chapter 4.

[2] CMS workload thresholds established for suitability of review of WCMSAs, as listed in the current WCMSA Reference Guide, have one tier for claimants who are Medicare beneficiaries and one for claimants with a reasonable expectation of becoming enrolled in Medicare within 30 months of judgment, settlement, award or other payment.

[3] 42 U.S.C. §1395y(b)(2) et. seq.

 

New Section 111 Reporting User Guide Published by CMS (But No New Information Provided on Penalties for Noncompliance)
by

New Section 111 Reporting User Guide Published by CMS (But No New Information Provided on Penalties for Noncompliance)

On October 1, 2018 the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) published a new user guide for entities in the Non Group Health Plan (NGHP[1]) category, regarding Section 111 Mandatory Insurance Reporting under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act’s (MSP)[2] amendment called the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP[3] Extension Act of 2007 (MMSEA). The MMSEA reporting obligations are commonly referred to as Section 111 Reporting or simply Section 111 because they were listed in Section 111 of the Public Law amendment to the MSP[4]. Section 111 requires NGHP entities or in some cases, Third Party Administrators for NGHP entities, as Responsible Reporting Entities (RREs), to report data to CMS about injury claims. The reporting which must be electronically transmitted, is sent to CMS through its Benefits Coordination & Recovery Center (BCRC) contractor, and includes a large amount of information identifying Medicare beneficiaries, their injuries, their legal representatives, dates of injury, dates of payment, whether injury-related payments are ongoing or are paid in lump sums etc., provided the annually updated dollar threshold for reporting (currently $750 for accident or exposure cases) is met.

The updated MMSEA Section 111 Medicare Secondary Payer Mandatory Reporting Liability Insurance (Including Self-Insurance), No-Fault Insurance, and Workers’ Compensation USER GUIDE (Section 111 User Guide) is now in version 5.4.

Only two changes were announced in the new version of the Section 111 User Guide. The first change was the addition of an updated Paperwork Reduction Act disclosure and the second change was an update to the contact protocol for the Section 111 data exchange escalation process. The updated contact protocol is listed in its entirety below:

8.2 Contact Protocol for the Section 111 Data Exchange
In all complex electronic data management programs there is the potential for an occasional breakdown in information exchange.
If you have a program or technical problem involving your Section 111 data exchange, the first person to contact is your own EDI Representative at the BCRC. Your EDI Representative should always be sought out first to help you find solutions for any questions, issues or problems you have. If you have not yet been assigned an EDI Representative, please call the EDI Department number at 646-458-6740 for assistance.

Escalation Process

The CMS and the BCRC places great importance in providing exceptional service to its customers. To that end, we have developed the following escalation process to ensure our customers’ needs are met. It is imperative that RREs and their reporting agents follow this process so that BCRC Management can address and prioritize issues appropriately.

1. Contact your EDI Representative at the BCRC. If you have not yet been assigned an EDI Representative, please call the EDI Department number at 646-458-6740 for assistance.

2. If your Section 111 EDI Representative does not respond to your inquiry or issue within two business days, you may contact the EDI Director, Angel Pagan, at 646-458-2121. Mr. Pagan’s email is apagan@ehmedicare.com.

3. If the EDI Director does not respond to your inquiry or issue within one business day, you may contact the BCRC Project Director, Jim Brady, who has overall responsibility for the EDI Department and technical aspects of the Section 111 reporting process. Mr. Brady can be reached at 646-458-6682. His email address is JBrady@ehmedicare.com. Please contact Mr. Brady only after attempting to resolve your issue following the escalation protocol provided above.

When initially enacted on December 29, 2007, the enforcement clause under 42 U.S.C. §1395y(b)(8)(E) announced that applicable plans “shall be subject to a civil money penalty of $1,000 for each day of noncompliance with respect to each claimant.” That clause was changed with the SMART Act amendment to the MSP on January 10, 2013, effective at the beginning of 2014, to the phrase “may be subject to a civil money penalty of up to $1,000 for each day of noncompliance with respect to each claimant.” In this same 2013 SMART Act MSP amendment, an additional paragraph was added requiring the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Secretary) to publish a notice in the Federal Register soliciting proposals during a 60-day period, specifying practices by which enforcement sanctions would or would not be imposed under subparagraph (E). After proposals were to be submitted and considered, the Secretary, in consultation with the Attorney General, and after a 60-day comment period, was to publish in the Federal Register proposed specified practices for which enforcement sanctions will and will not be imposed and to later issue final rules specifying applicable enforcement practices. About a year after the SMART Act amendment was enacted, CMS sought comment through an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) for the types of practices that would or would not result in civil money penalties, along with other related questions.  Final rules have still not been announced.

CMS wants “clean data” to be reported through Section 111 and has a process in place to test and reject reporting that does not meet CMS’ data quality rules.  How and when penalties for noncompliance with Section 111 will really be enforced will likely not be answered until CMS, through the Secretary of HHS, takes the required regulatory steps of issuing final rules on the subject.  Therefore, while most insurance companies and TPAs have set up internal systems to comply with Section 111, or paired with reporting agent vendors to help them comply, there is still time for Responsible Reporting Entities to establish a system to report Section 111 data without fear of reprisal.

Interestingly, another SMART Act initiative is now in its final stages of completion.  That initiative has been the gradual removal of Social Security Numbers from Medicare ID numbers through the replacement of the SSN-based Health Insurance Claim Number (HICN) with a new non-SSN-based Medicare Beneficiary Identifier (MBI).  CMS has estimated this project to be completed by April 2019.  It has mailed almost 35 million new Medicare cards to date with a majority of seven total “waves” of mailing completed. Will CMS begin tackling the reporting conundrum next? While companies doing reporting may still use the HICN and are not yet required to use the MBI in Section 111 Reporting, it would be wise for companies to plan ahead and ready themselves for transmission of the new MBI format Medicare ID in the future.


[1] Entities in the NGHP category include Liability Insurance (including Self-Insureds), Workers Compensation Plans, and No-Fault Insurance.

[2] 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(2) et seq.

[3] SCHIP stands for State Children’s Health Insurance Program

[4] Section 111 of the Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (MMSEA) (P.L. 110-173, Title I, §111(a)), found within the MSP at 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(8).

 

Conditional Payment Collections – Make It Stop!
by

Conditional Payment Collections – Make It Stop!

When Medicare makes a payment for medical items, services or expenses that another entity (Primary Plans or Primary Payers[1]) should pay under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (MSP) [2], the payments that are made by Medicare are called conditional payments.  Under the MSP provisions and its regulations, Medicare is entitled to be reimbursed for its conditional payments. The U.S. Department of Treasury (Treasury) has authority to collect conditional payments after being referred MSP debt cases from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the agency that runs the Medicare program, when Primary Payers/settlement parties fail to timely pay final demands for conditional payments issued by CMS contractors.  Treasury collection tools include the Treasury Offset Program, that allows Treasury to divert tax refunds or government benefits that would otherwise flow to Medicare beneficiaries or Primary Plans, as well as Private Collection Agency actions. If conditional payments are not timely paid to Treasury, the U.S. may also file lawsuits directly under the MSP through the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Secretary). Appealing the amount of the debt and/or requesting a reduction of the conditional payment demand amount via the compromise process is supposed to stop or at least delay the collections process while the appeal/compromise request is pending.

At the October 2018 educational conference of the National Alliance of Medicare Set-Aside Professionals in Baltimore, during a presentation led by Ted Doyle, V.P. Healthcare Markets for Performant Recovery, Inc., the Commercial Repayment Center (CRC) contractor for CMS, several members of the audience voiced concerns over the CRC prematurely referring conditional payment collections cases to Treasury. The frustration focused on the difficulty of getting prematurely referred debt recalled from Treasury. It seems that even when people take steps to appeal the debt and/or request reductions via the compromise (or waiver) process, collections can sometimes mistakenly proceed. Jacqueline Cipa, the Deputy Director for the CMS Division of MSP Program Operations, recommended diligent follow up by requesting an internal “elevation”/review with the appropriate CMS contractor and suggested that if a Treasury referral error is not corrected, to reach out to her via e-mail at Jacqueline.cipa@cms.gov.

The CRC contractor is usually the entity in charge of collecting conditional payment reimbursements from commercial Primary Payers prior to any Treasury involvement[3].  The Benefits Coordination & Recovery Center (BCRC) contractor for CMS, on the other hand, is the only entity to initiate collection attempts for reimbursement of conditional payments from Medicare beneficiaries. Primary Payers such as insurance carriers or Third Party Administrators (TPAs) sometimes use reporting agents for their MSP Section 111 Mandatory Insurance Reporting obligations under the MSP[4].  Those reporting agents are often the ones that are sent conditional payment correspondence, demand letters, intent to refer letters, and potentially, Treasury collection letters. If a reporting agent fails to provide notification to the respective carrier or TPA it reports for, a conditional payment collection could develop and be referred to Treasury before the carrier/TPA knows about it. Under that scenario, a lack of communication between the reporting agent and its client might lead to a referral of conditional payment debt without it technically being premature.  However, if a debt is referred to Treasury as a result of an error, the responsible party should take immediate steps to recall the debt. If using a third party for reporting purposes, consider setting up a calendar system to follow up with any reporting agents to help prevent an inadvertent Treasury referral.

Regardless of whether a referral to Treasury has been made or not, it is wise to make a written request for a Redetermination (first level appeal) and to also consider whether a compromise (or even waiver in cases regarding Medicare beneficiaries) might be appropriate. There is a five-level appeal process if a party decides to appeal conditional payment reimbursement debt. The first four levels of appeal are administrative remedies and the fifth is a court based remedy, with a review by a U.S. District (federal) Court. If the matter is timely appealed at any level, collection action through the BCRC, CRC, or Treasury should stop until the respective appeals stage is completed.

A party is timely with its first level of appeal by providing a written request for a Redetermination within 120 days of a final demand. The appeal phase directly after a Redetermination is called a Reconsideration.  It must be requested within 180 days of the Redetermination, may include new evidence, and is decided by a Qualified Independent Contractor (QIC). The third level of appeal must be requested within 60 days of the Reconsideration decision, is generally only based on the evidence previously presented during the first two appeal phases (unless good reason is shown why it was left out previously), and is heard before an Administrative Law Judge(ALJ). If the ALJ decision is unfavorable, the fourth appeal level is a request for Council Review within 60 days of the decision and takes place before the Medicare Appeals Council.  The final appeal goes before a U.S. District Court and must be filed within 60 days of the Medicare Appeals Council Review. The entire process of exhausting administrative remedies takes a minimum of 420 days and is required before a party is allowed to appear before a federal judge.

Because going to federal court takes so much time and can become quite expensive, especially during the last two stages of appeal, parties have found it beneficial to enter into negotiations with the appropriate CMS contractor/CMS Collection Officer/Regional Office as appropriate for compromises of the conditional reimbursement amounts while the appeals process is taking place. The compromise/negotiation process can be established and run at the same time as the appeals process. Many times, matters can be satisfactorily resolved before having to move to even the second level of appeal. Medivest is available to help parties negotiate conditional payment reimbursement amounts/liens and appeal conditional payment amounts. Please contact us to discuss best practices regarding conditional payment negotiations/appeals.


[1] Both Group Health Plans and Non Group Health Plans (NGHPs) are Primary Plans under the MSP. Entities in the NGHP category include Liability Insurance (including Self-Insureds), Workers Compensation Plans, and No Fault Insurance.

[2] 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(2) et seq.

[3] For commercial matters, it is most often the CRC contractor that sends these letters, although for matters prior to October 2015, and more recently during backlogs associated with the changeover to the new CRC contractor, the BCRC has initiated files for some commercial repayment matters. Parties are urged to pay careful attention to which entity sends each letter and to provide development information or other responses and/or requests to the respective entity that sends the letter.

[4] Section 111 of the Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (MMSEA) (P.L. 110-173), found within the MSP at 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(8).

New WCMSA Reference Guide Version 2.8 Published by CMS
by

New WCMSA Reference Guide Version 2.8 Published by CMS

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released its latest Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set-Aside Arrangement (WCMSA) Reference Guide as Version 2.8 on October 1, 2018. The changes announced by CMS in this latest version of the WCMSA Reference Guide are described below:

• The discontinuation of Social Security Number (SSN)-based Medicare identifiers by CMS and the distribution of a new 11-byte Medicare Beneficiary Identifier (MBI)-based card to each Medicare beneficiary by April 2019 as required by Section 501 of the Medicare Access and CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program) Reauthorization Act (MACRA) of 2015 was confirmed. Fields formerly labeled as “Health Insurance Claim Number” (HICN) have been relabeled as “Medicare ID” and will accept either the traditional HICN or the new MBI[1].

• Information regarding the Verifying Jurisdiction and Calculation Method for Medical Review was updated. Under Section 9.4.4 Medical Review of the WCMSA Reference Guide, CMS explains that the Workers’ Compensation Review Center/Contractor (WCRC) follows ten steps in its medical review process. The fifth step is to verify the jurisdiction and calculation method. Updates have been made to this fifth step of medical review, specifically in the tables describing the order of jurisdictional precedence (broken down between updated Table 9-1 covering “Normal Pricing) and the new table, Table 9-2 covering “Other Pricing”). The general rules for verifying jurisdiction have not changed[2].

The order of jurisdictional precedence will follow the charts listed in Table 9-1 and Table 9-2.

Table 9-1 is the same as in version 2.7 except for scenario number 6, where it now explains (by example) that if the WC carrier’s attorney does not have an address in the state in which the WC claim was filed, pricing will be based on the zip code where the injury occurred.

Table 9-2 is a new table for the WCMSA Reference Guide with highlights listed below.

  • If a case is filed with the U.S. Department of Labor Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP); pricing is based using the OWCP Fee schedule
  •  If submitted documentation indicates that a proposed WCMSA amount is based on a Longshore Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (Longshore Act) settlement; pricing is based on the OWCP fee schedule for the zip code of claimant’s residence, unless the submitter specifies actual charges
  • If a state WC fee schedule does not exist based on the jurisdiction evaluation referenced above (Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, New Jersey, Virginia, and Wisconsin); pricing is based on actual charges, even if the submitter proposed the use of a fee schedule
  • If a state WC fee schedule exists based on the jurisdictional evaluation described above; pricing is based on the most current version of the fee schedule posted publicly

• The link to the CDC Life Expectancy Table has been updated in Section 10.3 paragraph number 7 as follows: All rated ages shall be accompanied by a written justification on how such age was determined. For example, if a rated age obtained from life insurance companies for like injuries/illnesses is the method of evaluation, include documentation to support the life expectancy. CMS will project the cost of the claimant’s future treatment over the claimant’s life expectancy, using the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Tables. Please see the WCMSA site for information on the latest tables to use.

While not new, it is always good to remember the following caution by CMS:

Do not include the following:

  • Actuarial charts or life expectancy charts from the CDC or elsewhere, or statements that there are no rated ages.

  • Do not include any documents on rated ages that contain redacted data. They will not be considered.

Questions you may have about these changes or any other matters covered in the WCMSA Reference Guide are welcomed by Medivest.


[1] Examples of where the new MBI is incorporated into the WCMSA Reference Guide include:

• Page 3 of the WCMSA Reference Guide refers to this update when contacting the Benefits Coordination & Recovery Center (BCRC) to confirm the injured person’s Medicare ID (HICN, MBI or SSN).
• Page 33, under Section 05 – Cover Letter (WCMSA submission letter) indicates: Claimant’s Medicare ID (HICN or MBI) as displayed on their Medicare card or their SSN, if not yet entitled to Medicare, is required in the submission.
• Page 63, Appendix 2: The Abbreviations List now includes MBI – Medicare Beneficiary Identifier.
• Page 67, an update to the definition of Social Security Number: The SSN is an identification number issued by the Social Security Administration and used instead of a Medicare ID (HICN or MBI) when the Medicare ID is not present.
• The sample letters found in Appendix 5 replace SSN or HICN with Medicare ID or Medicare ID/SSN.

[2] This section explains the general rule that jurisdiction for fee schedule selection and pricing depends upon where the WC claim is filed (the state that will control any WC hearing). It then lists some specifics.  “If the claim is filed in the same state of residence as the claimant, pricing shall be calculated based on the zip code of the claimant. If the claimant resides in a state other than the state of jurisdiction for the WC claim, pricing is calculated based on the zip code associated with the employer’s address. If the employer is not located in the state where the WC claim is filed, pricing is calculated based on the zip code of the claimant’s attorney. If the claimant is not represented by an attorney, pricing is calculated based on the zip code of the WC carrier. If the carrier is also not located in the state where the WC claim is filed, pricing is calculated based on the zip code of the carrier’s attorney.”

Updated Medicare Secondary Payer Recovery Portal (MSPRP) and User Guide
by

Updated Medicare Secondary Payer Recovery Portal (MSPRP) and User Guide

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has a web portal called the Medicare Secondary Payer Recovery Portal (MSPRP) used by settling parties or those with authorization[1], to investigate and confirm the dollar amount of injury related medicals paid by Medicare. When Medicare makes injury related payments for medical items and services prior to a judgment, settlement, award or other payment to a Medicare beneficiary, those payments are called conditional payments and need to be reimbursed to Medicare, or otherwise resolved via lien resolution. CMS uses its Benefits Coordination and Recovery Center (BCRC) contractor to both gather information about claims and their pending resolutions from beneficiaries and carriers and to most often pursue collection of the Medicare beneficiaries for recovery of conditional payments contemplated to be paid back pursuant to the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (MSP)[2]. CMS uses its Commercial Repayment Center (CRC) to develop recovery cases against commercial entities that are primary to Medicare under the MSP including both Group Health Plans (GHPs) and Non Group Health Plans (NGHPs). An entity classified under the NGHP designation would include any liability insurance plan including an auto-insurer or a self-insured entity, a workers’ compensation plan, or a no fault insurer.

Therefore, parties involved in resolving liability, workers’ compensation or no fault claims should continue to focus their attention on and use the MSPRP. This July, CMS released an updated version of the MSPRP User Guide (Version 4.2) after increasing the functionality of the portal to help provide a more efficient process for both beneficiaries and insurers (and respective representatives/recovery agents) to obtain updated conditional payment information. Changes to the MSPRP, discussed in a CMS webinar on August 16, 2018, included allowing authorized persons/entities access to view correspondence sent and received on files in chronological order, to request electronic or paper copies of conditional payment correspondence, to confirm primary diagnosis codes on payment summary forms, and to even request a waiver for lien resolution (only after a recovery demand has been issued) and/or file a first level appeal concerning a determination of the conditional payment amounts to be reimbursed to Medicare. Future enhancements to the MSPRP may include a more convenient way for Medicare beneficiaries or authorized agents to notify the BCRC of pending cases and a way to make conditional payment reimbursements via the portal.

For cases that arose prior to October 1, 2015 and anytime that a backlog may exist, the BCRC also may pursue collections from commercial entities for recovery of conditional payments. For example, the BCRC is currently helping the CRC contractor, Performant Recovery, Inc. with a backlog it inherited when it took over the CRC contract from CGI in February of 2018[3]. While slightly confusing, case numbers are based on what entity sends the letter instead of based on the type of case. Therefore, the BCRC uses its traditional numbering system for all of its cases regardless of whether it is pursuing a beneficiary or a commercial entity, so it is important to pay attention to who sends the letter and what the letter is requesting, instead of concentrating on the case number. The entity that sends the letter is the entity to which you should address responses and follow up correspondence. The CRC on the other hand, is solely focused on commercial collections. When the CRC initiates a NGHP collection, the MSPRP is the web portal to access to check on the conditional payment reimbursement.

CMS recently announced that it will host a webinar providing an overview of the functions of a currently existing web portal called the Commercial Repayment Center Portal (CRCP) that involves claims outside the NGHP scope. While the CRCP involves the CRC, this upcoming CMS webinar (September 19, 2018) only pertains to CRC’s recoveries in the Group Health realm. There has been no indication from CMS that the CRCP functions would or even might be expanded to accommodate CRC collections for NGHP matters that will instead remain with the MSPRP.

In addition to the authorization backlogs referenced above, there seems to have been a delay in obtaining conditional payment amounts in writing from the new CRC contractor via phone communication or traditional written correspondence. Hopefully, the updates to the MSPRP web portal will begin to help alleviate some of the delays that have been experienced by prospective settling parties by allowing for timely electronic confirmation of receipt of authorizations and access to updated conditional payment information.


[1] All authorizations are forwarded to the BCRC. Authorization for a Medicare beneficiary will typically require a Proof of Representation form signed by the Medicare beneficiary (or someone legally authorized to act on their behalf if they are incapacitated) in favor of the representative along with written documentation from the attorney for the Claimant/Applicant/Plaintiff documenting the chain of representation and intent for the representative to be able to transmit and receive information and act on behalf of the beneficiary for CMS purposes. Authorization for a commercial entity will typically require a Consent to Release form signed by the Medicare beneficiary and a Letter of Authority from the commercial entity/carrier demonstrating the intent for the representative to be able to openly communicate and act on the commercial entity’s behalf with CMS via a “two-way street”.
[2] 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(2) et. seq.
[3] Jacqueline Cipa, Department Director, Division of Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) Program Operations for CMS, explained in a presentation at the Workers’ Compensation Institute (WCI) annual conference in Orlando in August 2018 that there is a backlog for confirmations of receipt of authorization documents at the CRC of up to 45 days.

Liability Medicare Set-Asides (LMSAs) – A Glimpse into the Future
by

Liability Medicare Set-Asides (LMSAs) – A Glimpse into the Future

Last week, the National Alliance of Medicare Set-Aside Professionals (NAMSAP) released a bulletin by Tom Stanley, co-chair of NAMSAP’s Liability MSP Advisory Committee, describing what he learned in a private meeting with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in April 2018. In the meeting, which focused solely on liability Medicare Set-Asides (LMSAs), CMS representatives indicated that there will be an 18-month timeframe before rolling out a LMSA review program. Also, similar to the choice of whether to submit a Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set-Aside allocation report (WCMSA) for review by CMS for Workers’ Compensation claim resolutions that meet CMS established monetary and Medicare eligibility thresholds[1], the choice of whether to submit a LMSA to CMS for review under the new program would also be voluntary.

Other points brought up by CMS for LMSAs are paraphrased below:

• Denial of services for the affected body parts/injury is considered a “primary enforcement mechanism.”
• The injured party must receive something free and clear through judgment, settlement, award, or other payment (“Settlement”).
• Review of a LMSA would not occur until a Settlement has been reached.
• That a LMSA (and presumably the administration of the money set aside) is exclusively the responsibility of the plaintiff and that defendants, and their insurers, are not a “target” of CMS with respect to LMSAs.
• CMS would publish a LMSA Reference Guide.
• Individuals meeting the “eligibility” threshold for LMSAs would remain the same as the current WCMSA system – those Medicare beneficiaries or injured parties who have a reasonable expectation of Medicare enrollment within 30 months.
• There is no projected change in the law and pursuant to the Medicare Secondary Payer statute (MSP)[2], Medicare’s interest must be considered in every claim.
• A workload threshold of above $250,000 is anticipated – “NO SAFE HARBOR”. This level is analogous to the above $25,000 workload threshold for WCMSAs.
• For Settlements above $250,000 and up to $750,000, CMS review/approval would be available and encouraged by CMS. CMS would apply “a formula” to determine the LMSA amount. Starting with the total Settlement amount, CMS would subtract certain expenses and apply a discount factor to the total Settlement.
• Settlements above $750,000 would be presumed to fund all future medicals (considered full commutations) and for those cases, CMS would recommend the preparation of traditional LMSAs.

We have explained in the past that the creation of a Medicare Set-Aside (MSA) is not required by law for any type of case. However, in the Stalcup Memo[3], CMS provided its interpretation of the MSP by saying “[t]he law requires that the Medicare Trust Funds be protected from payment for future services whether it is a Workers’ Compensation or liability case. There is no distinction in the law.” Furthermore, while clarifying that a MSA allocation report is not mandated by CMS, the Stalcup memo announced that “[s]et aside is our method of choice and the agency feels it provides the best protection for the program and the Medicare beneficiary. The long-awaited LMSA review process may have been delayed (prior hints from CMS were that LMSA reviews might start as early as July 2018) due to a realization by CMS that reviewing LMSAs will be a huge undertaking with many factors to consider.

Take Aways from Meeting on LMSAs:

• When the injured party receives something (free and clear) through Settlement etc., that payment triggers the need to evaluate and protect Medicare’s interests.

• If you don’t consider and protect Medicare’s future interests at the time of Settlement and take steps to not prematurely bill Medicare, Medicare can deny payment for those body parts claimed and/or released by Settlement.

• Plaintiff counsel should take steps to educate themselves and their clients on all aspects of MSP compliance and formulate strategies to reasonably consider Medicare’s interests when Settlements fund future medicals and injured clients fall within the Medicare eligibility “window”.

• CMS should seek help from stakeholders in the MSP compliance community, the judiciary, and financial analysts to examine historical data to consider developing more than one formula to be able to reasonably address varying liability case types and differing legal and factual scenarios.

• The percentage of the net Settlement proceeds a beneficiary will receive as a ratio to the full value of the case after deducting procurement costs, attorney’s fees, and Medicare liens etc. can vary greatly and should be taken into consideration.

• There are many reasons liability cases may settle for less than full value including questions of causation, policy limits in place, and percentages of fault that can vary by state, under theories of applicable comparative negligence, contributory negligence or some hybrid thereof.

• The idea that CMS may now consider evaluating apportioned LMSA allocations and taking some of the factors leading to reduced Settlement values into consideration when reviewing LMSAs seems to be a step in the right direction.


[1] The current WCMSA threshold is for Workers’ Compensation claims with a judgment, settlement, award, or other payment (“Settlement”) above $25,000 for current Medicare beneficiaries and above $250,000 and for those with a reasonable expectation of becoming enrolled in Medicare within 30 months of the Settlement.

[2] 42 U.S.C. §1395y(b)(2) et seq.

[3] Sally Stalcup, MSP Regional Coordinator, Region VI (May 25, 2011 Handout).

Medicare Lien Enforcement – Time to Take Notice
by

Medicare Lien Enforcement – Time to Take Notice

In addition to Medicare being a secondary payer to workers’ compensation as it has been since Medicare was established in 1965, the Medicare Secondary Payer Act of 1980, found at 42 U.S.C. §1395y(b) et seq. (MSP) made Medicare secondary to auto, liability (including self-insureds), and no-fault insurance. These entities or insurance plans, including workers’ compensation plans, are referred to in the MSP as primary plans (Primary Plans).

The MSP allows the U.S. to pursue a double damages recovery for two times the amount Medicare conditionally paid toward injury-related medicals when a Primary Plan should have made those payments. Medicare lien enforcement lawsuits seeking conditional payment recovery by the U.S. must be brought within three years “. . . after the date of receipt of notice of a settlement, judgment, award, or other payment . . . .” Conditional payment recovery suits have historically been focused on protecting Medicare’s past interests although technically, conditional payments can also occur after a settlement. There have been conflicting results in courts over whether the double damages remedy applies only to a Primary Plan or extends to those receiving money from a Primary Plan, such as Medicare beneficiaries (Beneficiaries) or their attorneys.

Pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 411.24(h), reimbursement of Medicare must occur within 60 days and if not, interest may accrue at close to ten percent under 45 C.F.R. § 30.13. Due to this high rate of interest and the looming threat of double damages, the standard in the lien resolution industry is to pay the amount demanded and request a partial refund, unless a resolution can be reached before settlement with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the agency that runs Medicare. CMS is allowed to compromise (reduce) and even waive Medicare recoveries based on various factors listed in several federal statutes and regulations. Under 45 C.F.R. § 30.14(a), a debtor may either pay the debt within the 60-day period from the final demand or be liable for interest during a 120-waiver determination period, while on appeal, or while any formal or informal review of the debt is pending.

We have written about conditional payment/Medicare lien recovery actions by the U.S. pursuant to the MSP before. Cases have been brought against Beneficiaries, their attorneys, and/or Primary Plans on behalf of CMS.

Medicare Lien Recovery Cases Against Beneficiaries and/or their Attorneys.

On June 18, 2018, the Department of Justice announced in a press release that an attorney/law firm entered into an agreement to repay the U.S. $28,000 after failing to ensure that the attorney/law firm client reimbursed Medicare for conditional payments made related to the underlying injury. The law firm had already disbursed the net settlement funds to its client. The law firm of Rosenbaum & Associates in Philadelphia entered into a settlement with the DOJ agreeing to pay the government this money after the U.S. alleged attorney Rosenbaum failed to timely repay MSP debt. The firm additionally agreed to designate a person at the firm to be responsible for paying MSP debts, to train the designated employee to ensure that the firm pays these debts on a timely basis; and to review any outstanding debts with the designated employee at least every six months. Attorney Rosenbaum also acknowledged that he may be liable under the False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq.) for wrongful retention of government overpayments arising from the failure to timely repay the MSP debt.

Other cases have confirmed the above-referenced recovery rights of the U.S. to timely Medicare lien reimbursement. For example, a U.S. District Court granted summary judgment for $11,367.78 plus interest against an attorney for a Beneficiary, holding the attorney liable when Medicare’s conditional payments were not addressed/timely reimbursed from a third party settlement because the attorney’s contingency fee was paid from the proceeds of Primary Plan’s (liability) payment. See U.S. v. Harris, 2009 WL 891931 (N.D. W.Va. 2009) aff’d 334 Fed. Appx 569 (4th Cir. 2009). See also, U.S. v. Weinberg, 2002 WL 32356399 (E.D. Pa. 2002)(Partial judgment was entered in favor of the U.S. against the Defendant attorney on the issue of liability).

In U.S. v. Sosnowski, 822 F. Supp. 570 (W.D. Wis. 1993), the U.S. was entitled to recover MSP conditional payments from a Beneficiary and his attorney but was denied the award of double damages because the court interpreted the MSP as only allowing double damages to be assessed against Primary Plans and determined that neither the injured Beneficiary nor the Beneficiary’s attorney was a Primary Plan. If CMS gets more efficient at searching for all possible conditional payment reimbursement options, we could begin seeing more recovery actions and lawsuits against plaintiff attorneys and their Beneficiary clients.

Medicare Lien Recovery Cases Against Estates of Beneficiaries.

Cases in which CMS has proceeded against an estate of a Medicare beneficiary have yielded varying results. For example, CMS was successful in Benson v. Sebelius, 771 F. Supp. 2d 68, 75 (D.D.C. 2011) (Because plaintiff claimed his mother’s medical costs in pursuing his wrongful death action, medical expenses of mother were taken into consideration in calculating and negotiating wrongful death settlement award, and release to landlord where slip and fall occurred included any and all claims and rights including associated medical liens, no error was found when Medicare Appeals Board (in a de novo review) allowed CMS to recover its full medical expenses lien minus its procurement costs from the wrongful death settlement) (citing Mathis v. Leavitt, 554 F.3d 731, 733 (8th Cir.2009) (“Because appellants claimed all damages available under the Missouri wrongful death statute, the settlement, which settled all claims brought, necessarily resolved the claim for medical expenses.”); Cox v. Shalala, 112 F.3d 151, 154–55 (4th Cir.1997) (determining that Medicare was entitled to reimbursement for medical expenses from the proceeds of a wrongful death settlement because the settlement included recovery for decedent’s medical expenses); see also Brown v. Thompson, 374 F.3d 253, 262 (4th Cir.2004) (holding that CMS was entitled to reimbursement from the proceeds of a medical malpractice settlement pursuant to the MSP).

However, when the underlying wrongful death claim made no claim for medical expenses, there is a stronger argument that the Medicare lien does not extend to the estate of a deceased Medicare beneficiary. See Bradley v. Sebelius, 621 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir.2010) (The U.S. was denied the ability to recover Medicare’s conditional payments when no medical expenses of decedent Medicare Beneficiary were claimed in wrongful death action by survivors).

Medicare Lien Recovery Cases Against Primary Plans/Insurance Companies.

In a Northern District of Alabama case, the U.S. was not allowed to bring a direct MSP action (that would have allowed double damages) against a liability insurer that already settled its case and paid the Beneficiary, but had to bring a subrogation action pleading and proving that the liability carrier knew or should have known of Medicare’s conditional payments at the time payment was made to the Beneficiary. In re Silicone Gel Breast Implants Products Liability Litigation (MDL 926), 174 F.Supp.2d 1242; (N.D.Ala.2001), affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded 345 F.3d 866, certiorari denied 124 S.Ct. 2907, 542 U.S. 946, 159 L.Ed.2d 828.

In Aetna Life Ins. Co., v. Nellina Guerrera et al., No. 3:17-CV-621 (JCH), 2018 WL 1320666, (D. Conn. Mar. 13, 2018), still pending in District Court, grocery store Big Y’s motion to dismiss was denied after Big Y, the alleged tortfeasor in the liability action, settled and paid a Medicare beneficiary, making it a Primary Plan. Aetna, a Medicare Advantage Plan, 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 Beneficiary and the Beneficiary’s attorney, because it held that the MSP’s definition of Primary Plan did not specifically include them.

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 and confirm all injury-related Medicare expenditures for past medicals at the time of settlement.
• Due diligence is required for both the defense and plaintiff side to avoid unnecessary legal exposure.
• Additionally, because the intent of the MSP is to prevent premature billing of Medicare for injury-related future Medicare allowable medicals, parties to settlements should always consider Medicare’s future interests and decide on reasonable actions to protect those interests when such future medicals are compensated in any settlement.[4]


[1] 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(2)(B)(iii).

[2] Id.

[3] At a minimum, the MSP imposes legal responsibility for repayment of conditional payment amounts. Under subsection (b)(2)(B)(ii), “a primary plan and an entity that receives payment from a primary plan, shall reimburse the appropriate Trust Fund for any payment made . . . .” Furthermore, under subsection (b)(2)(B)(iii) after describing the double damages remedy allowed by the U.S., the statute states, “[I]n addition, the United States may recover under this clause from any entity that has received payment from a primary plan or from the proceeds of a primary plan’s payment to any entity.” The corresponding regulation, Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations Section 411.24(g) also explains this right in even more detail, “. . . CMS has a right of action to recover its payments from any entity, including a beneficiary, provider, supplier, physician, attorney, State agency or private insurer that has received a primary payment.” Arguments have been made as to whether the language “under this clause” referenced above relates to the reimbursement right or also extends the double damages right of the U.S. against those receiving payment from a Primary Plan. Some courts have restricted double damages awards only to Primary Plans or commercial entities required to make payment under a Primary Plan.

[4] Sally Stalcup, MSP Regional Coordinator, Region VI (May 25, 2011 Handout) at 3 (“. . . IF there was/is funding for otherwise covered and reimbursable future medical services related to what was claimed/released, the Medicare Trust Funds must be protected”).