PREMIER WEBINAR: Avoiding the Medicare Mandatory Reporting Penalty

June 29, 2020

Avoiding the Medicare Mandatory Penalty webinar banner

Regulations for Medicare Mandatory Reporting Penalty are in the process of being formalized!

Under the threat of up to a $1,000 per-day, per-claim penalty, most insurers and self-insurers have implemented processes to ensure Medicare beneficiary claimants are reported to Medicare per Section 111 of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (MMSEA).

Penalties have never been imposed as the SMART Act specified that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) must formalize regulations prior to issuing them.  This past February, CMS released proposed regulations, which we detailed in this article: CMS Issues Proposed Rule for Mandatory Insurer Reporting Penalties.  Comments on the proposal were due in April and now we await a final regulation.

In a timely webinar, a full analysis of CMS’s penalties proposal will be provided by Tower’s Chief Compliance Officer, Daniel Anders, Esq.  Joining Dan will be Jesse Shade, Tower’s VP of Information Technology, who will break down new user-friendly enhancements to Tower’s Mandatory Insurer Reporting platform that are designed specifically to avoid the penalties CMS seeks to impose.     

A Q&A session will follow the presentation.  Plan to attend the webinar on Wednesday, July 22,  at 2 pm ET.

Thank you,

Dan Anders
Chief Compliance Officer

Forbes Technology Council Welcomes Tower’s Jesse Shade

June 24, 2020

Jesse Shade Portrait

Tower’s Vice President of Technology Jesse Shade has joined Forbes Technology Council, a prestigious invitation-only forum of senior CIOs, CTOs, and technology execs.  Members collaborate to help solve daily business challenges—like cybersecurity threats—and share insights in Forbes.com articles. Read the related release: Tower MSA Partners’ Vice President of IT, Jesse Shade Accepted into Forbes Technology Council

We know Jesse will be a major asset to the Council because he delivers such high value to Tower. Possessing an unusual blend of interpersonal skills as well as hands-on technical expertise, he is responsible for strategic planning and serves on Tower’s executive team.  

Tower designed and built its own technology based on best practices in MSP compliance and MSA preparation.  The seamless system drives all compliance processes from Section 111 Mandatory Insurer Reporting, conditional payment resolution, MSA triage, and clinical interventions all the way through MSA preparation, CMS submission, and claim closure.

To be simple for clients to use, technology has to be quite complex behind the scenes.  That’s where Jesse’s 35+ years of IT experience in numerous industries, including banking, defense and aviation, comes into play. He leads development efforts for our proprietary technology and its network infrastructure all within a cybersecurity framework that protects Tower and its clients and business partners. (To learn more about cybersecurity threats, especially during COVID-19, check out Jesse’s two Leaders Speak articles on WorkCompWire.)

We’re proud that Jesse will be participating in Forbes’ exclusive Technology Council and look forward to seeing his articles in Forbes.com.

Related information

Jesse Shade

Forbes business communities

CMS Provides Notices on Section 111 Reporting and Conditional Payment Processes

June 17, 2020

People using laptop and mobile phones to update Section 111 Reporting

CMS has recently issued two notices, one pertaining to mandatory Section 111 reporting and one relevant to Medicare conditional payment recovery.

First, in a “teaser” notice, CMS announced that on July 13, 2020 the Medicare Secondary Payer Recovery Portal (MSPRP) is scheduled to be enhanced to allow authorized users to view and print correspondence.

According to the notice,

MSPRP users who log in using Multi Factor Authentication will be able to view and print CMS mailed correspondence that is displayed on the Letter Activity tab. Additional information on how to use this new functionality will be available in Section 14.1.1.4 of the July version of the MSPRP User Guide.

Second, in an alert entitled “Reporting No-Fault Insurance Limit on Non-Group Health Plan (NGHP) Claim Input Files,” CMS reminds Responsible Reporting Entities (RREs) that they must combine both Med Pay and Personal Injury Protection (PIP) coverage limits for Section 111 reporting purposes.  This would be under circumstances where separate Med Pay and PIP coverages are being paid out on claims for the same injured party and incident under a single policy.

CMS also reminded RREs that ORM cannot be terminated until both Med Pay and PIP coverage limits are exhausted.  Further, that when providing the dollar amount for the policy limit, that it must accurately reflect two decimal places.  For example, a policy limits of $5,000 should be reported as 500000.

Practical Implications

In regard to the MSPRP enhancement to print documents, while we will have to see the specific guidance in the July update, this may prove quite useful in not having to wait for correspondence to come in the mail, print letters that were not received via the mail or reprint letters.

As for the alert to remind No-Fault carriers to report Med Pay and PIP coverage limits as a combined amount, while this guidance is already included in the NGHP User Guide, there was apparently some confusion that led CMS to provide this alert as a reminder of how such coverage must be reported.

If you have any questions, please contact Dan Anders, Chief Compliance Officer at daniel.anders@towermsa.com or 888.331.4941.

Dan Anders Weighs in on Legacy Comp Claim Closures

June 8, 2020

Stethescope and an insurance claim form illustrating legacy comp claim post

Business Insurance’s Louise Esola wrote an interesting More legacy comp claim closures anticipated with pandemic on an unexpected side effect of the coronavirus.  Injured workers who previously rejected settlement offers are rethinking their decisions. 

When researching the story, Esola contacted our Chief Compliance Officer, Dan Anders, who noted that insurers have long focused on legacy comp claim closures, especially those with high prescription drug costs.  He said they have, “become a little more proactive in looking at older legacy comp claims to see if this may be an opportunity to take a first or second look at settling those claims.”

At the same time, injured workers find themselves in financial conditions where a settlement would be critical. 

Tower’s Legacy Claims Settlement Initiative analyzes a payer’s portfolio of claims to detect those that could settle with or without clinical intervention. When future pharmacy costs inhibit settlement, Tower teams with myMatrixx to review drug regimens and find opportunities to reduce costs while protecting injured worker safety. Our recent Tower Premier Webinar: A Prescription for Settling Legacy Claims describes the program in detail.

After triaging the claim, Tower recommends interventions to optimize the MSA, identifies settlement partners, executes interventions, and helps move the claims to closure. 

Related:

WorkersCompensation.com’s Coverage of the Pharmacy/Legacy Claims Webinar

WorkersCompensation.com’s Coverage of the Pharmacy/Legacy Claims Webinar

June 1, 2020

stethoscope and insurance claim form

“The older the claim, the higher the costs—especially for prescription drugs,” wrote WorkersCompensation.com’s Nancy Grover, in this excellent recap of A Prescription for Settling Legacy Claims webinar. 

The May 19 webinar was presented by Dan Anders, Tower MSA Partners’ Chief Compliance Officer, and Phil Walls, Chief Clinical and Compliance Officer of myMatrixx. 

They said that aging claims increase the likelihood that the injured worker may become a Medicare beneficiary.  “That means those higher drug costs must be included in a Medicare Set-Aside,” she wrote.

The fast-paced webinar explains how and why prescription drug costs increase during the life of a claim. Brand name drugs, compounds (yes, still), and “prescription cascade” (prescribing new meds to address the side effects of other meds) top the list of cost-drivers.

To gain CMS approval of an MSA, medications that may not be needed or even being used must be allocated in the MSA. What’s more, they are priced at Redbook’s lowest average wholesale price (AWP), eliminating discounts the pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) once provided. Side note: Phil describes issues with AWP in detail during the Q&A at the end of the webinar. 

Dan and Phil discussed ways an MSA provider and PBM can partner to identify and address unnecessary costs—without negatively impacting the injured worker’s treatment.  “We reach out to the treating physician for last dates of service to see what’s going on,” Dan said. “We also do drug reviews to see if there are alternatives that can be implemented.”

Presenters cited a case where an intervention reduced the total morphine equivalent dosage from a dangerous 480 mg per day to 120 mg per day.  The changes produced a savings of about $1 million. 

“Our goal is never to keep the injured worker from obtaining the therapy they need, but not to expose them to unnecessary prescribing,” Phil said.

To download the recording of this valuable webinar, please go to: https://register.gotowebinar.com/recording/7163259288372148492

Best Practices for Cybersecurity

May 26, 2020

threatening hooded figure with the word cyber security superimposed to illustrate post on best practices for cybersecurity

Tower MSA Partners’ SVP of IT Jesse Shade offers advice to workers’ compensation companies on best practices for cybersecurity.

Did you know that personal health information (PHI) is more valuable on the black market than financial data?  This makes workers’ comp organizations very attractive targets for cyber criminals.

“Payers and other workers’ compensation organizations need to guard this sensitive data within their own enterprises. And, since these companies regularly exchange data with each other, each company needs to be just as concerned about the cybersecurity practices of its partners as its own,” says Tower’s Senior Vice President of Information Technology, Jesse Shade in this informative WorkCompWire article: Securing Data During COVID-19 and Beyond.

In last week’s article – COVID-19 Response Triggers Cybersecurity Threats to Workers’ Comp –  Jesse described the scope of the cybersecurity issue especially in the midst of COVID-19.  In this one, he outlines out best practices for cybersecurity in the form practical ways to protect PHI and other data and discusses the tools your IT department needs. He also gives you questions for your managed care organizations, MSP compliance companies and other service providers to ensure that their security practices can withstand attacks.

Cyberattacks have risen astronomically during COVID-19 and will continue long after the pandemic passes.  The IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report put the average cost of a data breach in the U.S. at $8.19 million in 2019.  In addition to the financial hit, companies risk their reputations and the trust of their clients, customers and partners. 

As Jesse says, you can’t afford to ignore cybersecurity.  

Related:

Building a Better Tower – Cybersecurity

 

Federal Court Rules on Plaintiff Refusal to Provide SSN

May 19, 2020

close up of judge's gavel with the scales of justice in the background

A federal magistrate judge got a full education in Section 111 Mandatory Insurer Reporting when a plaintiff refused to provide his Social Security Number (SSN) in a liability settlement with the State of Rhode Island.

The April 27, 2020 Rhode Island U.S. District Court decision came in the case of Genaro Ruiz vs. State of Rhode Island, et al., C.A. No. 16-507WES, April 27, 2020.  The judge held the defendant’s post-settlement effort to obtain the plaintiff’s SSN was “fully consistent with the express and implied terms of the Settlement Agreement” given the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (MSP) requirements. 

Further, the plaintiff could not use the federal Privacy Act to negate the defendant’s basis for requesting the information, again given MSP requirements.

Background

The 2007 Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act (MMSEA) created a requirement for non-group health plans (NGHPs), such as the defendant State of Rhode Island, to report settlements involving Medicare beneficiaries to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).  Consequently, NGHPs must determine whether a plaintiff or claimant is a Medicare beneficiary.

To verify their Medicare beneficiary status, a claimant, whether a Medicare beneficiary or not, is asked to produce certain information to the NGHP: including first and last name, date of birth, gender, SSN, Medicare number, or at least the last five digits of the SSN or Medicare number.

To ensure compliance, the statute provides for penalizing the NGHP up to $1,000 per day per claim for non-compliance. However, demonstration of good faith efforts to obtain the SSN can eliminate this penalty.  As the Court noted, CMS’s February 18, 2020 proposal described the penalties and what constituted a good faith effort.  (See Tower’s article, CMP Comments Submitted)

Rhode Island Case

The parties in the Rhode Island liability case reached a mediated settlement agreement with the following relevant components:

  • Plaintiff, who was at least 65 at the time of settlement, acknowledged that because he was a Medicare beneficiary, it was his responsibility to resolve any Medicare claim. However, the settlement negotiations did not define how defendants would obtain closure of any possible Medicare claim or lien.
  • Plaintiff never advised defendants that he would refuse to supply his SSN, or any part of it, as part of the settlement agreement. Providing the SSN would enable the State to ascertain his status as a Medicare beneficiary and to comply with the Medicare statutory reporting requirement.
  • Defendants never advised plaintiff that the submission of his SSN, or any part of it, was a precondition to their paying the settlement proceeds.

Post the settlement agreement the defendant provided the “RI Medicare Reporting Form” that requests the SSN the plaintiff attorney. Plaintiff attorney’s response was “n/a” to the SSN question.  Ultimately, the plaintiff attorney said they were refusing to provide the SSN, which caused the defendant to petition the court to intervene. 

The court held an off-the-record call with the parties that resulted in the decision that the plaintiff would either provide the SSN or an affidavit stating that he did not have an SSN. Plaintiff failed to provide either and filed a motion to enforce the settlement on the basis that the federal Privacy Act gives him an absolute right to refuse to disclose his SSN. He also made a claim for punitive damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees.  The defendant responded with a motion to enforce the agreement from the off-the-record call.

District Court Holding

The District Court held:

  • That the defendant made significant (and successful) efforts to comply fully with the letter and spirit of MMSEA. In an effort to comply, The State of Rhode Island made the requisite query using at least a five-digit iteration of Plaintiff’s SSN. (During discovery, the defendant apparently obtained the last four digits of the SSN and tried to add the fifth digit by performing a query of the multiple iterations).
  • The State’s actions fit neatly into the not-yet-established safe harbor limned by the Proposed Rule, so that any penalties and sanctions for non-compliance should not be imposed
  • The State (and the Court) appropriately relied on plaintiff’s acquiescence to the use of the information he produced in discovery to make the required report to CMS
  • There was no further need for plaintiff to disclose his SSN or any part of it as a prerequisite to receiving the settlement proceeds

Regarding the plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees:

  • The State’s conduct in delaying payment of the settlement proceeds does not conceivably amount to “willful and wanton disregard” for plaintiff’s rights bordering on criminality.
  • The settlement agreement must be interpreted as incorporating and being subject to the MMSEA requirement of disclosure of the SSN (and, if that is not available, at least the last five digits of the SSN). It is not subject to the Privacy Act prohibition on SSN disclosure because MMSEA is a “Federal statute” requiring preferably full, but at least partial, SSN disclosure.
  • Plaintiff was contractually obliged to provide defendants with as much of the specified information as the State reasonably needed to make a CMS query about his Medicare status/ His refusal to disclose at least the fifth from the last digit of his SSN is a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Practical Implications

This is one of those cases where an uncooperative claimant appears to have hit a nerve with the Court, resulting in the Court going above and beyond to rule in favor of the defendant.  Its decision, though, shows how at least this federal court views the responsibilities of the settling parties in regard to the Section 111 Mandatory Insurer reporting requirement.

Key takeaways from the decision:

  • A defendant is allowed to request the SSN or an affidavit that the SSN will not be provided even post-settlement and such request does not constitute bad faith or a violation of the federal Privacy Act.
  • The plaintiff should either provide the full SSN (or their Medicare number), the last five digits of the SSN or Medicare number, or a statement or affidavit that the plaintiff is refusing to provide either.  CMS even provides a standard form if the plaintiff does not want to use the form provided by the defendant.

Best practice is to attempt to obtain the SSN prior to the settlement agreement. This is not only important to reporting requirements, but also to investigate Medicare conditional payments.  If the SSN or affidavit cannot be obtained prior to the settlement agreement, then the settlement agreement should include terms in which the plaintiff is required to provide such information.

If you have any questions, please contact me, Dan Anders, at (888) 331-4941 or daniel.anders@towermsa.com.

Tower’s Jesse Shade Warns of Cyberattacks During COVID-19 and Tells How to Mitigate Them

May 15, 2020

ominous figure embedded in coding to illustrate cybersecurity threats

When Tower held its cybersecurity webinar in February, presenters stressed that cyberattacks increase dramatically during a crisis. This certainly holds true for COVID-19. Attacks soared by 330% in its early weeks, according to an Atlas VPN report.

Workers’ compensation payers, third-party administrators, ancillary care providers, and MSP compliance companies pose very attractive targets – regardless of the size of the company.  

They store, manage, and transfer large volumes of protected health information (PHI), which is quite valuable to criminals.

In this WorkCompWire article, our Senior Vice President of Information Technology, Jesse Shade, explains how cyberattacks occur and describes security measures to protect networks, systems, and data.

During the work-from-home transition, experienced IT pros deployed VPNs to connect remote machines to enterprise networks and installed the latest and greatest security software.

However, if a company can buy antivirus and antimalware software off the shelf or online, so can criminals. And, they analyze these products and create ways to work-around their security  capabilities.

Threat actors can even enter a network undetected and stay there for months and learn how to circumvent its security measures. Jesse recommends proactive solutions to prevent breaches in this timely story.

CMP Comments Submitted

April 27, 2020

bullhorn illustration alerting you to avoid reporting penalties

On April 20, 2020, Tower MSA Partners responded to CMS’s request for comments on its proposed regulation for Section 111 Mandatory Insurer Reporting civil money penalties (CMPs).  Please see Tower’s Feb. 18 post on CMS’s proposal.

Tower’s comments mirrored those submitted by the National Alliance of Medicare Set-Aside Professionals (NAMSAP) of which Tower is a member.  As Co-Chair of NAMSAP’s Policy & Legislative Committee, I had the privilege of working on comments with my committee Co-Chair Annie Davidson, NAMSAP President Ciara Koba, and our fellow NAMSAP board members. Many thanks to Jill Dulich of the National Council of Self-Insurers and Doug Holmes of Strategic Services on Unemployment & Workers’ Compensation for sharing their invaluable Comment drafts.

Tower’s full comments can be found here and are summarized below:

Penalty Threshold for Failure to Report / Delayed Reporting – Part 402.1(c)(22)(i)

Per the proposed rule, subject to the good faith efforts provision, a penalty is imposed for an RRE that “fails to report any beneficiary record within 1 year from the date of settlement, judgment, award, or other payment.”  Recognizing that human and technical error will occur, we recommended CMS implement a 10% threshold for error tolerance per RRE.

The 10% would be based upon the number of Total Payment Obligation to Claimants (TPOCs) reported in a quarter (including off-cycle reporting).

Penalties Imposed for Failure to Report / Delayed Reporting – Part 402.105(b)(3)(i)

The proposal states that failure-to-report penalties will be up to $1,000 per calendar day, adjusted for inflation, for a maximum penalty of $365,000 per calendar year.

The proposal did not indicate whether CMS will use the discretion provided by the SMART Act to impose a penalty of “up to” $1,000/day. If CMS uses this discretion, then what criteria will be used to determine if the penalty should be $1/day, $500/day or $1,000/day? 

We submitted that CMS should incorporate mitigating factors, already found in the code of federal regulations. These would define CMS’s discretion in imposing penalties and provide RREs that face penalties the criteria needed to respond to potential penalties.

Additionally, we recommended that if Medicare made no conditional payment demands that no penalties should be imposed.

Data Contradicts Recovery – Part 402.1(c)(22)(ii)

The proposed rule addresses the possibility that an RRE’s response to CMS’s recovery efforts may contradict the its Section 111 reporting. A penalty would be calculated based on the number of calendar days that the entity failed to accurately report timely updates to beneficiary records. 

This means that an NGHP could face a penalty of up to an adjusted $1,000 per calendar day of “noncompliance” for each individual, for a maximum annual penalty of an adjusted $365,000 for each individual for which required information should have been submitted.

CMS is saying it will potentially penalize RREs millions of dollars for correcting their data after inconsistencies are found despite the fact that such errors cause the agency minimal monetary harm. 

We urged CMS to either withdraw this type of penalty or impose penalties that are proportional to the harm caused to Medicare as a result of the reporting contradictions.

“Safe Harbor” for Data Collection from Beneficiaries – Part 402.1(c)(22)(A)(2)

The proposed rule provides an exemption for those situations where a claimant refuses to provide their Social Security Number or Medicare Beneficiary Identifier. Yet, it mandates three attempts to obtain this information before allowing the exemption.

We requested that CMS eliminate the mandatory minimum number of communications with claimants. Instead, we asked it to simply require that the RRE make good faith efforts to secure needed reporting information.  

Informal Notice – D. Summary of Public Comments #8

CMS stated that its informal notice process will provide the RRE 30 calendar days to respond with any mitigating information prior to the issuance of a penalty notice.

We proposed that the RRE have 120 calendar days post receipt of the informal notice to respond.

Prospective Application – D. Summary of Public Comments #6

CMS advised the application of the final regulation will be prospective. However, after the regulation implementation date, much of the reported Section 111 data will be retrospective to that date.  While this will taper, corrections will occur and there is a potential for conditional payment recovery involving retrospective data.

We requested CMS better define what they mean by prospective application of the rule. 

Five Year Statute of Limitations – D. Summary of Public Comments #7

In its supporting summary, CMS takes care to outline that these penalties would be imposed within the existing CMP five-year statute of limitations. That limitations period, CMS says, is triggered when the agency identifies the non-compliant action.

We responded that CMS’s interpretation is incorrect.  The correct interpretation is that the statute of limitations starts with when the non-compliant action occurred, not when CMS identifies the non-compliance action.  In other words, if a TPOC was not reported when required in 2020, the statute of limitations would expire in 2025. 

Further, we asserted that the five-year statute of limitations is inapplicable to Section 111 penalties; instead the three-year statute of limitations found in the Medicare Secondary Payer Act applies. 

ALJ and Departmental Appeals Board Backlog Concerns – D. Summary of Public Comments #5

Under the proposed rule, CMS allows for appeals post the notice of the penalty.  However, as we have seen with appeals for conditional payment demands, it can take several years to have a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). 

Our question to CMS is whether this same appeals process, along with timeframes, will be utilized for penalties appeals.  Further, we inquired as to whether CMS will be using the Treasury offset program to collect penalties.

Implementation of Final Rule

Finally, given the diversion of resources by many RREs to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, we requested that CMS not implement a final rule until at least 1/1/2021.

If you have any questions about CMS’s proposed rule or these comments, please contact me, Dan Anders, at (888) 331-4941 or daniel.anders@towermsa.com.

Tower Premier Webinar: A Prescription for Settling Legacy Claims

April 20, 2020

Banner for webinar on A Prescription for Settling Legacy Claims

As claims age, the percentage of spend for prescription drugs increases.  Further, as claims age, the likelihood that the injured worker becomes a Medicare beneficiary as a result of age or disability increases. The result, high prescription drug costs allocated in the Medicare Set-Aside (MSA) become a barrier to settlement of these legacy claims.

Tower has addressed this barrier through clinical interventions which have resulted in the majority of Tower’s CMS-approved MSAs containing no prescription drugs.  However, there remain legacy claims with high prescription drug spend which continue to stymie settlement.

Accordingly, Tower has partnered with the leading workers’ compensation pharmacy benefit manager, myMatrixx, to add its renowned clinical pharmacy team to the effort at breaking down the remaining barriers to settlement of these legacy claims.

What then can a PBM do to help with settling legacy claims?  How does a PBM work with an MSA company to settle these claims?

Tower is pleased to host a premier webinar panel with Phil Walls, RPh, Chief Clinical Officer for myMatrixx, and Dan Anders, Esq., Chief Compliance Officer for Tower on the following topics:

  • Define and quantify legacy claims with analytics
  • Identify factors driving up Rx costs in these claims
  • Explain how data can identify opportunities for clinical intervention
  • How to work effectively with PBM and MSA provider to reduce Rx and close claims
  • Provide examples/case scenarios demonstrating successful Rx intervention and settlement in legacy claims
  • Best practices for Rx management to prevent claims from becoming legacy claims

Please plan to attend the webinar on May 20 at 2 pm ET.

Thank you,

Dan Anders

Chief Compliance Officer