Author: daniel.anders

CMS Releases Annual Report on CRC Conditional Payment Recovery

September 5, 2017

On 8/30/2017 the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services released its annual report on the Commercial Repayment Center’s (CRC) Medicare conditional payment collections for the 2016 fiscal year (10/1/2015 through 9/30/2016). In short, the report documents the CRC identified $243.68 million in conditional payments, collected a net of $106.29 million and returned $88.35 million to the Medicare Trust Fund after subtracting collections costs.

The CRC, which is paid on a contingency basis, has responsibility for Medicare conditional payment recovery efforts involving Group Health Plans and Non-Group Health Plans (NGHP). NGHPs are liability insurance (including self-insurance, no-fault insurance or workers’ compensation). FY 2016 was the first fiscal year in which the CRC had responsibility for recovery of conditional payments from NGHPs, a task previously handled by the Benefits Coordination and Recovery Center (BCRC). Recovery claims involving Medicare beneficiaries remain with the BCRC.

A copy of the report may be found on the CMS website here.

Some observations from the report:

  • CMS does not split out GHP and NGHP recovery information which makes it difficult to ascertain, one, the effect of adding NGHPs to the CRC’s responsibility has had on overall collections and, two, the percentage of overall collections attributable to GHPs versus NGHPs.
  • Despite identifying $243.68 million on conditional payments, the CRC only recovered $117.40 million, shortly under half (48%) of the identified amounts. This may be the result of the provided data only documenting debts that are identified and collected within the fiscal year. The report indicates that collection of FY 2016 identified debts continues into the next fiscal year.
  • Connected to the above observation, it is disappointing that the CRC does not provide a more comprehensive multi-year view of its recovery work. Information such as amounts recovered over the past several years, average turnaround time from demand to repayment, and the above-mentioned GHP vs. NGHP data would be invaluable to understanding the overall program.
  • Provided in the report is a statement indicating amounts returned to the Medicare Trust Fund dropped from $125.05 million in FY 2015 to $88.35 million in FY 2016. CMS attributes the drop to “a decrease in GHP recoveries due in part to the maturity of the mandatory insurer reporting under Section 111 of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 decreasing the instances of mistaken payments, as well as the CRC’s resolution of pending available recoveries.” This drop is nonetheless surprising given that FY 2016 marked the CRC’s first year recovering from NGHPs!

Takeaways

We do not recommend any changes to your Medicare conditional payment resolution program or process based upon the report. The report merely provides a window into the efforts by the CRC at recovering conditional payments from GHPs and NGHPs.

Practical Implications of the Revised CMS WCMSA Reference Guide

August 18, 2017

Earlier this month the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released a revised Workers’ Compensation MSA Reference Guide (WCMSA) (find Version 2.6 here) with several notable changes and additions impacting its review of MSAs in workers’ compensation cases. The Tower MSA compliance team has taken some time to review and consider not only the substantive impact these changes have on our processes, but the implications for our clients. Please find below a summary of the notable changes to the Reference Guide along with practical implications.

Recognition of a Hearing on the Merits of the Case (Section 4.1.4)

The relevant change to this section is as follows:

Because the CMS prices based upon what is claimed, released, or released in effect, the CMS must have documentation as to why disputed cases settle future medical costs for less than the recommended pricing. As a result, when a state WC judge or other binding party approves a WC settlement after a hearing on the merits, Medicare generally will accept the terms of the settlement, unless the settlement does not adequately address Medicare’s interests. This shall include all denied liability cases, whether in part or in full . . .

Practical Implications

Over the years CMS has had several definitions of under what circumstances it will recognize a hearing on the merits, but the takeaway has consistently been that CMS gives itself complete discretion as to whether or not it will recognize a particular judicial decision, order or finding as limiting the MSA. Some commentary in response to the Reference Guide revisions has indicated the changes found in this section will result in Zero MSAs based upon a complete claim denial no longer being approved without a hearing on the merits confirming the basis for the denial. We are not certain this is the correct inference to draw from this change. This section addresses the effect of a hearing on the merits of a case to the projection of future medical care. If there is no hearing on the merits of the case, which is the situation in most MSA submission, Zero MSA or otherwise, then this section should have no applicability to CMS’s review of a Zero MSA.

Tower MSA’s plan is to stay the course on the long-used criteria for a Zero MSA based upon a claim denial unless and until we identify any changes through the MSA submission process which requires modification to these criteria.

Recognition of State-Specific Statutes (Section 9.4.5)

The relevant change to this section as follows:

Submitters requesting alteration to pricing based upon state-legislated time limits must be able to show by finding from a court of competent jurisdiction, or appropriate state entity as assigned by law, that the specific WCMSA proposal does not meet the state’s list of exemptions to the legislative mandate. For those states where treatment is varied by some type of state-authorized utilization review board, the submitter shall include the alternative treatment plan showing what treatment has replaced the treatment in question from the beneficiary’s treating physician for those items deemed unnecessary by the utilization review board. Failure to include these items initially will result in pricing at the full life expectancy of the beneficiary or the original value of treatment without regard to the state utilization review board recommendation.

Practical Implications – State-Legislated Time Limits: Similar towards its policy on recognizing decisions stemming from hearings on the merits, CMS has consistently given itself complete discretion as to when it will recognize any state statute as providing a limitation on the medical care allocated in the MSA. Experience has shown CMS to be unwilling, under most circumstances, to recognize a state statute as having the affect of limiting medical care in the MSA. A notable example is the Georgia statutory provision limiting an employer’s responsibility for medical care to 400 weeks post the date of injury in non-catastrophic claims (applicable to cases with DOIs of 7/1/2013 and later). We have yet to see an instance where CMS has agreed to limit the MSA amount based upon this statute.

The changes to this section of the Reference Guide provide hope that CMS may be more open to recognizing state statutes, like Georgia’s, as a basis for limiting medical treatment and medications in the MSA. Unfortunately, the requirement “to show by a finding from a court of competent jurisdiction . . . that the specific WCMSA proposal does not meet the state’s list of exemptions to the legislative mandate” presents a challenge in attempting to use a statutory provision to limit the MSA. For example, in Georgia a workers’ compensation case is by default considered non-catastrophic unless accepted by the employer or carrier as catastrophic or the claimant’s attorney submits to the Georgia Workers’ Compensation Board a request for the claimant to be designated as catastrophic. It is unclear at this point whether confirming the non-catastrophic nature of the claim in board approved settlement documents or a separate finding by the board that the claim is non-catastrophic will be sufficient for CMS to recognize the limitation. Based upon our experience with similar types of issues, we expect CMS to require a specific finding separate and apart from the settlement documents. Accordingly, this will require settling parties, whether in Georgia or in other states, to work with their WC board, commission or other judicial authority to provide the necessary finding confirming the claim does not meet any of the exemptions to the statute.

Practical Implications – Utilization Reviews: Revisions to this section of the Reference Guide also address the use of URs to limit care in the MSA. According to the requirements delineated by CMS the following must be presented with the MSA submission:

UR denial pursuant “some type of state-authorized utilization review board.”
“Alternative treatment plan” from the treating physician showing what treatment has replaced the UR denied treatment or medications.

The addition of the language regarding URs raises more questions than it answers. What does CMS define as a UR Board? For example, the California Independent Medical Review (IMR) process, while statutorily created, does not include a UR review board (Although we believe it can be argued that the IMR process is equivalent to such a board). Further, CMS fails to define what would be considered an “alternative treatment plan.” It would seem that an intransigent treating physician could refuse to provide alternative treatment, thus resulting in inclusion of treatment or medications in the MSA denied through the UR process. It is unfortunate CMS added this “alternative treatment plan” requirement as it undermines the very reason a UR process is in place, namely to limit medical care based upon evidence-based treatment guidelines. As Tower MSA submits MSAs to CMS with UR denials we will provide further recommendations as to how CMS is defining a “UR board” and “alternative treatment plan.”

Addition of “Amended Review” to Re-Review Policy (Section 16.0)

As fully explained in the Tower MSA article of 7/12/2017, “Second Chance with MSA Approval!: New CMS Policy Allows for Review of a New MSA Post a Prior Approval,” CMS has introduced what is called an Amended Review process for cases meeting the following criteria:

    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, and
    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.

Practical Implications: The Amended Review criteria presents an opportunity to have a second bite at the CMS MSA review apple when it comes to claims which despite having a previously approved MSA, failed to settle medical. It is important to note that the Amended Review process applies not only to MSA determinations resulting in counter-highers, but any MSA determination, approved as submitted or counter-lower, that meets the above-defined criteria. Please contact Tower MSA to discuss eligible claims.

Added Section on Required Resubmission (Section 16.1)

The addition to this section is as follows:

Where a proposed WCMSA amount has been closed due to inactivity for one year or more from the original date of submission, a full-file resubmission will be required.

Practical Implications: Previously a case closed for inactivity for one year or more would be reopened if the submitter provided the documentation in response to a Development Letter (The most common reason for case closure). CMS is now indicating solely providing the documentation in response to the Development Letter will be insufficient for them to reopen, instead a completely new MSA proposal and supporting documentation will be required. Tower MSA will advise when a case meets the criteria for filing a resubmission.

Additional MSA Administration Guidelines (Section 17.1)

The addition to this section is as follows:

Although beneficiaries may act as their own administrators, it is highly recommended that settlement recipients consider the use of a professional administrator for their funds.

Practical Implications: While not requiring professional administration, this is an acknowledgement by CMS of the difficulties a claimant may face on their own in administering an MSA. Tower MSA agrees with CMS on the benefits of professional administration and when requested by our client will provide MSA professional administration through our partner, Ametros.

Other less notable changes found in the Reference Guide apply to clarifying the order of jurisdictional precedence for MSA pricing, updating requirements for spinal cord stimulator pricing, updating off-label medication requirements, clarifying total settlement calculation guidelines and clarification of change of submitter requirements.

Final Comments: While we are pleased CMS is addressing the concerns expressed by Tower MSA and others in the MSP compliance field concerning a second chance at CMS review of an MSA and recognition of state statutory limitations on injury-related medical care, the real test will be in the coming weeks and months the affect these revisions have on the review of MSAs submitted to CMS for approval. Tower MSA continuously monitors these responses and will provide our clients appropriate guidance on the impact, or lack thereof, of these revisions and additions to the WCMSA Reference Guide.

Accuracy in Section 111 Reporting of ORM Vital to Avoiding Unnecessary Repayment Demands from Medicare

July 24, 2017

While the Commercial Repayment Center (CRC) has faced some valid criticism over the course of the past year and half in relation to its recovery efforts on behalf of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (CMS), not all problems start with the CRC. CRC’s recovery efforts are driven by the data employers, carriers and self-insured entities report to Medicare through the Section 111 Mandatory Insurer Reporting process. Chief among the data elements reported is acceptance of Ongoing Responsibility for Medicals (ORM) and the termination thereof. If this data is reported inaccurately or there is a failure to report required data, then the applicable plan may be faced with inappropriate recovery demands by the CRC.

Applicable Plan Reporting of ORM is the Catalyst for CRC Recovery Efforts

Since October 5, 2015, the CRC has had responsibility for the recovery of conditional payments where the insurer or employer (including self-insured entities) is the identified debtor, known in CMS terms as the “applicable plan.” The CRC learns of opportunities to recover through the Section 111 Mandatory Insurer Reporting process. In other words, the applicable plan is the catalyst for Medicare conditional payment recovery by its reporting of ORM.

The mandatory reporting provisions of the Medicare Secondary Payer Act require the applicable plan to report to Medicare in three instances – the acceptance of ORM, the termination of ORM and issuance of a Total Payment Obligation to the Claimant (TPOC), settlement judgment, award or other payment. In regard to ORM, two key data elements reported are the date responsibility for ORM is accepted and the accepted diagnosis codes. Once this information is reported the following actions are initiated by CMS’s contractors:

1. The BCRC, which handles Medicare coordination of benefits, should deny payment for medical bills submitted for payment in which the billed diagnosis codes match or is similar to the reported diagnosis codes.

2. The CRC identifies medical claims that Medicare has paid that it deems related to the reported diagnosis codes.

Upon the CRC identifying treatment related to the reported diagnosis codes, it will issue a Conditional Payment Notice (CPN) to the applicable plan which itemizes charges deemed related to the injury. The applicable plan has 30 days from the date on the CPN to dispute charges after which a Demand Letter will issue demanding repayment for the charges identified by the CRC. A Demand Letter provides 120 days from receipt of the letter for the applicable plan to appeal all or some of the charges or issue payment. If payment is not issued within 60 days of receipt, interest begins to accrue from the Demand Letter date.

Reporting Accurate Acceptance of ORM and Diagnosis Codes

The trigger for reporting ORM is a claimant identified as a Medicare beneficiary and the assumption of ORM by the applicable plan. ORM is reported when the applicable plan has made a determination to assume responsibility for ORM, or is otherwise required to assume ORM—not when (or after) the first payment for medicals under ORM has actually been made. Accordingly, the ORM acceptance date is typically the date of injury.

Along with the ORM acceptance date, at least one ICD-10 diagnosis code must be reported for the diagnosis that has been accepted on the claim (If more than one diagnosis has been accepted, then additional diagnosis codes are reported). While medical provider billing records are often used to determine ICD-10 diagnosis codes to report, these should be used as a starting point, not an ending point, in identifying the correct codes to report to Medicare.

Keep in mind that medical providers, and especially hospitals, will often insert into billing records any diagnosis reported to the provider, which are not necessarily the same diagnoses that are being accepted on the claim. Consequently, the person responsible for determining the correct ICD-10 diagnosis code to report, usually the claims handler, must make an independent determination, separate and apart from the medical provider, as to whether the particular diagnosis is being accepted on the claim. If the billing records do not properly represent what is being accepted, or if further diagnosis codes are required to better define what is accepted, then online ICD-10 resources are available to identify codes which correctly represent the accepted body parts and conditions.

Once ORM and the diagnosis codes are reported, ORM is generally not addressed again until the date of ORM termination. However, causally related diagnoses may change over time, either expanding or retracting depending upon the circumstances in the claim. Accordingly, it is important to update the reported ICD-10 codes as necessary over the course of the claim.

ORM Termination Key to Cutting Off Liability to Medicare

Once ORM is accepted, CMS claims the right to recover against the applicable plan through the date of ORM termination. As such, recovery efforts by the CRC may happen years after the ORM was first reported. Further, if there is failure by the applicable plan to terminate ORM when appropriate, then the plan may receive repayment demands from CRC for time periods in which it has no liability to pay for medical treatment. An applicable plan may terminate ORM through the Section 111 Reporting process under the following situations:

Settlement with a release of medicals

No fault policy limit reached

Complete denial of the claim

Statute of limitations has run or medical benefits have otherwise been exhausted pursuant to state law

Judicial determination after a hearing on the merits finding no liability

Statement from treating physician – signed statement from the injured individual’s treating physician that he/she will require no further medical items or services associated with the claim/claimed injuries.

Keep in mind that closing a claim file is not a trigger for ORM termination unless it is accompanied by one of the above situations.

Providing CMS with an ORM termination gives a bookend to recovery by the CRC. If no termination date is provided, then CRC assumes the applicable plan remains liable for injury-related payments.

Recommendations for Ensuring Accurate ORM Reporting

The reporting of ORM acceptance and termination and defining accepted diagnosis codes is so important because it is the applicable plan’s admission of responsibility to pay for medical care during the reported time period and for the reported diagnoses. If an error is made in reporting or there is an omission in reporting, then it can result in attempts by Medicare to recover for conditional payments unrelated to the injury or for time periods during which the applicable plan is not liable. Errors in reporting can also lead to inappropriate denials in the payment of claimant’s medical care by Medicare or Medicare paying for medical care for which the applicable plan is responsible.

Recommendations to avoid these errors and omissions:

1. Train Claims Handlers on ORM Reporting: If a claims handler is responsible for inserting the data required for ORM reporting, then they require training as to when ORM acceptance and termination is to be reported and how to determine the appropriate diagnosis codes to report with ORM acceptance.

2. Effective Quality Assurance of ORM Reporting: Even with training, errors will occur. Additional resources placed into quality assurance of ORM reporting, such as double-checking claims for proper ORM termination and appropriate diagnosis code choices avoids the expenditure of additional resources at a later date to correct errors in reporting and correction of unnecessary recovery demands from the CRC. If you are an employer or carrier relying upon a TPA to report, it is especially recommended that a QA process be in place to check the data entered by the TPA.

3. Ensure Reporting Platform is Accurately Reporting: Section 111 Reporting is electronically based and requires a data exchange with Medicare. Errors can and will occur in this data exchange. Ensure you have a trusted and reliable reporting agent to assist with accurate reporting to Medicare.

Finally, if any correspondence is received from the CRC or the U.S. Treasury Department claiming conditional payment recovery it must be acted upon immediately. Do not assume the letter was issued in error and will simply go away. If you do not believe you are liable for the conditional payments for which the CRC is claiming recovery, first confirm you have correctly reported ORM and then work with your MSP compliance partner to appropriately dispute the charges.

For questions stemming from this article please contact Dan Anders at (888) 331-4941 Daniel.anders@towermsa.com.

Second Chance with MSA Approval!: New CMS Policy Allows for Review of a New MSA Post a Prior Approval

July 12, 2017

While there may be no second chances in life, there is now a second chance for CMS review and approval of an MSA. On July 10, 2017, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) quietly rolled out a new policy allowing for a re-review of a previously approved Medicare Set-Aside which is between one and four years post-submission and for which there is a certain dollar amount change in projected future medical care since that time. The policy, which CMS calls an Amended Review, requires the previously approved MSA meet the following criteria:

  • Must have been originally submitted between one and four years from the current date.
  • Cannot have a previous request for an Amended Review.
  • Must result in a 10% or $10,000 change (whichever is greater) in CMS’ previously approved amount (The amount can be greater or less than the previously approved MSA amount).

    • CMS also notes that while you may change from brand-name to generic drug types, this change cannot be the sole reason for the Amended Review request. You must include additional changes such as changes in dosage and/or frequency, additional drugs or drugs no longer taken to qualify for the Amended Review.

    A copy of the policy can be found in Section 12.4.3 of the revised Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set-Aside Portal (WCMSAP) User Guide found here.

    Practical Implications of Amended Review Policy

    Prior to this new policy, CMS, in almost all cases, would not review a new MSA proposal based upon post-submission medical records and pharmacy history once an MSA was approved. Consequently, if parties were unable to settle a case because of a high CMS MSA approval, but came back to the settlement table a couple years later when the claimant’s medical care had subsided, they were unable to obtain a revised MSA approval from CMS which would accurately reflect the claimant’s current and future course of medical care. Under this new policy, these cases which are within 1-4 years post the original MSA submission and meet the 10% or $10,000 (whichever is greater) criteria will have a second chance at CMS review and approval of an MSA.

    Unanswered Questions Regarding Policy

    As with many a new policy CMS left some unanswered questions.

    It is unclear why CMS limited the Amended Review policy to submissions made within four years. We assume this is to limit the number of MSAs submitted for an Amended Review, but there remain cases older than four years which would benefit from this policy.

    While we do not like to look a gift horse in the mouth, it seems unreasonable of CMS to preclude from its Amended Review policy requests which are based solely upon a brand name medication going generic or a claimant otherwise switching to a generic medication. This type of change often results in a significant reduction to the MSA.

    The 10% or $10,000 change (whichever is greater) policy effectively means that there must be a $10,000 change to a previously approved MSA of $100,000 or less before it meets the criteria for an Amended Review. However, the example CMS provides in the User Guide inaccurately reflects a change on an $80,000 MSA of $8,000 as meeting the Amended Review criteria. We believe either the policy or the example is in error. We await CMS correcting this example or clarifying its policy.

    Does My Case Fit the CMS Amended Review Criteria?

    The Amended Review criteria opens the door to the settlement of some older cases where prior CMS approved MSA amounts no longer accurately reflect the claimant’s current and future course of medical care. Please feel free to reach out to Tower MSA Partners for an evaluation as to whether your previous CMS approved MSA may meet the Amended Review criteria. Tower MSA may be contacted at info@towermsa.com or (888) 331-4941.

    Additional Changes in Updated WCMSAP User Guide

    Besides the introduction of the Amended Review policy, CMS also made the following notable changes to the WCMSAP:

  • Claimants who are Medicare beneficiaries now have access to the WCMSAP through MyMedicare.gov. Accordingly, claimants are able to view MSA submissions and supporting documentation although will not be able to modify the documentation or otherwise take any actions on the submission which remain solely with the submitter of the MSA, i.e. Tower MSA.
  • For MSA submissions that have been closed for more than 12 months (Usually as a result of a non-response to a Development Letter), an entirely new MSA submission must be made with all documents generally required of a new MSA submission, i.e. two years of medical records. The new MSA submission will be assigned a new Case Control Number.

    • In a Volatile Political Climate MSAs & Professional Administration Provide Much Needed Assurances

    March 17, 2017

    Learn why MSAs and professional administration offers stability in an otherwise volatile and partisan political environment in this joint article between Ametros Financial and Tower MSA Partners

    These first few of months of 2017 have been, to put it mildly, volatile in national politics. The incoming Trump Administration and a Republican Congress are poised to tackle the federal budget, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) among many other federal programs. All of these issues have sharp partisan divides, however no matter where your views lay on the political spectrum, if you are a professional involved in the workers compensation industry, these issues may have a big impact on how you can be successful at your job.

    This article looks at what impact the Trump administration and a Republican-controlled Congress may have on Medicare Set-Asides (MSAs) in the context of the legislative and regulatory history of the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) Act and how the uncertainty resulting from potential changes to federal healthcare programs results in MSAs and professional administration being even more relevant in the settlement of workers’ compensation cases.

    The MSP Act Has Been and Remains Bipartisan

    A review of the history of the MSP Act demonstrates a noticeably bipartisan effort to improve and expand its applicability and enforcement mechanisms. The MSP Act was enacted in 1980 during President Carter’s administration. Subsequent to its passage, provisions were added over the Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations, all emphasizing Medicare being secondary to group and non-group health plans. The most notable legislative expansion occurred in 2007 when a Democratic-controlled Congress passed, and President George W. Bush signed into law, the Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act which included Section 111 Mandatory Insurer Reporting provisions for group and non-group health plans. There also continues to be a decade long effort to pass bipartisan legislation which would implement certain reforms to the Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set-Aside (WCMSA) review process. While the most recent WCMSA reform bill died in the last Congress it is expected a new bill will be reintroduced in 2017.

    Besides legislative expansion of the MSP Act, during President George W. Bush’s administration there occurred the release of the July 23, 2001 CMS memo, commonly called the “Patel Memo.” The Patel memo and subsequent CMS memos effectively formalized a process for CMS to review and approve WCMSAs.

    MSA reviews continued, Medicare conditional recovery processes expanded and Section 111 was implemented all during the course of President Obama’s administration. The only legislative change to the MSP Act occurring during the Obama years was the passage of the Strengthening Medicare and Repaying Taxpayers Act of 2012 (SMART Act) which was a successful bipartisan effort to address deficiencies identified in the MSP Act, particularly Section 111 reporting and Medicare conditional payment recovery.

    Since the enactment then of the MSP Act in 1980 it has continued to be expanded and enforced consistently across both Republican and Democratic Presidents and Congresses.

    Why has there not been a partisan divide? The simple reason is that the MSP Act forces entities other than the federal government to pay which has benefits for both political parties. For Democrats it demonstrates their protecting the viability of a federal government entitlement program while for Republicans it demonstrates their protecting taxpayers by shifting costs away from the government. While the Trump administration has to our knowledge never issued any MSP policy statements, based upon the past bipartisanship on this issue, our expectation is the administration will continue and possibly expand the MSP compliance programs at CMS.

    Uncertainty Over Federal Healthcare Programs to Drive Assurance with MSAs

    President Trump has indicated repeatedly that he will not reduce benefits to Medicare beneficiaries. Nonetheless, Medicare beneficiaries are facing premium increases. Notably, a Kaiser Family Foundation report indicated Part D premiums are rising by an average of 9% in 2017. As for Medicaid, the Trump administration is supporting a block grant program which would give more discretion to the states in formulating and implementing their own Medicaid programs compared to the present process which includes significant federal oversight. Finally, and most significant, is the Republican-led initiative to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as ObamaCare. These potential changes to statutory programs create uncertainty for injured workers contemplating settlement of medical in their workers’ compensation cases.

    Uncertainty for injured workers exists with programmatic changes to Medicare and private group health plans which are increasingly driven by a more value-based approach to healthcare delivery. A value-based approach provides incentives to medical providers to be more cautious with prescribing treatments and medications which may have limited value to the patient. This is also usually tied in part to a utilization review process which places limits on care through the use of evidence-based medicine. While in the past some injured workers have settled medical stemming from their work related injury confident that they could shift their ongoing work-related care, if any, to their group health plan, such coverage may now be limited. And when it comes to shifting costs to Medicare, CMS’s long-standing policy is such costs must be accounted for in an MSA.

    MSAs and professional administration A Flight to Certainty

    Accordingly, injured workers and their attorneys when settling their workers’ compensation cases will look for certainty where it can be obtained so that they have the assurance of access to medical care for their future injury-related care. For claimants who are Medicare beneficiaries or are close to becoming Medicare beneficiaries, such assurance can be obtained by a properly allocated MSA which is CMS-approved, when necessary, and professionally administered to maintain the MSA funds over life-expectancy in compliance with CMS rules.

    Tower MSA Partners is committed to providing employers and claimants a reasonable MSA allocation which, along CMS guidelines, properly accounts for future injury-related and Medicare-covered medical care without unnecessary overfunding. This often includes Tower MSA reaching out to treating physicians to confirm current care regimens or clarity regarding ongoing medication and treatment prior to submission of the MSA to CMS.

    While CMS approval of the MSA and subsequent funding provides assurance at the point of settlement that funds for injury-related medical have been provided, equally important is proper administration of those funds such that an injured worker can be assured the funds for his or her care will last over their life expectancy and that there will be a seamless transition to Medicare for payment if the funds every run out.

    Ametros’ professional administration service, CareGuard, secures the injured party discounts on their medical treatment, and prescription costs. All the while they are free from utilization review allowing them to not have to worry about their treatment being rejected. Additionally, CareGuard will makes sure all MSA expenses are accounted for in the eyes of Medicare. Cost-effective programs like CareGuard are in place to protect the injured worker post-settlement and ensure compliance with CMS requirements for MSA administration.

    In this current era of high uncertainty, all parties can rest easy by focusing on known methods to protect themselves and the injured party throughout the claim handling and settlement process. That’s why many believe it is more critical than ever to obtain an adequate MSA that will cover the ongoing medical care of the injured party and, upon settlement, to have a professional administrator help the injured party make the funds last as long as possible and do all the required Medicare reporting.

    For further information or questions om MSAs and professional administration, please contact:

    Tower MSA Partners
    Dan Anders (847) 946-2880 or Daniel.anders@towermsa.com

    Learn more at: www.towermsa.com

    Ametros
    Porter Leslie – (339) 223 9857 or pleslie@ametroscards.com
    or
    Jayson Gallant – (339-234-3420) or jgallant@ametroscards.com

    Learn more at: www.ametroscards.com

    CMS to Begin Referencing 2012 Life Expectancy Table on April 1

    March 13, 2017

    The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced on 3/8/2017 that it “will begin referencing the CDC’s Table 1: Life Table for the total population: United States, 2012, for workers’ compensation medicare set aside (WCMSA) life expectancy calculations on April 1, 2017.” CMS presently uses the 2011 table, thus this announcement represents an expected annual update to the next available CDC table. In most instances the update to the most recen table represents at most a one-year change in the life expectancy used in the MSA report compared to the prior table. All Tower MSA reports completed on or after 4/1/2017 will reference the 2012 table.

    The 2012 Life Table for the total population may be found on Pages 10-11 of the CDC report.

    CMS Provides Another Piece of the Puzzle on Future LMSA Policy

    March 2, 2017

    While the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has yet to formally issue a policy regarding review of Liability Medicare Set-Asides (LMSAs), since a June 2016 announcement that it was considering expanding the WC MSA review process to liability and no-fault, CMS has nonetheless provided pieces of the puzzle which will ultimately make up a liability and no fault MSA review process. The most recent piece of the puzzle is an announcement by CMS that effective 10/1/2017, no Medicare payments are to be made to medical providers where a Liability Medicare Set-Aside (LMSA) or No-Fault Medicare Set-Aside (NFMSA) exists.

    The announcement comes via the issuance of a CMS MLN Matters article directed to physicians and other medical providers submitting claims to Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) for services to Medicare beneficiaries. It directs these MACs to deny payment for medical care that is covered under an LMSA or NFMSA as identified in the Common Working File (CWF).

    To clear up some of these technical terms, MACs process Medicare Part A and B payments to medical providers on behalf of Medicare. A Common Working File (CWF) is maintained by the CMS Benefits Coordination and Recovery Center (BCRC) and contains information on a particular claimant’s Medicare eligibility and, importantly, when Medicare should be considered secondary such that payment to a medical provider should be denied and directed instead to the primary plan.

    BCRC presently keeps records of all WCMSAs that have been approved by CMS and funded through settlement (This is why CMS requires final settlement documents be submitted to BCRC post-settlement). The WCMSA funding information is placed in the CWF so that the MACs deny payment for medical care associated with the WCMSA until the WCMSA is exhausted. This directive from CMS makes this same process applicable to LMSAs and NFMSAs.

    In response to this announcement, you would be correct in asking, how can CMS deny payment for medical care based upon an LMSA an NFMSA process that does not yet exist? Putting aside that some CMS Regional Offices have reviewed and approved LMSAs at their own discretion for quite some time, this does pose a very good question. CMS responds as follows:

    CMS will establish two (2) new set-aside processes: a Liability Medicare Set-aside Arrangement (LMSA), and a No-Fault Medicare Set-aside Arrangement (NFMSA).

    So CMS readily admits the new set-aside processes will be put in place at some point in the future. Such future date has already been tentatively set based upon CMS’s release, in December 2016, of its request for proposals for the new Workers Compensation Review Contractor which includes an optional provision to expand reviews to LMSAs and NFMSAs effective July 2018 (See prior blog post: CMS MSA Review Expansion to Liability Planned for 2018). Consequently, this directive to the MACs is implementing medical payment processing changes which will be required to be place once the LMSA/NFMSA review process is made available.

    It is important to keep in mind that CMS has yet to release any guidance on such an expansion of the WCMSA review process to liability and no-fault and particularly how such a process would differ from that created for WC. Also note that CMS does not state that effective 10/1/2017 the MACs are to deny payment for all post-liability settlement injury-related medical care, rather, they are to “deny payment for items or services that should be paid from an LMSA or NFMSA fund.” The funds must exist for denial to occur. Accordingly, over 2017, as more pieces of the puzzle come together on CMS’s Liability and No-Fault MSA review policy, Tower MSA will provide further interpretation and guidance on what will be one of the most significant developments in MSAs since CMS formalized the WC MSA review process in 2001.

    Successful Legacy Claim Settlement Initiatives Featured in WorkCompWire Article

    February 15, 2017

    As part of its Leaders Speak series, WorkCompWire recently published a two-part article by Tower MSA Partners’ Chief Compliance Officer, Dan Anders, describing how clinically driven settlement initiatives on legacy or “old dog” workers’ compensation claims yield significant cost savings and become the foundation for best practices on new workers’ compensation claims.

    Part one of the article, How Old Dogs Can Learn New Tricks, details how successful settlement initiatives include a clinical partner who identifies and analyzes legacy claim cost drivers and then works with the employer or carrier to separate claims into those that can immediately move to settlement negotiation, those that may settle after clinical or legal intervention, and those that are unlikely to benefit from intervention and thus cannot settle. The article explains the importance of connecting the appropriate clinical intervention to the legacy claim so as to drive a successful outcome and claim closure.

    Part two of the article, New Tricks for New Claims, focuses on how the lessons learned in resolving legacy claims can be applied to new or ongoing claims and as a result produce significant medical and indemnity cost savings. Highlighted in the article is a large employer whose legacy claim settlement initiative yielded significant reduction in legacy claim costs and continues to save the employer ongoing claim costs as now a new standard for claims handling.

    We encourage you to review the articles and contact Tower MSA Partners to discuss how we can drive case closure on your legacy or old and complex workers’ compensation claims.

    Dan Anders may be contacted at daniel.anders@towermsa.com or (847) 946-2880.

    Federal Court Holds Against Medicare Practice of Over-Inclusive Reimbursement Demands

    February 13, 2017

    The California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) has prevailed in its lawsuit (Cali. Ins. Guar. Ass’n v. Burwell, No. 2:15-cv-01113-ODW (FFMx), 2017 U.S. Dist. Ct. LEXIS 1681) against the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service (CMS) challenging the practice of over-inclusive reimbursement demands by CMS. As a consequence of this ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, claimants and employers, have judicial support to dispute charges which contain mixed diagnosis codes, some related to the workers’ compensation injury and some unrelated, in CMS’s conditional payment demands.

    A summary of CIGA’s challenge to CMS, CMS’s response to the claim and the Court’s decision is detailed below with a discussion on practical implications of the decision.

    CIGA’s Claim Against Medicare

    CIGA claimed that CMS’s practice of seeking reimbursement for the full amount of a medical charge despite the charge including mixed diagnosis codes, some related to the workers’ compensation injury and some unrelated, goes beyond CMS’s authority under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act.

    By way of background, medical providers include ICD-10 diagnosis codes within billing records that are supposedly associated with the treatment provided. However, it is commonly known that medical providers, especially hospitals, may add any and all diagnoses for which a claimant reports a medical condition, even if such condition is not the subject of the treatment on the bill. For example, a claimant who has a low back injury and seeks treatment at a hospital for a cardiac condition may report on an intake form that he has ongoing low back pain. The hospital may list a low back diagnosis code on the medical bill even though the incurred medical treatment is solely related to the cardiac condition. This is not to say that there may also be situations where actual treatment was received for the work-related injury, but, even then, it may represent only a portion of the overall charge.

    As evidence to support its claim, CIGA presented three examples of recovery demands with mixed diagnosis codes. In one demand the Medicare conditional payment charge included a diagnosis code connected to the work-related back and hip injury, but other diagnosis codes relating to diabetes, insulin use and bereavement. In these cases, CMS issued a formal demand letter seeking recovery for the complete charge for both related and unrelated conditions. CIGA disputed on the basis that the charges “did not fall ‘within the coverage of an insurance policy of the insolvent insurer’” under California law.

    CMS’s Response

    The Court rejected all of CMS defenses as detailed below.

    CMS withdrawing the demand is not a sufficient basis to dismiss the case

    At some point following the initiation of CIGA’s lawsuit CMS “recalculated” its demands resulting in CMS effectively withdrawing the demands that were the subject of this litigation. CMS claimed that as the demands were withdrawn the case should be dismissed. The court denied the dismissal noting “Indeed, given the timing of the withdrawals (i.e., immediately after a hearing in which the Court made clear that CMS’s practice would not withstand scrutiny), it seems obvious that this is simply a strategic maneuver designed to head off an adverse decision so that CMS can continue its practice in the future.”

    CIGA identifying unrelated diagnosis codes is a sufficient basis to shift the burden to Medicare

    CMS disputed CIGA’s assertion that identifying the non-work related diagnosis codes is sufficient to shift the burden to Medicare to prove otherwise. The Court disagreed and held that it is sufficient to shift the burden to Medicare to prover otherwise, and further, that CMS never challenged CIGA’s claims that the diagnosis codes were unrelated.

    CMS’s claim that the term “item and service” refers to the charge and not the treatment is unsupported

    The Medicare Secondary Payer Act provides “a primary plan . . . shall reimburse [Medicare] for any payment made . . . with respect to an item or service if it is demonstrated that such primary plan has or had a responsibility to make payment with respect to such item or service.” CMS regulations (42 CFR 1003.101) further define item or service “Any item, device, medical supply or service provided to a patient which is listed in an itemized claim for program payment or a request for payment . . . .”

    CMS asserted the definition of “item or service” for which they are able to recover under their regulations refers to whatever (and how many) medical treatment(s) a provider lumps into a single charge. Not surprisingly, the Court found nothing under the statue nor the intent of Congress in writing the MSP Act to substantiate that “item or service” refers to the listed charge from the medical provider, rather than one medical treatment whether billed as a group with other treatments or listed singly.

    CMS is bound by state law in determining whether the WC employer or carrier has responsibility to reimburse Medicare

    CMS next argued that it is not bound by state law as state law is preempted under the MSP Act (Preemption refers to the principle that between federal and state law federal law trumps state law). The Court cited with approval a prior federal appellate court decision, Caldera vs. Ins. Co. of the State of Pa. 716 F.3d 861 (5th Cir. 2013) which addressed the question of whether CMS’s ability to recover is limited in anyway by state law. In Caldera the Court found “responsibility to make payment with respect to an item or service is generally a matter of state law.” Accepting then that CMS is held to state law in its ability to recovery, the judge in the present matter went on to cite several California state court decisions finding that a compensation carrier is not responsible for making payment on treatment unrelated to the workers’ compensation injury.

    CMS is not entitled to deference in its interpretation of the MSP Act and regulations

    The court rejected CMS claim of deference to its interpretation of the MSP Act and regulations since the Court found such an interpretation of CMS’s regulations actually supports CIGA and, further, its arguments conflict with CMS’s own MSP Manual which provides for medical providers to be reimbursed partially by a primary plan and partially by Medicare if work-related medical treatment is provided concurrently with non-work-related treatment.

    Court Finds the Real Reason CMS Calculates in this Manner

    The Court holds, “At bottom, it is quite clear that the real reason CMS calculates reimbursement demands in the manner that it does is simply because it is too difficult to do otherwise, not because that is what is required (or even permitted) by any statute, regulation, or policy manual.” According to the Court then, CMS must attempt to apportion the charge between covered and non-covered services. It is possible, as the court indicates, that CMS may find apportioning the charge unreasonable. The court further notes that if the charge is apportioned, it takes no position on how CMS should do so in terms of pro rata reimbursement, etc.

    Practical Implications of Decision

    Whether it is Medicare conditional payment recovery or Workers’ Compensation MSAs, CMS regularly asserts that it is not bound by state law in determining items or service for which it may seek recovery or to be included in the MSA. Further, CMS operates under an assumption that the courts will defer to its interpretation of the MSP Act and relevant regulations. At least in the Medicare conditional payment context, this decision completely refutes such assumptions. This is a well written decision which along with the holding in Caldera (mentioned above), is significant in finding that state law places limits on the extent of MSP conditional payment recovery. We applaud CIGA’s pursuit of this decision.

    It should be noted that this is a U.S. District Court decision, not an appellate decision, thus it has limited precedential value for other cases addressing this same issue. Nonetheless, along with the Caldera case, which is an appellate decision, we now have two decisions which limit Medicare recovery. It is unclear at this point whether CMS will appeal the decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. A decision at that level would provide precedential value for all states within the 9th Circuit and would be on par with the Caldera case which was an appellate decision of the 5th Circuit.

    The court does leave a door open for CMS in that CMS can determine whether it is unreasonable to separate a charge between related and unrelated. It is assumed though that CMS would have to provide evidence to support why it cannot reasonably separate the charges.

    Tower MSA will utilize this important decision to support disputes of mixed diagnosis code conditional payment charges on behalf of our clients. Whether CMS will agree remains uncertain as this is a lower court decision and the decision itself still gives CMS the ability to determine whether it is reasonable to remove unrelated portions of a charge and how the remaining work-related amount of the charge should be apportioned. Tower MSA will continue to keep you apprised of any developments in this area of Medicare conditional payment recovery.

    WorkersCompensation.com: Tower MSA Partners’ Rita Wilson Predicts CMS Re-Review Changes Will Help Payers

    January 27, 2017

    Tower MSA Partners CEO, Rita Wilson, was recently interviewed by WorkersCompensation.com following her participation in a January 24, 2017 “State of MSP” webinar presented by the National Alliance of Medicare Set-Aside Professionals (NAMSAP).

    Workerscompensation.com asked Rita to comment on CMS’s December 21, 2016 announcement regarding its plans to update its WCMSA re-review process in 2017. This includes expansion of the process to previously approved MSAs where there has been a substantial change in the claimant’s medical condition and the case has not settled (For details see Tower MSA blog on the announcement: CMS Announces Plans for 2017 Expansion of MSA Re-Review Process & New Policy Regarding URs in MSAs)

    Rita’s comments to WorkersCompensation.com follow:

    “CMS will need to establish the parameters for re-review and define ‘substantial changes.’ We expect costly procedures such as surgeries and spinal cord stimulators to be included,” Wilson said. “A WCMSA involving patients who have weaned off expensive polypharmacy regimens could also qualify.”

    “Tower’s workflow and decision-tree software application identifies recommended, not-yet-performed procedures and intervenes to address inappropriate treatment prior to submitting an MSA,” Wilson said, “But this could be a game-changer for payers with CMS-approved MSAs that they were unable to settle.”

    The full article may be found here.