WCRI Report – Physician Dispensing – Increases in Cost and Frequency in Workers’ Compensation

July 24, 2012

On July 19, WCRI (Workers’ Compensation Research Institute)  released its most recent study on the rapid growth of physician-dispensed pharmaceuticals for injured workers under state workers’ compensation.   The study compares 23 states, including Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin highlighting changes in patterns of dispensing, as well as changes in percent of market and pricing from 2007/2008 thru 2010/2011.

Increases in Frequency and Cost for Physician Dispensed Drugs

Key findings in WCRI’s study year over year include the following:

  1. Physician-dispensed drugs became increasingly common in most states that permit physician dispensing.   In Florida, Illinois, pre-reform Georgia, Maryland, Connecticut and post-reform Arizona and California, physicians dispensed 28-53 percent of all prescriptions, representing 28-63 percent of total spending on workers’ compensation claims.
  2. Prices paid for physician-dispensed drugs were substantially higher than if the same drugs were dispensed by a retail pharmacy.  In 2010/2011, the price / pill when dispensed by a physician was 60-300 percent higher than the same prescriptions dispensed at a retail pharmacy.
  3. Prices paid to dispensing physicians rose rapidly for medications that were commonly dispensed by physicians, while the prices paid to pharmacies for the same drugs changed little or fell.  As an example, Physician dispensed Vicodin, Mobic and Ultram, all commonly prescrbed in workers’ compensation, saw a average price increase of 52 percent while the same drugs dispensed in a retail pharmacy setting either remained at the same price or experienced a price decrease.
  4. Dispensing physicians wrote prescriptions for and dispensed certain drugs (e.g., omeprazole [Prilosec®] and ranitidine HCL [Zantac®]) that are available without a prescription in a drug or grocery store at a much lower price.   When they did so, prices were 5-15 times higher than MSP retail prices.

With this trend of increased price and frequency of physician dispensed drugs , it is no surprise that several states have either banned the practice altogether, have initiatives in place to limit or prohibit, or are in the process of implementing reforms directed at reducing the cost of physician dispensing. The study examined the results of specific state initiatives, as well as highlighting baseline data for states with legislation currently in play.

States That Prohibit Physician Dispensing

In the United States, five states have prohibited physicians from dispensing drugs in general, by law.  These include Massachusetts, New York, Texas and Montana and Utah.  The first three are included in the study.  In all other states, issues related to physician dispenisng are more or less addressed through state workers’ compensation policies on state fee schedules, which set maximum reimbursement rates for prescrption drugs dispensed at pharmacies and physician offices.

Where Physician Dispensing is ‘Allowed’

Several states allow physician dispensing, but in some states, such as Arkansas and Minnesota, medical practices appear to be restrictive.  Arkansas, physician dispensed drugs are subject to the same fee schedule as pharmacy dispensed drugs. In both settings, the provider (whether pharmacist or physician) is required to report acquisition cost, and physicians do not receive a dispensing fee for drugs dispensed from their offices.  In Minnesota, physicians are allowed to dispense, but must register with the Medical Practices Board before doing so.  The physician must also disclose to the patient that the he/she profits from the dispensing of medications, and that the patient may choose to obtain  prescriptions from another source.

Louisiana limits physician dispensing of narcotics to a 48-hour supply, but allows for non-narcotic drugs to be physician dispensed for longer periods.  In Florida, as of June, 2011, physicians are prohibited from dispensing Schedule II and Schedule III narcotics.

Five states (Arizona, California, Tennessee, South Carolina and Georgia), allow physician dispensing, but have adopted reforms intended to limit the price markups for physician dispensed prescriptions.  Also, in Illinois, one of the largest noted in the study for cost increases associated with physician dispensing, the Workers’ Compensation Commission members voted Tuesday, July 24, 2012,  to move ahead with a proposed rule to regulate the price of repackaged drugs, dispite a recommendation by the Medical Fee Advisory Board not to proceed.  For the rest of the states, policies are either permissive or silent as they relate to physician dispensing.

In the state of Florida, while physician dispensing is prohibited for Schedule II and Schedule III narcotics as of June, 2011, the study still showed that 62 percent of all prescription drug spending in  Florida for injured workers was paid to physicians for drugs dispensed at their  offices—not to pharmacies.  This doesn’t mean 62 percent of all prescriptions….just 62 percent of the cost.  That’s the issue.

Certain drugs were prescribed and dispensed by physicians in Florida that were  infrequently prescribed in other states where physician dispensing was not  common. For example, 11 percent of the injured workers in Florida received  prescriptions for either Prilosec® or Zantac® as compared to less than 2 percent  in most other states. When physicians dispensed, the average price paid per pill  was $7.07 for Prilosec® and $4.81 for Zantac®, compared to $0.64 and $0.42 per  pill when the same drug was purchased over-the-counter at Walgreens.

In other states that allow physician dispensing of all prescriptions, as a  result of drug repackaging, prices paid to physicians were  typically much higher than what was paid to pharmacies for the same drug. For  example, the price for the most commonly used drug, Vicodin®, more than doubled  when dispensed by physicians compared to the pharmacy—an average of $1.08 per  pill at the physicians’ offices versus $0.43 at the pharmacy.

“There is a great discrepancy between what doctors and pharmacies charge for  dispensing the same drug,” observed Dr. Richard Victor, WCRI’s Executive  Director. “One question for policymakers is whether the large price difference  paid when physicians dispense is justified by the benefits of physician  dispensing. Policymakers can learn from the California reform experience, which  is also analyzed in this study.”

Pricing at WC Fee Schedule – Lessons Learned in California

One of the key findings of the report, the results of the California fee schedule reforms (physicians who dispensed were required to submit and price using the same NDC  as that used in retail pharmacies), provided evidence of the impact of physician dispensing on the following:

  1. Prices paid for physician-dispensed prescriptions;
  2. Patient access to physician-dispensed prescriptions;
  3. Physician prescribing and dispensing patterns for certain drugs.

Approximately 1/2 of all drugs dispensed in CA remain as physician dispensed.  Following fee schedule reforms, however, the number of repackaged drugs dispensed in CA dropped from 43 percent to 11 percent.   In effect, the average price / pill for physician-dispensed prescriptions decreased to that for pharmacy-dispensed prescriptions.

State Initiatives to Control Growth and Manage Cost

States that have either implemented reforms similar to that of California over the past year, or have bills under debate currently include Arizona, California, Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee.  While the results of the legislative initiatives remain to be seen, California’s track record would lead us to believe that savings are possible if physicians are required to follow the same rules as their retail pharmacy counterparts when dispensing medications.

Impact on WCMSA Part D Cost Projection for Life Expectancy

As is the case in California and the other five states with reform initiatives onteh books, when physicians prescribe and dispense using the standard National Drug Code (NDC), pricing will occur at fee schedule or lower (if negotiated discounts are available).  From an MSA perspective, therefore, there are no objections to physician dispensing.  CMS Memos direct us to price at generic when available.   As such, when Tower identifies standard, commonly prescribed drugs being physician dispensed, we utilize the GCN (Generic Code Number) to determine therapeutic equivalency.  We then price at the lowest generic price available.

The Real Problem – Repackaging – Not Physician Dispensing

While physician dispensing is getting criticized, I would clarify that it is the process of repackaging medications that can be bought at much lower prices, and the egregious cost associated with repackaging, that is the real problem.  Many physicians, some who dispense, and others who do not, comment that the physicians aren’t the ones making money….it is the re-packagers that are making out ‘like bandits’.   While this may be true, it’s difficult to see how smart, educated physicians would continue this practice and the associated criticism if they aren’t making a nice profit.

 Potential Strategies to Mitigate Cost

The first step to mitigate claim cost is to be aware of physician dispensing and to move quickly to verify what the actual drug is.  Tower MSA Partners has full access to CMS mandated REDBOOK for drug pricing for all FDA approved NDC’s, as well as access to generic therapeutic equivalent drugs if they exist.   Ask the question.  Once you know what is being dispensed, and you understand the role the drug/compound plays in the overall treatment of the injury, the next question is whether intervention is appropriate to modify treatment and hopefully reduce cost.  We can assist there as well to make recommendations for nurse oversight, physician reviews. etc.

WCRI’s announcement of the report can be found at  http://www.wcrinet.org/whats_new.html.   For more information on physician dispensing and ‘staging’ claims to reduce claim cost , and to mitigate settlement and MSA issues, give us a call at 888-331-4941.

Lyrica Approved for Spinal Neuropathic Pain – What Are the MSA Implications if Pfizer Extends Patent?

July 3, 2012

On June 21, 2012, the Food and Drug Administration announced its approval of Lyrica for use in the management of neuropathic pain associated with chronic, debilitating spinal cord injuries. Lyrica, the brand name for pregabalin, is manufactured by Pfizer (NYSE: PFE) and is already widely used to treat fibromyalgia pain.

Prevalence of SCI Associated Neuropathic Pain
According to Pfizer, about 40 percent of the 270,000 Americans with spinal cord injuries suffer from chronic neuropathic pain that they describe as severe or excruciating. An estimated 12,000 new spinal cord injury patients are diagnosed in the U.S.each year.

Patients may experience neuropathic pain above, at or below the level of the spinal cord injury, and it may persist for up to 25 years. The pain stems from traumatic causes, such as motor vehicle accidents, violence, falls and sports injuries; where displaced bone fragments, disc material, or ligaments bruise or tear into spinal cord tissue.

Spinal neuropathic pain can also stem from non-traumatic causes, such as congenital and developmental abnormalities, genetics, infections and inflammation, removal of a benign spinal tumor and spinal cord ischemic stroke.

Treatment Options Previously Available
“Until now, no FDA approved treatment options were available in the U.S.for people with neuropathic pain associated with spinal cord injury, a condition which can be extremely disabling,” said Steven J. Romano, MD, senior vice president of Pfizer’s global primary care unit.

The FDA’s approval was based on studies of 357 patients – some with traumatic spinal cord injuries, and some with both traumatic and non-traumatic injuries. In addition to Lyrica, patients in the randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled Phase III trials were allowed to continue taking other pain medications, including NSAIDS, opioids and non-opioids.

Pain Reduction & Side Effects
According to Pfizer, patients taking Lyrica received up to a 50% reduction in pain than did patients receiving a placebo. Some experienced relief as early as week one and continuing through the duration of the 12 and 16 week trials.

Side effects experienced by patients included somnolence, dizziness, dry mouth, fatigue and peripheral edema.

Pfizer recently halted studies testing Lyrica’s effectiveness in treating neuropathic pain caused by HIV infection or diabetes after preliminary results showed that it was no more effective than a placebo.

Potential Impact on WCMSA and Settlement Cost
Though FDA approved only for neuropathic pain associated with fibromyaligia, Lyrica has consistently been listed in the Top 5 drugs used ‘off label’ in workers’ compensation (NCCI Research Brief, Workers’ Compensation Prescription Drug
Study: 2011 Update).  And, while CMS, in its May 2010 Memo, noted that off label drugs would be approved for inclusion in a WCMSA only as follows: For a Part D drug to be covered by Medicare, and thus included properly in a WCMSA, the drug should be prescribed for an outpatient use that is approved under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [21 U.S.C.A. § 301 et seq.], or supported by one or more citations included or approved for inclusion in any of the compendia described in subsection (g)(1)(B)(I) of 42 U.S.C. Section 1396r-8. “,  in practice, CMS has included Lyrica as an approved drug more frequently than its has accepted its exclusion from the WCMSA based on the cited compendia.

As an added cost to those who prepare WCMSA’s, the recent FDA approval of Lyrica for spinal cord injuries allowed Pfizer to apply for an extension to its patent, and on July 19, 2012, patent rights preventing any generic substitutions of Lyrica® were extended by a district court until at least 2018.

A generic version of Lyrica  called ‘Lupin’ was approved on July 5th, 2012, which would have make it available for use in the WCMSA next summer.  Unfortunately, the district court’s decision to extend the patent rights will prevent the sale of this generic until December 2018.  As a result, MSA providers will be forced to price for the ‘branded’ single source version of Lyrica for an extended period of time, thus making the MSA cost projection for life expectancy much higher.

At Tower MSA Partners, our methdology, as it relates to Lyrica will continue to be as follows:

  1. Review the appropriateness of the medical and drug treatment for the specific injury with our panel of physicians.
  2. Identify triggers that warrant intervention and stop the WCMSA process.
  3. Work with the adjuster to establish an action plan to change treatment.
  4. Involve our team of physicians to review and contact the treating physician.

Combining evidentiary based medical guidelines with peer-to-peer contact, many treating physicians have been open to dialogue and willing to make changes.

As one of the most expensive drugs prescribed in workers’ compensation, we see the FDA approval of Lyricanal for spinal cord injuries to be of concern to those who seek to settle claims involving future medical for Medicare beneficiaries.  Lyrica is, and will continue to be, a significant cost driver for the MSA.  We do not, however, anticipate a change in our course of action when reviewing medical and pharmacy records prior to completing the MSA.  We will include Lyrica among our list of pre-MSA triggers, and will work proactively with our clients to get it removed by the treating physician prior to submission of the MSA for CMS approval.

Going forward, we will continue to monitor Lyrica and the prescribing patterns followed in workers’ compensation.  We will also monitor CMS’s inclusion of Lyrica as an approved drug for spinal cord injuries when reviewing a WCMSA.  For more information about Lyrica, or any  aspect of our pre-MSA review process, please contact us directly.

The Rising Cost of Opioid Narcotics In Workers Compensation

June 23, 2012

New studies and research on Narcotics In Workers’ Compensation.

The  American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine states, “the overuse of opioid therapy to treat chronic pain conditions is becoming epidemic in the United States,” and, “there are many treatments that should be considered before opioids”. According to this organization:

  • “Opioids are  becoming more controversial in large part because of … markedly elevated eath risks that have paralleled increases in consumption of opioids narcotics)”
  • “Routine use of opioids for the treatment of chronic nonmalignant pain conditions is not recommended”
  • “Opioids are recommended for select patients with chronic persistent pain, neuropathic pain, or CRPS (complex regional pain syndrome).”

Two years ago, NCCI released a study on the use of narcotics in workers compensation. Findings from that study include the following:

  • There is a correlation between drug abuse treatments and heavy narcotic use
  • There has been an increase in early narcotic use
  • The use of narcotics can continue for many years

In the update released on June 5, 2012, changes and key trends identified by NCCI were as follows:

  • Per-claim narcotic costs have increased
  • There have been changes in which narcotics are most commonly used
  • Narcotic use is concentrated among a small percentage of claimants
  • Initial narcotic use is indicative of future use

Overall Trends

The study begins with a look at the average narcotic cost per workers compensation claim with medical transactions. NCCI found that per-claim costs grew steadily from 2001 to  2004, remained fairly flat for a few years, and then increased in 2009. From 2001 to 2004, per-claim narcotic costs grew at an average of 18 percent per year. From 2004 to 2008, per-claim narcotic costs grew at an average of 1 percent per year. While there has generally been lower growth in recent years, the narcotic cost per-claim in 2009 is 14 percent greater than it was in 2008.

Narcotic use in workers compensation is becoming more common. In 2001, 28 percent of all claimants with medical transactions received at least one prescription drug within one year following injury and 8 percent received narcotics. In 2008, these numbers increased to 38 and 13 percent respectively. This implies that in 2008, over one-third of claimants with prescriptions received narcotics, up from 27 percent in 2001.

 Trends in Active Ingredients

NCCI identified seven active ingredients that account for more than 95 percent of the total cost of narcotics used in workers compensation. These include: morphine sulfate, oxymorphone, fentanyl citrate, fentanyl, oxycodone, oxycodone with acetaminophen, and hydrocodone BIT with acetaminophen.

The only major shifts in market share by active ingredient over the past few years have been a simultaneous reduction in the use of Fentanyl Citrate and an increase in the use of Oxymorphone HCL. While Oxymorphone HCL has been available through an injection since 1959, it only became available as an oral tablet in mid-2006.

Narcotic Consumption Among Claimants

Narcotic use in workers compensation is highly concentrated among a small percentage of claimants.  The narcotics consumed by the top 1 percent of claimants receiving narcotics accounts for close to 40 percent of all narcotic costs; the narcotics consumed by the top 10 percent of claimants receiving narcotics accounts for about 80 percent of all workers compensation narcotic costs. While narcotic use is highly concentrated, NCCI also noted a slight downward trend in the share of narcotic costs for the top users.

Tracking Morphine Equivalent Dosage (MEQ)

NCCI first investigated the persistence of narcotic use in workers compensation in 2009 and found that, while the probability of continued use declined with time, narcotic use could continue for many years. This study expands the 2009 analysis by investigating the relationship between the amount of narcotics initially consumed and the persistence of their use by tracking each drug based on its respective morphine quivalent dosage (MEQ).

Example:  According to drugs.com, the usual adult dose for time-released Oxycodone (OxyContin®) is 10 mg orally every 12 hours.  Assuming a claimant consumes 10 mg pills:

  • 100 MEQ is equivalent to approximately 7 tablets of 10mg OxyContin®
  • 370 MEQ is equivalent to approximately 25 tablets of 10mg OxyContin®
  • 825 MEQ is equivalent to approximately 55 tabletss of 10mg OxyContin®

In its findings NCCI first noted that early narcotic use was indicative of  long term use with the average MEQ per claim receiving narcotics increasing with claim maturity. Second, NCCI found that the MEQ ranking was maintained in subsequent quarters; for example, those claims defined the by highest MEQ in initial use maintained its higher-than-other-claimant status throughout the life of the claim.

Conclusions and Commentary

Pain management is a necessary part of the worker’s compensation rehabilitation process, but the abuse of opioids can cause hazardous, life-threatening side effects for which payers may ultimately be held responsible. Payers who track and identify use patterns can better uncover any potential abuses before they become a litigious issue.

PBM reports that identify triggers such as chronic opioid narcotic use, high dollar narcotic spend, multiple physicians, multiple pharmacies are widely available across all providers.  With this level of information regarding claimants at risk readily available, why then does the opioid narcotic issue appear to be getting worse?  It is my belief that there is a disconnect between the information and the action.

How do we get the appropriate information into the hands of those who can, and will,
act on it?  What is the appropriate action to take for each claimant?  Are there jurisdictional requirements that must be met when intervention is warranted?  When and by whom should contact be made to the treating physician?  How do we get the agreement from the treating physicians to modify treatment?  Who follows through to verify that treatment is modified?

The items listed above are a subset of the many questions we ask at Tower MSA
Partners with every referral.  We work with clients to ‘stage’ claims prior to settlement and the MSA, and to address medical, pharmacy and legal issues as early in the claims process as possible.  We contact the treating physician when changes are needed and obtain written agreement.  We then follow through to make certain the changes are made and outcomes are achieved.

When physicians refuse to modify treatment, we also work with clients to identify specific, jurisdictionally approved strategies to obtain positive outcomes.  Depending on state of jurisdiction, we assist clients to challenge treatment, pursue a change in treatment  provider, close formularies, initiate dispute resolution, send the claim through utilization review, etc.

Potential strategies to address the rising problem with opioid narcotics involve 4
critical steps:

  1. First, establish the internal triggers you wish to track;
  2. Be proactive in identifying cases that meet your triggers;
  3. Act on the information;
  4. Follow through.

NCCI’s full report on opioid narcotics in workers’ compensation can be found at NCCI: Narcotics in Workers Compensation

 

NCCI Releases New Study on Effects of Obesity in Workers Comp

June 20, 2012

There is mounting evidence of obesity contributing to the cost of workers compensation. Longitudinal studies by Duke University of its own employees-and by Johns Hopkins University of employees of a multi-site U.S. aluminum manufacturing company-point to substantially higher odds of injury for workers in the highest obesity category. Further, a 2011 Gallup survey found that obese employees account for a disproportionately high number of missed workdays, thus causing a significant loss in economic output. Finally, earlier NCCI research of workers compensation claims found that claimants with a comorbidity code indicating obesity experience medical costs that are a multiple of what is observed for comparable non-obese claimants.

The study shows that, based on Temporary Total and Permanent Total indemnity benefit payments, the duration of obese claimants is more than five times the duration of non-obese claimants, after controlling for primary ICD-9 code, injury year, U.S. state, industry, gender, and age. When Permanent Partial benefits are counted toward indemnity benefit duration as well, this multiple climbs to more than six.

And if the statistics aren’t enough to encourage action, consider this….

Employee is a 54 yr old laborer working for a landscaping company.  He is 5’4″ tall and weighs 310 pounds.  In 2002, while walking on grass with a bucket of weeds, he tripped on a rock.   Injured worker treated conservatively for years for knee and back pain as he was too large for an MRI (even the open ones only take up to 300 pounds).  The doctors felt that the only option for treatment was knee replacement surgery, but injured worker was told his obesity precluded him from being a candidate – he needed to lose 100 pounds before surgery was feasible.

By 2004 injured worker was over 350 pounds and unable to work. Employer continued to pay both indemnity and medical.  At this point, employer authorized a weight loss program and also paid for gym membership and transport.  To be certain progress was being made, employer authorized surveillance.  Injured worker was photographed going to gym and sitting.

In February, 2011, injured worker had lapband surgery.  He lost 60 pounds in first 6  months  -at this point he is down to 250 lbs and  requires surgery to remove skin, but still 50 pounds to go before knee surgery can occur.

Injured worker is now 64 yrs old now, not able to work and still waiting for surgery…

This incredible story is also true, and one I’m sure many of us can repeat from our own experiences…. as we’ve all heard many times, “truth is stranger than fiction”.

As a Medicare Set Aside company, Tower MSA Partners is reminded everyday of the significant impact of obesity on future medical cost  (Duke University,”Obesity and Workers’ Compensation: Results from the Duke Health and Safety Surveillance System”, 2007,  lists mthe edical cost of obese patients as 6.8 times that of patients of recommended weight) .   We also see the impact of obesity on both the quality of life and the life expectancy of the Medicare beneficiary.  Taking it a step further, when one considers the strong relationship between high opioid narcotic use and the lifestyle changes that almost invaribly lead to obesity, we find yet another reason to work diligently to identify these combination triggers as early in the life of the claim as possible.

The free report is available from NCCI here: NCCI Study on Effect of Obesity in Workers Comp.

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making

June 18, 2012

This advance notice of proposed rulemaking solicits comment on standardized options CMS has considered making available to beneficiaries and their representatives to clarify how they can meet their obligations to protect Medicare’s interest with respect to Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) claims involving automobile and liability insurance (including self-insurance), no-fault insurance, and workers’ compensation when future medical care is claimed or the settlement, judgment, award, or other payment releases (or has the effect of releasing) claims for future medical care.

To be considered, comments regarding CMS-6047-ANPRM must be recieved on or before 5pm on August 14, 2012.

The primary purpose of this ANPRM is to respond to affected parties’ requests for guidance on “future medicals” MSP obligations, specifically, how  individuals / beneficiaries can satisfy those obligations effectively and efficiently.   Currently, individuals involved in certain workers’ compensation situations are able to use Medicare’s formal, yet voluntary, Medicare Set-Aside Arrangement (MSA) review process in order to determine if a proposed set-aside amount is sufficient to meet their MSP obligations related to “future medicals.” To date, Medicare has not established a similar process for  individuals/beneficiaries to use to meet their MSP obligations with respect to  future medicals” in liability insurance (including self-insurance) situations. CMS is soliciting comment on whether and how Medicare should implement such a similar process in liability insurance situations, as well as comment on the proposed definitions and additional options outlined later in this section. CMS is further soliciting suggestions on options they have not included later in  this section. In its own words, CMS is most interested in the feasibility and usability of the outlined options and whether implementation of these options would provide affected parties with sufficient guidance.

Medicare is considering the options listed below in an effort to develop an efficient and effective means for addressing “future medicals.” Options 1 through 4 would be available to Medicare beneficiaries as well as to individuals who are not yet beneficiaries. Options 5 through 7 would be available to beneficiaries only. CMS is requesting comment on the feasibility and usability of all of the options, and also requests proposals for additional options for consideration.

The seven (7) proposed options include the following:

Option 1. The individual/beneficiarypays for all related future medical care until his/her settlement is exhausted and documents it accordingly.

The beneficiary may choose to govern his/her use of his/her settlement proceeds himself/herself. Under this option, he/she would be required to pay for all related care out of his/her settlement proceeds, until those proceeds are appropriately exhausted. As a routine matter, Medicare would not review documentation in conjunction with this option, but may occasionally request documentation from beneficiaries selected at random as part of Medicare’s program integrity efforts.

Option 2. Medicare would not pursue “future medicals” if the individual/beneficiary’s case fits all of the conditions under either of the following headings:

a. The amount of liability insurance (including self-insurance) “settlement” is a defined amount or less and the following criteria are met:

  • The accident, incident, illness, or injury occurred one year or more before the date of “settlement;”
  • The underlying claim did not involve a chronic illness/condition or major trauma;
  • The beneficiary does not receive additional “settlements;” andShow citation box
  • There is no corresponding workers’ compensation or no-fault insurance claim.

b.  The amount of liability insurance (including self-insurance) “settlement” is a defined amountor less and all of the following criteria are met:

  • The individual is not a beneficiary as of the date of “settlement;”
  • The individual does not expect to become a beneficiary within 30 months of the date of “settlement;”
  • The underlying claim did not involve a chronic illness/condition or major trauma;
  • The beneficiary does not receive additional “settlements;” and
  • There is no corresponding workers’ compensation or no-fault insurance claim.

Option 3. The individual/beneficiary acquires/provides an attestation regarding the Date of Care Completion from his/her treating physician.

a. Before Settlement—When the individual/beneficiary obtains a physician attestation regarding the Date of Care Completion from his or her treating physician, and the Date of Care Completion is before the “settlement,” Medicare’s recovery claim would be limited to conditional payments it made for Medicare covered and otherwise reimbursable items and services provided from the Date of Incident through and including the Date of Care Completion. As a result, Medicare’s interest with respect to “future medicals” would be satisfied. The physician must attest to the Date of Care Completion and attest that the individual/beneficiary would not require additional care related to his/her “settlement.”

b. After Settlement—When the individual/beneficiary obtains a physician attestation from his or her treating physician after settlement regarding the Date of Care Completion, Medicare would pursue recovery for related conditional payments it made from the date of incident through and including the date of “settlement.” Further, Medicare’s interest with respect to future medical care would be limited to Medicare covered and otherwise reimbursable items and/or services provided from the date of “settlement” through and including the Date of Care Completion. The physician must attest to the Date of Care Completion and attest that the individual/beneficiary would not require additional care related to his/her “settlement.” CMS requests comment on the efficacy and feasibility of this option.

Option 4. The Individual/Beneficiary Submits Proposed Medicare Set-Aside Arrangement (MSA) Amounts for CMS’ Review and Obtains Approval.

Currently, CMS has a formal process to review proposed MSA amounts in certain workers’ compensation situations. Recently CMS has received a high volume of requests for official review of proposed liability insurance (including self-insurance) MSA amounts. This has prompted them to consider whether to implement a formal review process for proposed liability insurance (including self-insurance) MSA amounts. For more information related to workers’ compensation MSA process, please visit http://www.cms.hhs.gov/Medicare/Coordination-of-Benefits/WorkersCompAgencyServices/wcsetaside.html.  CMS specifically solicits comment on how a liability MSA amount review process could be structured, including whether it should be the same as or similar to the process used in the workers’ compensation arena, whether review thresholds should be imposed, etc.

Option 5. The beneficiary participates in one of Medicare’s recovery options.

Recently, CMS implemented three options with respect to resolving Medicare’s recovery claim in more streamlined and efficient manners. Before a demand letter is issued, the beneficiary or his/her representative may participate in one of three recovery options, which allows the beneficiary to obtain Medicare’s final conditional payment amount before settlement. The three recovery options are as follows:

  • $300 Threshold—If a beneficiary alleges a physical trauma-based injury, obtains a liability insurance (including self-insurance) “settlement” of $300 or less, and does not receive or expect to receive additional “settlements” related to the incident, Medicare will not pursue recovery against that particular “settlement.”
  • Fixed Payment Option—When a beneficiary alleges a physical trauma-based injury, obtains a liability insurance (including self-insurance) “settlement” of $5,000 or less, and does not receive or expect to receive additional “settlements” related to the incident, the beneficiary may elect to resolve Medicare’s recovery claim by paying 25 percent of the gross “settlement” amount.
  • Self-Calculated Conditional Payment Option—When a beneficiary alleges a physical trauma-based injury that occurred at least 6 months prior to electing the option, anticipates obtaining a liability insurance (including self-insurance) “settlement” of $25,000 or less, demonstrates that care has been completed, and has not received nor expects to receive additional “settlements” related to the incident, the beneficiary may self-calculate Medicare’s recovery claim. Medicare would review the beneficiary’s self-calculated amount and provide confirmation of Medicare’s final conditional payment amount.

Each of the options is employed in such a way that Medicare’s interest with respect to future medicals is, in effect, satisfied for the specified “settlement.” Therefore, when a beneficiary participates in any one of these recovery options, the beneficiary has also met his/her obligation with respect to future medicals. CMS solicits comment on proposed expansions of these options and the justification for that proposed expansion, as well as any suggestions about how to improve the three options we recently implemented.

Option 6. The Beneficiary Makes an Upfront Payment.

CMS is currently considering two variations of an “upfront payment option.”

a. If Ongoing Responsibility For Medicals was imposed, demonstrated or accepted and medicals are calculated through the life of the beneficiary or the life of the injury.

If ongoing responsibility for medicals was imposed, demonstrated or accepted from the date of “settlement” through the life of the beneficiary or life of the injury, we may review and approve a proposed amount to be paid as an upfront lump sum payment for the full amount of the calculated cost for all related future medical care. This option would generally apply in workers’ compensation, no-fault insurance situations or when life-time medicals are imposed by law. In effect, this option may be used in place of administering a MSA if we have reviewed and approved a proposed MSA amount. CMS solicits comment on how to develop this process, the efficacy of it, and whether it would be utilized.

b. If Ongoing Responsibility for Medicals was Not Imposed, Demonstrated or Accepted.

If a beneficiary obtains a “settlement,” our general rule stated previously applies to the “settlement,” and ongoing responsibility for medicals has not been imposed on, demonstrated by or accepted by the defendant, the beneficiary may elect to make an upfront payment to Medicare in the amount of a specified percentage of “beneficiary proceeds.” This option would most often apply in liability insurance (including self-insurance situations, primarily due to policy caps. For the purposes of this option, the term “beneficiary proceeds” would be calculated by subtracting from the total “settlement” amount attorney fees and procurement costs borne by the beneficiary, Medicare’s demand amount (for conditional payments made by Medicare), and certain additional medical expenses the beneficiary paid out of pocket. Such additional medical expenses are specifically limited to items and services listed in 26 U.S.C. 213(d)(1)(A) through (C) and 26 U.S.C. 213(d)(2). The calculation of beneficiary proceeds does not include medical expenses paid by, or that are the responsibility of, a source other than the beneficiary.  CMS specifically solicits comment on how to develop this process, its efficacy, and whether it would be utilized. CMS further requests comment on the calculation of beneficiary proceeds, the appropriate percentage(s) to be used, and how the percentage(s) is/are justified.Show citation box

Option 7. The Beneficiary Obtains a Compromise or Waiver of Recovery.

If the beneficiary obtains either a compromise or a waiver of recovery, Medicare would have the discretion to not pursue future medicals related to the specific “settlement” where the compromise or waiver of recovery was granted. If the beneficiary obtains additional “settlements,” Medicare would review the conditional payments it made and adjust its claim for past and future medicals accordingly. CMS specifically solicits comment on whether this approach is practical and usable, as it relates to “future medicals.”

We encourage you to read and evaluate each of the seven options as they relate to your business and settlement objectives and email us at info@towermsa.com with questions, feedback and suggestions.  We will continue our due diligence as well, and will publish our thoughts as to the pro’s and con’s of each option.  As noted, we have 60 days to respond with comments and recommendations.

Click here for the complete version of CMS-6047-ANPRM.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Medicare Secondary Payer and Workers’ Compensation Settlement Agreement Act: 30 Days and Counting…. Can it Succeed?

Introduced into the US House of Representatives on April 27, 2012, the Medicare Secondary Payer and Workers’ Compensation Settlement Agreements Act of 2012 (HR 5284) aims to streamline the settlement of workers’ compensation agreements by creating an exception to Medicare secondary payer requirements. The bill also provides language that could ease the path toward satisfying these requirements by using qualified Medicare set-aside arrangement (MSA) under these agreements.

Designed to apply to certain workers’ compensation settlements agreements, the bill proposes changes if any of the following criteria is present:

  1. The total settlement is $25,000 or under;
  2. The claimant is not eligible for Medicare at settlement date and is not expected to be eligible within 30 months;
  3. The settlement agreement does not limit or eliminate the claimant’s right to payment of future medical bills;
  4. The claimant is not eligible for future medical bill payments under the settlement.

US representative David Reichert (WA-8) introduced the bill in an attempt to improve the set-aside process for workers’ compensation claims. Current settlements that overlap with Medicare coverage create a lengthy review period on what constitutes the set-aside coverage amounts.

Currently, HR 5284 has been referred to the Subcommittee on Health for review. The bill has gained heavy support from industry organizations, including American Insurance Association (AIA), American Association for Justice (AAJ), American Bar Association (ABA), National Council of Self Insurers (NCSI), Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCI), UWC – Strategic Services on Unemployment & Workers’ Compensation (UWC), Washington Self-Insurers Association (WSIA), and Workers Injury Law and Advocacy Group (WILG).

Part of the problem may be that the legislation tries fixing what isn’t governed. There is a lack of any real definition of MSA from a regulatory sense. Would wrapping laws around an undefined practice work?

Also, industry buzz suggests that legislators are treating workers’ compensation issues much like they would group health issues. Also, detractors of the bill believe there is little to address the calculation of allocation amounts and too little consistency in understanding and applying CMS policies.

The success of H.R. 5284 will depend largely on how well the legislation understands the MSA environment. While the idea may be a good one, the actual practice may fall short of its intended goal.

CMS Proposes Regulations Addressing Future Medicals in Liability Settlements

May 23, 2012

While text of the proposed rules have not yet been released, it appears that CMS has developed regulations that will ‘advise’ that parties must determine whether an allocation for future medicals exists within a gross liability award, and then document those efforts in a pre-defined format.  If this is the case, this would be the first CMS guidance on future medicals within liability settlements since the CMS memo of September, 2010.  If our suspicsions are correct, this represents a significant development in the MSP world.

Guidance as to how parties should address future medicals in liability settlements has been virtually non-existent until now. The first step, in play now,  inlcudes internal vetting within the Executive Branch of the federal government.  Following Executive Branch approval, CMS will release the proposed regulations to the settlement community for comment.  Each comment will be considered, and if appropriate, will lead to modifications and a new comment period prior to CMS enacting the regulation.

When available, a detailed analysis of the proposed regulation will be available on our website.

H.R. 5284 – The Medicare Secondary Payer and Workers’ Compensation Settlement Agreement Act of 2012

May 17, 2012

The Medicare Secondary Payer and Workers’ Compensation Settlement Agreement Act of 2012, H.R. 5284, was filed in the U.S. House of Representatives by Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA) on April 27, 2012. The Government Printing Office released the text of the bill o May 7, 2012.

What H.R. 5284 Promises
Rep. Reichert purports that this bill “improves the Medicare Set-Aside process for workers compensation claims” and “provides clear and consistent standards for an administrative process that provides reasonable protections for injured workers and Medicare”.

Provides An Exemption From MSP Statute
H.R. 5284 amends the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) statute to provide an exemption from the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) statute for workers’ compensation settlements where any of the following occur:

• Total settlement is less than or equal to $25,000;
• Claimant is not eligible for Medicare at settlement date and is unlikely to become eligible for within 30 months;
• Future medical coverage is not included in the settlement;
• Settlement agreement does not limit or extinguish the right of the claimant to payment of future medical bills.

Defines “Qualified Medicare Set-Aside”
A (QMSA), as defined in H.R. 5284, is “a Medicare set-aside that reasonably takes into account the full payment obligation for present and future medical payments”. HR 5284 amends the MSP Statute such that a workers’ compensation settlement that includes a “qualified Medicare Set-Aside” (QMSA) will satisfy any obligation, with respect to present or future payment reimbursement under Section 1395y(b)(2) of the MSP statute.

To be considered as a QMSA, the MSA must give due consideration to:

• The illness or injury, age and life expectancy,
• the reasonableness of and necessity for future medical expenses,
• the duration of and limitations on benefits payable under the workers’ compensation law or plan and the relevant State workers’ compensation regulations and case law.

The QMSA must also:

• Include payment for items, services that are covered by the workers’ comp law or plan involved;
• Be based on the applicable workers’ compensation State fee schedule;
• Can (not must) be calculated using a proportional adjustment for compromised settlements that reduces the QMSA by the same proportion that the total settlement was reduced.

Under H.R. 5284, the current CMS review process remains intact. However, the follow requirements must be met during the review process to be considered a QMSA:

• The Secretary has 60 days to review the QMSA.
• Failure to meet that 60-day deadline will deem the QMSA to be approved.
• If denied, the Secretary must include specific reasons.
In addition, HR 5284 establishes an appeals process, with specific time deadlines, that entitles the dissatisfied party the right to all of the following:
• a reconsideration by the Secretary,
• a hearing before an administrative law judge,
• a judicial review.

Establishes a “Safe Harbor” Amount
Medicare set-asides of $250,000 or less are deemed QMSAs upon written consent of all parties to the settlement agreement, AND if a “safe harbor amount” is paid directly to Medicare.
The safe harbor amount is defined as “15% of the total settlement, excluding repayment of conditional payments and previously settled portions of the claim”. The bill gives the Secretary the authority to modify the safe harbor percentage if it is determined that the 15% rate causes significant negative impact.

Sets Time Limit for Conditional Payment Request
If the Secretary fails to provide conditional payment information within 90 days, then neither the claimant nor the payer is liable for any reimbursement to Medicare with respect to the conditional payment information being requested.
Sets QMSA Payment Not > Workers’ Compensation Fee Schedule
No one shall be liable for any payment amount established under a Medicare set-aside for an item or service provided to the claimant that is greater than the related workers’ compensation fee schedule amount. In addition, a provider may not bill a Medicare set-aside more than the payment rate used in the Medicare set-aside or the Secretary may apply sanctions.

 Treatment of state workers’ compensation law
If a workers’ compensation settlement agreement is accepted in accordance with the workers’ compensation law of a jurisdiction, then that acceptance shall be deemed conclusive. That includes determination of reasonableness of the settlement value, any allocation of funds, the projection of future indemnity or medical benefits that may be payable under State workers’ compensation law.

To view the text of H.R. 5248, click here.

Town Hall Teleconference Events – February through June, 2012

February 17, 2012

Mandatory Reporting for Liability Insurance (including Self-Insurance), No-Fault Insurance and Worker’s Compensation

Implementation of Medicare Secondary Payer Mandatory Reporting Provisions in Section 111 of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007
(See 42 U.S.C. 1395y(b)(8))

The CMS will be hosting combined NGHP Policy and Technical Support related teleconference events. For these calls the format is opening remarks and a presentation by CMS, followed by a question and answer session with the audience. Following is the call schedule for the first half of 2012.

NGHP Policy and Technical Support Questions and Answers: These calls will address both policy and technical questions you have regarding Section 111 reporting. Policy discussions will focus on CMS policy supporting the Section 111 NGHP reporting requirements, and how policy is being and has been translated into procedures. Technical support questions will focus on EDI connectivity and data transmission, use of the COB Secure Website, disposition and error codes, and other aspects of the data exchange process. Both CMS staff and representatives of the CMS COBC EDI Department will be available throughout each call.

DATES:

  •  February 23 (Thursday), 2012
  •  March 22 (Thursday), 2012
  • April 24 (Tuesday), 2012
  • May 24, (Thursday), 2012
  • June 19 (Tuesday), 2012

Call-in time for all calls: 1:00 PM – 3:00 PM Eastern time. Participation is by telephone only.

Call-in line for all calls: (800) 603-1774

Pass Code: Section 111

Questions for the call: Please submit questions to PL110-173SEC111-comments@cms.hhs.gov.

Please begin dialing in approximately 20 minutes before the call start time, due to the large number of participants.

Tower MSA Partners Seeks Experienced Salespeople

January 4, 2012

Tower MSA Partners is aggressively seeking experienced salespeople in both workers’ compensation and liability markets. Interested parties should forward their resumes to info@towermsa.com.  To speak with someone directly, please call 888-331-4941 and reference this post.
.