Category: Medicare Set-Asides

Updated CMS Policy Changes Medicare Set-Aside Seed Calculation

April 29, 2021

book marked by sticky notes illustrating changes Section 111 reporting on ORM

An updated CMS policy change to the Workers’ Compensation MSA Reference Guide changes the Medicare Set-Aside seed calculation

On April 19, 2021, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released an updated Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set-Aside (WCMSA) Reference Guide, Version 3.3, which made a slight but notable addition to how the Medicare Set-Aside seed calculation seed amount is determined.  Specifically, CMS now requires the MSA seed amount to include the cost of the first surgery/procedure for each body part.  Previously, CMS accepted only one surgery in the seed even when there were additional surgeries for other body parts in the MSA allocation.

When settling parties choose to fund the MSA with an annuity, there is an initial deposit called the seed amount. The seed amount, under the prior rule, included the first two years of annual payments and, when applicable, the cost of the first surgery/procedure, the first replacement DME if the cost exceeds $500 and sometimes injections.

For example, an overall Medicare Set-Aside amount of $100,000 might breakdown to a $25,000 seed amount (with one surgery) with the remaining $75,000 placed in an annuity.

Under the new rule, requiring the Medicare Set-Aside seed calculation amount to include the first surgery for each body part does not change the overall MSA amount, but it puts more funds in the seed amount and less in the annuity. With the annuity less, the cost to the employer or carrier to fund the MSA will be more. In other words, taking the above example, where previously the seed amount was $25,000 (to include one surgery), the seed may now be $45,000 (to include two surgeries) with the annuity only funding $55,000.

CMS also made some other minor changes in this updated guide:

  • Updated the link to the CDC Life Expectancy table used by CMS (Section 10.3)
  • Added language confirming medication refills should be included when pricing intrathecal pumps (Section 9.4.5)
  • Noted that a Consent to Release “must be signed (by hand or electronically) with the full name of either the claimant, matching the claimant’s legal name, or by the claimant’s authorized representative, if documentation establishing the relationship is also provided. It must be a full signature, not initials.” (Section 10.2)
  • Clarified section regarding access to cases via the WCMSA Portal for Professional Administrators that were not the original submitters (Sections 16.2 and 19.4)
  • Updated the Major Medical Centers table for a Missouri entry (Appendix 7)
  • Added disclaimer to Appendix 4 stating that CMS does not endorse any of the listed products it uses for reference in calculating the MSA.
  • Noted that Conduent Strataware® was added to Appendix 4 as a tool for repricing medical bills to state mandated fee schedules, as well as usual, customary and recommend rates.

If you have any questions about these updates, please contact Tower’s Chief Compliance Officer, Dan Anders, at daniel.anders@towermsa.com or (888) 331-4941.

Related Prior Posts:

CMS Adds New Pricing Resource to WCMSA Reference Guide

CMS Expands MSA Amended Reviews & Modifies Consents to Release in Updated Reference Guide

Need a Medicare Set Aside Second Opinion?

October 27, 2020

nurse conducting research for a Medicare Set Aside Second Opinion in a manual

Has a Medicare Set Aside ever disrupted one of your settlements?  Any one of these things — unexpected medical, surgical or pharmacy costs, compliance issues, the way MSA administration will be handled, or the presence or absence of a structured settlement–can halt negotiations. 

Tower addresses cost drivers and deals with compliance situations long before preparing an MSA, so our clients don’t have to worry about MSAs impeding settlements and injured workers can be assured that their future medical needs will be met . 

However, recently we’ve been asked to review MSAs prepared by other companies and found significant cost drivers and other obstacles to settlements.  Fortunately, our free Medicare Set Aside Second Opinion service saved the settlements and helped to secure claim closures. 

Medicare Set Aside Second Opinion Case Study

Here’s one case. Based on her experience with managing a claim and its costs, an adjuster thought the $220,000 MSA produced by another MSP provider was too high and asked us to review it.

Following our standard workflow for new MSAs, our Intake Team compared the MSA’s “accepted body parts” against the client’s claim system and found significant discrepancies.

The MSA allocated for a lifetime’s supply of sertraline, a drug used to treat anxiety and depression. However, “psyche/stress” was not an accepted body part and the workers’ comp insurer had not been paying for it. 

Tower drafted a Body Part Letter that clarified the compensable conditions and specified those that were not accepted by or paid for by the insurer. Removing the drug from the allocation saved more than $58,000.

This 2nd Opinion review also detected recommendations for inappropriate medical treatment, including an unnecessary bladder surgery. Our Physician Follow Up Service – available at no extra cost to our clients – contacted the physician and obtained written confirmation of this, reducing the allocation by another $37,000+.  We also obtained a rated age from K.P. Underwriting that further reduced the treatment and prescription cost over life expectancy.  The total savings came to over $98,000.

MSA Value is in Claim Closure 

How could we do this when the other provider couldn’t?  It comes down to our philosophy and attitude.

Tower does not treat MSAs as commodities. Instead, we recognize that the real business value of an MSA is in its ability to facilitate claim settlement and closure.

Our role is to collaborate with clients to analyze and assess risk, review medical and pharmacy records to determine Medicare exposure, intervene when treatment changes are needed, and recommend the appropriate time to complete the MSA.

In short, we proactively work to reduce costs and posture files for settlement.

How We Achieve Settlement Success

We created MSA best-practices technology and continually update it to make sure we can always accurately allocate the MSA without overfunding.  Our MSP Automation Suite contains the very latest CMS coverage, coding and individual state pricing data.  We measure everything and analyze CMS responses line by line so we know what the agency will accept, what it won’t and when to push. 

We know where cost drivers tend to hide, and our Intake and Clinical Teams are trained to hunt them down. We know which interventions to apply at the right time to reduce costs.  We know how to phrase treatment and pharmacy changes and supply the precise documentation CMS needs to approve the MSA.

And we do all this the first time around, so you won’t need a second opinion. 


With Tower, payers can enter settlement negotiations with realistic MSAs that they can explain and defend.  (We’ll participate in these negotiations if you’d like.) 

Settle well the first time with Tower. But, if you have a questionable MSA, let us give you our free 2nd opinion. Download more information here or refer an MSA for a 2nd Opinion by contacting our Intake Team at 888-331-4941 or referrals@towermsa.com.

Medicare Set-Asides and Third-Party Liability

November 11, 2011

The following legal judgements relate to Medicare Set-Asides and Third-Party Liability

Hinsinger v. Showboat Atlantic City, 420 N.J. Super. 15, 18 A.3d 229 (N.J. Super Ct. Law Div. 2011)

In Hinsinger, the New Jersey court applied the same standard to Medicare set asides created with money obtained from third-party liability claims as it does with money obtained from workers’ compensation claims.  This rationale is premised based on the long understood policy of protecting Medicare’s interests from primary payers.

Based on a personal injury action, the parties to this case reached a settlement agreement in the amount of $600,000.00.  The claimant had become a Medicare beneficiary in 2009.  In order to protect Medicare’s interests, $180,600.00 of the $600,000.00 was allocated to a Medicare set aside account.  After this settlement was reached, the claimant’s attorney filed a petition to recover his attorney fees from the Medicare set aside account.  The trial court held that the attorney could deduct his fees from the Medicare set aside account.

The first issue was whether the same standard should apply to MSA’s created with money from third-party liability cases and MSA’s created from workers’ compensation claims.  The court held that the attorney was able to deduct his fees from the Medicare Set Aside Trust by applying the same standard as a workers’ compensation Medicare Set Aside

The second issue was whether the attorney’s fees could be deducted from the Medicare set aside account.  The court explained that the amount of money deducted from the Medicare set aside account for procurement costs was computed using the ration of the procurement costs to the total settlement or judgment.  The court in this case stated that 42 C.F.R. § 411.37 (2008) was applicable and since the ratio of procurement costs to the total settlement of $600,000.00 was 32.778%, that ratio was applied to the amount of money allocated for the procurement costs.

The court went as far as stating that “the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services has stated multiple times that the same statutes that necessitate or otherwise apply to Medicare set asides in workers’ compensation cases apply to third-party liability situations.” Once the court determined that parties to a third-party liability action needed to consider Medicare’s interest, the court then applied the workers’ compensation
standard to arrive at the their conclusion that attorneys’ fees incurred to procure a settlement may be deducted from the money allocated to a Medicare set aside.

Zaleppa v. Siewell, 208, 9 A.3d 632 (Pa. Super. 2010)

In Zaleppa v. Siewell, a 69 year old woman was injured in a car accident and
subsequently obtained a judgment in the amount of $15,000.00 against the driver
who hit her vehicle.  The jury determined that $5,000.00 of the $15,000.00 would be allocated to provide for future medical expenses associated with her injuries.  Defendant filed a motion requesting the court to name Medicare as the payee of the $5,000.00 to ensure that Medicare would recover conditional payments. The trial court denied Defendant’s requested relief.

On appeal, the court noted that there was no evidence presented to show that Medicare had even paid any conditional payments to the Plaintiff and that the Medicare Secondary Payer Act bars private entities from essentially asserting the interests of the government by insisting that Medicare be named as payee on the settlement check.

 

Schexnayder v. Scottsdale Insurance Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83687 (W.D.la. July 28, 2011)

This case involved both a workers’ compensation claim as well as a third-party liability claim.

In Schexnayder, plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident while working.  Settlement was reached in both the plaintiff’s workers’ compensation action and liability action.  The liability settlement provided a Medicare set aside allocation in order to protect Medicare’s interest under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act.  CMS approval was
sought but was however, advised that the proposed Medicare set aside would not
be reviewed or approved in the not too distant future.  The reason for that response from CMS was neither due to the fact that the plaintiff was not a Medicare beneficiary nor
within 30 months of qualifying for Medicare.

The court stated that Medicare does not currently require or approve Medicare set asides when personal injury lawsuits settle, nor do they have a current policy or procedure in effect regarding the adequacy of future medical expenses set aside in liability cases.

The court held that the amount of money allocated to future medical expenses (as evidenced in the settlement agreement), reasonably accounted for Medicare’s interest.

Related: Liability Settlement Solutions