The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recently released Version 7.2 of its MMSEA Section 111 User Guide. The guide contains some notable updates for Ongoing Responsibility for Medicals (ORM) reporting, determination of the ORM termination date with a physician letter, and use of the NOINJ code in certain liability settlements.

Revised Trigger for ORM Reporting

CMS revised Section 6.3 (Policy Guidance) on the trigger for reporting Ongoing Responsibility for Medicals (ORM):

The trigger for reporting ORM is the assumption of ORM by the RRE, which is when the RRE has made a determination to assume responsibility for ORM and when the beneficiary receives medical treatment related to the injury or illness. Medical payments do not actually have to be paid, nor does a claim need to be submitted, for ORM reporting to be required. The effective date for ORM is the DOI, regardless of when the beneficiary receives the first medical treatment or when ORM is reported.

We surmise that CMS added the additional requirement (bolded) for reporting ORM so that allow no-fault plans do not have to report ORM on minor claims that have no evidence of medical treatment.  Workers’ compensation plans already have an exclusion for reporting ORM on minor medical-only WC claims where medical payments do not exceed $750, along with other requirements (See Section 6.3.1 of the guide).

The change raises an interesting question: What obligation does the no-fault plan have to determine if treatment has occurred?  In other words, does the no-fault plan have to actively inquire about treatment? Or can it be passive and wait to report ORM after treatment is occurring? There isn’t an answer from CMS’s ORM definition.

Determining ORM Termination Date Based on Physician Statement

CMS previously added a provision to Section 6.3.2 (Policy Guidance) which allows ORM termination based on a physician statement finding that no additional medical items and/or services associated with the claimed injuries will be required.  Apparently, a question arose about what ORM termination date to enter if such a physician letter is obtained.  Per CMS:

Where an RRE is relying upon a physician’s statement to terminate ORM, the ORM termination

date to be submitted should be determined as follows:

• Where the physician’s statement specifies a date as to when no further treatment was

required, that date should be the reported ORM termination date;

•  Where the physician’s statement does not specify a date when no further treatment was

required, the date of the statement should be the reported ORM termination date;

•  Where the physician’s statement does not specify a date when no further treatment was

required, nor is the statement dated, the last date of the related treatment should be used as the ORM termination date.

The above should clarify the appropriate ORM termination date to use when a physician statement is obtained.

Reporting of NOINJ is Now Optional

Since the early days of Section 111 reporting CMS has required liability claims where medicals are released in settlement but where the type of claim typically has no associated or alleged medical care to be reported.  Because there were no diagnosis codes to report, these claims were reported with a “NOINJ” code.  Examples of such claims were loss of consortium, an errors or omissions liability insurance claim, a directors and officers liability insurance claim, or a claim resulting from a wrongful action related to employment status action.

CMS has now revised its policy in Section 6.2.5.2 of the User Guide (Technical Information) on the reporting of such claims to state:

Note: In cases where the reporting of a liability record only meets the criteria for reporting a ‘NOINJ’ diagnosis code in Field 18, the reporting of the record is no longer required. However, it is optional for the RRE to report the record with the ‘NOINJ’ diagnosis code following the previously existing rules in the User Guide as follows:

This update is great news for carriers who have had to report these types of claims for more than a decade now.

If you have any questions on these updates, please contact Tower’s Chief Compliance Officer, Dan Anders, at (888) 331.4941 or daniel.anders@towermsa.com

In an update to its Section 111 MSP Mandatory Reporting User Guide (Version 7.1 Chapter III Policy Guidance) CMS made clear that in a subscription insurance policy arrangement, the lead insurer is solely responsible for Section 111 mandatory reporting requirements.

The new section of the guide, Section 6.1.13 states:

In a subscription insurance policy arrangement, two or more insurers enter into an agreement whereby the risk of the insurance policy is spread among the various insurance entities in some agreed-upon ratio. In such arrangements, a lead insurer is designated for various administrative and business purposes. While there may be many co-insurers on a subscription insurance policy, there is only one lead insurer, and that lead insurer remains so throughout the policy life cycle.

 Due to the nature of the subscription insurance market and the way such policies are structured, it is appropriate for the lead insurer to act as the sole RRE as it relates to Section 111 mandatory reporting requirements. The ability for the lead insurer to act as the sole RRE is predicated on the assumption that the lead insurer will avail themselves of all rights, requirements, and responsibilities codified in statute and further set out in regulation and within this and any other sub-regulatory guidance provided by CMS, as is from time to time amended. In any such lead reporting situation, as it relates to subscription insurance policies, CMS will assume that the lead insurer, as the sole RRE, will be responsible for all applicable reporting, recovery, and benefits coordination requirements that presently exist, regardless of the existence of any other co-insurer that may enter into a subscription arrangement or similar contract with the lead insurer.

Practical Implications

With subscription insurance policies, risk is divided among two or more policies. It can be an equal split, or one company assumes more risk than another as long as the combined coverage equals 100% of the required limits.  In these arrangements, one insurer takes the lead as administrator.

Based on this policy announcement, only the lead insurer is required to complete Section 111 reporting as the sole RRE.  Other insurers are released from reporting responsibilities.

Please get in touch with Dan Anders, Chief Compliance Officer, at daniel.anders@towermsa.com or 888.331.4941 with any questions.