Conditional Payments Archives

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.

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.

U.S. District Court Declares CMS Practice of Over-Inclusive Reimbursement Demands to be Unlawful, but Withholds Injunction

May 19, 2017

Earlier this year, Tower MSA summarized the California Insurance Guarantee Association’s (CIGA) case challenging the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service’s (CMS) practice of claiming conditional payment reimbursement on a charge which includes mixed diagnosis codes. Mixed diagnosis codes result in the charge including both treatment related and unrelated to the workers’ compensation injury. See Federal Court Holds Against Medicare Practice of Over-Inclusive Reimbursement Demands. In a further decision in this case issued on 5/3/2017 (Cali. Ins. Guar. Ass’n v. Price, No. 2:15-cv-01113-ODW (FFMx), 2017 U.S. Dist. Ct. LEXIS 67589), Judge Otis D. Wright, II, set-aside Medicare’s reimbursement claims against CIGA and issued a judicial declaration finding CMS’s practices pertaining to reimbursement unlawful, but stopped short of enjoining CMS from continuing these practices.

January Decision Finds in Favor of CIGA

The recent decision by the District Court follows an earlier 1/5/2017 decision from Judge Wright finding in favor in CIGA. Key findings were as follows:

First, the Court held that because Defendants simply withdrew the reimbursement demands without renouncing their allegedly unlawful policy, no part of CIGA’s claims were moot.

Second, insofar as CIGA sought simply to challenge CMS’s blanket practice of seeking reimbursement from primary plans for the full amount of a charge that contained uncovered diagnosis codes, CIGA met its burden simply by identifying codes that all parties agree are uncovered.

Third, the Court held that one statutory “item or service” does not as a matter of law equate to whatever medical procedure(s) are billed for in a single line-item charge on a payment summary form; rather, a statutory “item or service” simply refers to one indivisible medical item, device, medical supply, or service, regardless of how it is billed.

Fourth, in the event that a single line-item charge contains one covered “item or service” and one uncovered “item or service,” CIGA does not have a responsibility to make payment for the uncovered “item or service” just because it was lumped together with a covered “item or service.”

Finally, the Court also notes what it did not decide. The Court did not decide: (1) whether the cost of a single indivisible “item or service” must be apportioned among multiple diagnosis codes; or (2) whether each individual line-item charge in this lawsuit in fact consisted of multiple “items or services.”

As a result of the January decision CIGA was entitled to relief which the Court attempted, without success, to have CIGA and CMS resolve between themselves. Consequently, CIGA requested an order vacating CMS’s reimbursement claim of $119,122, a judicial declaration that CMS’s billing practice is unlawful and a permanent injection prohibiting CMS from sending future reimbursement demands to CIGA based on the unlawful billing practice.

An example of this practice is where a Conditional Payment Summary Form includes one line item representing multiple divisible treatments such as a physician visit where the services provided were for hypertension, a flu shot and low back pain. Only the low back pain is related to the work injury, but the charge listed on the Conditional Payment Summary Form is for all treatments, not just the low back pain.

Court Provides Judicial Declaration, but No Injunction Against CMS Practices

In response to CIGA’s request, the Court vacated CMS’s reimbursement claim of $119,122 and issued a judicial declaration that CMS’s billing practice is indeed unlawful. The Court refused though to enjoin CMS from these billing and reimbursement practices.

While the Court went into an extensive explanation as to why an injunction would not be warranted, in Judge Wright’s words it comes down to the following:

. . . the Court is not confident that it possesses a complete understanding of how determinations regarding the contents of a line-item charge are, can, or should be made, and the Court is not inclined to issue a broad judicial declaration that might ultimately require the parties to adopt an inefficient and unworkable reimbursement process going forward.

The Court went on to note that primary plans (carriers and employers) now have an administrative appeals process available to them (The five level appeals process put in place as a result of the SMART Act) to appeal reimbursement claims, rather than first seeking relief in federal court, as was done in this case.

While the Court declined to issue an injunction, it nonetheless agreed to set the case for a bench trial (9/12/2017 trial date set) to gather further facts, likely related to how a line-item charge may be separated into divisible treatments such that the injury-related treatment only can be claimed for reimbursement. Based upon a review of the evidence presented at trial, the Court will decide whether to issue an injunction.

Tower MSA Analysis: Court’s Decision Attempts to Balance the Interests of CIGA and CMS

The Court here is understandably trying to balance the interests of CIGA in not being forced to reimburse CMS for charges unrelated to the claimed workers’ compensation injury, against the interests of CMS in not having its reimbursement processes disrupted. If this case does go to trial, what Judge Wright will be looking for is a way to enjoin CMS from over-inclusive reimbursement demands without significantly impacting CMS’s ability to recover on legitimate claims.

Ultimately, this may prove difficult for the Court unless CMS steps up and agrees to work with its recovery contractors to better filter its claims for reimbursement such that one line item on a Conditional Payment Summary Form only includes treatment related to the claimed injury, workers’ compensation or otherwise. If CMS refuses to make these changes then the Court will either have to issue the injunction and force CMS’s hand or let the decision stand without the injunction. Even if an injunction is not issued, this case should be persuasive to other courts and hopefully CMS when it is cited in disputes and appeals of CMS reimbursement claims which contain mixed diagnosis codes.

Another question is whether depending upon the outcome of the trial, either party will appeal the District Court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals. CIGA may appeal as a result of the lack of an injunction or CMS may appeal if an injunction is the result of the trial or based upon the judicial declaration regarding its billing and reimbursement practices. Tower MSA will continue to follow this important case and provide relevant updates.

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.

Removal of SSN from Medicare IDs Detailed in CMS Open Door Forum

January 23, 2017

On January 17, 2017, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) held a Special Open Door Forum to detail how the Social Security Number Removal Initiative (SSNRI) impacts the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) community. CMS’s explanation is summarized below with Tower MSA’s thoughts on the practical implications of this change.

SSNRI Explained

Presently, Medicare beneficiaries are assigned a Healthcare Insurance Claim Number (HICN) which generally includes either their or their spouses Social Security Number (SSN) followed by a letter, commonly an A or B. For the purpose of reducing identify theft involving SSNs, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 included a provision requiring CMS to remove SSNs from all Medicare cards by April 2019.

In accordance with the Act, CMS announced that starting in April 2018 it will begin to issue what will be called Medicare Beneficiary Identifiers (MBIs) to replace the HICNs currently in use. MBIs will be 11-alphanumeric characters in length with letters only in uppercase. The MBIs will be assigned to approximately 60 million current Medicare beneficiaries and 90 million deceased/archived Medicare beneficiaries. CMS targets completion of the assignment of MBIs by April 2019.

CMS advised there will be significant outreach to Medicare beneficiaries, medical providers, and other stakeholders, such as the Medicare Secondary Payer community, prior to implementation of this change.

CMS has a dedicated website regarding the SSNRI which may be found here.

SSNRI Impact on MSP Compliance

In regard to Medicare Secondary Payer compliance processes, the MSP compliance community currently exchanges data with CMS through Section 111 Mandatory Insurer Reporting, the Medicare Secondary Payer Recovery Portal (MSPRP) and the Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set-Aside Portal (WCMSAP). CMS made the following statements concerning the SSNRI’s impact on this exchange of information:

• Fields presently identified as HICN will be retitled “Medicare ID.”
• As the HICN fields currently accept 11 characters there will be no expansion of these fields as a result of the implementation of MIBs.
• SSNs can continue to be used for querying whether a particular claimant is a Medicare beneficiary through the Section 111 Reporting process and for communication through the MSPRP and WCMSAP.
• Use of partial SSNs will continue to be permitted for querying Medicare eligibility.
• After April 2018 the CMS response to a Section 111 query will either provide the HICN or the MBI, depending upon whether the particular Medicare beneficiary has been issued an MBI.
• Outgoing documentation through the MSPRP or WCMSAP will include the HICN or MIB, depending upon what was most recently reported. For example, if an MSA is submitted to CMS for review through the WCMSAP and contains a HICN, then the response from CMS will include the HICN. On the other hand, if an MIB is submitted, then the CMS response will include the MIB.

Treasury Department to No Longer Include Medicare ID

Also announced during the forum is an impending change by the Treasury Department to no longer include the HICN (or the MIB when it becomes active) in its correspondence stemming from Medicare conditional payment recovery. Instead, the Treasury Department will only list the Case Recovery ID that has been assigned to the case by either the Benefits Coordination and Recovery Contractor (BCRC) or the Commercial Repayment Center (CRC). This change is expected to occur before the end of 2017.

Practical Implications

An important takeaway from CMS’s explanation of the SSNRI is that for MSP compliance purposes we can continue to use SSNs in communicating with CMS and its contractors. What we should recognize is that as of April 2018 besides SSNs, claimants may be providing MIBs rather than HICNs. Further, it should be recognized that the Section 111 query process may return an MIB, rather than an HICN, starting in April 2018.

Our Tower MSP Automation Suite will seamlessly transition to recognition and reporting of MBIs for Section 111 Reporting purposes starting in April 2019. We do recommend to our clients that they confirm their internal claims database will be fully capable of recognizing the MBIs when they become active for Medicare beneficiary claimants.

Finally, the Treasury Department’s removal of any Medicare beneficiary identifier from its conditional payment recovery correspondence may present some difficulty to workers’ compensation, liability and no-fault plans in identifying the particular claimant from which the demand stems. Tower MSA will work with our clients to address any uncertainty, but we also recommend to our clients that they work with us to actively resolve Medicare conditional payments on open and settling claims such that these demands never are referred to the Treasury Department.

If you have any questions regarding the SSNRI, please contact Tower MSA Partners Chief Compliance Officer, Dan Anders, at (847) 946-2880 or Daniel.anders@towermsa.com