Mandatory Reporting Archives

CMS Rolls Out Updates to NGHP User Guide

October 22, 2020

CMS User Guides for Section 111 Reporting. open book with colored page markers

Earlier this month CMS released an updated MMSEA Section 111 Medicare Secondary Payer Mandatory Reporting User Guide (Version 6.0). Here are the key updates with analysis and practical implications.

Additional Definition of Total Payment Obligation to Claimant (TPOC)

Section 6.4 of Volume 3 (Policy Guidance) of the user guide defines TPOC this way:

The TPOC Amount refers to the dollar amount of a settlement, judgment, award, or other payment in addition to or apart from ORM. [Ongoing Responsibilities for Medicals] A TPOC generally reflects a “one-time” or “lump sum” settlement, judgment, award, or other payment intended to resolve or partially resolve a claim. It is the dollar amount of the total payment obligation to, or on behalf of the injured party in connection with the settlement, judgment, award, or other payment. Individual reimbursements paid for specific medical claims submitted to an RRE [Responsible Reporting Entity], paid due the RRE’s ORM for the claim, do not constitute separate TPOC amounts.

The update added an explanation of the TPOC amount computation to this definition:

The computation of the TPOC amount includes, but is not limited to, all Medicare covered and

non-covered medical expenses related to the claim(s), indemnity (lost wages, property damages, etc.), attorney fees, set-aside amount (if applicable), payout totals for all annuities rather than cost or present values, settlement advances, lien payments (including repayment of Medicare conditional payments), and amounts forgiven by the carrier/insurer.

CMS’s definition seems to have been largely pulled from the Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set-Aside (WCMSA) Reference Guide’s definition of total settlement. Its purpose in the WCMSA Reference Guide is to determine whether a settlement meets CMS MSA review thresholds. While we assume CMS’s intent is to help reporting entities better determine the TPOC amount, adding this computation definition raises some concerns:

Liens & Medicare Conditional Payments: In some cases, lien payments, including the Medicare repayment conditional payment amount, is not known at the time of settlement. This is not a problem if the injured worker is repaying Medicare out of the settlement amount. But it may be a problem if the employer or carrier is agreeing to pay Medicare with funds outside of the settlement amount because they may not have a final demand amount prior to settlement. Our solution would be for CMS to clarify that a lien payment, namely a repayment of Medicare conditional payments made directly to Medicare or to a lienholder, Medicaid for example, is not part of the TPOC computation.

Amounts Forgiven in Settlement: Besides repayment of liens, CMS also brings in the term “amounts forgiven” from the WCMSA definition of settlement. While it has never been further defined in the CMS WCMSA Reference Guide and CMS provides no further clarification here, the general understanding is that this refers to the carrier or employer’s waiver of a subrogation lien against a 3^rd party liability settlement. An employer or carrier may waive their subrogation lien for many reasons, and they may do so without having a firm dollar amount to even determine the “amounts forgiven.”

We see using the amounts forgiven term as a way for CMS to provide settling parties the ability to obtain an MSA approval when the WC case is settling and all or most of the settlement funds are coming from a 3^rd party liability settlement. However, in the mandatory reporting context, amounts forgiven is a specific dollar amount which must reported and thus becomes relevant to Medicare conditional payment recovery

Were the WC carrier to report amounts forgiven in the TPOC amount, CMS and its recovery contractor would assume that the injured worker has received these funds as part of the WC settlement, which is not the case. These funds are not a payment to the claimant. The injured worker presumably receives payment from the 3^rd party liability settlement and, if he or she was a Medicare beneficiary at the time of that settlement, this will be reported to Medicare. Requiring the WC carrier to report amounts forgiven in settlement and then having the liability carrier report the liability settlement is duplicative and unnecessary to protect Medicare’s interests. We hope CMS reconsiders the use of this terminology in its TPOC computation or clarifies what they mean by amounts forgiven.

Indemnity-Only Settlements are Not Reportable

Following its August 13, 2020 webinar on Section 111 reporting where CMS officials reiterated that indemnity-only settlements are not reportable as TPOC, CMS has now added the following to Section 6.5.1 of the guide, which also incorporates “property damage only” claims:

RREs are not required to report liability insurance (including self-insurance) settlements, judgments, awards or other payments for “property damage only” claims which did not claim and/or release medicals or have the effect of releasing medicals. Similarly, “indemnity-only” settlements, which seek to compensate for non-medical damages, should not be reported. The critical variable to consider is whether or not a settlement releases or has the effect of releasing medicals. If it does, regardless of the allocation (or lack thereof), the settlement must be reported.

This raises the question of whether a prior indemnity-only settlement amount is combined with a later settlement releasing medicals and reported as TPOC. As mentioned earlier, CMS’s TPOC computation definition was taken from the CMS WCMSA Reference Guide and applied to the TPOC computation. In doing so, CMS excluded the phrase “prior settlements of the same claim” to the TPOC definition. Based on this exclusion, which is consistent with other guidance in the user guide, we accept that a prior indemnity-only settlement is not reported as TPOC, even when a later settlement releases medicals.

If you have any questions, please contact Dan Anders, Chief Compliance Officer, at Daniel.anders@towermsa.com or 888.331.4941.

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.

CMS Technical Alert Confirms $750 Threshold for Liability, WC and No-Fault TPOC Reporting

December 13, 2016

In a 12/12/2016 Technical Alert, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) confirmed their prior policy announcements concerning the implementation of a $750 threshold for the reporting of Total Payment Obligation to the Claimant (TPOC) through the Section 111 Mandatory Insurer Reporting process. The $750 threshold for TPOC reporting in WC and No-Fault claims became effective 10/1/2016 and will become effective for liability claims effective 1/1/2017.

The mandatory reporting threshold requirements are now as follows:

Liability Insurance:
The mandatory reporting threshold for liability insurance (including self-insurance) Total Payment Obligation to the Claimant (TPOC) Amounts dated January 1, 2017 or after is changing from $1000 to $750. If the most recent TPOC Date is on or after January 1, 2017, and the cumulative TPOC Amount is greater than $750, the TPOC(s) must be reported.

Note, the liability threshold only applies to physical trauma-based liability insurance TPOC amounts. It is not applicable to TPOC amounts for alleged ingestion, implantation or exposure.

No-Fault Insurance:
The mandatory reporting threshold for no-fault insurance TPOC Amounts dated October 1, 2016 or after changed from $0 to $750. If the most recent TPOC Date is on or after October 1, 2016, and the cumulative TPOC Amount is greater than $750, the TPOC(s) must be reported.

Workers’ Compensation:
The mandatory reporting threshold for workers’ compensation TPOC Amounts dated October 1, 2016 or after changed from $300 to $750. If the most recent TPOC Date is on or after October 1, 2016, and the cumulative TPOC Amount is greater than $750, the TPOC(s) must be reported

CMS also announced that as of 1/1/2017 reporting of cumulative TPOC Amounts at or below the above defined reporting thresholds will be accepted, but are not required. In other words, submitting a TPOC amount below the mandatory reporting thresholds will no longer generate an error code by CMS.

The entire content of the official Alert from CMS can be found here.

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

Enhanced Portal Functionality for Final Conditional Payment Process

November 10, 2015

In its ‘What’s New’ section, CMS announced on November 9, 2015 that as part of the Strengthening Medicare and Repaying Taxpayers Act of 2012 (the SMART Act), the MSPRP will be modified to include Final Conditional Payment (CP) process functionality by January 1, 2016. This new functionality will permit authorized MSPRP users to notify CMS that a recovery case is 120 days (or less) from an anticipated settlement and request that the recovery case be a part of the Final CP process.

When the Final CP process is requested, any disputes submitted through the MSPRP will be resolved within 11 business days of receipt of the dispute. Once all disputes have been resolved, and the case is within 3 days of settling, the beneficiary or their authorized representative will be able to request a Final Conditional Payment Amount on the MSPRP. Once calculated, this amount will remain the Final Conditional Payment Amount as long as:

The case is settled within 3 calendar days of requesting the Final Conditional Payment Amount, and
Settlement information is submitted through the MSPRP within 30 calendar days of requesting the Final Conditional Payment Amount.

How the NGHP recovery process works today

To understand the value of this announcement to simplify the final demand process, we need to revisit the recent changes in NGHP recovery and the new role of the Commercial Repayment Center (CRC).

Effective October 5, 2015, the CRC assumed responsibility for pursuing recovery directly from the applicable plan. Any recoveries initiated by the Benefits Coordination & Recovery Center (BCRC) prior to the October 2015 transition will continue to be the responsibility of the BCRC. The typical recovery case, where Medicare is pursuing recovery directly from the applicable plan, now involves the following steps:

1. Medicare is notified that the applicable plan has primary responsibility

Medicare may learn of other insurance through a Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act (MMSEA) Section 111 report or beneficiary self-report. If Medicare is notified that the applicable plan is primary to Medicare, Medicare records are updated with this information.

2. CRC searches Medicare records for claims paid by Medicare

The CRC begins identifying claims that Medicare has paid that are related to the case, based upon details about the type of incident, illness, or injury alleged. The claims search will include claims from the date of incident to the current date. If a termination date for Ongoing Responsibility for Medicals (ORM) has already been reported, the CRC will collect claims through and including the termination date.

3. CRC issues Conditional Payment Notice (CPN) to the applicable plan

The CPN provides conditional payment information. It advises the applicable plan that certain actions must be taken within 30 days of the date on the CPN or the CRC will automatically issue a demand letter. This notice includes a claims listing of all items and services that Medicare has paid that are related to the case. It also explains how to dispute any items and services that are not related to the case. A courtesy copy of the CPN is sent to the beneficiary and beneficiary’s attorney or other representative. The applicable plan’s recovery agent will also receive a copy of the CPN if the recovery agent’s information was submitted on the applicable plan’s MMSEA Section 111 report or the applicable plan has otherwise appointed a recovery agent by submitting a written authorization to the CRC.

Note: If a beneficiary or his or her attorney or other representative reports a no-fault insurance or workers’ compensation situation before the applicable plan submits a Section 111 report, the applicable plan will receive a Conditional Payment Letter (CPL). The CPL provides the same information as a CPN, but there is no specified response timeframe. When this occurs, the applicable plan is encouraged to respond to the CPL to notify the CRC if it does not have ORM and will not be reporting ORM through Section 111 reporting or if the applicable plan would like to dispute relatedness.

4. Applicable plan submits a dispute

The applicable plan has 30 days to challenge the claims included in the CPN. The applicable plan may contact the CRC or use the Medicare Secondary Payer Recovery Portal (MSPRP) to respond to the CPN.

5. CRC issues recovery demand letter advising plan of monies owed to Medicare

The demand letter advises the applicable plan of the amount of money owed to the Medicare program and requests reimbursement within 60 days of the date of the letter. A courtesy copy of the demand letter is sent to the applicable plan’s recovery agent, the beneficiary and the beneficiary’s attorney or other representative. The demand letter includes the following:

The beneficiary’s name and Medicare Health Insurance Claim Number (HICN);
Date of accident/incident;
A claims listing of all related claims paid by Medicare for which Medicare is seeking reimbursement from the applicable plan; and
The total demand amount (amount of money owed) and information on administrative appeal rights.

If the CRC agrees with disputes submitted timely, unrelated claims will be removed from the case before the demand letter is issued. Please note that the demand letter may include related claims that Medicare paid after the CPN was issued. Relatedness disputes on all claims included in the demand letter may be addressed by submitting an appeal.

6. Applicable plan submits an appeal

An applicable plan has 120 days from the date the applicable plan receives the demand letter to file an appeal. Receipt is presumed to be within 5 calendar days absent evidence to the contrary.

7. Applicable plan submits payment

If the CRC receives payment in full, it will issue a letter stating that the specified debt has been resolved. The letter will also note that new cases may be created if the applicable plan maintains ORM or the CRC receives information on additional items or services paid by Medicare during the period of ORM.

Facilitating timely and more accurate final demands

Because the CRC retains the right to create new cases as long as the applicable plan maintains ORM, timely notification of a final settlement is extremely critical to terminate the recovery efforts of the CRC. We applaud the addition of CP process functionality to the MSPRP as a segue to real time information and data exchange, and a more predictable outcome.

With more timely submissions and a published timeline for the final demand, this new extension of the SMART Act will facilitate better accuracy, a better path to closure and fewer last minute surprises…. all good things for those who represent the settlement interests workers’ compensation and liability carriers.

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.

Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services (CMS) Town Hall Teleconference Call Summary

November 29, 2011

CMS Town Hall Teleconference Call Summary
November 22, 2011

The most recent Town Hall Teleconference was hosted by the Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on Wednesday, November 16, 2011. Areas of technical concern discussed during the teleconference related to Section 111 of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (MMSEA) mandatory reporting.

Below is a synopsis of the items discussed:

CMS and Coordination of Benefits Contractor (COBC) responded to multiple callers who described scenarios in which Medicare beneficiaries were being denied payment and/or services for medical conditions unrelated to the workers’ compensation injury. In some situations the beneficiary was being directed to contact his/her workers’ compensation, no fault or liability claim adjuster to obtain authorization for procedures NOT related to the beneficiary’s covered injury.The CMS COBC representatives requested that specific examples of improper provider denials be directed to the individuals hosting the call and they would deal with the issues.As an adjunct, CMS restated the instructions in the 3.2 Version of the User Guidelines which direct RRE’s to report as many ICD9 codes as are applicable to the injury, but reinforced that ONLY those codes that describe the injury are to be reported. If ICD9 codes related to other medical conditions are reported, the COBC may assume that services related to these codes are to be covered by the RRE.
CMS discussed the ‘51 disposition code’ errors that are being generated when their system is unable to match on 3 of the 4 personal identification data elements being submitted by the RRE noting that it is extremely important that RRE’s go back and confirm that their info is correct.
If the RRE has a claim to report, but is unable due to the ’51 disposition code’ error, the RRE may still be considered as non-compliant. The clear message was to address the error.
CMS and the COBC reminded the RRE’s that claim records are NOT to be submitted until claim responsibility is established. While the claim is under investigation, no submission should occur.The responsibility to report a workers’ compensation, liability or no fault claim only arises where there is a Medicare beneficiary and either the RRE has assumed responsibility for payment of medical benefits or a TPOC event occurs. Absent those two events no information should be reported on the claim input file.
The one caveat to the above directive occurs in conjunction with the requirement in certain states (TX and MI were examples) that the entity must pay while investigating claims or during claim appeal. In these situations or ORM, the claim needs to be reported.
CMS explained that in situations where ongoing responsibility for medical benefits will continue for a term of months or years following a TPOC event, Medicare expects a subsequent notice of ORM termination to be provided at the time of the ORM termination. CMS will not allow RREs to report ORM terminations that are, for instance, one to two years into the future. RREs must report both the TPOC event and the ORM termination date when they occur, independently.
Improper reporting of TPOC amount in Liability settlements – In liability cases where several insurers are individually responsible for payment, the following directive was given. If there are separate settlements, only report the amount of your settlement. In cases where there is joint and several liability, each RRE must report the full TPOC amount.
Beginning January, 2012, RRE’s will receive emails asking each to confirm the accuracy of the RRE’s profile information in order to renew. Emails will be sent both the authorized representative and to the account manager. The representative must contact the EDI representative to confirm accuracy, or to update the profile. The authorized representative will also need to sign and submit newly assigned profile. If not signed, the RRE’s EDI application might be revoked (If the authorized representative is no longer with company, account manager should get email and can respond). RRE’s should expect this and should let their EDI representative know if either or both leave the company.
Those were the primary issues discussed during the teleconference, with many questions surrounding the improper denial of Medicare coverage. The next Town Hall Teleconference will occur on Wednesday December 14th, and that call will focus on both policy matters.

For more information on SCHIP 111 , please contact Tower MSA Partners @ 888.331.4941 or email your questions to info@towermsa.com.