Medicare Secondary Payer Archives

CMS Section 111 Penalties Rule Focuses on Untimely Reporting

October 12, 2023

Stamp icons representing regulatory enforcement of Section 111 reporting by CMS.

On October 11, 2023, CMS published a final rule on the imposition of Civil Monetary Penalties for failure to comply with the Section 111 Mandatory Insurer Reporting requirements. The rule’s focus and the sole reason for penalties will be untimely reporting. Even if a Responsible Reporting Entity (RRE) reports untimely, it may only be subject to penalties if that claim is identified through a randomized quarterly audit process.

Please see a full Q&A below. We will be sending an invitation for a special webinar on Section 111 penalties shortly!

Note, while the final rule encompasses both Group Health Plans (GHPs) and Non-Group Health Plans (NGHPs), this article is specific to NGHPs.

Under what circumstances can CMS impose penalties?

Per CMS:

. . . we have determined that we will only impose penalties where the initial report was not received in a timely manner. Penalties will not be imposed on any other basis, such as in relation to the quality of reporting. Timeliness is determined by comparing the date a record is submitted and accepted against the date CMS should have received the record. The date CMS should receive a record is determined by the effective date of coverage or the date of settlement (or settlement funding date if the funding of the settlement is delayed) plus 1 year (365 days).

CMS considers the “initial report” to be the reporting on Ongoing Responsibility for Medicals (ORM) or, if ORM was not previously reported, the reporting of Total Payment Obligation to the Claimant (TPOC), namely the settlement, judgment, award, or other payment. Importantly, CMS expressly indicated in these comments that a failure to report ORM termination will not subject the RRE to penalties:

In the final rule, based on stakeholder concerns and submitted comments, CMS has chosen to focus its definition of noncompliance solely on those situations where an entity has failed to provide its initial report of primary payment responsibility in a timely manner. That means that untimely termination of ORM coverage records would not be considered eligible for a civil money penalty under this rule.

On the surface, even this more narrowly tailored rule could subject many claims to penalties. However, CMS is implementing a randomized audit process that will only review a small portion of the thousands of reported claims it receives. Per CMS:

CMS has determined that, given the time and resources necessary to accurately and thoroughly evaluate the accuracy of any submitted record, it would be possible to audit a total of 1,000 records per calendar year across all RRE submissions, divided evenly among each calendar quarter (250 individual beneficiary records per quarter).

- CMS will evaluate a proportionate number of GHP and NGHP records based on the pro-rata count of recently added records for both types of coverage over the calendar quarter under evaluation. For example, if over the calendar quarter being evaluated, CMS received 600,000 GHP records and 400,000 NGHP records for a total of 1,000,000 recently added beneficiary records, then 60 percent of the 250 records audited for that quarter would be GHP records, and 40 percent would be NGHP records.
- At the end of each calendar quarter, CMS will randomly select the indicated number of records and analyze each selected record to determine if it is in compliance with the reporting requirements as required by statute and defined herein.

Accordingly, to be chosen for a penalty a claim would need to both be reported untimely and identified through this randomized audit. As CMS indicated in its comments, it expects this type of audit to pick up larger reporting entities.

How will the RRE be notified of the penalty?

Once a claim has been identified for a penalty there is an informal notice process, per CMS:

We intend to communicate with the entity informally before issuing formal notice regarding a CMP. The informal (that is, prior to formal enforcement actions) written “pre-notice” process will allow the RRE the opportunity to present mitigating evidence for CMS review prior to the imposition of a CMP. The RRE will have 30 calendar days to respond with mitigating information before the issuance of a formal written notice in accordance with 42 CFR 402.7.

Common to all such instances where informal notice will be given is the intention to give the RRE an opportunity to clarify, mitigate, or explain any errors that were the result of a technical issue or due to an error or system issue caused by CMS or its contractors. It would be impractical and counter to the spirit of the informal notice process to regulate or enumerate all circumstances in which mitigating information could be provided or what that information should convey. As such, any mitigating factors or circumstances are welcomed, and a dialogue is encouraged in an attempt to find solutions that are short of imposing a CMP. We believe it is in the best interests of all RREs to leave the informal notice process open to any reasonable submission of mitigating factors so that we are free to entertain all such documentation without strict limits on what is, or is not, acceptable.

In many circumstances, the RRE may have a reasonable explanation for the untimely reporting. Because of the 30-day timeline, RREs must be prepared to react quickly to these informal notices by investigating and responding within the required timeframe.

If the RRE fails to respond to the informal notice or CMS does not accept the explanation for why the report was untimely, then CMS will issue a formal notice.

Is there an appeals process?

Yes, per CMS:

The recipient will have the right to request a hearing with an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) within 60 calendar days of receipt. Any party may appeal the initial decision of the ALJ to the Departmental Appeals Board (DAB) within 30 calendar days. The DAB’s decision becomes binding 60 calendar days following service of the DAB’s decision, absent petition for judicial review.

If a penalty is imposed, how will the dollar amount be calculated? Is there a maximum penalty?

CMS has developed a tiered approach to penalties, which provides:

Because we have the statutory authority to adjust the amounts of penalties imposed on NGHP RREs, a tiered approach and cap on the total amount of penalties applicable to such RREs are being finalized in this rule. As explained previously, the statute does not permit us to extend this approach to GHP RREs. For any record selected via the random audit process described above where the NGHP RRE submitted the information more than 1 year after the date of settlement, judgment, award, or other payment (including the effective date of the assumption of ongoing payment responsibility for medical care); the daily penalty will be—

- $250, as adjusted annually under 45 CFR part 102, for each calendar day of noncompliance, where the record was reported 1 year or more, but less than 2 years after, the required reporting date;

- $500, as adjusted annually under 45 CFR part 102, for each calendar day of noncompliance, where the record was reported 2 years or more, but less than 3 years after, the required reporting date; or

- $1,000, as adjusted annually under 45 CFR part 102, for each calendar day of noncompliance, where the record was reported 3 years or more after the required reporting date.

Additionally, the total penalty for any one instance of noncompliance by an NGHP RRE for a given record identified by CMS will be no greater than $365,000 (as adjusted annually under 45 CFR part 102).

Are there any safe harbors from penalties?

Per CMS:

First, any untimely reporting that is the result of a technical or system issue outside of the control of the RRE, or that is the result of an error caused by CMS or one of its contractors would not be considered noncompliance for purposes of this rule.

Second, any untimely reporting by an NGHP that is the result of a failure to acquire all necessary reporting information due to a lack of cooperation by the beneficiary will not lead to a CMP provided that certain standards are met.

CMS defines a safe harbor based on good faith efforts to obtain claimant information for reporting as follows:

If an NGHP entity fails to report timely because the NGHP entity was unable to obtain information necessary for reporting from the reportable individual, including an individual’s last name, first name, date of birth, gender, MBI, or SSN (or the last 5 digits of the SSN), and the responsible applicable plan has made and maintained records of its good faith effort to obtain this information by taking all of the following steps:

- The NGHP has communicated the need for this information to the individual and his or her attorney or other representative (if applicable) and requested the information from the individual and his or her attorney or other representative at least twice by mail and at least once by phone or other means of contact such as electronic mail in the absence of a response to the mailings.

- The NGHP certifies that it has not received a response, or has received a response in writing that the individual will not provide his or her MBI or SSN (or last 5 digits of his or her SSN).

- The NGHP has documented its efforts to obtain the missing information, such as the MBI or SSN (or the last 5 digits of the SSN) and the reason for the failure to collect this information.

The NGHP entity should maintain records of these good faith efforts (such as dates and types of communications with the individual) in order to be produced as mitigating evidence should CMS contemplate the imposition of a CMP. Such records must be maintained for a period of 5 years. The current OMB control number assigned to this information collection effort, as required under the Paperwork Reduction Act, is 0938-1074.

Is there a statute of limitations on penalties?

Yes, per CMS:

We agree and will apply the 5-year statute of limitations as required by 28 U.S.C. 2462. Under 28 U.S.C. 2462, we may only impose a CMP within 5 years from the date when the noncompliance occurred.

The five-year limitation begins to run as of the date the untimely report is made to CMS.

When does the rule become effective?

The rule becomes effective as of December 11, 2023.

Will the rule be retroactive?

No, per CMS:

CMPs will only be imposed on instances of noncompliance based on those settlement dates, coverage effective dates, or other operative dates that occur after the effective date of this regulation and as such, there will be no instances of inadvertent or de facto retroactivity of CMPs.

Since the rule effective date is December 11, 2023, CMS can consider penalties on untimely reported claims on or after this date. This means that if the untimely ORM and TPOC date was December 11, 2023, or later, it may be subject to penalties. Untimely, pre-December 11, 2023, ORM and TPOC dates will not be subject to penalties.

Additionally, CMS has indicated that penalties will not be issued until one year after the final rule’s publication, namely October 11, 2024.

How does the final rule differ from the proposed rule?

The proposed rule contained two other issues that could result in penalties. These were RREs reporting ORM and later reporting contradictory diagnosis codes and exceeding error tolerance thresholds. The final rule consists solely of penalties for untimely reporting.

This means that reporting errors, such as incorrect diagnosis code reporting, will not result in Section 111 reporting penalties (although it can still result in inappropriate Medicare conditional payment demands). Further, when the RRE corrects this data, it will not be penalized for doing so.

What steps must an RRE take to avoid penalties?

Simply put, reporting of ORM and/or TPOC must be timely. When the criteria are met for a claim to be reported, it should be reported during the next quarterly reporting period.

Suppose the RRE has difficulty obtaining identifying information to determine whether a claimant is a Medicare beneficiary. In that case, those efforts should be in accordance with the good faith effort rules described in the safe harbor section.

Tower’s Section 111 reporting platform and management dashboard provides our reporting partners the tools necessary to identify Medicare-eligible claimants. Once eligibility is confirmed it is critical to use this information to report acceptance of ORM and/or TPOC. Tower MSA Partners stands ready to assist you with your questions and to provide necessary reports and overall guidance to ensure compliance.

Contact us if you are concerned that your current reporting platform may not protect you from penalties. An audit of your current Section 111 reporting data often reveals gaps in reporting which may lead to penalties.

Tower’s Chief Compliance Officer, Dan Anders, can be reached at daniel.anders@towermsa.com.

Section 111 Reporting Penalties Rule Released

October 10, 2023

Tower MSA Partners analyzes CMS final Section 111 penalties rule and compliance requirements for RREs.

The long-awaited Section 111 Mandatory Insurer Reporting Civil Monetary Penalties (CMPs) rule has been released. Recall that the purpose of the rule is to set out specific criteria for when CMS may impose penalties for what it considers a failure to report or improper reporting. The rule is unpublished but will be considered published tomorrow, October 11.

In conjunction with its release, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued the following Alert:

Effective Dates

Please note that this rule is effective as of 60 days following the date of publication (December 11, 2023), but is only applicable one year after publication (October 10, 2024). RREs are expected to be compliant with their Section 111 Mandatory Insurer Reporting requirements no later than October 10, 2024, or they may be eligible for a CMP.

Additional Information

RREs should review the published rule and take time to evaluate their reporting processes to ensure the RRE is compliant with all reporting requirements before the rule goes into effect. If RREs have any questions or concerns about their reporting, they should contact their EDI representative.

We know that CMPs are of great interest to RREs, and CMS is in the process of developing and publishing additional written guidance related to CMPs. Questions should be directed to the new CMS Section 111 Civil Money Penalties mailbox at Sec111CMP@cms.hhs.gov. Please be aware that responses should not be anticipated at this time; CMS will use these questions and comments to help inform outreach and educational materials (including webinar presentations). RREs should continue to monitor the Mandatory Insurer Reporting pages on CMS.gov where additional guidance and updates, including information about CMP-related webinars, will be posted.

Key Takeaway

The initial key takeaway from this announcement is the rule will be enforced against RREs starting on October 10, 2024, one year from today. Further, as noted by CMS, there will be additional guidance before that date.

We are in the process of reviewing the regulation and will provide a complete analysis shortly. This will be followed by an invitation to a special Tower webinar to explain the rule and its implications for RREs and answer your questions.

If you have any immediate questions, please reach out to Tower’s Chief Compliance Officer, Dan Anders at daniel.anders@towermsa.com.

CMS Changes Rules for ORM and NOINJ Reporting in the Latest Update of its Section 111 Reporting User Guide

June 9, 2023

Tower MSA Partners explains CMS updates to ORM and NOINJ rules in the Section 111 reporting user guide.

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

CMS News Roundup: New Conditional Payment Appeals Guide & Webinar on Section 111 Reporting

May 25, 2023

Tower MSA Partners covers CMS new guide on Medicare conditional payment appeals and the upcoming Section 111 reporting webinar.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recently released a how-to guide for appealing Medicare conditional payment demands. The Non-Group Health Plan (NGHP) Applicable Plan Appeals Reference Guide consolidates conditional payment rules and best practices that the agency has issued through webinars, slides and its website.

Section 2.0 gives a breakdown of the appeals levels and explains how to submit an appeal and authorization/letter of authority requirements. Section 3.0 details what can be appealed and supporting documentation. Section 4.0 lists additional resources. Finally, an appendix provides sample letters and model language for applicable plans to appoint recovery agents.

It is important to note that this guide does not cover Conditional Payment Notices (CPNs), which are issued before demand letters to allow the recipient 30 days to dispute the charges. However, the bases for CPN disputes are the same as those found in Section 3.0. When the dispute fails or is not timely, a demand letter is issued and the demand letter can be appealed, even with the same arguments used to dispute the CPN.

We appreciate CMS taking the time to draft and release this guide. It joins the WCMSA Reference Guide and the Section 111 User Guide as critical reference tools for anyone impacted by Medicare Secondary Payer compliance.

CMS Section 111 Non-Group Health Plan (NGHP) Unsolicited Response File Webinar

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recently published a Section 111 reporting webinar notice for a webinar on June 6, 2023 at 1:00 PM ET and states:

CMS will be hosting a webinar regarding the upcoming implementation of the Section 111 NGHP
Unsolicited Response File option. The format will be opening remarks by CMS, a presentation that will include background as well as how to opt in and what to expect, followed by a question and answer session. For questions regarding this topic, prior to the webinar, please utilize the Section 111 Resource Mailbox PL110- 173SEC111-comments@cms.hhs.gov

As of July 2023, Responsible Reporting Entities (RREs) can opt-in to receive a monthly “NGHP Unsolicited Response File” via the Section 111 secure website. Per CMS, the file “will provide critical information about updates to ORM records originally submitted in the last 12 months and allow RREs to either update their internal data or contact the Benefits Coordination & Recovery Center (BCRC) for a correction.”

It is important for an RRE to review and confirm that the changes made by the BCRC and listed in this report are correct. If not, then the BCRC must be contacted to advise them that the RRE disagrees with the change made by the BCRC. We encourage anyone involved in managing Section 111 reporting to tune in. Please note that there is no pre-registration; the link and call-in numbers are on the notice. You log in shortly before the webinar’s start time.

CMS to Provide RREs with Response File on ORM Record Changes

A Claims Professional’s Guide to Common MSP Acronyms and Abbreviations

January 19, 2023

Picture of scrabble tiles that could be put together to create MSP ACRONYMs

People in the MSP compliance business rattle off acronyms and abbreviations, such as AWP, MMSEA, and TPOC like it’s second nature. People immersed in Section 111 reporting and Medicare Set-Asides understand the abbreviations, but most people listening to us do not. So, here’s a quick cheat-sheet (or handy guide) to frequently used acronyms and their meanings:

Common MSP Acronyms and Abbreviations

AWP – Average wholesale price: The AWP is a Red Book pricing reference for prescription drugs. The lowest AWP is used to calculate Medicare Part D drugs in a Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set-Aside (WCMSA).

BCRC – Benefits Coordination & Recovery Center: This contractor to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services consolidates the activities that support the collection, management, and reporting of other primary insurance coverage for Medicare beneficiaries. In short, it manages the MMSEA Section 111 reporting program and pursues conditional payment recovery when the claimant Medicare beneficiary is the debtor.

CMS – Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: The federal government agency oversees the Medicare program. CMS’s Division of MSP Program Operations directly manages CMS’s Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) enforcement programs.

COB – Coordination of Benefits: The coordination of benefits (COB) program aims to identify the health benefits available to a Medicare beneficiary and to coordinate the payment process to prevent mistaken payment of Medicare benefits.

CRC – Commercial Repayment Center: This CMS contractor pursues conditional payment recovery when the self-insured entity or the insurer is the identified debtor.

CWF – Common Working File: CMS uses this tool to maintain national Medicare records for individual beneficiaries enrolled in the Medicare program. For example, a funded CMS-approved workers’ compensation Medicare Set-Aside (WCMSA) will trigger a marker in the CWF, so Medicare will not pay for care covered by the WCMSA.

LMSA – Liability Medicare Set-Aside: General term for an MSA in a liability case settlement.

MBI – Medicare Beneficiary Identifier: The Medicare Beneficiary Identifier (MBI) is the identification number replaced SSN-based health insurance claim numbers (HICNs) on all Medicare transactions, such as Medicare cards, billing, claim submissions and appeals.

MIR – Mandatory Insurer Reporting: Another term for MMSEA Section 111 reporting.

MMSEA – Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP Extension Act of 2007: Section 111 of this act added mandatory reporting requirements regarding Medicare beneficiaries who have coverage under group health plan (GHP) arrangements as well as for Medicare beneficiaries who receive settlements, judgments, awards, or other payment from liability insurance (including self-insurance), no-fault insurance, or workers’ compensation, collectively referred to as Non-Group Health Plan (NGHP) or NGHP insurance.

MSA – Medicare Set-Aside: An account used to pay for injury-related and Medicare-covered medical services and prescription medications. It is a portion of a settlement that is reserved or “set-aside” for this purpose.

MSP – Medicare Secondary Payer: This is the term generally used when the Medicare program does not have primary payment responsibility, that is when another entity, such as workers’ compensation or liability insurance or a group health plan, is responsible for paying before Medicare.

MSPRP – Medicare Secondary Payer Recovery Portal: A web-based tool designed to assist in the resolution of liability insurance, no-fault insurance, and workers’ compensation Medicare recovery cases.

NGHP – Non-Group Health Plan: Typically used in reference to Section 111 reporting, NGHP includes liability insurance (including self-insurance), no-fault insurance, and workers’ compensation.

ORM – Ongoing Responsibility for Medicals: This refers to the Responsible Reporting Entity (RRE) paying for the injured party/Medicare beneficiary’s ongoing medical treatment associated with the claim.

RO – Regional Office: A CMS RO is assigned to each WCMSA case (based on the claimant’s state of residence); that RO makes the final determination of the appropriate funding level for the WCMSA.

RRE: Responsible Reporting Entity: The applicable plan, namely the NGHP, responsible for Section 111 reporting to CMS.

SSDI – Social Security Disability Insurance: Pays monthly benefits to workers who can no longer work due to a significant illness or impairment that is expected to last at least a year or result in death within a year.

SSN – Social Security Number: A numerical identifier assigned to U.S. citizens and other residents to track income and determine benefits.

TPOC – Total Payment Obligation to the Claimant: For Section 111 reporting purposes, CMS uses the term TPOC to refer to 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 in addition to/apart from ORM.

WCMSA – Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set-Aside: This is a financial agreement that allocates a portion of a workers’ compensation settlement to pay for future medical services related to the workers’ compensation injury, illness, or disease.

WCMSAP – Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set-Aside Portal: The WCMSAP may be used to submit and view WCMSA proposals, to communicate about the review approval process, and to submit re-review requests. Users can also view the status and balance of an established WCMSA and submit annual attestations and detailed transaction records.

WCRC – Workers Compensation Review Contractor: This CMS contractor reviews all submitted WCMSAs and advises the CMS Regional Office whether the proposed WCMSA is sufficient, or a higher or lower amount is recommended.

November CMS News: Mandatory Reporting and Conditional Payment Updates

November 24, 2020

Hand writing What's New?" on a chalkboard for CMS news update

Here’s a recap of recently announced CMS news:

CMS News #1: Medicare Conditional Payment Appeals Guide

In follow-up to its September 2020 webinar on Medicare conditional payment appeals through the Commercial Repayment Center (CRC), CMS converted the slides into an appeals guide. The guide, which can be found here, provides a breakdown of the Medicare conditional payment appeals process and the bases for appeals.

CMS News #2: Updated MMSEA Section 111 Medicare Secondary Payer Mandatory Reporting Guide

Earlier in November, CMS released a Technical Alert and an updated MMSEA Section 111 Medicare Secondary Payer Mandatory Reporting User Guide, Version 6.1, to announce “Section 111 Edits to no Longer Cause Record to Reject.”

In short, starting April 5, 2021, several error codes will be converted into what CMS calls “soft edits.” Soft edits are still considered errors by CMS but will not cause the entire record to be rejected. Examples of such data errors are in fields reporting middle initial of claimant’s name and alleged cause of injury. The Responsible Reporting Entity (RRE) is still responsible for correcting these errors in the next quarterly file submission.

Additionally, a new soft edit will be added and applied to NGHP Claim Input File Detail Record files when users submit a no-fault insurance claim where the policy limit is less than $1000.00. The input files will be accepted but a new CP13 error will be returned on the response files.

Finally, Claim Input File Detail Records submitted prior to the effective date of the injured party’s entitlement to Medicare will be rejected and returned with a Disposition Code ‘03’ instead of an SP31 error. As a result, if the purpose of the report was to indicate ongoing responsibility for medicals has been accepted (ORM=Y), then the claim will need to be re-submitted in the next quarterly reporting period (at which point the claimant is presumably entitled to Medicare).

CMS News #3: CMS to Host BCRC Recovery Process Webinar

On Wednesday, December 9, 2020 at 1:00 PM ET, CMS will be hosting a webinar focused on the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) recovery process when a Medicare beneficiary receives a settlement, judgment, award, or other payment. In other words, following its September webinar featuring the CRC, CMS is now highlighting the work of its Benefits Coordination and Recovery Center (BCRC). The announcement can be found here.

Per the announcement:

The primary intended audience is attorneys who represent beneficiaries and other beneficiary representatives. The BCRC will present a refresher on the beneficiary recovery process, including what functions can be facilitated using the Medicare Secondary Payer Recovery Portal (MSPRP). Such functions include submission of authorizations, requesting a Final Conditional Payment, and electronic payments. The webinar will also discuss alternative demand calculation options (Self-Calculated Conditional Payment Amount and Fixed Percentage Option), as well as other beneficiary recovery tips and best practices. The presentation will be followed by a question and answer session with participants.

We encourage anyone who is new to Medicare conditional payment recovery through the BCRC or would like, as CMS indicates, a refresher, to attend the webinar.

If you have any questions regarding these announcements, please contact Tower’s chief compliance officer, Dan Anders, at daniel.anders@towermsa.com or 888.331.4941.

$750 Medicare Conditional Payment Recovery Threshold Remains for 2021

CMS Introduces Pre-CPNs and Open Debt Reports in Conditional Payment Recovery Process

What Do Medicare Part D, Medicare Set-Asides and Parenting Have in Common?

March 2, 2018

parenting - father hugging two young children

For those who have raised children, or are in the process of doing so, one of our biggest challenges is to instill in our children some sort of positive decision-making paradigm in our children. You can call it religious values, moral absolutes, grounding, or just plain common sense, but as parents, we set boundaries (rules) from the earliest age, and try to be consistent in our enforcement. Our children may think we’re just mean, but this is a price we’re willing to pay if it helps establish an internal barometer to use when approached by people, thoughts and ideas that challenge them.

In raising my three children, one of the techniques I used was a simple, banded bracelet with the acronym, “WWJD” that is, What Would Jesus Do? This was a popular phrase in the Bible Belt where we lived. I asked that they look at the bracelet each time they were faced with an obstacle or asked to do something that didn’t quite feel right. One afternoon, my son was telling a story about something that happened at his elementary school that caused him to look at his bracelet. I was so pleased when he said he actually looked at it! He then responded, “Mom, I tried to decide what Jesus would do, but had a little bit of a tough time, so I switched it in my head to “WWMD”, and I knew exactly what Mom would do!” I couldn’t help laughing, but based on his response to the situation, my simple reinforcement worked. At the same time, this also reminded me that our actions speak much louder than our words….children will “do as we do” long before they will ”do as we say.”

How does this relate to Medicare Part D and Medicare Set Asides?

Each day, one of my first activities is to review my Google Alerts to look for news about NGHPs, Medicare Secondary Payer issues and opioids. This morning, the article that drew my attention was from MedPageToday.com entitled “CMS Proposes Opioid Prescribing Limits for Medicare Enrollees.” My first thought in reading the article was that this was great news.

“We are proposing important new actions to reduce seniors’ risk of being addicted to or overdoing it on opioids while still having access to important treatment options,” said Demetrios Kouzoukas, CMS deputy administrator and director of the Center for Medicare.

“We believe these actions will reduce the oversupply of opioids in our communities.”

Key components of the proposal include:

Hard formulary levels at pharmacies that would restrict the amount of opioids beneficiaries could receive
Establishment of a safety level of 90 morphine mg equivalent (MME)
Limiting the # of pills and days supply in an initial prescription for acute pain

According to Kouzoukas, “these are triggers … [that] can prompt conversations between physicians, patients, and plans about appropriate opioid use and prescribing.”

I then realized what CMS was doing. CMS was setting boundaries to help physicians, patients and plans make better decisions about opioid use…. the same type of boundaries I set for my children so they would make better decisions as adults. What a great idea! If physicians, patients and plans (both Medicare and workers’ compensation) can dialogue before Rxs are filled, better decisions about opioids are inevitable and the frequency of opioid addiction will diminish.

So what’s the problem?

Unfortunately, there remains a problem in the world of workers’ compensation and the WCMSA review process. While I applaud CMS’s effort, there remains a strong disconnect between CMS’s proactive stance on opioid limitations with Medicare Part D and its opioid-friendly review process for WCMSAs. At the same time, I must also admit to a similar disconnect between what happens with prescription opioids during the life of a workers’ compensation claim and what we are asking CMS to do when reviewing the MSA at settlement time. Are we asking CMS to “do as I say,” instead of providing the example of “do as I do?”

Can we ‘connect the dots’?

After reading the article, I realized that as an MSP compliance company that has integrated opioid triggers into its Pre-MSA Triage and review process since Day #1, Tower now has a new weapon in its arsenal to assist clients to identify pharmacy obstacles as early possible, and to address issues of inappropriate drug use. By advising clients to establish and enforce “CMS-like” boundaries at Rx fill time, we have the potential to reduce opioid use in workers’ compensation just as CMS seeks to accomplish with Medicare Part D. Through such efforts, we can reinforce dialogue between physicians, claimants and workers’ compensation plans before the Rx is filled, and hopefully facilitate better decisions about the first opioid Rx.

And as for the disconnect between Medicare Part D and the WCMSA review process, we cannot force CMS to change its WCMSA prescription drug review process. We can, however, leverage CMS’s expertise to support better outcomes with Medicare beneficiaries, MSAs and settlements by mirroring their Medicare Part D policies and processes within the workers’ compensation PBM model. In doing so, we provide CMS with a positive example of their own recommendations implemented successfully, and can hopefully encourage them to “do as we do.”

Conclusion

So how do we affect change in opioid prescribing habits in workers’ compensation? It’s as simple as the bracelet I gave my children. From Day #1 of a claim involving an active or soon to be active Medicare beneficiary, we continually ask the question, “What Would Medicare Do?” and we execute.

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.

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.

WorkersCompensation.com: Tower MSA Partners’ Rita Wilson Predicts CMS Re-Review Changes Will Help Payers

January 27, 2017

Tower MSA Partners CEO, Rita Wilson, was recently interviewed by WorkersCompensation.com following her participation in a January 24, 2017 “State of MSP” webinar presented by the National Alliance of Medicare Set-Aside Professionals (NAMSAP).

Workerscompensation.com asked Rita to comment on CMS’s December 21, 2016 announcement regarding its plans to update its WCMSA re-review process in 2017. This includes expansion of the process to previously approved MSAs where there has been a substantial change in the claimant’s medical condition and the case has not settled (For details see Tower MSA blog on the announcement: CMS Announces Plans for 2017 Expansion of MSA Re-Review Process & New Policy Regarding URs in MSAs)

Rita’s comments to WorkersCompensation.com follow:

“CMS will need to establish the parameters for re-review and define ‘substantial changes.’ We expect costly procedures such as surgeries and spinal cord stimulators to be included,” Wilson said. “A WCMSA involving patients who have weaned off expensive polypharmacy regimens could also qualify.”

“Tower’s workflow and decision-tree software application identifies recommended, not-yet-performed procedures and intervenes to address inappropriate treatment prior to submitting an MSA,” Wilson said, “But this could be a game-changer for payers with CMS-approved MSAs that they were unable to settle.”

The full article may be found here.