medicare-set-aside Archives

CMS MSA Review Expansion to Liability Planned for 2018

January 4, 2017

We are not even a week into 2017, but already have news to share regarding Medicare’s planned expansion of its Workers’ Compensation MSA review process to liability in 2018. In its recently released Request for Proposal for the Workers Compensation Review Contractor (WCRC), the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) includes an option allowing CMS to expand the responsibilities of the WCRC to review of Liability Medicare Set-Asides (LMSAs) and No-Fault Medicare Set-Asides (NFMSAs) effective July 1, 2018.

The CMS WCRC RFP Solicitation may be viewed here.

Background on CMS Review of MSAs

Since 2001 CMS has had in place an official voluntary review process for Worker’ Compensation Medicare Set-Asides (WCMSAs). A WCMSA, as CMS states, 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.” The purpose of the review then is “to independently price the future Medicare-covered medical services costs related to the WC injury, illness, and/or disease and to price the future Medicare covered prescription drug expenses related to the WC injury, illness and/or disease thereby taking Medicare’s payment interests appropriately into account.”

These WCMSA reviews were initially handled by the CMS Regional Offices spread throughout the country, but eventually transitioned to a centralized WCRC in 2005 (The CMS Regional Offices must still approve the review recommendation of the WCRC before it is released to the WCMSA submitter). CMS’s RFP solicitation for the new WCRC contract indicates the contract is to be awarded by June 30, 2017 with a contract term running for five years from July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2022.

Expectations for Liability MSA Reviews

Presently, CMS allows its 10 Regional Offices to accept voluntary requests for review of LMSAs at each office’s discretion. Some Regional Offices have consistently refused to review any LMSAs while other offices agree to review based upon criteria that seemingly changes over time and bears no indication that it is indeed the official policy of CMS. It appears then that just as it did in 2005 when CMS took the responsibility away from the Regional Offices for reviewing WCMSAs, CMS is now considering centralizing the process of reviewing LMSAs with a contractor, leaving the Regional Offices to only approve of the contractor’s recommendations.

Some may recall CMS launched a prior initiative to establish a formal policy for consideration of future medicals in liability settlements when it issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 2012. This initial effort was ultimately withdrawn by CMS in 2014. CMS’s new initiative began with this June 9, 2016 notice on the CMS website:

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is considering expanding its voluntary Medicare Set-Aside Arrangements (MSA) amount review process to include the review of proposed liability insurance (including self-insurance) and no-fault insurance MSA amounts. CMS plans to work closely with the stakeholder community to identify how best to implement this potential expansion. CMS will provide future announcements of the proposal and expects to schedule town hall meetings later this year. Please continue to monitor CMS.gov for additional updates.

No town hall meetings were scheduled in 2016, however, based upon this RFP indicating LMSA reviews will not begin until at least July 1, 2018, CMS has given itself 18 months to develop and implement a formal LMSA review policy. In terms of how many liability settlements such a review process would impact, CMS seems uncertain. A Statement of Work attached to the RFP indicates “reviews could represent as much as 11,000 additional cases (based on all FY2015 NGHP demands), or as little as 800 additional cases annually, depending upon industry response.”

Tower MSA Takeaways

Over the past 15 years, starting with the formalized review of WCMSAs, continuing with the implementation of Section 111 Mandatory Insurer Reporting and recent stepped up efforts at denying injury-related medical care and recovery of conditional payments for medical care related to workers’ compensation, liability and no-fault claims, CMS has expanded its enforcement under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act. It is not surprising then that CMS’s next objective is formalizing a voluntary review process for LMSAs.

It has been our experience that when CMS does implement new policy and procedures it does take a deliberative approach evidenced by the at least 18-month timeframe signaled with this RFP to expand the MSA review process to liability and no-fault. Our expectation then is over the next 18 months or longer, CMS will provide additional announcements concerning the rules and procedures around expansion of the review process.

Tower MSA will be involved in these discussions and will keep you abreast of relevant developments. In the interim, there remain important obligations of parties to liability settlements and no-fault claims under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act. Rest assured that you can rely upon Tower MSA’s team of MSP compliance experts for consultation and expert guidance in liability and no-fault matters.

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

Lyrica – High Claim Cost Doesn’t Necessarily Mean High Dollar MSAs

January 13, 2016

Lyrica is one of the most widely prescribed ‘pain’ medications in the workers’ system. Unfortunately, it is also one of the most expensive. Add to that the fact that it is typically prescribed ‘off label’ for injured workers, and you’ve got a recipe for high claim cost. But will this high dollar monthly drug spend translate to a high dollar MSA?

Lyrica’s 2016 price increase

Lyrica is among more than 100 drugs that saw price increases as of Jan. 1, 2016. Drug maker Pfizer said the company had raised the price by a whopping 9.4 percent this year. That follows the 20.5 percent increase in its average wholesale price just two years ago. With patent protection firmly in place, a generic version is not expected for at least two years.

While workers’ compensation stakeholders seek medical treatments that result in the best outcomes for injured workers, and off label drug use is common in both workers’ comp and group health, starting with an off-label medication is unnecessary. First-line therapy should be those medications that are FDA-approved for the patient’s condition.

Lyrica’s off label use

Lyrica is FDA approved for only a limited number of conditions, not chronic pain in general. The Food and Drug Administration has indicated the drug for pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy, post-herpetic neuralgia, partial onset seizures, fibromyalgia and neuropathic pain associated with spinal cord injury.

If you have a claimant on Lyrica who does not have any of the above conditions, Medicare WILL NOT cover it — meaning that while you, the payer, may foot the bill as part of your monthly claim spend, Lyrica would NOT be included in the Medicare Set Aside should you move toward settlement. Many medical providers, as well as insurance carriers, are unaware that the medication is not covered by Medicare for off-label uses.

Tower MSA recently saved a client $179,000 after confirming Lyrica was being prescribed off-label and, therefore, should not be included in the MSA. That’s just one example of a high dollar claim cost that did not translate to a high dollar MSA projection.

What to do

Lyrica is just one of the many medications prescribed off-label in the workers’ compensation system. There are many others, like Lidoderm patches, Terocin cream, ACTIQ, Abilify…. all extremely expensive drugs that are not decreasing in price anytime soon.

If you’re unsure as to whether a drug is being prescribed off label, contact Tower and ask the question. If you’re considering settlement, you might also consider Tower’s Pre-MSA Triage. This service identifies unnecessary/inappropriate treatment and recommends claim specific intervention strategies to optimize claim cost before the MSA.

Whether a recommended intervention involves clarification that a medication is being prescribed for an off label use, contact with the treating physician to obtain discontinuation of medications not intended for long term use, or a complete physician peer review with peer to peer collegial dialogue, Tower’s MSP Automation Suite drives the process, tracking progress through completion. As a result, payers can better manage treatment and proactively lower their costs before discussions of the MSA ensue.

Conclusion

Never underestimate the value of a good doctor in optimizing claim outcomes. Payers should identify good physicians through data analytical resources and tools, and not settle for mediocrity. Next, work with your PBM to established and enforce pharmacy guidelines when authorizing treatment. Finally, be proactive in utilizing state jurisdictional options to avoid inappropriate treatment.

Optimal care, cost and compliance can be achieved.

Pre-MSA Triage Works!

November 17, 2015

Inappropriate and/or unnecessary prescription drugs, along with recommended medical procedures that are recommended, but never performed, are all too common in workers’ compensation claims. Yet they are often overlooked when moving a claim to settlement. But a new tool is helping payers identify and address obstacles, saving millions of dollars in MSA and settlement costs. Several recent cases bear out the program’s success.

Tower MSA Partners developed this unique service to ensure MSAs include only accurate and appropriate medical and pharmaceutical treatment. The Pre-MSA Triage allows payers to stage claims for optimal outcomes by providing a snapshot of MSA exposure before the MSA. By following our recommended interventions, clients are achieving CMS approval of reduced MSAs, with reductions of more than 50% in many cases.

How it works

Tower analyzes 6 months of medical records to identify care and cost issues, including the projected MSA cost of a claim based on the current medical and pharmacy treatment regimen. The review also provides a snapshot view of the MSA exposure in a non-discoverable (not an MSA) format, and offers an overview of inappropriate, unnecessary treatment and cost drivers that may impact MSA and settlement. For example, the review may uncover denied injuries and/or body parts, recommended surgical procedures that were never pursued, spinal cord stimulators that were recommended but never evaluated, gaps in treatment dates, unrelated medications, and off-label drug usage.

We then recommend various interventions, such as physician peer review, clinical oversight and conditional payment searches/negotiations to effect improved outcomes and savings in the overall claim costs, frequently as much as 50 percent!

Example Case Study

Tower’s Pre-MSA Triage projected the MSA cost for a 46-year-old male at $1,300,000. More than $1,000,000 of the total projection was due to extended prescribing of both long and short acting opioids. Tower recommended a Physician Peer Review followed by direct dialogue with the treating physician. Agreement to wean was obtained in writing and Tower initiated its clinical nurse oversight service to track progress.

Through Tower’s MSP Automation Suite, developed and maintained internally, we were able to drive the weaning process with the physician through tracked monthly calls, and to guide the adjuster as to when discontinued medications should be blocked by the client’s PBM.

Upon finalization of the weaning process, Tower worked with defense to obtain the necessary written language from the treating physician to confirm discontinuation and remove past medications. The final MSA was submitted and approved by CMS for $210,641 – a savings of more than $1,000,000 from the original estimate!

Conclusion

The example provided here is one of many success stories we are seeing, and through our MSP Automation Suite, we’ve been able to manage the process from triage through final CMS submission and approval in a secure, digital environment. Whether handled internally by our team of nurses or through a formal intervention and peer dialogue by one of our physicians, our system drives every step in the process.

Many companies can identify problems, and some even make recommendations. At Tower, we believe the key to successful MSA outcomes is a proactive approach to identify, intervene and remain involved through closure.

Managing Chronic Pain in Older Adults

April 8, 2014

According to the ACPA (American Chronic Pain Association) Resource Guide to Chronic Pain Management, “persistent or chronic pain is prevalent in older adults.”

“Nearly one third of all prescribed medications are for patients over the age of 65 years. More than thirty percent of hospital admissions among the elderly may be linked to an adverse drug related event or toxic effect from opioids and sedatives. Unfortunately, many adverse drug effects in older adults are overlooked as age-related changes (general weakness, dizziness, and upset stomach) when in fact the patient is experiencing a medication-related problem. In addition, some older individuals may be more sensitive to medications, more likely to experience side effects, and more likely to be using multiple drugs with the associated risk of interactions between the drugs.”

Workers’ Comp Implications

For those who manage workers’ compensation claims, these statistics should highlight the importance of a consistently executed decision making paradigm when authorizing prescription medications for older patients.

Before approving a new pain medication for an elderly injured worker, confirm that the initial dose is being prescribed at the lowest possible strength and frequency.
When increases are requested, approve only those changes to strength and frequency that are adjusted slowly to optimize pain relief.
When possible, confirm that the patient is monitoring and managing his / her own side effects.

When dealing with less dangerous treatment options for injuries in the elderly population, potential treatment options include:

Use of multiple drugs together – Careful use of multiple drugs is potentially advantageous as the combination of smaller doses of more than one medication may minimize the dose-limiting adverse effects of using a particular single drug.
Alternatives to pharmacologic treatment – As an alternative to prescription drugs, physical rehabilitation and other interventional therapies, including targeted injections and acupuncture, can be helpful to minimize side-effects and maximize physical function with pain relief

Triggers For Potential Concern

Pain management in the elderly is a unique challenge. Beyond the normal concerns of addiction and overuse, those who authorize treatment in a workers’ compensation claim for an older worker must also compare the potential dangers associated with the side effects of the medication against its promised value. Triggers that may warrant intervention for an older injured worker include:

Opioid treatment that continues for more than 90 days post injury / surgery
An increase in the strength or frequency of an opioid prescribed more than 90 days post injury / surgery
A request to change from an orthopedic or other specialist to a pain management specialist more than 90 days post injury/surgery
A decrease in opioid drug use followed by a request for a new treating physician
The appearance of a long acting opioid medication following continued use and/or an increase in dosage of a short acting opioid more than 60 months post injury

Identify, Intervene and Remain Involved

By peeling back the onion one layer at a time, questions can be raised, physicians can be challenged and evidence based treatment guidelines can be used to confront the status quo. The first step is to ask your workers’ comp PBM to identify claims that meet your triggers. Once identified, intervene with the treating physician either directly, or through a formal peer review. Once intervention is complete, remain involved until changes are complete.

When preparing for settlement, it’s critical to work with an MSA partner who will serve as gatekeeper to identify the same triggers and intercept problem claims before the MSA is prepared. Working hand in hand, positive outcomes can be achieved for the elderly. The process is simple. Consistent execution is the key.

For more information on medical and pharmacological issues related to pain management in the elderly population, I encourage you to review the publications made available by the American Geriatrics Society (http://www.americangeritrics.org). For questions related to pain management issues related to Medicare Set Asides, email us at info@towermsa.com.

Top 10 Drugs Prescribed For Workers’ Compensation Claims

November 21, 2011

A recent study by NCCI Holdings, Inc. reports the top 10 most popular drugs prescribed for workers’ compensation claims.

1. OXYCONTIN®
2. LIDODERM®
3. HYDROCODONE-ACETAMINOPHEN
4. LYRICA®
5. CELEBREX®
6. GABAPENTIN
7. SKELAXIN®
8. CYMBALTA®
9. MELOXICAM
10. CYCLOBENZAPRINE HCL

Workers compensation medical costs per claim average more than $6,000 and soar to nearly $25,000 for lost-time claims. The report examined workers compensation prescription drug (Rx) use, a medical expense that makes up 19% of all workers compensation (WC) medical costs.

Other key findings of the report on drugs prescribed for workers’ compensation were:

• The indicated Rx share of total medical is 19%; this is slightly higher than the estimate given in the 2010 update
• OxyContin® climbs from the number 3 WC drug in Service Year 2008 to number 1 in Service Year 2009
• Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen drops from the top WC drug in Service Year 2008 to number 3 in Service Year 2009
• Recent overall cost increases are driven more by utilization increases than by price increases
• Physician dispensing continues to increase in Service Year 2009 in almost every state
• Increased physician dispensing is associated with increased drug costs per claim
• Per-claim Rx costs vary significantly by state

Wyden, Portmam Lead Effort to Make Medicare Secondary Payer Program More Efficient, Save Taxpayer Dollars

October 19, 2011

Wyden, Portman Lead Effort to Make Medicare Secondary Payer Program More Efficient, Save Taxpayer Dollars

Bill Makes Common Sense Reforms to Medicare’s Reimbursement Rules to make it easier for the program to collect from Third Party Payers

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Monday, October 17, 2011
Jeff Sadosky (Portman) | 202-224-5190
Jennifer Hoelzer (Wyden) | 202-224-3789
Jake Thompson (Nelson) | 202-224-8795
David Ward (Burr) | 202-228-1616

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio) are leading a bipartisan effort that includes U.S. Senators Ben Nelson (D- Neb.) and Richard Burr (R-N.C.) to make the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) Program more efficient and cost effective to taxpayers. The Strengthening Medicare and Repaying Taxpayers (SMART) Act will speed up the rate by which Medicare and its beneficiaries are reimbursed for costs that should be borne by another party.

“Streamlining third party payment fixes some of the bureaucratic requirements that often stand in the way of Medicare being reimbursed for services that they are not supposed to pay for,” Wyden said. “By making the process more efficient, Medicare will be repaid more quickly and more accurately than before and the repayment process will work the way it was designed to work. An easier repayment process is not just good for Medicare and taxpayers, but also for the beneficiary who should be able to settle their claim more quickly.”

“I am pleased to introduce the SMART Act because it will help strengthen and protect Medicare by ensuring greater reliability and efficiency of Medicare reimbursements,” said Portman. “With Washington’s sky high debt and deficit, we need to do everything we can to ensure that entitlement programs such as Medicare are cost effective and working for the very people they were designed to help.”

“The current Medicare Secondary Payment Program is a bureaucratic mess that often leaves everyone involved in the settlement process – from Medicare beneficiaries to small businesses – unsatisfied,” Sen. Nelson said. “The SMART Act will help the program run more efficiently and reduce unneeded uncertainty for all the parties involved.”

“The lack of transparency and inefficiencies with the current Medicare Secondary Payer process illustrates how Washington’s red-tape and regulatory uncertainty can adversely impact seniors and businesses,” Burr said. “In order to get our economy back on track, we simply cannot afford to continue to waste taxpayer dollars by perpetuating the inefficiencies of the current Medicare Secondary Payer system. We can and must do a better job for the seniors and stakeholders depending upon this program to be as transparent and efficient as possible.”

Under the MSP program, if a Medicare beneficiary is injured by a third party and a settlement is pursued as a result of that injury, the third party is responsible for paying for the individual’s medical expenses. If Medicare, now the “secondary payer,” pays any of the costs associated with the injury, it is entitled to reimbursement.

Several problems exist with the reimbursement process under this scenario. Under current law, Medicare does not have a way to disclose the MSP amount before settlement, creating unnecessary uncertainty that makes it hard to settle cases. Second, there are times when Medicare spends more money pursuing an MSP payment than they actually end up receiving in payment. MSP reporting requirements also require beneficiaries to submit sensitive personal information to the settlement company, causing privacy concerns. Finally, there is no clear statute of limitations on all MSP claims.

The SMART Act will address these issues by creating a process that allows CMS to disclose the MSP amount before settlement so it can be factored into the settlement; requiring Medicare to no longer pursue MSP claims that do not cover their own expenses; directing Medicare to establish an alternative method of identifying individuals so that they don’t have to provide sensitive personal information; and setting a three-year statute of limitations for most claims.