Medicare Archives

Medicare Conditional Payment Recovery Threshold for 2021

December 1, 2020

chart, dollars and a fountain pen illustrating conditional paument recovery threshold post

In an 11/25/2020 Alert, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced that the 2021 conditional payment recovery threshold for liability, no-fault and workers’ compensation settlements will remain at $750. Accordingly, Total Payment Obligations to the Claimant, TPOCs, in the amount of $750 or less are not required to be reported to CMS through the Section 111 Mandatory Reporting process, nor will CMS attempt to recover conditional payments for TPOCs of this amount (The threshold does not apply to liability settlements for alleged ingestion, implantation or exposure cases).

By way of background, pursuant to the SMART Act of 2012, CMS is required to annually determine a threshold amount such that the cost of collection does not outstrip the amount recovered through such collection efforts. CMS’s calculations, which can be found here, resulted in maintaining the $750 threshold.

Practical Implications

As CMS is keeping the $750 threshold for mandatory reporting and conditional payment recovery there are no changes to the reporting processes or determinations as to when conditional payments should be investigated or resolved.

November CMS Mandatory Reporting and Conditional Payment Updates

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.

April 1st Brings Electronic Payment Option to MSPRP

March 15, 2019

Red Medicare button on a keyboard to illustrate Medicare conditional payment.

In a March 13, 2019 webinar, CMS provided a high-level overview of the electronic payment option to be added to the Medicare Secondary Payer Recovery Portal (MSPRP) effective April 1, 2019. Below are the step-by-step instructions for using this E-Payment service:

Login to the MSPRP and select the Case ID link from the Cases table for the case in which you would like to make a payment.

On the Payment Information tab select the Make a Payment button on the lower left-hand corner.

Then, on the Make a Payment page you will find the Remaining Principal Amount, Remaining Interest Amount and Total Remaining Balance Amount. In the Amount Field the amount to be paid is entered, either a partial or full amount, and in the Account Holder Name field the account holder name as it appears on the account under which payment will be made. Click Continue.

Once you click Continue you will be taken to Pay.gov in a new internet browser window (Pay.gov is a secure, online payment system run by the U.S. Department of Treasury). On this screen Pay.gov requires you to choose one of the following payment methods: Direct payment from checking or savings account, debit card or PayPal. Credit card transactions are not allowed (We assume this is to avoid the credit card fees which would otherwise limit the government’s recovery).

Once the payment method is chosen you will be taken to an Enter Payment Information screen and then a Review and Submit Payment screen (Maximum amount for a debit card is $24,999.99 and for PayPal it is $10,000). Once payment is submitted the next screen will indicate either the payment is in process or declined with a confirmation number, Case ID and Debtor Name.

After the payment process has been completed on Pay.gov you will then be taken back to the Case Information page in the MSPRP. Here you can view a tab with the electronic payment history.

CMS advised that payment processing time is 1 to 3 days on average and the statement will indicate a payment to “HMSCMS.” Importantly, CMS advised that for the purpose of interest calculations the date the electronic payment is made will be the receipt date for payment, not when the payment is processed.

If in the process of using Pay.gov any problems are experienced Pay.gov customer support can be contacted at 800-624-1373 (Select Option #2) or pay.gov.clev@clev.frb.org.

Notably, if following an electronic payment, Medicare determines that a refund of all or part of the payment is required, the refund will not be credited back to the form of payment, i.e. debit card, used to make the electronic payment. Instead, a physical check will be issued to the address on file.

Practical Implications

The addition of the electronic payment option to the MSPRP is a welcome upgrade to not only the portal, but the process of resolving Medicare conditional payments. Importantly, electronic payment of a Medicare conditional payment demand requires you to have access to the MSPRP and have an authorization on file with the recovery contractor allowing for access to the demand on the particular case (Medicare beneficiaries do not need an authorization on file but must access the MSPRP through MyMedicare.gov). If you do not have such access or choose not to make an electronic payment, then the traditional method of mailing a check to either the CRC or BCRC is still available.

CMS advised that the slides from the webinar will be available on the CMS website next week. If you have any questions, please contact Dan Anders at (888) 331-4941 or daniel.anders@towermsa.com.

NAMSAP Bulletin Highlights Meeting with CMS on Liability MSA Reviews

August 16, 2018

man holding transparent icons of people with stakeholder in the center

Recently, the National Alliance of Medicare Set-Aside Professionals (NAMSAP) released a Special Edition Bulletin providing insight into a meeting between CMS and NAMSAP representatives on the topic of the planned expansion of the Workers’ Compensation MSA review process to liability MSA Reviews. NAMSAP’s April 2018 meeting was one of several with stakeholder organizations.

Your writer was one of the NAMSAP representatives who had the privilege of meeting with CMS to hear and discuss how such a Liability MSA Reviews may work. Mr. Tom Stanley, the Co-Chair of NAMSAP’s Liability Committee provided a summary of the following meeting highlights in the bulletin:

CMS stated they have an 18-month timeframe (from April 2018) before it rolls out a LMSA Review program.
The program would be voluntary.
CMS has indicated that their enforcement mechanism is the denial of services.
CMS felt strongly that the injured party must receive something (free and clear) through settlement.
CMS would not review an LMSA until Settlement has been reached.
CMS feels a LMSA is exclusively the responsibility of the plaintiff.
Regarding LMSA’s, CMS made it clear that the defendant(s), and their insurers, are not a target.
Medicare pricing of services was discussed.
CMS does not feel it can mandate professional administration.
CMS would publish a LMSA Reference Guide.
Eligibility remains the same as the current WCMSA system – Medicare beneficiaries or injured parties who have a reasonable expectation of Medicare eligibility within 30 months. Per statute, Medicare’s interest must be considered in every claim.
A workload threshold of $250,000 is anticipated – “NO SAFE HARBOR”. This level mirrors the $25,000 workload threshold for WCMSA’s.
For settlements between $250,000 and $750,000 threshold, CMS approval is available and encouraged by CMS. CMS would apply “a formula” to determine the LMSA amount. Starting with the total settlement amount, CMS would subtract certain expenses and apply the discount factor to total settlement.
Above $750,000 level is a full commutation. A traditional MSA would be prepared and, if submitted to CMS, evaluated by CMS for adequacy.

As Mr. Stanley advised, “everything discussed in the meeting was subject to change and related to liability Medicare Set-Asides only.” I would like to emphasize that point as well. You should not in anyway take the above points as final, rather they are points of discussion as CMS continues to listen to stakeholders and assess the best method for protecting Medicare’s interests in post-liability settlement injury-related medical.

Importantly, CMS realizes that in protecting those interests an eventual voluntary LMSA review process must continue to provide an incentive for the parties to settle their case. Consequently, some type of apportionment to ensure the plaintiff receives a portion of the settlement monies is expected in any final review process.

NAMSAP will to continue to dialogue with CMS and also discuss with its membership, both through a webinar and at the annual conference, the points presented by CMS. Given the launch of a CMS LMSA review process is not expected for some time, Tower MSA Partners will shortly be releasing a white paper on best practices for addressing future medicals in liability settlements.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss the topic of LMSAs further, please contact Dan Anders, Chief Compliance Officer, at 888.331.4941 or Daniel.anders@towermsa.com.

Related:

Liability Settlement Solutions

Enhancements to MSPRP Improve Conditional Payment Processes

July 27, 2018

Since its introduction six years ago, the Medicare Secondary Payer Recovery Portal (MSPRP) has increasingly become more reliable and useful in communicating to and receiving information from the Medicare conditional payment recovery contractors (BCRC and CRC). Earlier this month, a revised version of the MSPRP User Guide was released (Version 4.2) and provided for further enhancements to the portal:

To reduce the number of calls received by the BCRC regarding the status of case correspondence, a new read-only Letter Activity tab has been added to the Case Information page, which displays correspondence that has been received or letters that have been sent related to a Benefits Coordination & Recovery Center (BCRC) or Commercial Repayment Center (CRC) case (Section 13.1.1).
To make MSPRP more consistent so that both insurers and beneficiaries (and their representatives) can request electronic letters, the MSPRP now allows insurers, recovery agents on the Tax Identification Number (TIN) reference file, and insurer representatives with a verified Recovery Agent Authorization, who also log in using multi-factor authentication, to request electronic conditional payment letters (eCPLs) for BCRC and CRC insurer-debtor cases (Sections 13.1.5 and 14.5.4). Note: eCPLs may also be requested on cases that are in bankruptcy.
To help Account Managers (AMs) determine which currently active designees should be deleted because of long inactivity on an account, a Last Login Date column has been added to the Designee Listing page (Section 8.3.2).
In cases where Part A, non-inpatient, claims do not have a HCPCS or DRG code associated with them, the Primary Diagnosis Code will appear on the Payment Summary Form (PSF), in bold, under the DX Codes column, along with an explanatory footnote. When the Primary Diagnosis Code is bolded, the HCPCS/DRG column will be blank (Table 13-8).

Practical Implications

Tower MSA staff often spend hours on the phone with the CRC and BCRC to ensure correspondence, such as an authorization, was received and that a matter is progressing to completion. The addition of a Letter Activity tab confirming correspondence has been received and acted upon is a significant benefit as long as the recovery contractors properly update it with the most current documentation received.

Additionally, the ability for an insurer or Tower MSA, on behalf of an insurer, to request an electronic conditional payment letter (eCPL) provides for a more expeditious turnaround time in obtaining this letter which is otherwise sent through the mail. Previously, eCPLs were only available to Medicare beneficiaries.

Update on New Commercial Repayment Center

Since the transition from CGI Federal to Performant Financial as the CRC contractor in February 2018, Tower MSA has encountered a reasonably quick turnaround time (Less than 30 days) in receiving Medicare conditional payment information. Interestingly, in the first few months following the contractor transition the CRC had been issuing Conditional Payment Letters (CPLs), rather than the Conditional Payment Notices (CPNs) (The difference being that a CPL does not have a 30 day time-frame to dispute conditional payments, nor is it followed by a Demand Letter). However, we are now seeing the CRC again issuing CPNs followed by Demand Letters.

While obtaining an itemization of Medicare conditional payments has been a smooth process with the new contractor, the same cannot be said for disputes and appeals of those conditional payments. Our understanding is the new contractor inherited a backlog of these disputes and appeals and has been working through them which has added to the time needed to process new disputes and appeals (Hence the likely reason CPLs were issued rather than CPNs in the first few months of the new contractor). Some disputes and appeals are pending for more than 60 days. Additionally, there have been systematic issues at the CRC resulting in lost disputes/appeals, demand letters issued while disputes are pending and matters prematurely being referred to the Treasury Department for collection activities.

Tower MSA has been advised by Performant that it is continuing to reduce the backlog of dispute and appeal submissions while also addressing the systematic problems. We are optimistic the portal enhancements and Performant acting to reduce the backlog and the systematic challenges will increase the efficiency of the conditional payment process over time. Tower MSA will continue to monitor these processes and when warranted reach out to the CRC to request corrective action be taken.

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 Webinar to Introduce New MSA Review Contractor

March 1, 2018

Effective March 19, 2018, Capitol Bridge, LLC will be taking over responsibilities from Provider Resources as CMS’s Workers Compensation Review Contractor (WCRC). CMS has now announced a webinar set for Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 1:00 PM ET to introduce the new MSA review contractor. See CMS Notice which includes a link to register for the webinar.

Capitol Bridge becomes the third company since 2003 to be awarded the WCRC contract. The contractor is charged with evaluating Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set-Aside (WCMSA) proposals submitted to CMS for review and approval. Using criteria set by CMS, it makes recommendations to the designated CMS Regional Office (RO) as to whether the proposed MSA amount adequately protects Medicare’s interests. If the WCRC disagrees with the proposal it will provide an alternate recommendation, either higher or lower, than the proposed amount. The CMS RO usually accepts the recommendation from the WCRC and issues the approval letter to the submitter of the MSA.

Besides the transition to the new contractor, what is unique about Capitol Bridge’s contract with CMS is the inclusion of a provision providing for the optional expansion of its MSA review responsibilities to liability and no-fault cases as early as July 1, 2018. We caution though that CMS has not announced that such an expansion will occur on July 1, 2018.

Tower MSA applauds CMS for inviting those impacted by the contractor change to this introductory webinar. On the heels of the January webinar introducing the new CRC contractor, we are pleased with more transparency by CMS in its process and policy changes. If you are unable to attend CMS’s webinar, Tower MSA will provide a summary of relevant information on our MSP Compliance Blog following the presentation.

CRC Contractor Change Brings New Team to Medicare Conditional Payment Recovery Efforts

January 21, 2018

On Thursday, January 18, 2018, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) held a webinar to introduce the new Commercial Repayment Center (CRC) contractor, Performant Recovery, and Performant’s management team. This transition to a new contractor is important to insurers and employers as the CRC is responsible for the recovery of Medicare conditional payments against these entities stemming from liability, workers’ compensation and no-fault claims where ongoing responsibility for medicals has been accepted.

Ted Doyle, the Performant MSP CRC Project Director, emphasized in his introductory remarks and throughout the presentation that their main goal is to make the transition seamless for all those who engage with the CRC. His message to stakeholders is CMS’s recovery processes and timeframes remain the same, it is only the entity handling those processes that is changing.

Besides Mr. Doyle, other webinar participants were John Albert, the Director of the CMS Division of Medicare Benefit Coordination and Laura Martinez, the MSP CRC NGHP Recovery Manager for Performant.

Key contractor transition information provided during the webinar was as follows:

The current CRC contractor, CGI Federal, will cease operations effective Friday, February 9, 2018.
Performant Recovery will commence CRC operations effective Monday, February 12, 2018.
Transition cutover, or what CMS calls “Dark Days,” will occur on February 8 and 9. During this period while CGI Federal will continue to answer telephone calls and the Medicare Secondary Payer Recovery Portal (MSPRP) will be available, the information will be limited to what was available at close of business on February 7. Also, uploading documents through the MSPRP will not be available.
Performant will go live as of 8am EST on February 12 at which point the MSPRP will once again be fully available as well as the call center. Correspondence received during the Dark Days or prior to the transition will be transferred to Performant for handling.

In regard to what will remain the same post-transition:

All current cases initiated by CGI will be transitioned to Performant.
Case information, copies of communication, correspondence and contact information, including letters of authority, will be fully accessible to Performant such that there should be no reason for stakeholders to resend correspondence or other information that was previously provided to CGI.
There will be no changes to CMS established recovery processes or timeframes applicable to MSP recovery.
The CRC Call Center will continue the same hours: 8am – 8pm EST
The CRC Call Center phone number will remain the same: (855) 798-2627
All Benefits Coordination and Recovery Center (BCRC) processes remain the same, including Section 111 Mandatory Insurer Reporting.

As for what is changing post-transition:

Effective 2/12/2018* the CRC has a new address:Medicare Commercial Repayment Center – NGHP ORM
P.O. Box 269003
Oklahoma City, OK 73216

*Any correspondence received prior to 2/12/2018 will be held and then processed starting on that date.
Effective 2/12/2018 the CRC fax number is (844) 315-7627.

As with any transition, some bumps are to be expected. We are hopeful these will be short-term and that the transition will not only be seamless, but that Performant improves the customer service aspect of the Medicare conditional payment recovery process. CMS and Performant engaging with Tower MSA and other stakeholders through this webinar is a good first step at building a collaborative relationship with those impacted by the CRC’s recovery efforts.

It was indicated a copy of the presentation slides will be made available on the downloads section of the CMS Coordination of Benefits and Recovery website next week.

If you have any questions regarding the CRC contractor transition, please contact Dan Anders at daniel.anders@towermsa.com or (888) 331-4941.

Daniel Anders, Esq., MSCC

Daniel M. Anders is the Chief Compliance Officer for Tower MSA Partners where he oversees the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) compliance program. Dan is an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Illinois and the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

CMS to Host Webinar on Transition to New CRC Contractor

January 9, 2018

On Thursday, January 18, 2018, at 1:00 PM ET, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) will host a webinar for the purpose of introducing the new Commercial Repayment Center (CRC) contractor to Non-Group Health Plans.

The CRC is responsible for recovery of Medicare conditional payments from liability insurers (including self-insured entities), no-fault insurers and workers compensation entities where such entities are the identified debtor by Medicare. It was announced last October that the new CRC contract had been awarded to Performant Financial Corporation (See Tower MSA article: New Commercial Repayment Center Contractor on the Horizon). The transition to the new contractor is to occur on February 8, 2018.

According to the January 5, 2018 CMS Notice, the webinar will consist of opening remarks and a presentation by CMS followed by a Q & A session. We encourage anyone who has regular contact with the CRC to register and attend the presentation (A link to register is located in the CMS Notice). If you are unable to attend, Tower MSA will provide a summary of relevant information on our MSP Compliance Blog following the presentation.

As CMS contractor changes are often fraught with a subsequent period of longer turnaround times and inconsistent communication with contractor representatives, we hope this transition proves an exception to past experiences. This introductory webinar appears to be a useful first step.

If you have any questions regarding the CRC contractor transition, please contact Dan Anders at daniel.anders@towermsa.com or (888) 331-4941.

Updated Section 111 User Guide Provides for Transition to MBIs, ORM Termination Defined

January 3, 2018

Pursuant to the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) of 2015, CMS is required to transition all Medicare beneficiaries from the Social Security Number based Health Insurance Claim Numbers (HICNs) to a new identification number called a Medicare Beneficiary Identifier (MBI). The primary purpose of this initiative is to reduce identify theft associated with use of Social Security Numbers in HICNs.

Accordingly, starting in April 2018 CMS will begin to mail new cards with the new Medicare numbers to Medicare beneficiaries. The goal is to issue all new cards by April 2019. For medical providers, there will be a transition period from 4/1/2018 through 12/31/2019 in which either the HICN or MBI will be accepted for processing of payments by Medicare.

Minimal Impact on Section 111 Reporting

Unlike medical providers which must exclusively use the MBI by 1/1/2020, as explained in the updated Section 111 NGHP User Guide, CMS has exempted its Medicare Secondary Payer Reporting processes from exclusive use of the MBI. Consequently, we can continue to report to CMS using a Social Security Number, a HICN or an MBI. In announcing this policy, CMS indicates it has renamed fields labeled “HICN” to “Medicare ID.”

While allowing for continued reporting of HICNs in its Section 111 reporting processes, CMS states that if an MBI has been issued to the claimant, it will return the MBI in the Section 111 response files. We expect then that while not requiring submission of MBIs, CMS nonetheless expects a natural transition to their use for MSP matters over time.

Medicare Conditional Payment Recovery Correspondence to Include Either HICN or MBI

As part of this update, CMS states that its recovery contractors, the Benefits Coordination and Recovery Center (BCRC) and the Commercial Repayment Center (CRC), will use either an HICN or MBI in its correspondence based upon the most recent information provided by the Responsible Reporting Entity (RRE) when creating or updating the MSP record. Again, we expect a natural transition from use of HICNs to MBIs in correspondence from the recovery contractors over the next few years.

The Tower MSP Automation Suite is fully capable of accepting SSNs, HICNs or MBIs for purposes of Section 111 Mandatory Insurer Reporting.

ORM Termination Defined

In addition to updating its User Guide to address the transition to MBIs, CMS also added language to its Section 111 “Policy Guidance” User Guide specifically defining under what circumstances Ongoing Responsibility for Medical (ORM) may be terminated. The revised Section 6.3.2 states as follows:

6.3.2 ORM Termination

When ORM ends, the RRE should report the date that ORM terminated and should NOT delete the record. Please note that a TPOC amount is not required to report an ORM termination date. An ORM termination date should not be submitted as long as the ORM is subject to reopening or otherwise subject to an additional request for payment. An ORM termination date should only be submitted if one of the following criteria has been met:

Where there is no practical likelihood of associated future medical treatment, an RREs may submit a termination date for ORM if it maintains a statement (hard copy or electronic) signed by the beneficiary’s treating physician that no additional medical items and/or services associated with the claimed injuries will be required;
Where the insurer’s responsibility for ORM has been terminated under applicable state law associated with the insurance contract;

Where the insurer’s responsibility for ORM has been terminated per the terms of the pertinent insurance contract, such as maximum coverage benefits.

While now formalized, this ORM termination guidance had previously been provided by CMS, either in other sections of the User Guide or in guidance provided outside the guide, such as through CMS Townhall calls.

Notably, advocacy efforts have been made with CMS to request an expansion of the ORM termination criteria. Such expansion would, for example, provide for ORM termination if no medical has been paid on a claim over a certain number of years. The benefit of allowing for a greater number of claims to terminate ORM would be less of an administrative burden for employers and carriers and a reduction in denials of payment by Medicare for charges completely unrelated to reported claims.

Unfortunately, CMS has thus far been unresponsive to expanding its definition of ORM termination, choosing instead to work out improper denial of payments and unwarranted conditional payment recovery efforts on the back-end rather than addressing the quality of the data reported to CMS on the front-end.

The Updated Section 111 User Guide, Version 5.3, may be found here.

Please contact Dan Anders at Daniel.anders@towermsa.com or (888) 331-4941 with any questions regarding the updated guide.