MMSEA Section 111 Archives

CMS Releases Technical Updates to Section 111 User Guide

January 26, 2021

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

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has begun the new year with some updates to its MMSEA Section 111 NGHP User Guide. This guide provides everything and anything you ever wanted to know about mandatory insurer reporting by non-group health plans. Version 6.2 provides the following updates:

$750 Reporting Threshold

In follow-up to its November 2020 announcement that it will be maintaining the $750 TPOC threshold for reporting and Medicare conditional payment recovery, CMS states:

As of January 1, 2021, the threshold for physical trauma-based liability insurance settlements will remain at $750. CMS will maintain the $750 threshold for no-fault insurance and workers’ compensation settlements, where the no-fault insurer or workers’ compensation entity does not otherwise have ongoing responsibility for medicals (Sections 6.4.2, 6.4.3, and 6.4.4).

Key takeaway: Maintaining the $750 threshold means there are no changes to the reporting processes, determinations of claims that should be reported, or when conditional payments should be investigated or resolved.

Reporting Future ORM Termination Date

Per CMS:

To address situations where Responsible Report Entities (RREs) can identify future ORM termination dates based on terms of the insurance contract, RREs can now enter a future Ongoing Responsibility for Medicals (ORM) Termination Date (Field 79) up to 75 years from the current date (Section 6.7.1)

Key takeaway: A future ORM termination date can only be submitted if it is certain, e.g., the date is specified in an insurance contract or a statutory limitation provides for its exact determination. The prior policy only allowed the reporting of an ORM termination date that was six months into the future. The expansion to 75 years should allow for most date certain ORM terminations to be reported.

Data Exchange Update

Per CMS:

As part of CMS’ commitment to the modernization of the Coordination of Benefits & Recovery (COB&R) operating environment, changes are being implemented to move certain electronic file transfer data exchanges to the CMS Enterprise File Transfer (EFT) protocol. As part of this change the exchange of data with the COB&R program via Connect:Direct to GHINY SNODE will be discontinued. The final cutover is targeted to occur in April 2021. File naming conventions and other references have been updated in this guide. Contact your EDI Representative for details (Sections 10.2 and 10.3).

Key takeaway: Right now, CMS offers four methods of data transmission that Section 111 RREs or their reporting agents can use to submit and receive electronic files. CMS is discontinuing the Connect:Direct method, and since Tower does not communicate with CMS via this method there will be no impact to our reporting processes.

Policy Number Now a Key Field

Per CMS:

To support previous system changes, Policy Number (Field 54) has been added as a key field. If this field changes, RREs must submit a delete Claim Input File record that matches the previously accepted add record, followed by a new add record with the changed information (i.e., delete/add process) (Sections 6.1.2, 6.6.1, 6.6.2, and 6.6.4).

Key takeaway: Previously, if a claim input file was updated with a different policy number for the same claim it would create two records with the BCRC. This could duplicate Medicare conditional payment recovery efforts. CMS’s solution is to have the RRE delete the prior record with the old policy number and add a new record with the new policy number.

Retraction of Soft Code Error

Per CMS:

In Version 6.1, we announced that several input errors will become “soft” errors starting April 5, 2021. However, CP03 will not become a soft edit. The Office Code/Site ID (Field 53), which triggers CP03, is used to identify correspondence addresses, and if incorrect, could result in mail being sent to the wrong place. Therefore this error will continue to reject the record (Appendix F).

Key Takeaway: An error in Office Code/Site ID (Field 53) will not be considered a soft edit and will result in file rejection. An earlier Tower article, November CMS Mandatory Reporting and Conditional Payment Updates, explained these so-called “soft” code errors.

If you have any questions on these updates to the Section 111 User Guide, please reach out to Tower’s Chief Compliance Officer, Dan Anders, at daniel.anders@towermsa.com or 888.331.4941.

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

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.

Enhanced Portal Functionality for Final Conditional Payment Process

November 10, 2015

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

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

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

How the NGHP recovery process works today

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

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

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

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

2. CRC searches Medicare records for claims paid by Medicare

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

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

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

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

4. Applicable plan submits a dispute

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

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

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

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

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

6. Applicable plan submits an appeal

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

7. Applicable plan submits payment

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

Facilitating timely and more accurate final demands

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

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

Medicare Advantage Plans – A New Layer in the Conditional Payment Process?

November 8, 2012

Over the past few years, much has been written about the mandatory reporting requirements associated with MMSEA Section 111 and the increased interest in ensuring that Medicare is reimbursed for any conditional payments made for a workers’ compensation injury. Unfortunately, under this same backdrop of focused attention on recovery, very little, (i.e. no) attention has been given to the unique issues raised when settling a case with a Medicare beneficiary who receives Medicare Part D benefits, or is enrolled in a Medicare Advantage (MA) plan. This changed overnight when, On June 28, 2012 in the case of In re Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, 2012 WL 2433508, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals became the first Circuit Court to recognize that a Medicare Advantage Plan has a private cause of action under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (“MSP”). So what are the recovery rights of MAP’s and how do we make certain the interests of both the payer and Medicare are appropriately considered when settling a case with a Medicare beneficiary who is enrolled in such a plan?

Background

In 1980, Congress enacted the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) statute in an effort to reign in the burgeoning costs of the Medicare program. Under the MSP statute, Medicare makes “conditional” payments, and Medicare has a right of reimbursement if it determines that a third-party primary payer bore responsibility for those payments. 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(2)(B) (2006). The MSP also created a private cause of action to enforce the right to recover payments made by Medicare that are the responsibility of a primary plan. 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(3)(A).

In 1997, Congress created Part C of the Medicare law, now known as the Medicare Advantage program, as an alternative to the traditional Medicare program under Parts A (hospital insurance) and B (medical insurance). MAP’s are offered by private companies and provide all coverage provided by Medicare Part A and Part B and typically offer additional coverage, such as vision, hearing, dental, etc. MAP’s are essentially Medicare HMOs operated by private insurers. The statute creating these plans contains an independent secondary payer provision, which references but does not fully adopt or incorporate the MSP statute. 42 U.S.C. § 1395w-22(a)(4).

Enacted in 2007, the Medicare, Medicaid, and State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) Extension Act (MMSEA) expanded the ability of the federal government to recover sums owed under the MSP statute by imposing strict reporting requirements and penalties for noncompliance. 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(7), (b)(8). Under MMSEA section 111, all insurers as well as self-insurers, collectively referred to as “responsible reporting entities” (RREs), must report information regarding payments made to Medicare beneficiaries and other data to ensure proper coordination of benefits with the Medicare program. 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(7)(A); 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(8)(A). This reporting requirement applies irrespective of whether the beneficiary is enrolled in traditional Medicare or in a MA plan.

What Are the Recovery Rights of MAP’s

Medicare conditional payments are a potential cost that must be considered in any claim involving a Medicare beneficiary. Medicare has the right to be reimbursed, and the power to enforce that right, under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (MSPA) to the extent that Medicare has already paid for injury related medical treatment. What some do not appreciate, however, is that the conditional payments referenced in the standard Conditional Payment Letter from the Medicare Secondary Payer Recovery Contractor (MSPRC) are only those that have been made under Medicare Part A (inpatient and some outpatient care) and Part B (physician’s fees, therapy, durable medical equipment, etc.), sometimes referred to collectively as “traditional Medicare”. MSPRC presently does not track, and does not attempt to recover, those payments that have been made under Part C (Medicare supplemental plans) or Part D (drug coverage) and very often these other payments are quite substantial.

Part D payments are made by private insurers, and third party pharmacy suppliers, approved by, and under contact with, Medicare and Part C payments are made by private insurers who have been approved by Medicare to write policies that cover items that are either not covered by Medicare under Parts A and B (this is Medicare supplementary coverage) or which replace traditional Medicare completely and which provide additional medical benefits as well. These Part C comprehensive plans are known as Medicare Advantage Plans (MAP’s) and the insurers or sponsors are referred to as Medicare Advantage Organizations (MAO’s). It should be noted that some, but not all, MAP policies also replace Part D coverage.

While there is a general agreement that MAP’s have a contractual right to seek recovery of expenses paid to a Medicare beneficiary, the existence of a private right of action to enforce that claim in federal court under the MSP statute has been less straightforward. MAP’s contend that they have rights as a secondary payer under the MSP statute to seek recovery of paid expenses. Beneficiaries and primary payers, on the other hand, contend that the MSP statute does not confer a private cause of action on MAP’s. Prior to 2012, federal district court cases lend support to the position that MAP’s do not have a private right of action to enforce their reimbursement rights under the MSP statute; instead leaving MAP’s to enforce their rights as secondary payers under state contract law. However, the more recent Third Circuit of Appeals opinion In re: Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, 2012 WL 2433508 (6^th Cir. 6/28/12) marks a departure from earlier decisions and will no doubt create uncertainty and debate surrounding the reimbursement rights of MAP’s going forward.

Third Circuit Opinion–In re: Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation

In In re: Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, No. 11-2664, 2012 WL 2433508 (3^rd Cir. 6/28/12), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that a MAP has a private right of action under the MSP to recover payments it has made that are the responsibility of a primary plan. In doing so, the court reversed the district court, which had dismissed the claims of the involved MAP on the basis that the MSP does not grant a MAP a private right of action to enforce its rights as a secondary payer.

In sum, the Third Circuit found that MAP’s have the same recovery rights as traditional Medicare based on a plain reading of the MSP statute, given the legislative history and policy goals of the Medicare Advantage program, and considering due deference owed to Medicare’s interpretation of the MSP statute and related regulations.

Tower MSA Partners – Proactive in Pursuit of Resolution

Regardless of whether an injured worker / plaintiff received Medicare benefits through a MAP or traditional Medicare, compliance with MMSEA Section 111 MIR mandates that the responsible reporting entity report the settlement to CMS. This reporting obligation is separate and distinct from a MAP’s recovery rights under the MSP statute. In addition, Primary payers may not be aware that during a March 22, 2012 teleconference call, CMS stated that they are now sharing MMSEA Section 111 Data with MAP’s. Therefore, MAP’s are now armed with settlement information concerning Medicare beneficiaries in the same manner as traditional Medicare.

Today, about 13.3 Million People are enrolled in Medicare Advantage Plans. There are close to 50 million Medicare beneficiaries, so more than 1 in 4 is on a Medicare Advantage Plan compared to traditional Medicare. Furthermore, Medicare Advantage Plans are gaining members – almost 10% more enrollees over the last year. In terms of Part D Prescription Plans, the number of enrollees for 2012 is estimated it to be around 10.6 million. There are approximately 1,041 plans available from both traditional and Medicare Advantage Plans to choose from.

From a practical standpoint, the Avandia decision creates several challenges.

How are Medicare’s interests protected in a Medicare Advantage case? Is the primary plan now exposed to repeat double damage claims any time the Part C or Part D plan makes payment that was part of a settlement? It would appear that an approved Liability Medicare Set Aside Arrangement (LMSA) would help, but rules are still yet to be developed by Medicare.
Will the Medicare Advantage Plan negotiate or hold at 100% recovery rate? Now more than ever, we have an important reason to support Hadden v. U.S.
How will Medicare contractor enhancements, such as the $300 exemption, Fixed Payment Option, or Self Calculate Option work in this arena? It is unknown, as MAP’s do not use Medicare contractors to pursue its recovery.

While these questions remain, Tower MSA Partners recognizes and will pursue conditional payments from MAP’s based on the following understanding:

Tower MSA Partners will assist clients in recognizing a Medicare Advantage Plan and its demand letters.
1. MAP demands are issued from the MAP directly, i.e., if the MAP is Humana, the demand will be issued on Humana letterhead. This is unlike traditional Medicare conditional payment demands which are issued directly from CMS and on MSPRC letterhead.
2. Forward all demand letters from MSPRC, as well as from any MAP or Part D provider when presented.
Tower MSA Partners will be proactive in determining whether a MAP demand exists.
1. Request enrollment/benefit history from claimants/plaintiffs prior to settlement. As a Medicare beneficiary can move between traditional Medicare (Part A & B) and Medicare Advantage (Part C), the parties will need to clear both Medicare and Medicare Advantage, including Part D, for every case.
2. Contact both MSPRC and MAP for conditional payment information.
3. Follow the same protocols as are in place with traditional Medicare conditional payments to satisfy the interest of the MAP

Proactively addressing the claims of MAP’s in this manner will relieve much of the uncertainty surrounding their reimbursement rights. For questions regarding conditional payment lien negotiations, MAP’s and Medicare Part D recovery, please contact Tower MSA Partners @ info@towermsa.com.

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making

June 18, 2012

This advance notice of proposed rulemaking solicits comment on standardized options CMS has considered making available to beneficiaries and their representatives to clarify how they can meet their obligations to protect Medicare’s interest with respect to Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) claims involving automobile and liability insurance (including self-insurance), no-fault insurance, and workers’ compensation when future medical care is claimed or the settlement, judgment, award, or other payment releases (or has the effect of releasing) claims for future medical care.

To be considered, comments regarding CMS-6047-ANPRM must be recieved on or before 5pm on August 14, 2012.

The primary purpose of this ANPRM is to respond to affected parties’ requests for guidance on “future medicals” MSP obligations, specifically, how individuals / beneficiaries can satisfy those obligations effectively and efficiently. Currently, individuals involved in certain workers’ compensation situations are able to use Medicare’s formal, yet voluntary, Medicare Set-Aside Arrangement (MSA) review process in order to determine if a proposed set-aside amount is sufficient to meet their MSP obligations related to “future medicals.” To date, Medicare has not established a similar process for individuals/beneficiaries to use to meet their MSP obligations with respect to future medicals” in liability insurance (including self-insurance) situations. CMS is soliciting comment on whether and how Medicare should implement such a similar process in liability insurance situations, as well as comment on the proposed definitions and additional options outlined later in this section. CMS is further soliciting suggestions on options they have not included later in this section. In its own words, CMS is most interested in the feasibility and usability of the outlined options and whether implementation of these options would provide affected parties with sufficient guidance.

Medicare is considering the options listed below in an effort to develop an efficient and effective means for addressing “future medicals.” Options 1 through 4 would be available to Medicare beneficiaries as well as to individuals who are not yet beneficiaries. Options 5 through 7 would be available to beneficiaries only. CMS is requesting comment on the feasibility and usability of all of the options, and also requests proposals for additional options for consideration.

The seven (7) proposed options include the following:

Option 1. The individual/beneficiarypays for all related future medical care until his/her settlement is exhausted and documents it accordingly.

The beneficiary may choose to govern his/her use of his/her settlement proceeds himself/herself. Under this option, he/she would be required to pay for all related care out of his/her settlement proceeds, until those proceeds are appropriately exhausted. As a routine matter, Medicare would not review documentation in conjunction with this option, but may occasionally request documentation from beneficiaries selected at random as part of Medicare’s program integrity efforts.

Option 2. Medicare would not pursue “future medicals” if the individual/beneficiary’s case fits all of the conditions under either of the following headings:

a. The amount of liability insurance (including self-insurance) “settlement” is a defined amount or less and the following criteria are met:

The accident, incident, illness, or injury occurred one year or more before the date of “settlement;”
The underlying claim did not involve a chronic illness/condition or major trauma;
The beneficiary does not receive additional “settlements;” andShow citation box
There is no corresponding workers’ compensation or no-fault insurance claim.

b. The amount of liability insurance (including self-insurance) “settlement” is a defined amountor less and all of the following criteria are met:

The individual is not a beneficiary as of the date of “settlement;”
The individual does not expect to become a beneficiary within 30 months of the date of “settlement;”
The underlying claim did not involve a chronic illness/condition or major trauma;
The beneficiary does not receive additional “settlements;” and
There is no corresponding workers’ compensation or no-fault insurance claim.

Option 3. The individual/beneficiary acquires/provides an attestation regarding the Date of Care Completion from his/her treating physician.

a. Before Settlement—When the individual/beneficiary obtains a physician attestation regarding the Date of Care Completion from his or her treating physician, and the Date of Care Completion is before the “settlement,” Medicare’s recovery claim would be limited to conditional payments it made for Medicare covered and otherwise reimbursable items and services provided from the Date of Incident through and including the Date of Care Completion. As a result, Medicare’s interest with respect to “future medicals” would be satisfied. The physician must attest to the Date of Care Completion and attest that the individual/beneficiary would not require additional care related to his/her “settlement.”

b. After Settlement—When the individual/beneficiary obtains a physician attestation from his or her treating physician after settlement regarding the Date of Care Completion, Medicare would pursue recovery for related conditional payments it made from the date of incident through and including the date of “settlement.” Further, Medicare’s interest with respect to future medical care would be limited to Medicare covered and otherwise reimbursable items and/or services provided from the date of “settlement” through and including the Date of Care Completion. The physician must attest to the Date of Care Completion and attest that the individual/beneficiary would not require additional care related to his/her “settlement.” CMS requests comment on the efficacy and feasibility of this option.

Option 4. The Individual/Beneficiary Submits Proposed Medicare Set-Aside Arrangement (MSA) Amounts for CMS’ Review and Obtains Approval.

Currently, CMS has a formal process to review proposed MSA amounts in certain workers’ compensation situations. Recently CMS has received a high volume of requests for official review of proposed liability insurance (including self-insurance) MSA amounts. This has prompted them to consider whether to implement a formal review process for proposed liability insurance (including self-insurance) MSA amounts. For more information related to workers’ compensation MSA process, please visit http://www.cms.hhs.gov/Medicare/Coordination-of-Benefits/WorkersCompAgencyServices/wcsetaside.html. CMS specifically solicits comment on how a liability MSA amount review process could be structured, including whether it should be the same as or similar to the process used in the workers’ compensation arena, whether review thresholds should be imposed, etc.

Option 5. The beneficiary participates in one of Medicare’s recovery options.

Recently, CMS implemented three options with respect to resolving Medicare’s recovery claim in more streamlined and efficient manners. Before a demand letter is issued, the beneficiary or his/her representative may participate in one of three recovery options, which allows the beneficiary to obtain Medicare’s final conditional payment amount before settlement. The three recovery options are as follows:

$300 Threshold—If a beneficiary alleges a physical trauma-based injury, obtains a liability insurance (including self-insurance) “settlement” of $300 or less, and does not receive or expect to receive additional “settlements” related to the incident, Medicare will not pursue recovery against that particular “settlement.”
Fixed Payment Option—When a beneficiary alleges a physical trauma-based injury, obtains a liability insurance (including self-insurance) “settlement” of $5,000 or less, and does not receive or expect to receive additional “settlements” related to the incident, the beneficiary may elect to resolve Medicare’s recovery claim by paying 25 percent of the gross “settlement” amount.
Self-Calculated Conditional Payment Option—When a beneficiary alleges a physical trauma-based injury that occurred at least 6 months prior to electing the option, anticipates obtaining a liability insurance (including self-insurance) “settlement” of $25,000 or less, demonstrates that care has been completed, and has not received nor expects to receive additional “settlements” related to the incident, the beneficiary may self-calculate Medicare’s recovery claim. Medicare would review the beneficiary’s self-calculated amount and provide confirmation of Medicare’s final conditional payment amount.

Each of the options is employed in such a way that Medicare’s interest with respect to future medicals is, in effect, satisfied for the specified “settlement.” Therefore, when a beneficiary participates in any one of these recovery options, the beneficiary has also met his/her obligation with respect to future medicals. CMS solicits comment on proposed expansions of these options and the justification for that proposed expansion, as well as any suggestions about how to improve the three options we recently implemented.

Option 6. The Beneficiary Makes an Upfront Payment.

CMS is currently considering two variations of an “upfront payment option.”

a. If Ongoing Responsibility For Medicals was imposed, demonstrated or accepted and medicals are calculated through the life of the beneficiary or the life of the injury.

If ongoing responsibility for medicals was imposed, demonstrated or accepted from the date of “settlement” through the life of the beneficiary or life of the injury, we may review and approve a proposed amount to be paid as an upfront lump sum payment for the full amount of the calculated cost for all related future medical care. This option would generally apply in workers’ compensation, no-fault insurance situations or when life-time medicals are imposed by law. In effect, this option may be used in place of administering a MSA if we have reviewed and approved a proposed MSA amount. CMS solicits comment on how to develop this process, the efficacy of it, and whether it would be utilized.

b. If Ongoing Responsibility for Medicals was Not Imposed, Demonstrated or Accepted.

If a beneficiary obtains a “settlement,” our general rule stated previously applies to the “settlement,” and ongoing responsibility for medicals has not been imposed on, demonstrated by or accepted by the defendant, the beneficiary may elect to make an upfront payment to Medicare in the amount of a specified percentage of “beneficiary proceeds.” This option would most often apply in liability insurance (including self-insurance situations, primarily due to policy caps. For the purposes of this option, the term “beneficiary proceeds” would be calculated by subtracting from the total “settlement” amount attorney fees and procurement costs borne by the beneficiary, Medicare’s demand amount (for conditional payments made by Medicare), and certain additional medical expenses the beneficiary paid out of pocket. Such additional medical expenses are specifically limited to items and services listed in 26 U.S.C. 213(d)(1)(A) through (C) and 26 U.S.C. 213(d)(2). The calculation of beneficiary proceeds does not include medical expenses paid by, or that are the responsibility of, a source other than the beneficiary. CMS specifically solicits comment on how to develop this process, its efficacy, and whether it would be utilized. CMS further requests comment on the calculation of beneficiary proceeds, the appropriate percentage(s) to be used, and how the percentage(s) is/are justified.Show citation box

Option 7. The Beneficiary Obtains a Compromise or Waiver of Recovery.

If the beneficiary obtains either a compromise or a waiver of recovery, Medicare would have the discretion to not pursue future medicals related to the specific “settlement” where the compromise or waiver of recovery was granted. If the beneficiary obtains additional “settlements,” Medicare would review the conditional payments it made and adjust its claim for past and future medicals accordingly. CMS specifically solicits comment on whether this approach is practical and usable, as it relates to “future medicals.”

We encourage you to read and evaluate each of the seven options as they relate to your business and settlement objectives and email us at info@towermsa.com with questions, feedback and suggestions. We will continue our due diligence as well, and will publish our thoughts as to the pro’s and con’s of each option. As noted, we have 60 days to respond with comments and recommendations.

Click here for the complete version of CMS-6047-ANPRM.

Town Hall Teleconference Events – February through June, 2012

February 17, 2012

Mandatory Reporting for Liability Insurance (including Self-Insurance), No-Fault Insurance and Worker’s Compensation

Implementation of Medicare Secondary Payer Mandatory Reporting Provisions in Section 111 of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007
(See 42 U.S.C. 1395y(b)(8))

The CMS will be hosting combined NGHP Policy and Technical Support related teleconference events. For these calls the format is opening remarks and a presentation by CMS, followed by a question and answer session with the audience. Following is the call schedule for the first half of 2012.

NGHP Policy and Technical Support Questions and Answers: These calls will address both policy and technical questions you have regarding Section 111 reporting. Policy discussions will focus on CMS policy supporting the Section 111 NGHP reporting requirements, and how policy is being and has been translated into procedures. Technical support questions will focus on EDI connectivity and data transmission, use of the COB Secure Website, disposition and error codes, and other aspects of the data exchange process. Both CMS staff and representatives of the CMS COBC EDI Department will be available throughout each call.

DATES:

February 23 (Thursday), 2012
March 22 (Thursday), 2012
April 24 (Tuesday), 2012
May 24, (Thursday), 2012
June 19 (Tuesday), 2012

Call-in time for all calls: 1:00 PM – 3:00 PM Eastern time. Participation is by telephone only.

Call-in line for all calls: (800) 603-1774

Pass Code: Section 111

Questions for the call: Please submit questions to PL110-173SEC111-comments@cms.hhs.gov.

Please begin dialing in approximately 20 minutes before the call start time, due to the large number of participants.

Tower MSA Partners Seeks Experienced Salespeople

January 4, 2012

Tower MSA Partners is aggressively seeking experienced salespeople in both workers’ compensation and liability markets. Interested parties should forward their resumes to info@towermsa.com. To speak with someone directly, please call 888-331-4941 and reference this post.
.

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

November 29, 2011

CMS Town Hall Teleconference Call Summary
November 22, 2011

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

Below is a synopsis of the items discussed:

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

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