Tag: MSP

WCMSA Reporting and MSP Compliance for 2025: Premier Webinar

December 18, 2024

Topic: WCMSA Reporting & MSP Compliance for 2025
Date: Thursday, January 16
Time: 2 PM ET

Are you prepared for the upcoming changes in workers’ compensation settlements? Starting April 4, 2025, all settlements involving Medicare beneficiaries will require a WCMSA amount to be reported—even if it’s $0—through Section 111 reporting process.

Join Dan Anders, Tower’s Chief Compliance Officer, and Jesse Shade, Chief Technology Officer, for an engaging and insightful webinar designed to help you navigate these significant changes.

In this one hour session, you’ll learn:

  • The key criteria and timeline for WCMSA reporting.
  • How to handle the technical implementation and testing process.
  • What these changes mean for claims professionals, attorneys, and settling parties.
  • Insights into MSAs and Conditional Payments in 2025.
  • Updates on Medicare Secondary Payer compliance under the new administration.

Bring your questions! A live Q&A session will follow the presentation, and you can submit questions during registration.

Don’t Wait—Get a Head Start on 2025!

Click below to reserve your spot and get the insights you need to stay ahead.

[Register Now]

Get ready, get informed, and stay compliant—see you on January 16!

Three Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) Predictions for 2021

January 14, 2021

rainbow over a highway with the year 2021 painted, illustrating predictions for Medicare Secondary Payer in 2021

We take a look at what’s in the crystal ball for Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) short-term issues in the year ahead.

This year marks the 20th anniversary of the famous —or infamous, depending on your perspective— “Patel Memo” that formally launched CMS’s Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set-Aside review process.  It was probably safe to assume that a government program like this would still be around two decades later. However, the expansion of CMS’s authority to require mandatory reporting along with stepped up efforts to recover conditional payments by both Medicare and Medicare Advantage plans was less predictable.

I won’t hazard a guess on what Medicare Secondary Payer compliance will be like 20 years from now but will predict the outcomes of some short-term issues.

Liability MSAs

In June 2012 CMS issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) with ideas as to how Medicare’s interests could be considered in the settlement of future medicals in a liability case.  Ultimately, the ANPRM was withdrawn in October 2014.

Nothing further was heard from CMS management until December 2018 when it indicated proposed rules would be issued in September 2019.  Subsequent notices postponed the date to March 2021.

Prediction:  Since CMS will have new leadership and its attention has turned to vaccine distribution, I suspect we will not see proposed rules on LMSAs this year.  Even if CMS proposes regulations, they would not be implemented until after a comment period followed by revisions, which would likely stretch into 2022.

Section 111 Penalties

On February 18, 2020, CMS issued its proposed regulations specifying how and when it would impose civil money penalties if Non-Group Health Plans fail to meet Section 111 Mandatory Insurer Reporting responsibilities.  A comment period ended on April 20, 2020 (Please see CMP Comments Submitted for Tower’s comments on the proposal).

Prediction:  Since CMS completed the process of releasing the proposed rule and receiving comment and the issuance of this regulation is statutorily required by the SMART Act of 2012 prior to issuing any penalties, I expect the final rule will be issued in 2021.  Once issued, it will likely become effective within 60 days.

PAID Act

On December 11, 2020, President Trump signed into law HR 8900, Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2021, which included the provisions of the Provide Accurate Information Directly Act or PAID Act.

The PAID Act requires CMS to provide applicable plans (liability insurance, no-fault insurance and workers’ compensation laws or plans) access to Medicare beneficiary enrollment status in Medicare Advantage and Part D Prescription Drug plans through the Section 111 Mandatory Insurer Reporting process. (Please review PAID Act Becomes Law for a full explanation of the law and its implications.)

Prediction:  Per the law, CMS must provide access to Medicare Advantage and Part D plan information by December 11, 2021 (one year from the date of enactment).  As CMS must implement technical changes to the Section 111 reporting platform to provide such access, it may not be ready by that date.

Beyond these three predictions, some issues to watch in the coming year: 

  • Continued trend toward non-submit MSAs
  • More professional administration of MSAs
  • Cases affecting Medicare Advantage plan recovery rights
  • Per proposal from President-elect Biden, lowering of Medicare eligibility age to 60
  • “New” MSA reform legislation

A happy and safe new year to you and your families.

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.

New Commercial Repayment Center Contractor on the Horizon; WCRC Contract Protested

October 9, 2017

A recent press release from the Performant Financial Corporation announced it has been awarded the Commercial Repayment Center (CRC) contract by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Barring a bid protest, we expect a transition to the new CRC contractor over the next few months (CGI Federal’s contract, the outgoing CRC contractor, appears to run through 1/8/2018).

CRC Responsibilities

The Commercial Repayment Center is responsible for identifying and recovering primary payments mistakenly made by the Medicare program when another entity had primary payment responsibility (otherwise known as conditional payments). While CGI Federal has had the responsibility for recovering from group health plans for several years, it has been recovering from non-group health plans, such as a liability insurer, no-fault insurer, or workers’ compensation entity, only since 10/1/2015.

As those of you who have had any dealing with the CRC know, communication with the CRC following that start date was often frustrating as a result of long turnaround times to receive conditional payment information and inconsistent and contradictory responses from CRC representatives. While communication with the CRC has definitely improved over time, CMS has nonetheless chosen not to renew their contract with CGI Federal. CMS’s reasons are unstated, but as we noted in a recent article, CMS Releases Annual Report on CRC Conditional Payment Recovery, conditional payment amounts recovered by the CRC on behalf of Medicare declined from 2015 to 2016, despite the expansion of CRC’s recovery efforts to non-group health plans.

Besides the CRC contract, Performant currently acts as a Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) for Medicare’s fee-for-service program (Parts A and B). As a RAC, Performant identifies and corrects improper payments made to medical providers as a result of insufficient documentation to support the payment, payments made which do not meet CMS guidelines and payments made for services that are incorrectly coded.

Similar to the RAC contract, the CRC contract is paid on a contingency basis. Consequently, the CRC contractor has an incentive to recover as much as possible on behalf of CMS. Per the Performant press release, “at full scale, Performant anticipates staffing the program with over 250 dedicated employees operating out of Performant’s offices around the country.”

CMS contractor transitions (see below bid protest) usually do not go as smoothly as advertised, thus we will wait and see how effectively this new contractor takes on the role as the CRC. We will advise you of any important developments during to and subsequent to the contractor transition.

WCRC Contract Under Protest

In a 9/11/2017 article, CMS to Transition to New MSA Review Contractor, we detailed the awarding of the new $60 million, five-year contract, for the Workers Compensation Review Center (WCRC) to Capitol Bridge, LLC. Two of the unsuccessful bidders, Arch Systems, and Ken Consulting, have filed formal protests to the awarding of the contract to Capitol Bridge. The protests are to be resolved by 12/21/2017. It appears then that this will delay the transition to the new WCRC. We will keep you apprised of any notable news on the WCRC transition.

In a Volatile Political Climate MSAs & Professional Administration Provide Much Needed Assurances

March 17, 2017

Learn why MSAs and professional administration offers stability in an otherwise volatile and partisan political environment in this joint article between Ametros Financial and Tower MSA Partners

These first few of months of 2017 have been, to put it mildly, volatile in national politics. The incoming Trump Administration and a Republican Congress are poised to tackle the federal budget, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) among many other federal programs. All of these issues have sharp partisan divides, however no matter where your views lay on the political spectrum, if you are a professional involved in the workers compensation industry, these issues may have a big impact on how you can be successful at your job.

This article looks at what impact the Trump administration and a Republican-controlled Congress may have on Medicare Set-Asides (MSAs) in the context of the legislative and regulatory history of the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) Act and how the uncertainty resulting from potential changes to federal healthcare programs results in MSAs and professional administration being even more relevant in the settlement of workers’ compensation cases.

The MSP Act Has Been and Remains Bipartisan

A review of the history of the MSP Act demonstrates a noticeably bipartisan effort to improve and expand its applicability and enforcement mechanisms. The MSP Act was enacted in 1980 during President Carter’s administration. Subsequent to its passage, provisions were added over the Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations, all emphasizing Medicare being secondary to group and non-group health plans. The most notable legislative expansion occurred in 2007 when a Democratic-controlled Congress passed, and President George W. Bush signed into law, the Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act which included Section 111 Mandatory Insurer Reporting provisions for group and non-group health plans. There also continues to be a decade long effort to pass bipartisan legislation which would implement certain reforms to the Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set-Aside (WCMSA) review process. While the most recent WCMSA reform bill died in the last Congress it is expected a new bill will be reintroduced in 2017.

Besides legislative expansion of the MSP Act, during President George W. Bush’s administration there occurred the release of the July 23, 2001 CMS memo, commonly called the “Patel Memo.” The Patel memo and subsequent CMS memos effectively formalized a process for CMS to review and approve WCMSAs.

MSA reviews continued, Medicare conditional recovery processes expanded and Section 111 was implemented all during the course of President Obama’s administration. The only legislative change to the MSP Act occurring during the Obama years was the passage of the Strengthening Medicare and Repaying Taxpayers Act of 2012 (SMART Act) which was a successful bipartisan effort to address deficiencies identified in the MSP Act, particularly Section 111 reporting and Medicare conditional payment recovery.

Since the enactment then of the MSP Act in 1980 it has continued to be expanded and enforced consistently across both Republican and Democratic Presidents and Congresses.

Why has there not been a partisan divide? The simple reason is that the MSP Act forces entities other than the federal government to pay which has benefits for both political parties. For Democrats it demonstrates their protecting the viability of a federal government entitlement program while for Republicans it demonstrates their protecting taxpayers by shifting costs away from the government. While the Trump administration has to our knowledge never issued any MSP policy statements, based upon the past bipartisanship on this issue, our expectation is the administration will continue and possibly expand the MSP compliance programs at CMS.

Uncertainty Over Federal Healthcare Programs to Drive Assurance with MSAs

President Trump has indicated repeatedly that he will not reduce benefits to Medicare beneficiaries. Nonetheless, Medicare beneficiaries are facing premium increases. Notably, a Kaiser Family Foundation report indicated Part D premiums are rising by an average of 9% in 2017. As for Medicaid, the Trump administration is supporting a block grant program which would give more discretion to the states in formulating and implementing their own Medicaid programs compared to the present process which includes significant federal oversight. Finally, and most significant, is the Republican-led initiative to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as ObamaCare. These potential changes to statutory programs create uncertainty for injured workers contemplating settlement of medical in their workers’ compensation cases.

Uncertainty for injured workers exists with programmatic changes to Medicare and private group health plans which are increasingly driven by a more value-based approach to healthcare delivery. A value-based approach provides incentives to medical providers to be more cautious with prescribing treatments and medications which may have limited value to the patient. This is also usually tied in part to a utilization review process which places limits on care through the use of evidence-based medicine. While in the past some injured workers have settled medical stemming from their work related injury confident that they could shift their ongoing work-related care, if any, to their group health plan, such coverage may now be limited. And when it comes to shifting costs to Medicare, CMS’s long-standing policy is such costs must be accounted for in an MSA.

MSAs and professional administration A Flight to Certainty

Accordingly, injured workers and their attorneys when settling their workers’ compensation cases will look for certainty where it can be obtained so that they have the assurance of access to medical care for their future injury-related care. For claimants who are Medicare beneficiaries or are close to becoming Medicare beneficiaries, such assurance can be obtained by a properly allocated MSA which is CMS-approved, when necessary, and professionally administered to maintain the MSA funds over life-expectancy in compliance with CMS rules.

Tower MSA Partners is committed to providing employers and claimants a reasonable MSA allocation which, along CMS guidelines, properly accounts for future injury-related and Medicare-covered medical care without unnecessary overfunding. This often includes Tower MSA reaching out to treating physicians to confirm current care regimens or clarity regarding ongoing medication and treatment prior to submission of the MSA to CMS.

While CMS approval of the MSA and subsequent funding provides assurance at the point of settlement that funds for injury-related medical have been provided, equally important is proper administration of those funds such that an injured worker can be assured the funds for his or her care will last over their life expectancy and that there will be a seamless transition to Medicare for payment if the funds every run out.

Ametros’ professional administration service, CareGuard, secures the injured party discounts on their medical treatment, and prescription costs. All the while they are free from utilization review allowing them to not have to worry about their treatment being rejected. Additionally, CareGuard will makes sure all MSA expenses are accounted for in the eyes of Medicare. Cost-effective programs like CareGuard are in place to protect the injured worker post-settlement and ensure compliance with CMS requirements for MSA administration.

In this current era of high uncertainty, all parties can rest easy by focusing on known methods to protect themselves and the injured party throughout the claim handling and settlement process. That’s why many believe it is more critical than ever to obtain an adequate MSA that will cover the ongoing medical care of the injured party and, upon settlement, to have a professional administrator help the injured party make the funds last as long as possible and do all the required Medicare reporting.

For further information or questions om MSAs and professional administration, please contact:

Tower MSA Partners
Dan Anders (847) 946-2880 or Daniel.anders@towermsa.com

Learn more at: www.towermsa.com

Ametros
Porter Leslie – (339) 223 9857 or pleslie@ametroscards.com
or
Jayson Gallant – (339-234-3420) or jgallant@ametroscards.com

Learn more at: www.ametroscards.com

Federal Court Holds Against Medicare Practice of Over-Inclusive Reimbursement Demands

February 13, 2017

The California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) has prevailed in its lawsuit (Cali. Ins. Guar. Ass’n v. Burwell, No. 2:15-cv-01113-ODW (FFMx), 2017 U.S. Dist. Ct. LEXIS 1681) against the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service (CMS) challenging the practice of over-inclusive reimbursement demands by CMS. As a consequence of this ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, claimants and employers, have judicial support to dispute charges which contain mixed diagnosis codes, some related to the workers’ compensation injury and some unrelated, in CMS’s conditional payment demands.

A summary of CIGA’s challenge to CMS, CMS’s response to the claim and the Court’s decision is detailed below with a discussion on practical implications of the decision.

CIGA’s Claim Against Medicare

CIGA claimed that CMS’s practice of seeking reimbursement for the full amount of a medical charge despite the charge including mixed diagnosis codes, some related to the workers’ compensation injury and some unrelated, goes beyond CMS’s authority under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act.

By way of background, medical providers include ICD-10 diagnosis codes within billing records that are supposedly associated with the treatment provided. However, it is commonly known that medical providers, especially hospitals, may add any and all diagnoses for which a claimant reports a medical condition, even if such condition is not the subject of the treatment on the bill. For example, a claimant who has a low back injury and seeks treatment at a hospital for a cardiac condition may report on an intake form that he has ongoing low back pain. The hospital may list a low back diagnosis code on the medical bill even though the incurred medical treatment is solely related to the cardiac condition. This is not to say that there may also be situations where actual treatment was received for the work-related injury, but, even then, it may represent only a portion of the overall charge.

As evidence to support its claim, CIGA presented three examples of recovery demands with mixed diagnosis codes. In one demand the Medicare conditional payment charge included a diagnosis code connected to the work-related back and hip injury, but other diagnosis codes relating to diabetes, insulin use and bereavement. In these cases, CMS issued a formal demand letter seeking recovery for the complete charge for both related and unrelated conditions. CIGA disputed on the basis that the charges “did not fall ‘within the coverage of an insurance policy of the insolvent insurer’” under California law.

CMS’s Response

The Court rejected all of CMS defenses as detailed below.

CMS withdrawing the demand is not a sufficient basis to dismiss the case

At some point following the initiation of CIGA’s lawsuit CMS “recalculated” its demands resulting in CMS effectively withdrawing the demands that were the subject of this litigation. CMS claimed that as the demands were withdrawn the case should be dismissed. The court denied the dismissal noting “Indeed, given the timing of the withdrawals (i.e., immediately after a hearing in which the Court made clear that CMS’s practice would not withstand scrutiny), it seems obvious that this is simply a strategic maneuver designed to head off an adverse decision so that CMS can continue its practice in the future.”

CIGA identifying unrelated diagnosis codes is a sufficient basis to shift the burden to Medicare

CMS disputed CIGA’s assertion that identifying the non-work related diagnosis codes is sufficient to shift the burden to Medicare to prove otherwise. The Court disagreed and held that it is sufficient to shift the burden to Medicare to prover otherwise, and further, that CMS never challenged CIGA’s claims that the diagnosis codes were unrelated.

CMS’s claim that the term “item and service” refers to the charge and not the treatment is unsupported

The Medicare Secondary Payer Act provides “a primary plan . . . shall reimburse [Medicare] for any payment made . . . with respect to an item or service if it is demonstrated that such primary plan has or had a responsibility to make payment with respect to such item or service.” CMS regulations (42 CFR 1003.101) further define item or service “Any item, device, medical supply or service provided to a patient which is listed in an itemized claim for program payment or a request for payment . . . .”

CMS asserted the definition of “item or service” for which they are able to recover under their regulations refers to whatever (and how many) medical treatment(s) a provider lumps into a single charge. Not surprisingly, the Court found nothing under the statue nor the intent of Congress in writing the MSP Act to substantiate that “item or service” refers to the listed charge from the medical provider, rather than one medical treatment whether billed as a group with other treatments or listed singly.

CMS is bound by state law in determining whether the WC employer or carrier has responsibility to reimburse Medicare

CMS next argued that it is not bound by state law as state law is preempted under the MSP Act (Preemption refers to the principle that between federal and state law federal law trumps state law). The Court cited with approval a prior federal appellate court decision, Caldera vs. Ins. Co. of the State of Pa. 716 F.3d 861 (5th Cir. 2013) which addressed the question of whether CMS’s ability to recover is limited in anyway by state law. In Caldera the Court found “responsibility to make payment with respect to an item or service is generally a matter of state law.” Accepting then that CMS is held to state law in its ability to recovery, the judge in the present matter went on to cite several California state court decisions finding that a compensation carrier is not responsible for making payment on treatment unrelated to the workers’ compensation injury.

CMS is not entitled to deference in its interpretation of the MSP Act and regulations

The court rejected CMS claim of deference to its interpretation of the MSP Act and regulations since the Court found such an interpretation of CMS’s regulations actually supports CIGA and, further, its arguments conflict with CMS’s own MSP Manual which provides for medical providers to be reimbursed partially by a primary plan and partially by Medicare if work-related medical treatment is provided concurrently with non-work-related treatment.

Court Finds the Real Reason CMS Calculates in this Manner

The Court holds, “At bottom, it is quite clear that the real reason CMS calculates reimbursement demands in the manner that it does is simply because it is too difficult to do otherwise, not because that is what is required (or even permitted) by any statute, regulation, or policy manual.” According to the Court then, CMS must attempt to apportion the charge between covered and non-covered services. It is possible, as the court indicates, that CMS may find apportioning the charge unreasonable. The court further notes that if the charge is apportioned, it takes no position on how CMS should do so in terms of pro rata reimbursement, etc.

Practical Implications of Decision

Whether it is Medicare conditional payment recovery or Workers’ Compensation MSAs, CMS regularly asserts that it is not bound by state law in determining items or service for which it may seek recovery or to be included in the MSA. Further, CMS operates under an assumption that the courts will defer to its interpretation of the MSP Act and relevant regulations. At least in the Medicare conditional payment context, this decision completely refutes such assumptions. This is a well written decision which along with the holding in Caldera (mentioned above), is significant in finding that state law places limits on the extent of MSP conditional payment recovery. We applaud CIGA’s pursuit of this decision.

It should be noted that this is a U.S. District Court decision, not an appellate decision, thus it has limited precedential value for other cases addressing this same issue. Nonetheless, along with the Caldera case, which is an appellate decision, we now have two decisions which limit Medicare recovery. It is unclear at this point whether CMS will appeal the decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. A decision at that level would provide precedential value for all states within the 9th Circuit and would be on par with the Caldera case which was an appellate decision of the 5th Circuit.

The court does leave a door open for CMS in that CMS can determine whether it is unreasonable to separate a charge between related and unrelated. It is assumed though that CMS would have to provide evidence to support why it cannot reasonably separate the charges.

Tower MSA will utilize this important decision to support disputes of mixed diagnosis code conditional payment charges on behalf of our clients. Whether CMS will agree remains uncertain as this is a lower court decision and the decision itself still gives CMS the ability to determine whether it is reasonable to remove unrelated portions of a charge and how the remaining work-related amount of the charge should be apportioned. Tower MSA will continue to keep you apprised of any developments in this area of Medicare conditional payment recovery.

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

January 27, 2017

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

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

Rita’s comments to WorkersCompensation.com follow:

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

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

The full article may be found here.

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

Workcompcentral Highlights Tower MSA CEO Rita Wilson’s “Edge” in MSP Compliance Technology

December 20, 2016

Tower MSA Partners CEO, Rita Wilson, is the subject of a recent Workcompcentral article, Focus on Tech Has Guided MSP Compliance Co. CEOs Career, highlighting how Rita’s career in building better pharmaceutical and worker’s compensation technology systems led her to develop a Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) technology platform which electronically integrates medical and cost-containment information.

In discussing why the MSP compliance technology platform is a difference maker for Tower MSA, Workcompcentral’s Emily Brill quotes Rita:

Tower MSA has differentiated itself by building out a software system that monitors and shares claim information from beginning to end, integrating medical and cost containment information for “continuity” and to avoid “reinventing the wheel” by scrambling to get information from separate sources.

The article further quotes Rita in explaining how the platform assists Tower MSA in providing MSP compliance services to its clients:

Our technology platform is able to track claim information all the way through, through the conditional payment research process, through the intervention process, through the MSA process. What we did was integrate this information and track it with one software application that allows us to measure the progress each month, and determine when the right time to finalize the MSA.

In understanding the benefits of Rita’s focus on technology in MSP compliance, Ms. Brill spoke to Ann Schnure, the former Vice-President of Risk Management for Macy’s, and also a strong proponent of the use of technology in claims handling, who said of Rita:

Wilson’s focus on technology has always given the CEO an edge.

Learn more about Tower MSA Partners Chief Executive Officer Rita Wilson,  connect with her on LinkedIn and view her blog posts on our MSP Compliance Blog.

To learn more about how Tower MSA Partners’ technology platform can give you an “edge” in Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance please contact Rita Wilson at rita.wilson@towermsapartners.com or 888.331.4941.

New Option to Self-Calculate Your Conditional Payment Amount

January 30, 2012

Just released from MSPRC (http://www.msprc.info/).

On February 21, 2012, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will implement an option that allows certain Medicare beneficiaries to self-calculate Medicare’s final conditional payment amount prior to settlement. A full explanation, including instructions on how and when to elect this option can be found by clicking on the following link:

http://msprc.info/forms/SelfCalculatedFinalCP.pdf

The information provided includes eligibility criteria for this process, instructions on how to self-calculate the final conditional payment amount, CMS’ review process, tips, and an illustrative example for completing this new process.

CMS will continue to improve and refine this process. Therefore, we welcome your input and comments at a future teleconference.