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.

CMS Rolls Out Updates to NGHP User Guide

October 22, 2020

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.

Accuracy in Section 111 Reporting of ORM Vital to Avoiding Unnecessary Repayment Demands from Medicare

July 24, 2017

While the Commercial Repayment Center (CRC) has faced some valid criticism over the course of the past year and half in relation to its recovery efforts on behalf of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (CMS), not all problems start with the CRC. CRC’s recovery efforts are driven by the data employers, carriers and self-insured entities report to Medicare through the Section 111 Mandatory Insurer Reporting process. Chief among the data elements reported is acceptance of Ongoing Responsibility for Medicals (ORM) and the termination thereof. If this data is reported inaccurately or there is a failure to report required data, then the applicable plan may be faced with inappropriate recovery demands by the CRC.

Applicable Plan Reporting of ORM is the Catalyst for CRC Recovery Efforts

Since October 5, 2015, the CRC has had responsibility for the recovery of conditional payments where the insurer or employer (including self-insured entities) is the identified debtor, known in CMS terms as the “applicable plan.” The CRC learns of opportunities to recover through the Section 111 Mandatory Insurer Reporting process. In other words, the applicable plan is the catalyst for Medicare conditional payment recovery by its reporting of ORM.

The mandatory reporting provisions of the Medicare Secondary Payer Act require the applicable plan to report to Medicare in three instances – the acceptance of ORM, the termination of ORM and issuance of a Total Payment Obligation to the Claimant (TPOC), settlement judgment, award or other payment. In regard to ORM, two key data elements reported are the date responsibility for ORM is accepted and the accepted diagnosis codes. Once this information is reported the following actions are initiated by CMS’s contractors:

1. The BCRC, which handles Medicare coordination of benefits, should deny payment for medical bills submitted for payment in which the billed diagnosis codes match or is similar to the reported diagnosis codes.

2. The CRC identifies medical claims that Medicare has paid that it deems related to the reported diagnosis codes.

Upon the CRC identifying treatment related to the reported diagnosis codes, it will issue a Conditional Payment Notice (CPN) to the applicable plan which itemizes charges deemed related to the injury. The applicable plan has 30 days from the date on the CPN to dispute charges after which a Demand Letter will issue demanding repayment for the charges identified by the CRC. A Demand Letter provides 120 days from receipt of the letter for the applicable plan to appeal all or some of the charges or issue payment. If payment is not issued within 60 days of receipt, interest begins to accrue from the Demand Letter date.

Reporting Accurate Acceptance of ORM and Diagnosis Codes

The trigger for reporting ORM is a claimant identified as a Medicare beneficiary and the assumption of ORM by the applicable plan. ORM is reported when the applicable plan has made a determination to assume responsibility for ORM, or is otherwise required to assume ORM—not when (or after) the first payment for medicals under ORM has actually been made. Accordingly, the ORM acceptance date is typically the date of injury.

Along with the ORM acceptance date, at least one ICD-10 diagnosis code must be reported for the diagnosis that has been accepted on the claim (If more than one diagnosis has been accepted, then additional diagnosis codes are reported). While medical provider billing records are often used to determine ICD-10 diagnosis codes to report, these should be used as a starting point, not an ending point, in identifying the correct codes to report to Medicare.

Keep in mind that medical providers, and especially hospitals, will often insert into billing records any diagnosis reported to the provider, which are not necessarily the same diagnoses that are being accepted on the claim. Consequently, the person responsible for determining the correct ICD-10 diagnosis code to report, usually the claims handler, must make an independent determination, separate and apart from the medical provider, as to whether the particular diagnosis is being accepted on the claim. If the billing records do not properly represent what is being accepted, or if further diagnosis codes are required to better define what is accepted, then online ICD-10 resources are available to identify codes which correctly represent the accepted body parts and conditions.

Once ORM and the diagnosis codes are reported, ORM is generally not addressed again until the date of ORM termination. However, causally related diagnoses may change over time, either expanding or retracting depending upon the circumstances in the claim. Accordingly, it is important to update the reported ICD-10 codes as necessary over the course of the claim.

ORM Termination Key to Cutting Off Liability to Medicare

Once ORM is accepted, CMS claims the right to recover against the applicable plan through the date of ORM termination. As such, recovery efforts by the CRC may happen years after the ORM was first reported. Further, if there is failure by the applicable plan to terminate ORM when appropriate, then the plan may receive repayment demands from CRC for time periods in which it has no liability to pay for medical treatment. An applicable plan may terminate ORM through the Section 111 Reporting process under the following situations:

Settlement with a release of medicals

No fault policy limit reached

Complete denial of the claim

Statute of limitations has run or medical benefits have otherwise been exhausted pursuant to state law

Judicial determination after a hearing on the merits finding no liability

Statement from treating physician – signed statement from the injured individual’s treating physician that he/she will require no further medical items or services associated with the claim/claimed injuries.

Keep in mind that closing a claim file is not a trigger for ORM termination unless it is accompanied by one of the above situations.

Providing CMS with an ORM termination gives a bookend to recovery by the CRC. If no termination date is provided, then CRC assumes the applicable plan remains liable for injury-related payments.

Recommendations for Ensuring Accurate ORM Reporting

The reporting of ORM acceptance and termination and defining accepted diagnosis codes is so important because it is the applicable plan’s admission of responsibility to pay for medical care during the reported time period and for the reported diagnoses. If an error is made in reporting or there is an omission in reporting, then it can result in attempts by Medicare to recover for conditional payments unrelated to the injury or for time periods during which the applicable plan is not liable. Errors in reporting can also lead to inappropriate denials in the payment of claimant’s medical care by Medicare or Medicare paying for medical care for which the applicable plan is responsible.

Recommendations to avoid these errors and omissions:

1. Train Claims Handlers on ORM Reporting: If a claims handler is responsible for inserting the data required for ORM reporting, then they require training as to when ORM acceptance and termination is to be reported and how to determine the appropriate diagnosis codes to report with ORM acceptance.

2. Effective Quality Assurance of ORM Reporting: Even with training, errors will occur. Additional resources placed into quality assurance of ORM reporting, such as double-checking claims for proper ORM termination and appropriate diagnosis code choices avoids the expenditure of additional resources at a later date to correct errors in reporting and correction of unnecessary recovery demands from the CRC. If you are an employer or carrier relying upon a TPA to report, it is especially recommended that a QA process be in place to check the data entered by the TPA.

3. Ensure Reporting Platform is Accurately Reporting: Section 111 Reporting is electronically based and requires a data exchange with Medicare. Errors can and will occur in this data exchange. Ensure you have a trusted and reliable reporting agent to assist with accurate reporting to Medicare.

Finally, if any correspondence is received from the CRC or the U.S. Treasury Department claiming conditional payment recovery it must be acted upon immediately. Do not assume the letter was issued in error and will simply go away. If you do not believe you are liable for the conditional payments for which the CRC is claiming recovery, first confirm you have correctly reported ORM and then work with your MSP compliance partner to appropriately dispute the charges.

For questions stemming from this article please contact Dan Anders at (888) 331-4941 Daniel.anders@towermsa.com.

CMS Technical Alert Confirms $750 Threshold for Liability, WC and No-Fault TPOC Reporting

December 13, 2016

In a 12/12/2016 Technical Alert, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) confirmed their prior policy announcements concerning the implementation of a $750 threshold for the reporting of Total Payment Obligation to the Claimant (TPOC) through the Section 111 Mandatory Insurer Reporting process. The $750 threshold for TPOC reporting in WC and No-Fault claims became effective 10/1/2016 and will become effective for liability claims effective 1/1/2017.

The mandatory reporting threshold requirements are now as follows:

Liability Insurance:
The mandatory reporting threshold for liability insurance (including self-insurance) Total Payment Obligation to the Claimant (TPOC) Amounts dated January 1, 2017 or after is changing from $1000 to $750. If the most recent TPOC Date is on or after January 1, 2017, and the cumulative TPOC Amount is greater than $750, the TPOC(s) must be reported.

Note, the liability threshold only applies to physical trauma-based liability insurance TPOC amounts. It is not applicable to TPOC amounts for alleged ingestion, implantation or exposure.

No-Fault Insurance:
The mandatory reporting threshold for no-fault insurance TPOC Amounts dated October 1, 2016 or after changed from $0 to $750. If the most recent TPOC Date is on or after October 1, 2016, and the cumulative TPOC Amount is greater than $750, the TPOC(s) must be reported.

Workers’ Compensation:
The mandatory reporting threshold for workers’ compensation TPOC Amounts dated October 1, 2016 or after changed from $300 to $750. If the most recent TPOC Date is on or after October 1, 2016, and the cumulative TPOC Amount is greater than $750, the TPOC(s) must be reported

CMS also announced that as of 1/1/2017 reporting of cumulative TPOC Amounts at or below the above defined reporting thresholds will be accepted, but are not required. In other words, submitting a TPOC amount below the mandatory reporting thresholds will no longer generate an error code by CMS.

The entire content of the official Alert from CMS can be found here.

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