Tower’s Dan Anders Reviews MSP Policies and Predicts 2022 Actions

January 20, 2022

Dan Anders reviews MSP policy updates and Medicare Set-Aside trends in this article

WorkersCompensation.com’s Nancy Grover captured the thoughts of Tower MSA Partners Chief Compliance Officer Dan Anders on a variety of Medicare Secondary Payer and Medicare Set-Aside issues from 2021 and 2022 in a recent article.

WorkersCompensation.com Features Dan Anders on MSP Policy Updates

The article reviews several important MSP and MSA developments. MSAs cost less than many stakeholders think, opioid allocations are down, and the PAID Act makes obtaining Medicare Advantage Plan data easier.

Key Medicare Secondary Payer and MSA Issues Reviewed

The article also notes that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said MSAs that are not approved by CMS could be viewed as “a potential attempt to shift financial burden” to Medicare.

Read the Full WorkersCompensation.com Article

The article, “MSA Policy Updates, Changes Likely in Store for 2022, Expert Predicts,” can be read here. Remember it’s just a one-time process of subscribing to this free section of Workerscompensation.com.

CMS: Non-Submit MSAs Potentially Shift Costs to Medicare

January 13, 2022

CMS updates to the WCMSA Reference Guide addressing non submit Medicare Set Asides and Medicare Secondary Payer compliance.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services updated its Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set-Aside Reference Guide (Version 3.5) with new language on non-CMS-approved products used to address future medical care.

The update specifically addresses products commonly called evidence-based MSAs or non-submit MSAs. CMS says these products may be viewed as a potential attempt to shift financial burden to Medicare when they are not submitted, reviewed, and approved before settlement.

CMS Addresses Non-Submit MSAs in Updated WCMSA Guidance

CMS states that it cannot be certain Medicare’s interests are adequately protected unless a proposed amount is submitted, reviewed, and approved through the process described in the reference guide before settlement.

As a matter of policy and practice, CMS says it will deny payment for medical services related to the workers’ compensation injury or illness until the claimant demonstrates appropriate exhaustion. This could require exhaustion equal to the total settlement less procurement costs, rather than only a CMS-approved WCMSA amount.

Key Takeaways From the CMS Policy Update

CMS directly addresses evidence-based and non-submit MSAs in the reference guide.

The agency says non-CMS-approved products may be treated as a potential attempt to shift financial burden to Medicare.

CMS also states that it may deny payment for medical services related to workers’ compensation injuries until the total settlement has been exhausted.

This policy does not appear to be limited only to future MSAs. It could also affect existing non-submit MSAs unless CMS provides further clarification.

Questions About Non-Submit MSAs and CMS Approval

This does not appear to be a completely new CMS position. CMS has long stated that when an MSA is not approved, Medicare may deny related medical claims or pursue recovery for claims it paid, up to the full amount of the settlement.

What is different is that CMS now directly addresses evidence-based MSAs, non-submit MSAs, and vendor indemnifications that may accompany those arrangements. CMS also indicates that a claimant may need to demonstrate complete exhaustion of the net settlement amount before Medicare resumes primary payment for injury-related care.

What This Means for Payers and Beneficiaries

If a non-submit MSA was used to settle a case, CMS involvement is typically triggered when Medicare is asked to pay for injury-related medical care.

If the MSA amount is enough to cover that care, the beneficiary may not have an immediate issue. However, if the MSA is exhausted, CMS has made clear that it may deny payment.

For payers, this may create concern if indemnification, guarantees, or other liability provisions were used in connection with a non-submit MSA. Those provisions may be tested if Medicare denies payment for future injury-related care.

Cost-Effective CMS-Approved MSAs Are Possible

The non-submit MSA route is often based on the belief that CMS-approved MSAs include unrealistic allocations. However, Tower MSA Partners has found that MSA costs can often be contained while still pursuing CMS approval.

Tower does this through a clear understanding of CMS’s MSA pricing methodology, proactive record review, and targeted physician statements. This process helps move cases toward settlement while reducing the risk that CMS may later deny payment for future injury-related medical care.

Please contact Chief Compliance Officer, Dan Anders, with any questions about this or any other MSP compliance issue at Daniel.anders@towermsa.com or 888.331.4941.

Related Articles

Tower’s Dan Anders Says “It’s Still OK to Submit and MSA”

 

 

CMS Releases Updated Section 111 NGHP User Guide

December 28, 2021

book marked by sticky notes illustrating changes Section 111 reporting on ORM

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has released Version 6.6 of its Section 111 NGHP User Guide.  Below is a summary of the notable updates and practical implications.

Funding Delayed Beyond TPOC Start Date Field

Last month we discussed an 11/03/2021 Alert from CMS on the use of Field 82 Funding Delayed Beyond TPOC Start Date.  Field 82, per the Section 111 User Guide, is to be used in specific circumstances where the amount the claimant Medicare beneficiary is to be paid is not known at the time the settlement occurs.  Per CMS, this happens most often in mass tort settlements.

As we previously related, the CMS Alert is confusing when it refers to the date settlement funds are “dispersed.”  CMS seems to assume that the date inserted into Field 82 is not only the date that the settlement amount is determined but is the same date the funds are dispersed. However, these dates may be weeks or months apart.  Our recommendation was to place the date settlement funds are dispersed in Field 82.

In its update to the User Guide, CMS now acknowledges this as the correct use of Field 82.  Specifically, CMS states (Chapter III: Policy Guidance):

6.5.1.2 Timeliness of Reporting

NGHP TPOC settlements, judgments, awards, or other payments are reportable once the following criteria are met:

  • The alleged injured/harmed individual to or on whose behalf payment will be made has been
    identified.
  • The TPOC amount (the amount of the settlement, judgement, award, or other payment) for
    that individual has been determined.
  • The RRE knows when the TPOC will be funded or disbursed to the individual or their
    representative(s)

RREs should retain documentation establishing when these criteria were or will be met. RREs

should not report the TPOC until the RRE establishes when the TPOC will be funded or

disbursed. In some situations, funding or disbursement of the TPOC may not occur until well

after the TPOC Date. RREs may submit the date the TPOC will be funded or disbursed in the

corresponding Funding Delayed Beyond TPOC Start Date field when they report the TPOC Date

and TPOC Amount, but must do so if the TPOC Date and date of the funding of the TPOC are

30 days or more apart.

Timeliness of MMSEA Section 111 reporting for a particular Medicare beneficiary will be based

upon the latter of the TPOC Date and the Funding Delayed Beyond TPOC Start Date.

Example:

There is a settlement involving an allegedly defective drug where a large settlement is to be

disbursed among many claimants.

The settlement provides a process for subsequently determining who will be paid and how much.

Consequently, there will be payment to or on behalf of a particular individual, but the specific amount of the settlement, judgment, award, or other payment to or on behalf of that individual is not known as of the TPOC Date. RREs are to submit the date of the settlement in the TPOC Date field and the amount of the settlement in the TPOC Amount field.

In this example, the determination of the TPOC Amount, as well as the funding or disbursement of the TPOC, will be delayed after the TPOC Date. Once the TPOC Amount and the date when the TPOC will be funded or disbursed are determined, the RRE should submit the record with the appropriate date in the corresponding Funding Delayed Beyond TPOC Start Date field.

Practical Implications

What CMS is getting at here is they want to know when the claimant receives the settlement funds so they can correctly time their recovery efforts.  For Responsible Reporting Entities (RREs) this means if payment will be delayed more than 30 days post the TPOC date, then they must hold off on Section 111 reporting until the date the settlement funds will be disbursed has been identified.

We note that while CMS expects the above rule to apply to mass tort settlements, there are certainly cases, both liability and workers’ compensation, where funding may be delayed more than 30 days beyond the TPOC date.   Thus, we believe the effect of this update on the “Timeliness of Reporting” rule will likely be much wider.

In terms of making this simpler for those entering the TPOC information, if the disbursement of settlement funds commonly occurs more than 30 days post-TPOC date, it may be easiest to always enter a date in the corresponding Funding Delayed Beyond TPOC Start Date field along with the TPOC Date and TPOC Amount, whether less than or more than 30 days from the TPOC date.

Updates to No-Fault Policy Limit

Also last month we discussed another CMS Alert reminding RREs where, depending upon state law or the terms of a given policy, the no-fault policy limit may vary.  The Alert reminded RREs to update to the new policy limit as quickly as possible, including the use of an “off-cycle” report (A report made in addition to the required quarterly reporting).  In our analysis of this Alert, we expressed concern as to whether such “off-cycle” reporting is mandatory or recommended.  In other words, if mandatory and not done, that it would be considered non-compliance and potentially subject the RRE to penalties.

The updated User Guide CMS states as follows (Chapter III: Policy Guidance, Section 6.5.1.3):

Note: In some states, depending on various factors associated with the incident being reported, no-fault policy limits may vary. The reported Policy Limit should reflect the amount the RRE has accepted responsibility for at the time the record is submitted or updated. Just as importantly, if the Section 111 record needs to be corrected to reflect a new Policy Limit, the RRE should update the record as soon as possible.

Practical Implications

While CMS states the RRE should update the record as soon as possible, there is no reference to “off-cycle” reporting.  We assume that while “off-cycle” reporting is preferred, that proper compliance will be determined based upon the quarterly report which includes the updated no-fault policy limit.

$750 Threshold Maintained for Section 111 Reporting and Medicare Conditional Payment Recovery

In a December 15, 2021, Alert CMS announced the 2022 recovery threshold for liability, no-fault and workers’ compensation settlements will remain at $750. Accordingly, Total Payment Obligations to the Claimant, TPOCs, in the amount of $750 or less are not required to be reported to CMS through the Section 111 Mandatory Reporting process, nor will CMS attempt to recover conditional payments for TPOCs of this amount (The threshold does not apply to liability settlements for alleged ingestion, implantation or exposure cases).

Practical Implications

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

If you have any questions regarding these updates, please contact Dan Anders at daniel.anders@towermsa.com or 888.331.4941.

 

 

 

 

 

A Holiday Wish from Tower MSA Partners

December 22, 2021

Holiday themed Holiday Wishes from Tower

Earlier this year Tower MSA Partners celebrated its 10th anniversary. As 2021 comes to a close we again thank you, our client partners, for your support and loyalty, some for all of those 10 years and some for only the past few months.  Your trust in us to provide MSP compliance services and settlement solutions is never taken for granted . . . nor do we rest on our laurels.

The Tower team looks forward to launching into a new year with new initiatives and enhancements to provide you the best in customer service, systems and controls which keep client data secure from cyber threats and a commitment as your partner to help settle claims that provide the best in care, cost and compliance.

Our wish to you is a safe, happy and healthy holiday season filled with warmth and laughter.  Merry Christmas and best wishes in the new year.

 

How Did Workers’ Comp Execs Fare During COVID-19?

December 10, 2021

WCI-TV Rower sponsorship banner. indicating that Covid-19 will be a primary programming focus.

How did COVID-19 affect workers’ compensation organizations? What changed professionally for risk managers and claims professionals during the pandemic? Did temporary policies become permanent? Tune in to WCI-TV to find out.

Tower MSA Partners has been the exclusive sponsor of WCI-TV since its inception.

“Instead of commercials for our Medicare Secondary Payer compliance services, we’ve explored topics like opioid management, how success is measured, and ways to overcome barriers to claim closures,” said Tower MSA Partners CEO Rita Wilson.

Naturally, the ongoing international COVID-19 pandemic warranted attention. “We wanted to hear how organizations maintained a sense of unity while working from home and how lockdowns changed sales, marketing, and purchasing practices,” explained Tower MSA Partners Chief Compliance Officer Dan Anders.

Among Tower’s WCI-TV guests were Susan Shemanski, then Vice President of Corporate Risk Management for The Adecco Group; Joe Berardo, CEO of Carisk Partners; Porter Leslie, then CEO of Ametros; and Mark Meyer, Claims Attorney with Montana State Fund.

WCI-TV airs throughout the convention center, on shuttles, in hotel guest rooms, and through WCI’s online channels. The interviews are also available through Tower MSA Partners on LinkedIn.

Tower was pleased to participate in the 75th Annual Workers’ Compensation Institute Conference. Visit the WCI Annual Conference website for more information.

Related: Tower MSA Partners Arranges for CMS Officials to Headline WCI’s MSP Sessions

Forbes Features Tower CTO‘s Article, “How to Help the Masses Make Sense of Cybersecurity”

December 8, 2021

hands on a keyboard overlaid with a lock symbol to illustrate cybersecurity

Tower MSA Partners’ Chief Technology Officer Jesse Shade published an article through the Forbes Technology Council, reminding fellow IT professionals that many technology users do not fully understand cybersecurity. When IT professionals explain why certain security practices are important, users are more likely to follow them.

Here is Jesse’s explanation of multifactor authentication, or MFA:

MFA stands for multifactor authentication. It is a security solution that requires more than one method of proving, or authenticating, your identity. You have already used MFA if you have ever logged into an online account and were asked to:

  • Receive a verification code via text or email.
  • Provide an answer to a security question.
  • Receive a verification code through an authenticator application on a phone or computer.
  • Use biometrics, such as fingerprint or facial recognition, on your computer or phone.

The rationale behind MFA is that if a bad actor gains access to your username and password, they are unlikely to also have the mobile phone or computer where you receive the second authentication factor. It is even less likely that they will have your fingerprint, retinal scan, or the answers to your security questions. Multiple factors authenticate that you are who you say you are, hence MFA.

How to Help the Masses Make Sense of Cybersecurity is a must-read article about the role IT professionals play in preparing non-IT technology users to serve as the frontline cybersecurity force they must be.

To learn more, contact Tower MSA Partners Chief Technology Officer Jesse Shade.

Related: Building a Better Tower: Cybersecurity

The DEA Finally Decides To Reschedule Hydrocodone

August 27, 2014

Last week the DEA released a final rule on the rescheduling of hydrocodone removing it from the schedule III controlled substances list in favor of a schedule II designation. To be clear, this decision specifically addresses hydrocodone combination products (i.e., hydrocodone-acetaminophen formulations such as Vicodin) as hydrocodone by itself has always been a schedule II drug.

The new parameters surrounding the prescribing of hydrocodone under the more restrictive schedule II classification will go into effect on October 6, but the decision by the DEA in conjunction with the Assistant Secretary for Health of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has been a long time coming. Hydrocodone combination products (HCP’s) have been schedule III since the Controlled Substances Act was passed in 1970 despite, as mentioned, the fact that hydrocodone itself has always been a schedule II drug. The thought initially was that by combining hydrocodone with another substance such as acetaminophen would diminish the abuse potential, but in the DEA’s final order they actually point to several different statistics that definitively portray just the opposite. Perhaps the most eye opening of these statistics tells us that high school aged children have actually abused Vicodin at twice the rate of Oxycontin, a more tightly controlled schedule II drug that has in the past, grabbed a lot more of the headlines.

Not surprisingly, there was a lot of pushback from the pharmaceutical community as well as some from the medical community throughout this process which has taken 15 years to come to fruition (the original petition was submitted by a physician in 1999). This dissent however, is misplaced and perhaps even irresponsible considering hydrocodone is the most prescribed drug in the United States. Last I checked, heart disease was the biggest killer in this country, not pain, yet hydrocodone is prescribed more than even ACE inhibitors (for hypertension) or statin drugs (to lower cholesterol).  And if that is surprising to you try to wrap your head around this: the United States is comprised of about 4% of the world’s population yet we use 99% of the world’s hydrocodone.

The affect this will have on the workers compensation industry could prove to be significant. In terms of PBM’s who commonly push for mail order distribution, schedule II drugs have restrictive policies not conducive to this type of service. It would therefore be a good idea to check with your PBM to ensure that they are actively transitioning all applicable injured workers.

A second implication could be in regards to the widely utilized Official Disability Guidelines (ODG) which have long classified several HCP’s as Y drugs (recommended for first line treatment) within their workers compensation formulary. If changed to N drugs, those HCP’s would be subject to immediate utilization review in states such as Texas and Oklahoma that have instituted a closed formulary.

In my world of Medicare Secondary Payer compliance, it’s tough to say exactly where the effect of this rescheduling will be felt, but there are some trends that I hope we begin to see starting with less hydrocodone on MSA’s. It is easy to get caught up in cost drivers and how to mitigate unnecessary medical treatment in my line of work, and rightfully so when a prescription that was never meant to be maintained long term must be allocated for because it is part of the current treatment plan. But oftentimes, payers tend to overlook or not focus on HCP’s due to their relative low cost in comparison to some of their counterparts such as Oxycontin, Opana or Actiq. The result of that is we are consistently including long term use of hydrocodone-acetaminophen (for example) within MSA allocations in spite of the fact that no opioid has ever been recommended for long term use. This sort of tradeoff is unavoidable at times, but I will still hold out hope that the DEA’s most recent stance to reschedule hydrocodone combination products will prove to have a significant impact on the misuse and abuse of prescription painkillers, not just in our little world of work comp, but far reaching into our society as a whole.

How Will State Boards of Pharmacy Respond to Senate Committee’s Compounding Inquiry?

December 13, 2012

On November 19th, Chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA), Ranking Member Mike Enzi (R-WY) and members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee sent letters to all fifty state boards of pharmacy, the entities responsible for maintaining registries of pharmacies operating within their state. The HELP Committee is investigating the New England Compounding Center (NECC) for its production of tainted drugs that caused the recent outbreak of fungal meningitis, which has resulted in 33 deaths and more than 480 illnesses.

The letters were sent as a follow up to a hearing on November 15th in which Senators heard a very troubling account of NECC’s oversight record, which highlighted the gaps and grey areas that complicate the law establishing regulatory authority over such companies. In the course of the investigation, committee staff found that compounding pharmacies like NECC are required to register with their state of residence, and not with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. This inquiry will help lawmakers to assess the scope of these companies nationwide. Today’s letters will also assist the committee as it determines what changes need to be made to ensure that compounded drugs are safe and available for patients and hospitals who need them.

“The outbreak raises serious questions about the level of oversight that a large-scale compounding pharmacy was subject to, both by state and federal regulators, and what if any additional steps need to be taken to prevent such a tragedy in the future. Therefore, as part of our investigation, we write to request information regarding general oversight of compounding pharmacies in your state and what actions you have taken to address this meningitis outbreak,” the Senators wrote.

Key Points Made in the Inquiry
As foundation for its request for information, HELP noted that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDCP) linked the recent meningitis outbreak to three lots of preservative-free methylprednisolone acetate produced by the New England Compounding Center (NECC) — a compounding pharmacy in Massachusetts. According to the CDCP, the three lots consisted of 17,676 products distributed to 23 states, exposing approximately 14,000 patients since May 21, 2012. As of November 16, 2012, at least 480 patients have become ill throughout the country, of which 33 have died as a result of the contamination.
In order to better understand how states address the potential issue of compounding pharmacies distributing large quantities of drugs throughout the country and whether additional federal oversight may be necessary, HELP requested that each state’s board of pharmacy provide information responsive to its requests as noted below:

    1. Does your agency require compounding pharmacies to identify if they produce large volumes of drugs, if they compound sterile injectable products and/or ship their products across state lines? Do your inspection procedures vary based upon the production of sterile drugs, or large quantities of drugs, or drugs shipped across state lines?
    2. Does your state require that pharmacies engaged in sterile compounding comply with USP and if so what is your procedure for ensuring compliance with the standard?Are compounding pharmacies in your state required to have a patient-specific prescription prior to producing a compounded drug or are they able to produce batches of products without a prescription?
    3. Please provide the name and address of all pharmacies in your state that hold licenses or waivers or other exceptions that permit the pharmacy to operate in the absence of providing a full service retail pharmacy and meet all of the following three criteria (to the extent that you have information that allows you to identify pharmacies this way):
      • engage in sterile compounding;
      • hold licenses in other states; and
      • engage in compounding as opposed to dispensing.

Assuming the states responded, information should have been available no later than Friday, December 7, 2012.  Unfortunately, no responses have been published at this point, but it will be interesting to see how each state views its responsibilities to oversee compounding pharmacies at the state level.

Join Us In Vegas… Ask How Tower Triage Can Save Millions

October 29, 2012

Vegas ConferenceWednesday, Nov 7-9 Las Vegas Convention Center.

For 20 years, the National Workers’ Compensation and Disability Conference® & Expo has been the industry’s leading training event. And this year’s event is taking it to the next level – making it the best ever!

Key NWCD presentation tracks include the following:

  • A new full set of sessions will explore and deliver tangible, actionable solutions to the opioid crisis in workers compensation.
  • New ‘Regional Differences Sessions’ will each tackle the most challenging issues in a particular area of the country and provide you with practical strategies to overcome them.
  • New interactive ‘Think Tanks’ give attendees an opportunity to exchange innovative ideas with industry peers and leaders.
  • Enhanced legal track for attorneys and non-attorneys via partnership with LexisNexis.

Click here for more info on NWCD.

And for those who seek the latest in optimized settlement and Pre-MSA intervention strategies, stop by Booth #936 to learn more about the challenges of the current CMS review model and what Tower MSA Partners is doing to save clients millions.

Tower Triage enables employers and carriers to:

  • Mitigate CMS exposure
  • Optimize patient care
  • Expedite settlement

For more information , or to request a meeting with one of our executive team members,  email us at  info@towermsa.com.