Tag: Tower MSA Partners

Recap–Special Webinar: Your Need-to-Know Guide on Section 111 Reporting Penalties

October 31, 2023

Blocks spelling RECAP regarding the recap of Section 111 Penalties webinar

On October 18 Tower’s Chief Compliance Officer Dan Anders and Chief Technology Officer Jesse Shade presented an informative webinar on Section 111 reporting and the final rule on Civil Monetary Penalties for untimely reporting. As shared in our post, these range from $250 per calendar day to $1,000 for each calendar day of non-compliance. Dan defined Section 111 reporting and covered the history of the penalty regulation before digging into the details and effects on payers. Here are some highlights:

Key dates

Penalties only apply to claims on and after December 11, 2023. Additionally, only 1,000 claims a year – from Group Health as well as Non-Group Health Plans – will be audited. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) will not issue penalties before October 11, 2024.

Dan advised that RREs should ensure that Ongoing Responsibility for Medicals (ORM) and Total Payment Obligation to the Claimant (TPOC) are reported in a timely fashion (within 135 days) in the quarterly file submission closest to the dates.

 Triggers for reporting

  • Acceptance of ORM
  • Termination of ORM
  • Total Payment Obligation to the Claimant (TPOC)

Although all three milestones require reporting, there is no penalty for untimely reporting of termination of ORM. (However, if termination is not reported, an RRE could receive repayment demands after it is no longer liable to pay for medical treatment.)

Penalty process

The first penalty notification is informal and gives the Responsible Reporting Entity (RRE) 30 days to respond with any mitigating evidence.  If CMS doesn’t receive a response or accept the explanation, a formal notice will be issued.  RREs can pay the penalty or appeal it to an Administrative Law Judge.

Dan suggested examples of mitigating information and outlined the appeal process.  He also provided hypothetical cases that illustrate what could and would not risk one of these penalties.

Prevention

While the chance of receiving a penalty is relatively small, why risk it at all?  Compliance steps:

  • Query for Medicare-eligible claimants every month
  • Document attempts to obtain missing data (CMS prescribes the number and type of attempts.)
  • Report ORM and TPOC within the next quarterly file submission

How Tower Helps

Jesse Shade demonstrated several powerful tools in Tower’s Section 111 portal that make it easier for RREs to comply with all aspects of Section 111 reporting.  Through the portal, RREs gain insight into individual claims or groups of claims and can:

  • See errors that must be fixed before CMS can accept a file
  • Drill down into specific error codes in order to correct them in the claims software
  • Identify claims that could require ORM or TPOC reporting
  • Find Medicare-eligible claims with open ORM that could be closed.
  • Run and download reports to share with colleagues.

Your organization does not use Tower’s Section 111 reporting platform? Consider having Tower audit your Section 111 reporting program. This will identify the potential for penalties and reveal other issues that could lead to unwarranted conditional payment demands.

Finally, some Q&As

Who receives the notice of penalty?

 The RRE, of course.  We will also advocate that the reporting agent, Tower, receive a copy of the penalty notice, both informal and formal.

Are defense attorneys or other attorneys required to report Medicare beneficiaries?

There are no duties under the regulation for the attorney. This is specific to the RRE and claims handler. An attorney could be involved in tracking social security numbers or other claimant data for the RRE.

We have been advised that those enrolled in Medicaid are exempt from Section 111 reporting requirements. Is that correct?

That is correct; this only applies to Medicare.  However, if a claimant is a dual beneficiary enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid, then there would be a reporting obligation based on the Medicare enrollment.

What happens if the claimant doesn’t report the incident in a timely manner?

Interesting question.  In this case, the RRE could be reporting ORM for an injury that happened over a year earlier.  Or if a claim was initially denied but later accepted, perhaps due to a judicial decision, there could be an ORM reported more than a year after the date of injury. This seems like an explanation that CMS would accept and why the informal notice and response process is so important.

Do you still have questions about Section 111 reporting or a specific claim?  We are happy to help and like a challenge.  Please contact Daniel.Anders@TowerMSA.com.

MSA Amended Reviews – Key to Settlements of Old Dog Legacy Claims

October 26, 2023

Tower MSA Partners covering CMS expanded Amended Review availability for Medicare Set-Aside arrangements.

Tower MSA Partners’ Chief Compliance Officer Dan Anders’ enthusiasm for Amended Reviews kept the audience engaged during our recent Premier Webinar: Amended Review MSA Provides Second Bite at the Apple.

Several criteria dictate whether payers can submit an Amended Review, including the fact CMS needed to have approved the first MSA more than 12 months earlier. In addition, there must be a $10,000 or 10% (whichever is higher) difference between the first MSA allocation and the Amended Review MSA.

Our earlier post discussed CMS’s decision to remove the lookback period for Amended Reviews. Previously, we could only use this process if the original MSA had been approved during the last six years.  The removal of the lookback period opened the door for insurers and employers to examine their unsettled legacy claims that had any approved MSA and try to settle the claims.

Dan cautioned attendees not to submit an Amended Review MSA unless the injured worker seemed open to settlement.  “CMS’s change gave payers a second bite at the apple,” Dan said, “But it’s just one more bite, only one opportunity to obtain a new MSA.  You don’t get to eat the whole apple.”

The webinar shared facts and advice about Amended Reviews and highlighted several real case studies, including one where the second MSA amount was much higher than the first.  Some takeaways:

  • Request an MSA report to decide if an Amended Review MSA submission makes sense.
  • An Amended Review is not available until 12 months after CMS approved the first MSAA.
  • There’s no requirement to submit an Amended Review MSA for settlement purposes even if the CMS-approved MSA does not reflect current or future course of care.
  • Make sure all parties are at a stage where settlement is feasible.
  • Obtain medical documentation to support all medical and medication changes from the original MSA.
  • Unlike a regular MSA submission, where CMS requests more information and we can supplement and support the proposal in our response, the Amended Review MSA process offers no opportunity to provide documentation after submission. CMS will review what is provided and make its determination.

Attendees asked great questions:

  • Must the vendor who submitted the original MSA also submit the Amended Review MSA?

No. Tower can handle the Amended Review MSA even if a different vendor handled the original submission.

  • If an MSA was previously submitted for a Re-review, can it be submitted for an Amended Review MSA?

Yes.

  • Does the undertaking of an Amended Review make the previously submitted MSA null and void?

Only if the Amended Review MSA is submitted and approved.  The beauty of CMS-approved MSAs is that they never die.  If you can get the injured person and their attorney to agree, you can use it to settle, regardless of how outdated it is.

Like just about everything else CMS touches, the Amended Review process is complicated, and you can easily blow your one and only chance. Do not try this at home.

Dan is always happy to discuss cases and explore Amended Review and other options with you. Don’t hesitate to email him at Daniel.Anders@TowerMSA.com.

Remember, Tower can create MSA reports to help you decide if you want to pursue an Amended Review MSA. In addition, we’ll review your open claims with high CMS-approved MSAs and select those that could settle with an Amended Review MSA. We can also provide clinical recommendations to determine whether a physician statement, additional medical records or other intervention can result in a lower MSA.

Tower MSA Partners.  Don’t Settle with Anyone Else.

Nov. 13 CMS Webinar to Discuss Adding WCMSA Info to Section 111 Reporting of TPOC

October 23, 2023

Picture of Keyboard with a red Medicare button.

Based on a recent webinar invitation, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) plans to expand Section 111 reporting to include data from Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set-Asides (WCMSAs). Per CMS:

CMS will be hosting a webinar regarding the expansion of Section 111 Non-Group Health Plan (NGHP) Total Payment Obligation to Claimant (TPOC) reporting to include Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set-Aside (WCMSA) information. The format will be opening remarks and a presentation by CMS that will include background and timelines, followed by a question and answer session. Because this expansion impacts reporting of WCMSAs, it is strongly recommended that Responsible Reporting Entities (RREs) who report Workers’ Compensation settlements attend.

The webinar will be held on November 13, 2023, at 1:00 p.m. ET.  The notice can be found here.

We encourage anyone managing Section 111 reporting for a WC RRE to tune in.  Please note that there is no pre-registration. The link and call-in phone numbers are on the notice, and you log in shortly before the webinar’s start time.

Tower MSA Partners will provide a post-webinar summary with key takeaways and recommendations.

Special Webinar: Your Need-to-Know Guide on Section 111 Reporting Penalties

October 16, 2023

Details regarding the October 18th Webinar on Section 111 Penalties featuring Tower MSA Partners speakers.

CMS recently published its final rule on the imposition of Section 111 Mandatory Insurer Reporting penalties.  While we addressed the specifics of the rule in our article, CMS Section 111 Penalties Rule Focuses on Untimely Reporting, we know that many questions remain.

In a special webinar on October 18 at 2 p.m. ET, Tower’s Chief Compliance Officer, Dan Anders, and Chief Technology Officer, Jesse Shade, will provide your need-to-know guide to these penalties.  Topics will include:

  • Complete analysis of the rule, including criteria, penalty amounts and appeals
  • Examples of reporting situations which will and will not run afoul of the rule
  • Safe harbors from penalties
  • Best practices to mitigate and eliminate the potential for penalties
  • Resources available to Tower Section 111 reporting clients to ensure proper reporting

A Q&A session will follow the presentation, and we encourage you to submit questions when you register. Please click the link below and register today!

Please note there is no CEU credit offered for this webinar.

Register Here

 

 

CMS Section 111 Penalties Rule Focuses on Untimely Reporting

October 12, 2023

Stamp icons representing regulatory enforcement of Section 111 reporting by CMS.

On October 11, 2023, CMS published a final rule on the imposition of Civil Monetary Penalties for failure to comply with the Section 111 Mandatory Insurer Reporting requirements.  The rule’s focus and the sole reason for penalties will be untimely reporting.  Even if a Responsible Reporting Entity (RRE) reports untimely, it may only be subject to penalties if that claim is identified through a randomized quarterly audit process.

Please see a full Q&A below.  We will be sending an invitation for a special webinar on Section 111 penalties shortly!

Note, while the final rule encompasses both Group Health Plans (GHPs) and Non-Group Health Plans (NGHPs), this article is specific to NGHPs.

Under what circumstances can CMS impose penalties?

Per CMS:

. . . we have determined that we will only impose penalties where the initial report was not received in a timely manner. Penalties will not be imposed on any other basis, such as in relation to the quality of reporting. Timeliness is determined by comparing the date a record is submitted and accepted against the date CMS should have received the record. The date CMS should receive a record is determined by the effective date of coverage or the date of settlement (or settlement funding date if the funding of the settlement is delayed) plus 1 year (365 days).

CMS considers the “initial report” to be the reporting on Ongoing Responsibility for Medicals (ORM) or, if ORM was not previously reported, the reporting of Total Payment Obligation to the Claimant (TPOC), namely the settlement, judgment, award, or other payment.  Importantly, CMS expressly indicated in these comments that a failure to report ORM termination will not subject the RRE to penalties:

In the final rule, based on stakeholder concerns and submitted comments, CMS has chosen to focus its definition of noncompliance solely on those situations where an entity has failed to provide its initial report of primary payment responsibility in a timely manner. That means that untimely termination of ORM coverage records would not be considered eligible for a civil money penalty under this rule.

On the surface, even this more narrowly tailored rule could subject many claims to penalties. However, CMS is implementing a randomized audit process that will only review a small portion of the thousands of reported claims it receives. Per CMS:

CMS has determined that, given the time and resources necessary to accurately and thoroughly evaluate the accuracy of any submitted record, it would be possible to audit a total of 1,000 records per calendar year across all RRE submissions, divided evenly among each calendar quarter (250 individual beneficiary records per quarter).

    •  CMS will evaluate a proportionate number of GHP and NGHP records based on the pro-rata count of recently added records for both types of coverage over the calendar quarter under evaluation. For example, if over the calendar quarter being evaluated, CMS received 600,000 GHP records and 400,000 NGHP records for a total of 1,000,000 recently added beneficiary records, then 60 percent of the 250 records audited for that quarter would be GHP records, and 40 percent would be NGHP records.
    •  At the end of each calendar quarter, CMS will randomly select the indicated number of records and analyze each selected record to determine if it is in compliance with the reporting requirements as required by statute and defined herein.

Accordingly, to be chosen for a penalty a claim would need to both be reported untimely and identified through this randomized audit.  As CMS indicated in its comments, it expects this type of audit to pick up larger reporting entities.

How will the RRE be notified of the penalty?

Once a claim has been identified for a penalty there is an informal notice process, per CMS:

We intend to communicate with the entity informally before issuing formal notice regarding a CMP. The informal (that is, prior to formal enforcement actions) written “pre-notice” process will allow the RRE the opportunity to present mitigating evidence for CMS review prior to the imposition of a CMP. The RRE will have 30 calendar days to respond with mitigating information before the issuance of a formal written notice in accordance with 42 CFR 402.7.

Common to all such instances where informal notice will be given is the intention to give the RRE an opportunity to clarify, mitigate, or explain any errors that were the result of a technical issue or due to an error or system issue caused by CMS or its contractors. It would be impractical and counter to the spirit of the informal notice process to regulate or enumerate all circumstances in which mitigating information could be provided or what that information should convey. As such, any mitigating factors or circumstances are welcomed, and a dialogue is encouraged in an attempt to find solutions that are short of imposing a CMP. We believe it is in the best interests of all RREs to leave the informal notice process open to any reasonable submission of mitigating factors so that we are free to entertain all such documentation without strict limits on what is, or is not, acceptable.

In many circumstances, the RRE may have a reasonable explanation for the untimely reporting. Because of the 30-day timeline, RREs must be prepared to react quickly to these informal notices by investigating and responding within the required timeframe.

If the RRE fails to respond to the informal notice or CMS does not accept the explanation for why the report was untimely, then CMS will issue a formal notice.

Is there an appeals process?

Yes, per CMS:

The recipient will have the right to request a hearing with an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) within 60 calendar days of receipt. Any party may appeal the initial decision of the ALJ to the Departmental Appeals Board (DAB) within 30 calendar days. The DAB’s decision becomes binding 60 calendar days following service of the DAB’s decision, absent petition for judicial review.

If a penalty is imposed, how will the dollar amount be calculated?  Is there a maximum penalty?

CMS has developed a tiered approach to penalties, which provides:

Because we have the statutory authority to adjust the amounts of penalties imposed on NGHP RREs, a tiered approach and cap on the total amount of penalties applicable to such RREs are being finalized in this rule. As explained previously, the statute does not permit us to extend this approach to GHP RREs. For any record selected via the random audit process described above where the NGHP RRE submitted the information more than 1 year after the date of settlement, judgment, award, or other payment (including the effective date of the assumption of ongoing payment responsibility for medical care); the daily penalty will be—

    • $250, as adjusted annually under 45 CFR part 102, for each calendar day of noncompliance, where the record was reported 1 year or more, but less than 2 years after, the required reporting date;  
    • $500, as adjusted annually under 45 CFR part 102, for each calendar day of noncompliance, where the record was reported 2 years or more, but less than 3 years after, the required reporting date; or  
    • $1,000, as adjusted annually under 45 CFR part 102, for each calendar day of noncompliance, where the record was reported 3 years or more after the required reporting date.

Additionally, the total penalty for any one instance of noncompliance by an NGHP RRE for a given record identified by CMS will be no greater than $365,000 (as adjusted annually under 45 CFR part 102).

Are there any safe harbors from penalties?

 Per CMS:

First, any untimely reporting that is the result of a technical or system issue outside of the control of the RRE, or that is the result of an error caused by CMS or one of its contractors would not be considered noncompliance for purposes of this rule.

Second, any untimely reporting by an NGHP that is the result of a failure to acquire all necessary reporting information due to a lack of cooperation by the beneficiary will not lead to a CMP provided that certain standards are met.

CMS defines a safe harbor based on good faith efforts to obtain claimant information for reporting as follows:

 If an NGHP entity fails to report timely because the NGHP entity was unable to obtain information necessary for reporting from the reportable individual, including an individual’s last name, first name, date of birth, gender, MBI, or SSN (or the last 5 digits of the SSN), and the responsible applicable plan has made and maintained records of its good faith effort to obtain this information by taking all of the following steps:

    •  The NGHP has communicated the need for this information to the individual and his or her attorney or other representative (if applicable) and requested the information from the individual and his or her attorney or other representative at least twice by mail and at least once by phone or other means of contact such as electronic mail in the absence of a response to the mailings.
    •  The NGHP certifies that it has not received a response, or has received a response in writing that the individual will not provide his or her MBI or SSN (or last 5 digits of his or her SSN).
    •  The NGHP has documented its efforts to obtain the missing information, such as the MBI or SSN (or the last 5 digits of the SSN) and the reason for the failure to collect this information.

The NGHP entity should maintain records of these good faith efforts (such as dates and types of communications with the individual) in order to be produced as mitigating evidence should CMS contemplate the imposition of a CMP. Such records must be maintained for a period of 5 years. The current OMB control number assigned to this information collection effort, as required under the Paperwork Reduction Act, is 0938-1074.

Is there a statute of limitations on penalties?

Yes, per CMS:

We agree and will apply the 5-year statute of limitations as required by 28 U.S.C. 2462. Under 28 U.S.C. 2462, we may only impose a CMP within 5 years from the date when the noncompliance occurred.

The five-year limitation begins to run as of the date the untimely report is made to CMS.

When does the rule become effective?

The rule becomes effective as of December 11, 2023.

Will the rule be retroactive?

No, per CMS:

CMPs will only be imposed on instances of noncompliance based on those settlement dates, coverage effective dates, or other operative dates that occur after the effective date of this regulation and as such, there will be no instances of inadvertent or de facto retroactivity of CMPs.

Since the rule effective date is December 11, 2023, CMS can consider penalties on untimely reported claims on or after this date.  This means that if the untimely ORM and TPOC date was December 11, 2023, or later, it may be subject to penalties.  Untimely, pre-December 11, 2023, ORM and TPOC dates will not be subject to penalties.

Additionally, CMS has indicated that penalties will not be issued until one year after the final rule’s publication, namely October 11, 2024.

How does the final rule differ from the proposed rule?

The proposed rule contained two other issues that could result in penalties.  These were RREs reporting ORM and later reporting contradictory diagnosis codes and exceeding error tolerance thresholds.  The final rule consists solely of penalties for untimely reporting.

This means that reporting errors, such as incorrect diagnosis code reporting, will not result in Section 111 reporting penalties (although it can still result in inappropriate Medicare conditional payment demands).  Further, when the RRE corrects this data, it will not be penalized for doing so.

What steps must an RRE take to avoid penalties?

Simply put, reporting of ORM and/or TPOC must be timely.  When the criteria are met for a claim to be reported, it should be reported during the next quarterly reporting period.

Suppose the RRE has difficulty obtaining identifying information to determine whether a claimant is a Medicare beneficiary. In that case, those efforts should be in accordance with the good faith effort rules described in the safe harbor section.

Tower’s Section 111 reporting platform and management dashboard provides our reporting partners the tools necessary to identify Medicare-eligible claimants.  Once eligibility is confirmed it is critical to use this information to report acceptance of ORM and/or TPOC. Tower MSA Partners stands ready to assist you with your questions and to provide necessary reports and overall guidance to ensure compliance.

Contact us if you are concerned that your current reporting platform may not protect you from penalties.  An audit of your current Section 111 reporting data often reveals gaps in reporting which may lead to penalties.

Tower’s Chief Compliance Officer, Dan Anders, can be reached at daniel.anders@towermsa.com.

Section 111 Reporting Penalties Rule Released

October 10, 2023

Tower MSA Partners analyzes CMS final Section 111 penalties rule and compliance requirements for RREs.

The long-awaited Section 111 Mandatory Insurer Reporting Civil Monetary Penalties (CMPs) rule has been released.  Recall that the purpose of the rule is to set out specific criteria for when CMS may impose penalties for what it considers a failure to report or improper reporting.  The rule is unpublished but will be considered published tomorrow, October 11.

In conjunction with its release, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued the following Alert:
 
Effective Dates

Please note that this rule is effective as of 60 days following the date of publication (December 11, 2023), but is only applicable one year after publication (October 10, 2024). RREs are expected to be compliant with their Section 111 Mandatory Insurer Reporting requirements no later than October 10, 2024, or they may be eligible for a CMP.

Additional Information

RREs should review the published rule and take time to evaluate their reporting processes to ensure the RRE is compliant with all reporting requirements before the rule goes into effect. If RREs have any questions or concerns about their reporting, they should contact their EDI representative.

We know that CMPs are of great interest to RREs, and CMS is in the process of developing and publishing additional written guidance related to CMPs. Questions should be directed to the new CMS Section 111 Civil Money Penalties mailbox at Sec111CMP@cms.hhs.gov. Please be aware that responses should not be anticipated at this time; CMS will use these questions and comments to help inform outreach and educational materials (including webinar presentations). RREs should continue to monitor the Mandatory Insurer Reporting pages on CMS.gov where additional guidance and updates, including information about CMP-related webinars, will be posted.

Key Takeaway
 
The initial key takeaway from this announcement is the rule will be enforced against RREs starting on October 10, 2024, one year from today. Further, as noted by CMS, there will be additional guidance before that date.

We are in the process of reviewing the regulation and will provide a complete analysis shortly.  This will be followed by an invitation to a special Tower webinar to explain the rule and its implications for RREs and answer your questions.

If you have any immediate questions, please reach out to Tower’s Chief Compliance Officer, Dan Anders at daniel.anders@towermsa.com.

Fixed Percentage Option Now Available for Liability Settlements up to $10,000

September 29, 2023

Tower MSA Partners explains CMS Fixed Percentage Option for liability settlements up to $10,000.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services recently announced that the maximum settlement amount for use of the Fixed Percentage Option will increase from $5,000 to $10,000, effective 10/2/2023. The Fixed Percentage Option is available to the claimant in a liability settlement and allows them to agree to pay 25% of the total settlement amount to resolve Medicare’s recovery claim for conditional payments.  The criteria for selecting this option are:

  • Your liability insurance (including self-insurance) settlement, judgment, award or other payment is related to an alleged physical trauma-based incident and;
  • The total settlement is for $5,000 (Note this amount will be raised to $10,000, effective October 2, 2023) or less.
  • You elect the option within the required timeframe and Medicare has not issued a demand letter or other request for reimbursement related to the incident.
  • You have not received and do not expect to receive any other settlements, judgments, awards, or other payments related to the incident.

This option benefits the injured person when Medicare conditional payments exceed 25% of the total settlement amount.  For example, if Medicare has made conditional payments of $8,000 on a $10,000 total settlement, the claimant would pay only $2,500 to resolve them with the Fixed Percentage Option. On the other hand, if conditional payments are $800 on a $10,000 settlement, it is better to use the traditional repayment method with a proportional reduction for attorney’s fees and costs, if any.

Accordingly, it is essential for claimants and their attorneys to investigate Medicare conditional payments prior to settlement so that they can choose the best method for resolving Medicare’s interests.

More information on the Fixed Percentage Option can be found on the CMS website here.

Please contact Tower’s Chief Compliance Officer, Dan Anders, at daniel.anders@towermsa.com with any questions.

Tower MSA Partners Launches New Website and Celebrates 12th Anniversary

September 26, 2023

Tower MSA Partners celebrates its 12th anniversary and launches its new website.

Tower MSA Partners recently marked our 12 years in business with the rollout of a new, streamlined website that emphasizes our focus on your settlements.  We facilitate claim closure by aggressively seeking savings and making Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) compliance and Medicare Set-Aside (MSA) prep better, faster and easier.

Working on the new site allowed us to reflect on our differentiators. We don’t try to be all things to all people.  We are singularly focused on MSP compliance, MSA preparation, and going above and beyond to serve our clients.  It’s you, our client partners, and your need to close claims and continually improve your workers’ comp programs that drives us.

This includes our built-for-this-industry MSP Automation Suite, which integrates Section 111 reporting with conditional payment resolution and MSA preparation processes.  Automation saves significant time, reduces errors and allows our client partners to focus on matters other than MSP compliance. And our annual SOC 2 Type II audit confirms the efficiency and effectiveness of our systems and processes.

As great as our tech is, however, at some point, it must give way to human expertise. It’s our legal and clinical specialists who apply their knowledge and experiences to remove barriers to settlement. Our clients appreciate our intuitive technology, but they love the personal service we provide.

As our name says, Tower is your partner. We actively listen to our clients’ goals and desires and make them our own.  Our specialists respond quickly to your questions with clear answers. We consult, advise and stay involved through claim closure and (when appropriate) approval from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

We know that an MSA allocation can determine if a claim can close and we fight for every dollar of savings while we maintain 100% compliance with CMS and state regulations. Tower will also assemble and lead a settlement team to work with injured workers and their attorneys to bring claims to closure.

As we celebrate our 12th anniversary and the launch of a new website, we thank our clients – our partners – for your trust and support.  Many of you have been with us for all 12 years.  We look forward to many more years of innovation and successful settlements.

Please visit our new website, still www.TowerMSA.com, and tell us what you think.

 

Premier Webinar: Amended Review MSA Provides Second Bite at the Apple

CMS now allows any previously approved MSA to have a one-time Amended Review.  This means that CMS will consider a new MSA submission that may be lower or higher than the previously approved MSA. Essentially, it is a second bite at the apple for old MSAs that, for whatever reason–they were too high, or the injured worker was not ready to settle–weren’t utilized for settlement.

Tower is pleased to feature our Chief Compliance Officer, Dan Anders, who on Wednesday, October 4, at 2:00 PM ET, will address the following topics:

  • Criteria for an Amended Review MSA
  • Is an Amended Review MSA required?
  • Documentation to support an Amended Review MSA
  • Examples of Amended Review MSA submissions

Besides Amended Review MSAs, the webinar will also consider how MSA Re-Reviews can reduce MSA amount resulting from CMS counter-highers.

A Q&A session will follow the presentation, and you can provide questions when you register. Please click the link below and register today!

Please note there is no CEU credit offered for this webinar.

Register Here

Easy MSA Cost Savings Through Structured Settlements

June 21, 2023

Easy MSA Cost Savings Through Structured Settlements.

Tower’s structured settlement partner, Arcadia Settlements Group, gave an in-depth overview of how Medicare Set-Asides, structured settlements, and professional administration facilitate workers’ comp settlements during our recent Premiere Webinar. Tower MSA Partners Chief Compliance Officer, Dan Anders, moderated the informative session that featured Alisa Hofmann, Arcadia’s VP of Workers’ Comp and Medicare Practices, and Lori Vaughn, who oversees its structured settlement programs.

As you may know, workers’ comp settlements can be paid out in a lump sum or through structured settlements.  Here are some not-so-fun facts about lump sums:

  • 25-30% of injured people exhaust lump sum settlement funds within 2-3 months.
  • 85-90% of injured people dissipate lump sum settlement funds within 2-5 years.

When injured workers exhaust these funds, if they are Medicare beneficiaries, they turn to Medicare to cover injury-related medical bills. And the whole point of the Medicare Secondary Payer Act is to prevent this.

Structured settlements protect the MSA funds by paying them over time as an annuity. The injured worker receives two years of the MSA allocation at settlement plus the cost of a first procedure or replacement if there are any. The rest of the MSA comes in annual payments, so the injured worker receives a consistent stream of funds for injury-related care over their lifetime.

For payers, this arrangement offers significant savings and a path to faster claim resolution, especially when paired with professional administration. And, like an MSA, the structured settlement shows Medicare that its interests are protected.

A Couple of Takeaways:

  • Structured settlements aren’t only for MSAs. They can be used for indemnity and funds for healthcare services and equipment not covered by Medicare. Even attorneys can be paid through these.
  • CMS-approved lump sum MSAs can be converted to a structured MSA but require submission to CMS of an attestation from the injured worker agreeing to the change.
  • It is easier to submit the MSA to CMS in the structured settlement format as if it is later decided to go with a lump sum there is no need to submit an injured worker letter to CMS agreeing to the change. In short, submitting in this format saves time, money and frustration.

Hofmann and Vaughn also discussed self-administration versus professional administration of the MSA. They urged payers to educate injured workers on the risks, rules, and responsibilities of MSA administration.

CMS prefers professional administration. Plus, some companies like our partner Ametros provide medical and pharmaceutical savings in addition to managing the fund and reporting.

With examples that show how structured settlements are calculated, the webinar is great for new claims representatives and those who want a refresh on settlement tools.  If you’d like to receive more information on structuring an MSA or a link to the recording, please email your request to Dan Anders at daniel.anders@towermsa.com.