WCMSA Reference Guide Archives

New Updates to CMS’s WCMSA Reference Guide and Self Administration Tool Kit

August 7, 2024

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recently updated its Workers Compensation Medicare Set-Aside (WCMSA) Reference Guide and WCMSA Self Administration Toolkit. These updates guide MSA administration when the beneficiary is enrolled in a Part C Medicare Advantage Plan or a Part D Prescription Drug Plan.

WCMSA Reference Guide Update

In its Version 4.1 of the WCMSA Reference Guide, CMS added an “Other Health Coverage,” section. Section 4.1.3 says:

… a WCMSA is still recommended when you have coverage through other private health insurance, the Veterans Administration, Medicare Advantage (Part C) or Medicare Prescription Drug Program (Part D)

CMS added the following as an explanation:

Other coverage could be canceled or you could elect not to use such a plan.

This makes sense for private health insurance, which a person may drop after becoming eligible for Medicare. Likewise, a veteran could treat at the VA initially and later seek treatment outside the VA.

However, CMS’s placement of Medicare Part C and D under “Other Health Coverage” is confusing. These are alternative delivery systems for Medicare benefits; a person must be Medicare-covered to use them. And there is no distinction between original Medicare and Parts C and D when it comes to the need for a WCMSA.

The guide makes clear distinctions regarding the coordination of benefits.

CMS notifies Part C and D plan sponsors that a WCMSA has been approved and instructs plan sponsors to conduct Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) investigations. However, CMS does not relay WCMSA details to plan sponsors. Instead, CMS instructs plan sponsors to seek WCMSA coverage details from the WCMSA administrator as part of the plan sponsor’s investigation. When possible, Part C and D plan sponsors are required to avoid paying for expenses that should be covered by a WCMSA. (Emphasis added.)

It’s unclear why CMS does not provide WCMSA details to C and D plan sponsors as it does with original Medicare. Perhaps it’s a technology issue. From an MSP compliance standpoint, doing so would be beneficial to the plans and the injured worker as well as the taxpayers who pay for these plans.

A Quick Detour to Conditional Payments

After this section, CMS shifts from its WCMSA discussion to this statement on liens:

When a settlement is reached, the settlement details dictate who is responsible for ensuring Medicare (Parts A, B, C, and/or D) is repaid for any conditional payments associated with the WC illness or injury. If the settlement does not identify funds for past debt, CMS considers those debts up to the date of settlement to belong to the WC insurer.

Recovery may be sought from any party receiving inappropriate payment on behalf of the beneficiary.

This highlights the importance of including in the settlement terms which party is responsible for the resolution of Medicare conditional payments, whether from original Medicare or a Part C or D plan.

The Administrator Provides Treatment Details

Then the text returns to WCMSAs with this:

The administrator must provide details concerning treatments and medications used exclusively to treat a related illness or injury to the plan sponsor so the sponsor may avoid making primary payment in the future.

The MSA must either be self-administered by the injured worker or professionally administered by a third party, such as Ametros.

This last sentence in Section 4.1.3 is explained in more detail in the updated Self-Administration Toolkit, Version 1.6:

CMS will tell your Medicare Advantage or prescription drug plan that a WCMSA has been approved. Insurance plans are not given specific information about treatment and medications that should be covered by the WCMSA. You must tell your insurance plan sponsor any details concerning treatments and medications used exclusively to treat a related illness or injury, so they can avoid making primary payment in the future. CMS requires your plan to contact you or the administrator of your WCMSA to find out which expenses are covered by your WCMSA. The plan must avoid paying for expenses that are included in the WCMSA. The plan has a responsibility to recover any payments it made that should have been paid by the WCMSA. If you do not respond to your plan’s investigation efforts, your coverage may be delayed or cancelled.

If you are enrolled in a Medicare Advantage or prescription drug plan, please contact your plan to discuss your WCMSA, if you have not already done so.

Since CMS does not “relay WCMSA details to plan sponsors,” this appears to be how the Part C and D plans learn which diagnoses, treatments, and medications are included in the MSA.

WC Payers and CMS have made tremendous investments into Section 111 reporting and the WCMSA submission and approval processes. Therefore, it is disappointing that the MSA administrator is responsible for communicating with the Part C or D plan.

It remains unclear exactly how the MSA administrator will communicate with the Part C and D plans. Will the plan provide the administrator with a form or other instructions on how to notify the plans? How often should such communication occur?

All in all, this makes MSA self-administration even more difficult.

Tower does its best to help clients and partners navigate CMS changes. Our Chief Compliance Officer, Dan Anders, is available to answer questions and discuss how these updates affect you. Contact him at daniel.anders@towermsa.com.

CMS Updates Section 111 NGHP User Guide and WCMSA Reference Guide

April 5, 2024

CMS Updates 111 NGHP User Guide and WCMSA Reference Guide.

CMS Releases Updates to MMSEA Section 111 NGHP User Guide and WCMSA Reference Guide

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) began April with updates to two of its popular user guides, the MMSEA Section 111 NGHP User Guide and the WCMSA Reference Guide. Notably, the NGHP User Guide, version 7.5, now includes details on the requirements to report WCMSA amounts with other relevant data. These will need to be reported as of April 4, 2025.

The NGHP User Guide, Section 6.5.1.1 of Chapter III: Policy Guidance, was updated to state:

For workers’ compensation records submitted on a production file with a TPOC date on or after April 4, 2025, Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set-Aside Arrangements (WCMSAs) must be reported.

CMS also updated Chapter IV: Technical Information with similar language.

CMS Revisions to WCMSA Reporting Fields in Chapter V: Appendices

Additionally, CMS updated Chapter V: Appendices to identify the fields that will be added to the Claim Input File Detail for WCMSA reporting:

Field 37 – MSA Amount: This will be either $0 or an amount greater than $0. If an annuity is used, then the “total payout” is reported.
Field 38 – MSA Period: If the MSA amount is greater than $0, you need to enter the number of years the MSA is expected to cover the beneficiary.
Field 39 – Lump Sum or Structured/Annuity Payout Indicator: If the MSA amount is greater than $0, you will enter “L” for a lump-sum MSA or “S” for a structured/annuity MSA.
Field 40 – Initial Deposit Amount: If an annuity, then the MSA seed amount is reported.
Field 41 – Anniversary Deposit Amount: If an annuity, then the amount of the annual payments.
Field 42 – Case Control Number (CCN): If an MSA is submitted to CMS for review or is otherwise submitted to CMS post-settlement, it will be assigned a CCN. The CCN is entered in this field, although this is optional.
Field 43 – Professional Administrator EIN: Enter the Employer Identification Number of the professional administrator here if there is one. If this EIN is not provided, the “case administrator” defaults to the beneficiary. If the EIN does not match a registered administrator account in the Workers Compensation Medicare Set-Aside Portal (WCMSAP), then “case administrator” will also default to the beneficiary.

CMS provided a table of error codes for errors identified in the above-reported information.

Responsible Reporting Entities (RREs) can start testing these new fields on October 7, 2024. For further details, see the Tower article, CMS Sets Date for Start of Section 111 WCMSA Reporting.

CMS also incorporated the following notice into the NGHP User Guide:

As of January 1, 2024, 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 (Section 6.4).

The $750 reporting threshold has been in place for several years.

CMS included minor updates to the WCMSA Reference Guide, version 4.0

Specifically, CMS added:

Instruction specific to beneficiaries has been added to encourage them to use their Medicare.gov access to the portal for the most efficient method of submitting attestations (Sections 11.1.1 and 17.5).

For further information on electronic reporting of attestations, see the above-referenced sections in the guide or the Tower article, CMS Adds Electronic Submission Option for MSA Attestations.

CMS also amended the link in Section 10.3 to reflect the most recent CDC Life Table link. The life tables are used to determine life expectancy for calculation of the MSA.

CMS Sets April 16 for Webinar on Section 111 Reporting of WCMSAs

March 27, 2024

Prepare for Change: CMS Webinar on Expanding Section 111 NGHP TPOC Reporting to Include WCMSA Information

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has scheduled a webinar for April 16, 2024, at 2 PM ET to provide updates on the implementation of Section 111 reporting of Workers Compensation Medicare Set-Asides (WCMSAs). Per the March 25, 2024 announcement:

CMS will be hosting a second 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. After the first webinar in November, CMS received additional questions and feedback from the industry. The intent of this webinar is to ensure that RREs will be prepared for the change once implemented. With that in mind, this webinar will include a background recap, summary of technical details, updated timelines and CMP impacts. The presentation will be followed by a question and answer session. Because this expansion impacts reporting of WCMSAs, it is strongly recommended that Responsible Reporting Entities (RREs) that report Workers’ Compensation settlements attend.

There is no pre-registration for the webinar. Full details can be found here.

As of April 4, 2025, TPOC reporting must include Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set-Aside Arrangements (WCMSAs). (See CMS Sets Date for Start of Section 111 WCMSA Reporting).

The WCMSA reporting requirement applies to both CMS-approved and non-approved MSAs. This information must be reported if the insurance type is workers’ compensation and the TPOC amount is greater than $0. The rule will be prospective only, meaning it applies to TPOC dates of April 4, 2025 and later.

To collect this data, CMS is adding new fields to the Section 111 Claim Input File.

Tower will provide a post-webinar summary. If you have any questions, please contact Dan Anders at daniel.anders@towermsa.com or 888.331.4941.

CMS Clarifies Policy on Non-Submit MSAs in Updated Reference Guide

March 22, 2022

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

The January 2022 addition of Section 4.3 to the CMS WCMSA Reference Guide that discussed the agency’s treatment of non-submit Medicare Set-Asides caused quite a stir throughout the MSA industry and raised many questions for those who use non-submit MSAs in workers’ comp settlements. A February CMS webinar addressed some of those questions and we now have an update (Version 3.6) to the CMS WCMSA Reference Guide that modifies and clarifies this section.

Revisions to Section 4.3

Below is a breakdown of the revisions to Section 4.3 along with comments.

More general language around non-submit MSAs

The original language called out certain MSA products as indemnifying:

“A number of industry products exist with the intent of indemnifying insurance carriers and CMS beneficiaries against future recovery for conditional payments made by CMS for settled injuries.”

The new language is more general:

“A number of industry products exist for the purpose of complying with the Medicare Secondary Payer regulations without participation in the voluntary WCMSA review process set forth in this reference guide.”

Comment: The original language took aim at MSA indemnification agreements where the new language is broader and includes any product that addresses future medicals. It also reiterates that the CMS MSA review process is voluntary. This was likely in response to people who said that CMS’s original policy changed the MSA review process from voluntary to mandatory.

‘May’ instead of ‘Will’ Deny

CMS’s original policy said that it “will” deny payment of medical services up to the total settlement amount whereas the revised policy indicates CMS “may at its sole discretion” deny payment.

Comment: It appears that CMS is giving itself wiggle room depending on the circumstances of an individual case. Also, as is further explained below, CMS has given itself the option to accept less than the entire settlement amount as sufficient to protect its interests.

Total Settlement Definition

The original Section 4.3 defined total settlement as “total settlement less procurement costs.” This was now revised to define total settlement “as defined in Section 10.5.3 of this reference guide, less procurement costs and paid conditional payments.”

Comment: Section 10.5.3 is CMS’s longtime definition of “total settlement.” It makes sense that the definition of total settlement in the non-submit context should align. CMS also acknowledges that besides procurement costs, payment of conditional payments from the settlement amount should also be deducted from the amount of the settlement available to pay for future medical.

Post-MSA exhaustion review

When released in January, Section 4.3 provided no option for CMS to acknowledge the non-submit MSA as sufficient. The updated policy now says, “CMS will ignore the non-submit MSA and use the total settlement amount (minus procurement costs and paid conditional payments) as the amount available to pay future medicals “unless it is shown, at the time of exhaustion of the MSA funds, that both the initial funding of the MSA was sufficient, and utilization of MSA funds was appropriate.”

Comment: It will be the Medicare beneficiary’s responsibility, or someone working on their behalf, to demonstrate that the MSA was sufficient at the time of settlement and that the MSA funds were spent appropriately. We can assume that CMS will use the standards found in the WCMSA Reference Guide and its MSA Self-Administration Guide to make its determination. If CMS finds either that the MSA was insufficiently funded or inappropriately utilized, does the Medicare beneficiary have a right to an appeal? Medicare beneficiaries have a right to appeal a denial of payment for medical care. Presumably, that right extends to the context of a non-submit MSA, but it remains unclear how this would play out in practice, and CMS did not address it here.

Policy start date: Per CMS, Section 4.3, “shall apply to all notifications of settlement that include the use of a non-CMS-approved product received on, or after, January 11, 2022; however, flags in the Common Working File for notifications received prior to that date will be set to ensure Medicare
does not make payment during the spend-down period.”

Comment: Before the January date, there was no obligation to notify CMS of a settlement that includes the use of a non-CMS-approved MSA product (Yes, there is a Section 111 reporting responsibility, but that does not include notification of a non-submit MSA). Is there an obligation now? Nothing in Section 4.3 affirmatively states such an obligation exists and there is no statutory basis that provides for such notification.

Under threshold MSAs: CMS says “CMS does not intend for this policy to affect any settlement that would not otherwise meet review thresholds. This comment does not relieve the settling parties of an obligation to consider Medicare’s interests as part of the settlement; however, CMS does not expect notification or submission where thresholds are not met.”

Comment: Again, by saying it does not expect notification where thresholds are not met, CMS implies that they do expect notification when a non-submit MSA is used and thresholds are met. Why would CMS expect no notification on an under-threshold MSA? I suspect there are two reasons:

If a claimant is a Medicare beneficiary with a settlement of $25,000 or less, CMS expects that the MSA is a low-dollar amount and not worth the time it takes to coordinate its benefits.
If a claimant is not a Medicare beneficiary but has a reasonable expectation of Medicare eligibility within 30 months and the settlement is $250,000 or less, CMS cannot track the claimant as they are not yet a Medicare beneficiary.

Summary comments on Section 4.3 revisions

CMS should be credited for quickly addressing several of the questions and concerns that arose from the original Section 4.3 language. The revised section backs off the seeming implication that the mere use of a non-submit MSA represents a potential cost shift to Medicare. With that said, CMS reiterated that if the non-submit MSA exhausts, then it must be demonstrated that the MSA was sufficiently allocated at the time of settlement and the funds properly expended. As we do not know how this policy will play out in practice, the non-submit MSA route continues to present a notable risk to the claimant Medicare beneficiary.

Other CMS Updates to WCMSA Reference Guide

Beyond Section 4.3, CMS also made updates to other sections of the guide:

Section 9.4.1.1 Most Frequent Reasons for Development Requests

CMS added language to this section around documentation required for disputed cases, in other words, $0 MSAs for denied claims. CMS stated that medical records are required even when the parties are in dispute. Further, draft or final settlement agreements and court rulings are required documentation if they exist.

Comment: CMS has required the above for quite some time. This is just putting the requirements into the reference guide.

Section 16.1 Re-Review

CMS added the following to its re-review criteria:

“Should no change be made upon response to a re-review request (i.e., no error was identified), additional requests to re-review the same error will not be entertained. “

Comment: Tower has on occasion gone back and forth with CMS on arguments to remove a certain treatment or medication from the MSA. This new statement implies that once CMS makes its decision regarding a particular item it will not entertain other arguments.

If you have any questions, please contact Dan Anders, Chief Compliance Officer, at 888.331.4941 or daniel.anders@towermsa.com.

CMS Rolls Out ACH Payment Option for Recovery Debts

February 23, 2022

Learn what CMS shared about non submit MSAs, WCMSA policy updates, Medicare obligations, & key guidance for workers' comp settlements.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services now provides ACH payment option for Medicare conditional payment debts.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is now accepting recovery debt (Medicare conditional payment recovery) payments via ACH (Automated Clearing House) transactions. CMS’s February 18, 2022 announcement says this applies to Non-Group Health Plans (NGHP) as well as Group Health Plans (GHP).

Employers, insurers, third-party administrators, attorneys, and plan sponsors can send payments electronically to the Commercial Repayment Center (CRC) or Benefit Coordination & Recovery Center (BCRC) for processing. ACH setup must be coordinated with the CRC and/or BCRC.

The CMS announcement states:

“ To begin sending payments using ACH, please send an email to the appropriate email address below with “ACH Set Up” in the subject line. Be sure to include a specific point of contact with your organization for the CRC or BCRC. The BCRC/CRC will reach out directly to get the process started.

For the CRC: Please submit an e-mail to CRCACHpayments@performantcorp.com

For the BCRC: Please submit an e-mail to BCRC_Finance@GDIT.com “

Practical Implications

The ACH payment option means that CMS is now allowing payers to provide their bank account routing and account numbers to facilitate payment of Medicare conditional payment debts. This is a benefit to the payer in not only avoiding the cost of a postage stamp but to having a quick electronic confirmation of receipt of payment. This can avoid a “lost in the mail” or a late payment situation which can result in the imposition of interest charges from Medicare.

If you have any questions, please contact Dan Anders, Chief Compliance Officer, at 888-331-4941 or daniel.anders@towermsa.com.

CMS Letter Confirms that Denial for Non-Submit MSAs is Real

February 11, 2022

Man confused about Medicare Set Aside (MSA) and cms denial

CMS to Hold WCMSA Webinar on February 17

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services updated its Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set Aside (WCMSA) Reference Guide on 1/10/22 adding a section that addresses non-submit MSAs or evidence-based MSAs. The new section makes it clear that CMS will treat the use of such MSAs as a potential attempt to shift the financial burden of future medical care to Medicare.

Since the update, questions have swirled around whether CMS will follow through and deny payment for Medicare beneficiaries with non-submit MSAs.

Now we know CMS does and will.

Tower MSA Partners obtained a recent letter sent to a Medicare beneficiary claimant in which CMS advised that while a certain amount for future medical was agreed to in settlement between the claimant and the employer/insurer, as the claimant chose to forgo the CMS WCMSA review process, Medicare will not pay until the entire settlement minus procurement costs is exhausted. In other words, the non-submit MSA is not recognized as the limit of settlement funds available to pay for future medical.

The letter states:

Section 1862(b)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act prohibits the Medicare program from making payment where payment was made or may reasonably be expected to be made by another party. 42 C.F.R. 411.46 specifically allows Medicare to deny payment for treatment of work-related conditions if a settlement does not “adequately protect Medicare’s interest”-that is, does not include enough money to pay for treatment of those conditions. Because you did not seek prior review and approval by CMS of the amount set aside in your settlement for your future medical care, Medicare will not pay for the treatment of your work-related condition until you have demonstrated the appropriate exhaustion of your “net” settlement proceeds. Please review the enclosed package for information about the submission of annual attestations. Once you have shown that the settlement proceeds (total settlement amount minus procurement costs such as attorney fees, and minus funds repaid to Medicare for care prior to the date of settlement) have been exhausted, Medicare will make payment again. If you have questions about this letter, please call RO-09 CUSTOMER SERVICE at (415) 744-3658.

Also notable is that CMS issued the letter on 1/13/2022, a few days after the WCMSA Reference Guide update on 1/10/2022. In addition, the letter references a settlement date of 11/17/2021, one that occurred before the update. This confirms CMS is reviewing non-submit MSAs retrospectively.

The letter shows that CMS does not recognize the amount set aside for future medicals when it has not reviewed and approved the MSA. Instead, the Medicare beneficiary claimant must exhaust the amount in their entire settlement minus procurement costs before Medicare will cover future medicals. The following scenario illustrates this:

Parties settle a workers’ compensation case for $50,000 inclusive of $10,000 for a non-submit or evidence-based MSA. Procurement costs (attorney’s fees and expenses) are $12,000 of the settlement. Post-settlement the claimant Medicare beneficiary (whether self or professionally administering the MSA) uses the $10,000 to pay for injury-related treatment and medications. However, treatment is still needed.

At this point, Medicare’s position is that the entire settlement amount minus procurement costs, $50,000 – $12,000 = $38,000 is available to pay for such care. It would need to be documented to CMS that not just $10,000, but $38,000 was paid for injury-related care before Medicare steps in to pay.

There is no problem with Medicare unless the $10,000 runs out and injury-related care is still needed.

As Tower discussed in our prior article, CMS; Non-Submit MSAs Potentially Shift Costs to Medicare, and in our recent webinar, many questions remain. Some may be answered in CMS’s upcoming webinar on Thursday, February 17, at 1 p.m. ET.

Here is the announcement:

CMS will be hosting a webinar to discuss a variety of WCMSA topics, including a summary of what’s new in Medicare set-asides, and addressing questions related to the inclusion of treatments, application of state rules, re-reviews/amended reviews and more. The webinar format will be opening remarks and a presentation by CMS followed by a live question and answer session with representatives from CMS.

Note, there is no pre-registration, instead just follow the provided link shortly before the webinar start time.

Additionally, Tower is working with our industry colleagues at the National MSP Network (MSPN) to directly address questions around the policy and seek needed clarifications, especially around retrospective applicability, Medicare beneficiary claimant appeal rights, and settlements that do not meet CMS WCMSA review thresholds.

The bottom line is CMS has begun 2022 with a significant effort to assert what it believes is its right to claim the entire settlement amount, minus procurement costs, as available to pay for future injury-related medical when the settlement does not include a CMS-approved MSA. Parties to settlements where the CMS WCMSA review thresholds are met and the MSA is not submitted should be wary of the risks and the potential extent of liability for payment of future medical before Medicare will pay for injury-related care.

Since its founding a decade ago, Tower has recommended MSA submission when CMS review thresholds are met. Consequently, we have extensive experience in the CMS submission process and can identify and address MSA cost drivers and facilitate quick CMS MSA approval. We would be pleased to discuss a seamless transition from a non-submit to submit MSA program which properly addresses future medical costs while also confirming CMS compliance.

If you have any questions, please contact Dan Anders, Chief Compliance Officer, at 888.331.4941 or daniel.anders@towermsa.com.

CMS Releases Updated WCMSA Reference Guide v2.3

January 12, 2015

On January 6, 2015, CMS released an updated version of the WCMSA Reference Guide (COBR-Q1-2015-v2.3). A complete list of the changes can be found in Section 1.1 (p. 7) of the Guide and include language changes and clarifications as follows:

Corrected reference from 42 CFR 411.46 to Section 1862(b)(2) of the Social Security Act.
Clarified reference to costs related to the workers’ compensation claim, rather than the compensable injury.
Clarified reference to future medical items and services as “Medicare covered and otherwise reimbursable.”
Clarified that CMS approves the WCMSA amount, not the WCMSA, upon submission of a request.
Correspondingly, clarified language referring to submission of a proposed WCMSA amount, rather than a WCMSA proposal.
Restated the comparison of fee-schedule vs. full-and-actual-costs pricing as the basis of pricing the proposed amount, rather than the basis of payment from an approved WCMSA account.
Clarified attestation vs. accounting wording.
Clarified procedural results when Medicare is not provided with information in response to a development request.
Removed the word “form” from references to documents that are not forms.
Added language to address schedule change for hydrocodone compounds from schedule III schedule II. See Section 9.4.6.2.
Changed deadline for responding to development requests for submission through the WCMSA Portal to 20 from the previous 10 days. See Sections 9.4.1 and 9.5.

What’s the Significance?

Of the updates noted above, the only items of significance to those who interact with CMS on a daily basis, are the last two changes listed – language changes as a result of the reclassification of hydrocodone to Schedule II, and the extension of the deadline for responding to development requests.

Reclassification of Hydrocodone

As documented in Section 9.4.6.2, Hydrocodone products now require new prescriptions at intervals of no greater than 30 days, however, a practitioner may issue up to three consecutive prescriptions in one visit, authorizing the patient to receive a total of up to a 90-day supply of a C-II prescription. For all new cases submitted after January 1, 2015, the WCMSA guidelines require allocation of a minimum of 4 healthcare provider visits per year when schedule II controlled substances (including hydrocodone combination products) are used continuously, unless healthcare provider visits are more frequent per medical documentation.

The allocation of 4 physician visits per year for ongoing monitoring has been a standard CMS response trend for more than a year, and is commonly seen for long term pain management. What is different here, and of potential concern, is the final statement “unless healthcare provider visits are more frequent per medical documentation.” We have seen a recent CMS response trend in which 12 physician visits per year were allocated when medical records indicated that the patient was seeing a healthcare provider monthly, even if only to obtain prescriptions. With the number of patients taking hydrocodone, and the April 5, 2015 cutoff for hydrocodone refills (6 months after the October 5, 2014 reclassification), is it possible that adjusters may see an increase in the number of office visits?

When long term use of hydrocodone products exists and patients are seeing healthcare providers at more than a 90 day frequency, with office visits only to obtain new prescriptions, adjusters should be aware that this practice may have a negative impact on the number of physicians allocated on the MSA. As part of the Tower MSA Partners pre-MSA review process, the issue of office visit frequency is identified as a potential cost driver and efforts are made to leverage the 90-day prescription authorization and reduce the number of office visits documented in the medical records before finalizing the MSA. This will ensure that CMS will respond with no more than the published 4 visits per year.

20 Day Deadline for Development Requests

According to the WCRC, the five most frequent reasons for development requests include the following:

Insufficient or out-of-date medical records (CMS requests current payout and will expect all associated medical records).
Insufficient payment histories, usually because the records do not provide breakdown for medical, indemnity, or expenses categories;
Failure to address draft or final settlement agreements and court rulings in the cover letter or elsewhere in the submission;
Documents referred to in the file are not provided—this usually occurs with court rulings or settlement documents;
Submissions refer to state statutes or regulations without providing sufficient documentation, i.e., a copy of the statute or regulation, or notice of which statutes or regulations apply to which payments.

Regardless of the date of the completion of the MSA, Tower’s pre-CMS submission process will include a review of all recent treatment records to ensure that the allocation accurately reflects current treatment and up to date prices. We also look for gaps in treatment that could result in CMS requests for primary care physician records. When identified, we attempt to address this before CMS submission, providing the necessary documentation in the MSA to mitigate development requests and slower CMS turnaround times.

Conclusion

Tower will continue to benchmark CMS response trends externally, as well as measure internal submission / response accuracy and inclusion by evaluating each procedure, service and medication against CMS’s response frequency and price, acknowledging that we do not seek 100% CMS acceptance. Our goal is to proactively identify and address cost drivers before CMS submission, to provide clear documentation of optimized treatment, and to prepare an MSA that appropriately protects Medicare’s interest.