Tag: WCMSA

CMS MSA Review Expansion to Liability Planned for 2018

January 4, 2017

We are not even a week into 2017, but already have news to share regarding Medicare’s planned expansion of its Workers’ Compensation MSA review process to liability in 2018. In its recently released Request for Proposal for the Workers Compensation Review Contractor (WCRC), the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) includes an option allowing CMS to expand the responsibilities of the WCRC to review of Liability Medicare Set-Asides (LMSAs) and No-Fault Medicare Set-Asides (NFMSAs) effective July 1, 2018.

The CMS WCRC RFP Solicitation may be viewed here.

Background on CMS Review of MSAs

Since 2001 CMS has had in place an official voluntary review process for Worker’ Compensation Medicare Set-Asides (WCMSAs). A WCMSA, as CMS states, is a “financial agreement that allocates a portion of a workers’ compensation settlement to pay for future medical services related to the workers’ compensation injury.” The purpose of the review then is “to independently price the future Medicare-covered medical services costs related to the WC injury, illness, and/or disease and to price the future Medicare covered prescription drug expenses related to the WC injury, illness and/or disease thereby taking Medicare’s payment interests appropriately into account.”

These WCMSA reviews were initially handled by the CMS Regional Offices spread throughout the country, but eventually transitioned to a centralized WCRC in 2005 (The CMS Regional Offices must still approve the review recommendation of the WCRC before it is released to the WCMSA submitter). CMS’s RFP solicitation for the new WCRC contract indicates the contract is to be awarded by June 30, 2017 with a contract term running for five years from July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2022.

Expectations for Liability MSA Reviews

Presently, CMS allows its 10 Regional Offices to accept voluntary requests for review of LMSAs at each office’s discretion. Some Regional Offices have consistently refused to review any LMSAs while other offices agree to review based upon criteria that seemingly changes over time and bears no indication that it is indeed the official policy of CMS. It appears then that just as it did in 2005 when CMS took the responsibility away from the Regional Offices for reviewing WCMSAs, CMS is now considering centralizing the process of reviewing LMSAs with a contractor, leaving the Regional Offices to only approve of the contractor’s recommendations.

Some may recall CMS launched a prior initiative to establish a formal policy for consideration of future medicals in liability settlements when it issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 2012. This initial effort was ultimately withdrawn by CMS in 2014. CMS’s new initiative began with this June 9, 2016 notice on the CMS website:

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is considering expanding its voluntary Medicare Set-Aside Arrangements (MSA) amount review process to include the review of proposed liability insurance (including self-insurance) and no-fault insurance MSA amounts. CMS plans to work closely with the stakeholder community to identify how best to implement this potential expansion. CMS will provide future announcements of the proposal and expects to schedule town hall meetings later this year. Please continue to monitor CMS.gov for additional updates.

No town hall meetings were scheduled in 2016, however, based upon this RFP indicating LMSA reviews will not begin until at least July 1, 2018, CMS has given itself 18 months to develop and implement a formal LMSA review policy. In terms of how many liability settlements such a review process would impact, CMS seems uncertain. A Statement of Work attached to the RFP indicates “reviews could represent as much as 11,000 additional cases (based on all FY2015 NGHP demands), or as little as 800 additional cases annually, depending upon industry response.”

Tower MSA Takeaways

Over the past 15 years, starting with the formalized review of WCMSAs, continuing with the implementation of Section 111 Mandatory Insurer Reporting and recent stepped up efforts at denying injury-related medical care and recovery of conditional payments for medical care related to workers’ compensation, liability and no-fault claims, CMS has expanded its enforcement under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act. It is not surprising then that CMS’s next objective is formalizing a voluntary review process for LMSAs.

It has been our experience that when CMS does implement new policy and procedures it does take a deliberative approach evidenced by the at least 18-month timeframe signaled with this RFP to expand the MSA review process to liability and no-fault. Our expectation then is over the next 18 months or longer, CMS will provide additional announcements concerning the rules and procedures around expansion of the review process.

Tower MSA will be involved in these discussions and will keep you abreast of relevant developments. In the interim, there remain important obligations of parties to liability settlements and no-fault claims under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act. Rest assured that you can rely upon Tower MSA’s team of MSP compliance experts for consultation and expert guidance in liability and no-fault matters.

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

CMS Hits ‘Reset’ Button With Workers’ Compensation Review Contractor Procedures and Request for Approval of Zero-Dollar Medicare Set-Aside Amounts

November 2, 2016

In an announcement distributed on November 1, 2016, CMS acknowledged the receipt of many inquiries from the MSP industry regarding procedural changes in the way CMS’s  Workers’ Compensation Review Contractor (WCRC) reviews proposed zero-dollar Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set-Aside Arrangement (WCMSA) amounts.  CMS further acknowledged that as a result of these inquiries, it has determined that changes had transpired without prior notification, and that effective immediately, the WCRC will utilize (the) procedures that were previously in effect, further noting that CMS continually evaluates all policy and procedures related to WCMSA reviews and will publish any pending changes when or before they go into effect.

Background

Prior to October, 2016, the Workers’ Compensation Review Contractor’s procedure with Zero Dollar WCMSAs in cases where evidence of a complete denial of the claim was handled as follows:

  1. The carrier’s complete denial would be evidenced by
    • a claim payment history documenting no payments for medical treatment and indemnity and
    • a letter from the adjuster or defense attorney confirming such full denial.
  2. The MSA must be submitted to CMS for approval PRIOR to obtaining a court-approved settlement.

When these conditions were met, the settlement would be recognized as a strict compromise and CMS would issue a determination letter staying no MSA is needed.

While CMS never published this procedure as an official policy in the WCMSA Reference Guide, the policy was exercised regularly and consistently.   As such, Tower, as well as many other MSP companies, incorporated this “policy” into its standard CMS submission procedure for Zero WCMSAs for denied claims.

The October ‘Surprise’

Beginning in October, 2016, with no notice, CMS responses for denied claims took a complete 180 degree turn in terms of the WCRC’s review process.  No longer was the carrier’s evidence of complete denial of the claim sufficient to obtain CMS’s approval of a Zero WCMSA.

When questioned regarding its rationale for this drastic change, CMS noted only that there was a ‘NEW‘ procedure being followed by the WCRC, and in order to obtain approval of a Zero WCMSA one of the following would be required:

  1. A court ruling regarding the compensability of the claim; or,
  2. Treatment records (i.e. a letter from the treating physician) which demonstrate/indicate that no further treatment for the alleged industrial condition(s) will be required.

Unfortunately for the industry, there was no advanced notice of the change in procedure, no documentation of the change and no explanation of CMS’s rationale for making such a drastic change.  We, along with everyone else in our industry, basically learned about this through development letters and undesirable dialogue with WCRC & CMS representatives.

Industry Reaction and CMS’s ‘Reset’

As expected, companies reacted immediately, contacting CMS to request answers, and seeking to determine how WCMSAs currently being reviewed would be handled.  Tower clients with cases pending with CMS were advised to wait to see if the case would be developed or if CMS would follow its original policies.  If developed, the case could be withdrawn.

In an effort to further clarify, NAMSAP (National Alliance of MSA Professionals) also intervened on behalf of its constituent members to confirm why the change was made, to ‘demand’ the courtesy of notice, and to offer its expertise to assist CMS in setting future policy to simplify the process rather than creating confusion and chaos.

As a result of the avalanche of questions, concerns and complaints, CMS has now taken a very positive step back, announcing that it will revert to its original, established procedure for reviewing Zero WCMSA for denied claims until such time as it can analyze, define policy, establish review procedures, communicate to the MSP industry and provide ample notice.

What’s Next?

With today’s announcement that the WCRC will revert to its original procedure for reviewing Zero WCMSAs for denied claims, the industry can return to its internal policies for setting settlement strategy with a clear understanding of the review process that will be executed by CMS’s review contractor when evaluating Zero WCMSAs.

As a reasonable next step, NAMSAP has offered to serve as a resource to CMS to provide industry experiences, to identify the perceived impact of the WCRC’s shift in policy, and to open dialogue regarding both our goals and the unintended consequences of CMS’s shift in review practices.  I trust CMS will consider this offer, and will engage in conversations that will lead to a seamless

Stay tuned….

Related:

Denied Claim Zero MSAs: Still Available, but Put Through the Wringer by CMS

CMS: Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set Aside Arrangements

Opioids in the Life of the MSA… Coming Soon

June 10, 2016

In a statement released on June 7, 2016, the National Alliance of Medicare Set-Aside Professionals (NAMSAP) announced the 2nd in a series of webinars focused on opioid drugs in the Medicare Set Aside.  The release can be found at NAMSAP Presents “Opioids in the Life of the MSA” Webinar on June 21

 Background

Since the creation of NAMSAP’s Evidence Based Medicine Committee in 2014, opioid use has been in the forefront of attention within NAMSAP.  As a member of NAMSAP’s Board of Directors, I have participated in our organization’s efforts to collaborate with experts on this critical issue, to educate our members as to what is happening when opioid involved MSAs are reviewed by CMS, and now to advocate to entities outside of workers’ compensation.

Our goal is to publicize the conflict between the WCMSA review process and  CMS’s own criteria for opioid addiction triggers, prior authorization requirements and mandatory weaning.   This release explains the rationale and basis for our request: NAMSAP has called for CMS to limit opioids in the MSA review;

The easy answer

Many say the answer to the inconsistencies in the WCMSA review process as it relates to opioids is to stop submitting the MSA to CMS.  “Why feed into a broken system?” is the question I’ve heard.  If opioids aren’t appropriate for life expectancy, if addiction is imminent, if weaning is appropriate, then include this in the MSA and just don’t submit.

I absolutely endorse CMS non-submission as an option.  Where I may differ from others is that I believe it should be decided based on the facts of the case as compared to the objective and subjective nature of CMS’s review and approval process.  Unfortunately, I fear a corporate non-submit strategy is a slippery slope down the path of massaging the MSA to ‘fit’ the needs of the moment.  That is not its intent of the MSA, nor will it be left unchallenged in the long term.

What if?

I believe the prevalence of opioids in workers’ compensation indicates something is broken, but the break is much further up the food chain.  Can and should CMS ‘fix’ a problem that we have allowed and enabled over the life of the claim?  Can an excise tax on opioids fix the problem?

What if we looked at things differently?

  • What if we identify the physicians who don’t write for opioids as first line treatment for pain?
  •  What if we know and use the physicians with a proven track record of getting patients back to work
  •  What if we implement triggers to identify initial onset and changes in opioid dosage and frequency?
  • What if an increase in Morphine Equivalent Dosage was measured and addressed immediately with the physician?
  •  What if we leverage PBM reports and tools to block opioids based  on corporate designated criteria, and then execute an action plan?
  •  What if we use jurisdictional options like UR, IMR, challenging treatment to force dispute resolution and state options to allow the carrier to control physician choice where these options exist?

What if?

Working both sides

Every company has its own strategies to address the opioid issue.  Our policy at Tower is to ask every ‘what if‘ question possible as we work with clients throughout the claim and settlement process.  Whatever the answer, whether it’s physician follow up to track weaning, a formal physician peer review to challenge inappropriate treatment, or negotiating a Conditional Payment Notice to dissociate unrelated treatment, our MSP Automation Suite drives and tracks every step in the process.  We push the claim to optimize outcomes and acknowledge when the MSA is ‘ready‘ to submit.

The result of the combined efforts of all stakeholders in workers’ compensation, according the WCRI report on opioids released on June 9, 2016 is that the industry has made positive strides to address opioid issues.  Now NAMSAP is challenging CMS to modify the WCMSA review criteria so that it more closely mirrors its own Part D approvals process.

I hope you will join the webinar as we look at the policy side of the opioid issue within the MSA and that you join our advocacy efforts.

 

FDA Approves Generic Release of Abilify

May 1, 2015

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first AB-rated generics to Bristol-Myers Squibb and Otsuka’s Abilify® (aripiprazole) tablets, an atypical antipsychotic drug commonly used for treating schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. The agency approved generics from Alembic Pharmaceuticals, Hetero Labs, Teva Pharmaceuticals and Torrent Pharmaceuticals. At least one manufacturer, Teva, announced the launch of its generic in the currently marketed strengths of 2mg, 5mg, 10mg, 15mg, 20mg and 30mg tablets.

Specifics of Release

  • Brand Name: Abilify® (aripiprazole – Bristol-Myer’s Squibb/Otsuka)
  • Indication: Treatment of schizophrenia, acute treatment of manic and mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder, adjunctive treatment of major depressive disorder, treatment of irritability associated with autistic disorder and treatment of Tourette’s disorder.
  • Generic Manufacturer(s): Alembic Pharmaceuticals, Hetero Labs, Teva Pharmaceuticals and Torrent Pharmaceuticals
  • Launch Date: April 28, 2015

Potential Obstacles and Alternatives

  • Teva’s launch is considered “at risk” due to ongoing litigation over three later listed patents in FDA’s Orange Book covering Abilify. The other manufacturers have not yet announced the launch of their generics.
  • Other atypical antipsychotic medications include Clozaril® (clozapine – Novartis, generics), Fanapt™ (iloperidone – Vanda), Geodon® (ziprasidone – Pfizer, generics), Invega™ (paliperidone – Janssen), Latuda® (lurasidone– Sunovion), Risperdal® (risperidone – Janssen, generics), Saphris® (asenapine – Merck / Actavis), Seroquel® (quetiapine – AstraZeneca, generics) and Zyprexa® (olanzapine – Lilly, generics).

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

  • The good….As an expensive brand medication commonly prescribed in workers’ comp for off label use for depression and sleep related issues, the release of generic Abilify® (aripiprazole) tablets is certainly a welcomed event for our MSA submissions.  
  • The bad….We know from past history that price concessions during the initial generic release period are normally no more than 10-12% off the original brand AWP (average wholesale price).
  • The ugly…  We also know from past history that as one brand moves to generic, soon to follow are new and even more expensive alternatives.  Two new atypical antipsychotic drugs are currently under FDA review. Actavis’ cariprazine could be approved during the second quarter of 2015. Brexpiprazole, Otsuka’s follow-on to Abilify, has an FDA action date of July 11, 2015.

Impact on CMS Review of WCMSAs:

Abilify is an expensive medication used off label by many physicians in workers’ comp.  As such, it is consistently identified as a medication trigger in our pre-MSA review and triage process.  When possible our team of physicians attempt collegial dialogue with the treating physician to discuss the nature of the injury and causal relationship with psych conditionals, and to specifically discuss the rationale behind off label use of Abilify. 

According to ODG (Official Disabilities Guideline), Abilify is a ‘N’ drug (as are all atypical anti-psychotic medications), meaning it is not appropriate for first-line therapy.  This is how Medicare views Abilify, and why it’s critical to address Abilify’s use before it shows up as treatment on an MSA.  As an ‘N’ drug, Ability should go thru a pre-authorization process where the prescriber justifies its use before being dispensed through the PBM. 

For questions about Abilify, its generic release, its use in WCMSAs, both FDA approved and off label uses, please contact us @ info@towermsa.com or 888-331-4941. 

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:

  1. Insufficient or out-of-date medical records (CMS requests current payout and will expect all associated medical records).
  2. Insufficient payment histories, usually because the records do not provide breakdown for medical, indemnity, or expenses categories;
  3. Failure to address draft or final settlement agreements and court rulings in the cover letter or elsewhere in the submission;
  4. Documents referred to in the file are not provided—this usually occurs with court rulings or settlement documents;
  5. 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.

Managing Chronic Pain in Older Adults

April 8, 2014

According to the ACPA (American Chronic Pain Association) Resource Guide to Chronic Pain Management, “persistent or chronic pain is prevalent in older adults.”

“Nearly one third of all prescribed medications are for patients over the age of 65 years.   More than thirty percent of hospital admissions among the elderly may be linked to an adverse drug related event or toxic effect from opioids and sedatives.  Unfortunately, many adverse drug effects in older adults are overlooked as age-related changes (general weakness, dizziness, and upset stomach) when in fact the patient is experiencing a medication-related problem.  In addition, some older individuals may be more sensitive to medications, more likely to experience side effects, and more likely to be using multiple drugs with the associated risk of interactions between the drugs.”

Workers’ Comp Implications

For those who manage workers’ compensation claims, these statistics should highlight the importance of a consistently executed decision making paradigm when authorizing prescription medications for older patients. 

  • Before approving a new pain medication for an elderly injured worker, confirm that the initial dose is being prescribed at the lowest possible strength and frequency. 

  • When increases are requested, approve only those changes to strength and frequency that are adjusted slowly to optimize pain relief. 

  • When possible, confirm that the patient is monitoring and managing his / her own side effects.

When dealing with less dangerous treatment options for injuries in the elderly population, potential treatment options include:

  • Use of multiple drugs together – Careful  use of multiple drugs is potentially advantageous as the combination of smaller doses of more than one medication may minimize the dose-limiting adverse effects of using a particular single drug.

  • Alternatives to pharmacologic treatment – As an alternative to prescription drugs, physical rehabilitation and other interventional therapies, including targeted injections and acupuncture, can be helpful to minimize side-effects and maximize physical function with pain relief

Triggers For Potential Concern

Pain management in the elderly is a unique challenge.  Beyond the normal concerns of addiction and overuse, those who authorize treatment in a workers’ compensation claim for an older worker must also compare the potential dangers associated with the side effects of the medication against its promised value.  Triggers that may warrant intervention for an older injured worker include:

  • Opioid treatment that continues for more than 90 days post injury / surgery

  • An increase in the strength or frequency of an opioid prescribed more than 90 days post injury / surgery

  • A request to change from an orthopedic or other specialist to a pain management specialist more than 90 days post injury/surgery

  • A decrease in opioid drug use followed by a request for a new treating physician

  • The appearance of a long acting opioid medication following continued use and/or an increase in dosage of a short acting opioid more than 60 months post injury

Identify, Intervene and Remain Involved

By peeling back the onion one layer at a time, questions can be raised, physicians can be challenged and evidence based treatment guidelines can be used to confront the status quo.   The first step is to ask your workers’ comp PBM to identify claims that meet your triggers.   Once identified, intervene with the treating physician either directly, or through a formal peer review.  Once intervention is complete, remain involved until changes are complete.  

When preparing for settlement, it’s critical to work with an MSA partner who will serve as gatekeeper to identify the same triggers and  intercept problem claims before the MSA is prepared.  Working hand in hand, positive outcomes can be achieved for the elderly.   The process is simple.  Consistent execution is the key.

For more information on medical and pharmacological issues related to pain management in the elderly population, I encourage you to review the publications made available by the American Geriatrics Society  (http://www.americangeritrics.org).  For questions related to pain management issues related to Medicare Set Asides, email us at info@towermsa.com.

 

CMS Proposes Expansion of WCMSA Re-Review Process – The Good, The Bad & The Ugly

March 16, 2014

On February 11, 2014, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) announced its proposed changes to the current Medicare Set-Aside Arrangement re-review process, seeking comments and feedback by March 31, 2014.

The current CMS process for WCMSA re-review requests is limited to situations where CMS is notified that the submitter omitted documentation from the original proposal, or when submitter believed there to be a mathematical error made by Medicare’s review contractor.  The re-review process in these situations will remain unchanged.     

Re-review requests may be submitted to the WCRC at any time for the following reasons:

  • A mathematical error was identified in the approved set-aside amount.
  • Original submission included case records for another beneficiary

 In its proposed expanded process, however, WCMSA re-reviews will be available for a broader array of categories and reasons.

 Re-review requests may be submitted to the WCRC ONLY when ALL of the following are met:

  • The original WCMSA was approved within the last 180 days,
  • The case has not settled,
  • No prior re-review request has been submitted for this WCMSA
  • The re- review requests a change to the approved amount of 10% or $10,000 (whichever is more).

Re-review requests may be submitted for ANY of the following when ALL qualifying criteria are met:  

  • Submitter disagrees with how the medical records were interpreted.
  • Medical records dated prior to the submission date were mistakenly omitted.
  • Items or services priced in the approved set-aside amount are no longer needed or there is a change in the beneficiary’s treatment plan.
  • A recommended drug should not be used because it may be harmful to the beneficiary.
  • Dispute of items priced for an unrelated body part.  
  • Dispute of the rated age used to calculate life expectancy

 In its explanation, CMS goes on to say that a re-review may be escalated by the WCRC to a CMS Regional Office “in certain situations”.  My assumption is that the decision would be at the discretion of the WCRC rather than by submitter request.  Examples identified included failure to adhere to court findings, CMS policy disputes, situations where the carrier maintains ‘Ongoing Responsibility for Medicals’ for treatment that has been included in approved WCMSA, etc. 

 The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

The ‘Good’….  On a positive note, I see any expansion to the re-review process as a good thing for the MSA industry.   I have seen countless times when I disagreed with the WCRC’s interpretation of the medical records, or I wanted to dispute prescription drugs or medical procedures that were being prescribed for unrelated body parts or were dangerous to the claimant. 

An opportunity to ‘challenge’ in these situations gives me new hope that the countless studies documenting the dangers of long term opioid use may now be introduced as rationale to exclude these drugs from the WCMSA.  This may also mark the beginning of the inclusion of state and national evidence based treatment guidelines to establish or dispute the appropriateness of treatment.

The ‘Bad’….  Am I being too optimistic?  The bad, as I see it, is that CMS provided us with nothing to explain how the information submitted in the re-review will be analyzed, nor does it list the criteria it would deem as acceptable evidence to justify a change.  Therefore, while positive on paper, it remains to be seen whether the expansion provides a real venue to evaluate appropriate care over life expectancy.

And the ‘Ugly’….  Unfortunately, I’ve seen multiple scenarios where re-reviews were submitted in follow up to what we believed to be complete omission of findings and recommendations in the medical records submitted to WCRC.  Upon re-review, the reviewer actually increased the allocation.  With the expanded re-review process, therefore, does the WCRC have total autonomy to modify/increase any portion of  the WCMSA, or will their response be limited to that portion of the WCMSA being challenged?     

Tower MSA Partners is currently preparing its response to CMS for submission on or before the March 31, 2014 deadline.   In doing so, one of the key points we will advocate to CMS is our strong belief that evidence based national and state medical and pharmacy guidelines should be included an any re-review process as a primary resource to establish appropriate treatment for long term pain management. As such, these should sit at the forefront of any assessment process. 

We solicit and welcome your feedback.

 

 

CMS Releases Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set-Aside Arrangement (WCMSA) Reference Guide

April 17, 2013

On March, 29, CMS announced the release of a new Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set-Aside Arrangement (WCMSA) Reference Guide. The new guide has been posted and is available in the Downloads section of the CMS Workers’ Compensation Agency Services site at http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Coordination-of-Benefits/WorkersCompAgencyServices/Downloads/March-29-2013-WCMSA-Reference-Guide-Version-13.pdf.

The WCMSA Reference Guide was created to consolidate information currently found within the Workers’ Compensation Agency Services webpages and CMS Regional Office Program Memorandums, while providing WCMSA information to attorneys, Medicare beneficiaries, claimants, insurance carriers, representative payees, and WCMSA vendors. After reviewing the new guide, I would agree that it is exactly as advertised. There is little new to report for those of us who have researched the CMS website at length and studied each CMS memo released over the past 12 years. For those new to the process, however, the reference guide is an excellent summarization of all requirements, recommendations memos, etc. that have guided us over the years to appropriately protect Medicare’s interests.

While much of the reference guide is technical in nature, providing specific directives for submission, appeals, use of the portal, review expectations, etc., I found three very specific points made to address an area that has historically created confusion. ” If I settle below the CMS threshold amount, does this mitigate the need to prepare an MSA? ”  The short answer is, “No”.  The reasons, specifically explained in the reference guide, are included below:

  • Protecting Medicare’s Interests is ‘The Law’
    Any claimant who receives a WC settlement, judgment, or award that includes an amount for future medical expenses must take Medicare’s interest with respect to future medicals into account. If Medicare’s interests are not considered, CMS has a priority right of recovery against any entity that received a portion of a third party payment either directly or indirectly. Medicare may also refuse to pay for future medical expenses related to the WC injury until the entire settlement is exhausted.
  • CMS Submission is Recommended, not Required
    There are no statutory or regulatory provisions requiring that you submit a WCMSA amount proposal to CMS for review. If you choose to use CMS’ WCMSA review process, however,  the Agency requests that you comply with CMS’ established policies and procedures.”
  • CMS Submission Thresholds Are For Workload Management Only
    The thresholds for WCMSA submission to CMS for approval are created based on CMS’ workload, and are not intended to indicate that claimants may settle below the threshold with impunity. Claimants must still consider Medicare’s interests in all WC cases and ensure that Medicare pays secondary to WC in such cases.Also note that both the beneficiary and non-beneficiary workload review thresholds are subject to adjustment. CMS reserves the right to change or remove these thresholds based on Medicare’s interests. Claimants, employers, carriers, and their representatives should regularly monitor the CMS website at http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Coordination-of-Benefits/Workers-Compensation-Medicare-Set-Aside-Arrangements/Whats-New/Whats-New.html for changes to these thresholds and for other changes in policies and procedures.

I hope the three points above adequately clarify when an MSA is needed as compared to when CMS submission is appropriate.  If questions remain, however, or should you other questions about the guide and its legal implications in settlement, please contact Kristine Wilson, Esq. @ 888-331-4941.

CMS encourages us to continue to visit its website for future updates to the reference guide, including additional details regarding the Workers’ Compensation Review Contractor’s review process

 

CMS New WCMSA Decision Memo: TENS Units: Not Appropriate for Chronic Low Back Pain

October 5, 2012

Tens units not appropriate for low back pain
Tens units not appropriate for low back pain
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) issued a new memorandum that will affect pricing determinations for TENS (Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation) units for the treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP) included within the Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set-Aside (WCMSA) that have been submitted to CMS for approval.

On June 8, 2012, CMS issued a new Decision Memo that defined CLBP as “an episode of low back pain that has persisted for three months or longer; and is not a manifestation of a clearly defined and generally recognizable primary disease entity.” CMS further stated that a TENS unit was not “reasonable and necessary for the treatment of CLBP under section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act.”

TENS is the use of stimulating pulses across the surface of the skin produced by a device to stimulate the nerves for therapeutic purposes. TENS help stimulate your body to produce higher levels of Endorphins. The TENS units are small, battery operated devices that deliver these stimulating pulses across the surface of the skin. It has been an ongoing dispute over the years as to whether TENS units do more than act like placebo’s, and whether they actually treat and cure CLBP.

CMSs New Pricing Determination will affect the WCMSA’s proposal as follows:

  1. Workers’ Compensation cases settled prior to June 8, 2012:

    “For those Workers’ Compensation cases settled prior to June 8, 2012, and where the settlement included pricing for TENS for CLBP, CMS will consider funds spent for TENS for CLBP by beneficiaries and claimants as being an appropriate expenditure of funds as part of the WCMSA.”

  2. Workers’ Compensation Cases Settled After June 8, 2012:

    “For those Workers’ Compensation cases that were not settled prior to June 8, 2012, and where the WCMSAs proposal includes funding for TENS for CLBP as part of the WCMSA, CMS will re-review the cases and remove pricing for TENS for CLBP. (Regional Offices shall obtain from Submitters requests for a case re-review, along with a signed statement indicating a settlement had not occurred prior to June 8, 2012.)”

It is important to note that in the event CMS does re-review a WCMSA for removal of a TENS unit for CLBP, the claimant may NOT use the funds from their WCMSA to pay for the TENS for CLBP. If a claimant uses the funds for the TENS, this would result in an inappropriate expenditure of funds.

For additional questions on the use of TENS units as treatment for chronic low back pain, and its implications on future medical treatment and the WCMSA, please contact Tower MSA Partners at 888-331-4941 or email us at info@towermsa.com. For the full text of the CMS Decision Memo, see Decision Memo for Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS).

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making

June 18, 2012

This advance notice of proposed rulemaking solicits comment on standardized options CMS has considered making available to beneficiaries and their representatives to clarify how they can meet their obligations to protect Medicare’s interest with respect to Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) claims involving automobile and liability insurance (including self-insurance), no-fault insurance, and workers’ compensation when future medical care is claimed or the settlement, judgment, award, or other payment releases (or has the effect of releasing) claims for future medical care.

To be considered, comments regarding CMS-6047-ANPRM must be recieved on or before 5pm on August 14, 2012.

The primary purpose of this ANPRM is to respond to affected parties’ requests for guidance on “future medicals” MSP obligations, specifically, how  individuals / beneficiaries can satisfy those obligations effectively and efficiently.   Currently, individuals involved in certain workers’ compensation situations are able to use Medicare’s formal, yet voluntary, Medicare Set-Aside Arrangement (MSA) review process in order to determine if a proposed set-aside amount is sufficient to meet their MSP obligations related to “future medicals.” To date, Medicare has not established a similar process for  individuals/beneficiaries to use to meet their MSP obligations with respect to  future medicals” in liability insurance (including self-insurance) situations. CMS is soliciting comment on whether and how Medicare should implement such a similar process in liability insurance situations, as well as comment on the proposed definitions and additional options outlined later in this section. CMS is further soliciting suggestions on options they have not included later in  this section. In its own words, CMS is most interested in the feasibility and usability of the outlined options and whether implementation of these options would provide affected parties with sufficient guidance.

Medicare is considering the options listed below in an effort to develop an efficient and effective means for addressing “future medicals.” Options 1 through 4 would be available to Medicare beneficiaries as well as to individuals who are not yet beneficiaries. Options 5 through 7 would be available to beneficiaries only. CMS is requesting comment on the feasibility and usability of all of the options, and also requests proposals for additional options for consideration.

The seven (7) proposed options include the following:

Option 1. The individual/beneficiarypays for all related future medical care until his/her settlement is exhausted and documents it accordingly.

The beneficiary may choose to govern his/her use of his/her settlement proceeds himself/herself. Under this option, he/she would be required to pay for all related care out of his/her settlement proceeds, until those proceeds are appropriately exhausted. As a routine matter, Medicare would not review documentation in conjunction with this option, but may occasionally request documentation from beneficiaries selected at random as part of Medicare’s program integrity efforts.

Option 2. Medicare would not pursue “future medicals” if the individual/beneficiary’s case fits all of the conditions under either of the following headings:

a. The amount of liability insurance (including self-insurance) “settlement” is a defined amount or less and the following criteria are met:

  • The accident, incident, illness, or injury occurred one year or more before the date of “settlement;”
  • The underlying claim did not involve a chronic illness/condition or major trauma;
  • The beneficiary does not receive additional “settlements;” andShow citation box
  • There is no corresponding workers’ compensation or no-fault insurance claim.

b.  The amount of liability insurance (including self-insurance) “settlement” is a defined amountor less and all of the following criteria are met:

  • The individual is not a beneficiary as of the date of “settlement;”
  • The individual does not expect to become a beneficiary within 30 months of the date of “settlement;”
  • The underlying claim did not involve a chronic illness/condition or major trauma;
  • The beneficiary does not receive additional “settlements;” and
  • There is no corresponding workers’ compensation or no-fault insurance claim.

Option 3. The individual/beneficiary acquires/provides an attestation regarding the Date of Care Completion from his/her treating physician.

a. Before Settlement—When the individual/beneficiary obtains a physician attestation regarding the Date of Care Completion from his or her treating physician, and the Date of Care Completion is before the “settlement,” Medicare’s recovery claim would be limited to conditional payments it made for Medicare covered and otherwise reimbursable items and services provided from the Date of Incident through and including the Date of Care Completion. As a result, Medicare’s interest with respect to “future medicals” would be satisfied. The physician must attest to the Date of Care Completion and attest that the individual/beneficiary would not require additional care related to his/her “settlement.”

b. After Settlement—When the individual/beneficiary obtains a physician attestation from his or her treating physician after settlement regarding the Date of Care Completion, Medicare would pursue recovery for related conditional payments it made from the date of incident through and including the date of “settlement.” Further, Medicare’s interest with respect to future medical care would be limited to Medicare covered and otherwise reimbursable items and/or services provided from the date of “settlement” through and including the Date of Care Completion. The physician must attest to the Date of Care Completion and attest that the individual/beneficiary would not require additional care related to his/her “settlement.” CMS requests comment on the efficacy and feasibility of this option.

Option 4. The Individual/Beneficiary Submits Proposed Medicare Set-Aside Arrangement (MSA) Amounts for CMS’ Review and Obtains Approval.

Currently, CMS has a formal process to review proposed MSA amounts in certain workers’ compensation situations. Recently CMS has received a high volume of requests for official review of proposed liability insurance (including self-insurance) MSA amounts. This has prompted them to consider whether to implement a formal review process for proposed liability insurance (including self-insurance) MSA amounts. For more information related to workers’ compensation MSA process, please visit http://www.cms.hhs.gov/Medicare/Coordination-of-Benefits/WorkersCompAgencyServices/wcsetaside.html.  CMS specifically solicits comment on how a liability MSA amount review process could be structured, including whether it should be the same as or similar to the process used in the workers’ compensation arena, whether review thresholds should be imposed, etc.

Option 5. The beneficiary participates in one of Medicare’s recovery options.

Recently, CMS implemented three options with respect to resolving Medicare’s recovery claim in more streamlined and efficient manners. Before a demand letter is issued, the beneficiary or his/her representative may participate in one of three recovery options, which allows the beneficiary to obtain Medicare’s final conditional payment amount before settlement. The three recovery options are as follows:

  • $300 Threshold—If a beneficiary alleges a physical trauma-based injury, obtains a liability insurance (including self-insurance) “settlement” of $300 or less, and does not receive or expect to receive additional “settlements” related to the incident, Medicare will not pursue recovery against that particular “settlement.”
  • Fixed Payment Option—When a beneficiary alleges a physical trauma-based injury, obtains a liability insurance (including self-insurance) “settlement” of $5,000 or less, and does not receive or expect to receive additional “settlements” related to the incident, the beneficiary may elect to resolve Medicare’s recovery claim by paying 25 percent of the gross “settlement” amount.
  • Self-Calculated Conditional Payment Option—When a beneficiary alleges a physical trauma-based injury that occurred at least 6 months prior to electing the option, anticipates obtaining a liability insurance (including self-insurance) “settlement” of $25,000 or less, demonstrates that care has been completed, and has not received nor expects to receive additional “settlements” related to the incident, the beneficiary may self-calculate Medicare’s recovery claim. Medicare would review the beneficiary’s self-calculated amount and provide confirmation of Medicare’s final conditional payment amount.

Each of the options is employed in such a way that Medicare’s interest with respect to future medicals is, in effect, satisfied for the specified “settlement.” Therefore, when a beneficiary participates in any one of these recovery options, the beneficiary has also met his/her obligation with respect to future medicals. CMS solicits comment on proposed expansions of these options and the justification for that proposed expansion, as well as any suggestions about how to improve the three options we recently implemented.

Option 6. The Beneficiary Makes an Upfront Payment.

CMS is currently considering two variations of an “upfront payment option.”

a. If Ongoing Responsibility For Medicals was imposed, demonstrated or accepted and medicals are calculated through the life of the beneficiary or the life of the injury.

If ongoing responsibility for medicals was imposed, demonstrated or accepted from the date of “settlement” through the life of the beneficiary or life of the injury, we may review and approve a proposed amount to be paid as an upfront lump sum payment for the full amount of the calculated cost for all related future medical care. This option would generally apply in workers’ compensation, no-fault insurance situations or when life-time medicals are imposed by law. In effect, this option may be used in place of administering a MSA if we have reviewed and approved a proposed MSA amount. CMS solicits comment on how to develop this process, the efficacy of it, and whether it would be utilized.

b. If Ongoing Responsibility for Medicals was Not Imposed, Demonstrated or Accepted.

If a beneficiary obtains a “settlement,” our general rule stated previously applies to the “settlement,” and ongoing responsibility for medicals has not been imposed on, demonstrated by or accepted by the defendant, the beneficiary may elect to make an upfront payment to Medicare in the amount of a specified percentage of “beneficiary proceeds.” This option would most often apply in liability insurance (including self-insurance situations, primarily due to policy caps. For the purposes of this option, the term “beneficiary proceeds” would be calculated by subtracting from the total “settlement” amount attorney fees and procurement costs borne by the beneficiary, Medicare’s demand amount (for conditional payments made by Medicare), and certain additional medical expenses the beneficiary paid out of pocket. Such additional medical expenses are specifically limited to items and services listed in 26 U.S.C. 213(d)(1)(A) through (C) and 26 U.S.C. 213(d)(2). The calculation of beneficiary proceeds does not include medical expenses paid by, or that are the responsibility of, a source other than the beneficiary.  CMS specifically solicits comment on how to develop this process, its efficacy, and whether it would be utilized. CMS further requests comment on the calculation of beneficiary proceeds, the appropriate percentage(s) to be used, and how the percentage(s) is/are justified.Show citation box

Option 7. The Beneficiary Obtains a Compromise or Waiver of Recovery.

If the beneficiary obtains either a compromise or a waiver of recovery, Medicare would have the discretion to not pursue future medicals related to the specific “settlement” where the compromise or waiver of recovery was granted. If the beneficiary obtains additional “settlements,” Medicare would review the conditional payments it made and adjust its claim for past and future medicals accordingly. CMS specifically solicits comment on whether this approach is practical and usable, as it relates to “future medicals.”

We encourage you to read and evaluate each of the seven options as they relate to your business and settlement objectives and email us at info@towermsa.com with questions, feedback and suggestions.  We will continue our due diligence as well, and will publish our thoughts as to the pro’s and con’s of each option.  As noted, we have 60 days to respond with comments and recommendations.

Click here for the complete version of CMS-6047-ANPRM.