On September 20, 2017, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida published its opinion on MSPA Claim I, LLC., v. National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford, finding that since it is undisputed that on June 4, 2014, at the time of the settlement in this case, the threshold amount referenced in paragraph (9) of the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (MSP) was set at $2,000, and that National Fire's settlement was for $1,500, the threshold to bring an MSP private cause of action is not met. The Court therefore concludes that Plaintiff does not state a cognizable claim under the MSP. Having found the threshold amount is not met, the Court did not reach the standing issue as to whether the Plaintiff had a valid assignment at the time it filed suit.
Without a doubt, the most efficient model to achieve an exceptional Medicare program, which mitigates, reduces, and in some instances eliminates the risks previously discussed, is to build a comprehensive compliance process that relies on automated sequences and triggering events throughout the three steps of current Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) compliance: Mandatory Insurer Reporting (MIR), Conditional Payment Resolution (CPR), and Medicare Set Aside Allocations, Approval, and Administration (MSA). What follows is part four of a four-part analysis of risks associated with each of the MSP compliance components: Mandatory Insurer Reporting (MIR), Conditional Payment Resolution (CPR), and Medicare Set Asides (MSA). This fourth part focuses on Flagship’s comprehensive MSP compliance program, which we believe to be the most efficient model in achieving 100% MSP compliance.
Slowly, but surely, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is making sure medical providers are aware, informed, and prepared to deal with Medicare beneficiaries who must pay their future medical expenses related to a settlement, judgment, award, or other payment from a Medicare Set Aside (MSA). As I blogged about on March 10, 2017, in early 2017, CMS announced a set of codes for Medicare contractors to deny providers’ request for payment of a claim if there existed an open MSA. https://www.flagshipservicesgroup.com/blog/yet-another-clue-that-cms-is-getting-ready-for-liability-and-no-fault-msas
As we have continued to inform on this blog, at multiple conference presentations throughout the country, and at training sessions for current and potential clients over the last several years, conditional payments resolution isn't just about traditional Medicare any more. Today, conditional payments resolution is about identifying, investigating, analyzing, disputing, appealing, resolving, and closing such claims not just with Medicare Parts A (hospital) and B (physician) coverage, but also with Medicare Parts C (Medicare Advantage Plans) and D (Prescription Drug Plans), as well as Medicaid.
Topics: Conditional Payments
Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) compliance has become an integral part of claims handling for both the injured plaintiff and his/her counsel, as well as the corporate defendant, its insurer, and its counsel. Litigants today must pay close attention and stay informed about plaintiff’s entitlement to Medicare, and whether Medicare makes any conditional payments related to the pending or settled claim. In addition, litigants today must know whether the plaintiff is enrolled in a Medicare Advantage Plan (MAP) or Prescription Drug Plan (PDP), and whether such plans make any conditional payments related to the pending or settled claim. Not knowing this will create havoc on your claim, your settlement, your practice, and your business.
As Required by Section 1893(h) of the Social Security Act, the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) Commercial Repayment Center (CRC) published its third annual report to Congress for FY 2016 in August 2017. Based on the Group Health Plan (GHP) and Non-Group Health Plan (NGHP) recovery work of the CRC, for FY 2016 (October 1, 2015 through September 30, 2016), CMS returned $88.35 million dollars to the Medicare Trust Funds.
Medicare conditional payments are serious business. They continue to challenge claims professionals throughout the country. And if not dealt with timely and appropriately, can create havoc on parties’ attempt to settle a claim, or future reimbursement responsibility.
We all mean well. Everyone handling claims tries to do the right thing. But sometimes, things just don’t go as planned and end up taking significantly longer than expected and costing way more than agreed.
Topics: Conditional Payments
On July 31, 2017, CMS published Version 2.6 of the Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set-Aside Arrangement (WCMSA) Reference Guide. The latest version of the Guide includes the following changes:
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced this week that the Social Security Number Removal Initiative (SSNRI) will now be known as “New Medicare cards.” Regardless of what the program is called, the bottom line is that the old Social Security Number based Health Insurance Claim Number (HICN) will be replaced by a new Medicare Beneficiary Identifier (MBI). This is not exactly new news as the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) of 2015 required CMS to remove Social Security Numbers from all Medicare cards by April 2019 and CMS announced the upcoming transition earlier year.