Full Service Law Firm in Mt. Laurel Township, NJ | Capehart Scatchard

Medicare

Recent updates from CMS introduce significant changes to the reporting and submission requirements for Medicare Set-Asides (MSAs), impacting all Responsible Reporting Entities (RRE). Understanding these changes is crucial to ensuring compliance and avoiding potential penalties. Two important dates to remember are April 4, 2025 and July 17, 2025.

Effective April 4, 2025, all RRE will be required to report any WCMSA amount within the Total Payment Obligation to the claimant, even a zero-dollar allocation. The only exception to this reporting requirement is if the settlement is $750 or less. This new reporting requirement gives CMS access to every single worker’s compensation claim if it involves a Medicare beneficiary. CMS will then instruct the claimant on how to properly exhaust the MSA. Annual reports must be submitted to CMS, showing proper use of the MSA funds. Once the funds are properly exhausted, Medicare will resume coverage for injury-related medical care. Of importance, if the MSA amount is reported as zero, CMS has the right to audit the submission if it is suspected that the parties are attempting to shift work-related medical costs to Medicare.

The goal of establishing an MSA is to set aside sufficient funds to cover the lifetime cost of medical expenses that would otherwise be payable by Medicare for work-injury related conditions. While the RRE will now have to report the amount of an MSA, the need to submit an MSA to CMS for approval remains optional.

Currently, CMS will only review WCMSA proposals that meet the following criteria:

  • The claimant is a Medicare beneficiary, and the total settlement amount is greater than $25,000.00; or
  • The claimant has a reasonable expectation of Medicare enrollment within 30 months of the settlement date and the anticipated total settlement amount for future medical expenses and disability/lost wages over the life or duration of the settlement agreement is expected to be greater than $250,000.00.

The recent update confirms “submitting a WCMSA proposed amount for review is never required.” See, Section 4.2.  It further explains that Medicare’s interests are already protected in the following instances:

  1. If the injured worker is only being compensated for past medical expenses; and
  2. There is no evidence that the individual is attempting to maximize the other aspects of the settlement such as lost wages or permanent disability to Medicare’s detriment.

The guidelines explain that the above conditions can be demonstrated through one of the following criteria:

  1. The claimant’s treating doctor documents in the medical records, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the claimant will no longer require any treatment or medications related to the workers compensation injury; or
  2. The claim is denied, and no benefits have been paid and there is no allocation of medical benefits in the settlement; or
  3. The Court determines, by issuing a decision on the merits, that respondent does not owe any additional medical or indemnity benefits and there is no allocation of medical benefits in the settlement; or
  4. The claim as denied following an investigation regarding compensability where benefits extended were paid without prejudice and there is no allocation of medical benefits in the settlement.

The guidelines state that unless an MSA is submitted, reviewed, and approved by CMS prior to settlement, CMS cannot be certain that the Medicare’s interests are adequately protected. As such, “CMS may at its sole discretion deny payment for medical services related to WC injuries or illnesses, requiring attestation of appropriate exhaustion [of benefits] equal to the total settlement,” rather than a CMS-approved WCMSA amount.

However, Section 4.2 specifically states that as of July 17, 2025, CMS will no longer accept submissions for zero-dollar MSAs. While this will allow respondents to finalize settlements much faster, if CMS refuses to review zero-dollar allocations, the question becomes how to ensure that Medicare’s interest is adequately protected to avoid a denial of payment for medical services related to the WC injuries.

CMS highlights the importance of thorough documentation in cases where an MSA is not submitted to Medicare for approval, which includes all zero-dollar allocations. In these instances, it is crucial to obtain an opinion letter from an independent third party MSA vendor, outlining the legal justification and mitigating circumstances that make a zero-dollar allocation appropriate. Additionally, the letter should explain in detail the reliance on the criteria outlined above to support a zero-dollar allocation. A recent revision to Section 9.4.3 reinforces the need to have clear medical documentation to support the exclusion of certain medications or treatment protocols as part of an MSA.

While not submitting an MSA can speed up the settlement process, it will require strong documentation and compliance measures to prevent issues in the future. On the other hand, while submitting an MSA that meets the threshold requirement offers certainty that CMS will honor the allocation, this can lead to delays and stricter oversight. The good news is as of April 7, 2025, the one year waiting period to submit an amended review of an MSA is being eliminated. This benefits respondents in allowing faster resolutions and potential costs savings from overfunding an MSA based on medical expenses that are no longer needed. 

Given the new updates from CMS, employers, third-party administrators, and insurance carriers should review their MSA reporting procedures to ensure compliance before the April 4, 2025, deadline, and develop a policy regarding the handling of all MSAs whether it’s a zero-dollar allocation or not. Readers may contact me at phigbee@capehart.com for further information.

The post MSA: To Submit or Not To Submit appeared first on NJ Workers' Comp Blog.

A number of prominent Medicare experts disseminated Legal Alerts last week to the effect that changes may be occurring with respect to the requirements for CMS to approve zero allocations.  These changes would spell bad news in New Jersey for employers who want to settle disputed cases on a Section 20 basis.  According to Martin Cassavoy of ISO Claims Partners in his October 27, 2016 News Alert, the Workers’ Compensation Review Contractor (WCRC) has stated that CMS will soon require the following for approval of a zero allocation:

  • The case or the body part in question has been denied throughout the case;
  • There has been no medical or indemnity payment for the denied case or body part; and
  • There is either a finding from a hearing by the Judge of Compensation relieving the carrier of liability or a report from the treating physician recommending no future treatment.

No official enactment of these requirements has occurred to date, but if this is the new approach that CMS is going to adopt, it will be very hard for employers to obtain zero set aside allocations in New Jersey and other states.  Compensation judges in New Jersey have enormous caseloads.  They have not historically been actively involved in ruling on Medicare issues.  If a judge now has to determine that no compensable workers’ compensation claim exists, that will create a long back-up of trials on cases that were formerly resolved simply and efficiently by way of Section 20 settlements.

Attorney Heather Schwartz Sanderson, Esq., Chief Legal Officer for Franco Signor, LLC.,  wrote in her Alert: “Our recommendation has always been where the workers’ compensation claim is completely denied, no medicals have been paid, and the claim is settling on a compromise basis CMS approval is not recommended.”  Ms. Sanderson’s statement makes sense since Medicare would have been and would continue to be the primary payor in this situation.  Her reasoning is persuasive and should be considered by employers.  She argues that there should be no allocation for future medical care in the above situation.

Our office will continue to update clients if these changes are adopted by CMS.  Thanks to Marita Tortorelli, Assistant Vice President of PMA Insurance Companies for bringing this issue to the undersigned’s attention.

 

 

The final rule on MACRA’s Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), the new Medicare payment model, scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2017, made a significant change to the 2015 proposed rule in that it largely eliminated quality scoring for telemedicine and remote monitoring services to Medicare beneficiaries from MIPS.  MIPS will be the quality based payment model under which most physicians will operate.  Telemedicine services are included in some of the alternate payment models set forth under the final rule, such as next generation ACOs and the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus model.

While quality metrics for use of electronic medical records remain in MIPS in terms of supporting the exchange of patient information, many practitioners and private payors feel that MIPS should include telehealth activities as telemedicine can reduce costs of patient monitoring and improve patient access to care. But Medicare is very limited in how it can reimburse for telemedicine services. The lack of telemedicine quality measures in MIPS may spur adoption of federal legislation to expand Medicare’s telehealth payment policy.

Stay tuned. CMS will receive public comments on the final rule for 60 days.

For more information on telemedicine, including the risks and benefits for practitioners, please attend our “Hot Topics in Healthcare Law” 2016 Breakfast Series entitled “Expand Your Practice While Staying Within the Lines.”

By Nancy Johnson, Esq.

Many of you have been contacted by petitioners’ attorneys about their inability to obtain conditional payments over the past several months due to a revision in Medicare protocols and processes.  This article gives an overview of the changes to the process and we will provide more information as the full extent of the changes come to light.

Workers’ compensation carriers were required to report compensation claims to Medicare online since 2009 under Section 111 of the Medicare Act.   However, Medicare allowed both the petitioners’ attorneys and the carriers to seek conditional payment information by reporting a claim, providing proof of representation and utilizing the Medicare portal.  Conditional payments were coordinated through Medicare’s Benefit Coordination & Recovery Center (BCRC).

Medicare has now created a new entity to determine when it paid medical bills that should have been paid by a compensation carrier:  the Commercial Repayment Center (CRC).  This entity is responsible for seeking payment for recoveries initiated after October 1, 2015 while the BCRC will continue to handle open claims prior to that date.

The focus of the CRC is different:  rather than creating an itemization of payments and divulging it to the first party who requests it, the CRC will have direct contact with the carriers regarding obligations it believes they owe.

An overall description of the process is set forth at https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Coordination-of-Benefits-and-Recovery/InsurerServices/Insurer-NGHP-Recovery.html

The process indicates that when Medicare learns that a beneficiary has workers’ compensation insurance through a carrier report or a beneficiary report, it updates its records and then begins identifying claims it believes were paid based upon the type of injury or illness alleged.  The search will include claims from the date of injury forward.

The CRC will then issue a Conditional Payment Notice (CPN) to the carrier.  The notice will advise the carrier that certain actions must be taken within 30 days of the date on the notice or the CRC will automatically issue a demand for payment.  The notice will list all of the claims and advise the carrier how to dispute items that are not related to the case.  A courtesy copy will be sent to the beneficiary and his attorney.  If a carrier has designated a specific recovery agent, they will also receive a copy of the notice.

Note: If a beneficiary or his or her attorney or other representative reports a no-fault insurance or workers’ compensation situation before the carrier submits a Section 111 report, the CRC will send the carrier a Conditional Payment Letter (CPL). The CPL provides the same information as a CPN, but there is no specified response timeframe. When this occurs, the applicable plan is encouraged to respond to the CPL to notify the CRC if it does not have ongoing responsibility for medical treatment (ORM) and will not be reporting ORM through Section 111 reporting or if the applicable plan would like to dispute relatedness.

The carrier has 30 days to challenge the claims in the CPN.  The carrier may contact the CRC or use the portal to dispute the charges.

Medicare will then issue a demand for payment to the carrier and request reimbursement within 60 days of receipt of the letter.  If the CRC agrees that some items need to be removed, they are omitted from the demand letter.

The carrier then has 120 days from receipt of the demand letter to file an appeal.  It appears that when Medicare seeks recovery from a carrier, only the carrier has appeal rights.  The beneficiary cannot appeal.  An attorney or a vendor may act on behalf of a carrier (plan) with proof of representation. See https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Coordination-of-Benefits-and-Recovery/InsurerServices/Downloads/Appeal-Rights-for-Applicable-Plans.pdf.  Medicare has its own appeal process and it clearly states it is not required to establish causation to prove a debt. https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Coordination-of-Benefits-and-Recovery/InsurerServices/Downloads/Applicable-Plan-Appeals-Presentation.pdf

If no appeal is initiated, the carrier makes payment and the CRC will send a letter that the debt was resolved but that new claims may be demanded if the carrier is obligated to provide ongoing medical.

Interest accrues from the date of the demand letter and if the debt is not resolved within 60 days, the interest is applied every 30 days.  If the carrier fails to make payment, the matter is referred to the Department of Treasury for collection.

This new process imposes significant burdens on carriers as they will be expected to ensure all Medicare beneficiary claims are reported, scrutinize the demands for payment to verify which diagnosis codes are related to the claim and timely dispute them.  However, the Medicare website acknowledges that the carriers may retain vendors and agents to work out conditional payment obligations if an authorization is received that meets its specifications.  https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Coordination-of-Benefits-and-Recovery/InsurerServices/Downloads/2015-Insurer-Services-Whats-New-Archive.pdf

The exact nature of the process and the degree to which it excludes petitioners’ attorneys from acting on their clients’ behalf to resolve conditional payment issues is unknown at this point.  Many petitioners’ attorneys are frustrated because the Medicare offices are no longer allowing them to report workers’ compensation claims to initiate the conditional payment process.  They are being told by Medicare representatives that only the carrier can report and develop the case.  This appears contrary to the information on the CMS website that both a beneficiary and the carrier may report the claim to trigger the CRC to open a file, compile conditional payments and send them to the carrier for consideration for payment.  See https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Coordination-of-Benefits-and-Recovery/InsurerServices/Insurer-NGHP-Recovery.html

Another concern is whether outstanding conditional payments should hold up settlement of the underlying workers’ compensation case.  At a recent meeting of the New Jersey State Bar, there was no consensus how the conditional payment issue should be handled if a carrier fails to fulfill its obligations to communicate with the CRC and if the workers’ compensation settlement must be held up for resolution of the conditional payment process.  Some petitioners’ attorneys argued that they should be allowed to settle their claims without conditional payments being resolved since Medicare was not looking to the beneficiary for payment.  Other attorneys suggested that they will file motions for penalties if the carrier does not comply.  The Division of Workers’ Compensation does not yet have a formal policy and the State Bar Executive Committee proposed to present a seminar on the topic at the Mid Year Bar meeting in May 2016.

The impact upon resolution of New Jersey workers’ compensation cases is problematic.  Once can foresee serious complications in denied occupational claims where there may be multiple employers and carriers involved.  How will the CRC handle apportionment of liability and demands for payment amongst multiple employers and carriers involving the same petitioner?  The answer is anyone’s guess.  In addition, the settlement of the compensation case and the negotiation of the conditional payment obligations may be on two wholly separate timelines and the petitioners’ attorneys and judges are not going to want to delay resolution of the compensation matters.  However, settlement of the compensation case may prejudice the carrier since it will lose access to a motivated petitioner or petitioner’s attorney who may be needed to provide information to assist an appeal when liability for payments is disputed.

Capehart Blogs

Subscribe to Blog Updates

Categories