Tag Archives: MSA

CMS Issues NGHP User Guide Version 4.5; Reaffirms that Orders Contradicting the MSP will not receive Deference

heatherCMS has updated their User Guide for Non Group Health Plans. The update is dated February 2, 2015. The only update to the guide is the following:

The updates listed below have been made to the Policy Guidance Chapter Version 4.5 of the NGHP User Guide. As indicated on prior Section 111 NGHP Town Hall teleconferences, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) continue to review reporting requirements and will post any applicable updates in the form of revisions to Alerts and the User Guide as necessary.

The following update was made to Chapter III for this release: RREs generally are not required to report liability insurance (including self-insurance) or no-fault insurance settlements, judgments, awards or other payments where the date of incident (DOI) as defined by CMS was prior to December 5, 1980. For this release, new policy language was added to the following document: “Liability Insurance (Including Self-Insurance): Exposure, Ingestion, and Implantation Issues and December 5, 1980.” (Section 6.5)

  • Any operative amended complaint (or comparable supplemental pleading) must occur prior to the date of settlement, judgment, award, or other payment and must not have the effect of improperly shifting the burden to Medicare by amending the prior complaint(s) to remove any claim for medical damages, care, items and/or services, etc.
  • Where a complaint is amended by Court Order and that Order limits Medicare’s recovery claim based on the criteria contained in this alert, CMS will defer to the Order. CMS will not defer to Orders that contradict governing MSP policy, law, or regulation.

This information was provided in a previous August 19, 2014 CMS alert; therefore, it appears that CMS has simply incorporated that alert into the User Guide. However, it is noteworthy that CMS continues to point out it will not abide by court orders that contradict MSP policy, law, or regulation. Particularly in the liability context, this could certainly cause some anxiety for settling parties since without an official LMSA process, the courts are now often times issuing orders that no LMSA obligations remain. CMS could later look upon that court order and state that the order contradicted MSP regulations.

However, there are steps that parties can take to take into account Medicare’s interests and decrease the likelihood that CMS would find that the settlement/order contradicts MSP regulations. For example, in the recent liability case Berry v. Toyota Motor Sales (click here to read our blog on this case), the plaintiff was able to obtain opinions from its treating providers that no future medical treatment related to the claim would be needed. Since CMS has stated that if a treating physician certifies in writing that no future care is needed, no LMSA would be required, CMS would not later find that the order contradicted MSP policy in this case.

The fact that CMS has continued to reiterate its policy that it will not defer to court orders that contradict MSP policies and regulations should not come as a shock, and as previously stated, if parties take proactive steps to demonstrate the protection of Medicare’s interests, CMS would likely defer to the court’s decision on the matters relative to the MSP in the court order.

The new User Guide can be found here, and the August 19, 2014 alert can be found here. For questions, please contact heather.sanderson@helioscomp.com.

Pennsylvania Bankruptcy Court Finds MSA is a Trust, Allows Claimant to Keep Funds, Away from Creditors

Stethoscope and GavelOn January 5, 2015, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania published its opinion on In Re: Jesus Arellano, concluding that property traceable to a pre-bankruptcy petition lump sum workers’ compensation settlement award may be claimed as exempt resources. The court also finds that the WCMSA established a trust for the benefit of medical providers since the express intent of the settlement agreement was to create a fund to pay for medical treatments and prescription drugs related to the work-related injury. By finding that the WCMSA funds were to be held in trust for the benefit of providers of medical services related to the workers’ compensation claim, the court determines that the WCMSA is not property of the bankruptcy estate and may not be administered by the Bankruptcy Trustee for the benefit of creditors. Therefore, the court rules in favor of exempting all proceeds from the settlement agreement and all property acquired with these proceeds.

In 2010, Jesus Arellano (Debtor) sustained a broken hip at work in Maryland. Thereafter, he filed a workers’ compensation claim. On December 1, 2011, Debtor entered into a settlement agreement with his employer whereby Debtor would receive a lump sum payment of $225,000. In addition, $72,741.88 was paid to Debtor as a Medicare set aside for Debtor’s need for future treatment for his injuries.

In January 2012, Debtor deposited both the lump sum settlement and the Medicare set aside in his bank accounts. Debtor admitted that he used to funds to make several purchases – a 2005 Ford F-150 for $17,000, real property located at 3587 Cannon Lane, York PA 17408 for $85,000, and real property located at 3887 Cannon Lane, York PA 17408  for $86,000. On November 1, 2012 Debtor sold the 3887 Property to his brother through an installment agreement for $90,000. Under the terms of the sale, Debtor’s brother is obligated to make payments of $1200 per month, which includes principal and interest at 5.5 percent, until the balance is paid in full in June 2020.

Debtor filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition on March 8, 2014, claiming as exemptions  the 3587 Property, the 3887 Property, funds in 2 checking accounts established from Debtor’s workers compensation pay-out, and the Ford F-150 under 11 U.S.C. §522(d)(11)(E).

On April 30, 2014, the Trustee filed an objection to Debtor’s exemption claim asserting that §522(d)(11)(E) did not authorize Debtor to exempt property that was the proceeds of a workers’ compensation claim. On May 22, 2014, Debtor responded to the Trustee’s objection asserting that the property could be exempted under §522(d)(11)(E) and that the property claimed was reasonably necessary for Debtor and his dependents.

A hearing on the Trustee’s objection was held on September 25, 2014, at which time the issues were identified as follows: 1) whether funds or property traceable to the proceeds of a lump sum workers’ compensation settlement received prepetition may be claimed as exempt under §522(d)(11)(E); and 2) if the funds and property may be exempted, whether they are necessary for the support of Debtor and his dependents.

The Trustee based his objection on a decision rendered in 2001 by Judge Thomas in the case of In re Michael, 262 B.R. 296 (Bankr. M.D. Pa. 2001). The facts in In re Michael are similar to the facts here. The debtor received a lump-sum settlement after sustaining a work-related injury prior to filing his bankruptcy petition. On his schedule of exemptions, the debtor listed the proceeds of the settlement as exempt under 11 U.S.C. §522(d)(11)(E). Judge Thomas upheld the trustee’s objection to the exemption claim holding that workers’ compensation claims could not be exempted under §522(d)(11)(E), but must be exempted under §522(d)(10)(C). Judge Thomas cited the analysis of the court in In re Williams, 181 B.R. 298 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1995), and adopted the majority view that “workmen’s compensation awards, and the tracing of those awards into certain specific items, are beyond the scope of 11 U.S.C. §522(d)(11)(E).”

To avoid the injustice of finding that workers’ compensation awards paid in installments could be exempted, but those received in a lump sum could not, the bankruptcy court in In re Sanchez, 362 B.R. 342 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2007) decided to give the issue a fresh look. In Sanchez, Judge Hopkins looked at the plain meaning of the statute and concluded that workers’ compensation awards may be exempted under §522(d)(11)(E) if the award is traceable to a payment that is intended to compensate the debtor for the loss of future earnings and is reasonably necessary for the support of the debtor or the debtor’s dependents.

The court here agrees with the conclusion of the Sanchez court that §522(d)(11)(E) unambiguously exempts “a payment in compensation of loss of future earnings of the debtor,” including lump sum workers’ compensation payments, without restricting such payment to tort-type actions. The court therefore concludes that §522(d)(11)(E) provides a basis upon which property traceable to a pre-petition lump sum workers’ compensation settlement awarded for the loss of future earnings to the extent that the lump sum is reasonably necessary for the support of a debtor and the dependents of a debtor may be claimed as exempt.

In addition, part of Debtor’s workers’ compensation settlement was a Medicare “set aside” (WCMSA) payment. WCMSA 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, illness, or disease.” The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services provides that a claimant “can ONLY use a WCMSA to pay for medical treatment or prescription drugs related to his or her workers compensation injury, and ONLY if the expense is for a treatment or prescription Medicare would cover. This is true even if he or she is not yet a Medicare beneficiary.”

The court therefore concludes that the WCMSA provided as a result of Debtor’s settlement agreement established a trust for the benefit of medical providers. The express intent of the settlement agreement was to create a fund from which Debtor was to pay for his medical treatments and prescription drugs related to his work-related injury. Even though the agreement did not specifically state that Debtor is to hold the funds as trustee for the benefit of his medical providers, no such words are needed in order to create an express trust. The subject matter of the trust is the WCMSA of $72,741.88. The parties to the settlement agreement were competent to create the trust, Debtor was capable of holding the funds as trustee, and entities providing medical services to Debtor were named beneficiaries of the trust. Thus, all the requirements necessary to create a trust have been met in the settlement agreement.

By finding that the WCMSA payment was to be held in trust for the benefit of providers of medical services related to Debtor’s workers’ compensation claim, the court finds that the WCMSA is not property of Debtor’s bankruptcy estate and, as such, may not be administered by the Trustee for the benefit of creditors. The court therefore rules Trustee’s objection to Debtor’s exemptions under 11 U.S.C. §522(d)(11)(E) is overruled.

Does this case open up any liability for payers? If, in fact, MSAs are a trust for the benefit of medical and prescription providers, doesn’t the trustor, the payer funding the trust, have a fiduciary responsibility to the medical and prescription vendors providing such benefits/services? If a medical or prescription vendor provides benefits/services to the claimant, but the MSA trustee is unable to pay because funds were misused, does the medical or prescription vendor have a cause of action against the trustor, the original primary payer? At Helios, because of our extensive national resources and country-wide market strength in pharmacy, medical services, and durable equipment, our MSP compliance products, specifically our MSA professional administration services, not only take this potential liability into account, but solves it. Contact us to find out how.

Louisiana Appellate Court Agrees Claimant Committed Fraud, Forfeits All Future Benefits, Including Medicare Set Aside Annual Structured Funds

Stethoscope and GavelOn December 23, 2014, the Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1st Circuit, published its opinion on Shropshire v. Anco Installation, finding that because claimant deliberately misrepresented the facts of his settlement negotiations for the purpose of obtaining additional benefits, all workers’ compensation benefits, including future settlement monies and Medicare set aside funds, are forfeited.

Mr. Shropshire was employed by ANCO. He alleged he suffered permanent injuries in an accident on October 23, 1998, while in the course and scope of his employment with ANCO. ANCO disputed whether an accident occurred and whether Mr. Shropshire was unable to perform the duties of his occupation.

In June 2010, Shropshire, ANCO and its workers’ compensation insurer entered into a compromise agreement, “Joint Petition for Authority to Compromise Workmen’s Compensation Claim.” The Order of Approval was signed by the workers’ compensation judge (“WCJ”) on June 25, 2010. The documents included language that recited Mr. Shropshire was to receive $5,381.00 per month for twenty-six years “to settle the future medical aspect part of the claim.” Other documents however reflected that the payment was to be $5,381.00 per year, not monthly.

Neither ANCO nor its insurer ever paid Mr. Shropshire $5,381.00. In July 2012, Mr. Shropshire filed a Form 1008 Disputed Claim for Compensation with the OWC seeking a monthly payment, to which he alleged he was entitled. ANCO and its insurer answered, asserting that the payment of $5,381.00 per month was a typographical error and that the Order should be amended to reflect payments due of $5,381.00 per year.

The matter came for hearing before the OWC in February 2014. The WCJ found the payments per month to be a typographical error and amended the Order of Approval to substitute the word “annually” in place of the word “monthly” everywhere the word “monthly” appeared in the settlement agreement and Order of Approval dated June 25, 2010. The WCJ also held that Mr. Shropshire willfully made false statements and representations for the purpose of obtaining additional benefits, in violation of La. R.S. 23:1208. Accordingly, the WCJ voided the annuity set up to pay the settlement and relieved third parties and their assignees from further obligation to pay Mr. Shropshire.

The WCJ addressed two issues at the trial on the merits: (1) the amendment of the Order of Approval judgment due to a typographical error; and (2) fraud pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1208.

First, the WCJ had to decide whether the settlement agreement and Order of Approval contained a typographical error; that is, whether the structured payments for Mr. Shropshire’s medical benefits were to be made monthly or annually. After hearing from the witnesses and considering the documentary evidence in the record, the WCJ held that “considering all the evidence, especially the Medicare Set Aside information, and the testimony of the witnesses, it was clear to the Court there was an error in the settlement documents and the payments were agreed to be paid annually, not monthly.”

The WCJ, pursuant to La.C.C.P. art. 1951, which provides that a modification of a judgment can be made at any time to alter the phraseology of the judgment, but not the substance, or to correct an error of calculation, amended the June 25, 2010 settlement agreement and Order of Approval to substitute the word “annually” in place of the word “monthly” everywhere the word “monthly” appeared in those documents. This court concludes it is unable to say the WCJ erred in determining the settlement agreement and Order of Approval contained typographical errors, as the WCJ’s ruling is reasonable and supported by the record.

Next, the WCJ had to decide whether Mr. Shropshire committed fraud pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1208. Section 1208 forbids any person from willfully making false statements or representations to obtain workers’ compensation benefits. La. R.S. 23:1208(A). Upon a determination of fraud by a WCJ, a person in violation of Section 1208 forfeits any right to workers’ compensation benefits. La. R.S. 23:1208(£). To this extent, the WCJ found “Mr. Shropshire’s testimony totally unbelievable, failing to contain any element of truth in this regard. The Court was clearly convinced Mr. Shropshire fabricated the story about an additional settlement negotiated between him and Mr. Maher for the purpose of obtaining benefits clearly unsupported by any other documentation. Mr. Shropshire attempted to convince the Court his deposition testimony was falsely transcribed as well.”

As a result, the WCJ found he deliberately misrepresented the facts of his settlement negations for the purpose of obtaining additional benefits, as it was very clear from the medical records, all records surrounding the settlement negotiations, including a notation in Mr. Shropshire’s own handwriting, as well as Mr. Maher’s testimony, he would never have remotely been entitled to $5,000 a month in medical expenses. Due to Mr. Shropshire’s deliberate misrepresentation of the settlement negotiations, the WCJ concluded all workers’ compensation benefits were forfeited from the date of the deposition, August 13, 2013 forward.

Based on the record, the Court here is unable to say the WCJ erred in determining that Mr. Shropshire committed fraud pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1208, as the WCJ’s ruling is reasonable and supported by the record. As a result, based on the foregoing, the February 24, 2014 final judgment of the Office of Workers’ Compensation is affirmed.

As this case clearly shows, Medicare Set-Aside work is not done simply because the parties have settled the case and funds have been disbursed. At Helios, given our superior medical, pharmacy, claims, and legal expertise, MSA post-settlement work not only includes professional administration of MSA account funds, or assisting the Medicare beneficiary with self administration, but also includes post-settlement legal issues, billing disputes, fee schedule discrepancies, annual accounting to CMS, temporary and permanent exhaustion of MSA funds, and assistance with any remaining funds in the MSA account after claimant’s death.

CMS Publishes WCMSA Reference Guide Version 2.3

ColumnsOn March 29, 2013, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) published its first Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set-Aside Arrangement (WCMSA) Reference Guide to “help stakeholders understand the process used by CMS for approving proposed WCMSA amounts and to serve as a reference for those choosing to submit such amounts to CMS for approval, including injured workers, employers, carriers, their attorneys, WCMSA agents or consultants, or other appointed representatives.” The WCMSA Reference Guide contains information compiled from all WCMSA Regional Office (RO) Memorandums issued by CMS, from information provided on the CMS website, from information provided by the Workers Compensation Review Contractor (WCRC), and from the CMS WCMSA Operating Rules.

On November 6, 2013, the WCMS Reference Guide was updated, adding material from the 4/11/2013 WCRC Town Hall presentation and the Operating Rules. On February 3, 2014, the Reference Guide was amended again, this time adding branding changes for the Benefits Coordination & Recovery Center (BCRC) transition. On April 24, 2014, section 4.1.4 on Hearing on the Merits of the Case was added, indicating that when a state WC judge approves a WC settlement after a hearing on the merits, Medicare will generally accept the terms of the settlement, unless the settlement does not adequately address Medicare’s interests.

On January 5, 2015, CMS published its latest edition of the WCMSA Reference Guide. Version 2.3 of the Guide includes the following changes:

  • Updated language to correspond with recent changes to letters.
  • 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 to schedule II.
  • Changed deadline for responding to development requests for submission through the WCMSA Portal to 20 from the previous 10 days.


Hydrocodone Combination Products

Hydrocodone combination products were reclassified effective October 2014 from C-III controlled substances to C-II controlled substances. Normally, C-IIIs require a new prescription after five refills or after six months, whichever occurs first. C-IIs require new prescriptions at intervals 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. WCMSA guidelines changed on January 1, 2015 for all new cases submitted after that date to allocate 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. WCMSA Reference Guide Section

Development Requests Submitted via the WCMSA Portal

During its review, the WCRC may need to develop the case for additional information or documentation. If the submitter does not respond to the development letter within the allotted time frame (i.e., 30 days for cases submitted to the BCRC, 20 business days for cases submitted on the WCMSAP), the case is closed for lack of response. If the submitter does respond, but the response is insufficient, another request may be sent to the submitter. If more than one development request has been sent, the timestamp of the most recent request will be used to calculate the response time frame. WCMSA Reference Guide Section 9.4.1

As always, Helios Settlement Solutions will continue to monitor these changes and report on any effects or ramifications pertaining to same.

29106aeRafael Gonzalez is Vice President of Strategic Solutions at Helios. With over 25 years of experience in the workers compensation, liability, Medicare and Medicaid industry, Rafael serves as thought leader on all aspects of Medicare and Medicaid compliance, including mandatory reporting, conditional payments, and set asides. You may contact Rafael at rafael.gonzalez@helioscomp.com or 813.612.5592.

Helios is the new name for Progressive Medical and PMSI. Whether pharmacy, critical care, or settlement solutions, including mandatory reporting, conditional payments, or set aside allocations, approval, and administration, to learn how our creative and innovative tools, expertise, and industry leadership can help your business shine, visit www.firstfilltosettlement.com or call 800.777.3574.