LIENS
Welcome to Synergy’s blog page dedicated to the topic of lien resolution. Our team of subrogation experts share their InSights and knowledge on the latest developments and best practices in lien resolution. Stay up-to-date with the latest trends and strategies to ensure that you have the information you need to navigate the complexities of lien resolution.
Every ERISA lien negotiation begins with the same critical question: Is this plan self-funded or fully insured?
Get this right, and you know exactly what legal framework applies. Get it wrong, and you could be leaving tens of thousands of dollars on the table, or worse, fighting battles you’ve already lost.
This distinction is the single most important factor in determining your ERISA lien strategy. Here’s why it matters and how to make the determination correctly.
Understanding the Two Funding Models
Self-Funded Plans
A self-funded plan (also called self-insured) is funded directly by contributions from the employer and employees. The employer assumes the financial risk for providing health care benefits. While employers often hire third-party administrators (TPAs) to process claims, the employer itself pays the claims from its own assets.
For lien resolution purposes, self-funded plans present the most challenging scenario:
- ERISA preempts state law completely
- The McCutchen decision applies, meaning plan language controls
- If the plan explicitly disclaims made-whole and common fund doctrines, those defenses are unavailable
- Recovery vendors like Rawlings and Conduent are aggressive because they know the law favors the plan
Fully Insured Plans
A fully insured plan is funded through purchased insurance coverage. The employer pays premiums to an insurance company, which assumes the financial risk and pays claims. The insurance company, not the employer, bears the risk of high claims.
For lien resolution, fully insured plans offer significantly more flexibility:
- State law subrogation statutes may apply
- Common law equitable principles remain available
- Made-whole doctrine may apply regardless of plan language
- State anti-subrogation laws or caps may limit recovery
Why Recovery Vendors Don’t Always Get This Right
Here’s something important to understand: recovery vendors like Rawlings, Conduent, and Trover often represent both self-funded employer plans and fully insured carriers. Their default approach is aggressive regardless of funding status.
They issue demands citing McCutchen and ERISA preemption even when the plan may be fully insured. Why? Because most attorneys don’t verify funding status. They accept the vendor’s characterization and negotiate within that framework.
We’ve seen cases where a fully insured plan was treated as self-funded throughout the entire negotiation. The attorney got what they thought was a good reduction, only to learn later that state law would have provided far better results.
How to Determine Funding Status
The only reliable way to determine funding status is by reviewing the actual plan documents. Specifically, you need:
The Summary Plan Description (SPD)
The SPD is a participant-facing document required by ERISA to communicate plan terms in understandable language. It typically contains a section describing how the plan is funded. Look for language indicating whether benefits are paid from employer assets or through an insurance contract.
The Master Plan Document (MPD)
The MPD is the governing contract that defines the plan’s structure, including funding arrangements. This document provides the definitive answer on funding status. It will specify whether the plan is funded through employer contributions (self-funded) or through an insurance policy (fully insured).
Form 5500 Annual Report
The Form 5500 is filed annually with the Department of Labor. Schedule A of this form lists insurance contracts. If there’s no Schedule A or it shows only stop-loss coverage, the plan is likely self-funded. If Schedule A shows a comprehensive health insurance policy, the plan is likely fully insured.
Getting the Documents: The 1024(b)(4) Request
Under 29 U.S.C. § 1024(b)(4), plan administrators must provide these documents upon written request by a participant or beneficiary. The request should go directly to the plan administrator, not to the recovery vendor or TPA.
Key points about the 1024(b)(4) request:
- The plan administrator has 30 days to comply
- Non-compliance triggers penalties of up to $110 per day
- Courts have imposed substantial penalty awards (in some cases exceeding $100,000)
- These penalties create independent negotiating leverage
What to Look for in the Documents
Once you have the plan documents, look for these specific indicators:
Signs of a Self-Funded Plan:
- Language stating benefits are paid from employer general assets or a trust funded by the employer
- Reference to stop-loss or reinsurance coverage (this protects the employer from catastrophic claims but doesn’t change self-funded status)
- Plan administrator is the employer or an employer committee
- No insurance contract listed on Form 5500 Schedule A
Signs of a Fully Insured Plan:
- Language stating benefits are provided through an insurance policy
- Insurance company named as claims fiduciary
- Group insurance contract referenced in plan documents
- Form 5500 Schedule A shows comprehensive health insurance policy
Strategic Implications by Funding Type
If Self-Funded:
Your strategy must focus on plan language analysis. Look for gaps in the reimbursement provisions, ambiguities that can be construed against the drafter, and any failure to explicitly disclaim equitable defenses. Use 1024(b)(4) non-compliance penalties as leverage. Consider settlement allocation strategies to limit the lien’s reach.
If Fully Insured:
Research your state’s subrogation laws immediately. Many states have anti-subrogation statutes, made-whole requirements, or caps on recovery. Common law equitable doctrines apply regardless of plan language. You have significantly more leverage than the recovery vendor’s demand letter suggests.
The Bottom Line
Never accept a recovery vendor’s characterization of funding status at face value. Always verify by obtaining and reviewing the actual plan documents.
The 15 minutes it takes to send a 1024(b)(4) request could save your client tens of thousands of dollars, and protect you from leaving money on the table in negotiations.
At Synergy, determining funding status is step one in every ERISA lien analysis we perform. We’ve seen too many cases where the answer changed everything.
Download the ERISA Plan Funding Status Checklist
Download the Determining ERISA Plan Funding Status White Paper
Schedule a Free Case Review
If your personal injury client has employer-sponsored health insurance, you’re almost certainly dealing with ERISA. And if you’re not prepared for what that means, you could be leaving significant money on the table or, worse, exposing your firm to liability.
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 governs nearly all employer health plans in the United States. The primary exceptions are government employer plans governed by FEHBA and state government or church plans governed by state law. For everyone else, ERISA applies.
And here’s what makes ERISA liens different from other healthcare liens: the plan’s written terms control almost everything.
The McCutchen Decision Changed the Game
In 2013, the Supreme Court’s decision in US Airways v. McCutchen fundamentally shifted the landscape of ERISA lien resolution. The Court held that in a section 502(a)(3) action based on an equitable lien by agreement, the ERISA plan’s terms govern.
What does this mean in practice? Traditional equitable defenses like “made whole” and “common fund” cannot override clear plan language. If the plan explicitly disclaims these doctrines, they don’t apply, period.
Recovery vendors know this. In its post-McCutchen memo, Rawlings stated that “general principles of unjust enrichment and equitable doctrines reflecting those principles cannot override an applicable ERISA plan contract.” They’re not wrong.
Self-Funded vs. Fully Insured: The Threshold Question
The first question you must answer with any ERISA lien is whether the plan is self-funded or fully insured.
Self-funded plans are funded by contributions from the employer and employee. ERISA preempts state law, and you’re fighting under McCutchen rules.
Fully insured plans are funded through purchased insurance coverage. These plans may be subject to state law subrogation statutes or general equitable principles under common law, giving you more room to negotiate.
How do you determine funding status? By reviewing the Summary Plan Description and the Master Plan Document. And how do you get those documents? Through a 1024(b)(4) request, a powerful tool that too many attorneys overlook.
The 1024(b)(4) Request: Your Best Leverage
Under 29 U.S.C. § 1024(b)(4), an ERISA plan administrator must provide specific documents upon written request by a participant or beneficiary. These include the Summary Plan Description, annual report, and the formal Plan Document itself.
Here’s where it gets interesting: if the plan administrator doesn’t comply within thirty days, they face penalties of up to $110 per day for each day of noncompliance. Courts have imposed these penalties.
This matters for two reasons:
- You need the actual plan documents to assess the strength of their claim
- Non-compliance penalties create negotiating leverage for lien reduction
Post-McCutchen Strategies That Still Work
McCutchen was a tough pill for plaintiffs, but it didn’t eliminate all avenues for lien reduction. Here’s what still works:
Examine the plan language carefully. Look for ambiguities in reimbursement or subrogation clauses. If the plan hasn’t explicitly disclaimed made whole or common fund, those doctrines may still apply.
Use 1024(b)(4) penalties as leverage. When plan administrators fail to comply with document requests, penalties accrue. This creates direct negotiating leverage.
Know Montanile. The Supreme Court held in 2016 that if a participant dissipates settlement proceeds before suit is filed, the plan cannot recover from general assets. Plans must pursue specifically traceable funds while they remain in the beneficiary’s possession.
Know Your Adversary
In most ERISA lien matters, you’re not negotiating with the plan itself. You’re dealing with recovery vendors like Rawlings, Conduent, or Trover. These are large, sophisticated companies with one goal: maximum recovery. They’re paid based on what they collect.
These vendors often issue aggressive demands designed to create urgency before you’ve reviewed the plan documents. They may claim you can’t contact the plan administrator directly. They may admit they don’t even have the governing plan documents.
Don’t be intimidated. You have rights under federal law, and properly exercised, those rights create leverage.
The Bottom Line
ERISA liens require expertise. The law is “comprehensive and reticulated,” as courts have described it. Getting it wrong means leaving money on the table for your clients or, worse, facing malpractice exposure.
The key steps:
- Determine if the plan is ERISA-governed
- Identify whether it’s self-funded or fully insured
- Send 1024(b)(4) requests early and directly to the plan administrator
- Analyze plan language for gaps in reimbursement provisions
- Use every available tool to negotiate the best outcome
At Synergy, we resolve thousands of ERISA liens annually. We know the pressure points, the strategies that work, and how to protect your clients’ recoveries. If you want to go deeper on ERISA lien resolution, download our comprehensive white paper or reach out for a free case consultation.
Download the ERISA Lien Resolution White Paper
Schedule a Free Case Review
If your client is on Medicaid and settles a personal injury case, you will almost always face a Medicaid lien. How you handle that lien directly affects your client’s net recovery, your professional liability, and your firm’s reputation. Yet many firms treat Medicaid lien resolution as an afterthought, and this is a costly mistake.
This post breaks down the federal framework, the three U.S. Supreme Court decisions controlling the analysis, and the practical steps you need to take to protect your clients.
How Medicaid Liens Work
Every state participating in the joint federal-state Medicaid program is required under Title XIX of the Social Security Act to have “third party liability” provisions. These provisions empower the state to seek reimbursement from liable third parties for injury-related medical costs paid on behalf of a Medicaid recipient.
Here is how this works in practice. When your client receives Medicaid-funded medical treatment for injuries caused by a third party, the state Medicaid agency acquires the right to recover those payments from any settlement, judgment, or award. Federal law at 42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(25)(H) says the state is “considered to have acquired the rights of such individual to payment by any other party for such health care items or services.”
Your client, as a condition of Medicaid eligibility, has already assigned to the state the right to recover medical care payments from third parties. This assignment happens automatically. You do not need to consent, and your client has no ability to opt out.
The Federal Anti-Lien Statute: A Critical Limit
Federal law gives states recovery rights, but also imposes limits. The federal anti-lien statute at 42 U.S.C. 1396p(a)(1) prohibits any lien against a Medicaid recipient’s property prior to death on account of medical assistance paid. The federal anti-recovery statute at 1396p(b)(1) bars any adjustment or recovery of correctly paid medical assistance.
These two provisions create a tension with the third-party liability recovery statutes. The U.S. Supreme Court has addressed this tension three times over the past two decades, and each decision shapes how you resolve Medicaid liens today.
Ahlborn (2006): States Cannot Touch Non-Medical Damages
The first major decision came in Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services v. Ahlborn, 547 U.S. 268 (2006). Heidi Ahlborn was 19 years old when a car accident left her with a catastrophic brain injury. Medicaid paid $215,645.30 for her care. Her total damages were valued at approximately $3 million, but the case settled for roughly one-sixth of that amount.
Arkansas claimed the full $215,645.30 from the settlement. Ahlborn argued the state was entitled to recover only the portion of the settlement attributable to medical expenses.
The Supreme Court sided with Ahlborn unanimously. The Court held federal law authorizing state recovery from tort settlements is limited to the medical expense portion of a recovery. States are prohibited from forcing an assignment of, or placing a lien on, non-medical damages like pain and suffering, lost wages, or any other category beyond medical care.
For your practice, this means the state’s Medicaid lien does not attach to the entire settlement. The lien attaches only to the portion representing medical expenses.
The Pro-Rata Reduction Method
The Ahlborn decision gave rise to what is now called the “pro-rata” method for reducing Medicaid liens. The math works like this. If your client’s total damages are valued at $1 million and the case settles for $250,000, the settlement represents 25% of the total claim value. You apply that same 25% to the Medicaid lien to determine the state’s recovery.
The California Supreme Court confirmed this approach in Bolanos v. Superior Court, 87 Cal. Rptr. 3d 744 (2008). The court noted the U.S. Supreme Court’s approval of this formula in Ahlborn produced a “reliable result.”
This is one of the most effective tools you have for reducing a Medicaid lien. The key is building a strong total damages valuation. The higher the provable total damages relative to the settlement amount, the greater the reduction in the lien.
Wos (2013): No Arbitrary Allocation Formulas
After Ahlborn, some states revised their statutes and tried to set fixed percentages for recovery. North Carolina passed a law requiring up to one-third of any recovery be paid to Medicaid. No individualized allocation. No opportunity for the beneficiary to challenge the allocation.
The Supreme Court struck this down in Wos v. E.M.A., 133 S. Ct. 1391 (2013), in a 6-3 decision. The Court held North Carolina’s one-third formula was incompatible with federal law, which bars a state from demanding any portion of a beneficiary’s tort recovery except the share attributable to medical expenses.
The Court made two things clear. First, states are barred from using arbitrary, one-size-fits-all allocation formulas. Second, states must provide some procedure for beneficiaries to challenge the default allocation.
The Wos decision also reinforced: when a judicial finding, court decree, or stipulation allocates a settlement between medical and non-medical damages, the allocation controls. The anti-lien provision protects the non-medical portion.
Gallardo (2022): Future Medical Damages Are Now Fair Game
The most recent Supreme Court decision expanded the state’s recovery reach. In Gallardo v. Marstiller, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), the Court ruled 7-2: Florida Medicaid was permitted to recover its lien from all medical damages in a settlement, both past and future.
Before Gallardo, many practitioners read Ahlborn as limiting state recovery to past medical expenses only. The Gallardo decision changed this reading. The Court held the Medicaid Act’s assignment provisions require beneficiaries to assign rights to payment for medical care from third parties, and “medical care” includes future medical costs, not only those already paid by Medicaid.
This matters for your cases. When you do an Ahlborn pro-rata analysis after Gallardo, the denominator now includes both past and future medical damages. In cases with large life care plans, the lien reduction you expected before Gallardo will be smaller, or will disappear entirely.
Justice Sotomayor’s dissent raised the real-world consequence: injured clients will have fewer dollars available to fund special needs trusts protecting their eligibility for benefits Medicaid does not cover. The concern is valid, making your damages valuation work more important than ever.
What This Means for Your Practice
You need to apply the principles from all three decisions, Ahlborn, Wos, and Gallardo, to your state’s specific third-party liability recovery provisions. Every state’s statute is different, and the procedural requirements for challenging or allocating liens vary.
Here are the steps worth focusing on:
- Build a strong total damages valuation early. The pro-rata reduction is only as effective as your ability to prove the full value of your client’s claim. Document all categories of damages thoroughly, including non-economic damages. This valuation is your primary tool for reducing the lien.
- Know your state’s allocation procedures. After Wos, states must offer some mechanism for beneficiaries to challenge a default allocation. Some states have formal administrative processes. Others require court involvement. Learn the specific requirements in your jurisdiction before settlement.
- Account for future medical damages. After Gallardo, the state’s recovery interest reaches into future medical expenses as part of the settlement. When building your damages model, give proper weight and documentation to non-economic damages. The higher the supportable value of non-economic damages relative to total damages, the better the pro-rata reduction.
- Identify the Medicaid lien early. Contact the state Medicaid agency at the start of the case. Request periodic updates on Medicaid payments throughout the litigation. Liens discovered after settlement create leverage problems and delay disbursement.
- Audit the lien carefully. Verify every charge on the Medicaid lien. Confirm each item relates to the injury at issue. Challenge charges that are unrelated or unsupported. This verification step alone often reduces the lien amount before you even get to the pro-rata analysis.
Why This Matters to Your Clients
Medicaid lien resolution directly controls how much of the settlement your client takes home. A poorly resolved lien eats into the recovery your client worked years to obtain. A well-resolved lien protects their financial interests and preserves funds for future care needs.
Clients who see too much of their settlement go to lien repayment leave frustrated and dissatisfied. That dissatisfaction affects your reputation and referral pipeline. Getting this right is good lawyering and good business.
The legal framework for Medicaid liens is complex, but the core principles are straightforward. States are limited to recovering from the medical expense portion of a settlement. The pro-rata method is your primary tool for reduction. And after Gallardo, future medical damages are part of the equation.
Synergy’s team resolves Medicaid liens across all 50 states, applying the Ahlborn, Wos, and Gallardo frameworks to protect client recoveries. If your firm handles personal injury cases involving Medicaid beneficiaries, getting expert support on lien resolution is one of the highest-value investments you will make.
Learn more at www.PartnerWithSynergy.com
Written by: Teresa Kenyon | Vice President of Lien Resolution at Synergy & Kevin James | Lien Resolution Strategy Coach at Synergy
When a Medicare Final Demand arrives in the mail or your inbox, the clock starts ticking. Under the Medicare Secondary Payer recovery process, payment must be made within 60 days of the Final Demand letter to avoid interest on the outstanding balance. For many personal injury firms, that deadline creates urgency. If payment is not made within that window, the debt becomes delinquent and interest begins accruing. 150 days after the Final Demand is issued, continued non-payment can trigger additional collection efforts, including referral of the debt to the U.S. Department of the Treasury for collection actions.
Once the Final Demand is issued, attorneys have two potential paths:
- The Appeals Route
The traditional route is the Medicare administrative appeals process. Appeals move through multiple administrative levels before federal court review is even available, which can take months or years. Meanwhile, interest can continue to accrue on unpaid balances if the demand is not satisfied. For many cases, this path is impractical.
- The Post-Payment Relief Route
The alternative strategy is to pay the Final Demand and then pursue post-payment relief through waiver or compromise requests. These requests focus less on technical billing disputes and more on equitable considerations, such as hardship, collectability, or fairness in the recovery process.
For many attorneys, the Final Demand feels like the end of the Medicare process. It shouldn’t be. In reality, it can be the beginning of an opportunity to improve the client’s financial outcome through the compromise/waiver process.
The Overlooked Strategy
A key point many attorneys miss is this:
A Final Demand does not necessarily mean Medicare’s recovery amount is final. You can still request a Medicare compromise or waiver after the Final Demand is paid.
In fact, many practitioners intentionally pay the Final Demand within the 60-day window first to stop interest exposure and protect the firm and client from enforcement risk. Once payment is made, a compromise or waiver request can be submitted.
Here’s the strategy:
Step 1: Pay the Final Demand within 60 days to stop interest and eliminate enforcement risk.
Step 2: Submit a post-payment compromise or waiver request.
Step 3: If approved, Medicare refunds part of what you paid.
The Result: A Possible Refund to Your Client!
Three Legal Paths to Reduce Medicare’s Claim
Once the Final Demand has been paid, there are three primary legal avenues to request a reduction of Medicare’s recovery amount. Not all cases will meet the criteria but nonetheless should be considered as a possibility.
- Financial Hardship Waiver
Authority: Section 1870(c) of the Social Security Act
These requests are typically reviewed through Medicare’s recovery contractor, BCRC and apply when repayment would create financial hardship for the beneficiary.
- Best Interest of the Program Waiver
Authority: Section 1862(b) of the Social Security Act
CMS may waive repayment when doing so is determined to be in the best interest of the Medicare program. These decisions are discretionary and are often based on broader policy or fairness considerations.
- Federal Claims Collection Act Compromise
Under the Federal Claims Collection Act, the federal government has authority to compromise claims for less than the full amount owed when collection of the full debt may be difficult or inefficient.
Compromise requests often focus on:
- Collectability of the debt
- Litigation risk
- The cost of pursuing full recovery
In many cases, multiple reduction paths can be pursued simultaneously, increasing the chances that Medicare will reduce the claim. If approved, Medicare will issue a refund of part or all of the amount previously paid.
Why You Should Be Using This Strategy
For the injured party, Medicare reimbursement can feel confusing and frustrating. After waiting months or years for their settlement, they often see a significant portion of the recovery earmarked for lien repayment. This is especially so for cases where there are liability issues; high medical expenses; or significant Medicare payments.
Medicare’s repayment formula can dramatically reduce the client’s net recovery. Post-payment waiver and compromise requests provide a second chance to improve the outcome. For the injured party, that refund can make the difference between a disappointing result and a settlement that actually helps them move forward.
Where This Fits in Modern Lien Resolution
Healthcare lien resolution is becoming more technical and more aggressive. Medicare, in particular, operates under the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) statute, which gives the government strong enforcement tools and significant resources to pursue repayment when another party is responsible for medical costs. Because of this, firms must balance two priorities:
- Strict Medicare compliance
- Maximizing the client’s net recovery
Post-payment waiver and compromise requests accomplish both. They allow your firm to:
- Stop interest and enforcement risk
- Maintain compliance with MSP obligations
- Pursue additional reductions after payment
Adding this step to your lien resolution workflow is a simple change with potentially significant impact.
Bottom Line
You do not have to choose between Medicare compliance and maximizing your client’s recovery. The strategy is straightforward:
- Pay the Final Demand within 60 days.
- Assess the likelihood of a successful result and if so, submit waiver and compromise requests after payment.
- Seek a refund that increases the client’s net settlement.
For personal injury firms handling Medicare liens, this post-payment strategy can protect your practice, strengthen client relationships, and deliver better outcomes. If you are not considering this approach yet, you may be leaving meaningful value on the table for both your clients and your firm.
Synergy’s team of experts assists with these strategies every day. In the last 12 months, we have a 73% success rate with compromise/waiver requests and an average refund of over $26k. If you aren’t achieving this kind of success rate, partner with Synergy for Medicare compliance and let us secure a compromise/waiver for your client.
Written by: Teresa Kenyon | Vice President of Lien Resolution at Synergy & Jasmine Patel | Medicare Lien Resolution Specialist
Medicare compliance sits at the center of modern personal injury practice operations. Trial lawyers and paralegals face real exposure when Medicare interests go unaddressed or get handled incorrectly. The risk is not abstract. Medicare can assert direct recovery rights, including against plaintiff personal injury firms, with double damages on the table under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act. Building a repeatable Medicare compliance framework inside a personal injury firm protects client recoveries and shields the practice from avoidable liability. The guidance below follows the Total Medicare Compliance framework developed and used by Synergy in daily practice
Why Medicare compliance belongs in firm operations
Medicare compliance is not a closing checklist item. Medicare tracking starts early, often before settlement discussions begin. Mandatory Insurer Reporting and expanding data analytics that results means Medicare identifies settlements quickly. When firms rely on informal processes or wait until funds arrive, mistakes can accumulate. Interest accrues, final demands go unpaid, and files lack documentation to defend decisions later.
A structured compliance process gives a person injury firm control. It replaces reactive problem solving with deliberate planning tied to each stage of the case. Here is a usable framework for firms handling cases on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries.
Step one. Identify Medicare status early and consistently
Every Medicare compliance program starts with identification. Your intake and case review procedures should screen for current Medicare beneficiaries. It is also a good idea to screen for those with a reasonable expectation of Medicare eligibility within thirty months. This group includes clients on SSDI, clients nearing age sixty five, and individuals with qualifying conditions such as ALS or ESRD.
Relying on client memory alone is risky. Build intake questions, document requests, and follow up protocols into your workflow. Confirm coverage using Medicare cards, Social Security status, and insurer information. Early identification drives every downstream compliance decision.
Step two. Report and track conditional payments with discipline
Once Medicare involvement is confirmed, reporting and tracking must follow. Contact the Benefits Coordination Recovery Contractor early to open the file and request a Conditional Payment Letter. Treat this letter as a working document, not a final number. Audit line items for unrelated care and submit disputes as treatment continues.
After settlement, report the full settlement details promptly to trigger the Final Demand. Pay the final demand within sixty days to stop interest accrual, even if you plan to pursue a compromise or waiver. Firms that delay payment expose themselves to interest, Treasury referral, and enforcement actions.
Step three. Address Medicare Advantage and Part D liens
Total Medicare compliance extends beyond traditional Medicare Parts A and B. Medicare Advantage plans and Part D prescription plans assert independent recovery rights, often through aggressive recovery vendors.
Your process should include plan identification, verification of recovery rights, and parallel resolution efforts. Treat Part C and Part D liens as distinct obligations, with separate documentation and negotiation strategies.
Step four. Advise clients on future medical implications
Medicare compliance does not stop with past payments. When a client is a Medicare beneficiary or approaching eligibility, future injury related care matters. You should be advising clients on Medicare Secondary Payer implications tied to future treatment. Or hire experts to do so.
The CAD framework provides clarity. Consult with Medicare compliance experts, advise and educate the client about future medical exposure, and document each step. If a client declines a Medicare Set Aside analysis or elects to set aside nothing, your file should reflect informed decision making with signed acknowledgment.
Step five. Review release language from the other side carefully
Release language plays a critical compliance role. Overbroad language supplied by defendants often imports workers’ compensation concepts into liability cases, assigns specific set aside figures, or shifts improper responsibility to the client.
Your firm should actively revise proposed language. Focus on language that reflects consideration of Medicare’s interests without creating unintended tax, coverage, or reporting consequences. Avoid making settlements contingent on CMS review of anything. CMS review is voluntary and inconsistent across regions, with no appeal process.
Step six. Start early and collaborate strategically
Medicare compliance improves when planning starts early. Confirm Social Security disability status, collect insurance documentation, and identify ICD codes likely to appear under Mandatory Insurer Reporting. Coordinate with defense counsel to align reporting and coding.
Early intervention also opens strategic options. Future medical exposure sometimes supports higher settlement values when framed correctly. Firms that understand this dynamic use Medicare planning as leverage rather than an obstacle.
Step seven. Document everything
Documentation is the backbone of compliance. Courts and regulators focus less on outcomes and more on process. Your file should show identification efforts, reporting timelines, client education, expert consultation, and decision rationale.
This level of documentation protects your firm if CMS questions something later. It also strengthens internal quality control and training.
Why firms turn to Medicare compliance partners
Most personal injury practices recognize the limits of internal resources. Medicare Secondary Payer law evolves constantly. Medicare procedures shift. Recovery vendors change tactics. Building deep internal expertise across conditional payments, Part C liens, future medical analysis, and release drafting strains even experienced teams.
Partnering with a specialized Medicare compliance provider supports ethical practice, protects client recoveries, and reduces risk exposure. Synergy’s Total Medicare Compliance approach integrates identification, resolution, documentation, and education into a single workflow designed for trial lawyers and paralegals who need reliable outcomes, not theoretical guidance.
Building Medicare compliance inside a PI firm is a deliberate operational decision. Firms that commit to structured processes, early action, and expert support position themselves as responsible advocates who protect both clients and practice.
Written by: By Jason D. Lazarus, J.D., LL.M., MSCC | Founder & Chairman of Synergy | Founder of Special Needs Law Firm | Author of Amazon Best Sellers – Art of Settlement & Litigation to Life | Host of Trial Lawyer View by Synergy Podcast | Peak Practice by Synergy Curator
Medicare compliance is not optional. It is an obligation that directly impacts your clients and your firm. The Medicare Secondary Payer Act (MSPA) makes Medicare the payer of last resort. That means Medicare must be reimbursed for any payments it made related to a personal injury settlement and must be protected from future costs that should be covered by that settlement.
Medicare compliance failures have led to law firms facing civil penalties, government audits, and malpractice claims. The good news is that compliance is manageable with a clear process and expert support.
Why Medicare Compliance Matters
- Legal exposure: Firms have been forced to repay Medicare and face regulatory compliance requirements for ignoring conditional payments.
- Client protection: Improper handling could lead to a client’s loss of future Medicare coverage or denial of injury-related care.
- Professional responsibility: The Department of Justice has held attorneys personally liable for failing to reimburse Medicare.
- Reputation: Compliance missteps damage client trust and referral relationships.
Every lawyer handling injury cases involving current or soon-to-be Medicare beneficiaries must understand the MSPA’s implications.
Core Compliance Steps
- Identify and Screen Early
Establish a process to flag any client who:
- Is currently on Medicare
- Is receiving Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI)
- Has applied for SSDI or is likely to become eligible within 30 months
Confirm Medicare status and document eligibility. Early identification drives every other compliance step.
- Resolve Conditional Payments
Request a conditional payment letter from the Benefits Coordination & Recovery Contractor (BCRC). Audit it carefully. Resolve it before disbursement. Never release funds based on a conditional payment letter alone. Wait for the final demand. Use compromise and waiver requests when appropriate to attempt to reduce the amount owed. - Address Future Medicals (Medicare Set-Asides)
If a settlement funds future medical care, Medicare’s “future interests” should be considered. This involves analyzing whether a Medicare Set-Aside (MSA) is appropriate.
- Not every case requires one.
- If future medicals are not funded, document why.
- If an MSA is considered, calculate and document the reasoning.
- Always educate the client about the risks of not setting funds aside.
The key is documentation. If the client declines to set funds aside, have them sign an acknowledgment confirming they were advised and informed.
- Release Language
Defense counsel often adds Medicare-related language that is inaccurate or overly broad.
- Avoid agreeing to any requirement that the client “shall not apply for Medicare” or “must establish an MSA.”
- Use concise, neutral language acknowledging compliance with the MSPA without creating unnecessary obligations.
- Never make settlement contingent on CMS approval of a liability MSA.
- Collaborate and Verify Reporting
Mandatory Insurer Reporting (MIR) requires insurers to report settlements involving Medicare beneficiaries. Errors in reported ICD codes or accident dates can lead to care denials or duplicate conditional payment demands.
- Coordinate with defense counsel on what will be reported.
- Confirm ICD codes reflect only injury-related conditions compensated for in the settlement.
- Avoid Federal Court
Most Medicare disputes can be avoided with proactive planning. A well-documented, collaborative process prevents disagreements that hold up resolution of the case. - Educate and Document
Follow the “CAD” principle:
- Consult with a qualified Medicare compliance expert.
- Advise the client on how Medicare may be impacted by the settlement.
- Document all communications, recommendations, and client decisions.
Proper documentation protects the client and your firm.
Common Compliance Mistakes
- Disbursing before receiving a final demand.
- Missing Part C (Medicare Advantage) or Part D (Prescription Drug) liens.
- Accepting defense-drafted release language without review.
- Failing to identify Medicare status early.
- Lacking documentation when a client declines a set-aside.
- Not coordinating ICD codes with the defense during reporting.
Each of these can create issues for your client and for your firm.
MSP Consequences
Government oversight and enforcement has increased relating to the MSP. Law firms have been fined for failing to repay conditional payments, even when settlement proceeds had already been distributed. There is precedent that attorneys remain responsible for ensuring Medicare is reimbursed.
With futures it is very much a gray area. In Aranki v. Burwell, the court confirmed there’s no legal requirement to create an MSA—but Medicare can still deny care if its interests aren’t protected. These cases illustrate the nuance of MSP compliance and the importance of documenting the reasoning behind each decision.
Building a Compliance System in Your Firm
To achieve total Medicare compliance, create a repeatable internal process:
- Train your staff on identifying Medicare beneficiaries.
- Appoint a compliance lead responsible for MSP obligations.
- Maintain templates for client advisement and documentation.
- Partner with an MSP expert for conditional payment and MSA analyses.
- Audit every file involving Medicare before final disbursement.
Conclusion
Medicare compliance protects your clients and your practice. It demonstrates diligence, reduces malpractice exposure, and strengthens settlement integrity. It also positions your firm as a trusted partner for co-counsel and referral sources.
Compliance is not about red tape. It is about safeguarding your client’s future medical care and your professional credibility. With the right process and expertise, you can close every case knowing you did it right. If you don’t want to create your own process, Synergy’s Medicare Compliance experts help trial lawyers nationwide protect their clients’ recoveries, ensure full MSPA compliance, and eliminate post-settlement exposure.
Written by: By Jason D. Lazarus, J.D., LL.M., MSCC | Founder & Chairman of Synergy | Founder of Special Needs Law Firm | Author of Amazon Best Sellers – Art of Settlement & Litigation to Life | Host of Trial Lawyer View by Synergy Podcast | Peak Practice by Synergy Curator
BLOGS
READY TO SCHEDULE A CONSULTATION?
The Synergy team will work diligently to ensure your case gets the attention it deserves. Contact one of our legal experts and get a professional review of your case today.
