A Medical Cost Projection (“MCP”) report helps a personal injury attorney quantify an injury victim’s future medical expenses. The report is generally prepared by a nurse allocator and will include projections for treatment that might occur as a result of the initial injuries. For example, an individual who has undergone a spinal fusion has a 36% chance of developing adjacent segment degeneration within 10 years after their initial fusion surgery.[1] In light of this, the MCP report is likely to include projections for spinal fusion extension surgeries and the associated care. Although there is a degree of uncertainty when it comes to predicting the course of an injury victim’s future care, the personal injury attorney can rely on the MCP in seeking to demand that his/her client receives sufficient compensation to cover any possible future injury-related care and medical bills.
A Liability Medicare Set-Aside (“LMSA”), on the other hand, is a settlement tool whereby a portion of an injury victim’s net settlement is earmarked for future injury-related Medicare covered treatment. Once the portion that is “set-aside” is properly spent on such post-settlement injury-related care, Medicare will step in and become the primary payer for any additional injury-related services.
So how do you reconcile the future medical projections in an MCP with a desire to limit the size of the LMSA? We begin the analysis with an overview of the MSP compliance framework. The MSP Act and regulations prohibit Medicare from making payment for services to the extent that “payment has been made or can reasonably be expected to be made under a workmen’s compensation law or plan of the United States or a State or under an automobile or liability insurance policy or plan (Including a self-insured plan) or under no-fault insurance.”[2] A primary payer’s reimbursement obligation to Medicare may be demonstrated by “a judgment, a payment conditioned upon the recipient’s compromise, waiver or release (whether or not there is a determination or admission of liability) of payment for items included in a claim against the primary payer or by other means.”[3] Section 111’s Mandatory Insurer Reporting requirement ensures that Medicare is placed on notice of the settlement and injuries alleged in the underlying matter. The reporting is intended to help Medicare recover conditional payments and avoid making improper future payments.
While parties must address Medicare’s conditional payments in connection with a settlement, there is less clarity when it comes to the best way to consider Medicare’s future interests in a liability settlement. A failure to consider the interest may result in Medicare’s denial of post-settlement injury-related treatment that was claimed as a part of the personal injury case. Depending upon the settlement amount, an injury victim may elect to remove this risk by setting aside some of the settlement funds in an LMSA.
Although the MCP report and LMSA both deal with the projection of future injury-related care, they each address this issue in different ways. They are two sides of the same coin. The MCP will always be higher than an LMSA since the MCP projections reflect future treatment that may possibly occur, while the MSA reflects future injury-related treatment that is reasonably likely to occur. For example, in the situation where an injury victim might develop adjacent segment degeneration after fusion surgery, an MCP may include spinal extension surgery, while an LMSA would not. Another difference is that the MCP report includes projections of services that are not covered by Medicare, while an LMSA only includes Medicare covered services. Examples of non-Medicare covered injury-related services that you may find in an MCP include long-term custodial care, massage therapy, and transportation expenses. Since these injury-related services are not covered by Medicare, they would not be included in an MSA.
The life expectancy used in an MCP may also vary from the life expectancy in an MSA. The MCP may use an individual’s standard life expectancy without any consideration of co-morbid conditions. The LMSA however will usually be based on a rated age that factors in an individual’s co-morbidities in assessing their life expectancy. Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes also impact the pricing of the treatment projections. While an MCP projection may use the most comprehensive CPT code for a service, the LMSA projection will use one that is more limited in scope. While both the MCP and LMSA price the CPT codes for the services based on the usual and customary charges for the area where the injury victim resides, the MCP will often use a higher reimbursement rate than the LMSA in the projections.
In addition to the above differences between the MCP and the LMSA, the goal of each report is different. An MCP is used to demand 100% of the future injury-related medical damages in a case, while an LMSA will look at the parameters of the settlement in determining an appropriate amount to “set-aside” for future injury-related Medicare covered treatment. Unlike a workers’ compensation settlement where the workers’ compensation insurance carrier may fully fund all the future injury-related medical in an accepted case, a liability settlement is usually a compromise with a limited recovery on a greater range of damages. In light of this, it is reasonable to consider the relative value of the total damages suffered and the injury victim’s net settlement when assessing the amount of the LMSA that should be carved out from the settlement.
There are several ways to address Medicare’s future interests in a settlement and any given approach will depend on the facts of the case and the injury victim’s risk tolerance. Although an LMSA may be appropriate at times, there are other situations where a set-aside is uncalled for. This may occur when an injury victim’s treatment has concluded, and he is able to obtain a written treating physician certification that all injury-related treatment has concluded and no further injury-related care is indicated. Charlotte Benson’s September 20, 2011, Medicare memo specifically states that when a treating physician makes such a certification, Medicare considers its interest, with respect to future medicals, for that particular settlement satisfied. Similarly, a set-aside may be uncalled for when a settlement with significant objective economic damages is limited by inadequate policy limits. This settlement may be viewed as one that is insufficient to fund any future injury-related medical care. The support for this position comes from CMS’ May 25, 2011 Stalcup memo which provides that “Each attorney is going to have to decide, based on the specific facts of each of their cases, whether or not there is funding for future medicals and if so, a need to protect the Trust Funds.”
Conclusion
Both MCP reports and LMSAs have their place in the resolution of a liability settlement. MCPs bring value to any personal injury matter regardless of the injury victim’s Medicare status. By quantifying the future injury-related medical in a case, the personal injury attorney is able to provide support for the initial demand or use the MCP report to bridge the gap between the settlement offer and the settlement demand. When a settlement involves a Medicare beneficiary, it is important for the personal injury attorney to make sure that the injury victim is advised of the potential impact of the MSP Act on the settlement and that proper documentation is obtained for the attorney’s files.
Synergy Settlement Services is here to help you with both MCPs and Medicare Secondary Payer consulting. Our team of experts can provide expert support whether it is quantification of future damages or compliance with the MSP. Find out more here.
In the latest episode of Trial Lawyer View, we explore what drives one of the titans of the bar, Adam Shea of Panish, Shea, Boyle & Ravipudi LLP. As Adam brilliantly puts it in terms of his decades long track record of building an amazing practice, “we brought that sort of style (ex jocks), that competitive spirit, and brought it into the competition of going up against the big product manufacturers or insurance companies and their teams of lawyers and it really was inspiring.”
Discover how Adam’s background has significantly influenced his journey as a lawyer, pushing him to excel in the field, and his unique approach to building strong connections with clients. As he passionately states, “The damages are so big, the injuries are so catastrophic. And you’ve got to have that compassion and empathy. I like to spend a lot of time with my clients. It takes time to find out who they are …. so I can really tell their story.”
Learn about his remarkable cases, the impact of Trial College, and his advocacy’s role in enhancing safety practices within various industries. Tune in to uncover the top five guiding principles of Adam’s career, and his insights into the challenges and opportunities in catastrophic injury and wrongful death cases. Don’t miss this episode filled with wisdom, experience, and a genuine passion for justice. 🎧🏆🏛️🚑💼
Reduction of Taxation of Contingent Attorney Fees – A Comprehensive Guide
September 14, 2023
Introduction
Trial lawyers typically have large swings in their income based on the cases that settle in a calendar year. Unfortunately, it is hard to control the day a settlement will occur or when the settlement will be paid. This presents a problem in higher income years which create higher income tax liabilities. Fortunately, an increasing number of programs and processes are available for attorneys to plan for these income fluctuations.
These swings in income make it harder to plan for your retirement. In the past we have consulted with attorneys who were hesitant to use a deferral program because they were unsure about future years’ income. In other instances, they want to use the influx of revenue to offset costs on other cases in their inventory. These difficult decisions arise when there is not enough time to plan. The best plans are created when experts in various strategies work together to meet your specific needs.
Deferral Plans & Tax Financing Programs
Let’s first explore two ways to plan for higher income years: deferral plans and tax financing programs.
The traditional solutions use several different tax deferral programs such as:
Trial attorneys can invest all or part of their contingent legal fees on a pre-tax and tax deferred basis using employer sponsored plans, annuity-based attorney fee structures or deferred compensation plans. These pre-tax investment options allow attorneys the unique ability to control the timing of their income in any given taxable year.
Benefits of tax deferral programs:
Tax deferred growth: The full value of the funds put into a tax deferral program are invested on a pre-tax basis. This allows for more funds to be working for you.
Lower current tax liability: The majority of tax deferred programs lower the amount of current year income. The amount placed in the program is considered income in the withdrawal year, not the deferral year.
Control over timing: Deferring income to future years allows you more time to plan around the withdrawal years. You can consult with your tax advisors to potentially create a plan that will allow a lower tax liability in the year of withdrawal when compared to what was due in the year of deferral.
Beneficiary and estate planning: Deferral programs can benefit your heirs (beneficiaries). The beneficiary will be responsible for the taxes, but they can potentially use programs to stretch the growth for a longer time frame.
Tax financing is a new way for an attorney to pay the tax in full through a financed arrangement. As opposed to using your own funds to pay the liability in the year due, you borrow the funds and pay those back on a three-to-five-year schedule. For example, if you have a $1,000,000 fee. We will assume you owe at a combined rate of 35%. The $350,000 tax bill is due for that year which limits the amount of funds you can invest. If you were to take a loan for $350,000, you would invest the full fee and pay the loan back over time. This allows you to have your full $1M fee working for you to potentially create a better monetary outcome.
Benefits of financing tax obligations:
Cash flow management: The use of a financing vehicle allows you to spread the tax obligation over multiple years vs a one-time immediate year payment. You will pay more overtime but in smaller amounts over a longer period.
Preserving more liquidity: Financing in general allows you to keep more money now and pay over a longer period. This allows you to keep more of your cash now and maintain a larger amount of liquidity.
Deployment of capital: The funds that would have been used to pay the current tax liability can be deferred to other investments.
Retaining assets: The ability to finance might allow you to keep an asset that would have been needed to cover the tax due.
Credit rating: If you finance a tax liability through a traditional note, you may increase your credit score by making payments on time.
The two strategies can be used in conjunction with each other. For example, you can use them both in one year: You can defer a portion of your fee and finance your remaining tax obligation. This would allow you to lower the current year taxes due by reducing your ordinary income and maintain liquidity by financing a tax obligation.
Third Strategy (Stack with an Insurance Product)
Alternatively, you can stack the strategies together and add in a third layer (leveraging insurance) to create optimal income streams in the future. For example, an attorney could use a deferred compensation program in year one and receive five equal payments in years two through six. The payments can be used to purchase an insurance policy (*life insurance or annuity). Spreading payments over five years might create a lower overall tax rate reducing the amount of tax that will need to be paid. The tax due in years two through six can be financed, allowing for the deployment of more funds into the insurance contract. The funds in the insurance contract can be received as loans (as opposed to income) and do not create a tax liability unless the policy is terminated. This three-tiered approach could minimize the overall taxes paid.
In combination, these three programs could provide the following benefits:
Potential reduction of income tax due (tax deferral and insurance plan)
Greater liquidity (tax financing)
Tax-free cash flows (insurance plan)
Death benefit protection (life insurance plan)
Estate planning (tax deferral and insurance plan)
*Life insurance contracts are typically subject to medical underwriting.
Conclusion
The foregoing plans and programs have been used independently to plan. The use of all three may be a solution that works for you and your law practice. Creating a comprehensive plan to protect yourself from paying too much taxes on contingent legal fees while providing sufficient liquidity and cash flow are a prudent part of your overall financial planning process.
Turn to Synergy as trusted partner for your firm in mitigating the impact of taxation of contingent legal fees. Through a consultative process, we can build a strategic plan for reducing the tax burden on a year-to-year basis for fees as well as provide greater control over the timing of income. Consider us your guide to cutting edge tax deferral strategies for your firm. Learn more and contact us here.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: In compliance with IRS requirements, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for (a) the purpose of avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (b) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication (or in any attachment).
Preservation of Needs-Based Benefits & Other Considerations
Medicaid and SSI are income and asset sensitive public benefits, which require planning to preserve. In many states, one dollar of SSI benefits automatically provides Medicaid coverage. A special needs trust is a trust that can be created pursuant to federal law whose corpus, or any assets held in the trust do not count as resources for purposes of qualifying for Medicaid or SSI. Thus, a personal injury recovery can be placed into an SNT so that the victim can continue to qualify for SSI and Medicaid. Federal law authorizes and regulates the creation of an SNT. The 1396p[1] provisions in the United States Code govern the creation and requirements for such trusts. First and foremost, a client must be disabled to create an SNT.[2] There are three primary types of trusts that may be created to hold a personal injury recovery and one type used when it isn’t the injury victim’s own assets, each with its own unique requirements and restrictions. First is the (d)(4)(A)[3] special needs trust which can be established only for those who are disabled and are under age sixty-five. This trust is established with the personal injury victim’s recovery and is established for the victim’s own benefit. Second is a (d)(4)(C)[4] trust, typically called a pooled trust, that may be established with the disabled victim’s funds without regard to age. The third is a trust that can be utilized if an elderly client has too much income from Social Security or a pension to qualify for some Medicaid based nursing home assistance programs. This trust is authorized by the federal law under (d)(4)(B)[5] and is commonly referred to as a Miller Trust. Lastly, there is a third-party[6] SNT which is funded and established by someone other than the personal injury victim (i.e., parent, grandparent, donations, etc.) for the benefit of the personal injury victim. The victim still must meet the definition of disability but there is no required payback of Medicaid at death as there is with a (d)(4)(A) or (d)(4)(C).
Section 2: Stand-Alone (d)(4)(A) versus Pooled (d)(4)(C) Special Needs Trusts
Since the pooled (d)(4)(C) trust and the (d)(4)(A) SNT are most commonly used with personal injury recoveries, it is useful to compare these two types of trusts. There are several significant differences between a (d)(4)(C) pooled trust and a (d)(4)(A) special needs trust. I will discuss these differences first starting with the (d)(4)(C) pooled trust. As a starting point, a disabled injury victim joins an already established pooled trust as there is no individually crafted trust document. There are four major requirements under federal law necessary to establish a pooled trust. First, the trust must be established and managed by a non-profit.[7] Second, the trust must maintain separate accounts for each Beneficiary, but the funds are pooled for purposes of investment and management.[8] Third, each trust account must be established solely for the benefit of an individual who is disabled as defined by law, and it may only be established by that individual, the individual’s parent, grandparent, legal guardian, or a Court.[9] Fourth, any funds that remain in a Beneficiary’s account at that Beneficiary’s death must be retained by the Trust or used to reimburse the State Medicaid agency.[10]
In directly comparing a (d)(4)(C) to a (d)(4)(A) special needs trust, there are four primary differences. First, a (d)(4)(A) special needs trust can only be created for those under age sixty-five; however, a (d)(4)(C) pooled special needs trust has no such age restriction and can be created for someone of any age. The only caveat to the lack of an age restriction is that certain states may impose a transfer penalty for people who are over the age of sixty-five and fund a pooled trust causing a period of ineligibility. Second, a pooled special needs trust is not an individually crafted trust like a (d)(4)(A) special needs trust. Instead, a disabled individual joins a pooled trust and a professional non-profit trustee pools the assets together for purposes of investment, but each beneficiary of the trust has his or her own sub-account. Third, a pooled trust is managed by a not-for-profit entity who acts as trustee overseeing distributions of the money. The non-profit trustee may manage the money themselves or hire a separate money manager to oversee investment of the trust assets. Fourth, at death the non-profit trustee may retain whatever assets are left in the trust instead of repaying Medicaid for services they have provided, which is a requirement with a (d)(4)(A) special needs trust.[11] By joining a pooled trust, a disabled aged injury victim can make a charitable donation to the non-profit who manages the pooled trust and avoid the repayment requirement found within the federal law for (d)(4)(A) special needs trusts. Other than the aforementioned differences, it operates as any other special needs trust does with the same restrictions on the use of the trust assets.
With a (d)(4)(A) special needs trust, a trustee needs to be selected, unlike the pooled trust where it is automatically a non-profit entity. This provides some flexibility to the family or loved ones to have a hand in the selection of the trust company or bank acting as trustee; however, it is important to have a trustee experienced in dealing with needs-based government benefit eligibility requirements so that only proper distributions are made. Many banks and trust companies don’t want to administer special needs trusts with a corpus under $1,000,000.00, which can make it difficult to find the right trustee. Most pooled special needs trusts will accept any sized trust and the non-profit is experienced in dealing with people receiving disability-based public benefits. With the (d)(4)(A), there are no startup costs except the legal fee to draft the trust which can vary greatly. The (d)(4)(C) pooled trusts typically have a one-time fee at inception which can range from $500 to $2,000, which is typically much cheaper than the cost of establishing a (d)(4)(A) special needs trust. Most trustees (pooled or (d)(4)(A)) will charge an ongoing annual fee which is typically a percentage of the trust assets. These fees vary between 1-3% depending on how much money is in the trust. A (d)(4)(A) will offer unlimited investment choices for the funds held in the trust while a (d)(4)(C) will have fewer investment choices.
The following chart illustrates the five primary differences between these two trusts:
Stand-Alone Special Needs Trust
Pooled Special Needs Trust
Can only be created for those under the age of 65.
Can be created for someone of any age. Caveat though for a possible transfer penalty in some states.
Individually drafted for someone who is disabled. Provisions are unique and tailored to the trust beneficiary. A qualified elder law attorney who understands the unique needs of a personal injury victim should be consulted to assist with drafting the stand-alone special needs trust.
Not individually drafted. A disabled individual joins an established master trust, and his or her funds are pooled for investment purposes with those of other beneficiaries. Beneficiaries have their own sub-accounts where an accounting of their funds is maintained. A qualified elder law attorney who understands the unique needs of a personal injury victim should be consulted to assist with joining a pooled trust.
Trustee may be an individual but is typically a bank or trust company who may or may not handle investment of the trust assets. Investments may be personalized for the trust beneficiary’s circumstances.
Trustee is a non-profit entity who oversees distributions but often delegates investment functions to a third-party money manager using model portfolios.
All funds left in trust at death must be used to repay Medicaid for services provided to the trust beneficiary.
All funds left in trust at death may be retained by the non-profit instead of repaying Medicaid for services provided, allowing an injury victim to make a charitable donation to the non-profit and avoid repayment to Medicaid.
No startup costs except the legal fee to draft the trust, which can vary greatly. Most trustees charge an ongoing annual fee, typically a percentage of the trust assets. These fees vary from 1% to 3%, depending on how much money is in the trust. A stand-alone special needs trust will offer unlimited investment choices for the funds held in the trust. Typically, there are additional costs tied to investment management.
Typically have a one-time fee at inception, ranging from $500 to $2,000 (often much cheaper than the cost of establishing a stand-alone special needs trust). Most non-profit trustees charge an ongoing annual fee, typically a percentage of the trust assets. These fees vary from 1% to 3%. A pooled special needs trust will offer fewer investment choices—oftentimes, only one choice.
Key Takeaway: Different methods for protecting needs-based benefit preservation must be explored for any disabled injury victim who is currently eligible. Special needs trusts allow injury victims to continue to access critical needs-based government benefits after settling their cases. Federal law authorizes and regulates the creation of special needs trusts. Two primary types of trusts may be created to hold a personal injury recovery, each with its own requirements and restrictions. First, is the (d)(4)(A) stand-alone special needs trust. A stand-alone special needs trusts can be established only for those who are disabled and under age sixty-five. This trust is established with the personal injury victim’s recovery, for the victim’s own benefit. It can be established by the victim, a parent, a grandparent, or a guardian, or by court order. Second, is the (d)(4)(C) pooled special need trust. A pooled trust can be established with a disabled injury victim’s funds, regardless of age. Like a stand-alone trust, this trust is established with the personal injury victim’s recovery, for the victim’s own benefit, and can be established by the victim, a parent, a grandparent, a guardian, or by court order.
Section 3: Limitations on Spending & Advantages/Disadvantages of Establishing an SNT
The major limitation of all types of special needs trusts is that the assets held in trust can only be used for the “sole benefit” of the trust beneficiary. The disabled injury victim could not withdraw money and gift it to a charity or family. The purpose of the special needs trust is to retain Medicaid eligibility, and use trust funds to meet the supplemental, or “special” needs of the beneficiary. These can be quite broad, however, and include things that improve health or comfort such as non-Medicaid covered medical and dental expenses, trained medical assistance staff (24 hours or as needed), independent medical check-ups, medical equipment, supplies, programs of cognitive and visual training, respiratory care and rehabilitation (physical, occupational, speech, visual and cognitive), eye glasses, transportation (including vehicle purchase), vehicle maintenance, insurance, essential dietary needs, and private nurses or other qualified caretakers. Also included are non-medical items, such as electronic equipment, vacations, movies, trips, travel to visit relatives or friends and other monetary requirements to enhance the client’s self-esteem, comfort or situation. The trust may generally pay for expenses that are not “food and shelter” which are part of the SSI disability benefit payment; however, even these items could be paid for with trust assets, but SSI payments could be reduced or eliminated. This may not be problematic if the disabled injury victim qualifies for Medicaid without SSI eligibility; however, many states grant automatic Medicaid eligibility with SSI so one has to be careful about eliminating the SSI benefit.
Each type of trust discussed above has advantages and disadvantages. Some think of pooled trusts as only being appropriate for a smaller settlement, which is not the case. Some think of pooled trusts just for the elderly, which is not the case either. In the right case, the pooled trust is an excellent alternative to a (d)(4)(A). Just the same, in some cases a (d)(4)(A) may be the best option because of the flexibility in selecting a trustee and the customizable money management options. In the end though, a special needs trust, be it pooled or a (d)(4)(A), must be considered because it will safeguard a disabled client’s recovery from dissipation and protect future eligibility for needs-based public benefits. Just as importantly, the different types of trusts and their advantages as well as disadvantages should be closely considered before making a decision since special needs trusts are irrevocable along with bringing substantial restrictions on how the money may be used. Creating a special needs trust for a disabled injury victim gives them the ability to enjoy the settlement proceeds while preserving critical healthcare coverage along with government cash assistance programs.
Key Takeaway: There are important advantages and disadvantages to establishing a special needs trust for an injury victim. The advantages are that the injury victim can retain SSI/Medicaid eligibility; get professional trustee services; can avoid guardianship and annual reports; and the trust can pay for everything except “food & shelter”. The disadvantages are that there is no unrestricted use of funds by the injury victim; “Sole Benefit” rule applies; at death Medicaid must be paid back (except 3rd party); adds an extra layer of complexity; and the trust is irrevocable.
Section 4: Spousal & Parental Deeming in Cases with a Consortium Claim
Deeming is an important concept to understand for trial lawyers when working with their client to construct a plan post settlement to preserve needs-based government benefits. The following example will illustrate the point. Assume you have just resolved a catastrophic birth injury matter for a minor client and his parents. The minor receives SSI as a result of severe injuries from hypoxia at birth due to negligence. Upon resolving the case, the parents agree, and the court approves that all settlement proceeds for the minor child will go into a special needs trust. Mom and dad are given $200,000.00 for their consortium claim. The minor child is now ineligible for Medicaid and SSI as a result of “parental deeming” until he reaches age 18.
What is deeming? Deeming is when either a parent’s or spouse’s income and/or assets are counted towards the SSI/Medicaid recipient’s resources when applying for or receiving SSI. In my example, “parental deeming” is triggered as the child is under the age of 18 and is living in the same household as his parents. The theory behind deeming between a parent and minor child living at home is that it is the responsibility of the parent to care for a minor child. As part of deeming, a parent’s earned and unearned income as well as assets deem to a child. For a married couple, resources over $3,000 deem to the child. In my example of a $200,000 recovery for a consortium claim allocated to the parents, that well exceeds the asset cap of $3,000. Deeming of that recovery would cease once the minor reaches age 18 even if he is still residing at home; however, if the settlement occurred when the child was relatively young, say at 5 years of age, there would be 13 years of ineligibility due to the deeming from the consortium recovery (assuming it wasn’t spent down before the 13 years had passed).
Similarly, there is spousal deeming. If you represent a married couple where one is on SSI and there is a consortium claim, a similar issue could be created as with the example of a minor child parental deeming. This is so since if the combined assets of a couple exceed the $3,000.00 asset cap, then the SSI benefit will be lost by the injury victim that is disabled. In the event there is a consortium claim on behalf of the non-injured spouse and money is allocated to them, then the injury victim with SSI will lose their eligibility even if their settlement money goes into an SNT.
Given the complexities of deeming and some exceptions, it is important to consult an elder law attorney at settlement. If it is possible to avoid allocating monies to a parent or spouse in a deeming situation, that is advisable; however, often that simply doesn’t work given the dynamics of settlement. That is where an elder law attorney’s experience and expertise can help trial lawyers navigate these issues.
Key Takeaway:Deeming is a critical concept for trial lawyers to understand when planning to preserve their clients’ needs-based government benefits post-settlement. Deeming occurs when a parent’s or spouse’s income and assets are considered as part of the SSI/Medicaid recipient’s resources. Parental deeming can make a minor child ineligible for Medicaid and SSI until age 18 if the parents receive a settlement exceeding the $3,000 asset cap. Similarly, spousal deeming can affect a disabled spouse’s SSI eligibility if the non-injured spouse’s consortium claim results in combined assets exceeding the cap. The intricacies of deeming necessitate consultation with an elder law attorney to ensure proper allocation of funds and benefits preservation.
Section 5: Spend Down
In the right settlement situation, an alternative to establishing an SNT that is often overlooked is a spend-down plan on exempt assets. A “spend-down” plan involves promptly spending settlement money in excess of the applicable asset limit within the same calendar month of receipt to maintain eligibility for public benefits. The Social Security Administration (SSA) considers a lump sum of money as income only in the month received, so long as it is spent within that same calendar month (SI 01110.600); therefore, by the month-end of receipt, the injury victim must retain no more than the resource limit, usually $2,000 for an unmarried individual and $3,000 for a married couple.
A well-planned spend-down leverages SSA statutes and regulations that exempt certain assets from the “countable resources” category. The personal injury settlement proceeds can thus be used to acquire or pay off certain exempt assets permitted by statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1382b(a), potentially eliminating the need for an SNT. These exempt resources are detailed in the Program Operations Manual System (POMS) at SI 01110.210 and typically include:
A primary residence of any value, 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.1210(a), 416.1212.
One vehicle of any value for transportation of the SSI recipient or a household member, 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.1210(c), 416.1218.
Household goods and personal effects, irrespective of value, 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.1210(b), 416.1216.
A dedicated account for burial expenses up to $1,500, 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.1210(l), 416.1231(b), though an unlimited amount is allowed in an irrevocable funeral service contract, POMS SI 01120.201.H.1.a.
Life insurance policies with a cash surrender value under $1,500 and unlimited term insurance, 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.1210(h), 416.1230.
For example, as part of a comprehensive spend down plan, a recipient could use the settlement to pay off a mortgage, purchase a new home, repair an existing one, or buy long-needed household goods or appliances. They could also use the funds to clear credit card debts. The following is a non-exclusive list of potential ways to spend down:
• Paying off existing debts (note: loans from family members or friends need to be bona fide with an expectation of repayment).
• Purchasing or paying off a home or part of a mortgage.
• Paying only that calendar month’s rent.
• Making home repairs and modifications for disabilities.
• Purchasing home furnishings, electronics or appliances.
• Paying an attorney for estate or Medicaid planning.
• Paying off non-Medicaid/Medicare medical bills, educational expenses, entertainment/recreation expenses, and vacation travel.
• Pre-paying burial arrangements.
• Purchasing a vehicle.
• Buying personal products or services like clothing or hygiene products.
However, making purchases for someone else or giving away money should be avoided, as these are considered transfers for less than market value and could result in loss of public benefits (SI 01150.001, SI 01150.007).
Lastly, it is important to report spend-down to the local Social Security Administration (SSA) office and/or the state Medicaid office. As a trial lawyer, you can either directly advise your client on these issues or engage an elder law attorney to guide the client in tracking and reporting their spend-down, including dates, amounts, and items purchased. It’s crucial to remember that if the client is on SSI, the money they get and spend down is income in the calendar month they get the money, so it does interfere in that one month’s SSI payment. If spend-down exceeds one month, the interference with SSI (and Medicaid) will continue beyond that one month. If there is no SSI and only Medicaid, then as long as spend down occurs in the same calendar month there should be no interference with medical coverage.
Key Takeaway: A “spend-down” plan is a viable alternative to a Special Needs Trust (SNT), in the right settlement scenario. It involves the prompt expenditure of settlement funds that exceed the asset limit within the same month of receipt to retain public benefits eligibility. The plan leverages statutes and regulations that exempt certain assets from being countable resources, thus permitting the use of settlement proceeds to acquire, pay down, or improve exempt assets, potentially bypassing the need for an SNT; however, the spend-down must be strategically planned and promptly executed, taking into account eligible exemptions and avoiding non-permissible transactions. All transactions should be timely reported to the Social Security Administration and/or the state Medicaid office. While a spend-down may cause interference with benefits for the month in which the lump sum is received, especially for SSI recipients, if effectively managed, it provides a pathway to preserve government benefits while monetarily benefiting from the settlement.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the evaluation of different methods for protecting needs-based benefit preservation must be explored for any disabled client who is currently eligible. Special needs trusts allow injury victims to continue to access critical needs-based government benefits after settling their case. When creating a plan that includes an SNT for a minor child or a spouse, understanding the impact of deeming and consortium claims is important. Spend-down is a viable alternative to establishing an SNT in some situations. Every case and client is different though and careful consideration of the advantages and disadvantages should be done with an elder law attorney.
[2] To be considered disabled for purposes of creating an SNT, the SNT beneficiary must meet the definition of disability for SSDI found at 42 U.S.C. § 1382c. 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3) states that “[A]n individual shall be considered to be disabled for purposes of this title … if he is unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or … last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months (or in the case of a child under the age of 18, if that individual has a medically determinable physical or mental impairment, which results in marked and severe functional limitations, and which can be expected to result in death or … last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months).”
[3] 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(d)(4)(A) provides that a trust’s assets are not countable if it is “[a] trust containing the assets of an individual under age 65 who is disabled (as defined in section 1382c(a)(3) of this title) and which is established for the benefit of such individual by a parent, grandparent, legal guardian of the individual, or a court if the State will receive all amounts remaining in the trust upon the death of such individual up to an amount equal to the total medical assistance paid on behalf of the individual under a State plan under this subchapter.”
[4]42 U.S.C. § 1396p(d)(4)(C) provides that a trust’s assets are not countable if it is “[a] trust containing the assets of an individual who is disabled (as defined in section 1382c (a)(3) of this title) that meets the following conditions: (i) The trust is established and managed by a non-profit association. (ii) A separate account is maintained for each beneficiary of the trust, but, for purposes of investment and management of funds, the trust pools these accounts. (iii) Accounts in the trust are established solely for the benefit of individuals who are disabled (as defined in section 1382c(a)(3) of this title) by the parent, grandparent, or legal guardian of such individuals, by such individuals, or by a court. (iv) To the extent that amounts remaining in the beneficiary’s account upon the death of the beneficiary are not retained by the trust, the trust pays to the State from such remaining amounts in the account an amount equal to the total amount of medical assistance paid on behalf of the beneficiary under the State plan under this subchapter.”
[11] If the funds remaining in the trust at death are sufficient to repay Medicaid’s payback right in full, many pooled trusts will distribute some portion of the remaining monies to the trust beneficiary’s heirs; however, each pooled trust will have a different policy and the amount retained at death can vary greatly. It is very important to investigate how much is retained in this type of situation. Some trusts will only retain $5,000 while others may retain $50,000.
Chris Zachar on TLV Podcast
Hello, Fellow Trial Lawyers!
📧🎙️ Join host Jason Lazarus on Trial Lawyer View for an enlightening episode featuring Christopher Zachar from Zachar Law Firm. This captivating episode unveils the extraordinary legal journey of Christopher, who has masterfully secured over $150 million in verdicts and settlements for individuals in Arizona. Buckle up as we delve into the depths of his legal prowess and discover the secrets to his remarkable success. ⚖️💼
🌟 Christopher’s exceptional case acquisition strategies take center stage in this discussion. Learn how he skillfully attracts high-quality cases without relying on traditional advertising methods. Unlock the techniques that set him apart and discover how his innovative approaches continue to drive his firm’s growth and reputation. 🌐📈
💼 In this episode, gain valuable insights into the challenges Christopher confronted while building and trying his cases. Explore the intricate dynamics of managing client expectations, and uncover how his unique approach fosters trust and client satisfaction. Discover the delicate balance between legal expertise and client communication. 💬🤝
🌟 Prepare to be inspired as Christopher shares the finer points of his niche personal injury practice and the strategies that have propelled his firm to unprecedented heights. Discover the key elements of his successful law firm management techniques and how he navigates the complexities of running a thriving legal practice. 📚💼
Tune in for an engaging discussion that offers a deep dive into the world of trial law, client-centered legal strategies, and the pursuit of justice. Don’t miss this enlightening episode that provides a window into the triumphs and challenges of Christopher Zachar’s exceptional legal career.
When it comes to settling a personal injury case, the complexities of health insurance subrogation can significantly impact the disbursement of settlement funds. Attorneys handling these cases must navigate the intricate dynamics at play, especially when dealing with subrogation vendors who specialize in recovering funds on behalf of health insurance carriers. This article aims to shed light on the workings of health insurance subrogation, exploring the evolution of subrogation, its impact on the injured party, and the role of subrogation vendors. Lastly and most importantly, it argues in the conclusion why personal injury plaintiffs and plaintiff counsel need knowledgeable experts on their side like the recovery vendors who fight for the plan’s subrogation rights.
The Evolution of Subrogation:
Subrogation as a practice has undergone significant evolution over the years to address the rights and obligations of interested parties. Subrogation defined is when an insurance company seeks reimbursement from a responsible party for a claim they’ve already paid according to their contractual requirements. Although some of these health insurance companies have their own internal subrogation departments, many choose to outsource. To navigate the complex landscape that surrounds the various legal theories, those health insurance companies often outsource to subrogation vendors who specialize in recovering funds. They are essentially their expert partner for lien resolution. It allows the insurance carrier to do what they do best – reviewing and paying insurance claims. And it allows the subrogation vendor to do what they do best by handling the collection and battle associated with clawing funds from an injured party’s settlement and sending those funds back into the insurance company’s bank accounts, with a large cut going to the subrogation vendor for collection.
Subrogation vendors like The Rawlings Company, Optum, and Conduent typically enter into contractual agreements with health insurance companies or other entities, outlining the terms and conditions of their services. These agreements specify the scope of work, responsibilities and authority, fees for service, and other relevant details. To initiate the subrogation process, subrogation vendors gather relevant data from insurance companies claims database including all relevant information related to the submission and payment of insurance claims. They analyze this data to identify potential subrogation opportunities where the insurance company may have a right to recover funds.
The concept of subrogation has evolved over time as a legal principle to address certain situations involving the rights and obligations of parties in insurance and contract law. While it is difficult to pinpoint an exact moment when subrogation became a “thing,” its origins can be traced back to ancient legal principles and practices. Historically, subrogation emerged from the doctrine of equity, which aimed to provide fairness and justice in legal matters. In its simplest form, subrogation refers to the substitution of one person or entity in place of another with respect to certain rights or claims. This helps prevent unjust enrichment and ensures that the responsible party bears the financial responsibility for their actions or negligence. Over time, subrogation has become a well-established legal doctrine through court decisions, statutes, and contractual provisions.
The Unintended Consequences:
Unfortunately, the evolution of health insurance subrogation and the introduction and spread of expert subrogation vendors has led to unintended consequences, deviating from the principles of equity and fairness. The original purpose of subrogation, which was aimed to ensure responsible parties bear the financial responsibility of their actions, has been overshadowed by a corporate pursuit of monetary gain at the expense of the injured person. Equity is the farthest thought in the mind of most subrogation vendors. In fact, they are trained to disregard the injured person, their injury and how it may truly negatively impact their entire life.
When a health insurance company exercises its subrogation rights, it is asserting its subrogation claim to recover from the total available settlement. Consequently, the injured party’s compensation is reduced, potentially leaving them with a smaller financial recovery than they anticipated or deserve to adequately cover their future needs or compensate them for their prior trauma. Herein lies the inequity and unfairness.
The subrogation process is meant to prevent double recovery by ensuring that the responsible party bears the financial responsibility for their actions. However, in most cases, the subrogation process fails to fully account for additional costs incurred by the injured party to secure a recovery, the non-medical economic damages or the non-economic damages they have suffered. In most cases, a settlement does not allow an injured party to receive full compensation for their loss, and the subrogation claim by the health insurer further reduces their recovery since it is asserted against all damages instead of being limited to past medical expenses.
Pursuing a personal injury claim is already a time-consuming and emotionally draining process. The introduction of health insurance recovery rights adds more uncertainty regarding the amount and timing of the compensation. This can create additional financial burdens for individuals already grappling with the consequences of their injury or illness.
Vulnerable individuals, such as those with severe injuries, chronic conditions, or significant medical expenses, are disproportionately impacted by health insurance subrogation. They heavily rely on the compensation received from liable third parties to cover ongoing medical costs, rehabilitation, and other essential needs. When a portion of their recovery is usurped by the insurance company through subrogation for past medical care, it exacerbates financial hardships and impedes their ability to pay for necessary care.
In some cases, and for certain health insurance benefit programs, laws and regulations have been enacted to protect the interests of the injured party and strike a balance with insurance companies. These laws provide certain protections or limitations on health insurance subrogation, mitigating the concerns raised by the disproportionate impact on injured individuals. However, the unfortunate evolution of health insurance subrogation has allowed certain health plans, such as ERISA, FEHBA, and others, to divert more settlement dollars away from the injured person, emphasizing the need for continued subrogation reform.
Understanding Subrogation Vendors:
Focusing on subrogation vendors is essential as they have played a significant role in shaping laws that favor their corporate clients. This alignment with insurance companies not only benefits the vendors financially but also strengthens their relationship with their health insurance clients. By collecting in more situations and recovering higher amounts, they can generate larger compensation for themselves. As partners for insurance carriers, subrogation vendors enter into contractual agreements with big insurance companies that outline the terms of their services. They analyze data from insurance claims databases to identify subrogation opportunities and work to collect funds from the injured party’s settlement, receiving a significant portion of the recovery as their fee.
Negotiating with subrogation vendors can be challenging for attorneys and their clients. Here are a couple quick hitting facts about most subrogation vendors handling ERISA subrogation claims. Most are understaffed. They juggle between 700-1000 cases, leading to significant delays and often, overlooked details. And no, they aren’t reading your lengthy letter on ERISA lien law. They are swamped. Representatives are typically narrowly trained, limiting their ability to appreciate counterarguments or understand complex subrogation issues outside their training sphere. They love to twist and misinterpret their recovery rights in their favor. Contrary to their statements, simply being an ERISA self-funded plan does not mean they can’t reduce their lien. It means they don’t want to because this lien type could produce the highest recovery for them. But their rights are only as strong as the plan language dictates. Even if it’s an ERISA plan, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are entitled to recover 100% of their claimed lien. The actual recovery amount able to be collected varies based on the plan language and the case specifics.
Although it’s lost some of its pizazz because it’s now 10 years old, the US Supreme Court case of U.S. Airways v. McCutchen has been used to spread a misunderstanding of the law. Contrary to popular belief, the McCutchen case did not ultimately force the injured party to repay the plan 100% of their expenses. This is a commonly misunderstood aspect that many recovery contractors exploit. On remand, the plan got even less once plan documents were reviewed with a closer eye. Speaking of plan documents, not all plans are self-funded, contrary to what they might claim. Funding status matters. Don’t rely upon what you are told; obtain and review the relevant plan documents yourself. The Cigna v Amara case held that the Master Plan Document (MPD) is the controlling document. A subrogation vendor may claim that the plan does not have an MPD. However, often, they either don’t want to retrieve it from the self-funded group or already have it and it’s not favorable to their recovery. Instead of producing the MPD, they misdirect you to the Summary Plan Description (SPD). Because it’s what they have in house. Usually this is because the document was created by the insurance carrier whereas the Master Plan Document was created by the actual self-funded employer group, making it harder for the recovery vendor to obtain.
Believe it or not, most reduction requests never actually make it to the client or plan. This is a well-kept secret that significantly impacts the resolution process. Subrogation vendor representatives will commonly refer to their client as having the decision making power. It gives the illusion that it is the insurance company who is a Claims Administrator or the self-funded employer is calling the shots. But for many subrogation vendors, they have complete discretion in house based on their subrogation contracts with their health insurance clients. This means that they internally get to make reduction decisions without clearing through the outside party they are working on behalf of. There are internal authority processes but only in narrow situations does the representative have the file reviewed outside the subrogation vendor’s internal team.
Aside from internal processes and financial incentive of the subrogation vendor itself, another big reason why many subrogation representatives are not open to reduction is because they have a personal stake in collecting that check from the injured party’s settlement. For most subrogation vendors, employees get a bonus for each recovery check they receive whether it be based on the dollar amount of the recovery, the number of recoveries they make in a month, or the percentage of reduction they provide on all of their closed files for the month.
Conclusion:
Attorneys play a crucial role in advocating for the injured party’s rights during the subrogation process. Attorneys must be knowledgeable and strategic in their interactions with subrogation vendors to ensure their clients keep a fair and equitable portion of their settlement. Understanding how subrogation vendors operate, their financial incentives, and the importance of obtaining and reviewing relevant plan documents can assist attorneys in effectively interacting with these vendors.
All of that still might not be enough though given the unlevel playing field when fighting a subrogation vendor. That is why outsourcing to experts in the field of lien resolution, like the health insurance plans do with recovery vendors, fights fire with fire. Having a team of experts who understand the ins and outs of these recovery vendors can level the playing field making sure your client keeps every penny of their recovery that they should.
Synergy is here to be that expert for trial attorneys and their injury victim clients. With our expertise and understanding of the intricacies of subrogation, we develop strategies to maximize the available settlement funds for injured people. Our focus is on achieving equity and fairness in the subrogation process thereby ensuring health insurance companies aren’t collecting more than they are entitled to. Trust Synergy to navigate the complexities of subrogation and provide exceptional lien resolution services for you and your clients. Together, we can ensure that injured individuals receive the compensation they very much deserve. Contact us today to learn how to partner with Synergy.
Michael Mogill on TLV Podcast
Hello, Fellow Trial Lawyers!
🎙️🔥 Are you ready to take your law firm’s practice to the next level? Get ready for an extraordinary episode of the Trial Lawyer View podcast! Join our esteemed host, Jason D. Lazarus, as he engages in an enlightening conversation with the brilliant Michael Mogill, the founder of Crisp. Prepare to be blown away by the wealth of knowledge and insights they will share in this transformative discussion.
💼💥 Michael Mogill is renowned for his innovative strategies that have revolutionized law firms across the industry. In this episode, you’ll embark on a deep dive into the essentials of optimizing law firm operations. Discover the art of assembling a stellar team, standing out in a highly competitive market, and achieving your firm’s goals with clarity and vision. This is your chance to learn from one of the industry’s brightest minds and propel your firm toward unprecedented success. 🌟✨
📚💡 But that’s not all! Prepare to uncover the power of crafting a unique value proposition and delivering an exceptional client experience. Explore how the quality of client interaction can have a profound impact, surpassing even the largest verdicts. Gain a fresh perspective on taking calculated risks and investing in your firm’s future. This episode will inspire you to embrace innovation and elevate your practice to new heights. 🚀💼
🎧⚖️ Don’t miss this incredible opportunity for inspiration and insights! Tune in to the Trial Lawyer View podcast and discover the secrets to accelerating your law firm’s practice. Get ready to transform your approach, gain a fresh perspective, and unlock unparalleled success. Join us on this exciting journey of growth and achievement!
Understanding Medicare Advantage Plans: A Comprehensive Overview
June 9, 2023
Introduction:
Medicare Advantage plans have emerged as a popular option for individuals seeking comprehensive healthcare coverage beyond what traditional Medicare (Part A/B) offers. These plans, also known as Medicare Part C, provide a unique alternative to traditional fee-for-service Medicare by combining various medical services into a single, all-inclusive package. In this article, we will provide a high-level overview of Medicare Advantage plans, helping you understand the key aspects and benefits they offer.
What is a Medicare Advantage Plan?
Medicare Advantage plans are private health insurance options offered by Medicare-approved insurance companies. They work by bundling together the benefits of Medicare Part A (hospital insurance) and Part B (medical insurance) into a single plan. In addition, most Medicare Advantage plans often include prescription drug coverage (Part D) as well. These plans are required to provide at least the same level of coverage as Original Medicare, but many go beyond by offering additional benefits such as dental, vision, hearing, and fitness programs.
Coverage and Benefits:
Medicare Advantage plans typically provide coverage through a network of healthcare providers, including doctors, hospitals, and specialists. There are different types of Medicare Advantage plans, including Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs), Preferred Provider Organizations (PPOs), and Special Needs Plans (SNPs). Each type has its own network rules and coverage options. Some plans may require you to get referrals from a primary care physician before seeing a specialist, while others offer more flexibility to see out-of-network providers at a higher cost.
Costs and Enrollment:
Enrolling in a Medicare Advantage plan requires individuals to be eligible for Medicare Part A and Part B. While Original Medicare has standardized premiums, Medicare Advantage plans often have their own premiums, deductibles, and cost-sharing arrangements. Some plans have low or even $0 premiums, but you still need to pay your Part B premium. It’s crucial to review and compare the costs and coverage details of different plans to find the best fit for your healthcare needs and budget.
Additional Considerations:
When considering a Medicare Advantage plan, it’s important to understand that these plans have certain limitations. For instance, they have specific enrollment periods and geographical limitations. Moreover, Medicare Advantage plans may require prior authorization for certain procedures or medications. It’s essential to carefully review the plan’s rules and restrictions before making a decision.
Personal Injuries & Medicare Advantage
Medicare Advantage plans enjoy the same rights as traditional Medicare does under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (MSP) when a personal injury settlement occurs, and the Advantage plan makes payments for injury-related care. The Advantage plan will have a lien. Pursuant to the MSP, their repayment formulas are the same as Medicare under 411.37 (c) and (d) which only requires a procurement cost reduction. The key for personal injury victims is making sure you discover all Medicare claims since Medicare itself doesn’t alert you to an Advantage plan lien. Failing to reimburse a Medicare Advantage plan could expose the parties to a claim of double the lien amount. In addition, Medicare Set-Aside considerations may need to be addressed since it is always possible to switch back to traditional Medicare under Part A/B. Avoiding a denial of future injury-related care is always a prudent course of action by exploring the Medicare Set-Aside issue.
Conclusion:
Medicare Advantage plans offer an alternative approach to healthcare coverage by combining the benefits of Original Medicare with additional services and potentially lower out-of-pocket costs. By understanding the basics of these plans, you can make an informed decision about your healthcare needs. Remember to review the available plans, compare their coverage and costs, and consult with a licensed insurance professional or Medicare counselor to ensure the plan aligns with your specific requirements. It is also important that if you get injured while being covered by an Advantage plan that you understand the implications of a settlement in terms of reimbursement of the plan as well as future eligibility.
The Medicare Secondary Payer Act impacts workers’ compensation, liability, and no-fault settlements involving a Medicare beneficiary. This month’s “Since You Asked” column addresses a situation where Medicare incorrectly denies non-injury-related treatment after a workers’ compensation case settles.
Question:
My client settled a workers’ compensation case that involved an injury to the metatarsals of her right foot about six months ago. Since she was on Medicare at the time of the settlement, the workers’ compensation insurance carrier reported the settlement to Medicare. My client is now receiving treatment for a completely unrelated right ankle condition which is being denied by Medicare because of her workers’ compensation settlement. What is going on here?
Answer:
This situation may be due to an issue with Section 111 Mandatory Insurer Reporting that was done by the workers’ compensation insurance carrier’s Responsible Reporting Entity (RRE). Section 111’s Mandatory Insurer Reporting (MIR) provisions generally require workers’ compensation insurers to report all workers’ compensation settlements to Medicare that involve Medicare beneficiaries. This is called a Total Payment Obligation to Claimant (TPOC) report. There is also an obligation to report the assumption of an Ongoing Responsibility for Medical (ORM) when the accident is accepted. This reporting requirement helps Medicare recover improper payments and avoid making inappropriate payments in the future.
When a workers’ compensation insurer reports a settlement to Medicare, the RRE must provide the injury victim’s first name, last name, date of birth, gender, Medicare Beneficiary Identifier (MBI), and Social Security Number (or the last five digits). Additionally, the RRE must report International Classification of Diseases (“ICD”)-10 diagnosis codes for the illnesses/injuries alleged, claimed, or released in the settlement. CMS encourages RREs to supply as many valid ICD-9/ICD-10 Diagnosis Codes as possible for the most accurate coordination of benefits. In your client’s case, the RRE may have reported an overly broad diagnosis code for an injury to the right leg, instead of a specific injury to the metatarsals of the right foot resulting in Medicare’s denial of the post-settlement treatment.
The beneficiary’s medical provider may be able to help address this situation. The February 23, 2021, Medicare Learning Network article (MLN Matters Number: SE21002) advises providers about the appeal process to follow when Medicare denies treatment due to an open or closed Liability, No-Fault, or Workers’ Compensation MSP record on the beneficiary’s Medicare file.[1] When Medicare inappropriately denies a claim because the diagnosis code on the unrelated claim and in the beneficiary’s MSP Section 111 settlement reporting record are the same or similar, the provider should appeal the inappropriately denied claim with the Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs). The appeal should explain and provide support that shows the services are not related to the injury reported on the MSP record. The article also advises the provider not to bill the Medicare beneficiary for the inappropriately denied claim but to resolve the claims issue with the appropriate MAC.
When faced with this unfortunate situation, we recommend that you reach out to the workers’ compensation insurance carrier to seek assistance in correcting the Section 111 settlement report. The provider should also be able to assist with the inappropriate denial by filing an appeal with the MAC. A proactive approach whereby both parties discuss and agree upon the diagnosis codes to be reported under Section 111 Mandatory Insurer Reporting when settling, generally helps to limit these types of problems post wash out of the claim.
Given these complexities, turn to Synergy Settlement Services team of MSP compliance attorneys to help guide you in the MSP compliance maze.