Synergy Helps Client Transition from Litigation to Life – Meaghan’s Story

An update on Meaghan | It has been  two years since we first told you Meaghan’s story. Her big question was “How am I going to deal with my finances for the rest of my life?” Meaghan’s question is one that plagues many injury victims at settlement. She was facing extraordinary liens, potential loss of public benefits and an uncertain financial future. “Synergy was able to sit down with me and put me at ease, make me feel comfortable about where I am today and where I can see myself in the future.”  Recently, she sat down with us to talk about the positive impact Synergy had on her life after the accident. See Meaghan’s transition from litigation to life.

   Watch “Meaghan’s Story” »

June 16, 2014 | Performing as a stand-up comic is one of the most daunting challenges a first timer can face. As comedian John Oliver explains: “Stand-up comedy seems like a terrifying thing. Before anyone has done it, it seems like one of the most frightening things you could conceive, and there’s just no shortcut – you just have to do it.” When Synergy client, Meaghan Jones* took the stage to perform her first ever comedy routine in early 2010, she had already faced and conquered far greater challenges as she became a C-6/7 quadriplegic as a result of an automobile accident five years earlier.

Meaghan’s story is an excellent example of a Synergy client successfully transitioning from litigation into life so she can achieve her dreams. Prior to the accident, she had just begun her exploration of a career in the arts. She was regularly performing as a hostess/singer at a local comedy club and was pursuing a full time career in singing and acting. In fact, just prior to the accident, she had been placed on a short list for acceptance to Julliard. Out of over 400 prospective applicants who performed, Meaghan’s dramatic monologues made her one of only twelve that received a call back.

Meaghan refused to allow her accident or resulting challenges to get in the way of her dreams. Not only does she continue to perform regularly as a comic at a number of local comedy clubs, she also directs theater. In 2006, less than a year after her accident, she directed a play at a local theater where she had performed previously as an actor. Since that time she has directed thirteen additional productions and plans to continue and pursue direction. Meaghan has successfully overcome many challenges in her life but still recalls the fear of performing as a comic for the first time and loves the challenges of facing her fears and vulnerability. She sees it as the perfect blend of directing, writing, acting and performing all at once.

Synergy first became involved with Meaghan as she neared the close of litigation regarding her accident at the request of her dedicated trial attorneys, Ariel Furst and Todd Stabinski. She was very well represented in the case and the settlement created some unique issues that needed to be addressed. Synergy was able to successfully utilize our Settlement Asset Management Special Needs Trust as a financial/public benefit solution in her case. Not only is the trust set up in a fashion that protects needs based benefits, it also provides a combination of income and growth that will help with her immediate living expenses as well as long term needs.

Meaghan continues to work closely with Anthony F. Prieto, Jr. CFP® at Synergy. Anthony is a Certified Financial PlannerTM and has worked with Meaghan since the resolution of her case. Never one to shy from a challenge, Meaghan has enjoyed learning about finance and investing as well as being involved in the planning process. Additionally, our lien resolution department has been working with Meghan and her aforementioned trial attorneys on resolving the outstanding Medicaid lien asserted at the close of litigation as a significant part of maximizing her settlement is not only providing sound financial advice but also ensuring that all outstanding health care liens are reduced and resolved as well. Our comprehensive approach has been helpful in achieving these goals.

We consider ourselves lucky to work with a client like Meaghan and pride ourselves on effectively working with clients as they transition from litigation into life. There is no better example of mastering this transition than Meaghan. We look forward to her continued successes as a comic and director, and know there will be plenty of future successes to celebrate!

*Client name has been changed to protect privacy.

McCutchen Round 2 – Why 29 U.S.C. 1024(b)(4) Matters

On March 17, 2014 the trial court in the infamous U.S. Airways v McCutchen entered an order allowing Mr. McCutchen to amend his answer to include affirmative defenses and a counter-claim.  The court allowed this unusually late amendment to pleadings as result of U.S. Airways’s failure to produce the Master Plan Document (MPD) until just before oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court. 

“[T]he Court [was] troubled by US Airways’ untimely production of the Plan documents and its disingenuous contention that Defendants failed to request the Plan document”

This is an example of how making a proper 29 U.S.C 1024(b)(4) request could have made a monumental difference. In this  seminal case, the plaintiff’s failed to properly and timely make their document request under 29 U.S.C. 1024(b)(4).  This failure allowed the ERISA plan to, at least temporarily, avoid producing the unfavorable Master Plan Document (MPD).  Just as in Cigna v. Amara, 131 S. Ct. 1866 (U.S. 2011), the benefits enumerated in the Summary Plan Description (SPD) were strikingly different from the plan participants benefits as defined in the MPD. 

In the McCutchen case the only recovery for the injured plaintiff was $10,000 from the tortfeasors Bodily Injury (BI) coverage and $100,000 from Mr. McCutchen’s own Under Insured Motorist (UIM) coverage.  After appeals to the 3rd Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court, Mr. McCutchen was required to repay the U.S. Airways ERISA plan over $66,866. This resulted in (after attorney fees and costs) Mr. McCutchen being $867.00 out of pocket.  What is significant is that the MPD in this instance does not allow for U.S. Airways to make a recovery from the UIM coverage, meaning that they should have only been able to look to the $10,000 in BI as a repayment source. 

Had Mr. McCutchen’s attorneys made a proper 29 U.S.C. 1024(b)(4) request this would have been discovered immediately and it is likely that U.S. Airways would have agreed with their own plan language avoiding the Supreme Court’s unfavorable decision.  ERISA plans are only able to enforce “the terms of the plan” (29 U.S. Code § 1132) and thus it is incumbent upon the plaintiff’s attorney to obtain the “terms of the plan.” 

This action by the trial court hopefully will result in Mr. McCutchen being able to retain at least some portion of the settlement proceeds.  However, the bad law of U.S. Airways v. McCutchen, 569 U.S. (2013) remains as a result of the failure to demand what every ERISA plan participant is allowed to review and every ERISA plan is required to produce. 

FL Supreme Court Overturns Med Mal Caps

In a well reasoned opinion, the Florida Supreme Court has overtuned the unfair medical malpractice caps.  These caps devalued human life as children and seniors who were not breadwinners, could be the victim of malpractice with no real ability for family members to recover damages.  We applaud the Florida Supreme Court’s opinion in the McCall case. 

Below are announcements from the FJA and AAJ.

From the FJA:

“The Florida Supreme Court released the McCall v. The United States of America, [read the decision] decision today, holding the 2003 caps on noneconomic damages in wrongful death medical malpractice cases unconstitutional.

I would like to thank our leaders from 2003, Past President Howard C. Coker (2002-2003) and Past President Richard M. Shapiro (2003-2004), who spent countless hours covering the statewide hearings of the Governor’s Task Force and in the Florida Legislature through the regular and several special sessions – especially Past Presidents Neal A. Roth and Lake H. Lytal, Jr. who lead the task force and the constitutional challenge efforts.

We have many individuals and groups to thank for their support of our efforts to hold these caps unconstitutional, including building a record in the Governor’s Task Force on Healthcare Professional Liability Insurance and the Florida Legislature in 2002 and 2003 and guiding us through and working with us on this litigation at the trial court level as well through appeal to the Florida Supreme Court.

We would like to thank local trial counsel, Henry T. Courtney and Sara Courtney-Baigorri and Stephen S. Poche for their excellent work on this case on behalf of the McCall family.

Special thanks to Linda Lipsen of the American Association for Justice for their significant support and the incredible work of Robert S. Peck and Valerie M. Nannery of the Center for Constitutional Litigation. 

We applaud the outstanding contributions of the attorneys who submitted Amicus Briefs in support of the McCall’s: Lincoln J. Connolly, Barbara W. Green, John S. Mills, Andrew D. Manko, Stephen N. Zack, Herman J. Russomanno, and George S. Christian.

The hearts and minds of all of us are always with the victims of medical malpractice and today justice was done.”

From the AAJ:

“The Florida Supreme Court today overturned a 2003 law that imposed arbitrary limits on noneconomic damages in wrongful death claims. This victory for Florida patients and families is the result of the outstanding work of the Center for Constitutional Litigation (CCL), led by Bob Peck, and local counsel Henry T. Courtney, Sara Courtney-Baigorri and Stephen S. Poche.

Supporting CCL to Support the Plaintiff Bar

The American Association for Justice supports CCL’s work by retaining the firm to, among other things, challenge the constitutionality of laws that limit access to the courts. When an important precedent is at issue concerning the plaintiff bar and AAJ’s mission, CCL litigates these cases. CCL’s work on this Florida case was funded in part by AAJ’s retainer. I encourage you to hire CCL for appellate work or, if you have a state issue of this magnitude, you can make a request to AAJ to use our retainer to help offset the cost of your case.

At the heart of the Florida case are issues at the core of our democracy. Bob argued in the Florida Supreme Court that Florida’s statutory limits on compensatory damages for non-economic harm violate plaintiffs’ rights of equal protection, trial by jury, access to the courts, and separation of powers under the Florida Constitution. The Court struck down the law on equal protection grounds, concluding that:

“The statutory cap on wrongful death noneconomic damages fails because it imposes unfair and illogical burdens on injured parties when an act of medical negligence gives rise to multiple claimants. In such circumstances, medical malpractice claimants do not receive the same rights to full compensation because of arbitrarily diminished compensation for legally cognizable claims.”

Court Says:  No Medical Malpractice Crisis

The Court went even further, noting, “…the statutory cap on wrongful death noneconomic damages does not bear a rational relationship to the stated purpose that the cap is purported to address, the alleged medical malpractice insurance crisis in Florida.”

While the legislature claimed that there were too many frivolous lawsuits and that the increase in medical liability insurance premiums was the cause of doctors leaving Florida, the Court disagreed and wrote, “…the finding by the Legislature and the Task Force that Florida was in the midst of a bona fide medical malpractice crisis, threatening the access of Floridians to health care, is dubious and questionable at the very best.”

Court Says: Insurance Companies Hurting Doctors

The court also noted that between 2003 and 2010 there were four medmal insurance companies with an increase in their net income of more than 4300 percent. With that kind of income, the court wrote, “the insurance industry should pass savings onto Florida physicians in the form of reduced malpractice insurance premiums.”

This is a tremendous victory and I hope you will join me in congratulating all who worked on this important case.”

Medicaid Liens – Congressional Reversal of Ahlborn & Wos

Unfortunately, as part of the budget signed by President Obama on the 26th of December (Merry Xmas), a legislative fix for Ahlborn was made law.  Now, Medicaid liens are like Medicare liens in the sense that they are super liens.  Medicaid will be able to assert its lien against the entirety of the settlement instead of the portion attributable to past medical expenses.  The new provisions go into effect on 10/1/14.  The pertinent sections are found below.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – –

[From the Act as passed] 

SEC. 202. STRENGTHENING MEDICAID THIRD-PARTY LIABILITY.

(b) RECOVERY OF MEDICAID EXPENDITURES FROM  BENEFICIARY LIABILITY SETTLEMENTS.–

(1) STATE PLAN REQUIREMENTS.–Section 1902(a)(25) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(25)) is amended–

(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ”to the extent of such legal liability”; and

(B) in subparagraph (H), by striking ”payment by any other party for such health care items or services” and inserting ”any payments by such third party”.

(2) ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHTS OF PAYMENT.–Section 1912(a)(1)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C.  1396k(a)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ”payment for  medical care from any third party” and inserting  ”any payment from a third party that has a legal liability to pay for care and services available under the plan”.

(3) LIENS.–Section 1917(a)(1)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396p(a)(1)(A)) is amended to read as follows:

 ”(A) pursuant to–

”(i) the judgment of a court on account of benefits incorrectly paid on behalf of such individual, or

”(ii) rights acquired by or assigned to the State in accordance with section 1902(a)(25)(H) or section 1912(a)(1)(A), or”.

 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.–The amendments made by this section shall take effect on October 1, 2014.

In a message to its membership, the American Association for Justice had the following to say:

“The Bipartisan Budget Act (BBA) which was just approved by Congress and signed into law contains language damaging to plaintiffs covered by Medicaid … The provision in the new law overturns a unanimous 2006 United States Supreme Court decision in United States vs. Ahlborn. In Ahlborn, the Court ruled that only the portion of the settlement that represented payment for medical expenses could be claimed by the state Medicaid agency. The BBA allows a state to claim ALL of a settlement or judgment. The BBA also counters a 2013 Supreme Court decision (Wos vs. E.M.A.) that rejected (6-3) North Carolina’s lien on Medicaid claimants’ tort recoveries. We expect the result of the new law to be that plaintiffs who are Medicaid recipients will recover less and in many cases will be unable to pursue claims at all because any recovery would have to be reimbursed to Medicaid. … This provision was added because it was deemed to raise revenue by Congressional Budget Office economists, despite the fact that the provision will have the opposite effect.”

The end result of this legislation will be a chilling effect of suits brought on behalf of Medicaid recipients.  It also is fundamentally unfair given the realities of what is many times a limited recovery on behalf of the injury victim which is now ignored with this change.  Medicaid liens now become very similar to Medicare liens in terms of disregarding equity concerns. 

Settlement Planning – What is IRR and Does It Matter?

By Anthony F. Prieto, Jr.

At Synergy, we spend a lot of time in mediations helping attorneys and their seriously injured clients to plan for their post settlement future.  We try to create holistic settlement plans that meet our client’s needs while taking the least possible amount of risk.  The majority of financial products in the settlement industry are fixed income or fixed interest products.  To keep it simple, I will only be discussing fixed rate products below.

A commonly asked question about fixed interest products, such as a structured settlement annuity, is what is the rate?  That is hard to explain because it’s not always comparing apples to apples when you look at investment returns among different products.  I took the most commonly used terms in the financial industry and went to www.investopedia.com for definitions.  Below are the simple form definitions from that site:

Yield:

The income return on an investment. This refers to the interest or dividends received from a security and is usually expressed annually as a percentage based on the investment’s cost, its current market value or its face value.

Nominal Rate of Return:

The amount of money generated by an investment before expenses such as compounding periods, taxes, investment fees and inflation are factored in.

Effective Rate of Return:

An investment’s annual rate of interest when compounding occurs more often than once a year.

Internal Rate of Return (IRR):

The discount rate often used in capital budgeting that makes the net present value of all cash flows from a particular project equal to zero.

Tax Equivalent Yield (TEY):

The equivalent yield on a taxable investment when an investor’s tax rate is considered.  (The higher your tax bracket the more this will impact your rate.)

Pretty simple right?  To make matters worse, structured settlement annuities typically have both guaranteed and expected returns listed on the proposals.  The Internal Rate of Return (IRR) which is shown on the proposal is based on life expectancy.  Different life companies use different life tables to determine life expectancy.  As a result, the exact same proposal from two different life companies could show two different internal rates of return.  It is important to know that the IRR shown on a structured settlement quote is a composite rate.  It takes into consideration that short payments receive less interest than the longer payments.

What should you do?  First, recognize that the rate is not necessarily as important as creating a plan that meets your needs.  Second, find an expert that will take the time to thoroughly explain these issues and assist you in arriving at an educated decision.  There are many options in terms of managing monies recovered as a result of a personal physical injury.  Knowing the options and focusing on solutions rather than rates will result in a plan that ultimately meets the primary objective of having a good investment solution which also meets critical life needs post settlement.

Synergy provides comprehensive settlement planning/consulting services.  We offer unique solutions to meet the needs of our clients.  Find out more today about how Synergy can make a difference.

The Affordable Care Act: Injury Victims Beware

By Daniel J. Alvarez, J.D., Vice President & General Counsel

As has been well publicized, it was revealed last week on healthcare.gov that fewer than 27,000 people signed up for private health insurance last month in the 36 states relying on a problem-filled federal website.  States running their own enrollment systems signed up more than 79,000, for a total enrollment of just over 100,000.

Even more concerning then the technological challenges with the system, is whether consumers have the necessary knowledge of health insurance to be making these decisions by January 1, 2014.  According to poll results released in August 2013 by the American Institute of CPAs, more than half of Americans are not equipped with the rudimentary knowledge of health insurance concepts and definitions to understand the basics of health insurance plans.  http://www.aicpa.org/press/pressreleases/2013/pages/us-adults-fail-health-insurance-101-aicpa-survey.aspx

Findings of the poll include the following:

  • 51 percent of adults surveyed could not accurately identify at least one of the three most common health insurance terms present in insurance contracts: premium, deductible, or copay.
  • 34 percent thought a premium was an expense at the time of receiving medical service or a prescription.
  • 27 percent thought a copay was the cost of obtaining insurance.
  • 12 percent did not know a deductible is the money one pays before an insurance company makes payments.
  • 41 percent of those surveyed were not knowledgeable about the ACA.
  • 48 percent of young adults ages 18 to 34 having no knowledge of the change in health care laws.

For personal injury victims, an accurate understanding of these issues is even more critical as they attempt to make insurance coverage decisions that will affect them for the rest of their lives.  For example, the question as to whether it is better to enter the exchanges versus using planning techniques to remain eligible for public benefits need to be thought through and addressed.  The impact of the ACA on personal injury victims could be dramatic from not only a planning perspective, but also in terms of limiting future damages.  It has been argued by legal commentators that future medical damages will be limited in lawsuits to the cost of providing health insurance through the exchanges.  Time will tell whether the collateral source rules will be altered once the ACA’s coverage is in place for a period of time.  See http://college.holycross.edu/RePEc/hcx/Matheson-Congdon_ACATortAwards.pdf

When navigating the transition from litigation into life, plaintiffs must seek out a knowledgeable partner to assist in making these complex determinations.  At Synergy, we have worked with plaintiffs for years in navigating the intersection of public benefits, private insurance and settlement planning.  We will continue to be closely tracking the implementation of the ACA and its impact on settlement planning.

Medicare Gives Refunds? How Can My Client Get One?

By Director of Lien Resolution

Repaying Medicare for conditional payments is a necessary but unpleasant process which can result in a greatly reduced net recovery or no recovery at all for an injured Medicare beneficiary.  The Medicare Secondary Payer Statute has a repayment formula that is designed to maximize the return of funds to Medicare and provides no consideration for the future well-being of the Medicare beneficiary. The only consideration that Medicare makes in applying its repayment formula is whether or not the amount of the Medicare Conditional Payments is less than, equal to or greater than the gross settlement.  (42 C.F.R. 411.37(c); 42 C.F.R. 411.37(d)).  Despite Medicare’s blind application of the repayment regulations, there is a way for the injured Medicare beneficiary to increase his/her net recovery.  This is by way of obtaining a refund from Medicare which sounds crazy, but it works.

In the worst-case scenario where the amount of Medicare Conditional Payments is equal to or exceeds the gross settlement, the injured Medicare beneficiary experiences the harshest treatment.  In that circumstance, the Medicare beneficiary must return all of their net settlement (after attorney fees and costs) to Medicare, resulting in a zero net recovery to the plaintiff.  The regulations provide:

“If Medicare payments equal or exceed the judgment or settlement amount, the recovery amount is the total judgment or settlement payment minus the total procurement costs.”

(42 C.F.R. 411.37(d))

This is a situation that is happening with increased frequency as the cost of medical treatment rises and a contracting economy forces many parties to carry only the mandatory minimum limits of insurance coverage.  The practical effect of this regulation is seen daily by the attorneys who represent injury victims as they wrestle with the equitable and ethical issues of resolving a policy-limits case wherein only the attorneys/Medicare will see any portion of the settlement funds.  It may even be the case that the only settlement funds come from the Medicare beneficiary’s own Uninsured Motorist coverage.   In that case, the injured plaintiff has been paying premiums for insurance coverage just so Medicare and their attorney can be paid in the event they suffer massive injuries.  (See 42 C.F.R. 411.50(b) authorizing repayment to Medicare from UIM proceeds).

In an attempt to reduce the unforgiving nature of the repayment formula, many attorneys have looked for ways to ensure their clients see at least a nominal amount of the personal injury settlement.  These client-centric attorneys often want to reduce or waive their fees and costs once they have received the “Final Demand” from the MSPRC.  Despite the good intentions of these attorneys, if they reduce or eliminate their fees without updating the settlement information provided to MSPRC they are committing Medicare fraud.  According to the regulations:

“Recovery against the party that received payment—

(1) General rule. Medicare reduces its recovery to take account of the cost of procuring the judgment or settlement, as provided in this section, if—

(i) Procurement costs are incurred because the claim is disputed; and

(ii) Those costs are borne by the party against which CMS seeks to recover.”

(42 C.F.R. 411.37(a))

If the costs (including attorney fees) are not borne by Medicare beneficiary then under the above regulation Medicare would not have applied the reduction formula to their demand for repayment.  Yet informing Medicare that the attorney has waived fees or costs will only result in Medicare increasing its repayment demand in the same amount, still leaving the injured plaintiff with nothing.  This leaves the only option of “gifting” all or a portion of the attorney fees back to the client, which involves its own set of tax consequences and potential ethical quandaries.

As an answer to this problem, Synergy has developed a low-cost way for Medicare beneficiaries to take advantage of seldom-used statutes/regulations to obtain a refund of all or part of the funds that were paid to MSPRC in satisfaction of Medicare’s “Final Demand.”  There are three statutory provisions under which Medicare may accept less than the full amount of its Conditional Payment:

1.  §1870(c) of the Social Security Act;

2.  §1862(b) of the Social Security Act; and

3.  The Federal Claims Collection Act (FCCA).

Each statute contains different criteria upon which decisions to waive or compromise Medicare’s claim are considered.  Additionally, the authority to grant a waiver or compromise under each of these statutes is limited to specific entities.  Medicare contractors have authority to consider beneficiary requests for waivers under §1870(c) of the Act.  Whereas, authority to waive Medicare claims under §1862(b) and to compromise claims under FCCA, is reserved exclusively to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”).

MSPRC has the authority to grant full or partial waivers to beneficiaries for whom repayment of Medicare’s Conditional Payments would pose a financial hardship.  According to the regulations:

“There shall be no recovery if such recovery would defeat the purposes of this chapter or would be against equity and good conscience.”

(See, 42 U.S.C. § 1395gg (c), §1870(c) of the Social Security Act; 42 C.F.R. 405.355-356; 42 C.F.R. 405.358; 20 C.F.R. 404.506-512; Medicare Secondary Payer Manual (MSP), Chapter 7 § 50.5.4.4).

In order to apply for this “Financial Hardship” waiver, the Medicare beneficiary must file form SSA-632-BK with MSPRC which documents their financial situation.  Synergy also includes in this request a letter drafted by the Medicare beneficiary (not their attorney) explaining the undue hardship that repaying Medicare would cause.  These decisions by MSPRC are made on a case-by-case basis. The MSPRC’s manual explains their approach well and provides indicators of whether or not a waiver should be granted.

In addition to a request made to MSPRC for a “Financial Hardship” waiver under §1870(c) of the Social Security Act, Synergy requests a “Best Interest of the Program” waiver direct from CMS under §1870(b) of the Social Security Act.  Requests for a waiver under this statute are often overlooked by even the most seasoned attorneys and lien resolution companies.  Synergy however understands that the settlement proceeds for which the Medicare beneficiary is fighting to retain is the only source of a recovery for the injuries sustained and must provide for their future needs.  Therefore, Synergy vigorously pursues every avenue that can be used to obtain a refund from Medicare.  CMS has authority to waive in full or in part Medicare’s claim for repayment when it is “in the best interest of the program.”  This rather vague criteria is nowhere further defined and lies completely at the discretion of CMS.

It is important to note that an evaluation by CMS of a “Best Interest of the Program” waiver is a separate and distinct evaluation than a request for a Compromise under the Federal Claims Collection Act (FCCA).  As the stakes are high for the Medicare beneficiary, Synergy always makes both a request for this waiver and a request for a compromise when seeking a refund from CMS of the amounts the beneficiary has already paid to satisfy the “Final Demand.”

The third and final method for obtaining a refund from Medicare is a Compromise request made to CMS.  Authority to grant a Compromise is granted to CMS under the Federal Claims Collection Act (FCCA). (31 U.S.C. 3711).

The Medicare Secondary Payer Manual compiles the statutory and regulatory sources, articulating the criteria in a straightforward manner as follows:

“[31 U.S.C.3711] gives Federal agencies the authority to compromise where:

  • The cost of collection does not justify the enforced collection of the full amount of the claim;
  • There is an inability to pay within a reasonable time on the part of the individual against whom the claim is made; or
  • The chances of successful litigation are questionable, making it advisable to seek a compromise settlement.”

(Medicare Secondary Payer Manual (MSP), Chapter 7 § 50.7.2)

As one can see, there are many things for CMS to evaluate on a case by case basis to determine if the proposed Compromise should be accepted or not. Synergy has developed detailed processes to insure that each relevant factor is brought to the attention of CMS so that the Medicare beneficiary has the best possible chance for obtaining an acceptance of the offered Compromise.

Obtaining a refund from Medicare of all or part of the funds paid to satisfy the “Final Demand” is not an easy task.  It requires intimate knowledge of a variety of statutes, regulations, and the Medicare Secondary Payer Manual.  However, it may be the only method by which a severely injured Medicare beneficiary will be able to obtain any portion of their personal injury settlement funds.  Synergy has the knowledge and experience to employ all available tactics to obtain a refund for our customers.  We also have a successful track record in obtaining substantial refunds for Medicare beneficiaries. We understand the importance of preserving settlement funds for the injured plaintiff and share the client centric mentality of the plaintiff’s bar. To that end, Synergy provides a Medicare Lien Resolution Service at a very low up front cost by taking our fee in proportion to how successful we are in obtaining a refund for the Medicare beneficiary (% of savings).

To see the kind of results Synergy achieves for its clients in terms of lien reduction, click HERE

What is the SOL for Medicare Conditional Payments?

What is the statute of limitations for Medicare to institute an action for repayment of conditional payments used to be a question with more than one answer.  In the past the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) had argued that the six (6) year limitation period contained in the Federal Debt Collection Act for claims arising out of contract was the correct standard for the plaintiff attorney.   That statute provides:

“every action for money damages brought by the United States or an officer or agency thereof which is founded upon any contract express or implied in law or fact, shall be barred unless the complaint is filed within six years after the right of action accrues…”

28 USC § 2415(a)

The plaintiff’s bar and Medicare enrollees argued that the shorter three (3) year statute of limitations was the correct standard for claims arising out of tort. That statute provides:

“every action for money damages brought by the United States or an officer or agency thereof which is founded upon a tort shall be barred unless the complaint is filed within three years after the right of action first accrues…”

28 U.S.C. § 2415(b).

When President Obama signed the Strengthening Medicare and Repaying Taxpayers Act  (“SMART”) on January 10, 2013 he answered this question in favor of Medicare beneficiaries. Additionally, unlike some of the other components of the “SMART” Act this section is self-enacting and  does not need rule promulgation or post a proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register for this to be effective. By operation of statute this new time limit became effective six (6) months after signing.  Therefore, all cases that settle after July 10, 2013 will be controlled by the three (3) year statute of limitations. The “SMART” Act reads in pertinent part:

“(a) In General.–Section 1862(b)(2)(B)(iii) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395y(b)(2)(B)(iii)) is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: `An action may not be brought by the United States under this clause with respect to payment owed unless the complaint is filed not later than 3 years after the date of the receipt of notice of a settlement, judgment, award, or other payment made…’”

Pub. L. No. 112-242, § 205(a) (2013)

In the recent case U.S. v. Stricker, Lexis 15204 (11th Cir. July 26, 2013) the court provides an excellent analysis of the above competing statutes of limitation and confirms that the “SMART” Act has resolved the controversy for settlements after July 10, 2013.  The Stricker Court discussed the need and purpose of federal statute of limitations:

The purpose of a statute of limitations, such as 28 U.S.C. § 2415, “is to require the prompt presentation of claims.” Coppage v. U.S. Postal Serv., 281 F.3d 1200, 1206 (11th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Originally, there was no statute of limitations for lawsuits filed by the government. Congress, however, passed § 2415-a statute of limitations that applies to the United States  [*14] -“to promote diligence by the government in bringing claims to trial and also to make the position of the government more nearly equal to that of a private litigant.” United States v. Kass, 740 F.2d 1493, 1496 (11th Cir. 1984).

The new three (3) year statute of limitations under the “SMART” Act addresses that need and the complaint of so many Medicare beneficiaries who wonder if there is ever an end to CMS’s demand for repayment.  It is now incumbent on the plaintiff’s attorney to report settlements to CMS (via their contractor MSPRC) so that the three (3) year timer starts running as soon as possible.

For help with Medicare Conditional payment resolution, turn to Synergy.  Synergy offers a unique post payment of final demand service where we attempt to secure a refund back from Medicare via the compromise/waiver process.  There is a small administrative fee at the outset and then Synergy only gets paid if there is a refund on a percentage of savings basis.  To learn more about Synergy’s lien resolution services, visit www.synergylienres.com

Will Obamacare End ERISA’s Subrogation Tyranny?

By Synergy’s Director of Lien Resolution Services

In the wake of the disastrous holding in U.S. Airways v. McCutchen, 569 U. S.        (2013) plaintiffs and their attorneys are crying out for an end to the Draconian tyranny of self-funded ERISA plans’ subrogation practices.  As you may recall, Mr. McCutchen was severely injured, incurring nearly $67,000.00 in medical damages, in a motor vehicle accident that killed or seriously injured three (3) other people.  Mr. McCutchen was able to recover $10,000.00 from the tortfeasor’s Bodily Injury coverage and another $100,000.00 from his own Under Insured Motorist coverage.  Despite this six figure recovery, Mr. McCutchen was $867.00 worse off from having brought a claim due to paying attorney fees, litigation costs, and repaying the U.S. Airways self-funded ERISA plan.   In light of this reality, the question being raised by so many is “will the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”) bring any relief?”

It may be that the “PPACA”, also often referred to as “Obamacare”, will end the ability of self-funded plans to call equity “beside the point”.  This was the phrase used by the U.S. Supreme Court in Sereboff v. Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc., 547 U. S. 356 and reiterated in U.S. Airways v. McCutchen when discussing the impact of “equity” on the express terms of a self-funded ERISA plan’s contract for health benefits.   That possibility has the insurance industry very concerned given the importance of self-funded insurance “products” to their bottom line.  According to report by Loyola University Professor John D. Blum 55% of all workers, 73 million, are in self-funded ERISA plans.  Moreover, he has found that 89% of employers with 5000 or more employees use self-funded ERISA plans.  The insurance industry fears that the “PPACA” may live up to its name and actually “protect” patients from the inequitable actions of the ERISA recovery vendor.

The fear of the insurance industry could have a basis in reality.  The Self-Insurance Institute of America (“SIIA”) has estimated that a migration from self-funded plans to the new federal and state exchanges under “PPACA” might be as high as 48%.  Professor Blum notes that this will make the self-funded pool much smaller and thus make those plans more costly.  Cost savings, and reduced premiums have been key marketing points for the insurance industry as they purvey their self-funded products.  In fact, in a letter to Congressman Henry Waxman the self-funded insurance lobby stated that “[r]ecoveries from subrogation and reimbursement reduce health plan costs and allow employer health plans to provide more benefits at a lower cost to their employees.” This letter was sent at a time when the House of Representatives was considering the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 and specifically an amendment that expressly applied the “made whole” doctrine.  The “made whole” doctrine is an equitable axiom that the injured party must be “fully compensated” for his/her damages before any collateral source can assert a claim for subrogation/reimbursement.  The insurance lobby would rather that this common sense principle of fairness remain “beside the point.”

The possibility that their might be a way out for the plaintiff who formerly had group health insurance provided as a participant in his/her employer’s self-funded ERISA plan has the recovery vendors nervous as well.  As every experienced plaintiff’s attorney knows there is an entire industry that has emerged over the past quarter of a century to enforce the subrogation/reimbursement rights of self-funded ERISA plans.  These recovery vendors; such as Rawlings, HRI, Ingenix, and ACS participate in conferences, seminars and continuing education with their “in-house” colleagues to stay current on the developing trends in this specialized area of practice.  At its annual conference in November 2012 the National Association of Subrogation Professionals (“NASP”) had a presentation entitled “Will Obamacare and National Insurance Exchange Spell the End of ERISA Remedies?”.  This topic was of such a salient concern that it was Daran Kiefer, the “NASP” President, who delivered the presentation.

With just months left until “PPACA” begins opening exchanges it is still unclear what impact these exchanges will have on ERISA subrogation/reimbursement rights.  In the early stages of healthcare reform negotiations this issue was raised by two Democrats – Rep. John Barrow of Georgia and Rep. Bruce Braley of Iowa who introduced the Barrow/Braley Subrogation Amendment to HR 3200 America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.  As I explained above this amendment was immediately met with strong resistance from the insurance lobby.  The proposed amendment allowed for the application of both “made whole” and “common fund” to all Qualified Health Benefit Plans (“QHBP”):

With respect to any qualified health benefits plan requiring an enrollee to reimburse the QHBP offering entity (health plan) for any amount recovered from any source relating to a personal injury or similar type of claim, subrogation or reimbursement is permitted only if the enrollee has been fully compensated for all damages arising out of such claim. Any plan provision to the contrary is not enforceable. Insofar as subrogation or reimbursement of benefits is permitted, the subrogation or reimbursement amount shall not exceed the amount allocated to the categories of damages for those benefits in the settlement or judgment, less a pro rata share of any fees and expenses incurred in securing the settlement or judgment.

Despite the efforts of some, including the support of the American Association for Justice, the “PPACA” has no provision that deals with these rights. In the end neither this language, nor any language dealing with subrogation/reimbursement rights, was included in the final bill that became “Obamacare”.

In discussing this issue with some of the leading minds on ERISA subrogation/reimbursement the consensus seems clear, nobody knows what impact the “PPACA” will have in this area.  Professor Baron of South Dakota University School of Law is often on the forefront of developing ERISA issues and maintains a close circle of ERISA experts.  Professor Baron informs us that he too has heard similar conclusions from his cadre of ERISA gurus.  Despite this lack of guidance a few things are clear; the insurance industry is nervous, and just about anything would be an improvement over the 100% repayment standard of U.S. Airways v. McCutchen and its “beside the point” view of equity.

For help with resolving complicated lien issues, turn to Synergy.  Visit our lien resolution unit’s site at www.synergylienres.com  Try out our unique approach to resolving liens.