MEDICARE COMPLIANCE
Welcome to Synergy’s blog page dedicated to the topic of Medicare compliance. Our team of Medicare experts share their InSights and knowledge on the latest developments and best practices for law firms to stay compliant with the MSP. Stay up-to-date with the latest trends and strategies to ensure that you have the information you need to navigate the complex world of Medicare compliance. Our blogs provide practical tips and advice for ensuring that your clients receive the medical care they need while complying with Medicare’s requirements. Let our experts guide you through the intricacies of Medicare compliance and help you stay on top of the latest developments in this rapidly-evolving field.
By Synergy Director of Lien Resolution
Medicare Advantage plans, otherwise known as Medicare Part C, have proven to be a hot and confusing topic for plaintiff’s attorneys over the past few years. Recent rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court and 9th Circuit have done little to eliminate this confusion. Instead, the latest case law has increased the complexity. The Medicare Secondary Payer Act has been appropriately described as one of “the most completely impenetrable texts within human experience.” (See Cooper Univ. Hosp. v. Sebelius, 636 F.3d 44, 45 (3 Cir. 2010)) and the line of reasoning in the area of repayment to Medicare Advantage plans for benefits they have provided is a shining example of this sad truth. The question boils down to the ability of the Medicare Advantage Organization (“MAO”) to utilize the Medicare Secondary Payer Act as the basis for enforcement of the MAO’s reimbursement rights. It appears that due to the cross referencing between 42 U.S.C. §1395w-22(a)(4) and 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(2)(A) the MAO plan is allowed to seek a repayment under 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(3)(A).
Approximately twenty five percent (25%) of all Medicare beneficiaries, twelve million (12,000,000) people, are enrolled in MAO plans. Medicare Advantage plans allow Medicare entitled individuals to receive healthcare services through a non-governmental organization, commercial insurance companies, who contract with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) to administer Medicare benefits. CMS pays a capitated monthly fee for the traditional Part A & B coverage and a separate amount for Part D, prescription drug benefits. The MAO plan then is entitled to charge a premium to their enrollee. These MAO plans must handle all aspects of benefit administration, including the recoupment of benefits paid that should have been paid by a “primary payer.” It is this responsibility, and the mechanism for performing it, that has sparked much litigation and created significant uncertainty.
Over the past few years a consensus had been growing that MAO plans had no private right of action under the Medicare statutes, rather, they have state court contract claims. (See, Care Choices HMO v. Engstrom, 330 F.3d 786 (6th Cir. 2003); Nott v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, 303 F.Supp.2d (E.D. Pa. 2004); Parra v. Pacificare, 2011 WL 1119736 (D. Ariz. 2011), Humana v. Reale, 2011 WL 335341 (S.D. Fla. 2011)). However, this trend was derailed when the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari in In re Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices and Product Liability Litigation, 685 F.3d 353 (3d Cir. 2012), called Avandia II.
In Avandia II the Third Circuit reasoned that the MSP should be read broadly and that the language of the Medicare Advantage Organization statute (42 U.S.C. §1395w-22(a)(4)) cross references the Medicare Secondary Payer Act’s (“MSP”) language (42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(2)(A)) which allows these plans to utilize the enforcement provision of the MSP (42 U.S.C. 1395y(b)(3)(A)). The Third Circuit added to their opinion that the MAO plans are able to use the MSP since to deny them this ability would put them at a competitive disadvantage and moreover that the federal agency had enacted reasonable regulations in 42 C.F.R. § 422.108. This regulation is relied on by the MAO plans in their recovery actions as it states that the MAO plans have the same recovery rights as traditional Parts A & B. This decision was considered by most to be outside the trend in this area of law, but when the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari it became clear that MAO plans now had equal and parallel rights for a private cause of action as did traditional Medicare.
Immediately following this decision by the U.S. Supreme Court the Ninth Circuit weighed into the fray and issued its ruling in Parra v. Pacificare of Arizona, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7861. In Parra the MAO enrollee was struck by a car and later died from his injuries. Para’s wife and children (“Survivors”) made a demand for wrongful death damages, which under the Arizona Wrongful Death Statute did not include the debts or liabilities of the deceased. PacifiCare, the MAO, argued that it had a private right of action under two provisions of the Medicare Act: (1) §1395w-22(a)(4) (the “MAO Statute); and (2) §1395y(b)(3)(A) (the Medicare Secondary Payer Act “Private Cause of Action”). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected both arguments.
Unlike the Third Circuit the Ninth Circuit was not persuaded that the cross referencing of the MAO Statute (42 U.S.C. §1395w-22(a)(4) ) and the MSP (42 U.S.C. §1395y(b)(2)) created a federal cause of action. The Ninth reasoned that this cross-reference simply explains when MAO coverage is secondary to a primary plan, but does not create a federal cause of action in favor of a MAO.
PacifiCare then attempted to invoke 42 C.F.R. §422.108(f) as support for its position to the creation of a private cause of action. This regulation confers on the MAO “the same rights to recover from a primary plan, entity, or individual that the Secretary exercises under the MSP regulations.” Here the Court found that “[l]anguage in a regulation may invoke private right of action that Congress through statutory text created, but it may not create a right that Congress has not”. They elaborated by stating in clear terms that “[i]t is relevant laws passed by Congress, and not rules or regulations passed by an administrative agency, that determine whether an implied cause of action exists”.
Attempting to rely on Avandia II and the U.S. Supreme Court’s de facto endorsement of the Third Circuit’s holding, PacifiCare turned to the private cause of action created under 42 U.S.C. §1395y(b)(3)(A). Here the Ninth Circuit chose not to take on the rationale of the Third Circuit and rather made a fact specific determination that the language of the statute applies only “in the case of a primary plan which fails to provide for primary payment”. That was not the circumstance in the Parra litigation. Here the primary plan had “long ago tendered the sum claimed by PacifiCare … [and] Pacificare’s claim for relief is not against the insurer, or even against the Parra’s estate for sums received from a primary plan for medical expenses, but rather against the Survivors.”
The holding of the Ninth in Parra is not of much assistance to the practitioner as it is tailored narrowly to the facts of the specific case. Though not cited, the reasoning is the same as found in Bradley v. Sebelius, 621 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 2010) which found that a “primary payer” under 42 U.S.C. §1395y(b)(2)(A) is not defined as “surviving children with tort property beneficiary rights.” This ruling, while helpful, has limited applicability as currently the only opportunity to avoid repayment to the MAO plan under MSP is in situations involving a wrongful death claim where the proceeds of any settlement or award are not held by the estate of the MAO enrollee.
Medicare Advantage plans, otherwise known as Medicare Part C, have proven to be a hot and confusing topic for plaintiff’s attorneys over the past few years. Recent rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court and 9th Circuit have done little to eliminate this confusion. Instead, the latest
case law has increased the complexity.
Read more about it
By Jason D. Lazarus, J.D., LL.M, MSCC, CSSC
Since the landmark decision by the US Supreme Court in Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services v. Ahlborn in 2006, state Medicaid agencies have grappled with how to recover monies spent for injury related care through their third party liability statutes without violating the Ahlborn decisions. Many states, like Florida, have continued to apply third party recover statutes that seemingly violate Ahlborn. In WOS v. EMA, the Supreme Court was asked to review one such statute from North Carolina. North Carolina’s statute required that up to one-third of any damages recovered by a beneficiary for their injuries must be paid to Medicaid to reimburse it for payments it made on account of the injury. The Supreme Court found that this statute was not compatible with the federal anti-lien provision and violated the holding of Ahlborn which “precludes attachment or encumbrance” of any portion of a settlement not “designated as payments for medical care”.
In the EMA decision, the court again went through the tension between the mandate under federal law requiring an assignment to the state of “the right to recover that portion of a settlement that represents payments for medical care,” and the preclusion of “attachment or encumbrance of the remainder of the settlement.” The Ahlborn opinion held that the federal Medicaid statute sets both a floor and a ceiling on a state’s potential share of a beneficiary’s tort recovery. The EMA court pointed out that an injury victim has a property rig hint he proceeds of a settlement “bringing it within the ambit of the anti-lien provision.” “That property right is subject to the specific statutory “exception” requiring a State to seek reimbursement for medical expenses paid on the beneficiary’s behalf, but the anti-lien provision protects the beneficiary’s interest in the remainder of the settlement.”
North Carolina’s statute as applied ran afoul of the holding in Ahlborn because it set “forth no process for determining what portion of a beneficiary’s tort recovery is attributable to medical expenses.” Instead, the statute applies an arbitrary figure (one-third) and mandates that amount be the payment for medical care out of the tort recovery. Because, as applied, this violates the federal anti-lien law it is pre-empted. The EMA Court pointed out that if “a State arbitrarily may designate one-third of any recovery as payment for medical expenses, there is no logical reason why it could not designate half, three-quarters, or all of a tort recovery in the same way.” Since North Carolina could provide no evidence to substantiate the claim it made that the one-third allocation was reasonable and provided no mechanism for determining whether it was a reasonable approximation in any particular case, the Court rejected its application.
In a very important part of the decision, in my view, the court discusses when the state may not demand recovery from a portion of the settlement allocated to non-medical damages. The court stated that when “there has been a judicial finding or approval of an allocation between medical and nonmedical damages—in the form of either a jury verdict, court decree, or stipulation binding on all parties—that is the end of the matter.” “With a stipulation or judgment under this procedure, the anti-lien provision protects from state demand the portion of a beneficiary’s tort recovery that the stipulation or judgment does not attribute to medical expenses.”
In applying all of the foregoing to the facts of EMA, the high Court pointed out the flaws of the NC statute which didn’t allow for an allocation. The Court found that a substantial share of the damages in EMA must be allocated to skilled home care in the future. This would not be reachable by the state Medicaid agency to satisfy their lien. In addition, the Court noted that it may also be necessary to consider how much EMA and her parents could have expected to receive in terms of compensation for the other tort claims made in the suit had it gone to trial. “An irrebuttable, one-size-fits-all statutory presumption is incompatible with the Medicaid Act’s clear mandate that a State may not demand any portion of a beneficiary’s tort recovery except the share that is attributable to medical expenses.”
The final portion of the opinion addressed and rejected each of the five arguments made by North Carolina in defending its third party recovery statute. The first argument was that North Carolina was doing what Ahlborn said it could do which was “adop[t] special rules and procedures for allocating tort settlements.” According to EMA, that “misreads Ahlborn” as the decision did not endorse irrebuttable presumptions that designate some arbitrary fraction of a tort judgment to medical expenses in all cases.” Second, North Carolina argued that its statute falls within the scope of a state’s traditional authority to regulate tort actions. The EMA court stated that a “statute that singles out Medicaid beneficiaries in this manner cannot avoid compliance with the federal anti-lien provision merely by relying upon a connection to an area of traditional state regulation.” Third, North Carolina suggested that even though the one-third allocation might be arbitrary, other methods of allocation would be just as arbitrary. The EMA opinion’s response is that while no allocation is precise, it need not be arbitrary as trial judges and trial lawyers “can find objective benchmarks to make projections of the damages the plaintiff likely could have proved had the case gone to trial.”
The fourth argument made by North Carolina asserted that it would be “wasteful, time consuming and costly” to hold “mini-trials” to allocation settlements between medical and non-medical expenses. The Court stated that even if that were true, which it felt it wasn’t, that still “would not relieve the State of its obligation to comply with the terms of the Medicaid anti-lien provision”. The Court pointed to the sixteen states and the District of Columbia who provide for hearings of this sort with no indication that it is overly burdensome. “The State thus has ample means available to allocate Medicaid beneficiaries’ tort recoveries in an efficient manner that complies with federal law.” The fifth and final argument contended that CMS had approved North Carolina’s statutory scheme for Medicaid reimbursement. Citing the Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae, the Court found that was no longer the agency’s position. Furthermore, the documents North Carolina pointed to were “opinion letters, not regulations with the force of law.”
The question becomes what does this mean for other state Medicaid Third Party Recovery statutes that are similar to North Carolina’s invalidated statute? If you look at the EMA opinion’s holding and the analysis the US Supreme Court engages in relative to the North Carolina statute, one must conclude that any statute that provides for an arbitrary percentage would be interpreted in the exact same way. The question is will the state Medicaid agencies capitulate now with the EMA decision. In the long term I don’t think they will have a choice but to capitulate once the opinion has been digested.
To view the opinion click HERE
In WOS v. EMA, the first case to reach the US Supreme Court after Ahlborn, the highest Court in the land again examined a state statute requiring up to one-third of any damages recovered by an injury victim to be paid to the state to reimburse it for payments made by Medicaid for injury related treatment.
Are the defendants/insurance carriers throwing everything but the kitchen sink into your release language in regards to protecting Medicare’s interests? Be careful what you agree to include in the settlement documents. It can potentially cause a loss of itemized medical deductions on your client’s tax return and obligate them to set aside monies when it is inapplicable. Call Synergy at 877-242-0022 or visit us at www.synergymsa.com to make sure you and your clients are protected.
Are the defendants/insurance carriers throwing everything but the kitchen sink into your release language in regards to protecting Medicare’s interests?
By Tal A. Wollschlaeger
Medicare Lien Analyst
Everybody expects to get paid back one way or another. Whether someone owes you money because you bought him or her lunch when times were tough or you owe money on your credit card bill and its past due, when money is owed there is an expectation on the other end to be paid back in some way shape or form, and Medicare is no different. The difference between Medicare and the preceding examples is that Medicare employs a recovery agent known as the Medicare Secondary Recovery Contractor (MSPRC). The MSPRC website has defined its role in the following manner: “The MSPRC protects the Medicare trust fund by recovering payments when another entity had primary payment responsibility and the MSPRC accomplish this under the authority of the Medicare Secondary Payer Act. MSPRC is tasked with identifying and recovering Medicare payments that should have been paid by another entity under either a group health plan or as part of a Non-Group Health plan. These plans include but are not limited to Liability insurance, No-Fault Insurance, and Workers’ Comp. MSPRC does NOT pursue supplier, physician, or other provider recovery.” As one can imagine this process is a long and arduous one but pretty straightforward and this post will outline said process from A-Z.
In order for Medicare to know about the potential recovery situation, they need to be informed of such by the parties to litigation. This is done by the beneficiary themselves or their representative notifying the Coordination of Benefits Contractor (COBC) via telephone. During this call information such as Name, Address, Date of Accident, Injuries sustained by beneficiary, Insurance coverage, and the Beneficiary’s Attorney’s name and address is given to COBC so they can report the claim properly to MSPRC. It typically takes 24-48 hours for the claim to be reported to MSPRC, during that time it is imperative that if the Beneficiary has an attorney or representative, he or she must send the MSPRC proper proof of representation in order for the MSPRC to release information to the representative. At this point in the process the case has been established and there is an authorized representative assisting the beneficiary with this matter. Now that this has been accomplished it’s time for MSPRC to begin identifying claims.
MSPRC only begins identifying claims for recovery when it receives notice of a pending no-fault, liability, or Workers Comp matter. As MSPRC is seeking out claims, Attorney’s for the injured party are trying to secure settlement with the at fault parties insurance carrier. MSPRC will NOT issue a formal demand letter until settlement, judgment, or award; instead they will produce the Conditional Payment Letter (CPL). The CPL lists all the claims paid to date that are related to the claim reported to the COBC. Claims are presented in a code format known as ICD-9 codes; these codes can be deciphered by inputting them into a code converter which can be found at the following link (http://www.aapc.com/icd-10/codes/index.aspx). These codes range from 3-5 digits and once they are plugged into the converter the diagnosis will be generated. For example, the code 4019 is associated with hypertension/high blood pressure and 7231 is associated with Neck Pain. Given that the letter doesn’t provide a final demand amount; Medicare might make additional conditional payments while the claim is pending. The CPL has no minimum and no maximum amount and tends to include unrelated claims frequently. For example, if the injuries reported to COBC were back and neck injuries and MSPRC includes a charge for chest pain, the chest pain would be considered an unrelated charge. However, fear not! The next step in the process can help take care of situations such as the one presented.
It is common practice when a CPL comes in for the representative to audit the bill using an ICD-9 Code Converter online and search for unrelated claims. Following the audit it can be determined whether or not the CPL contains unrelated charges or not. If all charges are related, then all MSPRC needs is settlement info and they will produce a Final Demand. Conversely, if there are unrelated charges found and the beneficiary/representative believes that those claims should be removed, then they must send correspondence to the MSPRC establishing that the claims are not related to what was initially claimed. Additionally, they must forward a copy of the CPL in question and circle any and all unrelated claims. If this is done then MSPRC will take between 30-45 days to review and process the dispute. They will either adjust the CPL amount to account for anything they agree is not related to what has been claimed, or they will send a letter notifying you that they disagree with the dispute and to please refer to the most up to date CPL. If the latter occurs, an additional dispute is not out of the question should the beneficiary or representative wish to pursue one. Basically, the process would be repeated however this time around MSPRC asks that you send them additional evidence or documentation such as medical records to support the dispute. This process can go on back and forth until the beneficiary/representative is ok with the amount and wants to go forward with the disbursement of settlement funds. Speaking of settlement that leads us to the final step in the recovery process, and that is the Final Demand Letter.
Earlier in this post it was mentioned that once MSPRC is notified of a settlement/judgment/award that it will produce the final demand letter. It is expected that the beneficiary/representative send the settlement documentation to the MSPRC. This information must clearly identify the date of settlement, the settlement amount, the amount of attorney’s fees and other costs. Upon receipt of this information MSPRC will identify any related (THUS THE IMPORTANCE OF AUDITING FOR UNRELATED CHARGES) claims provided up to and including the settlement date and will issue the formal demand letter. The final demand letter will include the beneficiary’s name and Medicare Health Insurance Claim Number (HICN); the date of incident, the date of incident, a summary of payments made by Medicare, the total demand amount which (in most cases) will always be less than the CPL amount, and information on the beneficiary’s waiver and appeal rights. All checks must be made payable to Medicare and include the beneficiary’s name and HICN. However, a Demand is like a ticking time bomb and needs to be taken care of by a certain date. Failure to respond within the specified time frame will result in interest accruing, and ultimately all debt will be referred to the Department of the Treasury. Interest will begin to accrue from the date of the demand letter but will only be assessed if the debt is not repaid within in the time period specified. When the deadline hits, interest is due and payable for each full 30-day period the debt remains unpaid. Interest will continue to be assessed on unpaid debts even if a beneficiary is pursuing an appeal or waiver, that’s why it’s vital to pay the demand amount in a timely manner even if you decide to fight. Better yet if the waiver/appeal is granted the beneficiary will receive a refund, thus it makes very little since to not pay Medicare within the time frame specified in the demand letter.
Hopefully, this information helped shed some light on what MSPRC does for Medicare and cleared up any confusion about the entire process. As noted earlier, this process can take quite some time but if one is mindful of deadlines and diligent in their work then it won’t be as painful as it ultimately can be.
Learn more about the Medicare recovery process under the MSP.
By Jason D. Lazarus, J.D., LL.M., MSCC, CSSC
On December the 19th the Strengthening Medicare Secondary Payer Rules Act was passed by the House. The Senate passed the Act on December the 21st. It is on its way to President Obama to sign. The SMART Act will modify some of the current processes related to Medicare conditional payment recovery. While there are some significant improvements, it falls short of fixing all flaws in the MSP system when it comes to conditional payments. The good news is that it creates a 3 year Statute of Limitations for recovery actions relating to conditional payments. The mediocre news is that while it streamlines the process for obtaining conditional payment amounts it no longer has the enforcement provision originally proposed that would have stripped Medicare of the right to pursue recovery if they failed to timely provide the information. Below is a summary of the changes the bill makes to the Medicare Secondary Payer Act.
Bill Summary:
- Requires CMS to issue a “potentially” final demand before settlement, judgment or award
- Establish a right of appeal regarding conditional payments for insurance companies and self insureds
- Create a 3 year SOL
- Discontinue the use of the full SSN for mandatory insurer reporting
- Make fines permissive for defendants/insurers who don’t comply with the mandatory reporting
Bill Details:
Either party, 120 days before the reasonably expected date of settlement, judgment, award or other payment, notify the Secretary of the impending resolution of the case.
The Secretary shall maintain a website portal that will provide access to information regarding items and services paid for by Medicare related to the notice. It must be updated timely but not later than 15 days after the date a payment is made. The website must include provider or supplier name, diagnosis codes, date of service and conditional payment amounts. It must also identify claims and payments that are related to a potential settlement, judgment, award or other payment. There has to be a secure method for electronic communications. Lastly, the website must permit a download of a statement of reimbursement amounts being claimed by Medicare.
Obtaining the statement of reimbursement, if done within the prescribed periods of time, shall constitute the final conditional demand amount. There is a protected period which is 65 days from the notice, which can be extended by another 30 days. If settlement occurs during this period and the statement was downloaded within 3 business days of settlement then it shall constitute the final demand.
If there are discrepancies in the statement of reimbursement amount, the Secretary must provide a timely process to resolve such discrepancies. The discrepancies must be resolved by the Secretary within 11 days after receiving documentation of the discrepancies or the Secretary loses the right to dispute those discrepancies.
A right to appeal and appeals process must be created by the Secretary through the promulgation of regulations. However the appeal rights would be limited to the applicable plan (so only for defendants/insurers) and only relate to the subsections of the SMART Act.
There are two provisions relating to Mandatory Insurer Reporting. The first makes assessment of fines for non-compliance with the reporting requirement discretionary versus mandatory. The second gives the Secretary 18 months to eliminate the use of the Medicare beneficiary’s Social Security number for the reporting process.
Lastly, the SMART Act provides for a 3 year Statute of Limitations on recovery actions by the government. The 3 years runs from receipt of notice of settlement, judgment, award or other payment.
To see a copy of the text of the Act, click HERE
Below is a statement issued by the AAJ after the passage on the 21st:
Dear Colleague,
With the help and hard work of the AAJ Public Affairs team, the U.S. House and Senate have passed a bill that will bring certainty to the Medicare Secondary Payment (MSP) reimbursement process! This legislation is a huge victory for your clients on Medicare. It will simplify their lives—and your practices.
The version of the SMART Act that passed mandates a three-year statute of limitations on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) so that the agency cannot ask for additional money from clients or their attorneys after the statute expires.
In addition, the bill will simplify the current online portal process for calculating MSP reimbursement. An improved online process will help you resolve your Medicare Secondary Payer claims faster and easier. While the SMART Act offers great improvements, AAJ knows there is still more work to be done. We will continue working to improve the MSP process.
Much of the time at the end of this Congressional session has been consumed by the “fiscal cliff” negotiations. Lawmakers have resisted passing any legislation that deviated from this discussion. AAJ Public Affairs staff Sarah Rooney, Kate deGravelles, and Sue Steinman provided exceptional counsel to ensure that this legislation passed.
AAJ knows how many of you continuously struggled with CMS to receive timely, final reimbursement numbers. Many of you worked with AAJ Public Affairs to advocate for this legislation, and now, after more than two years, we have an accomplishment that will make a difference for lawyers all across the country.
Thank you for your support as an AAJ member. We could not have done this without you. When you stand with us it makes a tremendous difference in our ability to achieve positive advocacy results.
Best Regards and Happy Holidays,
| Mary Alice McLarty | Linda Lipsen |
| President | CEO |
| American Association for Justice | American Association for Justice |
On December the 19th the Strengthening Medicare Secondary Payer Rules Act was passed by the House. The Senate passed the Act on December the 21st. It is on its way to President Obama to sign. While it modifies the Medicare Secondary Payer Act, it only streamlines the MSP conditional payment process and has nothing to do with Medicare Set Asides.
The Medicare Secondary Payer Recovery Portal is Live!
A new online Self-Service Tool to help manage your Medicare recovery case.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has implemented a new web-based tool designed to assist in the resolution of Liability Insurance, No-Fault Insurance, and Workers’ Compensation Medicare recovery cases. The new tool is called, The Medicare Secondary Payer Recovery Portal (MSPRP).
The MSPRP gives users (attorneys, insurers, beneficiaries, and TPAs) the ability to access and update certain case specific information online. Activities that currently require written communication or telephone calls to the Medicare Secondary Payer Recovery Contractor will soon be able to be done through the portal.
The MSPRP will allow users the ability to electronically perform the following activities:
- Submit Proof of Representation or Consent to Release documentation – Instead of mailing in an authorization, users will be able to upload authorizations through the portal.
- Request conditional payment information – Requesting an updated conditional payment amount or a copy of a current conditional payment letter will be as simple as clicking a few buttons.
- Dispute claims included in a conditional payment letter – Users will be able to view the claims listed on the conditional payment letter and dispute unrelated claims online.
- Submit case settlement information – Users will be able to input settlement information online and upload a copy of the settlement documentation through the portal.
Click here to learn how to register and access the portal. All information on the new portal is located in the Tool Kits section above.
The MSPRC's new web portal is live!
BLOGS
READY TO SCHEDULE A CONSULTATION?
The Synergy team will work diligently to ensure your case gets the attention it deserves. Contact one of our legal experts and get a professional review of your case today.
