Medicare legislation has always been somewhat confusing, and complicated by the frequent changes. The framework that governs primary payer responsibilities, including reimbursements for Conditional Payments, is a good example of that, and it leaves many adjusters (and attorneys) scratching their heads. The Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act, passed in 2007, requires Responsible Reporting Entities (RREs) to report all personal injury claims involving a Medicare beneficiary to Medicare. Although stiff penalties can be levied for failure to comply with the reporting requirements, many insurers struggle with the distinctions and specifics of the MMSEA Reporting (Section 111) and MSP Recovery (think Conditional Payment reimbursement) regulations.
Why Was The Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act Necessary?
A primary objective of MMSEA is to identify RREs who are primary payers for Medicare beneficiaries for whom Medicare has made Conditional Payments to health care providers. This legislation was passed in response to the Medicare Secondary Payer Act of 1980 (MSP), which made Medicare a secondary payer in personal injury claims. But until the MMSEA legislation in 2007, there was no effective means for identifying the primary payer when one existed. MMSEA Section 111 Reporting requirements now make it possible for Medicare to identify the primary payer, which in turn helps to ensure Medicare is reimbursed for Conditional Payments, or knows where to go to recover it.
What is the impact of MMSEA on Insurance Carriers?
Under the 2007 MMSEA, insurance carriers can be penalized up to $1,000 per day per claim, when they fail to report. This stipulation sent shockwaves through the industry, and many insurance entities scrambled to ensure they were in compliance with Medicare Section 111 Reporting requirements. MMSEA stipulated that these entities would be known as Responsible Reporting Entities, and they have a legal obligation to keep Medicare informed when they enter into or make any settlements, judgments, awards or other payments to Medicare beneficiaries as a result of personal illness, injury or workers’ compensation claims.
Flagship’s Comprehensive Reporting Services
The route to 100% Medicare compliance can be difficult and expensive to navigate, especially if it is being done internally. Enlist the services of Flagship Services Group to avoid non-compliance reporting penalties and reduce your Conditional Payment liens. Our medical, legal and claims professionals have unsurpassed knowledge of the Medicare system and its continuously changing regulations. Flagship’s proprietary Section 111 Reporting system, LumenX®, can keep you up-to-date on all Section 111 Reporting deadlines and requirements.
- Louisiana Appellate Court Rules CMS Approval of MSA Was a Suspensive Condition that Suspended Obligation to Fund the MSA Until CMS Approval (5/21/2018) - Rafael Gonzalez, Esq. President, Flagship Services Group On May 2, 2018, the Third Circuit Court of Appeal of Louisiana published its opinion on Mary Ortega v. Cantu Services, Inc., concluding that the settlement of the workers compensation claim at hand was conditioned on CMS approval of a Medicare Set-Aside. Because the settlement agreement did not […]
- 6th Circuit Denies Beneficiary MSP Double Damages for Not Alleging Personal Financial Loss and Therefore Not Establishing Standing (5/15/2018) - On April 16, 2018, the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals published its opinion on Gucwa and Marusza v. Lawley, Ager, Baker, Rubin and Accident Fund Insurance Company, finding that because Gucwa and Marusza did not allege personal financial loss in the original complaint or the two amended complaints, they have not established standing […]
- A Tale of Two Courts: Can MAPs Recoup MSP Double Damages from Medical Providers That Have Received Payment from Primary Payer? (4/23/2018) - Rafael Gonzalez, Esq. President, Flagship Services Group What a difference a couple of miles and a couple of days make. On March 2, 2018, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, (Orlando), published its opinion on MSPA Claims 1, LLC v. Halifax Health, Inc., in which the court found that a […]