The Mandatory Second Payer Act (MSP) prohibits the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS or Medicare) from making injury-related payments for Medicare beneficiaries if there's another carrier or provider with a primary obligation to do so. When working to settle an injury claim by a Medicare beneficiary, the parties to the case must take CMS's 'interests' in the case into account and establish a Medicare set-aside account (MSA) that covers current and future medical costs so CMS doesn't have to step in in the future on behalf of its insured.
Until recently, parties were strongly recommended to have their MSA proposals reviewed by CMS prior to settlement to ensure that the agreement does, indeed, protect CMS. A newly revised Nebraska statute, however, now gives parties the right to declare upon submission of the proposed deal to CMS that, by its included terms, it protects CMS. By doing so, these parties will avoid the scrutiny previously required by the preceding rule, as well as speed up the resolution process.
The question that arises from NE's action: how do parties to the case demonstrate conclusively that their agreement conforms to the MSP? While the new statute suggests that simply wording the document correctly should suffice, review of the CMS criteria for determining its ‘interests’ indicates that there is much to consider when asserting that an NE agreement meets the requirements of the federal statute.
Not all worker's compensation cases (WC) will require a submission; the federal agency has identified two instances (thresholds) of factsthat indicate that an submission is an appropriate element of case resolution:
Unless a case has one or the other of these circumstances, it will not trigger the need for submission of an MSA proposal for resolution. Those cases that do trigger the threshold, then, must provide information that the parties have taken the interest of CMS into account as they resolved the long-term funding issue. They must determine and assert that the long-term costs of treating the injury are covered so that CMS isn't required to provide additional healthcare funding for it in the future.
By its wording, the NE statute allows presumptive approval of MSA proposals that include:
When the proposal includes these terms, then the NE WC Court will ... "presume that the parties' agreement ... conforms to the compensation schedule and [is] for the best interests of the employee ... under all circumstances."
While the NE statute is silent, CMS itself outlines the criteria of the WC injury or illness that require consideration of its interests in an MSA proposal, and review of those elements both provides insights and raises concerns about future assertions of 'CMS consideration' in the MSA proposal:
A simple reading of the NE statute might suggest to some that parties to the WC case need no longer contemplate the full scope of CMS’s interests in a WCMSA case when crafting a proposal that will be presumptively approved. However, there is nothing in either state or federal law that asserts that complying with CMS’s ‘interest criteria’ is no longer necessary as a consequence of the passage of the Nebraska statute. Further, CMS and its recovery agencies are constantly on the lookout for cases where the federal carrier pays more than its share of an injured person’s healthcare costs and will pursue those costs as necessary. It is not known if NE’s revised law will invite more such CMS investigations in the future.
Consequently, as a suggested best practice in Nebraska, claimants and other WC case parties would be wise to generate a statement of facts that respond to the CMS Interests Criteria before submitting their proposal for approval. By doing so, they will have the evidence and documentation necessary to prove the appropriateness of their settlement valuation if and when CMS comes calling for that information.