Just as no two car crashes are the same, neither are two Workers’ Compensation cases (WC), especially when the need for a Medicare Set Aside (MSA) account is a possibility. To ensure the protection of the interests of both the injured worker and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) throughout the WC claim process, CMS uses both medical and legal principles to confirm the values submitted in every MSA proposal. Companies submitting MSA proposals should be familiar with those principles to avoid unnecessary delays or other complications when working to resolve the case.
Lawyers will tell you that every legal case is unique. Even incidents with almost identical fact patterns will differ based on the individual circumstances of those specific occurrences. Doctors will tell you the same thing; patients with identical diagnoses will have different treatment plans and prognoses based on their biological circumstances. Consequently, when the Workers’ Compensation Review Contractor (WCRC) reviews an MSA proposal, they look at the individual and unique circumstances of both the legal and medical situations when deciding to accept, modify or reject it. Not surprisingly, those reviews are comprehensive and complex. WC claimants and parties to the WC case who understand and follow the WCRC's procedural review guidelines stand a better chance of obtaining a swift response and acceptance of their proposal so they can resolve the case and move on.
CMS recently updated its Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set Aside Reference Guide (now version 3.2) to clarify the steps its WCRCs take when reviewing submitted MSA proposals. Any party seeking an MSA should follow these guidelines and use the same tools used by the WCRC to determine the values they include in their documents.
The WC case incorporates both legal and medical factors. To resolve the issues in the legal proceeding, the parties work together to determine the exact cause of the injury, who (or what) was responsible for causing it, the nature and extent of the damage, and who will pay for the medical costs needed to help the injured worker recover from it.
The WCRC begins its review by ensuring all the legal requirements are met and appropriate:
The medical evaluation is more complicated than the legal review. Every claimant presents with individual characteristics, each of which can influence how they experience their injury, the choice of treatment they receive, and the nature and extent of their recovery period. To properly evaluate every claimant, the WCRC team uses a series of tools to ensure their review is as comprehensive to that individual as possible.
After the relevant medical and legal elements are clarified, the WCRC then reviews them to determine whether the MSA values suggested are appropriate in this circumstance. This review also looks for other factors that might influence their final valuation estimate. Questions they might ask include:
The WCRC team also reviews the details of treatment and therapy already received as an indicator of the level of treatment that may be needed in the future. This review includes not just doctor visits and lab tests but also pharmaceutical recommendations and allocations, specialist inputs, and any other factors that might influence the claimant's recovery period and the cost of future medical care. At any time in the review process, the team can send the proposal back, requesting more information or corrections for information previously submitted.
The WCRC team looks at all this documentation to determine whether the proposed future treatment costs - medical, pharmaceutical, and therapeutic - are acceptable, given the parameters and protocols required by CMS and MSA rules. When they conclude the review, they submit a recommendation to CMS about accepting the proposal and whether it protects Medicare's interests:
Developing an MSA proposal requires attention to detail and extensive legal and medical knowledge. The revised Reference Guide provides a roadmap for MSA professionals to craft a comprehensive document that should move quickly through the CMS approval process.
In 2017, when the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) updated its Medicare Set Aside (MSA) Reference Guide, it added a provision that allowed a one-time opportunity to request an ‘amended review' of a conditionally preapproved MSA account. When a case met the required elements of the new rule, claimants and carriers could re-submit their MSA proposal based on evidence of circumstances that came to light after the initial submission was approved. Over the following three years, experience with the amended review process has provided insights into CMS decision-making, as well as illustrated when making such a request is advantageous to each side of an MSA case.
CMS is offering the new amended review opportunity in addition to the already standard 're-review' of an approved MSA agreement.
The opportunity to request a re-review of an approved MSA has always been part of the MSA process. WCMSA Reference Guide v3.0 §16.1. It applies when there is an 'obvious error' in the calculation of the value or documentation of the MSA case that changes the value of the MSA account, and that the parties discovered the error only after approval of the MSA application. The reviewed submission will correct the mistake(s). In a re-review case, the underlying facts of the case don't change and the corrected file assures CMS of the protection of its interests as a secondary payer within the case.
The opportunity for an amended review arises when the facts of the case have changed, and those changes now alter the value of the MSA allocation by at least 10% or $10,000. WCMSA Reference Guide v3.0 §16.2.Parties can only request the review when their Workers’ Compensation case (WC) has not settled but continues in litigation for more than 12 months (one year) and less than 72 months (six years) after approval of the original MSA. (In October 2019, CMS extended the time window for submitting a request from four years (48 months) to the new six-year standard.)
The amended approval opportunity aligns the CMS with several state laws that allow for re-opening the WC case in the event relevant health and healthcare care conditions change after that case has closed. While that opportunity provides for changes to the WC case itself, there was no such opportunity available to make consequent changes to the attendant MSA, when such an account was open. With this new CMS provision, plaintiffs and defendants can modify their MSA agreement to reflect the altered facts of the WC case.
The amended review process facilitates two equal goals: to protect CMS from paying for services that are rightly assignable to the primary payer, and to assist in the resolution and closure of long-term legal cases. It reflects the reality that circumstances change over time, and that 'final resolutions' must also often be fluid. The amended review process allows CMS to take into account those relevant MSA case factors that emerged after the MSA proposal was initially approved and that now might materially change its outcome.
Per the Mandatory Secondary Payer Act (MSP), CMS is liable for the healthcare costs of injured beneficiaries (or soon-to-be beneficiaries) only after all other 'primary' resources are exhausted. In the case of most MSAs, the MSA document itself clearly defines the obligations of a primary health care resource to an injured worker, and settled medical practices provide the guides needed to establish those medical cost parameters. CMS can sign off on the MSA proposal because it is assured that the primary payers are accepting and will follow through with their obligation to cover the short-, mid-, and long-term costs of the specific injury.
In those cases that suggest an amendment is in order, the circumstances of the case will have changed, and CMS is no longer confident that it will not be asked in the future to cover costs arising from the work-place injury. In these cases, the total value of the MSA may need adjustment for one of two reasons if or when the claimant's health care needs change:
A qualifying factor for filing an amended review request is that the case hasn't settled. In many, and perhaps most of these cases, that failure is caused by disputes related to the type and value of future medical care and costs.
Not surprisingly, convincing the CMS to change an already approved MSA requires substantial and credible evidence that the change is warranted. The Agency looks for 'best evidence' - those documents and records that come from an original source and that are clearly and directly related to injury care. Further, those records must prove that the initial MSA value is now off by 10% or $10,000, whichever is greater. The injured worker must prove that current circumstances justify an increased MSA value by at least 10% or $10,000; the employer/insurer must prove that current medical interventions can reduce the actual cost of care (as opposed to the approved funds set aside) for the injury by at least 10% or $10,000.
The Agency is also specific about what types of evidence can prove the adjusted claim and how to document that evidence properly:
Every requested modification of the original MSA must justify how any proposed change relates to the injury and the care and recovery of the injured worker. For prescription drugs, a difference in price in and of itself is not sufficient to justify changing the MSA, although that may be significant when a generic drug becomes available. Instead, the party seeking the change must establish that the revised pharmaceutical request addresses the medication recommendations for the specific injury, and that it meets the standards otherwise set for MSA inclusion:
Documents supporting these claims include drug prescription and medical treatment payment records dated within six months of the request, the insurer's prescription claim records, and the pharmacy benefits manager records.
For amended review requests that seek to reduce or increase the projected value of prescription drugs, parties filing the claim should detail the injured person's experience with the drugs correctly and make a direct connection between the use of the drug and the work-related injury.
The amended review opportunity provides an avenue for re-assessment for injured workers and their insurers when the case resolution details of the underlying WC case change. When handled correctly, the amended review action can ensure that injured workers retain the long-term healthcare services they need, or that insurers can recoup the MSA funds that are no longer necessary for future injury care. Considering the speed by which new medical capacities and capabilities are advancing, it’s probable that the amended review process will be pursued more frequently in the years to come.
Everyone updates, including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). In October, the CMS released its updated Medicare Set Aside (MSA) reference guide, version 3.0, which replaces version 2.9 released just in January of this year. As participants in the MSA system make changes to reflect the new guidelines, they should be careful to note and follow the new standards.
Not surprisingly, because the CMS is an immense bureaucratic organization, some of the changes are relatively small and more administrative in nature. These, while interesting, won't affect the processing of MSAs to any great extent. Other changes offer insights into interesting trends that may not have an impact in the near future but suggest more changes may be coming in the next year or so. Still other changes, however, carry critical legal ramifications, so understanding and implementing those new requirements will be necessary to remain in compliance with MSA administration standards.
There are two notable changes to the Guide that will have an impact on every future MSA: the revised "Consent to Release" rules, and the extension of the "Amended Review" opportunity from four to six years.
Date of compliance: April 1, 2020
The new rule requires all MSA applications to attach an updated "Consent to Release" form that includes language indicating that the beneficiary understands the details of the MSA process. It must also reflect their comprehension that their medical and other records will be shared with CMS and its agents (in particular, the WC Review Contractor - WCRC). The critical language will indicate that the injured party understands:
Additionally, at the very least, the claimant's initials should appear on the consent form to establish its validity, but full signatures are the optimal choice.
'Informed consent' is a significant legal principle that ensures that when people give up their rights in exchange for something, they are doing so knowing the full ramifications of the transaction. "Informed" means that the person has been given all the information needed to understand and make decisions about the circumstances at hand.
The premise behind 'informed consent' is that a person can only truly commit to an action when they understand all the potential impacts it may have on their life.
In the MSA sphere, and in the MSA application process in particular, 'informed consent' means four things:
Failure to obtain and submit proof of informed consent often renders moot whatever decisions were made without it. Failure to provide evidence of informed consent by an injured worker in a WC case may result in the setting aside of either or both the negotiations and final 'agreements' of the parties to the 'final' MSA contract.
The CMS includes a template for an appropriate Informed Consent document in the new Guide. Those forms are required in MSA application submissions after April 1, 2020.
The new Guide states that requests to review the details of a submitted MSA application can now be submitted up to 72 months after that initial MSA application was sent in. The previous rule limited such submissions to 48 months after the initial documents were transmitted.
This change is significant because it reflects CMS's awareness that medical conditions, treatment options, and outcomes change and that MSAs can be rendered obsolete or insufficient as a result. While the 24 months between four years and six years may not seem like a significant length of time, in the healthcare field, it could mean the difference between a lifetime of pain or a complete recovery due to advanced interventions. For employers, it could mean the avoidance of significant medical expenditures for workers who, because of new healthcare developments, are able to achieve improved outcomes at less cost.
There are, of course, caveats to the new rule:
The change in care costs must be justified by noting in line items to the proposal:
When approved by CMS, the approved amount becomes effective on the date of settlement of the case. Also, note that substituting generic drugs for non-generic drugs is not a justification for an amended review unless it is included among the justifications listed above.
CMS has provided additional information for electronic filing for those considering how to manage a newly available Request for Re-Review opportunity.
CMS has also enhanced its requirements on individual elements of the MSA process:
The change, however slight, would impact the overall value of an MSA in the event of
the need for lifelong care.
For all participants in the Medicare Set-Aside arena, the updated Guide offers important information for future MSA development and management. These new rules reflect the Agency's awareness and acknowledgment of today's realities:
We can only assume that future updates will be as thoughtful and comprehensive as this one is.
If Congress passes one or both of two bills presently sitting in congressional committees, then parties to a workers’ compensation (WC) case may finally have a solution to a problem that has plagued that system since its inception. Each of the two proposed bills originates in the separate chambers, and both appear to share a common goal: to articulate for the first time a WC Medicare Set-Aside (MSA) appeal process that can be applied consistently in all jurisdictions to further the pursuit of justice in WC cases. For many in the MSA industry, just getting them into committee is a significant accomplishment.
Although not a Constitutional mandate, both federal and state laws provide avenues for review of legal decisions to ensure their compliance with the law and the facts. Specifically, these "appeals" are defined as "a timely resort by an unsuccessful party in a lawsuit or administrative proceeding to an appropriate superior court empowered to review a final decision on the ground that it was based upon an erroneous application of law." Parties who file appeals are unsatisfied with the result of their case because it usually has a direct and negative impact on their property or person.
In some bodies of law, an appeal is automatic, and both federal and state laws grant the aggrieved party an absolute right to seek a second opinion about the outcome of their case. In criminal cases, the Constitution provides the appeal directive through both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses. In civil cases, each state enacts laws that govern when a person or entity has a 'right' to appeal a legal decision, including a decision stemming from a WC case. While each state enacts its own set of WC laws, when Medicare is involved in the case, federal law supersedes state laws.
Since the 1980's, when Congress passed the Medicare Secondary Payor Act(MSP), the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have been obligated to ensure that no public funding (Medicare or Medicaid funds) is used for health care costs that are rightfully the obligation of a primary payor or insurer. In workers’ compensation cases, the rule requires the primary payor (the insurer, employer or another entity) to cover all health care costs - both past and future - arising from a work-related injury. When settling those cases, plaintiffs can (but aren't required to) seek a review of their long-term healthcare cost proposal by submitting an MSA proposal to the CMS Workers' Compensation Review Contractor (WCRC). If the WCRC determines that the proposal doesn't adequately protect Medicare from future healthcare payment obligations, then it can reject the proposal. However, parties who wish to contest the rejection have no automatic right to appeal it.
Currently, there is no language within the MSA statutes that clarifies either the processes or bases required for filing or otherwise addressing an appeal of an MSA proposal denial. Without this language or guidance, both plaintiffs and insurers must pursue the case according to the minimal guidance contained in federal regulations or the law of their state. States do not have consistent laws regarding WCMSAs, so the result of an 'appeal-type' process in one state can be decidedly different than the result in another state, even when the facts and law of the two cases are markedly similar or almost identical. Parties to WC cases in all states have consistently vented their frustration caused by the lack of consistent management of a standard federal appeals process in the differing jurisdictions.
Currently, the federal rules governing resolution of WC cases that involve Medicare set-asides do not establish an automatic right to an appeal of a CMS decision, nor is there an established procedure to follow when an appeal is desired. Consequently, the responses to an appeal request by parties seeking a second opinion in a WCMSA case will differ based on the location of the case and the subjective opinion of the agency issuing the decision.
CMS does, however, offer avenues for review or re-reviewof the disputed decision that may or may not result in having the request for review granted, and which may or may not result in a better outcome of the case for the appellant:
Otherwise, CMS will accept requests for an ‘amended review’ when the following conditions are met:
When approved, re-reviewed amounts take effect on the date of the settlement.
Not surprisingly, many participants in the MSA sector are frustrated by the current CMS 'appeal procedures' because of their unwieldy nature and inconsistent application. Consequently, the industry as a whole has been pressuring Congress to change the current processes to make them fairer and more predictable for workers, their employers, and their insurers.
This summer, both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House introduced separate but similar bills to fix the WCMSA appeals gap:
Senate Bill 3079
In mid-June, the Senate introduced Senate Bill 3079, designed after an earlier bill proposed in 2014 to accomplish the same goal. In addition to establishing a formal appeal process for MSA reviews, SB 3079 also seeks to "establish the adequacy and application" of the disparate state provisions and fee schedules for MSAs that now confound those proceedings across the country.
Among other provisions (see HB 619, below), the bill proposes a three-tiered approach to contest a disputed Determination for prospective appellants:
On its face, the Bill would establish a guaranteed option to request a reconsideration, whereas currently, that opportunity is only granted at the discretion of the agency. And the three tiers of review offer more opportunities for appellants to argue their case for reversal of perceived injustices.
House Bill 6619
In Mid-July, the House introduced House Bill 6619, which appears to echo much of the Senate version in terms of proposed solutions to current MSA problems:
Both bills are only beginning their trek through the legislative process and are now in front of committees, the Senate Finance Committee for SB 3079, and both the Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means committees for HB 6619. When or if they'll move forward is up to the Chairs of those respective committees. Consequently, when the MSA industry might gain critical structure around its settlement and appeals processes is also up to those Chairs, as well as the subsequent actions of both houses of the U.S. Congress. Despite potentially lengthy delays in getting either or both bills pushed through the process and into law, participants throughout the MSA industry are gratified that at least that process has begun and hope that, this time, it is successful.
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.
On October 1, 2017, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) was scheduled to stop paying for health care services that should, instead, be covered by parties deemed responsible for those damages pursuant to liability and no-fault insurance cases. In early 2017, the agency had announced that Medicare-beneficiary claimants in both liability and no-fault legal cases should consider adding a Medicare Set Aside account term to their settlement negotiations, to ensure adequate protection for Medicare if/when those injuries require long-term care services. At the same time, CMS asserted that it would establish two new processes for Liability Medicare Set-Asides (LMSA's) and No-Fault Medicare Set-Asides (NFMSA's), each of which would trigger use of a new code - N723 for LMSA cases, and N724 for NFMSA's - when the agency rejects requests for payment due to the existence of the alternative payor funding. Now that the October 1 date has passed, what has changed, if anything, in the MSA administration world, as it relates to LMSA's and NFMSA's? Let's just say it's been a bumpy Autumn.
The addition of LMSA's and NFMSA's to the already busy CMS reimbursement system has been made more challenging by the September 1, 2017, entry into that system of a new Workers’ Compensation Review Contractor (WCRC), Capital Bridges, LLC. The contract title notwithstanding, the new administrative entity will be responsible for managing all of the LMSA and NFMSA cases, as well as the Workers’ Compensation cases already on its agenda.
Under optimal circumstances, a new contractor in such a complex field will face many challenges with which it may have little or no experience. In this case, unexpected events have delayed the commencement of the contract, which has delayed any forward movement on the LMSA and NFMSA front as well:
So, as Winter 2017 begins, we still don't know what CMS is going to do about the management of LMSA's or NFMSA's. It appears likely that the agency will include both liability and no-fault carriers as alternative payors and reject claims for which those entities have the obligation to pay for healthcare services. It also appears likely that the new WCRC will be the entity that that reviews proposed LMSA's and NFMSA's, although the processes to get the case in front of it aren't yet known. Not surprisingly, our clients are understandably nervous about what the incoming changes at CMS and in the MSA system will mean for them moving forward.
So, here at CompEx MSA, we have determined that our best practices and next steps will be to ensure that our clients continue to receive the best possible service for all their MSA needs. In addition to keeping our clients and customers informed about the ongoing drama at the CMS, we will also continue to evolve our practices to conform to industry changes:
As one of Florida's certified minority-owned businesses, CompEx MSA is proud of its reputation for providing high-quality MSA services to both state- and nationally-based customers. We value all our clients equally and are looking forward to serving their MSA needs in future workers’ compensation, liability, or no-fault cases, regardless of how CMS elects to move forward with those processes.
There is a new Worker's Compensation Recovery Center WCRC contractor in place as of September 1, 2017. The new contractor is Capital Bridge LLC, headquartered in Arlington VA., which replaces Provider Resources Inc. (PRI). The contract award is notable for several reasons:
New contractors must often go through a learning curve as they come up to speed on contract terms, exceptions and other anomalies related to the MSA process. That learning curve can slow down the review process, at least for a short period. PRI had reduced the MSA review turnaround time to an average of 14 days, which allowed insurers, injured workers, and other MSA agencies to move forward quickly with the settlement of the worker's compensation claim.
This new contractor may take more time to come up to speed with current practices, so parties with existing or newly filed cases may experience longer delays. Additionally, the recently issued new reference guide, which became effective as of July 21, 2017 instituted new re-review practices, now titled Amended Reviews, which some parties to MSA's may not yet have mastered. How MSA review and management processes will roll out under the new contractor remains to be seen.
In other CMS news, the agency is reporting recovery of over $100 M in net collections for the Medicare program for its fiscal year 2015-2016. The amount represents monies paid by Medicare to medical providers when there was another responsible payer available. That sum was only a part of the over $240 M that Medicare paid but which should have been covered by another responsible payor. The agency continues to work to collect the balance of those 2015-2016 accounts.
CMS has an obligation to taxpayers to collect back funds paid to providers before the worker's compensation case settles and liability for the payments is established in another insurer or entity. In the 2013-2014 fiscal year, the agency collected a net of $59 M, but in the 2014-2015 fiscal year, it collected substantially more, a net $150 M. The bump up between the 2013 and 2014 fiscal years is attributed to the increase in collections from non-group payers, an payer category only recently opened for review by CMS.
The drop in collections from 2015 to 2016, however, is attributed to more group health payers stepping up and assuming their obligations before the agency is compelled to pursue those claims, a trend that the industry hopes will continue. As every industry participant works to achieve peak efficiency, some are reaching out to CMS to identify Medicare patients earlier in the claims process. By doing so, they can resolve the Medicare aspect of the case earlier and move the case faster to eventual resolution.
For the first time, parties involved in a Workers' Compensation Medicare Set-Aside (WCMSA) can request a re-review of the MSA value when they dispute the CMS determination or when the financial circumstances of medical care vary from the approved MSA amount by ten percent or $10,000. In the past, insurers, corporations, and injured persons had only one opportunity to seek a re-review of the CMS MSA value determination by submitting a re-review request to the CMS Regional Office (RO) at the time of the settlement. If they remained unsatisfied with the CMS decision after that process, there was no other opportunity to seek an adjustment of what CMS determined to be the appropriate value of their MSA amount. For insurers and self-insured corporations, no further review meant they remained on the hook for the additional costs of care for work-related injuries, even when those costs were appropriately assignable to the MSA.
The newly released “re-review” opportunity, now titled an “Amended Review” allows all MSA constituents a new opportunity in which to argue that the costs of care for these injuries should shift to the MSA. The revised WCMSA Portal User Guide, version 5.1, released July 10, 2017, includes an "Amended Review” section at §12.4.3 that sets out the procedure and grounds for making an Amended Review request.
As of July 2017, WC case participants can seek an Amended Review if they disagree with the RO decision on the original settlement value, or if the projected cost of care has changed so significantly that the new proposed settlement amount totals more than ten percent or $10,000 from the original CMS approved amount. Only cases that have an approved status with the RO and have no other existing re-review requests pending can seek an Amended Review of the MSA value.
It is not unusual for the professionals involved in MSA cases to offer differing values for the claim. Both the insurance company or corporation and the CMS are obligated to keep their costs as low as possible, which means they must look for ways to reduce current and future costs of care for injured workers. Consequently, sometimes the net value of the MSA determination is insufficient to properly manage their injury or its long-term health consequences.
The new rules authorizing further review of a disputed MSA value allow MSA parties to submit additional information about the case and the projected costs of care to be considered within the original settlement discussions. Although how this actually affects MSA negotiations and agreements remains to be seen, the opportunity to seek another opinion about the future cost of care is most likely a boon to all involved.
The option to review an existing MSA value is new to the CMS and arises from cases where the work-related injury worsens over time, requiring additional, unforeseen medical care costs. While many states permit reopening of WC cases if there is medical evidence that the injury has gotten significantly worse over time, those laws refer only to the original WC claim with the insurance company, and not to the resolution of the claim with CMS. Until this WCMSA Portal User Guide revision, MSA beneficiaries or their insurers had no opportunity to adjust the MSA value to reflect the long-term reality of the WC-related injuries.
Appropriately, the new WCMSA rules establish parameters that limit the timing and circumstances of Amended Review requests:
Workplace injuries impair both the life and future of injured workers and businesses and insurance companies work hard to be sure injured workers are well cared for through the term of the injury. MSA accounts are designed to cover the future medical costs of those injuries. The Amended Review process gives injured workers and those who support them the opportunity to seek an adjustment to the MSA account when its value doesn't meet the needs of the medical case.
For more information about establishing or maintaining a Worker's Compensation MSA, contact CompEx MSA today.