ILNews

DTCI: New Medicare reimbursement and reporting law

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

By Nicholas C. Pappas and Jeffrey J. Mortier
 

Pappas_Nicholas.jpg Pappas
Mortier_JeffreyBW Mortier

On January 10, 2013, President Barack Obama signed into law the Strengthening Medicare and Repaying Taxpayers Act of 2012 (“SMART Act”). When finally implemented, the SMART Act should streamline settlement negotiations and provide more certainty to settlements involving Medicare beneficiaries.

The SMART Act will significantly modify Medicare’s Secondary Payer requirements to be more efficient, workable and user-friendly. Using a secure website, claimants, insurers and self-insureds should be able to obtain information about payments for which Medicare claims it is entitled to reimbursement and will be entitled to rely on that information when claims are paid (so long as proper notice is given). In addition, entities required to report payments to Medicare beneficiaries will likely be given some reprieve from the harsh penalties for noncompliance with Section 111’s reporting requirements when good-faith efforts are made to report a potential third-party claim.

Key elements of the SMART Act include:

(1) Medicare must provide claimants, insurers and self-insureds with access to a secure website that contains information relating to payments made by Medicare that may be subject to reimbursement from any potential settlement, judgment, award or other payment.

(2) Claimants, insurers and self-insureds may give notice to Medicare of a potential settlement, judgment, award or other payment within 120 days of the potential settlement, judgment, award or other payment. Medicare then has 65 days to provide its reimbursement amount. If proper notice is provided, the claimants, insureds and self-insureds that have obtained consent of the claimant then may rely on the last statement of reimbursement amount downloaded from the Medicare website so long as the statement was downloaded within three business days before the date of the settlement, judgment, award or other payment. The amount downloaded is then considered the “final conditional amount” subject to recovery by Medicare.

(3) Claimants who believe there is a discrepancy in the final conditional payment amount may provide documentation to Medicare explaining the discrepancy. Medicare then must respond to the discrepancy within 11 days. However, this discrepancy process does not take the place of a formal appeals process and the Act requires Medicare to promulgate regulations establishing an appeals process.

(4) Medicare must establish thresholds for both conditional payments and Section 111 reporting. The thresholds are designed to prevent Medicare from expending more money in collection efforts than it stands to receive on a given claim. The thresholds are to be established on Nov. 15 of each year beginning in 2014.

(5) Section 111’s per diem failure to report penalty is now discretionary, as Medicare “may” subject a claim to “a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each day of noncompliance.” In addition, Medicare must give notice of proposed regulations in which sanctions will not be imposed for non-reporting, including when good-faith efforts to report have been undertaken.

(6) Within 18 months of the enactment of the Act, Medicare must modify Section 111’s reporting requirements so that Social Security account numbers and health identification claim numbers are not required.

(7) A three-year statute of limitations for Medicare Secondary Payer actions is established.

In order to take full advantage of the law, it will be important to notify Medicare in advance of settlement conferences and mediations, to obtain consents from claimants to access information on the amounts claimed by Medicare, and to download the final conditional payment amount within three days of any settlement conference or mediation.•

Mr. Pappas and Mr. Mortier serve as National Medicare Reporting Coordinating Counsel at Frost Brown Todd LLC in Indianapolis. Both are members of DTCI. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  2. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

  3. She must be a great lawyer

  4. Ind. Courts - "Illinois ranks 49th for how court system serves disadvantaged" What about Indiana? A story today from Dave Collins of the AP, here published in the Benton Illinois Evening News, begins: Illinois' court system had the third-worst score in the nation among state judiciaries in serving poor, disabled and other disadvantaged members of the public, according to new rankings. Illinois' "Justice Index" score of 34.5 out of 100, determined by the nonprofit National Center for Access to Justice, is based on how states serve people with disabilities and limited English proficiency, how much free legal help is available and how states help increasing numbers of people representing themselves in court, among other issues. Connecticut led all states with a score of 73.4 and was followed by Hawaii, Minnesota, New York and Delaware, respectively. Local courts in Washington, D.C., had the highest overall score at 80.9. At the bottom was Oklahoma at 23.7, followed by Kentucky, Illinois, South Dakota and Indiana. ILB: That puts Indiana at 46th worse. More from the story: Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, Colorado, Tennessee and Maine had perfect 100 scores in serving people with disabilities, while Indiana, Georgia, Wyoming, Missouri and Idaho had the lowest scores. Those rankings were based on issues such as whether interpretation services are offered free to the deaf and hearing-impaired and whether there are laws or rules allowing service animals in courthouses. The index also reviewed how many civil legal aid lawyers were available to provide free legal help. Washington, D.C., had nearly nine civil legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty, the highest rate in the country. Texas had the lowest rate, 0.43 legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty. http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2014/11/ind_courts_illi_1.html

  5. A very thorough opinion by the federal court. The Rooker-Feldman analysis, in particular, helps clear up muddy water as to the entanglement issue. Looks like the Seventh Circuit is willing to let its district courts cruise much closer to the Indiana Supreme Court's shorelines than most thought likely, at least when the ADA on the docket. Some could argue that this case and Praekel, taken together, paint a rather unflattering picture of how the lower courts are being advised as to their duties under the ADA. A read of the DOJ amicus in Praekel seems to demonstrate a less-than-congenial view toward the higher echelons in the bureaucracy.

ADVERTISEMENT