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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT