How Do You Know Your MSP Compliance Data is Secure?

January 29, 2020

Tower Cybersecurity Webinar

Understanding and Preventing Cybersecurity Threats

February 19, 2 PM ET

Minnesota Hospital Breach Impacts Personal and Medical Data of 50,000 Patients

A Billion Medical Images Exposed, but Doctors Ignore Warnings

Names, Social Security Numbers Exposed in Moss Adams Breach

These headlines ran in just the past 30 days.  How secure is your MSP compliance data? A 2019 report from IBM Security and the Ponemon Institute puts the chance of experiencing a data breach within two years at 29.6%. Are you ready?

But why is a MSP compliance company bringing up data security?  Because as a holder of hundreds of thousands of records with personal identification information (PII) and personal health information (PHI), cybersecurity and protecting client data are central to our business.

Data security responsibility goes from the desk level to the head of IT to the CEO and everyone in between–including your vendors.  Tower is pleased to help you protect your injured workers’ data with this informative webinar How do you know your MSP Compliance Data is Secure? Understanding and Preventing Cybersecurity Threats

Moderated by our Chief Compliance Officer Dan Anders, Esq., a panel of information technology and cybersecurity specialists, Tower’s VP of Information Technology, Jesse Shade, Chris Nyhuis, CEO, Vigilant Technology Solutions and Robert Kolb, President, Premier Mindset, will:

  • Illustrate the threat to organizations of all sizes, through real-life examples and data.
  • Describe the intersection of cybersecurity and MSP compliance.
  • Explain how cybercriminals snatch and use personal data.
  • Propose simple desk level and higher-level systematic measures to prevent data breaches.

Invite your IT professionals and senior leaders to join us.

When you click on the link below to register, you can also submit a question to be answered during the webinar.

Hope you can join us on February 19 at 2 pm ET.

Stay safe,

Dan Anders

Chief Compliance Officer

CMS Introduces Pre-CPNs and Open Debt Reports in Conditional Payment Recovery Process

January 28, 2020

hands on a laptop sending an email with dollar sign icons spilling out

On January 14, 2020 CMS held a Town Hall to discuss common Commercial Repayment Center (CRC) NGHP ORM Recovery topics.  In attendance on the call were various officials from CMS as well as Performant Recovery the CRC contractor.  For the most part, the presentation reiterated well-known Medicare conditional payment processes such as differences between conditional payment letters and notices, responding to demand letters and procedures and timelines to dispute and appeal conditional payments.

The slides and notes from the presentation can be found here.

CMS also introduced and explained Pre-CPN Worksheets and Open Debt Reports which we summarize below:

Pre-CPN Worksheet

A Pre-CPN worksheet contains cases that have been reported through the Section 111 reporting process, but for which the CRC has yet to issue a CPN.  The purpose of this optional worksheet is for the employer or carrier debtor to identify debts which will not be disputed.  Important, it is only accessible to Account Managers for Responsible Reporting Entities (RREs) by contacting the CRC with the entity’s tax identification number and RRE ID. 

It is expected the Pre-CPN worksheet will contain claim numbers and the total amount of the claimed debt, but it is uncertain whether it will itemize conditional payment charges.  Once reviewed, it is returned to the CRC with an indication of what claims will not be disputed.  The CRC then moves forward with issuing the CPN.

Open Debt Reports

The CRC advised that Open Debt Reports are now available in the MSPRP on all cases where the RRE insurer is the debtor and where there is a balance due.  The Open Debt Report is only available to the debtor (the RRE) meaning recovery agents, such as Tower, cannot access the reports.

Open Debt Reports are helpful in confirming not only that the RRE is aware of the debt but that the status of the debt, i.e. on appeal, matches their expectation of the status of the debt with the CRC.  If a debt is unknown or the status does not match what is expected, then it provides an opportunity to contact the CRC and clarify the matter. 

Q&A Session

Following the formal presentation there was a Q & A session which provided the following notable takeaways:

Treasury Department notices: A question asked whether more information, such as a claim number, can be included on Treasury Department collection notices.  CMS advised that as the Treasury Dept. collects for the entire federal government it is difficult for Treasury to add information specific to one government program.

Charges unrelated to the injury:  Another question asked whether any efforts are being made to reduce the number of unrelated charges found on conditional payment letters and notices.  CMS responded that efforts are being made to improve the “grouper” algorithm that searches Medicare billing records to identify charges related to the WC injury.  CMS indicated they have an outside contractor reviewing the methodology.

Statute of limitations on Medicare conditional payment recovery:  CMS responded to a question on the statute of limitations on Medicare conditional payment recovery by stating that the three-year statute of limitations added to the MSP Act by the SMART Act in 2013 does not apply to its administrative recovery efforts, rather it only applies to legal actions taken by the federal government.

Practical Implications

In regard to the Pre-CPN, it should be reiterated that this is optional.  If, as we expect, the worksheet does not itemize conditional payment charges related to the claim, then we are uncertain as to the usefulness of this document. 

Turning to the Open Debt Report, this can be a very useful document in confirming an employer or carrier’s current Medicare debts assuming it is accurate.  However, as a recovery agent for many RREs, we are disappointed that the CRC is only making these reports available to the RRE who registers for access through the MSPRP and not directly providing to the recovery agent for the RRE.

Notably, CMS’s position on the three-year statute of limitations for conditional payment recovery only applying to legal actions and not administrative actions raises uncertainty for both payors and claimants as to exactly how long Medicare has to recover.  Our expectation is that this will ultimately be resolved in the courts.

Finally, we are well aware of conditional payment notices and demands containing numerous charges unrelated to the injury.  Often the entire conditional payment claim by Medicare is unrelated.  We hope efforts by CMS and the CRC with adjusting this so-called grouper algorithm results in less unrelated charges in the future.

If you have any questions about the Town Hall call or the issues addressed above, please contact Dan Anders at daniel.anders@towermsa.com or 888.331.4941.

Georgia 400-Week Statutory Limitation on Medical Care Limits MSAs

January 7, 2020

state highway symbol for Georgia

Obtaining CMS recognition of state statutory limitations on medical care in order to limit the MSA allocation has always proven difficult, but not impossible.  As those who have Georgia WC claims know, since July 1, 2013, the state limits medical care in non-catastrophic comp claims to 400 weeks from the date of injury.  While this is old news, payers may not recognize the statute’s potential impact on MSAs. If certain conditions are met, CMS will agree to limit the MSA based upon the 400-week limitation.  

The CMS WCMSA Reference Guide says the following in regard to limitations such as Georgia’s:

Submitters requesting alteration to pricing based upon state-legislated time limits must be able to show by finding from a court of competent jurisdiction, or appropriate state entity as assigned by law, that the specific WCMSA proposal does not meet the state’s list of exemptions to the legislative mandate.

Accordingly, parties who wish to have the MSA limited based upon this statutory provision must draft and obtain the judge’s approval on an order which:

  • Identifies the specific injuries arising from the work accident.
  • States the claimant’s injuries arising from the accident have not been designated as catastrophic under the statute.
  • Confirms the claimant is entitled to no medical treatment beyond the 400 weeks from the date of accident.
  • Confirms the claim does not meet any of the exceptions found in the statute, i.e. use of a spinal cord stimulator.

If such an order is submitted with the MSA, CMS will agree to limiting the allocation to the approximate balance of years remaining on the 400 weeks.

Case Study

A Georgia claim was referred to Tower for MSA preparation. Both the claimant’s actual and rated age were 66, which normally calls for an MSA allocated over 19 years.  The MSA allocated over 19 years would have been $69,286.  However, the MSA approved by CMS and allocated over six years was $24,161.  This result was obtained by sending the MSA submission along with a court order from the Georgia Workers’ Compensation Board that confirmed the 400-week limitation applied in this case.

Practical Implications

Obtaining these court orders requires cooperation between attorneys for employer/insurer and claimant as well as the judge.  When such cooperation is possible, as demonstrated by the case study, the MSA can be allocated pursuant to state statute.  CMS approval of the limited MSA then gives claimant assurance that if the funds prove insufficient–which may be the case given it is not funded over life expectancy–then Medicare will pay for future injury-related medical care. 

If you have any questions please contact Tower’s Chief Compliance Officer, Dan Anders, Esq., at Daniel.anders@towermsa.com