Beyond Structured Settlements

S2P2J Release 63

The United States structured settlement market has been in existence for approximately 40 years and continues to expand its scope, complexity and importance within the context of personal injury settlement planning. When structured settlements were first introduced in the United States in the late 1970s, they were viewed primarily as a defense claim management concept which was binary in nature. A settlement was either “cash” or “structure”. A “failed” structured settlement was a “cash out”. Defense brokers sold a single product – a structured settlement annuity which could be, and almost always was, combined with up front cash. Rarely, however, from a defense perspective, was a structured settlement annuity integrated with other financial products or government benefits. In fact, a fundamental public policy justification for structured settlements claimed that “structured settlements enable injury victims to live free of reliance on government assistance.”
As the U.S. structured settlement market evolved, however, a shift in control has occurred as plaintiffs and their attorneys now retain their own structured settlement advisors. From the plaintiff perspective, a structured settlement annuity looks less like an all or nothing settlement proposition and more like a strategic product that can be combined with other financial products, government benefits and trusts into comprehensive settlement plans. National associations of plaintiff structured settlement brokers (SSP), special needs attorneys (SN Alliance and ASNP), and other professionals, as well as traditional structured settlement participants (NSSTA) increasingly recognize a much larger and more complex market (personal injury settlement planning) within which structured settlement annuities represent a core strategic product.
Since it was first published in 1986, "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J), has provided structured settlement stakeholders and settlement planning professionals with an authoritative reference guide, consisting of 16 chapters with extensive footnotes and Appendix documents, to help them understand issues and fashion settlements and judgments utilizing periodic payments. Both the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) have utilized S2P2J as an educational resource for their certification programs.

Co-authored and updated semi-annually by Daniel W. Hindert, Joseph J. Dehner and Patrick J. Hindert, S2P2J now features an online version as well as the traditional hardcopy. Online S2P2J includes a search feature and download capability as well as link features to access individual book sections, appendices, footnotes, cases and statutes. In addition to contributing authors recognized below, the book authors acknowledge and thank the NSSTA and SSP Legal Committees for sharing case and industry updates.

Publisher Law Journal Press anticipates a March 2018 distribution date for hardcopy supplements for S2P2J Release 63 with online S2P2J subscribers receiving their update simultaneously with no additional subscription charge. Competent professionals confronted by structured settlement issues should have access to an up-to-date copy (or the online version) of this indispensable source book.

Release 63 Highlights - Release 63 will feature new, updated and/or expanded sections addressing the following structured settlement topics:

• Historical Analysis - To help structured settlement stakeholders analyze the comprehensive changes impacting their industry, Release 63 adds three new subsections to Chapter 1 expanding its historical analysis of the U.S. structured settlement market including: "Historical Trends and Transitions"; "Legislative History"; and "Significant Historical Developments."
• ABLE Accounts - The "Achieving a Better Life Experience Act of 2014" (ABLE Act) created an important new option (ABLE accounts) for qualifying individuals (disabled prior to age 26) to save and accumulate money while preserving eligibility to receive means-tested government benefits. In the personal-injury context, ABLE accounts cannot be funded directly with a structured settlement, but can be funded indirectly using a special needs trust. Contributing author David Lillesand, a nationally recognized special needs legal expert, highlights Release 63 with a comprehensive introduction to ABLE accounts for structured settlement and settlement planning professionals. Among the topics attorney Lillesand addresses: 1) Federal laws and regulations - including Congressional improvements in 2017; 2) State ABLE programs; 3) ABLE accounts in practice; and 4) a comparison of special needs trusts and ABLE accounts.
• Market-based Programs - One result of settlement planning has been the development of an increasing number of products and financial vehicles directly and indirectly related to structured settlements. Contributing author Serena Fitchard introduces and explains "market-based programs" which provide periodic payments linked to the performance of an underlying investment portfolio. At one time, most industry participants assumed market-based programs did not meet IRC 130's "fixed and determinable" test. In multiple PLRs, however, the IRS has concluded that the variable nature of a payment does not preclude it from being fixed and determinable if the payment obligation is fixed at the time of settlement and the amount can be calculated pursuant to an objective formula.
• Rating Agencies - Contributing author Michael Cohen, former head of A.M. Best's U.S. Life Insurance Industry rating division, provides an extensive update in Release 63 to S2P2J's summary and analysis of financial rating agencies relevant to structured settlements. Mr. Cohen's commentary: 1) introduces new companies that provide ratings for insurers; 2) discusses the quantitative and qualitative factors rating agencies utilize when they apply their rating methodologies; and 3) emphasizes the importance of risk based capital in life insurer evaluations. He further explains why A.M. Best has two rating scales (Financial Strength Rating and Issuer Strength Rating) and how those rating scales interact.
• Non-Qualified Assignments - Release 63 continues to track developments in the non-qualified structured settlement market which features an increasing number of non-traditional product providers as well as funding options where non-U.S. companies serve as obligors. S2P2J's analysis highlights many of tax and non-tax issues that these "off-shore" products raise which structured settlement professionals should evaluate and be able to explain to clients.
• Guaranty Association Model Act - As one result of the ELNY liquidation, the NAIC updated its "Model Life and Health Insurance Association Model Act" in 2017. Release 63 addresses the sections specifically impacting structured settlements including a clarification that Guaranty Association coverage under this newest version of the Model Act does not extend to "persons" who acquire rights to receive structured settlement annuity benefits via factoring transactions or to the "rights" so acquired. Louisiana became the first state to enact the new Model Act provision specifically excluding factored benefits.
• Lanclos v. United States - To its extensive coverage of the ELNY insolvency and liquidation, Release 63 provides a summary of Lanclos v. United States, a case decided by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in 2017, in which an ELNY shortfall victim successfully argued that the U.S. government should be held liable for the shortfall because it "guaranteed" the structured settlement payments. To support her position, the plaintiff relied on Massie v. United States, where a Federal Circuit Court relied on a plain reading of the contract terms which stated the payments were “guaranteed” and “shall be paid.” Because of this language, the Court in Massie rejected the government’s argument that it had discharged its duty under the settlement agreement by “purchasing an annuity.”
• Privacy Issues - Professional structured structured practitioners must be aware of various federal and state privacy laws that may impact the gathering and/or sharing of medical or other personal information belonging to a claimant during the course of a personal injury settlement negotiation. Release 63 continues S2P2J's coverage of these privacy laws which can include not only HIPAA and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act but also state legislation similar to the NAIC's Model Act entitled "Privacy of Consumer Protection and Health Information Regulation" which may apply to all entities licensed by the State Department of Insurance.
• Deferred Attorney Fees - Plaintiff attorneys who wish to defer part or all of their fees in a contingent fee case have multiple product options depending upon whether the underlying case involves non-taxable personal physical injuries. For non-taxable injury cases, most structured settlement annuity providers allow attorney fees to be structured using an IRC 130 qualified assignment even on a "stand alone" basis. Release 63 updates S2P2J's analysis of qualified assignment applications to deferred attorney fees and questions whether the Childs case on its own represents appropriate tax authority.
• Settlement Planning Practice Standards - More recent S2P2J updates have recognized the evolution of personal injury settlement planning and its strategic relationship with structured settlements. Originally composed primarily of plaintiff structured settlement brokers, the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) has played a leading role in defining this new profession. Release 63 highlights SSP's most recent contribution, their "Settlement Planning Practice Standards," and also includes a copy of these Standards in S2P2J's Appendix.
• CMS WCMSA Reference Guide - Medicare Set-Asides (MSAs) have become an important sub-market for structured settlements. Release 63 summarizes sections applicable to structured settlements within the most recent (2017) update of the CMS Workers Compensation (WC) MSA Reference Guide. Significantly, this newest version of the Reference Guide continues to incorporate the October 15, 2004 CMS Memo that provides structured settlement annuities with an inherent cost advantage compared with lump sums for funding most WCMSAs. Every structured settlement professional should be aware of this cost advantage and be able to explain it to their clients.
• Secondary Market Business Practices - Successful cooperation between NSSTA and the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) has resulted in greater consumer protections within the Model Act and multiple state structured settlement protection statutes. Unfortunately, the conduct of some secondary market participants continues to result not only in negative national publicity but also government actions against certain factoring companies alleging fraud and other deceptive business practices. Among other additions, Release 63 summarizes two recent criminal cases involving forgeries of protection act transfer orders to S2P2J's already extensive chapter addressing "Transfers of Structured Settlement Payment Rights."

For additional coverage of historical structured settlement issues and developments, see the structured settlement wiki.

NSSTA 2015 Fall Conference

Although the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) did not promote a specific theme for its 2015 Fall Educational Conference, one of the speakers succinctly captured the program's overall purpose and accomplishment when he described NSSTA's new Industry Growth Initiative as "changing the focus of our future."

Industry Growth Initiative

NSSTA's website description of its Industry Growth Initiative highlights "a significant decline in production since its peak at $6.3 Billion in 2008" and asserts "we do an excellent job protecting our industry" before announcing that "this year we want all NSSTA members to focus their time, energy and resources on new opportunities to expand the use of structured settlements-to grow our industry."

NSSTA President Michael Goodman utilized his Opening Conference Comments in Phoenix (as well as a preconference interview with S2KM) to describe the status and organizational structure of the NSSTA Industry Growth Initiative.

"My first priority as President of NSSTA," Goodman stated, "is to identify growth opportunities for the structured settlement industry. First, we asked all NSSTA members to submit ideas for growth at [email protected]. . Second, I tried to put together a NSSTA Growth Committee consisting of a highly talented cross section of industry leaders with diverse perspectives. Third, the Committee evaluated all of the 28 (to date) NSSTA member growth proposals and selected three for NSSTA Board of Directors approval to develop immediate implementation plans with success metrics."

Goodman introduced the NSSTA Growth Committee members including co-Chairmen William Goodman, Sean Coleman, John McCulloch and John Arendt. Speaking for the Committee, Coleman enthused: "I love our change of focus. Historically, NSSTA has been reactive, dodging bullets. The Growth Initiative redirects our mindset and focus. It encourages us to become proactive. The Growth Committee has already surpassed by highest expectations."

Goodman and the Committee co-Chairmen identified the following three NSSTA Growth Initiatives already selected and approved:

• Rejuvenate Defense Programs (including casualty insurers, commercial insureds and TPAs) - Originally the prime movers for structured settlements, many defense insurers have reduced or completely abandoned their structured settlement programs citing a variety of reasons. Beginning with three target carriers, the Committee plans to analyze the causes, and ultimately revitalize the programs, to create new prototype defense program models. Note: NSSTA recently commissioned surveys of Senior Claims Executives; and front line Claims Professionals which S2KM summarized and evaluated in prior blog posts.
• Amend the Federal Employee Compensation Act (FECA) - FECA, which provides workers compensation like benefits for federal workers, currently does not permit structured settlements. With payouts totally approximately $4.5 billion per year, FECA represent an attractive potential market for structured settlements with administrative cost savings being one justification for a legislative amendment. Based upon preliminary interviews, the Growth Committee believes FECA stakeholders view structured settlements favorably. The Committee is gathering statistical data to support its proposal and building grassroots support.
• Convertible Deferred Lump Sums - As a sales response to "low interest rates", the Growth Committee is proposing a new structured settlement feature. As envisioned, the convertible deferred lump sum would allow a structured settlement recipient to select a future lump sum that would automatically convert on its payment date into a series of predetermined periodic payments payable at whatever annuity rates offered at the time of conversion by the issuing life company. A Canadian broker attending the NSSTA conference stated that at least one Canadian life company already offers this structured settlement product feature. The Committee anticipates whichever annuity provider introduces this product feature in the U.S. will probably also seek an IRS private letter ruling.
• Note: NSSTA's Growth Committee identified a fourth preliminary initiative (Dissipation Study) - to confirm that injury victims squander lump sums. However, this initiative is currently on hold. For background, see this 2009 S2KM review of Jeremy Babener's legal research paper analyzing historic dissipation studies.

Factoring Update

Goodman also addressed the state of the structured settlement industry including a "factoring update". As part of this report, Goodman confirmed that NSSTA and the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) have agreed to cooperate legislatively in several states to seek the following consumer protection amendments for state structured settlement protection statutes:

• No forum shopping.
• Payee required to attend hearing.
• Stricter application of approval requirements.
• Advanced notice of transfer.
• Required disclosure of prior transfers.

Supporting this cooperative initiative, NSSTA has begun offering its members a new Judicial Education Training Seminar - taught in Phoenix by John McCulloch and Stephen Harris. Goodman also announced he will be a featured speaker at NASP's 2015 Annual Conference next week in Las Vegas - the first serving NSSTA President to do so. Perhaps anticipating his NASP appearance, and cognizant of the recent Washington Post article ("a perfect storm for factoring"), Goodman advised the NSSTA Conference attendees: "Factoring is not a zero sum game. What is bad for them is not always good for us."

Additional Conference Presentations

Many structured settlement participants believe control of the primary structured settlement market, and future market growth, have shifted from the defense to plaintiff attorneys and their injury victim clients. Although NSSTA has been slow to embrace plaintiff-focused personal injury settlement planning, NSSTA's Fall Conference included two presentation featuring plaintiff representatives:

• A Trial Lawyer Panel - moderated by Ryan Garrison with plaintiff attorneys Julio Zapata and Francisco Gutierrez; plus
• An introduction to the National Association of Trial Lawyers Executives (NATLE) by Gayle Bennett, Deputy Director of the New Mexico Trial Lawyers Association.

Both plaintiff presentations emphasized opportunities to expand the market for structured attorney fees. Both plaintiff attorneys expressed a preference for advisors who are "knowledgeable not just about structured settlements but also other investment vehicles."

In addition to the Judicial Education Training session mentioned above, three other NSSTA presentations addressed educational issues and programs:

• Best Practices for Structured Settlement Case Resolution - During her excellent review of structured settlement fundamentals, Betty Gregware expressed serious concern about the general quality of structured settlement documentation and the need to increase competence across the industry.
• Professional Broker Education - Gregware, Melissa Price and Debbie Sink introduced a new educational program NSSTA is developing primarily for individuals who are new to the structured settlement industry. They also provided an administrative overview of "NSSTA University" whereby NSSTA partners with members to secure CE credits for member-sponsored educational seminars for insurance claims departments or law firms.
• MSSC Paper Presentation - Mal Deener moderated a panel featuring Trish Fairhurst, Richard Carroll and other members of the first graduating class of NSSTA's new Masters Structured Settlement Consultant (MSSC) professional designation. Each MSSC graduate is required to submit a paper and these papers will be published on NSSTA's website. NSSTA will offer its next MSSC program beginning April 27, in conjunction with its Certified Structured Settlement Consultant (CSSC) program, at the University of Notre Dame

Separate from, but related to, NSSTA Growth Initiative, NSSTA's Board of Directors has appointed a Special Needs Attorney Task Force to develop strategic relationships with special needs attorney professional associations and to identify collaborative marketing opportunities with special needs attorneys more generally. NSSTA member Carola Davis and Special Needs Alliance attorney Patty Sitchler initiated a NSSTA presentation/discussion in Phoenix which hopefully will continue and expand to the benefit of both professional communities.

A critical factor, both challenge and opportunity, for growing the primary structured settlement market concerns succession planning. What new generation of distributors, or distribution channel(s), or business models, will emerge (and when) to replace and build upon the accomplishments of the pioneering generation (now in their 60s and 70s) who originated the structured settlement market in the late 1970s? NSSTA's Fall Conference featured two presentations addressing these issues:

• Succession Planning - Presenter Jim Early looked at the succession issue primarily from the point of view of the individual producer. Among his observations: "nepotism works in the structured settlement industry" and "a lack of capital has prevented the primary market from bringing in and training new people."
• Diversity Discussion - Angel Viera and Stacy McCall offered a convincing case for promoting greater diversity among new structured settlement professionals as a key component for future growth. Their presentation included and elicited several thought-provoking observations including: 1) "From a demographic perspective, our industry should mirror the people we serve" and 2) "Our industry suffers from a lack of diversity of thinking. Where do we find new voices and perspectives?"

Lifetime payments represent a valuable, optional structured settlement benefit which can be further enhanced from a pricing perspective when rated ages are applicable. Kevin Puckett and Ken Kiefer expounded on these important issues during their presentation about Mortality, Morbidity & Rated Ages.

NSSTA members Susan Clark and Robert Caples introduced Arnie Begler and Scott Henry, representing Pipitone Group, NSSTA's new public relations firm, and together they discussed NSSTA's Communications Program. Because journalists, as well as their readers, frequently confuse the primary and secondary structured settlement markets, Pipitone's "first test" was responding to the aforesaid Washington Post article. Pipitone's stated assignment is "to find the best communications practices and bring them to NSSTA" which will include designing a new NSSTA website. Among NSSTA's priorities, and Pipitone's challenges, will be attempting to reclaim the "structured settlement" brand inclusive of Google searches which currently are dominated by secondary market companies.

NSSTA Executive Director Eric Vaughn concluded NSSTA's Fall Conference with a Government Relations Update - his characteristically insightful and energizing overview of structured settlement legislative and regulatory activities. Among other accomplishments, Vaughn was recently named Vice Chairman of the American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD).

Other recent NSSTA-related S2KM blog posts:

• Michael Goodman Interview
• NSSTA Marketing Surveys
  • Senior Claim Executives
  • Claim Professionals
  • Plaintiff Attorneys
• NSSTA 2015 Structures 202 Conference
• NSSTA 2015 Annual Conference

NAMSAP 2015 Annual Conference

Although some of the 143 attendees at the 2015 Annual Conference of the National Alliance of Medicare Set-Aside Professionals (NAMSAP), held September 30 - October 2 in New Orleans, (including S2KM) may have been confused by the conference theme ("Back to the Future") , the take away conference message was clear:

The Medicare Set-Aside (MSA) market continues to grow in size and complexity and NAMSAP remains "the only non-profit association exclusively addressing the issues and challenges of the Medicare Secondary Payer [MSP] Statute and its impact on workers’ compensation and liability settlements". NAMSAP also seeks and welcomes opportunities to help improve MSA and settlement planning industry standards for documentation, work product and business practices.

MSAS AND STRUCTURED SETTLEMENTS

An MSA is an administrative and funding mechanism utilized in certain categories of settlements to protect Medicare's interests as "secondary payer" under the MSP statute. Although Federal law does not define MSAs, or mandate specific types of MSA funding mechanisms, CMS (the responsible federal agency) has established certain basic guidelines for workers compensation MSAs (WCMSAs).

Following a series of policy memoranda, CMS published a WCMSA Reference Guide (WCRG) on March 29, 2013 plus a WCRG Version 2.0 on November 7, 2013. The WCRG explains WCMSAs as follows: "A WCMSA allocates a portion of the WC settlement for all future work-injury-related medical expenses that are covered and otherwise reimbursable by Medicare. When a proposed WCMSA amount is submitted to CMS for review and the individual or beneficiary obtains CMS’approval, the CMS-approved WCMSA amount must be appropriately exhausted before Medicare will begin to pay for care related to the beneficiary’s settlement, judgment, award, or other payment."

Both the CMS policy memoranda and the WCRG address structured settlement issues and provide guidelines for their utilization in funding WCMSAs. Significantly, these guidelines create an inherent cost advantage for structured settlements compared with lump sum alternatives because of the method CMS requires for calculating WCMSA present values. As a result, WCMSAs represent one of the few submarkets where structured settlements sales have increased since 2008.

Unlike WCMSAs, almost no regulatory authority exists for MSAs in third party liability settlements. In 2012, CMS published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM) for liability MSAs in the Federal Register - which it subsequently withdrew following negative public comments and rejection by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Nevertheless, according to one professional MSA administrator, liability MSAs now represent 30% of his company's cases and the percent is growing. No one, he adds, currently submits liability MSA cases for CMS approval.

NAMSAP ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND POLITICAL ADVOCACY

Under the leadership of current president, Kimberly Wiswell, and its Board of Directors, NAMSAP's 2015 accomplishments and enhanced membership values have included: expanding membership; regional conferences; educational webinars; a recurring "legal roundtable"; an active website listserv; improved communications with CMS; a new strategic plan; sponsorship of NAMSAP's first "Take the Hill" Day in Washington D.C.; plus a new association management team.

In addition to tracking Medicare compliance developments generally, NAMSAP's 2015 political agenda has sought to address perceived CMS WCMSA approval deficiencies such as:

• Thresholds result in incomplete protection.
• No direct right of appeal exists.
• Review time-lines are uncertain.
• CMS rules ignore state workers compensation laws.
• CMS assumes all settlements are “commutations”.

Based upon the success of its first "Take the Hill Day", NAMSAP is planning a two-day "policy focus" for its 2016 Regional Meeting - which will take place in Washington, D.C. sometime during March or April and include one day of lobbying and one day of education. Two WCMSA bills (H.R. 1982 and S. 2731) are currently being considered by Congress. Each contains a "direct payment" provision which could have negative consequences for structured settlements as well as professional MSA administrators.

NAMSAP 2015 ANNUAL CONFERENCE

NAMSAP's membership is the most professionally diverse of any U.S. settlement planning association. It includes a mix of attorneys, MSA allocators, MSP compliance consultants, CPAs, claims professionals, structured settlement consultants, guardians, nurses, pharmacists, rehabilitation professionals, and life care planners.

The combination of membership diversity, subject matter complexity, legislative and regulatory developments plus an expanding MSA market create extraordinary challenges for NAMSAP in planning and organizing its educational programs. NAMSAP Conference Chairperson Tom Matson, Education Committee Chairman Thomas Spratt, Executive Director Brian Bailey and Meeting Planner Sarah Zenna, therefore, deserve congratulations for an outstanding program.

The NAMSAP conference itself was preceded by a three-day "Certified Medicare Secondary Payer Professional" (CMSP) certification program created and administered by the Louisiana Association of Self-Insured Employers (LASIE). Although "designed to give advanced knowledge and practical skills required to acquire certification in Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance", this educational program appears to offer a valuable and comprehensive MSP and MSA introductory curriculum appropriate for any settlement planning or structured settlement professional.

To supplement it primary program, NAMSAP offered its own MSP introduction - a half-day of "Pre-Conference Sessions" addressing: 1) MSA Submitter Errors; 2) MSP Industry Ethics; and 3) an MSP Compliance Situational Case Study.

These two optional preliminary programs allowed the NAMSAP conference organizers to focus its primary educational conference on its largest membership constituencies (MSA allocators and MSP attorneys) which created its own set of challenges. Because of their different backgrounds and roles, a predictable knowledge gap exists between MSP attorneys and MSA allocators - with MSA administrators, insurance professionals, structured settlement brokers and other MSP/MSA professional stakeholders falling somewhere in between.

The following S2KM listing of topics ( with speakers) attempts to communicate both the range of NAMSAP's 2015 Annual Conference educational offerings as well as NAMSAP's efforts to maintain and expand the MSP/MSA community of professional practice:

Directed Toward All MSP/MSA Professionals

• MSP Compliance - Kathleen Wyeth and Steve Pratt
• How the ACA Impacts Medicare, Medicare Compliance and MSAs - Patrick Hindert and Ann Koerner
• Case Study - Liability MSAs - David Cherry and Wayne Fontana
• Common MSP Questions - Christine Melancon
• Networking Lunch - New Orleans History and Culture - Carolyn Kolb

Directed Primarily Toward MSA Allocators

• Applying Evidence Based Medicine Guidelines to Fusions for Injured Workers - Dr. Marjorie Eskay-Auerbach
• Long-Term Narcotic Use in MSAs - Meredith Warner and Steve Miller
• Re-Review/Reconsideration - Michelle Letter; James Raines; Jeff Knipper
• Data and Development Committee Update - Debbe Marciko and Sandra Mackler
• Limited Medical Records and the MSA - Denise Wrenn
• Weaning and Detox Strategies in the MSA - Jill Breard; Jennifer Doherty; Dr. Steven Moskowitz
• Pharmacy Formularies and MSAs - Mark Pew; Dr. Matthew Foster; Dr. Steve Feinberg

Directed Primarily Toward MSP Attorneys

• Legal Update - Heather Schwartz Sanderson; Michelle Ready; Annie Davidson
• Private Cause of Action - Amy Bilton and Heather Hatch
• State Workers Compensation Laws and CMS - Jennifer Jordan and Danielle Marone

Among NAMSAP's most impressive conference offerings for attendees was a beta test mobile app. The app featured a comprehensive event guide (including speaker bios, notes and handouts) and social networking tools. It also offered a Google map centered on the conference hotel plus a simple, but effective search feature. Assuming NAMSAP offers similar mobile apps at future conferences, this dynamic resource deserves even greater promotion including an introductory demonstration.

For S2KM's reporting of prior NAMSAP conferences, see:

• NAMSAP 2015 Winter Regional Conference
• NAMSAP 2014 Annual Conference
• NAMSAP 2014 Regional Conference
  • Part 1
  • Part 2

For previews of additional upcoming settlement planning conferences, see: 2015-2016 Educational Conferences

Misguided Recommendations

In a recent article titled "Time for Congress to Reform Structured Settlements", published April 20, 2015 in the Congress Blog, attorney Richard Risk alleges "Congress’ noble goal of supporting accident victims has been upended by the current system in which insurers and their consultants often deceptively rig structured settlements against accident victims."

To "clean up" the primary structured settlement market, Risk recommends that Congress or the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) should take action against "abusive practices" in the structured settlement industry and, "at a minimum", these reforms should include:

1. "Ensure victims have better access to their own structure consultants."
2. "Require diversification in large cases."
3. "Demand better disclosure from the defense."

Even assuming Risk's prognosis is correct, his proposed governmental solution is not - at least not for injury victims who are represented by legal counsel. Each of the three "reforms" Risk highlights falls squarely within the fiduciary role and responsibilities of plaintiff attorneys which encompass settlement planning and negotiation as well as litigation.

In the past, many plaintiff attorneys have relied on defendants and their advisors to make structured settlement proposals and to provide expertise regarding structured settlements. This practice was and continues to be a mistake and could be considered professional malpractice.

Plaintiff attorneys should never rely exclusively on the defense for structured settlement advice. Defense attorneys, structured settlement brokers and other consultants working on the defense side are not engaged to work for the plaintiff or to advise the plaintiff’s attorney. Defense settlement objectives are to secure a full release for all defendants and related parties at a reasonable cost.

A broad range of professionals, including structured settlement consultants, currently provides settlement planning related services to plaintiffs and their attorneys. Most structured settlement consultants belong to one of two primary market structured settlement associations: the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) or the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP).

NSSTA and SSP share a divisive political history which may explain, in part, the indirect critique of NSSTA (whose members are meeting this week in Washington, D.C.) that envelops the article by Risk, an SSP member. Whether intentional or not, Risk's article appears to represent a step backward from recent attempts by leaders of both associations to unify the primary structured settlement market.

During the NSSTA Fall 2014 Conference, for example, SSP President Neil Johnson outlined a "Blueprint for Industry Unification" which he and NSSTA President Kevin Silo continued to discuss at the SSP 2015 Annual Conference in a repeat performance of their "Presidents' Panel". Johnson's appeal for unity characterized "industry disarray" as a "threat to our future." Labeling diversity "good" and disparity "bad", he called for a united front before the public.

In Johnson's words: lack of structured settlement industry unity is "a drain - a drain on financial resources ... a drain on productivity ... a drain on our public image ... a drain on physical and emotional health. Lack of unity diverts attention from productive projects. It always focuses attention on the negative, never on the positive. Lack of industry unity shows no partiality or favoritism for either NSSTA or SSP."

Many structured settlement professionals increasingly recognize the need to acknowledge and address structured settlement industry problems - including the need to improve primary and secondary business practices and standards. Relatively few industry participants, however, are likely to support Risk's proposal for federal legislation and/or regulation to attempt to force defendants to fulfill the fiduciary responsibilities plaintiff attorneys owe to their own clients.

A better solution, in S2KM's opinion, would encompass a combination of structured settlement industry self-regulation and improved education of plaintiff attorneys (and consultants themselves) about the client benefits and professional responsibilities associated with structured settlements in the context of personal injury settlement planning. This solution represents both an opportunity and a challenge for a new generation of structured settlement leaders.

For more detailed analysis about the role and responsibilities of plaintiff attorneys in structured settlements, see chapter 5 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J).

ASNP 2015 Annual Conference

The Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP), one of three national associations of special needs attorneys (the others being the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA) and the Special Needs Alliance (SNA), hosted its ninth annual educational conference March 26-28, 2015 in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Special needs attorneys are one of several professional groups who participate in, and are helping to define, the evolving personal injury settlement planning market. Other settlement planning professionals and associations include: structured settlement consultants (SSP and NSSTA); Medicare set-aside professionals (NAMSAP) and life care planners (AANLCP).

Unlike educational programs sponsored by NAELA and SNA, ASNP's annual conferences are open to non-members. ASNP's programs consistently provide superior learning experiences featuring prominent speakers and comprehensive handout materials.

ASNP 2015 SPEAKERS AND TOPICS

• Avram Sacks - "Childhood Disabled Beneficiary Benefits"
• Janet Lowder - "Family Law Issues for a Child or Spouse with Special Needs"
• Thomas Brinker and Vincent Russo - "Tax Traps for Families with Special Needs Children"
• Theresa Varnet and Fredrick Misilo - "SSA's New Trust Guide"
• Larry Rocamora - "Leaving Retirement Benefits to Persons with Special Needs"
• Theresa Varnet and Nancy Chudacoff - "Understanding the ABLE and the Disabled Military Child Protection Act"
• Scott Solkoff and Ann Koerner - "How the Affordable Care Act has Changed Settlement Planning and Special Needs Planning"
• Ask the Experts Panel

Based upon the settlement planning mandate "know your client", which should include your client's legal and financial challenges before, during and following settlement, all of these topics arguably are relevant to settlement planners. Three of ASNP's 2015 educational topics, however, ("SSA's New Trust Guide", "Understanding the ABLE Act" and the "Affordable Care Act") are especially important.

S2KM has reported previously about the ABLE Act as well as the impact of the ACA on structured settlements and settlement planning - including a featured article in the Winter 2014 Journal of Nurse Life Care Planning written by S2KM Managing Director Patrick Hindert titled "How the Affordable Care Act Affects Life Care Planners."

SSA New Trust Guide

Theresa Varnet and Fredrick Misilo's 2015 ASNP presentation about the Social Security Administration's (SSA) new Trust Guide introduced a new settlement planning topic which was repeated with permission and acknowledgments at the SSP 2015 Annual Conference by ASNP National Director Kevin Urbatsch.

The background to the new SSA Trust Guide was a lack of uniformity among SSA Regions especially in reviewing (d)(4)(A) self-settled special needs trusts (SNTs) which are frequently funded with structured settlements as part of personal injury settlement plans. Growing frustrations among SNT stakeholders peaked in May 2012 when the SSA issued a new POMS (SI01120.203b) , without advance notice, creating changes to the "sole benefit rule" resulting in the disqualification of many SNTs.

Note: The Program Operations Manual System (POMS) is "a primary source of information used by Social Security employees to process claims for Social Security benefits."

Responding to complaints from a group of SNT advocates, then SSA Commissioner Michael Astrue initiated a series of meetings in January 2013 between SSA senior staff members and the advocates who had organized themselves into the SSI Advocacy Committee. Many issues/problems were identified and discussed. One result was the new SSA Trust Guide released April 23, 2014 to be used for national SSA trust training and SSA Regional trust evaluation - with the POMS still considered the SSA's primary resource.

Unfortunately, there are some problems with the new SSA Trust Guide - and one of the problems concerns structured settlements. The Trust Guide states that additions to a (d)(4)(A) SNT after age 65 results in disqualification with no mention of the exception that exists in the POMS (SI 01120-203b.1.C) for structured settlements.

NOTE: during the SSP 2015 Annual Conference, NSSTA Executive Director Eric Vaughn identified another problem (d)(4)(A) SNT's funded with structured settlements are experiencing in some states. Although no evidence exists the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) annuity rules are applicable to structured settlements, some state SSA and/or Medicaid employees have attempted to disqualify SNTs if they include structured settlements that violate those rules. For background, see S2KM's 2007 series titled "Inconvenient Questions".

The SSI Advocacy Committee has requested special needs attorneys and other settlement planners to report problems with the SSA Trust Guide to committee members Neil Winston, Mary O'Byrne and/or Theresa Varnet. Although barriers to progress exist, including hostility from the current Congress toward SSI as a welfare dependency and uncertainty whether SSA will continue to meet with advocates, the SSI Advocacy Committee hopes to expand upon its initial success.

ASNP Webinar Series

During the past 18 months, in addition to its annual educational conferences, ASNP has sponsored two separate 12-part webinar series addressing "settlement planning" and "special needs planning". Not only do ASNP's webinars identify topical components of these complex, overlapping professional disciplines, they also raise fundamental questions: what are the similarities and differences between "settlement planning" and "special needs planning"?

Some of the similarities and differences are apparent from the ASNP webinar topics themselves. Others are not.

Settlement Planning vs. Special Needs Planning

Both settlement planning and special needs planning involve disabled clients and require multi-professional teams including special needs attorneys, life care planners, care managers and financial advisors. In addition to personal injury victims, special needs attorneys represent and advise individuals suffering from birth defects and developmental disabilities and their families.

Although special needs attorneys play a variety of roles and provide a variety of products and services, their signature products are special needs trusts (SNTs). For settlement planning, the SNTs are most typically (d)(4)(A) self-settled and pooled trusts. For non-personal injury special needs clients, third party special needs trusts play a more important role.

While many special needs attorney move easily between settlement planning and special needs planning, the financial planning communities for each respective discipline are divided and their products are different. For example: MetLife is an important product provider for both settlement planning (structured settlement annuities) and special needs planning (life insurance; Medicaid annuities). Their respective internal departments, marketing resources and sales forces, however, are completely separate.

Settlement planners (particularly financial planners who sell structured settlements) are one-and-done product providers. They focus on the settlement recipient and how to distribute settlement funds. Their role ends when the settlement occurs. Regardless of discipline, the roles of special needs planners are more diverse (attorney; trustee; guardian); holistic (family and estate planning); and long-term (with settlement planning, for example - continuing well beyond the settlement).

Settlement planning, of course, includes many priority issues which rarely, if ever, occur with non-personal injury special needs planning. For examples: Medicare set-aside arrangements; IRC 468B qualified settlement funds; lien resolutions). Nonetheless, one of the key factors for the successful development of personal injury settlement planning is a better understanding of its relationship with special needs planning. ASNP's webinars and annual conferences provide an excellent continuing resource to accomplish this educational objective.

Links to S2KM reports about prior ASNP conferences: 2014; 2013; 2012; 2011; 2010; 2009; 2008; 2007.

SSP 2015 Annual Conference - 2

The Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) hosted its 2015 Annual Conference last week in Las Vegas with an unprecedented number of structured settlement association leaders as speakers and attendees including representatives from the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP). For a list of SSP speakers and topics, see this prior S2KM blog post.

In his keynote address, SSP President Neil Johnson re-affirmed SSP's traditional commitment to "open dialogue" of industry issues with a mandate for "healthy, respectful discussion of all industry issues, controversial or not - rejecting the the temptation to sweep the uncomfortable under the carpet."

While seeking to engage all perspectives to identify shared permanent interests and discuss industry problems and issues, Johnson acknowledged and accepted that conference attendees would not agree on all issues - and they did not.

Some of the issues discussed:

• The need for structured settlement industry unity - encompassing education and, in some situations, political lobbying.
• How NSSTA and NASP are collaborating to improve state structured settlement protection statutes.
• Improving public relations by first acknowledging and addressing structured settlement primary and secondary market problems.
• The uniqueness of the structured settlement product and the need for better primary market self-regulation.
• The impact of "fiduciary standards" on settlement planning and the future of structured settlements.
• Collaborative primary/secondary market strategies for addressing "the darker side of factoring".
• Settlement planning as an important and distinctive growth strategy for structured settlements.
• Differentiating settlement planners from single-product plaintiff structured settlement brokers.
• Financial planners - a competitive threat or the next generation of structured settlement consultants and settlement planners?
• The inevitability and risks of "off-shore" settlement planning products in a globalized world.
• Lessons learned from the Executive Life debacle for claimants and their attorneys and advisors.
• How settlement planners and structured settlement consultants misuse life care planners and life care plans.
• The Social Security Administration's recent hostility toward special needs trusts (SNTs) and what it means for structured settlements.
• How and why settlement planners must learn to take control of the Medicare set-aside (MSA) process.
• The explosion of multi-claimant QSFs - a missed market for structured settlements?

None of these issues were resolved in Las Vegas. What did occur was a healthy exchange of ideas among leaders of historic structured settlement adversaries (NSSTA, SSP and NASP) with active participation from leaders of other settlement planning associations. The result: a unique industry gathering as much like a diplomatic conference as an educational event.

With NSSTA's President, Executive Director, and several members of its Board of Directors in attendance, whether and how NSSTA (as well as NASP) and its members will respond remains uncertain. NSSTA helped to initiate a more open industry dialogue during its own Fall 2014 Educational Conference by inviting SSP President Johnson and NASP President Patricia LaBorde to appear as featured speakers.

Structured Settlement Industry Unification

During the NSSTA Fall 2014 conference, Johnson outlined a "Blueprint for Industry Unification" which he and NSSTA President Kevin Silo continued to discuss in Las Vegas in a repeat performance of their "Presidents' Panel". Johnson's appeal for unity characterized "industry disarray" as a "threat to our future." Labeling diversity "good" and disparity "bad", he called for a united front before the public.

In Johnson's words: Lack of structured settlement industry unity is "a drain - a drain on financial resources ... a drain on productivity ... a drain on our public image ... a drain on physical and emotional health. Lack of unity diverts attention from productive projects. It always focuses attention on the negative, never on the positive. Lack of industry unity shows no partiality or favoritism for either NSSTA or SSP."

Both Johnson and Silo expressed optimism, however, about the future of structured settlements - especially in the context of generational transition. Johnson, in particular, highlighted potential opportunities amidst his self-described industry disparity, including a strengthened resolve and commitment for improvement and growth. According to Johnson and other settlement planners, the structured settlement industry needs a wakeup call - a fresh look and reevaluation that includes, but extends beyond, NSSTA's "protect and preserve" orientation.

Here are the core components of Johnson's proposed "solution" for structured settlement industry unity:

• Recognizing and accepting product and professional diversity.
• Identifying and pursuing permanent shared interests without necessarily agreeing on all issues.
• Engaging all perspectives to discuss industry problems and issues.
• Promoting and practicing settlement planning with the structured settlement annuity as a core strategic product.

The Future of SSP

Throughout its 15 year history, SSP has punched beyond its weight class. Born out of a troublesome recognition that the structured settlement playing field was seriously tilted to the disadvantage of plaintiffs and their advisors, SSP has helped bring respect and professionalism to the plaintiff side of the table by emphasizing "settlement planning", not "settlement selling".

Recognizing the strategic role of structured settlements, settlement planning nonetheless seeks the "best interest" of its injury victim clients and includes multiple products and multiple experts.

Despite these accomplishments, and perhaps because of them, SSP's future as an association is uncertain. NSSTA has more plaintiff structured settlement brokers than SSP and has been more successful in adding a new generation of members.

Other, well-organized, non-structured settlement professionals, such as special needs attorneys and life care planners, increasingly focus their marketing, educational programs and work product on settlement planning using SNTs and MSAs as their gateway.

As was evident in Las Vegas, however, SSP continues to raise the educational bar for an entire industry of settlement professionals. Settlement planning remains an evolving profession - largely unregulated with few industry standards. The ultimate role and growth potential for structured settlements within the settlement planning market have not yet been determined.

SSP's ability to organize an educational conference where an unprecedented cross-section of industry leaders engaged in civil discussions about strategic industry issues suggests SSP has an important continuing role within both the structured settlement and settlement planning markets.

For S2KM reporting about prior structured settlement and settlement planning conferences, see the structured settlement wiki.

SSP 2015 Annual Conference - 1

The U.S. structured settlement industry consists of three national professional associations - the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA), the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) and the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) - whose political differences frequently obscure their shared existential interests and, until recently, have restricted their opportunities for mutually-beneficial collaborative education.

NSSTA's 2014 Fall Educational Conference highlighted the issues of "generational change and challenges" and served as a precursor for improved association relationships by featuring SSP President Neil Johnson and NASP President Patricia LaBorde as guest speakers.

The SSP 2015 Annual Conference, to be held March 29-31 in Las Vegas will substantially expand this new educational chapter of industry dialogue by hosting an unprecedented number of association leaders as speakers. Among the highlights will be a repeat engagement of NSSTA's 2014 "Presidents' Panel" featuring current NSSTA President Kevin Silo and SSP President Johnson. Titled "Collaboration for the Greater Good", and moderated by Patrick Hindert, this panel promises to "doubledown" on solutions for achieving industry unity.

Additional association leaders scheduled to speak at the SSP Conference:

• Eric Vaughn - NSSTA's Executive Director is expected to emphasize the shared interests of all structured settlement professionals including plaintiff and defense representatives as well primary and secondary market participants. These shared interests being the protection and preservation of IRC sections 104(a)(2) and 130 plus the future growth of the primary market.
• Earl Nesbitt - NASP's Executive Director will be joined by Rhonda Bentzen, SSP 2015 Conference Chairperson and secondary market expert, to follow-up SSP's groundbreaking 2014 secondary market panel which first opened educational dialogue between primary and secondary structured settlement professional associations.
• Jack Kelly - NASP's lobbyist, who also spoke at last year's SSP conference, will provide his perspective on political changes taking place in Washington D.C. and how they might impact structured settlements.
• Kevin Urbatsch - The National Director of the Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP) recently introduced and helped organize ASNP 12-part "Settlement Planning" webinar series. In Las Vegas, Urbatsch will address recent attacks by the Social Security Administration on litigation-generated special needs trusts.
• Wendie Howland - Editor of the American Association of Nurse Life Care Planning (AANLCP) Journal, Ms. Howland will discuss settlement planning from a life care planning perspective. She will highlight the increasing role of life care planners in allocating damages for Medicare set-asides (MSAs) and as a result of the Affordable Care Act. In addition, she will advise structured settlement consultants and settlement planners how to better utilize life care plans to improve their own work product.

Additional SSP speakers and topics:

• Joseph Dehner - A prominent international attorney and co-author of the legal textbook "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payments", Dehner will discuss "Off-Shore Funding Companies" and their increasing role in the structured settlement market.
• Joseph DiGangi, Shannon Fitzgerald and Phillip Kruse - this panel of experts, moderated by Patrick Hindert, will analyze the application of "fiduciary standards" to settlement planning and settlement planners. Their presentation will feature a case study, review SSP's Standards of Practice, discuss NAIC Model Regulations, consider the 2006 Saltzburg/Chemerinsky memos, and suggest best practices.
• Edward Stone - A legal representative for many Executive Life of New York short-fall victims who continues to seek restitution for his clients, Stone will offer his opinion as to whether some settlement planners remain at risk in the ongoing ELNY litigation.
• Joseph Tombs - A lawyer, certified financial planner and former SSP President who helped organize SSP's Registered Settlement Planner (RSP) certification program, Tombs will outline his recommended process for developing a settlement plan.
• Jack Meligan - Also a former SSP President as well as a recognized settlement planning expert, Meligan will provide an MSA update with his perspective on how MSAs fit into settlement planning.
• Jeremy Babener - A prodigious structured settlement author and industry tax expert who also serves as Chairman of SSP's Legal Committee, Babener will introduce SSP's new website and discuss new SSP Legal Committee initiatives.
• Bryn Poland - A leading Qualified Settlement Fund (QSF) expert, who has served as attorney, trustee and/or administrator for numerous QSFs, Ms Poland will explain how and why the multi-claimant QSF market is growing rapidly despite the single claimant pullback within the structured settlement market.

For S2KM's reporting about prior structured settlement and settlement planning professional conferences, see the structured settlement wiki.

NSSTA 2015 "Structures 202" Conference

It was "Showtime in Las Vegas" last week as the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) introduced its newest educational offering ("Structures 202") to a cross-section of 150 association members including many "Next Generation" structured settlement participants.

Preliminary informal reviews were enthusiastic and positive as NSSTA provided its audience with a comprehensive program of case management fundamentals and business development opportunities.

Structures 202 afforded an opportunity for NSSTA to showcase many of its talented professional members and they did not disappoint. Much of the educational program focused appropriately on case administration issues as a significant portion of NSSTA's target audience consisted of structured settlement case managers.

Unlike Structures 101 (a prior NSSTA educational program for case managers), Structures 202 is also designed for structured settlement brokers who are new to the market and therefore included an important, primarily plaintiff-oriented, business development component.

Overall, Structures 202 represents a valuable learning (or re-learning) resource for all structured settlement professionals regardless of experience or role. Attendance currently is limited to NSSTA members.

TOPICS AND SPEAKERS

NSSTA Congressional Activities - Eric Vaughn

Structured Settlement Fundamentals

• Section 104(a)(2) Grey Area Cases - John McCulloch
• Payee Issues - Betty Gregware
• Assignment Documents - Jeanne Ragusa
• Settlement Documents - Toni Warbington
• Resolving Post-Settlement Problems - Andy Prindable
• Post Issuance Service - Sean Alleyne, Scott McGill, Michelle Caine
• Structured Settlement Litigation and Factoring Issues - Peter Vodola
• Long Term Obligation Risk - Geoff Kissel and Ravi Vaswani
• Next Generation Work Flow - Mitch Fish

Structured Settlement Business Development

• Comprehensive Settlement Designs - Joe DiGangi
• QSF Best Practices - Christi Fried
• Special Needs Trusts - Jay Kearns
• Workers Compensation Clients - Pat Law and Anne Davison
• MSA Professional Administration - Joe Anderson and Marques Torbert
• Marketing Attorney Fees - Spooner Phillips and Rebecca Metzger
• Affordable Care Act - Jordan Bossler

Congratulations to NSSTA, conference co-chairpersons Erin Muller and Nolan Robinson, as well as NSSTA conference speakers, for an outstanding educational program. NSSTA's 2015 Annual Meeting is scheduled for April 22-24 in Washington, D.C.

S2KM Observations and Opinions

• Settlement Planning - Although NSSTA has been slow to embrace plaintiff-focused personal injury settlement planning, Structures 202 provided an excellent foundation for future educational programs. Many NSSTA members already are leading practitioners within the developing settlement planning profession. The structured settlement annuity represents a strategic settlement planning product. NSSTA and its members, however, would benefit from greater educational interaction with other professional associations whose members engage in settlement planning. Among the settlement planning issues needing greater educational attention: 1) the role of the structured settlement professional as part of the settlement planning team; 2) how best to market and integrate the structured settlement product into a settlement plan; 3) risks of expanded professional liability when a structured settlement broker engages in settlement planning.
• Defense Business Development - Change always creates opportunities. During 2014, NSSTA commissioned two valuable marketing surveys in which claims executives and managers reported their perceptions about the value of structured settlements and structured settlement consultants. The dramatic changes created by recent Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) compliance requirements, which have greatly complicated the lives of claims professionals, represent a related marketing issue which also deserves NSSTA's educational attention. As more than one defense representative has emphasized at recent NAMSAP conferences: "Medicare compliance is not just about preparing a good Medicare set-aside (MSA). It is about understanding and complying with the MSP statute."
• MSA Education - Workers compensation MSAs (WCMSAs) have become an increasingly important submarket for structured settlements. S2KM has previously estimated that as much as eight (8%) percent of recent structured settlement premium and 24 percent of recent structured settlement annuities are attributable to WCMSAs. Within the past two years, CMS has published both a WCMSA Reference Guide and a WCMSA Self-Administration Toolkit - each of which features extensive rules for structured settlements. In the WCMSA context, structured settlements have one primary advantage (lower cost), which results from one CMS policy memorandum (dated: October 15, 2004) which sets forth the CMS "set-off" approach for calculating present value.Two current legislative proposals (H.R. 1982 and S. 2731) could impact this structured settlement advantage. During the past two years, CMS has submitted and withdrawn a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) for liability MSAs. NSSTA's most recent MSA education, however, has ignored all of these developments and "doubled down" instead on professional MSA administration.
• Secondary Market - Structures 202 represented the first NSSTA educational program following NSSTA's 2014 Fall Educational Conference . The Fall Conference symbolically and effectively highlighted the generational succession occurring within the structured settlement primary market by juxtaposing panels featuring past NSSTA Presidents and "Next Generation" brokers. The Fall Conference also represented the first time NSSTA had invited a representative of the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP President Patricia LaBorde) to speak at a members-only educational program. Structures 202 therefore provided the first opportunity for NSSTA to "change the conversation" of its educational programs about the secondary market - as well as other historically controversial topics - and thereby allow the "Next Generation" to form their own opinions. This change occurred successfully with some topics in Las Vegas - for examples: settlement planning generally and Qualified Settlement Funds more specifically. Unfortunately, this conversational change has not yet occurred in NSSTA presentations about the secondary market which retain the same degree of objectivity as Fox News reporting on the Affordable Care Act.

For S2KM reporting on past NSSTA educational conferences, see the structured settlement wiki.

S2P2J Release 57 Highlights

The United States structured settlement market has been in existence for more than 35 years and continues to expand its scope, complexity and importance within the context of personal injury settlement planning.

Since it was first published in 1986, "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J), has provided structured settlement stakeholders with an authoritative reference guide, consisting of 16 chapters with extensive footnotes and Appendix documents, to help them understand issues and fashion settlements and judgments utilizing periodic payments. Both the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) have utilized S2P2J as an educational resource for their certification programs.

Co-authored and updated semi-annually by Daniel W. Hindert, Joseph J. Dehner and Patrick J. Hindert, S2P2J now features an online version as well as the traditional hardcopy. Online S2P2J includes a search feature and download capability as well as link features to access individual book sections, appendices, footnotes, cases and statutes.

Publisher Law Journal Press anticipates a March 2015 distribution date for hardcopy supplements for S2P2J Release 57 with online S2P2J subcribers receiving their update simultaneously with no additional subscription charge. Competent professionals confronted by structured settlement issues should have access to an up-to-date copy (or the online version) of this indispensable source book.

Release 57 Highlights - Release 57 will feature new, updated and/or expanded sections addressing the following structured settlement topics:

• WCMSAs - Release 57 re-positions and expands S2P2J's extensive summary of the new CMS rules for workers compensation Medicare set-asides, the fastest growing segment of the structured settlement primary market. Regulatory rules for liability MSAs remain essentially unchanged following the withdrawl by CMS on August 8, 2014 of it the liability MSA-related NPRM it had earlier submitted to the Office of Management and Budget.
• Indexed Annuities - PLR 143928-13 highlights the potential importance of indexed annuities and annuity riders as structured settlement funding alternatives. Release 57 features a new section explaining indexed annuities, differentiating variable annuities and summarizing the related PLR.
• Commutation Riders - PLR 143928-13 also provided favorable tax treatment for a commutation rider pursuant to a Notice of Hardship Conversion as a potential alternative to factoring transactions. This PLR justified an expansion in Release 57 of S2P2J's current section discussing commutations.
• Non-qualified Assignments - Most non-qualified assignments depend upon off-shore assignment companies which raise tax and security issues for participants. Release 57 expands S2P2P's analysis of non-qualified assignments to address these issues.
• CLM Advisors Surveys - Release 57 summarizes results from two surveys commissioned by NSSTA to determine the value claims executives and adjustors place on structured settlements and structured settlement consultants. The results and related metrics are generally favorable and arguably provide a valuable marketing blueprint for defense brokers.
• ABLE Accounts - Release 57 features a new section describing ABLE Accounts, a tax-preferenced funding option authorized by the Achieving a Better Life Experience Act (ABLE Act) of 2014. Although some structured settlement consultants view ABLE Accounts as a competitive product, others see opportunities to fund ABLE accounts using structured settlements.
• Insurance Regulation - States historically have regulated insurance in the United States. As a result of the 2008 global financial crisis, however, new federal and international insurance regulatory agencies now exist which are targeting some of the largest structured settlement annuity providers among other financial and insurance companies. Release 57 adds a new section to introduce and explain these new regulatory developments and entities.
• ELNY and Reliance - The recent ELNY and Reliance liquidations have each impacted thousands of structured settlement recipients. Although judicial solutions have been fashioned, litigation continues - as least involving some ELNY shortfall payees. Release 57 updates S2P2J's extensive coverage of the ELNY and Reliance liquidations.
• Role of Plaintiff Attorneys - As structure settlements and personal injury settlement planning have become more complex, and plaintiff attorneys increasingly require the services of other settlement planning professionals, plaintiff attorneys should continue to perform certain essential structured settlement and settlement planning roles. Release 57 identifies and discusses those roles and provides additional related advice for plaintiff attorneys.
• Secondary Market Update - The continuing expansion of the secondary market has generated controversy and litigation as well as legislative reform and changing business practices. S2P2J continues to track these developments in expanding chapter 16 titled "Transfers of Structured Settlement Payment Rights". Release 57 highlights include "anti-assignment" issues in Illinois originating with the Brenston case and the market "chaos" some secondary market participant see occurring as the result of the Washington Square v. RSL Funding case.
• IRC 104(a)(2) Treasury Regulations - Recent U.S. Treasury Regulations for IRC 104(a)(2) relating to the exclusion from gross income for amounts received on account of personal physical injuries or physical sickness make two primary changes to the current regulations which Release 57 summarizes in the context of S2P2J more extensive analysis in Chapter 2 of "Taxation of Damages Received by the Claimant".

For related S2KM blog reporting about structured settlement 2014 developments, see:

• Primary market
• Secondary market
• Settlement planning
• ELNY and Reliance

 

NAMSAP 2015 Winter Regional Conference

Medicare compliance continues to create "confusion, misinformation and disagreement" among defendants, their insurers and advisors according to speakers at the 2015 Winter Regional Conference hosted by the National Alliance of Medicare Set-Aside Professionals (NAMSAP) January 29 in Orlando.

NAMSAP is "the only non-profit association exclusively addressing the issues and challenges of the Medicare Secondary Payer Statute and its impact on workers’ compensation and liability settlements".

NAMSAP's membership is the most professionally diverse of any U.S. settlement planning association and includes a mix of attorneys, Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) consultants, CPAs, claims adjustors, structured settlement consultants, guardians, nurses, pharmacists, rehabilitation professionals, and life care planners.

The claims environment has changed dramatically and become much more complex, according to multiple NAMSAP speakers who focused their presentations on issues that arise when Medicare is involved in a case.

Medicare issues are complicated for defendants by adjustor turnover, the need for Medicare education and the comprehensive liability defendants face if Medicare is not protected. Medicare compliance, therefore, is not just about preparing a good Medicare set-aside (MSA). It is about complying with the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) statute.

The MSP statute, as amended by the SMART Act in 2013, has three compliance components (past reimbursement; present reporting; and future protecting) which one of the NAMSAP panels succinctly summarized. The greatest confusion for plaintiffs and defendants relates to protecting Medicare's interest in the future. One speaker compared the current situation to the "wild west" and several speakers emphasized "it is all about the data".

Focusing most of its compact program on MSP compliance, NAMSAP's Educational Committee successfully presented multiple complex topics and developments effectively utilizing a case study methodology to advise attendees on issues they can expect to confront in their own case files.

WCMSAs - Structured Settlements

For workers compensation (WC) cases, CMS (the responsible administrative agency) has published both a WCMSA Reference Guide and a WCMSA Self-Administration Toolkit - each of which features extensive rules for structured settlements.

WCMSAs have become an increasingly important submarket for structured settlements. S2KM has previously estimated that as much as eight (8%) percent of recent structured settlement premium and 24 percent of recent structured settlement annuities are attributable to WCMSAs.

In the WCMSA context, structured settlements have one primary advantage (lower cost), which (from a defense perspective) outweighs their one primary disadvantage (administrative complexity), compared with cash. The cost advantage results from one CMS policy memorandum (dated: October 15, 2004) which sets forth the CMS "set-off" approach for calculating present value.

The CMS "set-off" approach ignores inflation and discount rates. Annuities, however, incorporate their own discount rates and therefore produce an inherently lower comparable cost for funding future periodic payments. The CMS WCMSA Reference Guide specifically "follows all" of CMS' previously published memoranda and thereby (apparently) maintains the WCMSA pricing advantage for structured settlements.

Following NAMSAP's previous "Take the Hill" Washington D.C. lobbying success, NAMSAP's 2015 political agenda seeks federal legislation to address perceived CMS WCMSA deficiencies:

• Thresholds result in incomplete protection.
• No direct right of appeal exists.
• Review time-lines are uncertain.
• CMS rules ignore state workers compensation laws.
• CMS assumes all settlements are “commutations”.

NAMSAP anticipates two alternative MSP legislative proposals will be re-introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives (H.R. 1982) and Senate (S. 2731) in 2015

Liability MSAs - CMS-6047-ANPRM

Unlike WCMSAs, almost no regulatory authority exists for MSAs in third party liability settlements. In 2012, pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act, CMS sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and published in the Federal Register seeking public comment an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM) for liability MSAs.

In CMS-6047-ANPRM (titled: "Medicare Program; Medicare Secondary Payer and "Future Medicals"), CMS offered seven options for dealing with future medicals in liability cases. NAMSAP conference speaker Douglas Shaw reviewed the CMS options and summarized the 107 comments submitted by interested parties.

Virtually all of the comments, according to Shaw, opposed the ANPRM in whole of in part. The primary objections concerned CMS' concept of "equitable apportionment" and the CMS failure to recognize differences between liability and workers compensation cases.

CMS followed up its ANPRM by sending a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) to OMB on August 1, 2013, then withdrew the NPRM without explanation on August 8, 2014. Shaw stated that OMB (which reviews NPRM for cost and benefits, duplications, economic impact, effect on stakeholders) rejected the CMS NPRM and no one knows why except OMB and OMB is prohibited from providing explanations.

Shaw cautioned against groups (such as the AAJ) claiming a regulatory victory. He expects CMS to resubmit another NPRM for liability MSAs in the near future. Multiple NAMSAP speakers pointed out the obvious - since the enactment of MMSEA in 2007, CMS has been collecting data for all claims involving Medicare beneficiaries. This Medicare-related claims data is creating a potential tax-free source of revenue for the U.S. government - billions of Medicare dollars not yet collected to fund Medicare.

As for current liability cases and liability MSAs, Shaw advised that "nothing has changed so we should stay the course and do whatever we thought best before this ANPRN/NPRM."

ICD-10

Adding to claim management and settlement planning complexity in 2015, the United States compliance date for the 10th revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10) is October 15, 2015.

Although most of the NAMSAP audience appeared ICD-10 conversant, Marci Moorehead provided an informative overview of this World Health Organization (WHO) medical classification coding system which many other countries have already implemented. Moorehead predicted the migration to ICD-10 will have a significant impact on business intelligence tools which means life care plans, MSAs and settlement plans likely will be affected.

NAMSAP's 2015 Annual Meeting will take place September 29-October 2 at the Royal Sonesta Hotel in New Orleans.

NAMSAP 2015 Winter Conference - Topics and Speakers

• 3 Parts of Compliance and the SMART Act in 2015
  • Moderator - Katie Fox
  • Monika Boswein
  • Brian Chance
  • Roy Franco
• ANPRM Update - Doug Shaw
• ICD-10 - Marci Moorehead
• Advocacy - Take the Hill and Other Issues
  • Katie Fox
  • Roy Franco
  • Doug Shaw
• Private Cause of Action and False Claims
  • Rasa Fumagalli
  • William Delaney
  • Mark Poplizio
• Working Lunch with Case Studies - Moderator - Thomas Spratt
• Protecting the Client
  • Daniel Hayes - Moderator
  • Ray Alverez
  • Anita Hunt
  • Tracey Jones