Beyond Structured Settlements

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

AAJ 2014 Annual Meeting

Increasing use of structured settlements by plaintiff attorneys and their clients requires a more "unified marketing strategy" by stakeholders according to multiple brokers who exhibited at the recent American Association for Justice (AAJ) 2014 Annual Conference in Baltimore.

Seven primary market brokers, one structured settlement annuity provider and two secondary market companies were prominent among the 141 sponsors and exhibitors at the AAJ conference which also included as exhibitors multiple companies offering lien resolution, MSA compliance, life care planning, legal finance and economic consulting services.

Other marketing advice from AAJ structured settlement exhibitors offering insights into how to grow the primary market:

• "Our industry needs more educational marketing.
• "The secondary market has stolen our brand and we need to get it back.
• "Many plaintiff attorneys do not discuss structured settlements with their clients.
• "We need to educate plaintiff attorneys to stop thinking of their clients as 'investors' and to recognize the benefits of structured settlements.
• "Most plaintiff structured settlement brokers are too narrowly focused on product.
• "Future success requires 'full service' not just annuities - financial planning, settlement trusts and lien resolution.
• "Plaintiff brokers need to be more holistic and offer plaintiff attorneys a 'brain trust' of strategic relationships.
• Offering non-structured settlement products and services to plaintiff attorneys 'has taken the lid off' our company's original view of the size of the settlement planning market."

Underperforming Market

Many industry observers view the United States structured settlement primary market as a strategic, underperforming segment of the larger personal injury settlement planning market:

• Primary market structured settlement annuity premium increased approximately seven (7%) percent to $5.134,380,855 in 2013 (compared with $4,819,124,617 in 2012) according to industry estimates compiled by Melissa Evola.
• Total structured settlement cases in 2013 also increased to 26,533 from 25,038 a year earlier for an average case premium of $193,495.
• The 2013 annual premium totals, however, fell substantially short of the historic 12 month industry high ($6,226,578,725 in 2008) after consistently averaging close to $6 billion annually from 2001-2007.
• Evola's 2013 compilation also reported an annual decrease in annuity premium for non-qualified structured settlements (from $170.1 million in 2012 to $164.9 million in 2013) despite earlier industry projections of a large and growing market .
• Non-qualified structured settlements represent transfers of periodic payment obligations that do not meet the requirements of IRC sections 130 and 104(a)(1) or (2) including deferred plaintiff attorney fees.
• Independent industry sources further report a substantial shift in recent structured settlement premium with increasing sales to fund workers compensation Medicare set-aside arrangements (WCMSAs).

For comparison, based upon Towers Watson's 2011 Annual Study of "United States Tort Cost Trends" and utilizing Tower Watson's 2002 "best estimate" of payout percentages, S2KM estimates that more than $170 billion of United States tort costs annually have represented payments to injury victims and their attorneys. The Towers Watson study excluded: 1) no-fault auto insurance; 2) property coverages; 3) workers compensation; 4) certain extraordinary (one time) costs.

Structured Settlement Marketing - to Defendant Insurers

Although primary market structured settlement participants have successfully marketed their products and services to defendants and their insurers, they have been less successful marketing to plaintiff attorneys and their clients.

A 2011 National Litigation Management study, commissioned by the Council on Litigation Management (CLM) and conducted by Revere Advisory, identified structured settlement as the "most penetrated external initiative" among 30 litigation-related service areas analyzed based upon interviews with leading litigation management executives.

The success of structured settlement marketing to defense insurers was further evidenced by a 2014 study of "how senior claims executives perceive the value of structured settlements and the value that structured settlement consultants bring to the table" commissioned by the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and conducted by CLM Advisors. Among the findings - ninety percent of respondents:

• Indicated their organizations maintain a “formalized structured settlement program”; and
• Reported their belief that, when a structured settlement consultant is involved, claims are “more likely to settle.”

 Structured Settlement Marketing - to Plaintiff Attorneys and Injury Victims

Earlier in 2006 (before interest rates crashed), NSSTA sponsored a survey of plaintiff attorneys involved in structured settlements (43 telephone surveys) and structured settlement recipients (1275 telephone and Internet surveys) titled: "A Study of the Structured Settlement Process Conducted on behalf of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association." Among the results, as reported at NSSTA's 2007 Winter and Annual meetings:

• Structured settlement recipients:
  • 65% said they had not heard about structured settlements prior to settlement.
  • Most were uncertain whether a structured settlement consultant was involved with their case.
  • 34% recalled receiving educational information while 75% of this 34% said the information was helpful.
  • 66% first learned about structured settlements from their trial attorney.
  • 75% said they were very happy their settlement included structured settlement annuities.
  • 75% said they would recommend a structured settlement.
• Plaintiff attorneys involved in structured settlements:
  • 95% said they are proponents of structured settlements.
  • 70% said they retain a structured settlement consultant at least for some cases.
  • When asked: "Whom do you prefer to use for purposes of financial planning for your clients?", the attorneys responded:
    • 30% - Trust company/department.
    • 28% - Financial planner.
    • 23% - Structured settlement consultant.
    • 19% - No response.

Based upon the 2006 survey results, however, NSSTA estimated only 7% of personal injury settlements between $75,000 and $200,000 include structured settlements; and only 30% of personal injury settlements above $1 million include structured settlements.

Growing the Primary Market

What explains the apparent differences in marketing success by the primary structured settlement industry to 1) defense insurers; and 2) plaintiff attorneys and personal injury victims?

Several explanations are possible. They deserve and require greater analysis by the primary market. As one example, while defense brokers essentially sell a singular structured settlement product to their clients without direct competition from other financial/insurance product providers, plaintiff brokers must compete with settlement trustees, financial planners and other providers of asset management services.

As a result, plaintiff structured settlement brokers increasingly are evolving into alternative business models that offer structured settlement annuities as one of multiple products and more fully participate in a larger, more complex business (personal injury settlement planning) than structured settlement defense brokers.

Growing the primary structured settlement market therefore requires its proponents to ask themselves these fundamental questions: "what business are we in?", or, stated somewhat differently, "in what markets do we, or should we, participate?"

Failure to sufficiently address these issues has perpetuated both "inside-the-box" strategic thinking and traditional marketing strategies responsible, in part, for recent sales declines of the structured settlement product - a product which offers multiple, unique advantages and benefits from public policy endorsement, multiple tax preferences and statutory consumer protection.

The Settlement Planning Market

Despite an abundance of related professional associations, participants and conferences, as well as legislative and regulatory developments, personal injury settlement planning remains an evolving concept and market with competing definitions, standards and business models and many unanswered questions.

Many recent and continuing legislative and regulatory developments impact personal injury settlement planning, including:

• Affordable Care Act
• CMS WCMSA Reference Guide
• The SMART Act
• Defense of Marriage Act
• Dodd-Frank Uniform Fiduciary Standard
• Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013

Settlement planners consist, or represent a blend, of several professionals in addition to traditional personal injury litigation participants. These professionals include: tax attorneys, special needs attorneys, trustees, financial planners, structured settlement specialists, life care planners, economists, Medicare set-aside (MSA) specialists and damage allocators.

Professional associations, in addition to AAJ, whose members engage in settlement planning include: NSSTA, SSP, NAELA, ASNP, SNA, NAMSAP, AANLCP - and NASP assuming the definition of settlement planning includes adjustments during an injury victim's lifetime.

To grow the primary market, structured settlement proponents must learn how to better market the benefits and applications of structured settlements to plaintiff attorneys and these other professional groups and associations in the context of evolving settlement planning marketing, work product, business standards and educational priorities.

This educational and marketing challenge requires all structured settlement participants to fundamentally "re-think" structured settlements and their own roles in personal injury settlement planning. One result should be consideration of a more unified marketing strategy to plaintiff attorneys and their clients among heretofore competing professional associations such as NSSTA, SSP and NASP.

Conversations with structured settlement exhibitors at the AAJ 2014 Annual Meeting indicate some primary market plaintiff brokers already understand this message and are transitioning their business models accordingly.

For S2KM's report about the AAJ 2014 Winter Meeting, see this prior blog post.

WCMSA Self-Administration Toolkit

Continuing a series of workers compensation (WC) Medicare set-aside (MSA) regulatory compliance initiatives, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has published a WCMSA Self-Administration (SA) Toolkit.

CMS' stated purposes for this Toolkit are to help WCMSA self-administrators:

• Manage their WCMSA accounts appropriately.
• Satisfy Medicare’s interests related to future medical care.
• Ensure Medicare will pay future Medicare-covered costs related to their WC injuries when the WCMSA is depleted.

MSA Background

MSAs are administrative and funding mechanisms utilized in certain categories of settlements to protect Medicare's interests as "secondary payer" under the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) statute. Enacted in 1980, the MSP Act requires certain insurers, including liability, automobile, no-fault and workers compensation insurers, to make payment first for services to Medicare beneficiaries regarding claimed injuries, with Medicare responsible only as a “secondary payer.”

CMS, the agency responsible for administering Medicare policies, failed to take practical steps to enforce the MSP rules until 2001 when it issued the first of several policy memoranda addressing WCMSAs. These policy memoranda created a format, checklists and procedures for seeking approval for WCMSAs to "protect Medicare's interests" when workers compensation cases are settled.

Several of these WCMSA policy memoranda address, directly or indirectly, structured settlement issues. One of these policy memoranda (dated October 15, 2004) addresses WCMSA present value calculations and provides an important pricing advantage for annuity funding compared with lump sum funding.

During 2013, CMS published both an 88 page WCMSA Reference Guide (WCRG) and a 13 page supplement (WCRG Version 2.0). The WCRG's intended purpose is to help WCMSA professionals, beneficiaries and other stakeholders "understand CMS' [WCMSA] amount approval process and to serve as a reference for those electing to submit such proposals to CMS for approval."

S2KM has written two blog posts summarizing the initial WCRG:

• Part 1 - Non-structured settlement issues.
• Part 2 - Structured settlement issues.
• For highlights of the WCRG Version 2.0, see this blog post written by Douglas Shaw.

Significantly for structured settlements, WCRG Appendix 4 defines "present-day value" as "the cost to fund a WCMSA annuity" and further states: "[t]he WCRG follows all CMS policy memorandums currently in effect."

Neither WCRG Version 2.0 or the WCMSA SA Toolkit address "present value". Therefore, it appears the October 15, 2004 CMS WCMSA policy memorandum remains in effect and annuities continue to offer lower-cost funding alternatives compared with lump sums for many, if not most, WCMSAs.

Although CMS and its field offices have also issued informal guidance about the use of MSAs in liability cases, nothing comparable exists to the CMS WCMSA memoranda, WCRG or WCMSA SA Toolkit. As a result, there currently is no consensus among tort practitioners as to whether and when MSAs are required in liability cases. Anticipating publication of MSA rules for liability cases, however, CMS has published HHS/CMS RIN: 0938-AR43.

Structured Settlements - Comparing the WCMSA SA Toolkit and the WCRG

Although both the MSAWC SA Toolkit (Toolkit) and the WCRG both address structured settlements in multiple sections, the administration (post-settlement) focus (including structured settlements) of the Toolkit is narrower than the WCRG and its treatment of structured settlement issues is generally less comprehensive.

The following Toolkit sections address structured settlement issues. S2KM has added references to related WCRG sections where applicable.

• Section 3: How Your WCMSA is Funded - compare WCRG Section 5.0.
• Section 8: Annual Attestation
• Section 11: Topics Unique to Structured Accounts - compare WCRG Section 19.3.
• Section 13: Letters and Examples - which includes three sample structured account attestation and expenditure letters which do not appear in the WCRG:
  • Annual attestation.
  • Temporary exhaustion.
  • Permanent exhaustion.
• Section 14: Glossary - The Glossaries of the both Toolkit and the WCRG include definitions for "structured settlement". Although consistent, the two definitions are worded slightly differently. Neither definition mentions annuities or references the tax definition for "structured settlement" in IRC 5891(c)(1).

The Toolkit does not address structured settlement issues which appear in the following WCRG sections:

• Section 10.1.1
  • WCMSA cover letter
  • Settlement amount
• Section 10.1.3 - Rated Age Information or Life Expectancy
• Appendix 5:15 - Rated Age Information or Life Expectancy
  • Rated Age Statement
  • Annuity Provider Underwriting Assessment
  • Annuity Broker Statement
• Appendix 5:25 - Settlement Agreement or Proposed or Court Order

Related S2KM reporting

• Medicare Compliance Legislation
• The Medicare, Medicaid and SHIP Extension Act (MMSEA)
• NAMSAP 2014 Regional Conference
• Part 1 - Speakers and Topics
• Part 2 - WCMSA Market Metrics

NAMSAP 2014 Regional Conference - 1

The National Alliance of Medicare Set-Aside Professionals (NAMSAP) Regional Conference, held earlier this month in Miami, Florida, highlighted the strategic importance of workers' compensation Medicare set-aside arrangements (WCMSAs), and the growth potential of structured settlements, resulting from recent legislative and regulatory developments impacting historic personal injury settlement planning models.

Among these recent legislative and regulatory developments:

• The SMART Act.
• CMS WCMSA Reference Guide.
• Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013.
• Implementation of the Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA).
• HHS/CMS RIN: 0938-AR43 - anticipating publication of MSA rules for liability cases.

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 appears to be the most professionally diversified of any U.S. settlement planning association. The 46 attendees at the NAMSAP Regional Conference included a mix of attorneys, Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) consultants, CPAs, claims adjustors, structured settlement consultants, guardians, nurses, pharmacists, rehabilitation professionals, and life care planners.

Structured settlement professionals, who comprise approximately nine (9%) percent of NAMSAP's 500 plus members, have played an important role in NAMSAP's development ever since the association was founded in 2004.

Speakers and Topics

Among the featured speakers at NAMSAP's Regional Meeting, Immediate Past President Michael Westcott addressed why structured settlements and MSAs produce "a perfect match that also saves stakeholder on the cost of compliance":

• "A structured settlement is a contract that defines specific future periodic payments for a specific dollar amount for a specified time."
• "An MSA is an agreement with CMS to pay agreed upon future costs for an agreed dollar amount for an agreed period of time."

"Good settlement planning", Westcott added, "requires that all professional advisers know the roadmap to compliance." Unfortunately, he concluded, structured settlements continue to be underutilized amid too much discussion on process and too little on benefits.

During his presentation about the SMART Act, Roy Franco briefly addressed the settlement planning changes likely to result from the Budget Act of 2013, implementation of the ACA and anticipated CMS rules for liability MSAs.

Franco predicted "workers' compensation, liability and no-fault insurers will all become primary payers vis a vis Medicare, Medicaid and ACA health providers" as part of integrated settlement planning models similar to WCMSAs. He added, however, that different state-specific models may develop as state Medicaid agencies begin responding October 1, 2014 to the new Medicaid reimbursement rules promulgated by the Budget Act of 2013.

Multiple NAMSAP Regional speakers addressed case management compliance challenges.

Katie Fox identified and discussed WCMSA case settlement obstacles:

• CMS requests for additional medical reports and pharmacy itemizations.
• Obtaining signed authorizations and scope of those authorizations.
• Failure to proactively address Medicare issues
• Re-allocations with changing numbers as a result of lengthy negotiations.
• Liquidated workers compensation carriers resulting in lost data and miscoded payments.
• Three year statute of limitations prior to final case closure.

William Paxman and Todd Reimer provided a "carrier perspective" on MSA compliance:

• Claim management today is increasingly complex and transparent.
• MSA issues, however, tend to allign plaintiff attorneys and defendants.
• Adjustors are generalists who need to recognize issues and know when to involve specialists.
• No safe harbors and limited regulatory guidance require carriers to develop their own best practices including specific Medicare settlement language.
• Road blocks to settlements:
  • Claimant refusals to sign releases or provide information.
  • Demands for MSAs when they are not necessary.
  • Lack of medical/pharmacy records as well as additional requests for updates by CMS.
  • Claimants who are uncomfortable with government and the future management/reporting of medical treatment.
• Section 111 reporting and compliance challenges:
  • How will claim adjustors see the “value” of Section 111 when it doesn’t help resolve cases faster for less money and increases their workload?
  • Training challenges resulting from higher claim adjustor turnover.
  • How to automate section 111 reporting.
  • Partial vs. full settlements.

Attorneys Daniel Santaniello, Reinaldo Alverez and Shannon Metcalf discussed "Medicare compliance trends" and how attorneys, their clients and the courts are attempting to decipher the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) Act without liability MSA regulations. Their presentation provided examples of problem cases and summarized recent liability MSA-related court decisions.

The NAMSAP Regional Conference featured two presentations about the "impact of the aging workforce" on workers compensation and MSAs.

• Barbara Fairchild reviewed the changing demographics of older workers and related workplace attitudes. 40.2 million Americans were aged 65 and over in 2010. This number is expected to increase to 88.5 million by 2050.
• Tron Emptage discussed the special prescription medication management required for aging workers. For WCMSAs, CMS requires the most recent two years of medical records, last two years of payments, and prescription invoices showing dosage, quantity and frequency of the drugs.

Stephanie Volm and Reinaldo Alverez led the most unusual educational session at the NAMSAP Regional. Titled "MSA Jeopardy", this session consisted of collaborative attendee break-out groups competing with each other to answer questions such as:

• What are the top 12 WCMSA submission errors?
• What are the penalties for not paying the final amount in the demand letter?
• What are 10 things CMS wants to see in WCMSAs?
• Name seven criteria for determining whether a lump sum or structured settlement sufficiently takes Medicare's interests into account.
• How do you obtain a conditional payment letter in a liability MSA case?
• What are the requirements for an annuity in a WCMSA?

NAMSAP's 2014 Annual Conference, celebrating NAMSAP's 10th Anniversary, will take place May 8-9 in Las Vegas.

Structured Settlements 2013 - Settlement Planning

Despite an abundance of related professional associations, participants and conferences, as well as legislative and regulatory developments, personal injury settlement planning (settlement planning) remains an evolving concept with competing definitions, standards and business models and many unanswered questions.

Professional associations whose members engage in settlement planning include: NSSTA, SSP, NAELA, ASNP, SNA, NAMSAP, AANLCP - and NASP assuming the definition of settlement planning includes adjustments during an injury victim's lifetime.

Settlement planners consist, or represent a blend, of several professionals in addition to traditional personal injury litigation participants. These professionals include: tax attorneys, special needs attorneys, trustees, financial planners, structured settlement specialists, life care planners, economists, Medicare set-aside (MSA) specialists and damage allocators.

Settlement planning topics are featured not only at national conferences sponsored by professional associations but also at conferences entirely focused on specific settlement planning products and issues (e.g. Qualified Settlement Funds [QSFs]; MSAs; special needs trusts [SNTs]; structured settlement annuities; structured settlement transfers).

Described alternatively by advocates as 1) a profession, 2) a process, 3) a community of practice and/or 4) a market, fundamental settlement planning issues exist which industry leaders have not yet adequately addressed:

• How large is the U.S. personal injury settlement planning market and its various sub-markets?
• What laws define and which regulators oversee personal injury settlement planning?
• What generally accepted settlement planning industry standards exist - and what is their source:
  • Definitions?
  • Documents?
  • Processes?
  • Product suitability?
  • Educational resources?
  • Certification programs?
  • Licensing requirements?
• What is a settlement plan?
• Have any professional associations attempted to define or develop a "standard" settlement plan?
• If such a standard settlement plan exists, what general and/or case specific reports and documents are required?

Settlement Planning 2013 Legislative and Regulatory Developments

• Affordable Care Act - Consisting of two laws enacted in March of 2010 (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care Education and Reconciliation Act of 2010), the Affordable Care Act (ACA) promises to have a profound, though still uncertain, impact on settlement planning once its primary features (including the individual mandate and protections against pre-existing conditions) become effective January 1, 2014. S2KM published four blog reviews during 2013 examining various ACA-related settlement planning issues:
  • Part 1 - The ACA's impact on future medical damages in personal injury cases.
  • Part 2 - The ACA's impact on the collateral source rule.
  • Part 3 - The ACA's Medicare cost-saving components.
  • Part 4 - Reactions to the California Exchange report announcing premium rates.
• CMS WCMSA Reference Guide - Workers compensation MSAs (WCMSAs) represent a strategic and growing settlement planning sub-market in which structured settlement annuities have been granted an inherent cost advantage over lump sum funding alternatives as a result of a 2004 CMS policy memorandum. During 2013, CMS first published, then subsequently updated, a WCMSA Reference Guide. S2KM's published two blog posts summarizing the initial 88 page WCMSA Reference Guide:
  • Part 1 - Non-structured settlement issues.
  • Part 2 - Structured settlement issues.
  • For highlights of the CMS WCMSA Reference Guide Version 2.0, see this blog post written by Douglas Shaw.
• SMART Act - Signed into law on January 10, 2013, the “Strengthening Medicare and Repaying Taxpayers Act” (SMART Act) is intended to improve the efficiency of the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) system by requiring CMS to simplify its review process and to eliminate uncertainty and delays. CMS published related regulations in September thereby committing to:
  • Implement a web portal by January 1, 2016 to enable beneficiaries, their attorneys, other representatives or applicable plans to obtain important MSA information; and
  • Enhance the functionality of the MSA web portal to insure disputes and discrepancies are addressed within 11 business days following receipt of dispute documentation.
• Defense of Marriage Act - The United States v. Windsor case, decided June 26, 2013 by the United States Supreme Court, held Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to be unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause and the Fifth Amendment. Among its many consequences, the Windsor decision will impact settlement planning for cases involving same-gender couples. For additional analysis, see this S2KM blog post.
• Dodd-Frank Uniform Fiduciary Standard - Among many other provisions, the "Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act" (Dodd-Frank) directed the SEC to study the need for a new, uniform fiduciary standard of care for broker-dealers and investment advisers and to apply such a uniform standard if it deemed necessary. This study is potentially important for settlement planning because the market currently lacks a uniform product suitability standard. Although the SEC published a fiduciary standard study in January 2011, it has not yet published any related regulations. S2KM reviewed settlement planning product suitability standards in a four-part 2012 blog series.
• Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (added January 7, 2014) - Section 202(b) of this statute, which will take effect October 1, 2014, modifies the federal Medicaid Secondary Payer statute and permits recovery for “any payments by such third party.” It overturns two prior Supreme Court decisions (Arkansas v. Ahlborn and Wos v. E.M.A.) and, according to some experts, will significantly complicate personal injury settlements involving Medicaid recipients and make them more expensive.
• Potentially important for settlement planning:
  • New federal legislative proposals:
    • H.R. 1982 - “Medicare Secondary Payer and Workers’ Compensation Settlement Agreements Act of 2013″.
    • S.B. 1672 - "Special Needs Trust Fairness Act".
  • FASB Topic 834 - proposed new accounting standards for insurance contracts.
  • Global Insurance Capital Standard - IAIS has committed to develop and implement the first-ever risk based global insurance capital standard.

For additional S2KM annual reporting of structured settlement industry developments during 2013 and for prior years, see the structured settlement wiki.

S2P2J Release 53

Publisher Law Journal Press is currently distributing hardcopy supplements for Release 53 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J). Online S2P2J, which includes a searchable index, download capability and one-click access to cases and statutes, has already been updated to include Release 53 materials.

First published in 1986, S2P2J is co-authored and updated semi-annually by Daniel W. Hindert, Joseph J. Dehner and Patrick J. Hindert. Both the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) utilize S2P2J as an educational resource for their certification programs.

Release 53 Highlights

Release 53 continues S2P2J's comprehensive reporting of the Executive Life insolvencies with updates for both Executive Life of California (ELIC) and Executive Life of New York (ELNY). The ongoing ELNY liquidation threatens severe court-approved reductions for more than 1400 structured settlement recipients across the United States.

Certain prospective ELNY shortfall payees are appealing the ELNY liquidation and restructuring order. Their attorneys are appealing a related contempt order. The outcome of this courtroom drama will significantly impact not only the ELNY shortfall payees but also the structured settlement industry and state life insurance guarantee associations.

Other Release 53 topics:

• American Taxpayer Act of 2012 - updating when and how personal injury damage awards are taxed to a decedent's estate. 
• Non-qualified assignments - expanded analysis of this growing market.
• 2013 HIPAA omnibus final rule - how it impacts settlement planners and structured settlement professionals.
• The Smart Act - which sets new procedures for Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) repayment and reporting.

As the structured settlement and settlement planning markets continue to experience unprecedented changes, S2P2J provides a comprehensive and up-to-date knowledge resource for industry experts and stakeholders.

If you do not already subscribe to S2P2J, or your subscription is out-of-date, review some of the recent S2P2J highlights to see what you are missing.

CMS WCMSA Reference Guide - 1

Thirty-three years following enactment of the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) Act and 12 years after the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued its first workers compensation Medicare set-aside (WCMSA) memorandum, CMS has finally published a WCMSA Reference Guide (WCRG).

Enacted in 1980, the MSP Act requires certain insurers, including liability, automobile, no-fault and workers compensation insurers, to make payment first for services to Medicare beneficiaries regarding claimed injuries, with Medicare responsible only as a “secondary payer.”

CMS, the agency responsible for administering Medicare policies, failed to take practical steps to enforce the MSP rules until 2001 when it issued the first of several policy memorandums addressing WCMSAs. These policy memorandums created a format, checklists and procedures for seeking approval for WCMSAs to "protect Medicare's interests" when workers compensation cases are settled. The WCRG states: "The WCRG follows all CMS policy memorandums currently in effect. The memorandums are published on the CMS website."

Although CMS and its field offices have also issued informal guidance about the use of MSAs in liability cases, nothing comparable exists to the CMS WCMSA memoranda. As a result, there is no uniform position or consensus among tort practitioners as to whether and when MSAs are required in liability cases.

The WCRG continues a series of Medicare legislative and regulatory compliance initiatives which also include the Medicare, Medicaid and SHIP Extension Act (MMSEA) and the Strengthening Medicare and Repaying Taxpayers Act (SMART Act).

Published by CMS on March 29, 2013, the 88-page WCRG (including Appendices) applies only to workers compensation cases. Its intended purpose: to help WCMSA professionals, beneficiaries and other stakeholders "understand CMS' [WCMSA] amount approval process and to serve as a reference for those electing to submit such proposals to CMS for approval."

This blog post provides excerpts from the WCRG addressing and summarizing non-structured settlement specific issues. For a more complete understanding, read the entire 88-page WCRG. Subsequent S2KM blog posts will summarize and discuss WCRG structured settlement issues including rated age information requirements for determining WCMSA beneficiary life expectancy.

Overview

• Medicare's interests:
  • "Any claimant who receives a WC settlement, judgment,or award that includes an amount for future medical expenses must take Medicare’s interest with respect to future medicals into account."
  • "If Medicare’s interests are not considered, CMS has a priority right of recovery against any entity that received a portion of a third party payment either directly or indirectly."
  • "Medicare may also refuse to pay for future medical expenses related to the WC injury until the entire settlement is exhausted."
• Compromises: "CMS does not compromise or reduce future medical expenses related to a WC injury."
• WCMSA statutes and regulations: "There are no statutory or regulatory provisions requiring that you submit a WCMSA amount proposal to CMS for review."
• What are WCMSAs: "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 CMSfor 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."
• Benefit of WCMSA: "The primary benefit [of submitting a WCMSA] is the certainty associated with CMS reviewing and approving the proposed amount with respect to the amount that must be appropriately exhausted."
• Goal of WCMSA: "The goal of establishing a WCMSA is to estimate, as accurately as possible, the total cost that will be insured for all medical expenses otherwise reimbursable by Medicare for work-related conditions during the course of the claimant’s life, and to set aside sufficient funds from the settlement, judgment,or award to cover that cost."
• Creating a WCMSA: "Generally there are four steps involved in creating a CMS-approved WCMSA:
  • "Analysis of the claim and medical information in order to determine the amount of money required for the fund.
  • "Negotiation of a tentative settlement and preparation of draft settlement documents to settle the WC case incorporating terms for creation and administration of the WCMSA (CMS is not a party to the settlement).
  • "Obtaining approval from CMS regarding the settlement and the proposed WCMSA.
  • "Finalizing the settlement and funding the WCMSA."
• WCMSA funding:
  • "CMS has no process to accept up-front cash payments in lieu of a CMS reviewed WCMSA."
  • "WCMSAs may be funded by a lump sum or may be structured, such that a fixed amount of funds are provided each year for a fixed number of years."

CMS Review of WCMSAs - excluding structured settlement and rated age issues which S2KM will be address in subsequent blog posts.

• Introductory note: CMS introduced a WCMSA internet portal in November 2011 for submission of WCMSA proposals.
• Review threshold: "CMS will review a proposed WCMSA amount when the following workload review thresholds are met:
  • "The claimant is a Medicare beneficiary and the total settlement amount is greater than $25,000.00; or
  • "The claimant has a reasonable expectation of Medicare enrollment within 30 months of the settlement date and the anticipated total settlement amount for future medical expenses and disability/lost wages over the life or duration of the settlement agreement is expected to be greater than $250,000.00."
  • "A claimant has a reasonable expectation of Medicare enrollment within 30 months if any of the following apply:
    • "The claimant has applied for Social Security Disability Benefits.
    • "The claimant has been denied Social Security Disability Benefits but anticipates appealing that decision.
    • "The claimant is in the process of appealing and/or re-filing for Social Security Disability benefits.
    • "The claimant is 62 years and 6 months old.
    • "The claimant has an End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) condition but does not yet qualify for Medicare based upon ESRD."
• Review not required: "It is unnecessary for the individual or beneficiary to obtain CMS approval for a proposed WCMSA amount if all of the following are true:
  • "The facts of the case demonstrate that the injured individual is only being compensated for past medical expense
  • "There is no evidence that the individual is attempting to maximize the other aspects of thesettlement (e.g., the lost wages and disability portions of the settlement) to Medicare’s detriment; and
  • "The individual's treating physicians conclude (in writing) that to a reasonable degree of medical certainty the individual will no longer require any Medicare-covered treatments related to the WC injury. However, if Medicare made any conditional payments for WC-related services furnished prior to settlement, then Medicare will recover those payments. In addition, Medicare will not pay for any WC-related services furnished prior to the date of the settlement for which it has not already paid."
• Review process:
  • "If you choose to use CMS’ WCMSA review process, the Agency requests that you comply with CMS 'established policies and procedures."
  • "When a WCMSA is submitted for approval, CMS must have certain documentation available to complete a review of the proposal. Table 1 lists the documents normally submitted with a WCMSA proposal."
  • "Submit the gross total settlement amount as a single lifetime number and NOT the settlement amount minus attorney fees, expenses, etc."
  • "Once this information is received, the COBC will apply it to the beneficiary's Medicare record and assign the case to the Medicare Secondary Payer Recovery Contractor (MSPRC)."
  • "The MSPRC will send the beneficiary a “Rights and Responsibilities” letter that explains Medicare's recovery rights with respect to conditional payments and information regarding what steps the beneficiary should take next."
  • "Once the Rights and Responsibilities letter is received, all further inquiries must be made through the MSPRC."
  • "If the parties to a WC settlement stipulate a WCMSA but do not receive CMS approval, then CMS is not bound by the set-aside amount stipulated by the parties, and it may refuse to pay for future medical expenses in the case, even if they would ordinarily have been covered by Medicare."
  • "If CMS approves the WCMSA and the account is later appropriately exhausted, Medicare will pay related medical bills for services otherwise covered and reimbursable by Medicare regardless of the amount of care the beneficiary continues to require."
  • "You can see your case’s status on the WCMSAP, if the case was submitted on the Portal. For cases that were submitted via mail, case status can be obtained by contacting the WCRC."
  • "When CMS does not believe that a proposed set-aside adequately protects Medicare’s interests,and thus makes a determination of a different amount than originally proposed, there is no formal appeals process. However, there are several other options available."

Life Care Plans

• "A Life Care Plan is a dynamic document based on published standards of practice, comprehensive assessment, data analysis, and research that provides an organized concise plan for current and future needs with associated costs for individuals who have experienced catastrophic injury or have chronic health needs."
• "A life care plan is appropriate when the claimant’s injury or disease is extensive and serious, e.g., paraplegia, quadriplegia, brain damage."
• "Although submission of a life care plan is optional, you are required to include drug and dosage lists. Include all pricing charts, cost projections, pricing information, and explanatory narratives and analyses."
• "When the parties to a WC settlement present CMS with “life care plans” or similar evaluations prepared by non-treating physicians to support and justify their proposed WCMSAs, Medicare will consider accepting such evaluations if the physician does all of the following:
  • "Examines the claimant;
  • "Reviews the claimant's medical records;
  • "Contacts any of the claimant's treating physicians (if applicable);
  • "Is available to answer CMS’ questions;
  • "Prepares a report that summarizes the above; and
  • "Offers a written medical opinion as to all of the reasonably anticipated future medical needs of the claimant related to the claimant's work injury or illness/disease."

Future Treatment

• "Determine the cost of future medical expenses that are directly related to the injury or illness suffered by the worker. This amount can be determined by reviewing medical records and past medical expenditures. The WCMSA must show the amount of money that should be invested to provide the yearly expenses for the worker’s life expectancy."
• "Note: In order to protect Medicare’s interests, a WCMSA should be funded based on the life expectancy of the claimant unless state law specifically limits the length of time that WC covers work-related conditions. The key is that both the principal amount that is to be set aside and the anticipated interest that it will earn must be sufficient to provide for the worker’s future medical treatment and administration fees for the worker’s lifetime."
• "Identify specific types of medical services or items, the frequency and duration of the medical services or items, and the projected costs of the medical services or items related to the work injury or disease that are expected in the future in light of the claimant's condition."

Time Frame

• "When you submit a WCMSA for review, CMS tries to review and decide on proposed settlements within 45 to 60 days from the time that all relevant documents are submitted."
• "Parties to the settlement may settle the indemnity (non-medical-expenses) portion of the claim separately from the WCMSA portion, in order to avoid having indemnity payments continue while CMS is still reviewing the proposal. CMS will still consider the whole claim, including indemnity, in its threshold calculations."

Administration

• "Once a WCMSA is established and funded, it must be administered."
• "This can be done by the claimant, by the claimant’s representative payee, appointed guardian, or conservator, or by a professional administrator."
• "The administrator of the account will be responsible for keeping accurate records of payments made from the account."
• "The administrator must establish the WCMSA account, pay Medicare-covered services from the WCMSA account, and provide CMS with a reporting of the expenditures from the WCMSA."
• "Every year, beginning no later than 30 days after the 1-year anniversary of settlement the administrator must sign and send a statement that payments from the WCMSA account were made for Medicare-covered medical expenses and Medicare-covered prescription drug expenses related to the work-related injury, illness, or disease."

Death of the Claimant

• "If a claimant dies before the WCMSA is completely exhausted, the [Regional Office] and [Medicare Secondary Payer Recovery Contractor] will ensure that all claims have been paid."
• "Then any amount left over in the WCMSA may be disbursed pursuant to state law, once Medicare’s interests have been protected."
• "This may involve holding the WCMSA open for some period after the date of death, as providers, physicians, and other suppliers are permitted to submit their initial bill to Medicare for a period of 12 months after the date of service."
• "Often, the settlement itself will dictate the appropriate dispersal of funds up on the death of the claimant."

For additional S2KM reporting about government benefit issues, see the structured settlement wiki. For analysis of the interaction of structured settlements and government benefits, see Chapter 15 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J).