Beyond Structured Settlements

Achieving a Better Life Experience Act (ABLE Act)

Some personal injury victims and their families will have a new tax-preferenced funding option following enactment of the Achieving a Better Life Experience Act (ABLE Act) of 2014 which was signed into law last month by President Barack Obama.

The ABLE Act will allow eligible, disabled individuals and their families to establish ABLE savings accounts with tax-exempt earnings that will not affect their eligibility for SSI, Medicaid and other public benefits. Individuals with $2000 or more in assets currently are not eligible for SSI or Medicaid. Although ABLE accounts may be used to supplement special needs and/or pooled income trusts, their anticipated cost will be considerably less. They will also provide more control for beneficiaries and their families.

Qualification will require proof of onset of a disability prior to age 26. Recipients of SSI and/or SSDI who meet this criteria will be automatically eligible. Non-recipients of SSI and/or SSDI who meet the age 26 criteria must also prove their blindness or disability meets Social Security Act definitions. Treasury Department regulations are expected to provide additional explanations concerning standard of proof and required medical documentation.

The ABLE Act was promoted by numerous disability organizations and advocates including the American Association for People with Disabilities (AAPD). “The ABLE Act unlocks the doors of financial freedom for many Americans with disabilities,” according to Mark Perriello, president and CEO of AAPD. “It allows people with disabilities to start saving for their future.”

ABLE accounts, which will not be available until the Treasury Department publishes regulations, are expected to resemble qualified college savings programs (“529 accounts”) available under IRC section 529 since 1996. Qualifying Individuals will be limited to one ABLE account. Total annual contributions by all individuals (including family and friends) to any one account for each year cannot exceed the gift tax annual exclusion ($14,000 in 2015).

Although ABLE account investment income will be tax exempt, contributors will not receive any tax deductions for their deposits. Similar to (d)(4)(A) special needs trusts, ABLE accounts will be required to repay any funds remaining in the account to the Federal government or the state upon the death of the disabled beneficiary.

Distributions from ABLE accounts must be used for “qualified disability expenses,” including higher education expenses, a primary residence, transportation, obtaining and maintaining employment, and certain other health, wellness and personal support expenses. Any non-qualifying distribution will cause an ABLE account to lose its exempt Medicaid status and subject the account to a 10 percent income tax penalty.

Individual states will be responsible for setting up and managing their own ABLE programs. Individual states will also determine the total amount of lifetime contributions to an ABLE account consistent with their limits for education-related 529 accounts. Many states currently have established 529 account limits of $300,000 or more.

Similar to 529 accounts, states are expected to offer multiple investment options for ABLE accounts. The ABLE Act limits changes to the types of account investments to two times per year. For disabled individuals who receive SSI and/or Medicaid, the ABLE Act imposes additional limitations. If a state decides not to establish an ABLE program, it has the option of contracting with another state to allow qualifying residents the opportunity to open an ABLE account.

It remains to be determined who will promote ABLE accounts and what impact they will have upon various markets including settlement planning, special needs planning and structured settlements. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the ABLE Act will increase the number of beneficiaries of means-tested programs and federal spending from such programs.

For additional S2KM reporting about settlement planning and government benefits, see the structured settlement wiki.

Wendie Howland Interview - 1

The most recent S2KM blog post highlights the growing strategic importance of life care planners for structured settlement and personal injury settlement planning professionals.

To gain additional knowledge about life care planners, S2KM interviewed Wendie A. Howland, MN, RN-BC, CRRN, CCM, CNLCP, LNCC, owner of Howland Health Consulting, Inc., which S2KM will publish in three blog posts addressing life care planning qualifications, case management, industry standards, and criticism of life care planners.

In addition to her education and certifications, Wendie's professional background includes work as a critical care nurse; catastrophically-injured workers case manager for multiple insurance carriers; and complex medical records review and analysis for catastrophic workers' compensation and liability cases at the reinsurance level.

Recognized as a national expert for nurse standards of practice and care issues, Wendie's current practice includes life care planning and complex medical records review and analysis for liability, workers compensation, elder/trustee, SSDI and Medicare set-aside (MSA) cases. Among her many professional affiliations, Wendie also serves as Editor for both the Journal of Nurse Life Care Planning and the Journal of Legal Nurse Consulting.

S2KM: Wendie, thank you for participating in this interview. What is your best estimate of the number of life care planners in the United States? How many (or what percentage) of the total have:

• A life care planning certification credential?
• A nursing background?

Ms. HOWLAND: I am not sure it is possible to know exactly how many people hold current life care planning credentials of any kind, but the last numbers I have heard are roughly 800 for Certified Nurse Life Care Planner (CNLCP), 2000 for Certified Life Care Planner (CLCP) (approximately 80% of which are not nurses), and 100 for Lifetime Nurse Care Planners (LNCP-C).

S2KM: One of the impressive characteristics about life care planners appears to be their commitment to certification and continuing education. What is your educational background and what certification credentials have your earned?

Ms. HOWLAND: My primary credential in nursing was a B.S. degree from Boston University (nursing major). I earned my master’s degree from the University of Washington in Seattle, in the thesis program for physiological nursing (cardiovascular/critical care). Since my first clinical work was in critical care as a staff nurse and then as a critical care clinical specialist, I earned certifications in critical care nursing and nursing education.

My second career in nursing was in case management, primarily in worker’s compensation and liability for which I earned certifications in case management (CCM, RN-BC) and rehabilitation nursing (CRRN). Many of us in legal nursing consider life care planning “case management on steroids,” so life care planning was a logical next step as I gained expertise.

Now, as a certified nurse life care planner I hold the CNLCP and LNCP-C credentials, and the LNCC for legal nurse consulting. These credentials require both education and experience, what the military would call “time in grade,” as well as sitting for psychometrically-validated exams. To renew them, I take many hours of continuing education and perform other qualifying activities (such as editing professional journals, teaching, and publishing) and submit proof for approval to the respective certifying bodies every five years.

S2KM: What criteria are most important in selecting a life care planner?

Ms. HOWLAND: There are several, in my opinion. First, of course, is looking at the life care planner’s clinical experience. Does the planner have expertise, experience, and connections in the injury or condition involved in the case? Second, certifications are important as they demonstrate experience, competence, and commitment to continued learning in the field. Certification in life care planning should be a given, but judging by some of the plans I have been asked to review, apparently it is not. Third, looking at the credentials and licensure that underlie the planner’s practice is critical. Do they grant the ability to assess, opine, and prescribe for the injury or conditions involved?

Many people think that only physicians are licensed to assess and prescribe for ill or injured people, but that’s not true. It’s important to know the difference between the legal requirement for physicians to prescribe medications or perform surgery, for example, and an insurance company’s requirement to have a physician’s name on a request for goods and services (such as equipment, physical therapy, visiting nursing, assisted living, and others) solely as a means of financial control. I always collaborate with treating physicians and therapists if possible when I’m formulating a life care plan and include their recommendations.

Registered nurses are required to implement some (not all) parts of a medical plan of care. RNs are also licensed to assess function and response to illness or injury and to develop an independent nursing plan of care. We can and do recommend further assessments by other disciplines, adaptive equipment, hours and kinds of nursing care in any setting, and many other needs found in a good life care plan.

In addition, good research and writing skills are important. Life care plans should never be “canned,” i.e., the same for every case, with no evidence of individualization or current research. Every item should have reference to a current assessment need, availability, replacement/maintenance, and source for cost.

Lastly, since much life care planning work involves litigation and may call for deposition or trial testimony, it is generally a good idea to look for someone with public speaking experience and confidence under questioning.

S2KM: How important is the personal injury market for life care planners? How much of your own work involves personal injury cases?

Ms. HOWLAND: Most (but not all) life care planning practices do work that involves litigation, and that usually involves some kind of injury. Examples include workers' compensation, medical malpractice, and personal liability. MSAs represent a growing field of practice. Almost all of my work involves personal injury cases.

S2KM: When you work on personal injury cases, in what percentage of your cases:

• Are your clients plaintiffs vs. defendants?
• Are you retained as a potential expert witness?
• Are you directly involved in settlement negotiations?

Ms. HOWLAND: My cases are about half plaintiff and half defense. Plaintiff clients are interested in knowing about needs and related costs over life expectancy for a person with an injury or other condition. Defense clients are interested in knowing what potential costs could be and why, so they can set reserves and prepare for negotiations. They also want to know if a plaintiff life care plan is reasonable and fair.

Life care planners who are not employees of a defense or plaintiff entity expect to have their work product introduced as part of litigation. I have never been directly involved in settlement negotiations, nor have most life care planners in my experience. I work with my client to make my work comprehensive enough that it can stand on its own as counsel’s tool for negotiations. Some life care planners also work with trust officers after litigation is settled, to help them understand how the money can be spent most appropriately and identify case managers to implement the plan.

S2KM: How much time does it take to develop a personal injury life care plan and how are you compensated?

Ms. HOWLAND: My life care plans for catastrophic injury cases generally take between forty to sixty hours of work, not including travel and testimony time. Like most of my colleagues, I take a retainer and work against it, having it replenished as needed, and provide a detailed invoice monthly or more often if the client requests it.

S2KM: What is the difference between a life care plan and a medical cost projection?

Ms. HOWLAND: A medical cost projection is generalized for a medical diagnosis, as opposed to a comprehensive nursing assessment. It does not include a personal patient assessment. A medical cost projection may be important early post-injury, for example, to help a client set preliminary reserves. I am usually asked to provide medical cost projections soon after injury or as a preoperative estimate when precision isn’t necessarily critical. Since every case progresses differently, it is not possible to know what complications or special circumstances will arise. So the disclaimer says that further information will be helpful to make a more meaningful estimate.

S2KM: Assuming your work product (life care plan) is utilized to develop a personal injury settlement plan, how frequently are you asked to review the settlement plan: 1) prior to its implementation and 2) subsequent to implementation to adjust for new developments or changed circumstances?

Ms. HOWLAND: I have never been asked to review a settlement plan to see how well it matches my recommendations. It is almost impossible for life care planners to obtain information about outcomes or to discover how much, if any, of their life care plan recommendations were actually implemented, or how effectively. That is one of the major barriers to better research in life care planning. Most responsible life care planners inform their clients that a life care plan should be updated at intervals to account for changes in the individual’s condition and also include provisions for a case manager to implement their plan.

S2KM: How can other settlement planning professionals (including plaintiff attorneys, special needs attorneys, settlement trustees and structured settlement brokers) improve their working relationship with life care planners?

Ms. HOWLAND: They should know what they want, know what they can get from us, and know how to use us to their best advantage. They should communicate clearly, with adequate advance notice, what their expectations are, how much they expect and are willing to pay, and how they will use our work products. Nobody wants surprises.

In Parts 2 and 3 of S2KM's interview with Wendie Howland, Wendie will discuss life care planning associations, industry standards and issues as well as criticism of life care planners.

Life Care Planners

The increasing number, importance and roles of life care planners represents one of the most significant developments S2KM has observed while attending 2014 structured settlement and settlement planning stakeholder educational conferences .

Historically, many structured settlement consultants and personal injury settlement planners have partnered with life care planners and incorporated life care plans into their reports.

In its Standards of Practice , the International Association of Life Care Planners (IALCP), which represents one section of the International Association of Rehabilitation Professionals, offers the following descriptions for:

• Life Care Planning: "a transdisciplinary specialty practice. Each profession brings to the process of Life Care Planning practice standards which must be adhered to by the individual professional, and these standards remain applicable while the practitioner engages in Life Care Planning activities."
• Life Care Plan: "a dynamic document based upon published standards of practice, comprehensive assessment, data analysis and research, which provides an organized, concise plan for current and future needs with associated cost for individuals who have experienced catastrophic injury or have chronic health care needs."

The first published reference to life care planning appeared in "Damages in Tort Actions" (1981), a multi-volume text written by life care planning pioneer Paul M. Deutsch Ph.D. and economist Fred Raffa Ph.D. according to an "Introduction to Life Care Planning" which appears on the Paul M. Deutsch & Associates website. Deutsch's "Introduction" further states that life care planning resulted from the integration of three distinct fields of practice: experimental analysis of behavior, developmental psychology, and case management.

Although life care planning originated within, and still primarily focuses upon, the field of personal injury litigation support, its expanded applications now encompass elder care, chronic illness, and discharge planning.

The strategic relationship among structured settlement consultants, settlement planners and life care planners has been further enhanced by Medicare set-aside arrangements (MSAs) which represents a strategically important sub-market for all three professional communities. Life care planners increasingly participate as, or work for, MSA allocators and administrators in addition to providing MSA life care plans and/or medical cost projections.

Life care planners predominate the membership of the National Alliance of Medicare Set-Aside Professionals (NAMSAP), "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". Multiple life care planners were among the featured speakers at NAMSAP's 2014 Winter Regional and Annual Meetings.

Individual life care planners have also expanded their profession's public profile during 2014 as featured speakers at other structured settlement and settlement planning stakeholder conferences including: AAJ (Susan Riddick-Grisham), ASNP (Ann Koerner), SSP (Christine Melancon), and NAELA (Beth Prather). Multiple life care planners exhibited at the AAJ 2014 Annual Conference.

Community Scope and Diversity

Most life care planners have a nursing background and many are members of the American Association of Nurse Life Care Planners (AANLCP). In addition to providing Standards of Practice and a Code of Professional Ethics, ASNLCP offers its members a certification program (CNLCP) and publishes a life care planning Journal. AANLCP's 2014 Educational Conference will take place October 24-27 in Atlanta.

Correction (8/18/2014) - A knowledgeable source has informed S2KM that most life care planners (a plurality) are not registered nurses, but rather vocational counselors, and/or educational consultants, psychologists, and social workers.

IALCP, a separate professional association, promotes itself as "an umbrella organization that supports all life care planners" working with other associations such as ASNLCP and the Foundation for Life Care Planning Research (FLCPR). In addition to its Standards of Practice, IALCP publishes the Journal of Life Care Planning , and sponsors the 2014 International Symposium on Life Care Planning scheduled for September 20-21 in Minneapolis.

Additional resources and diversity within the life care planning community:

• The International Commission on Health Care Certification offers professional credentialing to certify life care planners (CLCP) and Medicare set-aside consultants (MSCC)
• The Care Planner Network provides "an online community in which life care planning and case management professionals can share information about practice management, professional development and challenging case issues."
• "Life Care Planning and Case Management" - a textbook edited by Roger Weed and Deborah Berens is considered "The Bible" of life care planning according to industry representatives.
• Separate organizations featuring physicians and attorneys market life care planning products and services.

Impact of the Affordable Care Act

Although commentators generally agree the Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) will impact life care planners and life care plans utilized in personal injury cases, their analysis and conclusions differ. Compare, for example:

• A paper titled "Potential Effects of the Affordable Care Act on the Award of Life Care Expenses", in which economists Joshua Congdon-Hohman and Victor A. Matheson predict life care planners will play an increasingly important role in personal injury damage analysis.
  • Prior to the ACA, life care planners were tasked with identifying medical and living expenses not otherwise required "but for" the accident.
  • Under the ACA, the authors maintain life care planners must also identify which health care and living expenses will, and will not, be covered by the ACA's minimum insurance requirements. And, despite certain minimum federal standards, these requirements may differ by state.
• A paper titled "How Obamacare May Limit Projected Expenses in Personal Injury Life Care Plans" in which attorneys Mark Yagerman and Max Bookman highlight the question of whether ACA implementation should override the collateral source rule and cause the courts or legislatures to allow direct presentation of the plaintiff’s health insurance coverage to the jury.
  • If yes, the authors believe "such evidence should significantly curtail the persuasiveness that life care plans’ projections represent actual future medical expenses that are supposedly to be paid completely out-of-pocket by the plaintiff."
  • The authors acknowledge, however, that certain future expenses in life care plans (“permanent confinement issues” such as long term care, nursing care, and homecare) are rarely covered by health insurance and will still be worked out pursuant to each state's collateral source rule.
  • Other expenses (“frequency issues” such as continuous physical therapy and occupational therapy) are capped under most health insurance plans so recommended visits beyond the frequency cap could likewise be unaffected by the ACA.
• A power point titled "The Affordable Care Act: Taking a New Approach to Damages" in which presenters Caryn L. Lilling and Thomas R. Shimmel offer (beginning page 32) a critical "defense-oriented" view of life care planners and recommend ACA-enhanced strategies for attacking life care planners' professional credibility, testimony and work product.

Regardless of how future ACA-related litigation and legislation play out, life care planners and life care plans can be expected to continue to play an important role in personal injury negotiations and settlements. As a result, life care planners are likely to remain strategic analytic collaborators and work product contributors for structured settlement consultants and personal injury settlement planners.

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.

ACA and Future Medical Expenses - 3

Is the Affordable Care Act (ACA) good or bad for structured settlements? What impact will it have on settlement planning in personal injury cases?

Four years following the ACA's enactment, and two years after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld its primary provisions as constitutional, including the individual mandate and elimination of pre-existing condition restrictions which became effective nationally on January 1, 2014, those questions not only lack definitive unanswers - they have not yet been comprehensively addressed in any public forum.

One primary related issue is what impact the ACA will have upon future medical expenses in personal injury cases. The answer depends, however, not only on the terms and conditions of the ACA, but also on how the ACA interacts with other related laws and legal developments such as Medicaid (including the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013), Medicare (including WCMSAs , liability MSAs and MMSEA) as well as state specific collateral source and subrogation rules.

To provide a point of reference for future S2KM reporting about the legal interplay involving the ACA, personal injury cases and structured settlements, S2KM is publishing a series of blog posts looking generally at the "ACA and Future Medical Expenses":

• Part 1 reviews an article written by Seth Cardeli, titled "Thwart the Assault on Future Medical Expenses", which appeared in the May 2014 issue of the American Association for Justice (AAJ) Trial Magazine.
• Part 2 summarizes ACA-related analysis by speakers at professional conferences S2KM has previously attended and includes excerpts from prior S2KM reviews of those conferences.
• Part 3 (this post) summarizes similar ACA analysis from articles and papers previously reviewed by S2KM and also features excerpts from those reviews.

Authors of Articles and Papers Addressing ACA Issues

NAELA Journal

NAELA devoted the entire Spring 2011 edition of its "NAELA Journal" to health care reform generally and the ACA more specifically. Available to NAELA members only, this NAELA analysis featured a detailed introduction by NAELA Journal's then Editor-in-Chief William J. Brisk plus eight articles and a supplement of online resources.

• Brisk's introduction addressed why health care reform is "too significant to ignore" and highlighted its most important features. His analysis identified what the ACA actually does and does not accomplish and emphasized the important roles Medicare, Medicaid, private health insurance companies and health maintenance organizations will play in implementing health care reform.
• Additional NAELA Journal topics and authors:
  • Health Care Changes: Challenges to Medicare - Vicki Gottlich, Patricia Nemore, and Alfred J. Chiplin Jr.;
  • The New CLASS Act - Morris Klein;
  • Nursing Home Regulations - Charles Perez Golbert;
  • Health Care Reform’s Impact on Small Businesses and Individuals - Ben A. Neiburger;
  • Health Care Reform and End-of-Life Issues - Fay Blix;
  • The Affordable Care Act’s Changes to Medicaid’s Coverage for Long-Term Services and Supports - Gene Coffey;
  • Health Insurance Reforms: Once In a Lifetime Change or Same as It Ever Was? - Lucinda E. Jesson;
  • Medicaid Expansion Under the 2010 Health Care Reform Legislation: The Continuing Evolution of Medicaid’s Central Role in American Health Care - Renée M. Landers and Patrick A. Leeman;
  • Online Resources Available to Supplement Health Care Reform Discussion - prepared by Claire DeMarco.

Alfred Chiplin, Jr. and Bethany Lilly

In addition to the Spring 2011 edition of the NAELA Journal, NAELA awarded its 2014 John Regan Writing Award, honoring the authors of the best article published in the "NAELA Journal" during the past year, to Alfred Chiplin, Jr. and Bethany Lilly, for their 2013 article titled "Medicare’s Future: Letting the Affordable Care Act Work, While Learning From the Past" analyzing various ACA cost-saving components on Medicare.

Chiplin and Lilly begin their article with an extensive review of the historical debate concerning public health insurance in the United States including a summary of key components of the current Medicare system and current concerns about Medicare solvency.

This historical debate not only defines the current structure of the Medicare program but also, according to Chiplin and Lilly, "the on-going debate ... about the necessary elements of a comprehensive program, including health care financing and accessing the quality of necessary services."

Chiplin and Lilly provide statistical evidence to highlight the negative impact of rising health care costs on Medicare and Medicare beneficiaries as well as the United States economy. Following their historical and statistical summaries, Chiplin and Lilly address the central issue in their article: "how will the ACA reduce health care costs?"

The ACA's cost-containment programs, according to Chiplin and Lilly, are based upon the theory that costs can be reduced by demanding a higher quality of care and greater efficiency from providers and allowing providers to share in the savings. ACA programs the authors highlight include:

• Patient-Centered Medical Home
• Medicare Shared Savings Program
• The Independent Payment Advisory Board
• Quality Review Mechanisms.

Chiplin and Lilly view ACA as "a vast experiment in paying for high-quality health care while preserving the Medicare program and expanding access to health care for other population segments." Implementation will be a tough, but doable challenge so long as we "let the tools of the ACA work".

Among the implementation challenges: the "fiscal cliff", insurance exchanges, and integrating services for "dual-eligibles". Overtime, the authors believe the ACA's spending and cost-containment provisions should at least slow the health care spending curve.

Seth Cardeli

The impact of the ACA on future medical expenses, perhaps the most important ACA-related issue for personal injury stakeholders, including settlement planners and structured settlement professionals, was addressed most recently by plaintiff attorney Seth Cardeli in an article  featured in the May 2014 issue of the AAJ's Trial Magazine, and summarized by S2KM, titled "Thwart the Assault on Future Medical Expenses".

In his article, Cardeli labels as "speculative and misleading" current defense efforts to convince courts the ACA changed how courts should calculate future medical expenses thereby transforming the ACA into "the latest tort 'reform' vehicle." Their efforts should fail, Cardeli maintains, because they wrongly attempt to circumvent states' collateral source and subrogation rules.

Cardeli's article cites cases from several state venues where courts have rejected defendants' attempts to limit plaintiff evidence of future medical expenses or to present their own evidence of ACA-related health care coverage. He urges plaintiff attorneys to aggressively oppose all related motions in limine by arguing:

• The effect of the ACA on a plaintiff's recoverable future medical expenses is speculative.
• Evidence of collateral sources is prejudicial to personal injury plaintiffs.
• Tortfeasors should bear the risk that any future medical expenses will not be covered by medical insurance.

Joshua Congdon-Hohman and Victor Matheson

A 2012 research paper titled "Potential Effects of the Affordable Care Act on the Award of Life Care Expenses" and written by economists Joshua Congdon-Hohman and Victor Matheson provides a notable counter argument to Seth Cardeli's Trial Magazine article. Contrary to Caredi, these economists maintain: "the ACA may well have indirectly resulted in a great deal of tort reform" and, as a result, "awards in personal injury cases could be dramatically impacted".

Their argument:

• When the ACA is fully implemented in 2014, all individuals will be required to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty.
• The ACA provides insurance premium subsidies for low income individuals who do not receive health insurance through the government or from a family member’s employer.
• The ACA prevents price discrimination based on health status and bans annual and lifetime expenditure limits.
• Most individuals will pay the same cost for health insurance before and after an accident.
• The legal maximum out-of-pocket expenses allowable under the ACA is $5,950 per year.
• The goal of tort law is to make the plaintiff "whole".
• Funding of health care through private insurance is a valid methodology for accomplishing this goal now that the ACA makes those markets available to injury victims.
• Therefore, the ACA:
  • Should simplify and reduce calculations of future medical damages;
  • By limiting those costs to "[health insurance] premiums and out-of-pocket limits less any pre-injury expected medical costs and penalties if uninsured."

Similar to Cardeli, and significantly, Congdon-Hohman and Matheson acknowledge a collateral source issue is "at play" and "remains of significant importance". Unlike Cardeli, however, they argue "there is reason to believe the ACA changes the underlying reason of excluding collateral source compensation from inclusion in tort cases."

More specifically, Congdon-Hohman and Matheson maintain: "removing existing health insurance coverage from exclusion under the collateral source rule would not significantly affect health insurance coverage rates reducing the economic rationale for having a collateral source rule in place for health insurance."

As a related result of the ACA, Congdon-Hohman and Matheson believe life care planners will play an increasingly important role in personal injury damage analysis.

• Prior to the ACA, life care planners were tasked with identifying medical and living expenses not otherwise required "but for" the accident.
• Under the ACA, the authors maintain life care planners must also identify which health care and living expenses will, and will not, be covered by the ACA's minimum insurance requirements. And, despite certain minimum federal standards, these requirements may also differ by state.

Rebecca Levenson and Ann Levin

During 2013, S2KM reviewed two law review articles which address whether and how the ACA will impact the collateral source rule (CSR):

• Rebecca Levenson (Levenson), "Allocating the Costs of Harm to Whom They are Due: Modifying the Collateral Source Rule after Health Care Reform" (Levenson article), University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Volume 160.
• Ann S. Levin (Levin), "The Fate of the Collateral Source Rule After Health Care Reform" (Levin article), UCLA Law Review, Volume 60.

Although every state and federal court recognizes the CSR in some form, many states have limited its scope or abolished it completely as a result of tort reform. Plaintiffs in different states and/or different courts therefore can receive widely different damage awards for the same injury because different courts measure medical costs differently.

Levenson and Levin each summarize traditional arguments favoring and opposing the common law CSR. However, neither Levin nor Levenson:

• Directly address whether and/or how the CSR will affect calculations of future medical damages, as opposed to past medical damages.
• Discuss how the ACA's restrictions against pre-existing conditions impact calculations of medical damages.

CSR proponents emphasize the deterrence theory of tort law which seeks to punish tortfeasors and deter them from injuring future plaintiffs:

• Defendants should not be unjustly enriched if a plaintiff purchases medical insurance.
• The CSR incentivizes plaintiffs to purchase medical insurance.
• Collateral sources never fully reimburse plaintiffs.
• Subrogation rights reduce and/or prevent double recoveries.
• The CSR promotes independence of jury determinations.

CSR opponents argue the purpose of tort law is compensation for harm not deterrence. They criticize the CSR for:

• Allowing some plaintiffs to recover twice.
• Generating different damage awards for the same injuries in different cases.
• Adding an unjustified element of punitive damages.
• Inflating awards.
• Encouraging claimants to go to trial.

Both Levenson and Levin agree the ACA's individual mandate weakens the traditional common law CSR rationale and that medical damages should now be calculated differently. However they do so for different reasons and propose different solutions.

• Levin - Levin's primary argument for changing the traditional common law CSR is that it calculates medical damages based on medical provider bills instead of the lower negotiated reimbursement rate paid by most health insurers. To achieve fairness and accuracy post-ACA, Levin maintains courts should calculate medical damages using: 1) the negotiated reimbursement rate; and 2) a portion of the premium payments the plaintiff has paid for medical insurance.
• Levenson - The purpose of changing the CSR after the ACA, according to Levenson, should be to align the CSR's outcome with the underlying goal of the individual mandate. Whether and what changes will occur, however, will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction depending upon a number of factors which Levenson identifies including the current status of the CSR in a particular state. Levenson insists any changes in the CSR must account for the different groups affected: insured plaintiffs, willfully uninsured plaintiffs and exempt plaintiffs.

Conclusion

For personal injury and settlement planning professionals who are attempting to understand how the ACA impacts personal injury damage analysis, future medical expenses, negotiation strategy, work product, and funding options, this S2KM blog series hopefully captures some of the complexity of the related laws, issues and perspectives and encourages continuing and more comprehensive analysis.

The impact of the ACA on structured settlements, and settlement planning more generally, depends not only upon the terms and conditions of the ACA itself, but also upon the new and evolving legal construct for future medical expenses in personal injury cases created by the interaction of the ACA with these related laws and legal developments.

For S2KM's continuing coverage of ACA-related issues, see the structured settlement wiki.

ASNP 2014 Annual Conference

Personal injury settlement planning and special needs planning represent two overlapping professions undergoing transformation and expansion as complex new legislation, regulations and case law interact to redefine their legal environment.

In addition to studying these new laws, settlement planners and special needs planners must address their impact on fundamental issues such as "know your client", "needs analysis", "best practices", "industry standards" and "product suitability", as well as "professional responsibility, qualifications and liability".

For the past eight years, the Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP) has sponsored some of the best educational programs addressing these laws and issues. The ASNP 2014 Annual Conference, which took place March 27-29 in Denver, was no exception.

Among other topics, the ASNP 2014 Conference expanded previous ASNP educational programs about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA aka "Obamacare"). ASNP's conference coincided with news the ACA has exceeded enrollment expectations and achieved its primary objective of substantially expanding healthcare in America:

• More than 7.1 million previously uninsured Americans purchased health insurance prior to the March 31, 2014 enrollment deadline; and
• Three million additional Americans enrolled in the ACA's expanded Medicaid coverage between October 1, 2013 (the start of the ACA's open enrollment period) and February 28, 2014 (the most recent figures available).

Although ACA political debate will continue, it is past time for settlement planners, including structured settlement professionals, and special needs planners to analyze how the ACA impacts their clients, their work product and their business model.

ASNP's 2014 conference featured two ACA presentations:

• A multi-professional "ACA Panel" consisting of: David Lillesand (attorney); Ann Koerner (life care planner); and Scott McDonald (investment adviser).
• "Special Needs Trust (SNT) Taxation" discussion by Bradley Frigon - focusing on strategies for maximizing health care coverage and minimizing costs.

Both ACA presentations highlighted the importance of health insurance education and the need for health insurance expertise as part of the settlement planning and/or special needs planning team. Some of the ACA resources and issues addressed:

• ACA's definition of "health insurance" - 10 key requirements.
• The ACA's definition of "modified adjusted gross income" (MAGI) - to determine eligibility for ACA premium tax credits and Medicaid expansion.
• Calulating MAGI - and whether structured settlements are included or excluded.
• ACA assessment questions - and how they expand "needs analysis".
• ACA flowchart - for determining the proper plan under the ACA.
• When to use a SNT vs. purchasing ACA insurance - four alternative strategies.
• Defining the settlement planning process.
• ACA's financial impact on settlement planning.
• Lump sums vs. structured settlements under the ACA.
• Coverage comparisons - based upon types of provider networks, services and authorization requirements.
• Coverage gaps - in states that do not adopt Medicaid expansion.

David Lillesand also provided a comprehensive overview of "Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Regional Chief Counsel (RCC) Opinions" for first and third party SNTs, non-SNT asset transfers and resources exclusions. Lillesand's handouts included his own 714 page guide with every RCC opinion by state through March 3, 2014 organized by subject matter with a table of contents, index, one paragraph opinion summaries and hyperlinks to the actual text. Nine of these RCC opinions address structured settlement issues including problems involving minors and re-assignment of payment rights.

In leading a discussion about "SSI/POMS Changes", Theresa Varnet announced the formation of a new SSI Advocacy Committee, consisting primarily of special needs attorneys, which has begun meeting with Social Security Administration (SSA) representatives to identify and address various problematic SSI and SNT issues. As part of this project, the SSA is seeking input from a broad spectrum of disability advocates including members of the Arc, ASNP, NAELA, SNT, the Consortium of Citizens with Disabilities and representatives of pooled income SNTs.

Blaine Brockman and Patricia Kefalas Dudek spoke about "Housing, Food Assistance, Employment Benefits" - critical topics for many people with disabilities which are rarely addressed at structured settlement and settlement planning educational conferences. Their presentation and handout materials summarized "the complicated labyrinth of federal code, federal regulations, state regulations and local administrative decision making" which comprise affordable housing law and create "programs that are shamefully underfunded, dramatically understaffed, and obviously needed by many more people than they serve." Additional topics:

• The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) - formerly known as the "Food Stamp" program.
• Medicaid expansion and buy-in programs - which allow disabled persons to work and receive Medicaid.
• Vocational rehabilitation services and work incentives.

Sharon Pope (who also chaired this year's ASNP Conference with ASNP National Director Kevin Urbatsch) and Michele Fuller, provided complementary discussions about "SNT Administration" issues. Pope's presentation addressed "Law Firm Trust Departments" - with attorneys acting as trustees. Her handouts included example outlines for SNT "needs analysis" checklists and "personal care plans". Fuller spoke about the "Expanding Duty of Attorneys to Non-Clients". Her presentation highlighted recent cases and her handouts included numerous related articles.

Cynthia Barrett discussed "Post-Windsor Issues for LGBT Couples & Children" from a special needs perspective. Her presentation and handouts addressed such issues as:

• Review of Windsor and related marriage litigation.
• Same sex couple Special Needs Practice Checklist - emphasizing, similar to health care, the importance of state specific analysis.
• Medicaid planning techniques where marriage/parentage status must be established.
• SSA analysis for minor/disabled children of gay couples.
• Practice guide for same sex couples facing a Medicaid crisis.
• Veterans aid and surviving spouse benefits for same sex couples.

In addition to featured speakers and their presentation handouts, the following ASNP sponsors and exhibitors added to the educational value of ASNP's 2014 Conference:

• MassMutual
• Morgan Stanley
• MetLife
• Guardian Trust
• Elder Counsel
• National Care Advisors
• Krause Financial Services
• Elder Law Answers
• Evolve Bank and Trust
• Midland States Bank
• Stewart Home & School

For S2KM reporting about prior ASNP conferences, as well as other structured settlement and settlement planning conferences, see the structured settlement wiki.

Growing the Primary Market - 3

To help its members reverse declining growth of primary market annuity premium, the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) has transfigured it annual Fall Educational Conference into a members-only "Marketing Boot Camp" scheduled for November 5-6 in Dallas, Texas.

NSSTA's boot camp training agenda, "designed to help every member who attends learn how to increase the number of referrals they get from their clients and how to develop new clients", is featured on the NSSTA website as well as this prior S2KM blog post. 

NSSTA should be congratulated for prioritizing marketing as a critical business skill set for its members. The announced agenda, however, omits the most fundamental marketing issue every professional association should ask itself: "what business are we in?", or, stated somewhat differently, "in what markets do we participate?" 

By failing to address these fundamental questions, NSSTA's marketing conference appears to perpetuate "inside-the-box" strategic thinking responsible, in part, for recent sales declines of the structured settlement product which benefits from public policy endorsement, multiple tax preferences and statutory consumer protection.

NSSTA's strategic failure to understand and expand its own business results, in part, from NSSTA's poorly conceived effort to stiff-arm two legislative and regulatory developments which should improve the structured settlement product:

• Qualified Settlement Funds (QSFs) - Defined in Regs. 1.468B and made applicable to structured settlements by Rev. Proc. 93-34, QSFs provide benefits for both plaintiffs and defendants. They also provide an ideal funding mechanism to strategically position structured settlements within the $170 billion annual U.S. personal injury settlement planning market. Instead of embracing and marketing QSFs, however, NSSTA and its members have created and promoted a "single claimant" roadblock because they are unable to solve their own compensation issues. As a result, NSSTA has prevented its members, and its structured settlement product, from effectively competing in the dynamic personal injury settlement planning market.
• Structured Settlement Transfers - IRC 5891 and the state structured settlement protection statutes have solidified structured settlement transfers (i.e. factoring transactions) into a growing market that complements and potentially expands the traditional primary market. The ability of structured settlement recipients to sell their payment rights subject to judicial oversight and approval arguably improves the structured settlement product by adding a liquidity feature in the event of "over structuring" or unanticipated cash requirements. Instead of capitalizing on settlement transfers to improve and expand its market, NSSTA (through bylaw amendments) has threatened its members with suspension or expulsion if they sollicit or promote secondary market transactions. By continuing to criticize "structured settlement factoring", without participating in the secondary market, NSSTA and its members undermine their own product.

In addition to these missed opportunities, NSSTA and its members have failed to fully analyze and adapt their products to the expanding special needs planning market.

When NSSTA thinks "strategically" about "special needs", they focus narrowly and inwardly on a single product application (i.e. structured settlement funding for special needs trusts) instead of expansively and proactively about the special needs community within which annuities (not just structured settlement annuities) and life insurance represent critical financial products. 

Except for one settlement trust company, not a single NSSTA member attended this year's Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP) annual meeting or National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA) annual meeting - both of which featured presentations about structured settlements. 

Since hosting its first "Special Needs Summit" in 2010, NAELA (with more than 4000 members) has substantially expanded its focus on the special needs market - including structured settlements. Beginning this year, NAELA has designated October as "National Special Needs Law Month" during which NAELA's members are providing (marketing) free education about special needs legal issues to the special needs community. 

Despite NSSTA's past mistakes, its first-ever marketing boot camp represents a step in the right direction - especially if the boot camp encourages NSSTA and its members to more closely examine their own changing marketplace. 

In a current Washington Post article titled "Can the Military Learn from its Mistakes?", Thomas Ricks offers two observations about the U.S. military which appear equally applicable to NSSTA as it prepares for its "boot camp" and could provide a strategic focus for improving and growing the structured settlement market:

• Quoting James Dobbin: "our military shows 'continued inability to come to closure' on some controversial issues".
• The military "doesn't encourage adaptive leaders to rise to the top, as they find and implement changes in response to the failures of the past decade."

For additional S2KM blog posts discussing how to grow the structured settlement primary market, see the structured settlement wiki. 

For an informative financial perspective about special needs planning, see the M&L Special Needs Planning website.

NAELA 2013 Annual Meeting

The National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA) celebrated its 25th anniversary last week in Atlanta - commemorating its past achievements, analyzing current legal and demographic issues and preparing for future growth and development.

Among many former NAELA Presidents in attendance, Vincent Russo was given the honor and challenge of reviewing NAELA's "25 years in 25 minutes". Russo's historic overview highlighted NAELA's early decision to open its legal membership on a "non-exclusive" basis to create a new breed of attorneys dedicated to community service. NAELA's membership has expanded its focus in recent years to embrace special needs as well as elder law issues.

With more than 4300 members and a strong financial balance sheet, NAELA's resources now include: the NAELA Foundation, multiple publications including the NAELA Journal, Aspirational Professional Standards, a vibrant website featuring a comprehensive library and hosting NAELA's active online community, specific practice sections, state chapters, robust educational conferences and certification programs, multiple annual awards, plus a highly competent staff.

Elder Abuse

NAELA's 2013 Annual Conference agenda offered a diverse educational experience plus 26 exhibitors for more than 250 attendees. One of the featured topics was financial "elder abuse", a serious and under-reported problem with an estimated annual cost exceeding $3 billion in the United States.

Guest speakers addressing financial elder abuse included Mickey Rooney and Tony West. Rooney, the 92 year old actor, testified about elder abuse before a U.S. Senate committee in 2011. Appearing at NAELA's conference via live video, Rooney described how he was victimized and rendered penniless by two of his stepchildren. West, Acting Associate U.S. Attorney General, oversees the U.S. government's efforts to prevent elder abuse.

Additional topics that received multiple presentations at the NAELA conference:

• Skill development - advice for running a successful elder law and/or special needs legal practice.
• How changing demographics are impacting special needs and elder law practice.
• Social media and related Internet technologies.
• Fiduciary responsibilities for attorneys representing special needs individuals.
• Legal updates - for estate planning, special needs and elder law.
• Drawing a line on what constitutes the practice of law.
• The future of long term care.

Structured Settlements and Special Needs Planning 

Patrick Hindert, author of the "Beyond Structured Settlements" blog, spoke at the NAELA conference about the challenges of integrating structured settlements and special needs planning into a collaborative settlement planning profession. Hindert's presentation addressed:

• What is known (and not known) about settlement planning.
• Why structured settlements and settlement planning are strategically important for special needs attorneys.
• New standards and practices that are reshaping settlement planning.
• Public policy issues which will determine the future of settlement planning.
• How special needs attorneys can expand their settlement planning practice.

The Future of Elder and Special Needs Law

To help celebrate NAELA's 25th anniversary, the NAELA Journal is dedicating its 2013 Spring and Fall editions to a two-part symposium on the future of Elder and Special Needs Law. The editors have asked leading U.S. legal authorities "to predict what the law and our practices might look like 25 years from now and the challenges that clients, our society, and we, as Elder and Special Needs Law attorneys, will face."

Congratulations to all NAELA conference participants, especially NAELA President Gregory French and conference Co-Chairpersons Rebecca Morgan and Edwin Boyer, for an outstanding 25th anniversary meeting. Continued success for NAELA and its members in representing and advocating for the rights of elderly and special needs individuals.

For S2KM's reporting about:

• Prior NAELA conferences - see the structured settlement wiki.
• How the Affordable Care Act impacts personal injury settlement planning - see the "Affordable Care Act" - Part 1 and Part 2.

Affordable Care Act - 1

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) refers to two controversial laws enacted in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care Education and Reconciliation Act, which restructure the fundamental relationship among government, health care providers and health care recipients and profoundly impact persons with disabilities.

Although some Republicans in Congress still threaten to repeal the ACA, the Supreme Court upheld almost all of the ACA's provisions in 2012, including the individual mandate and elimination of pre-existing condition restrictions, which will become effective nationally on January 1, 2014.

How will the ACA impact personal injury damage awards, settlement planning and structured settlements?

Professional associations whose members engage in settlement planning have already begun to address these issues:

• Speakers at recent Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP) annual educational conferences (Cynthia Barrett in 2011, David Lillesand in 2012 and Scott Solkoff in 2013) explored these issues in the context of special needs planning.
• The National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA) devoted the Spring 2011 issue of its NAELA Journal to the impact of the ACA on Elder and Special Needs Law attorneys and their clients.
• The Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) will feature a presentation by Thomas Begley titled "The Impact of the ACA on Personal Injury Settlements, Structured Settlements and Special Needs Trusts", plus a related panel discussion, during its 2013 Annual Meeting.

Recent research papers and law review articles have further expanded analysis of these strategic ACA issues. One such research paper, titled "Potential Effects of the Affordable Care Act on the Award of Life Care Expenses" and written by Joshua Congdon-Hohman and Victor A. Matheson, was published September 2012 as part of the College of the Holy Cross, Department of Economics, Faculty Research Series (Paper No. 12-01).

Their paper argues: "the ACA may well have indirectly resulted in a great deal of tort reform" and, as a result, "awards in personal injury cases could be dramatically impacted" because:

• Future medical expenses represent a significant element of damages in many personal injury cases.
• When the ACA is fully implemented in 2014, all individuals will be required to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty.
• The ACA provides insurance premium subsidies for low income individuals who do not receive health insurance through the government or from a family member’s employer.
• The ACA prevents price discrimination based on health status and bans annual and lifetime expenditure limits.
• Most individuals will pay the same cost for health insurance before and after an accident.
• The legal maximum out-of-pocket expenses allowable under the ACA is $5,950 per year.
• The goal of tort law is to make the plaintiff "whole".
• Funding of health care through private insurance is a valid methodology for accomplishing this goal now that the ACA makes those markets available to injury victims.
• Therefore, the ACA:
  • Should simplify and reduce calculations of future medical damages;
  • By limiting those costs to "[health insurance] premiums and out-of-pocket limits less any pre-injury expected medical costs and penalties if uninsured."

What about the "collateral source rule"?

Congdon-Hohman and Matheson, who are economics professors, acknowledge a collateral source issue is "at play" and "remains of significant importance". They argue, however, "there is reason to believe the ACA changes the underlying reason of excluding collateral source compensation from inclusion in tort cases."

More specifically, the authors maintain: "removing existing health insurance coverage from exclusion under the collateral source rule would not significantly affect health insurance coverage rates reducing the economic rationale for having a collateral source rule in place for health insurance."

In their paper, Congdon-Hohman and Matheson highlight additional provisions of the ACA which they believe will impact many life care plans:

• ACA provisions limiting growth of premiums and medical costs:
  
  • Limits on insurers' non-care based expenses.
  • Formal requirements to justify rate increases.
  • New standards to lower administrative costs.
  • Funding for new wellness and prevention strategies.
• ACA provisions reducing the tax deductibility of medical costs:
  • Reductions in eligible expenditures and nominal limits for flexible spending accounts.
  • An increase in the deductible medical expense threshold from 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income to ten percent.
  • An an excise tax on “taxable medical devices.”

As a related result of the ACA, Congdon-Hohman and Matheson believe life care planners will play an increasingly important role in personal injury damage analysis. Prior to the ACA, life care planners were tasked with identifying medical and living expenses not otherwise required "but for" the accident.

Under the ACA, the authors maintain life care planners must also identify which health care and living expenses will, and will not, be covered by the ACA's minimum insurance requirements. And, despite certain minimum federal standards, these requirements may differ by state.

Cogdon-Hohman and Matheson's research paper provides a valuable educational resource for all personal injury stakeholders. For settlement planning professionals who are attempting to understand how the ACA impacts personal injury damage analysis, negotiation strategy, work product, and funding options, this paper should encourage expanded industry discussion and analysis.

For S2KM's complete reporting and continuing commentary about the ACA, see the structured settlement wiki. For a comprehensive analysis about structured settlements and government benefits, see Chapter 15 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments"(S2P2J).

SSP 2013 Annual Meeting

Since it was founded in 2001, the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) has defined itself as an alternative to the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA); and defined its membership as more than plaintiff structured settlement brokers. The resulting settlement planning business model features:

• Structured settlement annuities as a core funding product, but not as a singular funding vehicle or product, for personal injury settlement plans; and
• Settlement planners, as "claimant centric", multi-professional, advisers who collaborate as a team and offer injury victims and plaintiff attorneys complementary knowledge, skill sets and work product.

To support and expand this settlement planning business model, SSP has developed and promoted:

• Standards of Professional Conduct for Settlement Planners;
• The Registry of Settlement Planners certification program; and
• Annual educational conferences.

To improve and grow both the structured settlement and settlement planning markets, SSP President Charles Schell has proposed the following strategy:

• "Study and improve our business standards and practices.
• "Develop "customer centric" solutions that help injury victims.
• "Build collaborative business models by focusing on shared interests."

SSP recently announced the agenda for its 2013 Educational Conference which will take place May 5-7 in Las Vegas. Featured topics and speakers, organized by S2KM-suggested categories:

Motivation, Marketing and Perspective

• The Art of Significance - Dan Clark
• Overcoming Objections and Managing Opportunities - Frank Maguire
• Life Lessons from the Lottery - Don McNay

Affordable Care Act (ACA)

• Impact on Personal Injury Settlements, Structured Settlements and Special Needs Trusts - Thomas Begley
• ACA Panel - Thomas Begley; Pi-Yi Mayo; Karen Meyers

 Qualified Settlement Funds

• Update - Pi-Yi Mayo
• Panel - Pi-Yi Mayo; Don McNay; Andy Cook; Mark Wahlstrom.

 Settlement Planning Team

• Partnering with Ancillary Service Providers - Anthony Prieto; Dave Place
• Professional MSA Administration - Don Batchelor
• Tax issues - Jeremy Babener
• Partnering with Investment Professionals - Victor Wilkerson
• Working with Benefit Expert Attorneys - Peter Wayne

 Government Benefit Issues

• MSA Allocation Process - Michael Greco
• Social Security Disability Benefits - Omar Ortega and Kip Daniels
• Spend Downs - Kristen Behrens; Thomas Begley
• How to Fix the MSA Program - Doug Shaw

 Settlement Trusts

• Settlement Trusts - Karen Meyers
• Funeral Trusts - Scott Leonardi
• Pooled Trusts - Jason Lazarus

Settlement Planning Products

• Long-term Care Insurance - John Darer
• Guaranteed Index Annuities - David Salko and John O'Connell
• Defined Benefit Plans for Plaintiff Attorneys - Rosendo Zepeda, Jr.

 Related S2KM Resources:

• Spring 2013 Educational Conferences
• SSP 2012 Annual Meeting
• Settlement Planning in 2012
• Alternative Business Models
• ASNP 2013 Annual Meeting