Beyond Structured Settlements

NAMSAP 2016 Annual Conference

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 (MSP) Statute and its impact on workers’ compensation and liability settlements", hosted its 2016 Annual Conference September 14-16 in San Antonio, Texas.

NAMSAP, which also seeks and welcomes opportunities to help improve Medicare set-aside (MSA) industry standards for documentation, work product and business practices, encompasses a highly diverse professional membership consisting of attorneys, MSA allocators, MSP compliance consultants, CPAs, claims professionals, structured settlement consultants, guardians, nurses, pharmacists, rehabilitation professionals, and life care planners.

As S2KM has observed in reports about past NAMSAP conferences (see links below), the combination of membership diversity, subject matter complexity, legislative and regulatory developments plus an expanding MSA market create extraordinary challenges for NAMSAP in planning and organizing its educational programs. This year's conference, co-chaired by NAMSAP President Gary Paturneau and Michelle Allan, should be congratulated for setting new standards for attendance (180) and sponsor/exhibitors (15) as well as the quality and organization of the speakers and extensive handout materials. The conference educational program was divided into two parts: an "MSP Crash Course" and the General Conference.

NAMSAP 2016 CONFERENCE

TOPICS AND SPEAKERS

MSP "CRASH COURSE"

• MEDICARE SECONDARY PAYER ACT 101 - Dan Anders and Leslie Schumacher
• GENERAL ANATOMY OF THE WCMSA REFERENCE GUIDE - Jake Reason and Kathleen Wyeth
• WHAT WOULD CMS DO? - Barbara Fairchild and Erin O'Neill

GENERAL CONFERENCE

• CONFERENCE INTRODUCTION - Gary Paturneau and Michelle Allan (Co-Chairs)
• MEDICARE ADVANTAGE ORGANIZATION CASE LAW - Ciara Koba; Heather Sanderson Hon Lee Yeakel; Jennifer Jordan
• CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES - Katie Fox; Monika Boswein
• CURRENT STATE OF CONDITIONAL PAYMENT RECOVERY - Michele Carey; Shawn Deane; William Delaney
• PRIMARY PAYER APPEALS - Deborah Robinson Stewart; Melissa Woitalewicz; Kim Young
• ADVENTURES IN ALLOCATING - Christine Melancon; Beth Hostetler; Jake Reason
• SUBMISSION VS. NON-SUBMISSION (OPT-OUT) FOR WC - John Cattie; Jennifer Jordan; MeLinda Petit; Robert Sagrillo; Mark Sidney; Rita Wilson; Mark Walls (Moderator)
• LIABILITY MSAS - David Cherry; Roy Franco; Thomas Spratt
• SETTLEMENT LANGUAGE - Joy Brewer; James Raines; Vincent Quatrini
• CONFLICTS WITH STATE LAW - Jeanmarie Calcagno (IL), Rodney McColloch (GA), Joseph Schneider (TX)
• WCMSA RE-REVIEW PROCESS - Carmen Folluo; Shannon Metcalf; Kimberly Wiswell
• MITIGATING COSTS WHILE PROVIDING QUALITY CARE - Amy Bilton; Amy Lee; Mark Pew; Pamela Schweitzer.
• WHAT IS AFFECTING STAKEHOLDERS - John Cattie; Doug Holmes; Greg McKenna; Gary Paturneau

NOTEWORTHY NAMSAP PRESENTATIONS

Among NAMSAP's many outstanding conference presentations, S2KM found the following most noteworthy from a structured settlement perspective:

• The "Crash Course" presentation "Medicare Secondary Payer Act 101", which also featured an informative Medicare Overview and included exceptional handouts, did not reference structured settlements. With that single proviso, however, this NAMSAP presentation successfully captured, organized and communicated applicable information and data better than any prior presentation S2KM has attended - and should become part of the core curriculum for future educational programs offered by the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP).
• Another NAMSAP "Crash Course" presentation which arguably should have, but did not, discuss structured settlements, was titled: "General Anatomy of the WCMSA Reference Guide". Specific references to "structured settlements" exist throughout the WCMSA Reference Guide - see, for example: Table of Contents 5.0; 5.2; 19.3; Appendix 3 (Glossary entry for "structured settlement"); and Appendix 5:15. Paradoxically, and more importantly, the subtitle for this NAMSAP's Crash Course presentation (the "Final resting place for the old CMS memos"), is critically important for understanding why structured settlements provide an inherent cost advantage, compared with cash, in funding WCMSAs - as S2KM first explained in this 2013 blog post and which appears to remain just as applicable and important in the context of CMS WCMSA Reference Guide Version 2.5.
• Only one NAMSAP 2016 conference presentation ("Settlement Language") substantively addressed structured settlements issues. Significantly, based upon S2KM's review, the structured settlement documentation included with the NAMSAP conference handouts for this presentation raised potential tax issues and highlighted a fundamental problem. The CMS WCMSA Reference Guide Glossary defines "structured settlement" as "[a] settlement in which the agreed-on funds are paid from an initial deposit and subsequent deposits on a regular basis for a given amount of time." Unfortunately, there is no specific link in the CMS WCMSA Reference Guide to either structured settlement tax law generally or the tax definition for “structured settlement” in IRC 5891(c)(1) or the tax requirements of IRC 130 and 104(a)(1) more specifically. Settlement documentation which may satisfies CMS, therefore, does not automatically satisfy the IRS.
• The concluding NAMSAP panel discussing "What is Affecting Stakeholders" provided a valuable, if overly brief, summary of the complex Federal and state legislative and regulatory developments re-shaping personal injury claim management and settlement planning. Although many of the Medicare-related developments were addressed individually by separate NAMSAP presenters, the "Big Picture" perspective helped to reinforce how dramatically and quickly systemic changes are redefining the marketplace. For the structured settlement industry to expand and retain a leadership position within these dynamic claim management and settlement planning markets, it follows (at least from S2KM's perspective) that industry leaders must improve their collective knowledge of the changing landscape (much of it related to government benefits) in order to help industry participants learn to re-position their sale from a stand alone alternative product to a critical component of integrated claim and settlement solutions.

ADDITIONAL S2KM OBSERVATIONS

During the NAMSAP 2014 Regional Conference, then NAMSAP President Michael Westcott explained why structured settlements and MSAs produce "a perfect match that also saves stakeholders 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.

Just as Westcott pointed out in 2014, structured settlements continue to be underutilized in 2016 - especially considering the inherent cost advantage CMS has provided for structured settlement funding of WCMSAs compared with cash. Among the reasons (from S2KM perspective): a strategic knowledge gap separates most of the structured settlement industry from the MSP community creating, especially for structured settlements, educational needs but also business opportunities. Some examples and thoughts:

• Among a diverse, intelligent and influential group of NAMSAP speakers, 15 exhibitors and 180 attendees, only six structured settlement brokers attended this year's NAMSAP conference; none of whom were featured speakers; and only one broker company exhibited. No structured settlement annuity provider representatives attended or exhibited.
• NSSTA's current Certified Structured Settlement Consultant (CSSC) certification program does not cover MSAs, or the MSP Act or government benefits more generally. This educational omission probably results, at least in part, from NSSTA's historic political and marketing slogan that: "structured settlements enable injury victims to live free of reliance on government assistance".
• Regardless of its historic accuracy and/or value, this political/marketing slogan now appears not only false but contradictory and counterproductive. For many of the most promising and strategic structured settlement submarkets (including not just MSAs, but also special needs trusts, the Affordable Care Act, and the ABLE Act) the challenges and growth opportunities require integrating structured settlements with government benefits.
• In 2014 NSSTA commissioned separate surveys of senior claims executives, claims professionals and plaintiff attorneys. Significant for Medicare and MSAs, two thirds of the senior claims executive survey participants said they believed that structured settlement broker/consultant skills had stayed the same compared to 10 years ago and that they would value more educational and informational services about MSA requirements. They also recommended that structured settlement broker/consultants expand their Medicare services. Claims professionals, when asked their preferred areas for more education, gave their highest response by far (71%) to MSAs.
• Providing a "carrier perspective" on MSA compliance during their 2014 NAMSAP Regional Conference presentation, claims executives William Paxman and Todd Reimer pointed out that, although MSA issues are increasingly complex, they tend to align plaintiff attorneys and defendants - a decidedly positive characteristic for the structured settlement industry which has struggled historically with plaintiff vs. defendant broker "issues".

The structured settlement and Medicare Secondary Payer communities of professional practice increasingly overlap and share complementary knowledge and clients. A more formal working relationship that encompasses their respective professional associations and addresses shared educational, marketing, legislative, and regulatory considerations would likely improve and further expand both communities.

MSP ACT AND MSA BACKGROUND

MSAs are administrative and funding mechanisms utilized in certain categories of settlements to protect Medicare's interests as "secondary payer" under the 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.”

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the Federal 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 workers compensation (WC) MSAs. 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 - since updated to Version 2.5. The Reference Guide'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." CMS has also published a WCMSA Self-Administration Toolkit to help self-administrators manage their WCMSA accounts appropriately. Both the Reference Guide and the Toolkit prominently feature structured settlements.

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, WCMSA Reference Guide or the WCMSA Self-Administration Toolkit. As a result, there currently is no consensus among tort practitioners as to whether and when MSAs are required in liability cases. Lack of CMS guidance has not prevented an increase in the number of liability MSAs, according to leading professional MSA administrators. Unlike WCMSAs, however, liability MSAs typically are not submitted to CMS for approval.

S2KM Reporting for Prior NAMSAP Conferences

• 2005 NAMSAP Annual Meeting
• 2008 NAMSAP Annual Meeting
• 2010 NAMSAP Annual Meeting
• 2014 NAMSAP Regional Meeting
  • Part 1
  • Part 2
• 2014 NAMSAP Annual Meeting
• 2015 NAMSAP Winter Regional Conference
• 2015 NAMSAP Annual Conference

Structured Settlement Update - 2014 Annuity Sales

Structured settlement primary market annuity sales increased by $115,881,836 (approximately 2%) to $5,250,262,691 in 2014 compared with $5,134,380,855 in 2013 according to industry estimates compiled and recently distributed by Melissa Evola Price. Total 2014 structured settlement cases also increased to 26,572 from 26,533 a year earlier for an average case premium of $197,586.

The 2014 annual premium totals, however, still fall 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.

Adding these 2014 results to historic U.S. structured settlement totals, S2KM estimates the following primary market metrics from 1976 thru 2014:

• Total annuity premium: $144.75 billion.
• Total structured settlement cases: 828,600
• Average annuity premium: $174,700.

Berkshire Hathaway, which re-entered the structured settlement market in 2011 following a multi-year hiatus, continued its recent primary market leadership in 2014 by generating $1.424 billion of structured settlement annuity premium (28% of the industry total) during 2014. Evola Price's report did not indicate how much of Berkshire Hathaway's premium was attributable to reinsurance and/or non-qualified structured settlement sales.

The U.S. structured settlement market now consists of eight annuity providers which are members of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA). 2014 sales results (rounded in millions) for the seven other structured settlement annuity providers (per Evola Price's report) plus the rounded percentage increase (+) or decrease (-) from comparable 2013 results:

• MetLife: $868 MM (+20%)
• Pacific Life: $773 MM (-9%)
• Prudential: $712 MM (+30%)
• Liberty Life $608 MM (+9%)
• Amgen: $477 MM (-19%)
• New York Life: $312 MM (+13%)
• Mutual of Omaha: $46 MM (-47%)

Evola Price's 2014 compilation also reports an annual increase in annuity premium for non-qualified structured settlement assignments (from $164.9 million in 2013 to $182.3 million in 2014) as a portion of the overall structured settlement numbers. Non-qualified assignments represent transfers of periodic payment obligations that do not meet the requirements of IRC sections 130 and 104(a)(1) or (2) including deferred attorney fees.

Although Evola Price's report does not indicate the percentage of structured settlement premium and/or annuities attributable to workers compensation Medicare set-aside (WCMSA) cases, 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.

Evola Price's reports do not provide information about the structured settlement secondary market. Based upon interviews with secondary market experts in 2012, S2KM previously estimated 2012 structured settlement secondary market activity to be:

• 12,000 secondary market transfers - with less than 120 contested by annuity owners and/or providers.
• $360 million of total secondary market purchases (money paid to transferors).
• $30,000 average individual transfer.

Industry opinions differ as to secondary market sales growth during 2013 and 2014 ranging from no growth to 7% growth per year.

Accepting those 2012 secondary market estimates and assuming level secondary market sales during 2013 and 2014, S2KM estimates historical 1986-2014 structured settlement secondary market metrics as follows:

• Approximately 160,000 structured settlement transfers have occurred since 1986;
• Involving approximately 80,000 recipients - many of whom have made multiple transfers;
• With approximately $5.1 billion PV in aggregate sums paid to those recipients.
• For an average of approximately $32,000 per transfer.

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

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

S2P2J Release 57 Highlights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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 - 2

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 legal challenges, political debate and disputes about future insurance premiums and health care costs continue, the Supreme Court upheld almost all of the ACA's provisions in June 2012, including the individual mandate and elimination of pre-existing condition restrictions, which became effective nationally on January 1, 2014.

With the ACA's primary constitutional framework now largely operational, various "experts"  increasingly are discussing and debating what impact the ACA will have upon future medical expenses in personal injury cases - as well as its related impact on structured settlements.

In a prior blog post, S2KM re-introduced these issues by summarizing 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.

The new and evolving legal construct for future medical expenses in personal injury cases created by the ACA is complicated, controversial and important. Continuing discussions and analysis should not proceed within an intellectual vacuum. In additional to the ACA, related laws and legal developments such as Medicaid (including the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013), Medicare (including WCMSAs , liability MSAs and MMSEA) and/or state specific collateral source and subrogation rules must be considered.

This blog post summarizes ACA-related analysis by speakers at professional conferences S2KM has previously attended and includes excerpts from prior S2KM reviews of those conferences. The purpose is to provide a point of reference for future S2KM reporting about the legal interplay involving the ACA, personal injury cases and structured settlements. A subsequent blog post (ACA and Future Medical Expenses - 3) will summarize similar ACA analysis from articles and papers previously reviewed by S2KM.

Conference Speakers Addressing ACA Issues

Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP) - Among the professional association conferences S2KM has attended since 2010, the ASNP has provided the most consistent and comprehensive ACA reporting.

Cynthia Barrett - During the 2011 ASNP Annual Conference, Cynthia Barrett highlighted the following questions she anticipated plaintiff attorneys would most likely ask about health care reform and the ACA on behalf of their personal injury clients:

• Will my disabled client be able to get health insurance now?
• For settlement purposes, can future medicals be reduced to estimated lifetime insurance premiums until my client becomes eligible for Medicare or Medicaid?
• Do private health plans have “set-aside” or special needs trust requirements?
• If my client can get private health coverage, will he/she still need public benefits?
• If my client can obtain private health insurance, why do I need a special needs attorney or a special needs trust?
• As a plaintiff attorney, is there anything else I need to know about health care reform or related legislation?
• Barrett also advised special needs attorneys to:
  • Exclude from their services health coverage options advice;
  • Screen claimants to determine whether needs-based Medicaid will be important.

David Lillesand - Based upon his experience in Florida, where the Affordable Care Act (ACA) prohibition against pre-existing exclusions already existed in 2010, David Lillesand offered the following preliminary observations during the ASNP 2012 Annual Conference:

• The need for self-settled (first party) special needs trusts has decreased (except when a beneficiary requires long term institutional care) because the ACA provides better insurance options than Medicaid for many persons with pre-existing medical conditions including personal injury victims.
• Existing self-settled (first party) special needs trusts should be reviewed, in the context of the ACA's prohibition against pre-existing condition exclusions and available medical insurance options, and in many cases terminated.
• Damages for future medical costs in personal injury lawsuits could be reduced assuming the premium costs of newly available insurance premiums become admissible in proving and/or defending damages.

ASNP 2013 Annual Conference

Scott Solkoff - Continuing its analysis of the ACA, the ASNP 2013 Annual Conference featured Scott Solkoff who predicted:

• Reduced personal injury verdicts and settlements.
• A different calculus for determining future medical damages based upon health insurance costs.
• Fewer first party special needs trusts (SNTs).
• Reduced demand for Medicare and Medicaid for persons with disabilities under age 65.
• New opportunities for special needs attorneys because of the complexity of the ACA.

Social Security Administration Representatives - During a subsequent question and answer session at the ASNP 2013 Annual Conference, moderated by Kevin Urbatsch and featuring representatives of the Social Security Administration, the following exchange occurred:

• Question: will the SSA allow early termination of SNTs to comply with ACA?
• SSA Answer: right now, any early termination of a SNT will require payment of reversionary interest.

ASNP 2014 Annual Conference

The ASNP 2014 Annual Conference expanded previous ASNP educational programs about the ACA and coincided with news the ACA had exceeded enrollment expectations and achieved its primary objective of substantially expanding healthcare in America.

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 of ASNP's 2014 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.

NAELA and SSP 2014 Annual Conferences

With permission from ASNP and acknowledgments to David Lillesand, Kevin Urbatsch, National Director of ASNP and 2014 Editor-in-Chief of the "NAELA Journal' repeated for both the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA) 2014 Annual Conference and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) 2014 Annual Conference substantial portions of ASNP's 2014 ACA Panel summarized above.

In addition, 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 article titled "Medicare’s Future: Letting the Affordable Care Act Work, While Learning From the Past" analyzing various ACA cost-saving components on Medicare.

NAMSAP 2014 Conferences

Roy Franco, a featured speaker at the National Alliance of Medicare Set-Aside Professionals (NAMSAP) 2014 Regional Conference, addressed the settlement planning changes likely to result from the Bipartisan 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.

Medicare Set-Aside Arrangements (MSAs) represent one strategic link between Medicare cost savings and future medical costs in both workers compensation and personal injury cases as well as the primary defining topic of every NAMSAP educational conference including NAMSAP's 2014 Annual Meeting.

The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has calculated WCMSA amounts totaling approximately $1.8 billion in FY 2013. CMS published a WCMSA Reference Guide (WCRG) on March 29, 2013 plus a WCRG Version 2.0 on November 7, 2013. The WCRG's 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."

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

CMS has not yet published definitive rules for using MSAs in liability cases (LMSAs). CMS did publish an Advanced Notice for Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM) on June 14, 2012 in the Federal Register which included seven different option to satisfy obligations for future medicals in liability cases. CMS also published RIN: 0938-AR43 in Spring of 2013 outlining a timetable for the proposed rule. No such LMSA rule, however, has yet been published.

For S2KM's complete reporting about the ACA and structured settlements, see the structured settlement wiki.

NAMSAP 2014 Annual Meeting

The National Alliance of Medicare Set-Aside Professionals (NAMSAP), the only national professional association whose singular focus is Medicare Set-Aside arrangements (MSAs), celebrated its 10th anniversary last week in Las Vegas with a congratulatory acknowledgement of past accomplishments, a comprehensive educational program and a confident look at the future.

Incoming NAMSAP President Leslie Schumacher and Immediate Past President Douglas Shaw complimented NAMSAP's founding members for their innovative spirit and sustaining priorities: education; best practices; and certification - the Medicare Set-Aside Consultant Certified (MSCC) program.

Schumacher and Shaw highlighted NAMSAP's recent accomplishments and enhanced membership value: expanding membership; regional conferences; educational webinars; a recurring "legal roundtable"; an active website listserv; improved communications with CMS; a new strategic plan; and sponsorship of NAMSAP's first "Take the Hill" Day in Washington D.C.

NAMSAP also seeks and welcomes opportunities to help improve MSA and settlement planning industry standards for documentation, work product and business practices, according to Shumacher and Shaw.

MSP Act and MSAs

NAMSAP's growth has paralleled the expansion of workers compensation MSAs (WCMSAs) to satisfy the requirements of the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) Act. 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.”

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (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 memorandums created a format, checklists and procedures for seeking approval for WCMSAs to "protect Medicare's interests" when workers compensation cases are settled.

CMS subsequently published a WCMSA Reference Guide (WCRG) on March 29, 2013 plus a WCRG Version 2.0 on November 7, 2013. The WCRG's 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."

The WCRG explains WCMSAs as follows: "A WCMSA allocates a portion of the WC settlement for all future work-injury-related medical expenses that are covered and otherwise reimbursable by Medicare. When a proposed WCMSA amount is submitted to CMS for review and the individual or beneficiary obtains CMS’approval, the CMS-approved WCMSA amount must be appropriately exhausted before Medicare will begin to pay for care related to the beneficiary’s settlement, judgment, award, or other payment."

Both the CMS policy memoranda and the WCRG address structured settlement issues and provide guidelines for their utilization in funding WCMSAs.

WCMSAs represent one of the few submarkets where structured settlements sales have increased since 2008 - in large part because the method CMS requires for calculating WCMSA present values provides an inherent cost advantage for annuities compared with lump sum alternatives.

CMS has not yet published definitive rules for using MSAs in liability cases (LMSAs). CMS did publish an Advanced Notice for Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM) on June 14, 2012 in the Federal Register which included seven different option to satisfy obligations for future medicals in liability cases. CMS also published RIN: 0938-AR43 in Spring of 2013 outlining a timetable for the proposed rule. No such LMSA rule, however, has yet been published.

Topics and Speakers

Among the challenges in selecting topics and speakers for any NAMSAP conference is the diversity of MSA subject matter expertise. A significant knowledge gap exists between many MSA attorneys and many MSA nurse/life care planner/allocators - with MSA administrators, insurance professionals and structured settlement brokers falling somewhere along this educational axis.

NAMSAP continues to select topics which, and attract speakers who, meet the learning needs of its multi-professional membership during a period of rapid industry change and development. The following S2KM listing of topics ( with speakers) attempts to communicate both the range of NAMSAP's 2014 annual conference educational offerings as well as NAMSAP's success in maintaining and expanding a unified MSA community of professional practice.

Directed Toward All MSA Professionals

• Professionalism in the MSA Industry - Preston Holloway; David Jankosky; Leta Sharkey.
• Problematic Areas in MSP Compliance - Lavonya Chapman; Stephanie Ragsdale; Linda Wolden.
• How Medication Impacts MSAs - Dr. Marcos Iglesias; Kayla Tortorich; Melissa Woitalewicz.

Directed Primarily Toward MSA Allocators

• Evidence Based Medicine - Dr. Shari Ling; Mary Nix; Ken Eichler; Beth Hostetler.
• Transitioning to ICD-10 - Marci Moorhead; Carlos Navarro.

Directed Primarily Toward MSA Attorneys

• Workers Compensation Cases with a Liability Component - William Delaney; Jill Schroeder.
• Dual Eligibility: MSAs within Special Needs Trusts - Kristen Behrens; Shannon Laymon-Pecoraro.
• Developments in the MSA Courtroom - Chelsie Allan; Patrick Czuprynski; Jennifer Santoro.
• Impact of Outside Factors on the Distribution of MSA Funds - Gregg Chapman; Danielle Marone; Daniel Simones.

Congratulations to the speakers, as well as NAMSAP's conference and educational committee chairmen Thomas Matson, Gary Patureau and Thomas Spratt, for maintaining NAMSAP's impressive educational standards.

For S2KM's most recent prior NAMSAP reporting, see "NAMSAP 2014 Regional Conference":

• Part 1 - Topics and Speakers
• Part 2 - WCMSA Market Metrics

For S2KM's summary of structured settlement issues in the CMS WCMSA Reference Guide, see this 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

CMS WCMSA Reference Guide - 2

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) published an 88-page WCMSA Reference Guide (WCRG) on its website  March 29,2013. 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."

A prior S2KM blog post highlights selected excerpts from the WCRG addressing and summarizing non-structured settlement specific issues. This blog post identifies and discusses structured settlement issues, including rated age information requirements for determining WCMSA beneficiary life expectancy, featured in the WCRG.

Arguably, the most important WCRG statement for structured settlements is the following comment about CMS WCMSA policy memorandums which appears in WCRG Appendix 4 - WCRC Proposal Review Reference Tools: "CMS has issued policy memorandums since 2001 on a variety of topics related to WCMSAs, such as review thresholds, pricing of services and prescription drugs, rated ages, life expectancy, and more. "The WCRG follows all CMS policy memorandums currently in effect. The memorandums are published on the CMS website."

Why is this statement so important for structured settlements?

• First, because one of the policy memorandums (dated: October 15, 2004) includes the following questions and answer:
  • "Q4. Inflation Adjustment/Discount for Present Value/Change in Policy - Must the WC Medicare Set-aside Arrangement include an upward adjustment for inflation? May the WC Medicare Set-aside Arrangement include a downward adjustment as a discount for the present-day value of the total WC Medicare Set-aside Arrangement?"
  • "A4. Effective with the issuance of this memorandum, CMS's position is that the WC Medicare Set-aside Arrangement does not need to be indexed for inflation and may not be discounted to present-day value."
• Second, as a result of this CMS policy:
  • Structured settlement annuities have had an inherent cost advantage over lump sum alternatives for funding WCMSAs; and
  • Structured settlement annuities have underfunded WCMSAs, because they do not include any inflationary component, with Medicare ultimately responsible for the underfunded amount.
• For a simplified example, assume the projected WCMSA payments are $10,000 per year for 10 years.
  • Lump sum - Without any inflation index or discounting, the lump sum present value will be $100,000 which will be invested in an interest-bearing account.
  • Structured settlement - Ignoring "seed money" (see below), the cost of a certain only annuity to fund $10,000 per year for 10 years (even with today's low interest rates) is approximately $94,000 - which is $6,000 less than the lum sum present value because the annuity incorporates a discount rate. Without inflationary increases (which CMS' October 15, 2004 policy memorandum does not require), however, the annuity payments of $10,000 per year will not keep pace with future increases in medical costs. Note also: other types of annuities (eg. temporary life) could cost less than a certain only annuity.
  • Medicare responsibility - If the $10,000 per year proves insufficient, Medicare will make up the difference (see below) and once the WCMSA is fully paid out, Medicare becomes responsible for any further Medicare-related medical expenses.
• Third, the WCRG does not address the inflation-discount issue. The Glossary in Appendix 4 defines "present-day value" as "the cost to fund a WCMSA annuity". Therefore, it appears the October 15, 2004 CMS WCMSA policy memorandum remains in effect and that annuities will continue to represent a lower-cost funding alternative than lump sums for many, if not most, WCMSAs.
• Bottom line: during this era of low interest rates and declining structured settlement sales, WCMSAs have represented, and apparently continue to represent, a singular sub-market where structured settlements enjoy an inherent cost advantage compared with lump sums. The new CMS WCRC appears to maintain that cost advantage by re-affirming the applicability of the October 15, 2004 policy memorandum.

The WCRG further underscores the continuing importance of structured settlements for WCMSAs by the considerable attention structured settlements receive in the in the following sections:

• Section 5.0 - WCMSAs Can Be Funded in Two Ways: a Lump Sum or Structured Payments
• Section 5.2 - Structured WCMSAs
• Section 10.1.1 - Cover Letter - E. Settlement Details
• Section 10.1.3 - Rated Age Information or Life Expectancy
• Section 19.3 -Structured WCMSA Topics
  • 19.3.1 - Funds Left Over / Carried Forward
  • 19.3.2 - Funds Used in a Given Period
• Appendix 3 - Glossary - entry for "structured settlement"
• Appendix 5:15 -Rated Age Information or Life Expectancy - includes sample:
  • Rated Age Statement
  • Annuity Provider Underwriting Assessment
  • Annuity Broker Statement
• Appendix 5: 25 -Settlement Agreement or Proposed or Court Order
  • Includes annuity payout

What follows are non-sequential S2KM comments about selected structured settlement issues addressed in the WCRG. Quotes are excerpted from the WCRG.

Definition - The WCRG Glossary defines "structured settlement" as "[a] settlement in which the agreed-on funds are paid from an initial deposit and subsequent deposits on a regular basis for a given amount of time." Although other sections of the WCRG discuss annuities in the context of structured settlements, this definition fails to mention annuities. In addition, there is no specific link in the WCRG to either structured settlement tax law generally or the tax definition for “structured settlement” in IRC 5891(c)(1) more specifically.

WCMSA cover letter - When a WCMSA is funded with a structured settlement, the cover letter seeking CMS approval must identify the following:

• Name of the carrier
• Cost of the annuity
• Proposed initial deposit (seed money)
• Minimum annual deposit for the balance of the claimant’s life
• Annuity starting date
• Length of annuity
• Annual payout of annuity
• Annual funding date

Settlement amount - "Medicare determines the value of the annuity based on how much the annuity is expected to pay over the life of the settlement, not on the Present Day Value (PDV) or cost of funding that annuity." The WCRG includes an example calculation and requires submission of annuity rate sheets to support calculations of settlement amounts.

Initial deposit - If a WCMSA is funded with structured settlement, the WCRG requires an initial deposit "to cover the first surgical procedure or replacement and two years of annual payments" and provides an example to illustrate how to calculate this seed money. The WCMSA cover letter must disclose whether any portion of the projected prescription drug expenses has been included in the initial deposit.

Scheduled periodic payments - With a structured settlement, the initial deposit is followed by subsequent annual payments to the WCMSA account (or a shorter time period if CMS agrees), to cover projected expenses for a fixed number of future years on the anniversary of the first deposit. It is significant that the CMS WCRG requires annuities with fixed numbers of future years despite allowing/encouraging the use of rated ages to determine reduced life expectancies.

Over-and-under funding - If structured settlement deposit for a given year is not used up, the remaining amount is carried forward to the next payment period. Medicare's threshold to begin paying claims in any subsequent period would then be increased by the amount of the carry-forward. Alternatively, if a WCMSA fund is appropriately exhausted (including roll-over amounts) in a given time period, Medicare will become the primary payer for the remainder of that period assuming CMS receives proper verification. The WCRG includes an example to help explain this over-and-under funding process. When the entire WCMSA fund is exhausted, including all future structured settlement payments, Medicare will pay primary for any future WC-related medical expenses. Obviously, any such over-and-under funding requires additional work for both CMS and the WCMSA administrator compared with lump sum funding.

Rated age information

The WCRG Glossary does not provide any definition for "rated age". Generally the terms "rated age" and/or "substandard age rating" refer to an annuity provider's determination that an annuitant's life expectancy is less than normal. A rated age generally results in a lower premium for life contingent annuities compared with an annuitant having a normal life expectancy. CMS, however, utilizes rated age information from annuity providers ("insurance companies") to determine the fixed number of years for which a WCMSA must be funded.

If rated age information is not provided, CMS will determine a claimant's life expectancy using the actual age. If, however, rated age information is submitted with a WCMSA for CMS approval, CMS requires the following:

• "Rated age confirmation with original proposal documents as outlined in current procedure memorandums. CMS will not accept any variation or substitute wording.
• "A stand-alone statement indicating that all rated ages obtained on the claimant are included.
• "Each rated age is presented on company letterhead for each insurance company (or companies) that made the rating and for each settlement broker that obtained them from the insurance company. Note: Letterhead includes the name and address of the insurance company or settlement broker.
• "All rated age sources shall be independent, in fact and appearance, of the submitter, carrier, and claimant.
• "If more than one rated age is submitted, CMS will use the median of all rated ages submitted.
• "When multiple rated ages are provided, the submitter becomes subject to enforcement of the requirement to use the median rated age and must provide all rated ages to CMS.
• "All rated ages shall be accompanied by a written justification on how such age was determined. For example, if a rated age obtained from life insurance companies for like injuries/illnesses is the method of evaluation, include documentation to support the life expectancy. CMS will project the cost of the claimant’s future treatment over the claimant’s life expectancy, using the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Tables unless documentation from a medical professional provides justification for an alternative projection.
• "CMS uses the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Life Tables for WCMSA life expectancy calculations. Please see the WCMSA site for information on the latest tables to use.
• "Do not include the following:
  • "Actuarial charts or life expectancy charts from the CDC or elsewhere, or statements that there are no rated ages.
  • "Do not include any documents on rated ages that contain redacted data. They will not be considered."

Submitting rated age information for CMS approval requires significant additional work compared with a typical structured settlement. The benefit of obtaining a rated age is a shorter WCMSA payout period resulting in a lower cost of funding whether the funding is lump sum or structured.

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).

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).