Print Page  |  Contact Us  |  Report Abuse  |  Sign In  |  Register
August 2017 Newsletter
Share |
 

Presidents Letter

Shawn Deane, Esq.
Vice President, Product Development
 
Dear NAMSAP Members: 

Everyone involved with Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) compliance is lucky to be a part of an incredibly dynamic industry affecting many different stakeholders. MSP is constantly evolving and with that NAMSAP, for over twelve years now, has been there as the industry’s only non-profit organization dedicated to helping through education, outreach and advocacy. Moreover, NAMSAP has always made it a point to build a sense of community amongst its membership and to offer valuable resources. With that NAMSAP has taken it to the next level in 2017 by partnering with Truven to offer RED BOOK® at special discounted pricing for our members. For more information about signing up for RED BOOK® click here. In addition, we’ve revamped our MSCC certification course materials and will be offering a full certification course in the next 30 days.

We are quickly approaching our annual meeting and educational conference – dubbed Policy Palooza – which will be held in Baltimore on September 27th-29th. The Board and Annual Committee are working hard to finalize what looks to be a fantastic agenda packed full of valuable sessions.
 

If you haven’t already registered for the conference, I would encourage you to do so soon. Register at the link here and to find more information. I’d like to also send a special thanks to all of our conference sponsors and corporate partners – we couldn’t do this without your support! For more information on how to sign up for a corporate sponsorship and all of the benefits that go along with it, please click here.
 
As I indicated above, the MSP is constantly changing – and with that – I am pleased to announce our next NAMSAP webinar, which will focus on the new WCMSA Amended Review Process. The webinar will be August 22nd and will be presented by Robert Sagrillo of NuQuest and Sid Wong of ISO Claims Partners. For information on the upcoming webinar please click click here.

I look forward to seeing everyone at the conference in Baltimore!

 


In this edition of NAMSAP Advisor, we're featuring excellent articles from 3 NAMSAP members who are experts in the arena of MSP compliance. The first article, contributed by Dan Anders, Esq. of Tower MSA Partners, highlights the importance of consistent, accurate ICD10 reporting when ORM is accepted, when updates occur to accepted body parts, and when claims are settled (TPOC), as being paramount to mitigating exposure with Conditional Payments. Within the MSP industry, we’ve begun to use the term ‘alignment of MSP processes’ to describe the continuum of data transfer throughout the MSP reporting, recovery and MSA review process. Dan’s article provides an excellent foundation to understand this alignment and how it impacts Medicare’s view of conditional payments. Dan will also be part of the panel of experts who will explore this topic at NAMSAP’s Annual Conference in September.

Our 2nd article was prepared exclusively for NAMSAP Advisor by Kevin Puckett, President of KP Underwriting. KP Underwriting, LLC provides rated to Annuity and Life Insurance companies, Worker’s Compensation companies, Medicare Set-Aside Markets and Life Care Planners. KP also provides professional medical record review and underwriting for rated age and life expectancies. As a NAMSAP Gold Partner and this year’s Annual Conference Mobile App Sponsor, we commend KP Underwriting, LLC for its longtime support of NAMSAP, and thank Kevin for contributing to NAMSAP Advisor’s mission to educate, collaborate and advocate on behalf of our membership.

The 3rd article features a new author to NAMSAP Advisor, but a longtime NAMSAP member, Lavonya Chapman, RN, Esq., of Optum. Lavonya’s experience and knowledge of the MSP from the perspective of clinical, claims, legal and compliance, has allowed her to leverage her combined expertise to tackle some of the most difficult challenges in the area of Medicare recovery and outcome optimization. Her article, ‘Conditional Payment Recovery is Not for Wimps’, provides an excellent overview of the struggles faced by payers and the step by step process necessary to move the pendulum ahead when challenging Medicare’s demands.

There is a wealth of knowledge and expertise among the membership of NAMSAP, and this edition of NAMSAP Advisor is but a small slice of the total pie of experiences our organization seeks to share. We trust you will learn from the articles, and that it will spark further interest to join these and other experts in Baltimore on September 27-29 to collaborate with the top minds in our industry.

 

 

 

Daniel M. Anders, Edq., MSCC

Chief Compliance Officer
Tower MSA Partners, LLC

 
While the Commercial Repayment Center (CRC) has faced some valid criticism over the course of the past year and half in relation to its recovery efforts on behalf of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (CMS), not all problems start with the CRC. CRC’s recovery efforts are driven by the data employers, carriers and self-insured entities report to Medicare through the Section 111 Mandatory Insurer Reporting process. Chief among the data elements reported is acceptance of Ongoing Responsibility for Medicals (ORM) and the termination thereof. If this data is reported inaccurately or there is a failure to report required data, then the applicable plan may be faced with inappropriate recovery demands by the CRC.

 

Applicable Plan Reporting of ORM is the Catalyst for CRC Recovery Efforts

Since October 5, 2015, the CRC has had responsibility for the recovery of conditional payments where the insurer or employer (including self-insured entities) is the identified debtor, known in CMS terms as the “applicable plan.” The CRC learns of opportunities to recover through the Section 111 Mandatory Insurer Reporting process. In other words, the applicable plan is the catalyst for Medicare conditional payment recovery by its reporting of ORM.

The mandatory reporting provisions of the Medicare Secondary Payer Act require the applicable plan to report to Medicare in three instances – the acceptance of ORM, the termination of ORM and issuance of a Total Payment Obligation to the Claimant (TPOC), settlement judgment, award or other payment. In regard to ORM, two key data elements reported are the date responsibility for ORM is accepted and the accepted diagnosis codes. Once this information is reported the following actions are initiated by CMS’s contractors:

  1. The BCRC, which handles Medicare coordination of benefits, should deny payment for medical bills submitted for payment in which the billed diagnosis codes match or are similar to the reported diagnosis codes.
  2. The CRC, identifies medical claims that Medicare has paid that it deems related to the reported diagnosis codes.

Upon the CRC identifying treatment related to the reported diagnosis codes, it will issue a Conditional Payment Notice (CPN) to the applicable plan which itemizes the charges. The applicable plan has 30 days from the date on the CPN to dispute charges after which a Demand Letter will issue demanding repayment for the injury related charges identified by the CRC. A Demand Letter provides 120 days from receipt of the letter for the applicable plan to appeal all or some of the charges or issue payment. If payment is not issued within 60 days of receipt, interest begins to accrue from the Demand Letter date.

Reporting Accurate Acceptance of ORM and Diagnosis Codes

The trigger for reporting ORM is a claimant identified as a Medicare beneficiary and the assumption of ORM by the applicable plan. ORM is reported when the applicable plan has made a determination to assume responsibility for ORM, or is otherwise required to assume ORM—not when (or after) the first payment for medicals under ORM has actually been made. Accordingly, the ORM acceptance date is typically the date of injury.

Along with the ORM acceptance date, at least one ICD-10 diagnosis code must be reported for the diagnosis that has been accepted on the claim (If more than one diagnosis has been accepted, then additional diagnosis codes are reported). While medical provider billing records are often used to determine ICD-10 diagnosis codes to report, these should be used as a starting point, not an ending point, in determining the correct codes to report to Medicare. Keep in mind that medical providers, and especially hospitals, will often insert onto billing records any diagnosis reported to the provider, which are not necessarily the same diagnoses that are being accepted on the claim. Consequently, the person responsible for determining the correct ICD-10 diagnosis code to report, usually the claims handler, must make an independent determination, separate and apart from the medical provider, as to whether the particular diagnosis is being accepted on the claim. If the billing records do not properly represent what is being accepted, or if further diagnosis codes are required to better define what is accepted, then online ICD-10 resources are available to idenitfy codes which correctly represent the accepted body parts and conditions.

Once ORM and the diagnosis codes are reported, ORM is generally not addressed again until the date of ORM termination. However, causally related diagnoses may change over time, either expanding or retracting depending upon the circumstances in the claim. Accordingly, it is important to update the reported ICD-10 codes as necessary over the course of the claim.

ORM Termination Key to Cutting Off Liability to Medicare

Once ORM is accepted, CMS claims the right to recover against the applicable plan through the date of ORM termination. As such, recovery efforts by the CRC may happen years after the ORM was first reported. Further, if there is failure by the applicable plan to terminate ORM when appropriate, then the plan may receive repayment demands from CRC for time periods in which it has no liability to pay for medical treatment. An applicable plan may terminate ORM through the Section 111 Reporting process under the following situations

  • Settlement with a release of medicals
  • No fault policy limit reached
  • Complete denial of the claim
  • Statute of limitations has run or medical benefits have otherwise been exhausted pursuant to state law
  • Judicial determination after a hearing on the merits finding no liability
  • Statement from treating physician - signed statement from the injured individual’s treating physician that he/she will require no further medical items or services associated with the claim/claimed injuries.

Keep in mind that closing a claim file is not a trigger for ORM termination unless it is accompanied by one of the above situations.

Providing CMS with an ORM termination gives a bookend to recovery by the CRC. If no termination date is provided, then CRC assumes the applicable plan remains liable for injury-related payments.

Recommendations for Ensuring Accurate ORM Reporting

The reporting of ORM acceptance and termination and defining accepted diagnosis codes is so important because it is the applicable plan’s admission of responsibility to pay for medical care during the reported time period and for the reported diagnoses. If an error is made in reporting or there is an omission in reporting, then it can result in attempts by Medicare to recover for conditional payments unrelated to the injury or for time periods during which the applicable plan is no longer liable. Errors in reporting can also lead to inappropriate denials in the payment of claimant’s medical care by Medicare or Medicare paying for medical care for which the applicable plan is responsible.

Recommendations to avoid these errors and omissions:

  1. Train Claims Handlers on ORM Reporting: If a claims handler is responsible for inserting the data required for ORM reporting, then they require training as to when ORM acceptance and termination is to be reported and how to determine the appropriate diagnosis codes to report with ORM acceptance.

  2. Effective Quality Assurance of ORM Reporting: Even with training, errors will occur. Additional resources placed into quality assurance of ORM reporting, such as double-checking claims for proper ORM termination and appropriate diagnosis code choices avoids the expenditure of additional resources at a later date to correct errors in reporting and correction of unnecessary recovery demands from the CRC. If you are an employer or carrier relying upon a TPA to report, it is especially recommended that a QA process be in place to check the data entered by the TPA.

  3. Ensure Reporting Platform is Accurately Reporting: Section 111 Reporting is electronically based and requires a data exchange with Medicare. Errors can and will occur in this data exchange. Ensure you have a trusted and reliable reporting agent to assist with accurate reporting to Medicare.

Finally, if any correspondence is received from the CRC or the U.S. Treasury Department claiming conditional payment recovery it must be acted upon immediately. Do not assume the letter was issued in error and will simply go away. If you do not believe you are liable for the conditional payments for which the CRC is claiming recovery, first confirm you have correctly reported ORM and then work with your MSP compliance partner to appropriately dispute the charges.

For questions stemming from this article please contact Dan Anders at Daniel.anders@towermsa.com.



Impact Of Long Term Opioid Use On Rated Ages And Life Expectancy

Kevin Puckett

President of KP Underwriting, LLC

 

With the ongoing and increasing problem of long term use, dependence and abuse of opioids, we are faced with the question of, “What is the impact of long term opioid use on life expectancy”. In the Medical Underwriting industry, this is the most common question we face, along with how does it affect a rated age. This article will discuss the process of producing a rated age, along with the challenges faced in determining the impact of long term opioid use.

A Rated Age is an age given based on an individual’s medical impairments and the effect they have on their life expectancy. In preparing a rated age, the claimant’s medical information is reviewed to determine the primary medical impairments, the injury and any additional rating factors or comorbid medical conditions. In the case of Opioids, this item would fall into the additional rating category. As with all medical impairments, Underwriters must ask a few basic questions: 
  • How far is the claimant past the date of injury (Preferably at least 1 year post injury. This question poses a major challenge as some medicals are only a few months post injury and the Underwriter is unable to determine if the Opioid use will be long term or temporary.)
  • Is the injury or medical impairment improving, holding steady or steadily declining.
  • Is the treatment causing other conditions or problems (For example – Long term Opioid use)
  • If the treatment is causing problems, can another treatment be used or other options available (This question also poses a problem as the medicals are usually early on in the treatment course, and prior to the Opioids causing damage, or determining dependence or abuse.)
  • Will the Doctor take the claimant off of the opioids before long term damage is done.
Most all medical impairments or conditions have additional risk factors or signs that the impairment is doing damage to the body. With Opioid use, there are several risk factors that need to be considered in addition to the opioid use alone:
  • High risk of dependence
  • Accidental overdose
  • Slower and more shallow breathing
  • Cardiovascular disorder, Irregular heart rhythm and drowsiness
  • Constipation
  • Hyperalgesia (Creating more pain rather than pain relief)

In reviewing the medical records, the information is often limited by the timeframe of the medicals post injury. The medical records received are often condensed versions and normally only within the past two years. This is preferred as older medicals are considered stale and the underwriters are concerned more about the claimant’s current functional status. As a consequence, the length of time the opioids have been used along with the amount being prescribed is often left out. Without these items, it poses a huge challenge to the Underwriter in determining the risk involved. They are unable to determine if the claimant will truly have long term opioid use.

Once all of the above information has been reviewed and the pertinent details have been gathered, the Underwriter will use mortality studies to determine the average impact on life expectancy. All rated ages are prepared using these mortality studies. For a majority of medical impairments and risk factors that impact life expectancy, there are several large cohort studies available that follow the specific condition over several years and document the average impact on life expectancy. However, in the case of opioid use and abuse, these studies do not exist to date.

There are multiple studies and articles stating opioid use has an impact on life expectancy and will list short term data. However, these usually only cover a few hundred participants and is not a nationwide study. For a true estimate, the study should encompass several thousand participants from across the United States, being followed for several years, and be able to provide supporting data and reliable sources. The cause of death in these studies needs to be undeniably attributable to long term opioid use. One of the main problems, at the current time, is that death certificates list the cause of death as a specific health impairment, such as cardiovascular disease, suicide and respiratory disorder, rather than attributing it to the true cause of Opioid related death. With this item alone, it would skew the numbers drastically lower than it should be. Another major problem in preparing a long term study, is being able to find a source that directly follows a large group of individuals’ long term and preferably until their death, not just during the prescribing period or traceable payment source. With this current method, once the payment stream is settled or switched to another source (for example, from workers’ compensation to private pay or Medicare), the data would again be incomplete. As the payment in this study stops, we would not know if it was due to claims settlement, discontinuance of the opioid prescription(s), switching to another payment source or death. Again, this would not give an accurate measure of the opioid related deaths.

To summarize, without an accurate, large cohort mortality study that confirms beyond a doubt how opioids contributed to the death and an average reduction in life expectancy, Medical Underwriters are unable to provide an estimated reduction in life expectancy based on long term opioid use. However, Opioid use and the impact on life expectancy is diligently being followed in the Underwriting Community. Medical Underwriters, along with most everyone in the medical and workers compensation communities, feel long term Opioid use has a negative impact on life expectancy.

 

Conditional Payment Recovery is not for Wimps

Lavonya Chapman, Esq, RN, CMSP
Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance Counsel
Settlement Solutions
 

Workers’ compensation, auto personal injury protection (PIP) insurers, commercial premises med pay insurers and all liability insurers continue to struggle with the recovery compliance process concerning the repayment to Medicare conditional payments CMS believes are owed as demanded.

The dispute process and challenge to the indebtedness is complex and must include supporting documents such as medical evidence, judicial decisions, state statutes controlling the underlying claim, so arguments and defense may be included in the rebuttals and appellate briefs submitted.

The risks and potential consequences of ignoring demands and not reimbursing Medicare and/or Medicare Advantage Plans (MAP) are generally unacceptable and costly to self-insureds, insurers and third party administrators (TPAs). Unfortunately, there is still a lack of knowledge, experience and expertise in managing conditional payments as the regulations change and become more comprehensive and as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recovery contractors rely on what has already been reported to CMS via Section 111 mandatory insurer reporting (MIR).

It is not uncommon and understandably so, for an adjuster to take the path of least resistance and merely reimburse Medicare the total amount of the conditional payment amount to simply close the file or to ignore the conditional payment demand altogether until the notice of intent to refer the debt to the Department of Treasure is received.

When one inexperienced in this process blows through the first and second levels of appeal; redetermination and reconsideration respectively, it takes over two years to bring the third level appeal before an administrative law judge. If all applicable arguments and defenses have not been raised at the second appeal level, they are waived and may not be heard or considered.

In this discussion, we will explore and dissect actual cases illustrating three misconceptions continuing to plague conditional payment recovery involving counterintuitive ideas we may not wish to confront:

  1. What has already been reported to CMS via Section 111 MIR trumps all legitimate medical and legal arguments and defenses as well as what the parties have agreed upon unless and until corrected.
  2. Conditional payments related to injuries/illness claimed and released must be reported and reimbursed even when liability/responsibility is unlikely or disputed.
  3. Diagnosis codes bundled by the provider on a specific date of service may have to be repaid even if not treated and even if not the reason for the provider encounter.

Let’s begin by examining a case in which defenses and arguments were presented that should have resulted in a significant reduction in conditional payments.

Case 1
Mr. Bagley was a 64-year-old baggage handler for ACME Airlines. On July 8, 2010, Mr. Bagley complained of pain in his back and neck after handling over 350 bags in one day. He reported the pain to his supervisor and a workers’ compensation claim was filed. After the initial investigation, the following aforementioned injuries were deemed compensable;
lumbar strain- 847.2 and cervical strain- 847.0.

However, he was not yet a Medicare beneficiary. Eventually, ongoing responsibility for medicals (ORM) was assumed on his Medicare eligibility date of October 10, 2010. The following ICD9 codes listed on the latest Health Insurance Claim 1500 form approved by the adjuster for payment to the provider was reported via Section 111 mandatory insurer reporting (MIR); lumbar strain- 847.2, cervical strain- 847.0, inguinal hernia without mention of obstruction or gangrene-550.9, elevated prostate specific antigen [PSA]-790.93.

He was treated conservatively with rest, rehab and epidural steroid injections over a period of months and was eventually released to return to work at full duty on November 17, 2010 with no permanent impairment assigned. He was paid indemnity benefits during the time his treating physician had his off work. Because there was no settlement and related medical expenses were left open, the file was administratively closed six months later. Mr. Bagley did not seek further medical treatment and retired from ACME Airlines on his 65 birthday, March 16, 2011.

On May 10, 2016, the responsible reporting entity (RRE) was mailed a conditional payment notice (CPN) showing that $11,446.55 was identified as related conditional payments. Most of the ICD diagnosis codes listed in the Commercial Repayment Center’s (CRC) Statement of Reimbursement were unrelated to the cervical and lumbar strain/sprain and instead to treat his subsequent prostate cancer and inguinal hernia repair.

ORM was not terminated for ICD diagnosis codes. Some of the ICD codes were unrelated and erroneously reported. As such, the initial decision from the CRC was unfavorable. A request for reconsideration was filed with the Qualified Independent Contractor (QIC) assigned once the corrections were made in the Section 111 data fields and re-reported to CMS. The inguinal hernia and elevated PSA level ICD codes were deleted since Mr. Bagley never claimed a hernia or elevated PSA level to be related to his work injury nor did his workers’ compensation (WC) treating physician ever treat either condition. A copy of the clinic notes was submitted as evidence to show no hernia was ever mentioned or treated. However, the elevated PSA level was listed in the past medical history showing he was under the care of a personal urologist.

While there were no medical records for the hernia surgery, a causation E code with a specific date of incident occurring after his retirement date was used to dispute a subsequent, unrelated cause for the inguinal hernia. The CRC statement of reimbursement showed ICD9 code E919.2-accidents caused by lifting machines and appliances, was billed on June 18, 2012.


Case 2
The second case we will examine is one in which the ICD codes assigned when ORM was assumed for compensable injuries treated, necessitated reporting of additional ICD codes when the case settled and TPOC was reported for all claims released.

On November 5, 2015, 66-year-old, 235 pound, Mr. Green stepped into a hole while working, twisted his knee, and sustained a left meniscus tear confirmed by MRI. ICD code S83.201 was deemed compensable and reported to CMS via Section 111 MIR when ORM was assumed shortly afterward.

After a lengthy period of physical therapy with limited success, a decision to perform a left knee arthroscopy was made. The procedure was followed by additional rehabilitation with an eventual release to return to regular duty some 8 months after the initial date of injury.

Almost 18 months post return to work, Mr. Green complained of low back pain but could not identify a specific activity triggering the pain so his workers’ compensation claim to add his low back pain, was denied. While his orthopedic surgeon who performed the arthroscopy attributed his low back pain to a change in gait resulting from the meniscus tear, an IME spine surgeon did not agree. No medical or indemnity benefits were paid as a result of his lower back complaints. He continued to treat for his back pain but never returned to work and instead retired. His disputed workers’ compensation claim for both injuries was compromised and settled on July 17, 2017, for $50,000.

The total payment obligation to the claimant (TPOC) amount and date was reported to CMS via Section 111 MIR which included both the ICD diagnosis codes: S83.201 and M54.41. An ORM termination date was reported since all medical benefits were included in the settlement.

MMSEA Section 111 Medicare Secondary Payer Mandatory Reporting Liability Insurance (Including Self-Insurance), No-Fault Insurance, and Workers’ Compensation USER GUIDE, Version 5.2, Chapters 3 & 6, state when a claim settles, all injuries claimed and released must be reported to CMS. As such, both of the following ICD codes were reported upon settlement:

S83.201- left meniscus tear
M54.41-lumbago with sciatica, right side


Case 3
The final case to review involves ICD diagnosis codes bundled by the medical provider into a specific date of service even though the reason for the provider encounter did not include treatment involving the ICD diagnosis code.

On December 13, 1984, while working, Mr. Coleman injured his lower back. Over the course of several years, he has periodically continued to be treated by his authorized treating physician, for chronic low back pain as a result of his degenerative lumbosacral disc. His employer continues to pay for Mr. Coleman’s pain management services. Unfortunately, when he became Medicare-eligible a few years ago, CMS demanded conditional payments for items and services billed by his private and personal family physician who treats him for an occasional upper respiratory infection, his chronic diabetes, and esophageal reflux disease. The example below shows one of many similar dates of service. In this instance, $76.34 was demanded as a conditional payment CMS made related to the claim for one date of service:

ORM is open for a lifetime for his low back pain. The WC statute permits the employer the choice of treating physician and states medical services provided by an unauthorized physician are not covered and will not be reimbursed by the employer. Both the employee and the unauthorized physician were notified the unauthorized provider would not be reimbursed pursuant to state WC statute. Unfortunately, his family physician continues to include one ICD code for each semiannual office visit.

It continues to be the practice of CMS to seek full reimbursement for a conditional payment as long as one diagnosis code is related. Although only applicable in California and not precedent case law, CIGA v. Burwell, 2017 WL 58821, C.D. California, January 5, 2017 held state law that controls the underlying claim determines whether a workers’ compensation payer has a “responsibility to make payment” for an “item or service” rather than the Medicare Secondary Payer Act. In addition, when the case was appealed, CIGA v. Price, 2017 WL 1737717 (C.D. California, May 3, 2017) issued a limited prospective order declaring CMS’ interpretation of the term “item or service” in relation to its billing practice unlawful. The case is set for trial in September 2017. We continue to raise these issues since the insurer/TPA is not entitled to obtain unrelated, private medical records that can be used to show that the reason for the provider encounter and the diagnoses being treated are all unrelated to the worker’ compensation claim.

Adverse Consequences That May Not be Readily Apparent:

Patterns of practice to take into consideration and revisit at various times during the life of the claim:

  1. Did I input ICD diagnosis codes into my claims database or Section 111 MIR system before the claimant was Medicare eligible?

  2.  Do I know whether ICD diagnosis codes, ORM, or TPOC automatically transmit to CMS when
    • a claimant is not Medicare eligible,
    • after a claim is administratively closed, or
    • the claim has been denied

  3. Does my claims database require I assume ORM in order to pay an expense on the claim file regardless of whether the claim is compensable or denied.

  4. Did I assume ORM on a case in which there may have been no-fault coverage but NO no-fault claim was ever presented for payment?

  5. Did I inadvertently report ORM on a claim that had been denied. Is that the reason why I received this conditional payment notice (CPN)?

  6. Have I inadvertently forgotten to terminate ORM when
    • medical benefits were settled
    • when a WC claim was denied
    • when a causation judicial decision was made

  7. Were ICD codes obtained from provider bills that had been approved for payment, used as a means of selecting which ICD codes to report via Section 111 MIR? If so, re-review and correct if needed.

  8. For Section 111 MIR purposes, did I select ICD codes for diagnoses
    • deemed to be compensable
    • consistent with the injuries claimed and are being treated
    • identifying injuries being released when settled.

 


Committee Reports

  • Communications Committee is working on getting the word out or the Annual Educational Conference with eblasts, and posting on social media.
  • Data and Development Committee continues to struggle receiving data to track. They want to ensure everyone that there is no identifying information on the form, and it is perfectly safe to give us the case information that you can share.
  • Webinar Committee has scheduled a webinar for August 22nd titled The WCMSA Amended Review Process: What We Know, What We Don’t Know, and How to Use it Successfully. Look for information soon.
  • Annual Meeting Committee is in full preparation for the MSA Policy Palooza, in Baltimore, MD. They have lined up a great selection of speakers, and there is still time to register to attend. The Webinar Committee has added an event in August, and is lining up speakers. Look for information soon.
  • Evidence Based Medicine Committee is busy assisting with bringing in speakers for the Annual Educational Committee

In This Issue
 
 From the President


Accuracy in Section 111 Reporting


Impact Of Long Term Opioid Use On Rated Ages And Life Expectancy


Conditional Payment Recovery is not for Wimps


Committee Reports


 

PARTNERS

PLATINUM


GOLD





 

SILVER
















 

BRONZE






















 


 

Special Thanks to our 2017 Annual Educational Conference Sponsors!

 



 


 

 

 

 



 

Follow Us on
Social Media!

 

 

 

 

   

 

Community Search
Sign In
Sign In securely
Calendar
Latest News

NAMSAP Partners