Print Page  |  Contact Us  |  Report Abuse  |  Sign In  |  Register
November 2016 Newsletter
Share |

NAMSAP Quarterly Newsletter 
Volume 9, Number 4
          November 2016
By: Gary Patureau, CWCP, CMSP
Executive Director/COO  Louisiana Association of Self-Insured Employers

As my year as president winds down, I would like to thank all of you for your strong support of NAMSAP. I believe that NAMSAP as an organization has been developing into a more pro-active industry leader for the past couple of years and 2016 was an outstanding year in this area. Part of that growth was due to solid guidance from our Executive Director, Brian Bailey. Brian and his team did an outstanding job in supporting the work of the board. Brian recently moved back to the Washington, DC area for a new career opportunity. He is the Director of Safety & Environmental Stewardship at American Waterways Operators. I would like to thank Brian for his hard work for NAMSAP.

I would like to introduce Paul Hiller, our new Executive Director. Paul comes to NAMSAP with significant association management experience in meetings, membership, committee management and education program development. In Paul’s decade long run with the Orthopaedic Trauma Association, his marketing focus grew the membership from 800 to over 2,000 and expanded its annual meeting attendance for nine consecutive years. Paul earned his Certified Meeting Professional designation in 2014 and served on the Medical Meetings Task Force of the Professional Convention and Meetings Association in 2015. Paul is excited to bring his talents to NAMSAP to help the organization achieve it mission and vision and we are excited to have him.

I would also like to thank our board members and our new Advisory Council for the incredible amount of time they give on behalf of the organization. The Advisory Council is made up of chairs and co-chairs of our different committees. They participate in the board meetings offering their counsel.

I am excited about next year’s annual conference and ask that you plan to attend. We are working on the location and will announce soon. This year’s conference was a great success. We had an outstanding agenda and incredible speakers. In fact, we believe that the content was so good that we are dedicating this issue of the newsletter to provide a summary of many of the presentations. We also had a tremendous amount of fun. The conference committee is already brainstorming the agenda - you won’t want to miss. The conference will be in the early fall - look for our announcement soon.

2016 was a year of accomplishments - we meet with the OFM staff twice on issues of concern, established a relationship with several national agencies including the Surgeon General and the Asst. Surgeon General and the Office of National Drug Policy Control. We expect to see direction from OFM on opioid use in the MSA in the very near future. We established a strong presence in the national press through our press releases and education programs. We had excellent webinars this year and our MSCC program will be launched before the end of the year. Our membership numbers increased including our partner level members. We will finally announce the Redbook program soon and lastly, we had a strong fiscal year.

Another area of success was the number of members that ran for the Board of Directors. I would like to thank all that ran for being willing to serve our many members. I would like to congratulate our newly elected Board members:

Amy Bilton - Nyhan Bambrick Kinzie & Lowry
Greg Gitter - Legacy Claim Solutions
Beth Hostetler - Safeway, Inc.
Monica Williams - MWC Associates
Rita Wilson - Tower MSA Partners

2017 is already shaping up to be a fantastic year for NAMSAP and its members. We have an excellent strategic plan and will accomplish much with your help. I would like to encourage each of you to participate in any way possible - serve on committees, participate in educational programs, special meetings or attending the conference. We need each of you to make NASMAP the strongest organization possible.

Thank you for a great year!

Packed with great information, excellent speakers and an exciting scavenger hunt, NAMSAP’s 2016 Annual Conference was the most widely attended NAMSAP event in the past 3 years.  For those who attended, I’m confident that the information communicated has already brought value to you and your respective organizations.  For those who were unable to attend, or who could not attend every session, the articles and summaries below should provide you with excellent content and differing perspectives on some of the key issues and concerns that drive our industry.  
As you review the information below, please note that each presenter's presentation is available within the conference booklet found within our website.

*** Must be a member to view handouts. Members click here to download conference booklet. You will first need to sign in.


By: Rita Wilson, Esq. 
      CEO, Tower MSA Partners, LLC
This session provided a ‘best practices’ overview as to how primary payers can navigate recent rulemaking to pursue conditional payment appeals, identified the cases to which this process is best applied and delivered a ‘common sense’ guide to claims offices to mitigate exposure at settlement time.  The panel included Melissa Woitalewicz, Crete Carrier Corporation, Deborah Robinson Stewart, JD, Genex Services, LLC and Kim Young, JD, Burns White. 

As a backdrop to introduce the session, the panelists provided an overview of recent rulemaking and the associated changes in the CMS recovery process for NGHP payers. With the transition of the BCRC to serve as gatekeeper for all S111 data, all recovery information and all post-settlement MSA annual reporting data, CMS has now created a easier process by which its recovery entities can effectively ‘follow the money’. This change, combined with the addition of the Commercial Repayment Center (CRC) in October, 2015, and the introduction of conditional payment notices (CPN), now means that recovery efforts can be initiated, not only at the time of a settlement, judgment or award, but also during the life of the claim. For primary payers, this can mean increased financial exposure and the acceptance of treatment that may carry into the future unless conditional payments are handled in an effective and timely manner.

To avoid the pitfalls associated with CMS’s new recovery process, Melissa Woitalewicz of Crete Carrier Corporation discussed best practices in the claims office and the fundamental importance of proactive claims management. As a mantra, her recommendation was to ‘Think MSA from Day 1’ and her recommendations included activity with focus on addressing past, present and future strategies for success.

When setting up new claims, she recommended giving detailed attention to the assignment of the ICD10 code to make certain the code represents only what is being covered, noting that only medical personnel should make this decision – not bill review. She then reviewed key decision making paradigms for daily claims decisions made by adjusters. She emphasized the importance of a thoughtful review of medical bills, noting that the medical bill should match the treatment and the approved ICD10 codes. If not, don’t pay until satisfied. In situations where the treatment is unrelated, yet the carrier is wiling to pay in order to expedite return to function and work, she advised of the importance of clear documentation as to the rationale for approval and payment before the treatment occurs. In addition to posturing claims for future success and consistently executing daily decisions that support positive outcomes, Ms. Woitalewicz’s also addressed strategies to address past, legacy claims. Her focus here was to create administrative processes that auto-crosscheck past bills with covered diagnoses to avoid paying for unrelated treatment. When payment errors are identified, she recommends asking the provider for a refund, asking that the ICD10 codes by changed to exclude the work related injury when treatment was unrelated, and also seeking medical opinions when needed to dissociate the treatment from the covered injury. In summary, the emphasis here was that the adjuster can significantly ease the burden of conditional payments by proactive claims management strategies during the life of the claim.

In closing, the panel reviewed the 6 levels of the conditional appeals process and summarized key take aways to navigate the recovery process:

Pay Attention – Review and respond to all CMS correspondence in a timely fashion
Pay and Dispute - Interest begins to accrue from the date of the initial determination letter and is assessed while you appeal. Pay first and then file your appeal. If you are successful, CMS will either fully or partially return your money.
Be Specific – Let CMS know exactly what you are requesting (e.g. Reconsideration) and the basis for the appeal ( all charges for treatment by Dr. XXX on the following dates…..)
Provide Evidence – Any documentation that supports your appeal request should be submitted to CMS for review. This is critical in having CMS decide in your favor. Evidence not submitted before the level may be excluded from consideration at subsequent levels of the appeal unless there is a showing of good cause for not submitting said information earlier in the process.

And finally, “Think MSA From Day One”.
By: Kimberly A. Wiswell, CMSP
  Director of Operations, MEDVAL 

This session covered the grounds for appealing unfavorable decisions and tips to succeed in making your case. The panel included Carmen Folluo, RN/BSN, National Medicare Services Manager, CorVel; Shannon Metcalf, JD, Partner, Hedrick Gardner Kincheloe & Garofalo; and Kimberly Wiswell, CMSP, Vice President, MEDVAL.

The session began with an overview of the CMS re-review request process, describing how a re-review might be accomplished via the portal. This was followed by advice regarding the possibility of the submission of hard copy documentation for situations in which the portal would be unlikely to accept a re-review request, such as a new submitter’s having taken over the submission/approval process for the claim. Further discussion here included an overview as to what materials were needed to support the re-review request, requirements regarding the creation date of any newly submitted documents and the types of documentation that might prove the most successful.

Next came a discussion surrounding numerous situations in which the re-review process had been successful. These included a host of routinely encountered situations in which counter-higher approvals had been observed in the recent past and a discussion of the various ways of the various rationales and documentation provided that had resulted in favorable outcomes for the submitter. Following this, several examples were provided for cases where the re-review process had not been fruitful and suggestions given for different approaches that might work better in the future.

Lastly, the discussion turned to a review of the CMS re-review expansion ANPRM put forth back in February 2015, in which a number of changes were proposed to the somewhat narrowly defined situations in which a re-review would be entertained, as well as a timeframe and thresholds concerning approvals eligible for re-review. NAMSAP’s response and subsequent meeting with CMS to provide input concerning the ANPRM were also reviewed in detail.

In closing, it was suggested that the best re-review outcome would be avoidance of the process altogether, possibly via a more judicious review of pending submissions and the correction/ enhancement of any areas likely to be seized upon by the WCRC for purposes of a counter-higher approval. 

By: Rasa Fumagalli JD, MSCC
      Director of Compliance, NuQuest
The pros and cons of CMS review were debated by a diverse panel of experts during the second day of the conference.  The panel included attorneys Robert Sagrillo, President and Chief Legal Officer of NuQuest, Jennifer Jordan, Chief Legal Officer and founder of MedVal and John Cattie, Jr, head of the MSP compliance group for the Garretson Resolution Group.   Rita Wilson, CEO of Tower MSA Partners, Melinda R. Petit, Director of Claims Operations at Chesapeake Employers Insurance Group and Mark Sidney, VP of Claims at Midwest Employers Casualty Company balanced the panel out. Mark Walls, VP of Communications and Strategic Analysis at Safety National, kept the audience engaged with his questions.
(Rear Admiral Schweitzer addresses the Surgeon General's Turn the Tide Campaign over Skype)

The session began with an overview of CMS’ guidance on submission and the oftentimes inaccurate interpretation of the guidance by workers’ compensation judges in certain jurisdictions such as Maryland and Nebraska. One of the main reasons cited for CMS submission in those jurisdictions and a few others was that “the judges make you do it”. Proposed solutions included the parties challenging the workers’ compensation judges’ authority to push for submission as well as increased efforts by the industry to provide accurate MSP compliance training for the judges in the affected jurisdictions.
The discussion then turned to the panelists’ own views on the merits of CMS submission. CMS submission proponents cited the improvement in CMS’ review turnaround times and an aversion to risk as the main reasons for CMS submission. Opponents of CMS submission cited CMS’ inability to objectively assess future care given their inherent bias towards overfunding the MSA as the main reason to avoid CMS review. When our experts were presented with the question of “should you submit to CMS?” Sagrillo, Jordan and Cattie replied with a resounding “never”.  Sidney preferred submission given his aversion to risk, while Wilson and Petit’s answers depended on the facts of the case.  The audience’s show of hands suggested a close split between “never” and “depends” with very few opting for submission at all times.
An RX for Prescription Drug Costs: Mitigating Costs While Providing Quality Care
Friday’s session began with a somber look at the opioid epidemic that is facing our nation.  Attorney Amy Bilton, moderated a panel that included Mark Pew, Senior VP of PRIUM and Amy Lee of the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation. Rear Admiral Assistant Surgeon General and Chief Pharmacist Officer United States Public Health Service (PHS) Pamela Schweitzer joined the panel via videoconference.
Pew began the discussion by reporting on the arrival of counterfeit fentanyl that has recently entered the market. It is mixed with Carfentanil, an elephant tranquilizer, and has made its appearance in Oxycodone and Roxicodone.  Although naloxone is an effective antidote to traditional opioids, it is much less effective in reviving an individual who is over sedated from tainted opioids.  The increased dangers from the counterfeit opioids further support the need to limit the use of opioids.  The ethical dilemma of providing addicts with an antidote that may lull them into a false sense of security was also discussed.
Amy Lee then followed with an explanation of the development of the Texas drug formulary and its effectiveness in limiting opioid use in Texas.   The status of California’s drug formulary and future implementation was also reviewed by the panel. Rear Admiral Schweitzer finished up the session by outlining the U. S Surgeon General’s “Turn the Tide: RX” campaign that focuses on changing the way physicians prescribe opioids. She also indicated that numerous government agencies are working together to collect data and develop coordinated policies that will support a halt to the opioid epidemic.  New policies may be implemented within the next year or two.  The panelists also discussed the viability of medical marijuana for pain control as an alternative to opioids along with the risks posed by the marijuana.
As the MSP compliance industry ages, compliance issues are becoming more nuanced and complex. These issues will require a multi-disciplinary approach that includes nurses, pharmacists, attorneys and claims in decision making.  Both of these sessions served to highlight the evolving nature of the industry and will surely be further discussed in future NAMSAP meetings. 
By: Roy Franco, 
     Chief Client Legal Officer
In early September, the National Association of Medicare Set Aside Professionals (NAMSAP) held their annual conference in San Antonio, Texas. Personally, I was quite excited about the meeting and decided to attend because Judge Lee Yeakel, Judge, U.S. District Court (TX, Western District) would be speaking. It is rare to hear from a Judge sitting on the Federal bench about his insights on Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) law. As Judge Yeakel decided the Humana vs Farmer's Ins. Exchange case, further illumination on Medicare Advantage Plan (MAP) rights was expected. I came away with several important insights for the industry to consider when considering a MSP case before the Federal courts.

(L to R - Ciara Kobe , Burns White, Lee Yeakel, Judge US District Court, Western District Texas, Jennifer Jordan, MEDVAL and Heather Sanderson, Franco Signor LLC) **
First, give thought to the record and whether it covers all aspects to be raised for a judicial determination. His Honor mentioned that activist Judges are disfavored and he can only apply the law to the facts presented. He is not allowed to make an independent investigation.

Second, the Court is not a policy making body. If the law does not provide for an expected outcome as advocated by a particular Party, then other options beyond the court should be explored to change it. The Party cannot expect for the courts to become activist to get the desired result.

Third, any law is to be interpreted on long established statutory construction principles of any ambiguity raised. This is clearly in the purview of the Judiciary to interpret the laws and therefore "shall" and "established" will be given "plain meaning" to determine applicability to situations.

Finally, the claim itself must be ripe. In other words, if there are procedural elements to the claim that have not been perfected, these imperfections must be clearly stated to support a dismissal. Lack of a record and attention to whether parties had the right to administrative appeal or even whether they were given proper notice if the claim, cannot be raised later policy discussion on what the law should be.

Though the discussion on the panel was somewhat contentious at times, the point that Medicare Advantage Plans (MAPs) have the same rights as Medicare can be distilled to a few points:
  1. Do we have a primary plan involved? Yes, Farmers is a primary plan as defined under the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) law because it provides no-fault, workers' compensation and liability benefits to Medicare beneficiary plaintiffs.
  2. Did the primary plan "fail" to reimburse conditional payments? This requires an analysis of 42 USC Sec. 1395y(b)(2)(B)(ii). It essentially comes down to a conjunction and whether Congress intended reimbursement to apply to both Group Health Plans and Non-Group Health Plans that are both primary plans. This case answered it in the affirmative. Certain pale members did not agree and wanted to press for a re-hearing which was not the time or the place.
  3. Is the MAP a party that can sue under the MSP law? Yes. The MSP law's private cause of action does not identify who the plaintiff can be. It does identify the defendant, a primary plan that fails, but it that's it. The court ruled as it did because there was no compelling reason to exclude a MAP. While prior decisions did rule and reject a MAP's right to being a cause of action, those cases were interpreted under the United States right to litigate which is senate and apart from the private cause of action. As his Honor pointed out there is nothing private about an action by the United States. 
  4. Is the primary plan aware of the obligation? Yes. They were and rejected responsibility based on their interpretation of the law. The record was therefore absent of any issues involved how notice is to be provided and discussion over administrative appeal rights.

As we all know, his Honor ruled in favor of Humana because the statute was clear on its face. Judge Yeakel pointed out that he did not use Chevron Deference as a basis for his ruling and he expressed his concern about applying such a rule when matters did not involve technical and scientific matters before the court. His stern response was clear that the case was simply decided based on the statutory construction of the law based on its plain meaning.

The take-away from the panel was that Parties must prepare a good record to allow those issues to be addressed. For example, here are some issues that should be looked at in any MAP claim presented or subject to the private cause of action:

  1. Was a claim for benefits presented to the primary plan, and if so, did the MAP provide clear evidence for the basis to disclose absent a HIPAA release from claimant?
  2. Does the MAP claim detail administrative appeal rights granted to primary plan or does it fail for lack of providing method of due process?
  3. Do claims go beyond what is covered by an item or service by traditional Medicare? If a MAP has the same recovery rights as the Secretary, then those rights by definition has to be limited to what traditional Medicare pays and not the generous add on benefits that go beyond MSP recovery rights.
  4. Is the claim ripe? If there are defenses to the underlying loss have those been brought to the court's or the MAP's attention? For example, if a loss would not be paid because it does not comply with claim procedure rules as outlined by the Agreement or the claim is subject to investigation, then don't we have a Caldera style defense?

Bottom-line take away is to not ignore MAP communications, but rather analyze them appropriately and establish a plan to defend if there is a decision to not pay. Your defense to not pay is inadequate if reliance is placed on the fact that the Medicare beneficiary has received the money. 42 CFR 411.24(i) will neutralize that position. Valid defenses that the policy will not allow the claim to go forward is much stronger. Do not allow your management of MAPs be carried away by intoxication of policy arguments. Stick to clear defenses, and join advocacy groups like the MARC Coalition to line up policy and the law.

By: Mark Walls,
       Vice President Communications and Strategic Analysis 

At the 2016 NAMSAP Annual Conference, a panel provided an overview of how CMS is handling liability Medicare set-aside arrangements. The panel was:
  • David Cherry - Cherry Injury Firm
  • Roy Franco - Franco Signor, LLC
  • Thomas Spratt - NuQuest
There are significant differences between workers’ compensation and liability Medicare set-asides. Workers’ compensation benefits are statutory and often includes potential exposure for lifetime medical treatment. Liability coverage can be mitigated by contributory negligence, and it is ultimately subject to the policy limits.
(L to R -David Cherry, Cherry Injury Firm, Thomas Spratt, NuQuest and Roy Franco, Franco Signor LLC) **
Another challenge in the liability allocation is the concept of equity; whether the claimant was “made whole” by the settlement. If the claimant only recovered a small percentage of their damages, should CMS be entitled to a lien on that entire amount for an allocation or should their interests be reduced? This is an issue that has been debated in the courts.
Case law allows attorney fees to be removed from consideration when calculating the amount of settlement funds accessible by Medicare. The courts supported the argument that the attorney’s efforts also benefited Medicare by securing the funds.
There are many other elements that can reduce the funds CMS can assert a lien on. If part of the settlement is apportioned to “pain and suffering” or “loss of consortium” then Medicare has no right to those funds.
Based on comments from CMS and others, it appears the claimant has the sole responsibility to protect Medicare’s interest in a liability settlement. Unless there is a trial and a verdict rendered, liability is always dispute and the defendant cannot be held liable to CMS in those circumstances. However, there is concern that the carrier will always be the target because they are viewed as the “deep pockets” so it is in all parties interest to ensure Medicare’s interests are protected.
One part of the debate with liability claims is legal issues vs practical issues. Whether or not there is a valid secondary payer in liability claims is up for debate for many reasons.  From a legal standpoint, only the courts can ultimately determine that a defendant has legal liability for future medical payments. Most litigation does not end up in a trial so you end up having to address Medicare’s interests from a practical standpoint. The plaintiff and defendants have to work together on this issue.
* NAMSAP would like to express special thanks to Mark Walls and Safety National for permission to republish this article, which first appeared September 15 on Safety National's Blog, Conference Chronicles 

Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) Committee
Gary Patureau, Co-Chairperson and Amy Biton, Co-Chairperson


It It has been brought to our attention by several members, that the Workers’ Compensation Review Contractor (WCRC), has implemented changes to the requirements for CMS to approve zero-dollar allocations based upon denial of a workers’ compensation claim. The Board of Directors, in concert with the Policy and Legislative Committee, is penning a letter to CMS addressing a cap on opioid prescriptions. As the leading advocate for an efficient and effective Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) compliance system and as the industry resource for all involved parties, it is important CMS hear from NAMSAP.

Liability MSP Advisory Committee
 Josh Pettingill, MBA, MS, MSCC, Co-Chairperson and Christine Melancon

The liability committee is continuing work on a resource for all NAMSAP members seeking guidance for handling Liability MSAs and Medicare Advantage Plans. Membership will be notified once this is complete. 

Data & Development (DDC) Committee
Fran Provenzano, RN, BSN, CDMS, CCM, CLCP, MSCC, CMSP, Chairperso and Ciara Kaba 

The Data and Development Committee continues tracking trends from both CMS and the vendor community. A difficult Medicare case was discussed involving a high lien. The payor is on the clock to deliver. More information to follow as the case develops. 

Webinar Subcommittee
Shawn Deane, JD, MEd, MSCC, CMSP, Chairperson

Upcoming 2016 Webinars:

  • November 29th - Ethics in MSP Compliance - 1 credit hour
  • January (date to be announced) - State of the MSP Union (Looking Back and Looking Forward) - More information to come as this year in review webinar is organized.

Policy and Legislative Committee
Erin Collins, Esq., Co-Chairperson, Katie Fox, MSCC, Co-Chairperson and Ciara Koba

There are currently two workers compensation bills the committee is monitoring. There is not much to report on either of these at this time but watch your email for a membership survey soon on future policy and legislation.

Membership Committee
Michelle Allan and Emily Grocoff

Individual member dues renewal notices are now out. Renew by December 16 to receive the first 2017 NAMSAP webinar free: ‘State of the MSP Union’ (Looking Ahead and Looking Forward).

NAMSAP has updated its corporate partner benefits for 2017! Highlights include:

  • Article in Newsletter (educational)
  • Article on Website or Blog (industry news page)
  • Social Media Articles Posts

NAMSAP is committed to promoting a more efficient and effective Medicare Secondary Payer compliance system, and our corporate partners play an important role in our mission. Renew your dues by December 16 and receive a 10% discount on 2017 dues and a free webinar for your staff.

Click here to view the complete 2017 Corporate Partner Benefits and descriptions.

Click here to become a 2017 Corporate Partner Professional or renew.

Annual Meeting Sub-Committee
Gary Patureau and Michelle Allan

The 2016 annual conference at the Marriott Riverwalk in San Antonio was our most successful yet with over 180 participants. We are currently looking for sites for our 2017 conference to build upon the momentum generated in 2016. Look for an announcement after the first of the year.

If you have a topic in mind or are interested in speaking in 2017, please complete this open-call speaker form on the NAMSAP website. If selected, someone from the planning committee will reach out as we begin to organize the agenda.

Communication Committee
By: Kimberly Wiswell, CMSP

Scavenger Hunt!

One of our evening events at our recent NAMSAP annual meeting was a throwback to the parties of your childhood – a scavenger hunt. But this wasn’t your normal scavenger hunt, with a list of easily obtained items from your neighbors’ junk drawers! This one involved quite a bit of walking, and more importantly, sleuthing, as the items on the list included the identification of and information from historical places throughout Riverwalk and the streets of San Antonio based on the somewhat cryptic clues provided.

We formed into several teams identified by brightly colored bandanas, each team starting at a different point on the list, and set out on the adventure. I believe all of the participants walked past the Alamo at least a half a dozen times (or was that just our group?!) as we sought to find some of the places called for on the list including The Alamo, Riverwalk, San Fernando Cathedral, La Villita, the Spanish Governor’s Palace, El Mercado, and Rivercenter Mall. One fun stop included the Menger Bar, where Teddy Roosevelt recruited many of his famed Rough Riders for the American Volunteer Calvary in the Spanish-American War – we all came away with moustaches! At another in a gazebo on the square, we all enjoyed chips and salsa during a brief break in the action. And each of the team captains had a chalk portrait done at one stop as one of the items from the list.

We finished up later with an 8pm deadline at the Barriba Cantina with an open bar and a chance to catch our breath. The collected information and items were submitted to the judges to determine who had won the hunt – after all was tallied, the winning team was none other than “Orange is the New Black”, captained by Amy Bilton (she’s not at all competitive…no, really!) My team, “The Patriots”, captained by Josh Pettengill finished in last place, although not for lack of trying. One of the other teams, captained by Christine Melancon, named “Canary in a Coal Mine”, found some innovative ways to speed up the hunt involving the use of cabs (wish we’d thought of that!) Many of us finished up the evening at a piano/karaoke bar next door called Howl at the Moon. Everyone had an enjoyable evening at our first-ever NAMSAP Scavenger Hunt and is looking forward to trying it again in another city.

Paul Hiller joins NAMSAP with significant association management experience in meetings, membership, committee management and education program development. In Paul’s decade long run with the Orthopaedic Trauma Association, his marketing focus grew the membership from 800 to over 2,000 and its annual meeting attendance for nine consecutive years. Paul earned his Certified Meeting Professional designation in 2014 and served on the Medical Meetings Task Force of the Professional Convention and Meetings Association in 2015. Paul is excited to bring his talents to NAMSAP to help the organization achieve it mission and vision. He can be reached at or 630-617-5047


Thanks to all that attended and made it a great success!


** Special thanks to Mark Walls for use of his Annual Meeting and Educational Conference photographs!


The NAMSAP Communications Committee would like to encourage you to submit an industry-related article for our upcoming newsletter. We are accepting submissions in the following categories: Legal, Legislative, and Medical. If you are interested in contributing to one of these categories, or have an idea for a new category, please contact Rita Wilson, Communications Committee Chair. She can be reached by email at

Click here for past Newsletter editions!

Community Search
Sign In

Forgot your password?

Haven't registered yet?

Latest News

NAMSAP Partners