Category Archives: Medicare

Need Joint Replacement and on Medicare? Better Not Be Sick.

Having a lung ailment may make it more difficult to obtain coverage for joint replacement.

Today’s post comes from guest author Charlie Domer, from The Domer Law Firm.

A new Medicare rule that took effect April 1, 2016 retools Medicare payments for hip and knee replacements.  Patients with serious medical conditions such as heart disease, obesity, diabetes, and lung ailments may not be able to find an orthopaedic surgeon willing to perform the joint replacement because hospitals face financial incentives to avoid patients with a high risk of complications. 

Hospitals will be given a “target price” for total joint replacements for the patient’s entire care from the hospital stay to outpatient rehabilitation through 90 days after discharge, according to a new rule from the Center for Medicare Services.  If the reimbursement is less than the target price, the hospital may receive an additional payment from Medicare as an incentive for good outcomes.  On the other hand, the hospital may be required to pay back part of their reimbursement that goes above the target.  The rule is intended to control costs on the $7 Billion Medicare spends for hospital care and for almost one-half million beneficiaries who receive a hip or knee replacement each year.  However, since Medicare will pay only one “bundled payment” for the patient’s entire care after total joint replacement surgery, the hospital will be accountable for the quality of care through the incentives and penalties.  The surgeon shares responsibility when a patient is re-admitted to the hospital and receives a “black mark” even when the re-admission has nothing to do with the joint replacement.  An unintended consequence of this payment model may be “cherry picking” of low risk patients.  Patients claiming a work-related connection to joint replacement surgery who have been denied by Medicare may face additional hurdles in obtaining their surgery. 

Stay tuned…

Prior results do not guarantee outcomes.
Attorney Advertising.

“Cost-Shifting” Exposed: How Injured Worker Medical Care Decisions Are Made (And Who Pays)

Medical coverage is a topic on everyone’s mind. Obamacare, while controversial, has started a real dialogue in this country regarding health care. Regardless of whether you are in favor of the current law, most Americans want affordable health care for themselves and their families.

Many employers pay for a substantial amount of their workers’ premiums as a benefit to them, and take this into consideration when making salary decisions due to the high cost, thereby leaving workers to pay for all or some of their medical coverage. Sometimes insurers pay for benefits that are not their responsibility because the proper entity refuses to pay. This is known as cost shifting. As a practitioner in the field of Workers’ Compensation, this idea of cost shifting has become an all too common occurrence. 

By way of background, as a result of social reform, most states enacted some form of Workers’ Compensation legislation in the early 20th Century. In exchange for timely payment of medical and indemnity benefits, workers gave up the right to sue their employers. In 2007 in New York, there was a series of further reforms that led to compromise between labor groups, the insurance industry and the Business Counsel. There was an increase in the amount of weekly benefits to injured workers to conform with the State average weekly wage (now a maximum of approximately $800 per week) in exchange for a limit on the amount of weeks an injured worker is entitled to receive these benefits.  Additionally, medical treatment guidelines have been introduced with the premise that they would streamline costs and get injured workers faster and more effective medical care. These guidelines are based upon the principles of Evidence Based Medicine (EBM), which is the use of clinical trials and data to determine whether a specific treatment should be recommended for a specific diagnosis.  It is sometimes referred to as “cookbook” treatment. 

In New York, the Court of Appeals recently ruled by a 4-3 margin that any treatment not specifically included and pre-authorized is presumptively unnecessary. In other words, if a treatment requested is not within the medical treatment guidelines, it is denied. This takes the decision making out of the hands of the treating physician who is really in the best position to determine what treatment would be most beneficial for patients. In order to overcome this presumption, the doctor now must engage in what has been seen in most cases as an exercise in futility to request a variance to overcome this presumption.

The New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health (NYCOSH) reported that the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board received 202,643 variance requests in the first 10 months the guidelines were implemented. A quarter of the requests were rejected by the Board immediately. The rest can lead to protracted litigation. As a result, in many instances injured workers will now shift the cost to another party, such as their own private insurance, Medicare or even worse, pay for the treatment out of pocket. It is the path of least resistance. We all pay an additional price for medical costs borne by group health insurance carriers, Medicaid, and Medicare that should in fact be paid by Worker’s Compensation insurers. This cost shifting may increase Workers’ Compensation insurance profits, but it hurts both the employers’ and the employees’ bottom line. Injured workers don’t stop needing treatment just because their medical claim is denied. Someone has to pay for the cost of lost time and medical treatment. It is time that the proper party step up and take responsibility.

 

 

Catherine M. Stanton is a senior partner in the law firm of Pasternack Tilker Ziegler Walsh Stanton & Romano, LLP. She focuses on the area of Workers’ Compensation, having helped thousands of injured workers navigate a highly complex system and obtain all the benefits to which they were entitled. Ms. Stanton has been honored as a New York Super Lawyer, is the past president of the New York Workers’ Compensation Bar Association, the immediate past president of the Workers’ Injury Law and Advocacy Group, and is an officer in several organizations dedicated to injured workers and their families. She can be reached at 800.692.3717.

Prior results do not guarantee outcomes.
Attorney Advertising.

Making A Difference In Washington – The Medicare Secondary Payer and Workers’ Compensation Settlement Agreement Act

In addition to helping our clients receive the benefits they are entitled to through the courts and other adversarial means, we are prooud to work with our elected officials to produce legislation that will benefit working people. A few days ago, a bill we support, the Medicare Secondary Payer and Workers’ Compensation Settlement Agreement Act, was formally proposed. We encourage you to call and email your representatives and let them know that you support this law.

The press release with additional background follows:

 

Reps. Reichert and Thompson Introduce Bipartisan Medicare Secondary Payer and Workers’ Compensation Settlement Agreement Act

Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Reps. Dave Reichert (R-WA) and Mike Thompson (D-CA) introduced the Medicare Secondary Payer and Workers’ Compensation Settlement Agreement Act, H.R. 1982 into the House of Representatives.

The legislation aims to protect injured workers whose workers’ compensation claims overlap with Medicare coverage. Far too often, these claims are subjected to lengthy and cumbersome reviews by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to determine appropriate set-aside amounts to pay for future medical costs in which Medicare may have an interest. The delays associated with this review place unfair burdens upon the injured party.

“This is a common-sense measure to ensure that hard-working Americans are not left in limbo because of inefficient bureaucratic procedures,” said Rep. Reichert. “Injured workers must have the confidence that their heath care claims will be processed in a fair and timely manner. By introducing this bill, Rep. Thompson and I aim to do just that: protect our hard-working citizens by making sure our systems serve them and their families.”

“The last thing injured workers should have to worry about is if needless bureaucracy is going to prevent their medical bills from being paid,” said Thompson. “This bill will make sure hard working families’ medical claims are processed efficiently and quickly, it will reduce bureaucratic headaches for businesses, and it will save taxpayers money. I will continue working with Congressman Reichert to get this bipartisan bill signed into law.”

Background

The Medicare Secondary Payer and Workers’ Compensation Settlement Agreements Act establishes clear and consistent standards for an administrative process that provides reasonable protections for injured workers and Medicare. It would benefit injured workers, employers and insurers by creating a system of certainty, and allows the settlement process to move forward while eliminating millions of dollars in administrative costs that harm workers, employers and insurers.

The legislation has widespread support from groups such as the American Insurance Association, the American Bar Association, the National Council of Self-Insurers, Property Casualty, Insurers Association of America, UWC-Strategic Services and the Workers Injury Law and Advocacy Group (WILG).

Prior results do not guarantee outcomes.
Attorney Advertising.