| Message |
Author |
Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 5:46 pm Post subject: Why Medicare is running out of money... |
|
|
Medicare has always had a "super lien"... meaning that Medicare could always seek recovery on a payment even if they had not informed the payer of their lien and even if the payer already paid some other party. Now there is Section 111, requiring pretty much everyone to notify Medicare of a payment is being made on an injury claim. That is, insurance companies now need to be pro-active and tell Medicare that they are making a payment beforehand so that Medicare can seek recovery. Medicare no longer needs to learn that a payment is being made... they need to be told.
I have a claim where I have $10,000 to pay toward medical bills. I know the bills were paid by Medicare so I called them to inform. They told me that I needed to report a "claim" and that someone would call me w/in 45 days. I have to file a "claim" when they already know about the claim? Needless to say no one called me so I called back to follow up. Now they tell me that I need to have the person's ID# or they cannot do anything for me. I explain that I simply want to issue then a $10,000 payment and need to have some lien paperwork. They tell me that they cannot discuss it with me due to privacy issues. Huh? If they need authorization to send me a lien then shouldn't _they_ get authorization? Why should I force the injured person to give them autho to send me a bill?
So even though Medicare had all the rights in the world.... and then added more, they _still_ can't figure out how to take money when it's handed to them.
BTW - I was on the phone for 45 minutes to learn this. |
|
tcope
Forum Expert

Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 5688
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
332.18 Dollars($)
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 11:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | That is, insurance companies now need to be pro-active and tell Medicare that they are making a payment beforehand so that Medicare can seek recovery. |
I simply don't understand that when it's the carrier who has to inform Medicare about this, then what's the big deal in discussing things with them. If Medicare won't force the claimant to inform them about the payment, then I don't see how they can force you to drag the claimant in between. _________________ Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved. |
|
anonymous12
Guest
1.00 Dollars($)
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 8:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
tcope . . .
You mistake Medicaid for Medicare. What you describe as Medicaid having a "super lien" is known as "asset recovery" and only applies to persons after age 55.
Medicare is health insurance via the Social Security Administration. There is no asset recovery in that program . . . it is all water under the bridge.
Nevertheless, Medicare does have a $74,000,000,000,000+ deficit on schedule for the year 2080. _________________ CA-licensed Life & Disability Analyst. CA Insurance Lic #0596197. Also investigating insurance company abuses, and providing litigation support/expert witness services. Send me your questions, and I'll send you my answers. |
|
MaxHerr
Forum Expert

Joined: 29 Nov 2009
Posts: 6321

Location: Pomona CA
403.65 Dollars($)
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | You mistake Medicaid for Medicare. What you describe as Medicaid having a "super lien" is known as "asset recovery" and only applies to persons after age 55 | Why would you think I'm confusing Medicare and Medicade?
| Quote: | | Medicare is health insurance via the Social Security Administration. There is no asset recovery in that program . . . it is all water under the bridge. |
42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(2)(B)(ii)
"(B) Conditional payment
(i) Authority to make conditional payment The Secretary may make payment under this subchapter with respect to an item or service if a primary plan described in subparagraph (A)(ii) has not made or cannot reasonably be expected to make payment with respect to such item or service promptly (as determined in accordance with regulations). Any such payment by the Secretary shall be conditioned on reimbursement to the appropriate Trust Fund in accordance with the succeeding provisions of this subsection.
(ii) Repayment required A primary plan, and an entity that receives payment from a primary plan, shall reimburse the appropriate Trust Fund for any payment made by the Secretary under this subchapter with respect to an item or service if it is demonstrated that such primary plan has or had a responsibility to make payment with respect to such item or service. A primary plan’s responsibility for such payment may be demonstrated by a judgment, a payment conditioned upon the recipient’s compromise, waiver, or release (whether or not there is a determination or admission of liability) of payment for items or services included in a claim against the primary plan or the primary plan’s insured, or by other means. If reimbursement is not made to the appropriate Trust Fund before the expiration of the 60-day period that begins on the date notice of, or information related to, a primary plan’s responsibility for such payment or other information is received, the Secretary may charge interest (beginning with the date on which the notice or other information is received) on the amount of the reimbursement until reimbursement is made (at a rate determined by the Secretary in accordance with regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury applicable to charges for late payments).
(iii) Action by United States In order to recover payment made under this subchapter for an item or service, the United States may bring an action against any or all entities that are or were required or responsible (directly, as an insurer or self-insurer, as a third-party administrator, as an employer that sponsors or contributes to a group health plan, or large group health plan, or otherwise) to make payment with respect to the same item or service (or any portion thereof) under a primary plan. The United States may, in accordance with paragraph (3)(A) collect double damages against any such entity. In addition, the United States may recover under this clause from any entity that has received payment from a primary plan or from the proceeds of a primary plan’s payment to any entity. The United States may not recover from a third-party administrator under this clause in cases where the third-party administrator would not be able to recover the amount at issue from the employer or group health plan and is not employed by or under contract with the employer or group health plan at the time the action for recovery is initiated by the United States or for whom it provides administrative services due to the insolvency or bankruptcy of the employer or plan.
(iv) Subrogation rights The United States shall be subrogated (to the extent of payment made under this subchapter for such an item or service) to any right under this subsection of an individual or any other entity to payment with respect to such item or service under a primary plan.
(v) Waiver of rights The Secretary may waive (in whole or in part) the provisions of this subparagraph in the case of an individual claim if the Secretary determines that the waiver is in the best interests of the program established under this subchapter.
(vi) Claims-filing period Notwithstanding any other time limits that may exist for filing a claim under an employer group health plan, the United States may seek to recover conditional payments in accordance with this subparagraph where the request for payment is submitted to the entity required or responsible under this subsection to pay with respect to the item or service (or any portion thereof) under a primary plan within the 3-year period beginning on the date on which the item or service was furnished."
I could go on and on quoting the Medicare statutes but I don't see the need. This short quote shows that Medicare _does_ have a right of recovery. This right of recovery also extends to insurance companies that did know, or should have known, that the person had collected under Medicare.
Medicare _can_ apply to others under 65. If the person is disabled for 24 months or longer or has end stage renal disease. The problem for insurance companies is that we cannot know the person's situation and if they qualify for Medicare for whatever reason. It's possible that _anyone_ could qualify. With the new Medicare reporting laws (Section 111) we are required to report SS#s and DOB on everyone we pay out under an injury claim for. |
|
tcope
Forum Expert

Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 5688
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
332.18 Dollars($)
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 5:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry . . . thought you were talking about recovery from an individual. You're addressing recovery from an employer's group plan that was supposed to be primary payer but did not pay, leaving Social Security on the hook as secondary payer.
In the overall scheme of things, this represents a fraction of the total claims Medicare pays, compared to the millions of individual Medicare beneficiaries to which this section of USC does not apply.
It is those individual claims and excessive consumption of medical services (by treating doctors and other providers who are trying to extract maximum reimbursements from Medicare) that are breaking the back of Medicare. And it will only get worse as the Baby Boomers begin to reach Medicare age in another 2-3 years and beyond. _________________ CA-licensed Life & Disability Analyst. CA Insurance Lic #0596197. Also investigating insurance company abuses, and providing litigation support/expert witness services. Send me your questions, and I'll send you my answers. |
|
MaxHerr
Forum Expert

Joined: 29 Nov 2009
Posts: 6321

Location: Pomona CA
403.65 Dollars($)
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 12:44 am Post subject: medicare |
|
|
Discuss the conditions under which Medicare qualifies as a primary versus secondary payer. _________________ Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved. |
|
anonymous101
Guest
1.00 Dollars($)
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 6:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
If a person age 65 or older works for an employer who offers group health insurance, they may enroll in the group health plan as their primary insurance, which automatically makes Medicare secondary coverage. But that same person can elect NOT to enroll in the employer-sponsored plan (perhaps it is more expensive than the monthly Medicare Part B premium), which automatically makes Medicare the primary coverage -- except in the case of a Workers' Compensation claim. Coverage for work-related injuries and illnesses under Workers' Compensation laws is always primary to Medicare. _________________ CA-licensed Life & Disability Analyst. CA Insurance Lic #0596197. Also investigating insurance company abuses, and providing litigation support/expert witness services. Send me your questions, and I'll send you my answers. |
|
MaxHerr
Forum Expert

Joined: 29 Nov 2009
Posts: 6321

Location: Pomona CA
403.65 Dollars($)
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 1:59 am Post subject: medicare |
|
|
my motherin law is 78 and receiving ssi and medicare,i noticed that she is getting 1100. per year deducted from her benefits, could that be right _________________ Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved. |
|
adriana
Guest
1.00 Dollars($)
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 6:23 am Post subject: Part D non-coverage |
|
|
I am over age 65 and am enrolled in Medicare parts A&B. I elected not to purchase Part D. I have been told, unverified, that California has a state law that prohibits pharmacies form charging persons like myself, Senior Citizens, without Part D coverage more than the Medicare reimbursements plus co-payments for individual drugs.
1. Is the statement correct?
2. How do I ascertain what the maximum allowable charge is for a particular drug? _________________ Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved. |
|
fenway
Guest
1.00 Dollars($)
|
|
|
|