Copyright

(c) 2010-2024 Jon L Gelman, All Rights Reserved.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query insurance. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query insurance. Sort by date Show all posts

Monday, April 21, 2014

President of Roofing Company Pleads Guilty to Felony for Scheme to Avoid Paying Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars in Insurance Premiums

Acting NJ Attorney General John J. Hoffman announced that the president of a roofing company pleaded guilty today to providing false and misleading information to the company’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier in order to avoid paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in insurance premiums that he was obligated to pay.

Charles Kelcy Pegler Sr., 56, of Spring Lake, pleaded guilty to third-degree insurance fraud before Superior Court Judge Anthony J. Mellaci in Monmouth County. Pegler was charged in a Dec. 19, 2013 state grand jury indictment.

Judge Mellaci scheduled sentencing for June 6. Under the plea agreement, the state will recommend that Pegler be sentenced to 180 days in county jail as a condition of five years of probation. Pegler previously paid full restitution to New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company. The plea agreement also requires Pegler to pay $134,087 to Atain Insurance Company.

“Employers have an obligation to provide full and adequate workers compensation insurance coverage for their employees,” Acting Attorney General Hoffman said. “Because of criminals such as this defendant, honest, hard-working New Jerseyans are forced to pay increased premiums to cover the costs of the fraud.”

“This conviction demonstrates that the Office of the Insurance Fraud Prosecutor stands ready and able to prosecute sophisticated schemes and influential executives, even those at the highest reaches of companies,” Acting Insurance Fraud Prosecutor Ronald Chillemi said.

Pegler was the president of Roof Diagnostics, Inc. (“RDI”), which was located at 2333 Highway 34 in Wall. During the time of the alleged crime, RDI was located at 608 Brighton Avenue in Spring Lake Heights. RDI employs approximately 400 people. In pleading guilty, Pegler admitted that between June 11, 2003 and Oct. 5, 2009, he created the false impression to New Jersey Casualty Insurance Company, which is a subsidiary of New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company, that RDI was not a roofing company, that it did not employ roofers and that it did not install, maintain and/or repair roofs. An investigation by the Office of the Insurance Fraud Prosecutor determined that, as a result of the alleged crime, RDI paid $265,044 less in workers’ compensation insurance premiums than it should have.

Pegler further admitted that between Jan. 15 and Dec. 9, 2009, he created the false impression to USF Insurance Company, now called Atain Insurance Company, that all roofing and re-roofing services offered by RDI were performed by subcontractors. Through this fraud, Pegler avoided paying $134,087 in general liability insurance premiums which he owed to the insurance company.

Acting Insurance Fraud Prosecutor Chillemi, Deputy Attorneys General Michael Locke, Bradford Muller and Thomas Tresansky and Detective Natalie Brotherston coordinated the investigation. Acting Insurance Fraud Prosecutor Chillemi represented the state at the guilty plea hearing. Additional investigative assistance was provided by Detective Taryn Kong and Detective Trainee Ryan Kirsh, Analysts Terry Worthington and Terri Drumm and Technical Assistant Ramona Navarro. Acting Insurance Fraud Prosecutor Chillemi thanked the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development, New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company and Atain Insurance Company for their assistance in the investigation.

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Patent Awarded for Compensatory Patient Invoicing

The US Patent Office has issued a patent to Stephen Ambrose for a system and method for enabling health care providers to effect compensatory invoicing of patients who use a coverage entity in addition to their health insurer.

Stephen Ambrose is the President of ICEX Data Reporting a Virginia area information technology and services company.

A system and method is provided for compensatory invoicing of a patient for health care services rendered by a Health Care Provider. The system and method enables a Health Care Provider to obtain payment of Full Rates for services rendered to a patient in circumstances where a Health Insurance Entity provides less than full-rate compensation (e.g., compensation at Contracted Rates) to the Health Care Provider AND the patient has been reimbursed additionally by another payment party for claims already paid for by the Health Insurance Entity. In one implementation, the patient contracts with the Health Care Provider to ensure that the Health Care Provider is fully compensated for the services rendered after the patient receives payments from a tortfeasor and/or First and/or Third Party Payment Entity (e.g., an auto insurance carrier, worker's compensation insurance carrier, Medpay, PIP etc.) for the services. The invention tracks claim(s) filed by the patient against the tortfeasor and/or First and/or Third Party Payment Entity and tracks payments) made by the tortfeasor and/or First and/or Third Party Payment Entity to the patient. The patient and/or the First and/or Third Party Payment Entity is then billed for the difference in payments made to the Health Care Provider by the Health Insurance Entity, effecting compensatory invoicing for a Full Rate fee chargeable by the Health Care Provider in cases when a tortfeasor and/or First and/or Third Payment party has reimbursed the patient for similar services as already reimbursed by the Health Insurance Entity.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

In the current health care arena, physicians, hospitals, and other health care providers (hereinafter the "Health Care Provider") contract with health insurance companies, managed care organizations ("MCOs"), or other health insurance providers (hereinafter the "Health Insurance Entity"). Typically, both a Health Care Provider and a patient have a contractual relationship with a Health Insurance Entity. In general, when a patient visits an "in-network" Health Care Provider, the patient receives services which are subsequently billed to the Health Insurance Entity by the Health Care Provider. The Health Insurance Entity is typically the primary payer for services and will cover necessary treatment and care for the patient's various health problems, including acute injuries.

Upon contracting with the Health insurance Entity, the Health Care Provider generally agrees to accept contracted rates set by the Health Insurance Entity (hereinafter "Contracted Rates"). These Contracted Rates are typically lower than the normal, full-rate fees charged by the Health Care Provider (hereinafter "Full Rates") for the delivery of a variety of billable services. In return, the Health Care Provider is given access to the Health Insurance Entity's patients, some of whom may be assigned to the Health Care Provider. The Health Care Provider also agrees that, during the term of the patient's coverage by the Health insurance Entity, if the patient is to be billed for the Health Care Provider's services directly for any reason, the Health Care Provider can only bill at the Contracted Rates for the services performed, provided that these are services normally paid for by the Health Insurance Entity.

In most Health Insurance Entity/Health Care Provider contracts, the Health Care Provider is prohibited from billing a patient for any amounts attributable to the difference between the Health Care Provider's Full Rates and the Contracted Rates. This type of billing, is known commonly as "Balance Billing" i.e., billing the patient for the balance between the Contracted Rates and the Full Rates). The difference in rates can sometimes he quite large. Thus, while a Health Care Provider obtains some benefits from contracts with Health insurance Entities, certain financial drawbacks exist.

When a patient visits a Health Care Provider for medical attention of injuries, symptoms, or disease stemming from an accident or other event for which there is an applicable liability insurance product and/or an individual, group or business who is determined responsible in a court of law or otherwise, for the patient's injury or reason for obtaining medical attention (hereinafter known as "tortfeasor"), there may be instances when one or more parties other than a Health Insurance Entity, such as a first and/or third party payer as well as compensation paid by a tortfeasor to the patient and/or their Agent may provide payments for the Health Care Provider's services. For example, in the case of an auto accident, the first party payer may be the auto insurance company for any injured individual through an attached medical payment rider, regardless of fault in the accident (hereinafter "Medpay") or the insurer for any auto insurance rider known as
Personal Injury Protection (hereinafter "PIP"). Medpay, PIP insurers and other first party payment entities can be referred to as a first party payer (hereinafter "First Party Payment Entity"). Another example is the patient or their use of an attorney, agent or legal representative (hereinafter "Agent") in utilizing their health care bills in part or full, so as to obtain a legal judgment and/or agreement with the tortfeasor, allowing for payment to the patient and/or their Agent. An example of a third party payer may be the automobile (or other) liability insurance company for the driver (or other entity) who was "at-fault" or responsible for the Covered Event, e.g. for causing the auto (or other) accident and the injuries for which the injured, non-responsible party received treatment. Third party payers, for example, may include auto insurance carriers, liability, property & casualty and worker's compensation insurance carriers, and other third party payers, among other types of entities (hereinafter "Third Party Payment Entity"). For example, if a patient visits a Health Care Provider because he or she was in an automobile accident, the patient's Health Insurance Entity may be billed, and the patient's Health Insurance Entity may subsequently pay medical bills to the Health Care Provider who provided services to the patient. In some instances, the Health Insurance Entity may elect to seek reimbursement for monies paid for services from a First and/or Third Party Payment Entity who has also paid monies for similar health services, through a process known as subrogation.

However, in many jurisdictions (e.g., states), there is a legal doctrine known as the "
Collateral Source Rule" that, allows an injured, patient and/or their Agent to submit medical bills to a First and/or Third Party Payment Entity, even if the bills have already been paid by the Health Insurance Entity to the respective health care provider(s). The Collateral Source Rule prohibits the admission at trial of evidence that a patient's injuries were already compensated from a health insurance policy or other source of compensation. For example, in a personal injury case, evidence that a Plaintiffs medical bills were paid by his or her medical insurance are not admissible. This is largely because the Collateral Source Rule is intended to promote justice and assess remedies for fault of the tortfeasor (the entity or entities that caused the injury).

Additionally, some insurance or other payment sources that pay for an injured party's damages may gain a lien or right of subrogation in any ultimate recovery by or on behalf of the injured party. In these circumstances, the injured patient must pay back the party with the subrogation right, who had previously paid on charges from Health Care Providers), assuming the patient received additional payment for the same billed services by other payment sources other than the party with the subrogation rights.

One problem with this system is that complete and full rate payment may not be made to the Health Care Providers for services performed and billed. Agents and/or injured parties however, can submit the Health Care Provider's medical bills as part of a lawsuit and/or directly to a tortfeasor and/or to a First and/or Third Party Payment Entity and receive compensation at Full Rates, even if the medical bills were already paid. Thus, the Health Care Provider receives payment at the lower Contracted Rates, while the patient and/or their Agent through utilizing the provider's bills, can receive compensation paid by a tortfeasor to the patient and/or their Agent as well as by a First and/or Third Party Payment Entity at the higher Health Care Provider's Full Rates.

Additionally, many Health Care Provider/Health Insurance Entity contracts provide for a waiver of subrogation on the Health Care Provider's part. Subrogation is a legal concept where one entity assumes the legal rights of another entity for whom the first entity has paid expenses or a debt on their behalf. For example, when an insurer is required to pay a claimant a sum of money, the insurer usually is allowed to sue in the name of the claimant against any person who was responsible for the loss. This concept enables an insurance company to sue on behalf of its insured if it is required to pay the insured for a loss caused by another entity. Subrogation is generally considered in most legal systems to form part of the law of restitution by preventing unjust enrichment. In other words, subrogation prevents the subrogor (e.g., the patient) from receiving/utilizing funds from the subrogee (e.g., the health care insurer), and then still claiming the original sum of money from the tortfeasor (e.g., the entity that caused the accident). Pursuant to the waiver of subrogation, the Health Insurance Entity may be able to recover any payments made for services provided to a patient following an auto accident or other Covered Event, provided that the First and/or Third Party Payment Entity paid monies for the same set of services. Thus, even if the Health Insurance Entity receives payment at the Full Rates, the Health Care Provider gets nothing more than the Contracted Rates. In this sense, patients, attorneys and other parties can leverage the Health Care Provider's efforts to financially benefit. for themselves, many times at the full fee rates, while the Health Care Provider receives only the Contracted Rates.

These and other drawbacks exist with known billing practices. 

What is claimed is:

1. A billing and payment collection method utilized by a health care provider to bill and collect payment associated with treatment of a patient, the method comprising: transmitting a health care service bill from the health provider to a patient's health insurance plan for health care services provided to the patient by the health care provider, wherein the health care service bill is for the normal and full charge for the rendered health care services; accepting a contractual rate payment from the health insurance plan in response to the transmitted health care service bill, wherein the contractual rate payment is lower than the health care provider's normal and full charge for the rendered health care services; determining that an additional payment party exists, which is not the patient's health insurance plan, wherein the additional payment party is responsible to pay the patient for the health care service bill, when submitted by the patient, irrespective of the patient's health insurance plan paying the health care provider for the same health care service bill; entering into a private billing contract between the health care provider and the patient for differential monies, wherein the differential monies are the difference between the normal and full charge for the rendered health care services, and the contractual rate payment made by the health insurance plan in response to the health care service bill, wherein the differential monies are only due to the health provider upon the patient submitting the health care service bill to an additional party and receiving payment therefrom; submitting via the patient the health care service bill to the additional payment party; receiving, by the patient, from the additional payment party monies in response to the submitted health care service bill, wherein the received monies includes differential monies; billing and collecting the differential monies from the patient by the health care provider based upon the private billing contract; and wherein the prior steps are performed by one or more computers.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the billing and collection for the health provider is performed by a third party.

3. The method of claim 1, wherein the patient submits the health care service bill to the additional payment party via an attorney or legal representative.

4. The method of claim 1, wherein the health care service bill relates to an injury claim involving the patient.

5. The method of claim 1, wherein the private billing contract is made prior to any care being rendered by the health care provider to the patient.

6. The method of claim 1, wherein the health care provider is a provider selected from a group consisting of a health system, hospital, surgical center, rehab facility, physician's practice, ambulatory center, medical service business, imaging center, outsourced diagnostic testing company, home health agency, therapy clinic, chiropractic and any non-medical practitioner and facility legally allowed to perform health care services.

7. The method of claim 1, wherein the health care services are services selected from a group consisting of consultation, examination, treatment, surgery, use of pharmaceutical products, home health, therapy, imaging, laboratory services and use of medical equipment.

8. The method of claim 1, wherein the additional payment party is based upon an insurance rider selected from a group consisting of a Med Pay, No-Fault, Uninsured Motorist, Underinsured Motorist and Personal Injury Protection riders on an automobile insurance of the patient.

9. The method of claim 1, wherein the additional payment party is based on a liability insurance product representing the at-fault party, selected from a group consisting of general liability, professional liability, auto liability, employer liability, public liability and product liability.

10. The method of claim 1, wherein the additional payment party is a party selected from a group consisting of an individual, group, business, partnership, limited liability company, insurance coverage, association, municipality, county, state, and federal government entity.

11. The method of claim 4, wherein the injury claim is based upon an injury selected from a group consisting of an auto accident, work-related injury, soft-tissue injury, liability on premises, liability due to environment, product defect, pharmaceutical product, birth injury, assault, slip, fall, circumstance relating negligence and medical malpractice.

12. The method of claim 1, wherein the private billing contract is a medical lien between the provider and patient.

13. The method of claim 1, wherein the submission of the health care service bill to the additional payment party by the patient is conducted via an attorney or legal representative.

14. The method of claim 1, wherein the differential monies exclude monies paid to the health care provider, said excluded monies selected from a group consisting of a health insurance co-payment, a health insurance deductible and co-insurance.

15. The method of claim 4, wherein the health care provider collects differential monies relating to the injury claim from the patient via an attorney or legal representative of the patient.

16. A computerized investigation method to determine whether differential monies legally owed to a health care provider by a patient are in the possession of the patient, the method comprising: transmitting a heath care service bill from the health provider to the patient's health insurance plan for health care services provided to the patient by the health care provider, wherein the health care service bill is for the normal and full charge for the rendered health care services accepting a contractual rate payment from the health insurance plan in response to the transmitted health care service bill, wherein the contractual rate payment is lower than the health care provider's normal and full charge for the rendered health care services; determining an additional payment party exists, which is not the patient's health insurance plan, wherein the additional payment party is responsible to pay the patient for the health care service bill, when submitted by the patient, irrespective of the patient's health insurance plan paying the health care provider for the same health care service bill; entering into a private billing contract between the health care provider and the patient, wherein existing differential monies are deemed owed from the patient to the health care provider, wherein the differential monies are the difference between the normal and full charge for the rendered health care services, and the contractual rate payment made by the health insurance plan in response to the health care service bill, wherein the differential monies are only due to the health provider upon the patient submitting the health care service bill to an additional party and receiving payment therefrom; submitting via the patient the health care service bill for the rendered health care services to the additional payment party; determining by the health care provider, through an investigation, that the patient received monies from the additional payment party in response to the submitted health care service bill, wherein the received monies include the differential monies; and wherein the prior steps are performed by one or more computers.

17. The method of claim 16, wherein the additional payment party is based upon an insurance rider selected from a group consisting of a Med Pay, No-Fault, Uninsured Motorist, Underinsured Motorist and Personal Injury Protection riders on an automobile insurance of the patient.

18. The method of claim 16, wherein the additional payment party is based on a liability insurance product representing the at-fault party, selected from a group consisting of general liability, professional liability, auto liability, employer liability, public liability and product liability.

19. The method of claim 16, wherein the additional payment party is a party selected from a group consisting of an individual, group, business, partnership, limited liability company, insurance coverage, association, municipality, county, state, and federal government entity.

20. The method of claim 16, wherein the injury claim is based upon an injury selected from a group consisting of an auto accident, work-related injury, soft-tissue injury, liability on premises, liability due to environment, product defect, pharmaceutical product, birth injury, assault, slip, fall, circumstance relating negligence and medical malpractice.

21. The method of claim 16, wherein the private billing contract is a medical lien between the provider and patient.

22. The method of claim 16, wherein the submission of the health care service bill to the additional payment party by the patient is conducted via an attorney or legal representative.

23. The method of claim 16, wherein the investigation for the health care provider is performed by a third party.

24. The method of claim 16, wherein the patient submits the health care service bill to the additional payment party via an attorney or legal representative.

25. The method of claim 16, wherein the health care service bill relates to an injury claim involving the patient.

26. The method of claim 16, wherein the private billing contract is made prior to any care being rendered by the health care provider to the patient.

27. The method of claim 16, wherein the health care provider is a provider selected from a group consisting of a health system, hospital, surgical center, rehab facility, physician's practice, ambulatory center, medical service business, imaging center, outsourced diagnostic testing company, home health agency, therapy clinic, chiropractic and any non-medical practitioner and facility legally allowed to perform health care services.

28. The method of claim 16, wherein the health care service is a service selected from a group consisting of consultation, examination, treatment, surgery, use of pharmaceutical products, home health, therapy, imaging, laboratory services and use of medical equipment.

29. The method of claim 16, wherein the differential monies exclude monies paid to the health care provider, said excluded monies selected from a group consisting of a health insurance co-payment, a health insurance deductible and co-insurance.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The invention addressing these and other drawbacks relates to a system and method for enabling a Health Care Provider to effect compensatory invoicing of patients for a Covered Event in instances where the patient has contracted with a Health Insurance Entity for provision of health care services at a Contracted Rate and additionally, there exists compensation paid by a tortfeasor to the patient and/or their Agent and/or a responsible First and/or Third Party Payment Entity who is liable for payment due to the Covered Event.

According to an aspect of the invention, a Health Care Provider may take one or more steps to ensure that it is in a legal position to effect compensatory invoicing of a patient to effectively bill a patient, while honoring the Health Care Provider/Health Insurance Entity Contract (under certain circumstances) by enforcing a billing arrangement which would enable the Health Care Provider to be paid their Full Rate when a patient or their Agent receives compensation paid by a tortfeasor and/or First and/or Third Party Payment Entity other than their Health Insurance Entity.

For example, in one implementation, a Health Care Provider, prior to rendering services to a new (or current) patient who is seeking care stemming from a Covered Event, requires the patient to sign a legal contract between the patient and the Health Care Provider, specifically outlining the billing policies of the Health Care Provider, where the contract includes a provision entitling the Health Care Provider to be entitled to their Full Rate (not the Contracted Rate) if the patient and/or their Agent uses the Health Care Provider's bills for compensation by submitting the bills to a tortfeasor via a lawsuit or otherwise and/or First and/or Third Party Payment Entity (e.g., an entity other than the Patient's Health Insurance Entity).

Once a signed contract is in place by and between the patient and the Health Care Provider, the Health Care Provider provides necessary services to the patient in the ordinary course, bills the Health Insurance Entity at the Contracted Rates, and receives payment from the Health Insurance Entity for the rendered services at the Contracted Rates.

Subsequently, the Health Care Provider (or someone on behalf of the Health Care Provider) may monitor a variety of sources to determine whether the patient and or their Agent has had compensation paid by a tortfeasor and/or a First and/or Third Party Payment Entity relating to services provided by the Health Care Provider. Monitored sources may, for example, include Court records (electronic or otherwise) as well as the use of various health provider and billing databases, many of which are currently known (but used for other purposes). This may also include providing a questionnaire with the paperwork which the patient fills out and signs at the Health Care Provider's office prior to, during or subsequent to treatment, asking if the injury or reason the patient is seeking care stems directly from an accident or Covered Event, and if so, identification of any pending lawsuits or submission of provider's health bills to a tortfeasor and/or First and/or Third Party Payment Entities. The requesting of treatment records, bills, statements, etc. either by the patient or a representative (agent) of the patient may also be a trigger, alerting the Health Care Provider and related staff that compensatory invoicing may be appropriate.

Monitoring may further be performed manually and/or electronically at predetermined intervals or otherwise. Additionally, the patient may also allow the Health Care Provider to bill the First and/or Third Party Payment Entity as well as collect from the patient and/or their Agent any compensation paid by a tortfeasor to the patient and/or their Agent. Whichever the case, the Health Care Provider (or agent) enforces the billing contract between the Health Care Provider and the patient to effect compensatory invoicing and collect the difference between the Full Rates and the Contracted Rates in appropriate circumstances.

According to an aspect of the invention, a system is provided, which enables the review and subsequent auditing of past patient records by comparing them against a monitoring system allowing the Health Care Provider to effect compensatory invoicing and collect any difference(s) between their Full Rate(s) and Contracted Rate(s) for rendered services if the patient and/or their agent/representative uses the Health Care Provider's bills and has compensation paid by a tortfeasor and/or First and/or Third Party Payment Entity (e.g., an entity other than the Patient's Health insurance Entity).

In one implementation, the system may comprise a computer system, and the computer system may further host, interface with, or otherwise enable access to a billing management application for tracking information/contracts for those patients who are seeking payment for healthcare services (either in full or in part) from a tortfeasor and/or a First and/or Third Party Payment Entity (other than the Patient's Health Insurance Entity). The billing management application may comprise an "add-on" application to existing or subsequently developed billing applications, or may comprise a separate "stand-alone" application.

In one implementation, the computer system (and billing application) may be in operative communication with one or more external data sources (e.g., legal databases that include information on Court proceedings and other data sources). Information gathered from the one or more external data sources may be maintained, for example, in one or more associated databases. The information may comprise, among other things, information on claims filed by patients (contracting with the Health Care Provider) and/or their Agent against any tortfeasor and/or First and/or Third Party Payment Entity (other than the patient's Health Insurance Entity) and the status of any such proceedings related to the claims. The information may also comprise data on any payment-related activities that have occurred between contracted patients and any tortfeasor and/or First and/or Third Party Payment Entity.

For each patient contracting with the Health Care Provider, die billing management application may generate reports on-demand, or at pre-determined intervals, that include the current status of any efforts by the particular contracting patient to recover money from a patient and/or Agent in lieu of a tortfeasor's compensation as well as a First and/or Third Party Payment. Entity (other than the patient's Health insurance Entity).

In one implementation, if a patient has been compensated by a tortfeasor and/or First and/or Third Party Payment Entity, the billing management application may generate, pursuant to the contract between the patient and the Health Care Provider, a bill for the difference between the Health Care Provider's Full Rates (for services rendered by the Health Care Provider to the patient) and the payment received by the Health Care Provider from the Health Insurance Entity at the Contracted Rates.

Various other objects, features, and advantages of the invention will be apparent through the detailed description of the preferred embodiments and the drawings attached hereto. It is also to be understood that both the foregoing general description and the following detailed description are exemplary and not restrictive of the scope of the invention. 

Wednesday, December 16, 2020

NJ Governor Phil Murphy’s Conditional Veto Message on Senate Bill No. 2354

Pursuant to Article V, Section I, Paragraph 14 of the New Jersey Constitution, I am returning Senate Bill No. 2354 (Second Reprint) with my recommendations for reconsideration.

Sunday, December 19, 2021

CMS Announces 2022 Workers' Compensation Recovery Threshold to Remain at $750.00

Computation of Annual Recovery Thresholds for Certain Liability Insurance, No-Fault Insurance, and Workers' Compensation Settlements, Judgments, Awards, or Other Payments for 2022 were announced this week.

Wednesday, June 6, 2012

Congressman Cummings Introduces Legislation to Reform Defense Base Act


Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, introduced legislation today that would save taxpayers huge sums of money by transitioning the existing workers’ compensation insurance system for overseas government contractors away from private sector insurance companies to a federal self-insurance program.

“There is absolutely no reason American taxpayers should be lining the pockets of private insurance companies,” said Cummings.  “This bill would save billions of dollars while improving the ability of contractor employees who risk their lives in war zones to obtain the medical care and support they deserve.”

According to a 2009 Pentagon study, Congress could save as much as $250 million a year by transitioning the existing Defense Base Act (DBA) insurance program to a government self-insurance program.  The study found:  “In the long run, the self-insurance alternative may have the greatest potential for minimizing DBA insurance costs, and it has several administrative and compliance advantages as well.”

Cummings’s legislation, H.R. 5891, The Defense Base Act Insurance Improvement Act of 2012, would direct the Departments of Defense and Labor to establish a self-insurance program in which the government would pay directly for medical benefits and disability benefits rather than utilizing private insurance companies.

The existing system has been a boondoggle for private insurance companies, who have reaped enormous profits under the program.  According to an Oversight Committee investigation, insurance companies providing DBA insurance in Iraq and Afghanistan have made enormous underwriting profits that are significantly higher than those of traditional workers’ compensation insurers.

The current DBA system requires contractors to purchase workers’ compensation insurance for employees working overseas from private insurance carriers, and the contractors and insurance companies negotiate their own rates.  Since the costs of the insurance premiums are often built into the price of the contract with the government, there is little incentive for contractors to limit insurance costs.

Cummings’s bill would set a six month deadline for the Departments of Defense and Labor to develop an implementation strategy to transition to a self-insurance program, and it would require the strategy to be executed within a year after the bill is enacted.

The legislation would also require the Departments of Defense and Labor to issue a report one year after the program is implemented to assess its effectiveness in terms of cost-savings and the delivery of benefits.

In addition to cost concerns, the current system has failed to ensure that all injured workers obtain health care services, disability payments, or death benefits they and their families deserve.  An analysis by ProPublica found that private insurance companies had denied about 44% of serious injury claims and about 60% of claims by employees suffering psychological damage such as post-traumatic stress disorder.

At the request of Congressman Cummings, the Domestic Policy Subcommittee held a hearing in 2009 to evaluate these findings, which confirmed that the Defense Base Act is in desperate need of reform.

Sunday, February 23, 2020

NJ Cannabis Legal Protections Advance for Workers’ Compensation Medical Treatment

The NJ Assembly Financial Institutions and Insurance Committee reported favorably and with committee amendments Assembly Bill No. 377.  As amended, this bill creates certain protections for insurers and insurance producers engaging in the business of insurance in connection with cannabis-related businesses.

Thursday, December 2, 2010

CMS Issues Series of Mandatory Reporting Alerts

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (Me...Image via Wikipedia
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has recently issued a series of Alerts for Implementation of Medicare Secondary Payer Mandatory Reporting Provisions in Section 111 of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (See 42 U.S.C. 1395y(b)(7) & (8)).


One of Alerts defines the Date of Incidence (DOI) for a cumulative injury which is the earlier of:

• The date that treatment for any manifestation of the cumulative injury began when such treatment preceded formal diagnosis; or
• The first date that formal diagnosis was made by any medical practitioner.



MMSEA 111 - Alert - November 18, 2010 - ALERT: Liability Insurance (Including Self-Insurance), No-Fault Insurance, and Workers' Compensation - Special Default ICD-9 Code for Responsible Reporting Entities (RREs) [PDF 69.45KB] 

MMSEA 111 - Alert - November 18, 2010 - ALERT:  TIN Reference File Address Validation Information for Liability Insurance (Including Self-Insurance), No-Fault Insurance, and Workers' Compensation Responsible Reporting Entities (RREs) [PDF 58.76KB] 

MMSEA 111 - Alert- November 9, 2010 - I. Revised Implementation Timeline for TPOC Liability Insurance (Including Self-Insurance) Settlements, Judgments, Awards or Other Payments and II. Extension of Current Dollar Thresholds for Liability Insurance (Including Self-Insurance)  and Workers' Compensation [PDF 46.95KB] 

MMSEA 111 - Revised Alert - November 5, 2010 - Direct Data Entry (DDE) Registration Information for Liability Insurance (Including Self-Insurance), No-Fault Insurance, and Workers' Compensation [PDF 49.17KB] 

MMSEA 111 – Revised Alert - November 5, 2010 - New Direct Data Entry (DDE) Option for Liability Insurance (Including Self-Insurance), No-Fault Insurance and Workers' Compensation [PDF 65.37KB] 

MMSEA111 - Alert - October 14, 2010 - Alert For Liability (Including Self-Insurance), No-Fault Insurance and Workers' Compensation - Reporting Timeframe [PDF 44.34KB] 

MMSEA111 - Alert - October 14, 2010 - Alert For Liability (Including Self-Insurance), No-Fault Insurance and Workers' Compensation - DOI For Cumulative Injury [PDF 40.89KB] 


New information concerning ICD Provider & Diagnostic Codes has also been posted to the CMS website:
Version 28 Full and Abbreviated Code Titles - Effective October 1, 2010 [ZIP 922KB] 


Conversion information to the proposed (NEW) ICD-10 Codes is also posted.


Wednesday, June 6, 2018

US Supreme Court - NY State Permitted to Close State Fund

The US Supreme Court [SCOTUS] has declined to review the challenge by multiple insurance carriers to the closure of the New York State Insurance Fund. Consistent with a national trend to terminate Second Injury Funds as being obsolete, economically impractical, and no longer warranted,  SCOTUS, by declining the Petition for a writ of certiorari, validated the methodology employed by the State of New York to implement the termination of the Fund.

Sunday, December 9, 2012

Insurance Company Broker Caught Cooking the Books

NJ Attorney General Jeffrey S. Chiesa announced that an employee of a former Morris County insurance brokerage company pleaded guilty today to stealing several million dollars entrusted to her employer. These funds had been entrusted to the insurance brokerage for the purpose of purchasing insurance policies for small and medium-sized businesses in New Jersey and New York.

Kelly Roetto, 45, of Bedminster, pleaded guilty to an accusation charging her with second-degree theft by unlawful taking, second-degree issuing bad checks, and second-degree misconduct by a corporate official before Superior Court Judge Thomas V. Manahan in Morris County.
Judge Manahan scheduled sentencing for Dec. 19.Under the plea agreement, the state will recommend that Roetto be sentenced to nine years in state prison. In addition, Roetto will be ordered to pay restitution and will agree to never again obtain an insurance license in the State of New Jersey.

“This defendant used her position of trust within this insurance brokerage firm to divert millions of dollars,” Attorney General Chiesa said. “My office will continue to work with the insurance industry to root out corrupt insurance brokers.”

“This crime attacked the integrity of our insurance system by deceiving both companies seeking insurance and companies that finance such insurance,” Acting Insurance Fraud Prosecutor Ronald Chillemi said. “Such crimes warrant vigorous prosecution and serious sanctions.”

At the time of the crime, Roetto was the controller for a now-defunct insurance brokerage called the John A. Rocco Co., Inc. (JarCo), located in Florham Park. JarCo was in the business of obtaining insurance policies on behalf of small and medium-sized trucking, hauling, waste management, moving, and recycling businesses located in New Jersey and New York. As part of its operations, JarCo would arrange for these businesses to finance the cost of such insurance policies, and used its existing relationships with numerous premium finance companies for this purpose. In her capacity as the Controller for JarCo, Roetto was responsible for arranging this financing and for ensuring that the borrowed funds were forwarded from JarCo’s bank accounts to the insurance carriers or their respective agents.

In pleading guilty, Roetto admitted that between January 1, 2008 and May 28, 2010, she used her position as JarCo’s controller to steal between $3,800,000 and $5,000,000 of financed proceeds. The state’s investigation revealed that Roetto was able to perpetrate these offenses by capitalizing on the complexity of the premium finance transaction process using a combination of different schemes.  For example, Roetto admitted that she knew that these finance companies sent financed proceeds to JarCo with the understanding that they would be used to purchase insurance policies on behalf of businesses seeking coverage.  She further admitted that on numerous occasions she failed to send this money to the carriers and, instead, exercised unlawful control over such money by using it for a purpose other than its intended purpose.

Roetto also admitted that she caused unauthorized finance agreements to be submitted to these finance companies and that she used the proceeds obtained in connection with these unauthorized agreements for unlawful purposes. In addition, Roetto admitted that she used her position to issue more than 200 bad checks totaling more than $2,000,000.  These checks were drawn on many of JarCo’s bank accounts at not fewer than 10 banks.

Read More About Insurance Company/Employer Fraud
Jul 12, 2012
Corporate Workers Compensation Fraud: California Targets Underground Economy. Sweep targets contractors operating in California's underground economy. Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones today announced that a ...
Apr 11, 2011
Perception is reality until proven otherwise, and when it comes to fraud in the workers' compensation system there is the perception that employee fraud is widespread and costs are up because of employee fraud. Could that ...
Mar 04, 2012
Premium Fraud: North Carolina Man Sentenced on Workers' Compensation Insurance Scam. English: The Seal of the United States Federal... Image via Wikipedia. Wifredo A. Ferrer, United States Attorney for the Southern ...
Apr 14, 2011
In recent testimony before the US House of Representatives' Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, David C. Williams, Inspector General of the US Postal Service, reported widespread fraud in the system, and with ...

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

AAJ Publishes Report on Insurance Companies

The American Association for Justice (AAJ) has published a report, "Tricks of the Trade: How Insurance Companies Deny, Delay, Confuse and Refuse."


"The U.S. insurance industry has trillions of dollars in assets, enjoys average profits of over $30 billion a year, and pays its CEOs more than any other industry. But insurance companies still engage in dirty tricks and unethical behavior to boost their bottom line even further."


The repoort describes methods that it alleges that insurance companies utilize to make money at the expense of consumers.
The tactics insurance companies use against consumers include:

Denying Claims: Some of the nation’s biggest insurance companies – Allstate, AIG, and State Farm among others – have systematically denied valid claims in an attempt to boost their bottom lines. These companies have rewarded employees who successfully denied claims, replaced employees who would not, and when all else failed, engaged in outright fraud to avoid paying claims.

Delaying until Death: Many insurance companies routinely delay claims, even going as far as to lock paperwork in safes, knowing full well that many policyholders will simply give up. In the words of one regulator, “the bottom line is that insurance companies make money when they don’t pay claims… They’ll do anything to avoid paying, because if they wait long enough, they know the policyholders will die.”

Confusing Consumers: Insurance contracts are some of the densest and incomprehensible contracts a consumer is ever likely to see. More than half of all states have enacted “plain English” laws for consumer contracts, yet many Americans still do not fully understand the risks they are subject to.

Discriminating By Credit Score: Insurance companies are increasingly using credit reports to dictate the premiums you pay, or whether you can even get insurance in the first place. The practice penalizes senior citizens with little credit, those who responsibly pay bills every month with cash or check, or those who have suffered financial crisis through no fault of their own.

Abandoning the Sick: Health insurers looking to cut costs have taken to retroactively canceling, or rescinding, the policies of people whose conditions have become expensive to treat. Some insurance companies have even offered bonuses to employees who meet “cancellation goals” – cancer patients in the middle of chemotherapy have even been targeted.

Canceling for a Call: Many people are rightly reluctant to make small claims on their home insurance for fear their insurance company will raise their premiums. But few realize that insurance companies often refuse to renew a policy just for making a phone call. Often an insurance company will count an inquiry over the phone as the same as a claim, and then they will do everything in their power to drop you.

Thursday, July 12, 2012

Corporate Workers Compensation Fraud: California Targets Underground Economy

Sweep targets contractors operating in California's underground economy

Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones today announced that a statewide joint task force in the fight against California's underground economy has netted contractors allegedly operating illegally, resulting in 104 enforcement actions.

"Operation Underground took aim at the "off the books" activity of unscrupulous contractors allegedly operating illegally or without proper coverage for their workers," said Commissioner Jones. "In doing so, they not only failed to protect their employees, but they create unfair competition in California."

"Participants in the state's underground economy are harmful to everyone," said CSLB Registrar Steve Sands. "Anyone who neglects their responsibility to comply with state contracting, insurance, and payroll requirements drives up premiums. At the same time, legitimate licensed contractors are being underbid and struggle because of these illegal business practices."

Detectives from the California Department of Insurance (CDI), the Contractors State License Board (CSLB), Employment Development Department (EDD), and County District Attorneys' offices partnered for a series of sweeps at suspected illegal construction sites on June 20 and 21, 2012. Supplied with information in part from the State Compensation Insurance Fund (State Fund), sweeps were conducted in 11 counties, where enforcement actions were issued for violations including failure to carry workers' compensation insurance, under-reporting the number of workers to obtain cheaper insurance premiums and to pay less payroll withholding tax, and cash payment to hide unregulated practices. Uninsured, untaxed, unlicensed, and unregulated activity is referred to as the underground economy.

Sweeps took place in cities within Alameda, Butte, El Dorado, Kern, Los Angeles, Monterey, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Santa Clara, and Yolo Counties. These actions resulted in 104 enforcement actions against contractors that failed to obtain the appropriate workers' compensation insurance coverage for workers, obtain the required contractor's license, or comply with payroll tax withholding requirements. Some received stop orders for the workers' compensation violations, which means they are not allowed to use employee labor until they obtained a policy for their workers and submit proof of that coverage to CSLB.

Highlights of the two-day operation, by county, are as follows:

  • Investigators issued two citations for workers' comp violations and stop orders in Pleasanton. One of them also faces contracting without a license charges. In Dublin, one was cited for workers' comp violations and received a stop order (Alameda County).
  • Investigators in Chico opened one insurance investigation; and two contracting citations are pending in Paradise (Butte County).
  • Six citations were issued for workers' comp violations, and three investigations and audits were opened in South Lake Tahoe (El Dorado County).
  • In Bakersfield, two insurance investigations and two EDD investigations were opened (Kern County).
  • One contractor caught in Inglewood and another in Santa Clarita will face tax audits (Los Angeles County).
  • One insurance investigation was opened in Salinas and four insurance investigations were opened in Monterey County; three were cited for workers' comp violations in Pebble Beach; one was cited in Carmel for contracting without a license and illegal advertising; and two were cited for workers' comp violations and received stop orders (Monterey County).
  • Two contractors caught in Riverside face EDD audits, along with one in Temecula (Riverside County). One contractor caught in Ontario received a citation for workers' comp violations and faces an EDD audit; one caught in Chino Hills faces an EDD audit; one contractor at a Fontana jobsite received a citation for aiding and abetting a non-licensee who was cited for contracting without a license and failure to carry workers' comp; and one EDD audit was opened in Upland (San Bernardino County).
  • Sixteen EDD audits were opened and one person was cited for workers' comp violations in San Jose; and one EDD audit was opened in Campbell (Santa Clara County).
  • In Woodland, investigators issued six stop orders for workers' comp violations and opened six investigations for insurance and tax fraud (Yolo County).

"This enforcement activity is a result of the partnership under the Joint Enforcement Strike Force which is made up of various state agencies including CDI, CSLB and EDD to aggressively combat the underground economy," said Jones. "Legitimate businesses that play by the rules are often forced to close their doors because illegal businesses are cheating the system."

Commissioner Jones offers the following tips for consumers when hiring a contractor:
Call the Contractors State License Board at 800-321-2752 or visit their Web site at www.cslb.ca.gov to check a contractor's license number or get further information on home and property repairs.



  1. Deal only with licensed contractors. Ask to see the contractor's "pocket license," together with other identification. If the person claims to be representing a contractor, but can't show you a contractor's license or home improvement salesperson registration card, call the contractor and find out if the person is authorized to act on the contractor's behalf.
  2. Do not do business with a contractor who does not carry the appropriate insurance coverage. If the contractor is not insured, you may be liable for accidents that occur on your property. Ask the contractor if he/she carries general liability and workers' compensation insurance. Request a certificate of insurance (COI) from the contractor that shows the name of the insurance company, policy number and policy limits the contractor carries. Contact the insurance company directly to verify information on the COI.
  3. Don't rush into signing a contract. Collect business cards, interview several contractors, and request multiple bids for comparison. Make sure to read the fine print on all estimates and contracts.
  4. Obtain estimates from at least three contractors before deciding which to hire.
  5. Beware of building contractors that encourage you to spend a lot of money on temporary repairs.
  6. Hire local, licensed contractors when possible, as it is easier to deal with a local contractor if problems develop. However, since it may not always be possible to deal with local contractor, be particularly careful to thoroughly check references for out-of-town contractors.
  7. Get everything the contractor discusses in writing. Also, if changes or modifications occur in the contract terms, they should be acknowledged by all parties in writing.
  8. Never sign a contract with blanks that have not been filled in. Unscrupulous contractors may fill in the blanks later with unacceptable terms.
  9. Never pay a contractor for the entire project in advance or before the work is completed. California law requires that the amount of the down payment for any one improvement project, other than for construction of a swimming pool, may not exceed $1,000 or 10% of the contract price, excluding finance charges, whichever is less.
  10. Be especially suspicious of door-to-door sales people who make unrealistically low estimates, refuse to leave a contract overnight, or try to sell their services by playing on your emotions.
  11. Federal law requires a three-day "cooling off" period for unsolicited door-to-door sales of more than $25.

Consumers with questions or concerns regarding insurance, or who feel they have been a victim of insurance fraud, are urged to contact the California Department of Insurance at 800-927-HELP (4357) or online at www.insurance.ca.gov.

Tuesday, August 13, 2024

NJ Supreme Court to Review Workplace Insurance Exclusion

The NJ Supreme Court will review whether a workers’ compensation insurance company has a duty to defend an employer against personal injury claims brought by the employer’s employee under an employer's liability insurance policy.

Sunday, February 7, 2021

Investigative Report Raises Issues

The tension between public pension systems and workers' compensation programs was highlighted in a recent investigative report by the NJ State Comptroller. The report raises additional critical issues common to other state and national collateral social insurance programs challenged by current fiscal limitations.

Tuesday, September 5, 2023

Implementing AI for Workers’ Compensation Law Firms and Insurance Companies

Artificial intelligence [AI] opens new frontiers for workers’ compensation law firms and insurance companies. Last week, Google announced new applications that will vastly expand how workers’ compensation claims can be serviced, managed, and supported.

Thursday, June 25, 2015

The Path to Federalization: US Supreme Court Again Validates the Affordable Care Act

The US Supreme Court again affirmed the validity of The Affordable Care Act. The Obamacare program, as it has been nicknamed, will continue to lead to a medical delivery program than eventually will have major repercussions on the antiquated and ineffective medical care system of the existing patch work of state workers' compensation insurance acts.

Thursday, January 19, 2023

Insurance Agent's Conduct Determines Liability for Failure to Inform an Employer of Workers' Compensation Coverage Options

The NJ Supreme court held that the insurance agent's conduct must be a willful, wanton, or grossly negligent act of commission or omission for failure to advise an employer about workers' compensation coverage for a Limited Liability Corporation.

Thursday, March 22, 2018

Massachusetts Reaches Workers' Compensation Rate Settlement

Massachusetts businesses will save approximately $150 million under a settlement Attorney General Maura Healey reached with the State Rating Bureau (SRB) and the Workers’ Compensation Rating and Inspection Bureau (WCRIB). The settlement, which follows the AG’s intervention in an administrative rate proceeding at the Division of Insurance, results in an average rate rollback of 12.9 percent on workers’ compensation insurance in the state.

Thursday, May 28, 2020

Rep. Maloney Joins with Industry and Trade Association Leaders to Introduce the Pandemic Risk Insurance Act

Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY), senior member of the House Financial Services Committee, today joined with various stakeholders to introduce H.R. 7011, the Pandemic Risk Insurance Act of 2020 (PRIA). This legislation will create the Pandemic Risk Reinsurance Program, a system of shared public and private compensation for business interruption losses resulting from future pandemics or public health emergencies.

Sunday, January 25, 2015

Insurance Fraud: California insurance broker ordered to repay victim

Today's post is shared from montereyherald.com
A Marina man was placed on felony probation and ordered to pay victim restitution after pleading to two counts of theft of funds by a broker/agent and one misdemeanor count of identity theft, District Attorney Dean Flippo announced.
Ernie Morris, 45, was ordered to repay $33,444, Flippo said, after investigators determined that he was conducting insurance business without a license.
The investigation began after a complaint by the FirstComp Insurance Agency to the California Department of Insurance (CDI).
The investigation revealed that the defendant fraudulently obtained workers’ compensation insurance and auto insurance premiums from multiple clients and failed to remit the money to the insurance companies.
Flippo said the defendant claimed to have a license to sell insurance and then became partners with another individual who obtained a license. The defendant used his partner’s license in order to sell workers’ compensation and auto insurance policies to clients.
The defendant then deposited the victim’s money into his own personal and single business account without obtaining the policies and diverting the money for his own personal use.
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Sunday, March 4, 2012

Premium Fraud: North Carolina Man Sentenced on Workers’ Compensation Insurance Scam

English: The Seal of the United States Federal...Image via Wikipedia

Wifredo A. Ferrer, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, John V. Gillies, Special Agent in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Miami Field Office, and Dan Anderson, Director, Department of Financial Services, Division of Insurance Fraud, announce yesterday’s sentencing of defendant Carl Dale Fuller, 52, of Wake Forest, North Carolina. U.S. District Court Judge Donald L. Graham, sitting in Ft. Pierce, Florida, sentenced Fuller to five years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release. In addition, Fuller was ordered to pay $2, 859,067 in mandatory restitution.

Fuller previously pled guilty to mail fraud in connection with a scheme to defraud National Employees Services (NES) of more than $2.8 million in what the company believed were insurance premiums for workers compensation insurance. NES, a Florida Corporation located in Avon Park, Florida, is a provider of cost-effective services for businesses that out-source employee insurance, including workers compensation insurance.

To execute his scheme, Fuller used the name David Walters in e-mails and phone calls and held himself out to NES as an insurance broker. Fuller falsely claimed that he would obtain workers compensation insurance policies for NES and the companies they represented. Instead, Fuller kept the payments and never provided insurance coverage.

From mid-2005 through September 2008, Fuller received more than $2 million of NES premium payments, which he used to fund his extravagant lifestyle in Wake Forest and Pinehurst, North Carolina. NES sent the premiums to Fuller under the name of Southeast Services, a company created and controlled by Fuller. The checks were deposited into numerous accounts all controlled by Fuller.

Mr. Ferrer commended the investigative efforts of the FBI and the Department of Financial Services, Division of Insurance Fraud. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Adrienne Rabinowitz, Emalyn Webber and Ellen Cohen.