At the request of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the IOM appointed a committee to examine the rationale and feasibility of incorporating occupational information in patients’ EHRs. The committee focused on the potential benefits of the inclusion of occupational information to individual and public health, current systems that use this information, and technical barriers to incorporating occupational information into the EHR. The IOM concluded that three data elements – occupation, industry, and work-relatedness – were ready for immediate focus. To incorporate these data into EHRs, recommendations were made that include assessment of data collection and incorporation, requirements for storing and communicating occupational information, development of metrics and performance measures, and assessment of privacy concerns, among others.
Copyright
(c) 2010-2026 Jon L Gelman, All Rights Reserved.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
The Need to Incorporate Occupational Histories Into Electronic Medical Records
Each year in the United States, more than 4,000 occupational fatalities and more than 3 million occupational injuries occur along with more than 160,000 cases of occupational illnesses. The use of electronic health records (EHRs) has increased rapidly since the passage of the 2009 Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act. Incorporating patients’ occupational information into EHRs could lead to more informed clinical diagnosis and treatment plans as well as more effective policies, interventions, and prevention strategies to improve the overall health of the working population.
At the request of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the IOM appointed a committee to examine the rationale and feasibility of incorporating occupational information in patients’ EHRs. The committee focused on the potential benefits of the inclusion of occupational information to individual and public health, current systems that use this information, and technical barriers to incorporating occupational information into the EHR. The IOM concluded that three data elements – occupation, industry, and work-relatedness – were ready for immediate focus. To incorporate these data into EHRs, recommendations were made that include assessment of data collection and incorporation, requirements for storing and communicating occupational information, development of metrics and performance measures, and assessment of privacy concerns, among others.
At the request of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the IOM appointed a committee to examine the rationale and feasibility of incorporating occupational information in patients’ EHRs. The committee focused on the potential benefits of the inclusion of occupational information to individual and public health, current systems that use this information, and technical barriers to incorporating occupational information into the EHR. The IOM concluded that three data elements – occupation, industry, and work-relatedness – were ready for immediate focus. To incorporate these data into EHRs, recommendations were made that include assessment of data collection and incorporation, requirements for storing and communicating occupational information, development of metrics and performance measures, and assessment of privacy concerns, among others.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Employer Co-Op Pays OSHA Fines after 26 Industry Employee Deaths
US Labor Department's OSHA reaches settlement with Wisconsin-based Cooperative Plus to improve grain bin safety training, abate hazards Cooperative to pay $550,000 in penalties for grain violations
The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration has filed a settlement agreement with the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission between the agency and Cooperative Plus Inc., after the farmer-owned Wisconsin cooperative agreed to pay $550,000 in penalties, increase employee grain bin safety training and abate all safety issues at its grain handling facilities in Whitewater, Burlington, East Troy and Genoa City.
"At least 26 workers were killed in grain entrapments nationwide last year, the highest number of any year since researchers started collecting data in 1978, but there are well-known safety practices that can be implemented to prevent these tragedies," said Mike Connors, OSHA's regional administrator in Chicago. "We are pleased to reach this agreement. The procedures and training that Cooperative Plus agreed to implement will ensure that these often deadly entrapments will not happen again."
As part of the settlement agreement, Cooperative Plus will provide site-specific training for all employees exposed to potential hazards identified by OSHA's grain handling, permit-required confined space and lockout standards. The cooperative also will schedule confined space and bin entry rescue drills semiannually, and provide 10 hours of training to newly hired and current employees whose duties expose them to potential hazards addressed by these standards.
Additionally, the cooperative will develop and implement a program to manage the risk of grain handling that includes safe methods to inspect grain and dislodge clumps of grain to empty the bin; develop lockout/tagout procedures for augers, conveyors and other equipment prior to bin entry; and develop engineering controls to abate hazards posed by bridged and castled grain. The company will audit work to ensure that all employees are properly trained in program rules and OSHA safety standards.
Finally, the company agreed to retain at least one independent safety consultant and to comply with OSHA follow-up inspections over a two-year period.
OSHA cited Cooperative Plus Inc. for a total of 14 willful, 23 serious and two other-than-serious safety violations in August 2010 for lacking proper equipment and procedures, thereby exposing workers to the risk of being engulfed and suffocated in grain storage bins.
Since 2009, OSHA has fined grain operators in Wisconsin, Illinois, Colorado, South Dakota, Ohio and Nebraska following preventable fatalities and injuries. In addition to enforcement actions and training, OSHA Assistant Secretary Dr. David Michaels sent a notification letter in August 2010 to grain elevator operators warning them not to allow workers to enter grain storage facilities without proper equipment. For a copy of the letter, visit http://www.osha.gov/asst-sec/Grain_letter.html.
Burlington-headquartered Cooperative Plus has locations throughout southeastern Wisconsin, including in Clinton, East Troy, Elkhorn, Genoa City, Union Grove and Whitewater. The company has a combined member-ownership of more than 10,000 and annual sales of more than $50 million.
To ask questions, obtain compliance assistance, file a complaint, or report workplace hospitalizations, fatalities or situations posing imminent danger to workers, the public should call OSHA's toll-free hotline at 800-321-OSHA (6742) or the agency's Milwaukee Area Office at 414-297-3315.
Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA's role is to ensure these conditions for America's working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance. For more information, visit http://www.osha.gov.
"At least 26 workers were killed in grain entrapments nationwide last year, the highest number of any year since researchers started collecting data in 1978, but there are well-known safety practices that can be implemented to prevent these tragedies," said Mike Connors, OSHA's regional administrator in Chicago. "We are pleased to reach this agreement. The procedures and training that Cooperative Plus agreed to implement will ensure that these often deadly entrapments will not happen again."
As part of the settlement agreement, Cooperative Plus will provide site-specific training for all employees exposed to potential hazards identified by OSHA's grain handling, permit-required confined space and lockout standards. The cooperative also will schedule confined space and bin entry rescue drills semiannually, and provide 10 hours of training to newly hired and current employees whose duties expose them to potential hazards addressed by these standards.
Additionally, the cooperative will develop and implement a program to manage the risk of grain handling that includes safe methods to inspect grain and dislodge clumps of grain to empty the bin; develop lockout/tagout procedures for augers, conveyors and other equipment prior to bin entry; and develop engineering controls to abate hazards posed by bridged and castled grain. The company will audit work to ensure that all employees are properly trained in program rules and OSHA safety standards.
Finally, the company agreed to retain at least one independent safety consultant and to comply with OSHA follow-up inspections over a two-year period.
OSHA cited Cooperative Plus Inc. for a total of 14 willful, 23 serious and two other-than-serious safety violations in August 2010 for lacking proper equipment and procedures, thereby exposing workers to the risk of being engulfed and suffocated in grain storage bins.
Since 2009, OSHA has fined grain operators in Wisconsin, Illinois, Colorado, South Dakota, Ohio and Nebraska following preventable fatalities and injuries. In addition to enforcement actions and training, OSHA Assistant Secretary Dr. David Michaels sent a notification letter in August 2010 to grain elevator operators warning them not to allow workers to enter grain storage facilities without proper equipment. For a copy of the letter, visit http://www.osha.gov/asst-sec/Grain_letter.html.
Burlington-headquartered Cooperative Plus has locations throughout southeastern Wisconsin, including in Clinton, East Troy, Elkhorn, Genoa City, Union Grove and Whitewater. The company has a combined member-ownership of more than 10,000 and annual sales of more than $50 million.
To ask questions, obtain compliance assistance, file a complaint, or report workplace hospitalizations, fatalities or situations posing imminent danger to workers, the public should call OSHA's toll-free hotline at 800-321-OSHA (6742) or the agency's Milwaukee Area Office at 414-297-3315.
Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA's role is to ensure these conditions for America's working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance. For more information, visit http://www.osha.gov.
Related articles
- Employee Death From MRSA Infection Spreads Fear Among Co-Workers (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
- SeaWorld killer whale attacks expose incomplete incident reporting (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
- US Dept of Labor Moves Aggressively on Misclassification of Employees (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
- Work Injury During Sex: Ridiculous? (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
- OSHA Cites Manufacturers and Distributors of Formaldehyde Hair Products (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
Trade Association Labels Formaldehyde Unsafe & Advocates Removal from Hair Straightening Products
After a long period of deliberation the mostly unregulated cosmetic industry's own trade association, through its reviewing agency, the Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel (CIR) has declared formaldehyde and methylene glycol unsafe and requested its removal from hair straightening products. US government regulators have labeled the substance as carcinogenic and warned both users and workers of the hazards.
"In concept, therefore, limits on the concentration of formaldehyde/methylene glycol in hair smoothing products, control of the amount of product applied, use of temperature lower than 450 o F, and approaches to mandate adequate ventilation, are among the steps that could be taken to ensure that these products could be used safely in the future. However, in the present practices of use and concentration (on the order of 10% formaldehyde/methylene glycol, heating to 450 o F, inconsistent ventilation, resulting in many reports of adverse effects), hair smoothing products containing formaldehyde and methylene glycol are unsafe."
The CIR continues to advocate that formaldehyde and methylene glycol are safe for use in other products.
"In concept, therefore, limits on the concentration of formaldehyde/methylene glycol in hair smoothing products, control of the amount of product applied, use of temperature lower than 450 o F, and approaches to mandate adequate ventilation, are among the steps that could be taken to ensure that these products could be used safely in the future. However, in the present practices of use and concentration (on the order of 10% formaldehyde/methylene glycol, heating to 450 o F, inconsistent ventilation, resulting in many reports of adverse effects), hair smoothing products containing formaldehyde and methylene glycol are unsafe."
The CIR continues to advocate that formaldehyde and methylene glycol are safe for use in other products.
Related articles
- Brazilian Hair Treatment Comes Under F.D.A. Fire (well.blogs.nytimes.com)
- FDA moves to pull hair straightening product from market (boston.com)
- OSHA Cites Manufacturers and Distributors of Formaldehyde Hair Products
- Formaldehyde is a Cancer Causing Agent Reports US Government
- Nail Salon Workers at Risk for Occupational Exposures
- NY State Issues Health Alert for Hair Straightening Products and Formaldehyde
Work Injury During Sex: Ridiculous?
Guest Blog by Thomas M. Domer
Not really. From time to time lurid headlines raise eyebrows about employees who claim workers' compensation for injuries occurred during sex. The most common response is “How ridiculous . . . The employee is not being paid to have sex (unless she is a hooker).”
A most recent headline notes an Australian woman who had hotel sex with an acquaintance and was injured when a wall-mounted light fell on her during the encounter. She sought workers' compensation because the incident occurred during a business trip and she claimed having sex on a business trip is “an ordinary incident of life” that entitles her to payment under workers' compensation law.
Not really. From time to time lurid headlines raise eyebrows about employees who claim workers' compensation for injuries occurred during sex. The most common response is “How ridiculous . . . The employee is not being paid to have sex (unless she is a hooker).”
A most recent headline notes an Australian woman who had hotel sex with an acquaintance and was injured when a wall-mounted light fell on her during the encounter. She sought workers' compensation because the incident occurred during a business trip and she claimed having sex on a business trip is “an ordinary incident of life” that entitles her to payment under workers' compensation law.
Traveling employees receive broad workers' compensation coverage in Wisconsin under a 3-step analysis:
The traveling employee provision was created to remedy situations in which employees, whose work required them to live away from home for periods of time, were not compensated for injuries sustained during normal activities of daily living on a business trip. Wisconsin Supreme Court has issued a presumption that a traveling employee performs services incidental to employment at all times on a trip, with the burden of proving deviation falling to the employer.
Such widely varied activities as skiing, shopping, drinking, and swimming have been found compensable under the traveling employee statute. Recent court cases confirm that traveling employees may participate in reasonable recreational activities without deviating from their employment.
Many employee trips have a “dual purpose,” both personal and business. The Court’s criteria for coverage: If the business purpose could necessitate the trip even if the personal trip were cancelled, compensation is awarded.
Thomas M. Domer practices in Milwaukee, Wisconsin (www.domerlaw.com). He has authored and edited several publications including the legal treatise Wisconsin Workers' Compensation Law (West) and he is the Editor of the national publication, Workers' First Watch. Tom is past chair of the Workers' Compensation Section of the American Association for Justice. He is a charter Fellow in the College of Workers' Compensation Lawyers. He co-authors the nationally recognized Wisconsin Workers' Compensation Experts Blog.
- Traveling employees are deemed to be in the course of employment at all times while on a trip (portal to portal);
- Except when engaged in deviation for a private or personal purpose;
- Acts reasonably necessary for or incidental to living are not deviations.
The traveling employee provision was created to remedy situations in which employees, whose work required them to live away from home for periods of time, were not compensated for injuries sustained during normal activities of daily living on a business trip. Wisconsin Supreme Court has issued a presumption that a traveling employee performs services incidental to employment at all times on a trip, with the burden of proving deviation falling to the employer.
Such widely varied activities as skiing, shopping, drinking, and swimming have been found compensable under the traveling employee statute. Recent court cases confirm that traveling employees may participate in reasonable recreational activities without deviating from their employment.
Many employee trips have a “dual purpose,” both personal and business. The Court’s criteria for coverage: If the business purpose could necessitate the trip even if the personal trip were cancelled, compensation is awarded.
Thomas M. Domer practices in Milwaukee, Wisconsin (www.domerlaw.com). He has authored and edited several publications including the legal treatise Wisconsin Workers' Compensation Law (West) and he is the Editor of the national publication, Workers' First Watch. Tom is past chair of the Workers' Compensation Section of the American Association for Justice. He is a charter Fellow in the College of Workers' Compensation Lawyers. He co-authors the nationally recognized Wisconsin Workers' Compensation Experts Blog.
Related articles
Employee Death From MRSA Infection Spreads Fear Among Co-Workers
A 28 year old employee's death caused by a MRSA infection has spread fear among co-workers at a NJ Motor Vehicle office. The infection, Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA), is a highly contagious disease. Co-workers allege that the dead employee was infected by a customer.
See the NJ Journal Article: http://bit.ly/q9zHwp
See the NJ Journal Article: http://bit.ly/q9zHwp
Related articles
- OSHA To Focus on Infections in the Workplace
- 3 Ways Infection Become Compensable in Workers Compensation
- Hospitals Are Not For Sick People
- Silica WOrkers Are Prone to Fungal Infections
- Hospital Acquired Infections: The Wave of Litigation
- NIOSH US CDC: MRSA and the Workplace
- PUB MED Search for "Community-Associated" MRSA Infections
Sunday, October 2, 2011
New CMS Policy Announced: Asbestos Exposure, Ingestion, and Implantation Issues and December 5, 1980
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has consistently applied the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) provision for liability insurance (including self-insurance) effective 12/5/1980. As a matter of policy, Medicare does not assert a MSP liability insurance based recovery claim against settlements, judgments, awards, or other payments, where the date of incident (DOI) occurred before 12/5/1980.
When a case involves continued exposure to an environmental hazard, or continued ingestion of a particular substance, Medicare focuses on the date of last exposure or ingestion for purposes of determining whether the exposure or ingestion occurred on or after 12/5/1980. Similarly, in cases involving ruptured implants that allegedly led to a toxic exposure, the exposure guidance or date of last exposure is used. For non-ruptured implanted medical devices, Medicare focuses on the date the implant was removed. (Note: The term “exposure” refers to the claimant’s actual physical exposure to the alleged environmental toxin, not the defendant’s legal exposure to liability.)
In the following situations, Medicare will assert a recovery claim against settlements, judgments, awards, or other payments, and the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (MMSEA) Section 111 MSP mandatory reporting rules must be followed:
• Exposure, ingestion, or the alleged effects of an implant on or after 12/5/1980 is claimed, released, or effectively released.
• A specified length of exposure or ingestion is required in order for the claimant to obtain the settlement, judgment, award, or other payment, and the claimant’s date of first exposure plus the specified length of time in the settlement, judgment, award or other payment equals a date on or after 12/5/1980. This also applies to implanted medical devices.
• A requirement of the settlement, judgment, award, or other payment is that the claimant was exposed to, or ingested, a substance on or after 12/5/1980. This rule also applies if the settlement, judgment, award, or other payment depends on an implant that was never removed or was removed on or after 12/5/1980.
When ALL of the following criteria are met, Medicare will not assert a recovery claim against a liability insurance (including self-insurance) settlement, judgment, award, or other payment; and MMSEA Section 111 MSP reporting is not required. (Note: Where multiple defendants are involved, the claimant must meet all of these criteria for each individual defendant in order for a settlement, judgment, award, or other payment from that defendant to be exempt from a potential
MSP recovery claim and MMSEA Section 111 reporting):
•All exposure or ingestion ended, or the implant was removed before 12/5/1980; and
•Exposure, ingestion, or an implant on or after 12/5/1980 has not been claimed and/or specifically released; and,
•There is either no release for the exposure, ingestion, or an implant on or after 12/5/1980; or where there is such a release, it is a broad general release (rather than a specific release), which effectively releases exposure or ingestion on or after 12/5/1980. The rule also applies if the broad general release involves an implant.
For Specific Examples Click Here To Read the CMS Memo
REPORTING REMINDER:
Information related to the MMSEA Section 111 MSP reporting requirements can be found at
www.cms.hhs.gov/MandatoryInsRep. When reporting a potential settlement, judgment, award, or other payment related to exposure, ingestion, or implantation, the date of first exposure/date of first ingestion/date of implantation is the date that MUST be reported as the DOI. This is true for purposes of individual self-identification of a pending claim to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ Coordination of Benefits Contractor, as well as for MMSEA Section 111 reporting.
Related articles
When a case involves continued exposure to an environmental hazard, or continued ingestion of a particular substance, Medicare focuses on the date of last exposure or ingestion for purposes of determining whether the exposure or ingestion occurred on or after 12/5/1980. Similarly, in cases involving ruptured implants that allegedly led to a toxic exposure, the exposure guidance or date of last exposure is used. For non-ruptured implanted medical devices, Medicare focuses on the date the implant was removed. (Note: The term “exposure” refers to the claimant’s actual physical exposure to the alleged environmental toxin, not the defendant’s legal exposure to liability.)
• Exposure, ingestion, or the alleged effects of an implant on or after 12/5/1980 is claimed, released, or effectively released.
• A specified length of exposure or ingestion is required in order for the claimant to obtain the settlement, judgment, award, or other payment, and the claimant’s date of first exposure plus the specified length of time in the settlement, judgment, award or other payment equals a date on or after 12/5/1980. This also applies to implanted medical devices.
• A requirement of the settlement, judgment, award, or other payment is that the claimant was exposed to, or ingested, a substance on or after 12/5/1980. This rule also applies if the settlement, judgment, award, or other payment depends on an implant that was never removed or was removed on or after 12/5/1980.
When ALL of the following criteria are met, Medicare will not assert a recovery claim against a liability insurance (including self-insurance) settlement, judgment, award, or other payment; and MMSEA Section 111 MSP reporting is not required. (Note: Where multiple defendants are involved, the claimant must meet all of these criteria for each individual defendant in order for a settlement, judgment, award, or other payment from that defendant to be exempt from a potential
MSP recovery claim and MMSEA Section 111 reporting):
•All exposure or ingestion ended, or the implant was removed before 12/5/1980; and
•Exposure, ingestion, or an implant on or after 12/5/1980 has not been claimed and/or specifically released; and,
•There is either no release for the exposure, ingestion, or an implant on or after 12/5/1980; or where there is such a release, it is a broad general release (rather than a specific release), which effectively releases exposure or ingestion on or after 12/5/1980. The rule also applies if the broad general release involves an implant.
For Specific Examples Click Here To Read the CMS Memo
REPORTING REMINDER:
Information related to the MMSEA Section 111 MSP reporting requirements can be found at
www.cms.hhs.gov/MandatoryInsRep. When reporting a potential settlement, judgment, award, or other payment related to exposure, ingestion, or implantation, the date of first exposure/date of first ingestion/date of implantation is the date that MUST be reported as the DOI. This is true for purposes of individual self-identification of a pending claim to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ Coordination of Benefits Contractor, as well as for MMSEA Section 111 reporting.
Related articles
- CMS Announced Status Update and Future Changes (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
- Workers' Compensation Medicare Set-Aside Web Portal (WCMSAP) Webinar (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
- Nebraska Law Would Deny Disability and Death Payments to First Responders in a 9/11-Type Event (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
- The Setoff Nightmare: The Pension Well Runs Dry (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
- Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries Summary, 2010 (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
- Qui Tam Action for MSP Results in Costs to Plaintiff (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
More CMS Resources:
For over 4 decades the Law Offices of Jon L. Gelman 1.973.696.7900 jon@gelmans.com have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational accidents and illnesses.
Friday, September 30, 2011
CMS Announced Status Update and Future Changes
As part of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service (CMS) efforts to continuously improve its Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) program; CMS has posted the following information to the MSP websites:
1) An ALERT delaying the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (MMSEA) Section 111 MSP reporting requirement for certain liability insurance (including self-insurance) settlements, judgments, awards, or other payments is now posted at www.cms.gov/MandatoryInsRep.
2) Policy guidance related to Exposure, Ingestion, and Implantation issues, and December 5, 1980, is now posted at www.cms.gov/MandatoryInsRep and www.cms.gov/COBGeneralInformation.
3) An ALERT related to Qualified Settlement Funds, under Section 468B of the Internal Revenue Code, is now posted at www.cms.gov/MandatoryInsRep.
4) A policy memorandum, for liability insurance (including self-insurance), on the acceptance of the treating physician's certification, and its impact on the issue of protecting Medicare's interests with respect to future medicals is now posted at www.cms.gov/COBGeneralInformation.
In addition, on September 30, 2011, the MSPRC will implement a self-service information feature to its customer service line. This feature gives callers the ability to get the most up-to-date Demand/Conditional Payment amounts, and the dates that those letters were issued, without having to speak to a customer service representative. The self-service feature will be available for extended hours, and callers will have the option of requesting information on multiple cases during one phone call.
Beginning in October 2011, CMS will implement an option to pay a fixed percentage of certain physical trauma-based liability cases with settlement amounts of $5000 or less. Detailed information on this option will be posted as an ALERT, on or before October 21, 2011, on the MSPRC website at www.MSPRC.info.
Upcoming improvements to the MSP program, expected within the next 3-9 months, include the following:
• The implementation of a MSPRC portal, where the beneficiary/representative can obtain information about Medicare's claim payments, demand letters, etc., and input information related to a settlement, disputed claims, etc.
• The implementation of an option that allows for an immediate payment to Medicare for future medical costs that are claimed/released/effectively released in a settlement.
• The implementation of a process that provides Medicare's conditional payment amount, prior to settlement in certain situations.
1) An ALERT delaying the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (MMSEA) Section 111 MSP reporting requirement for certain liability insurance (including self-insurance) settlements, judgments, awards, or other payments is now posted at www.cms.gov/MandatoryInsRep.
2) Policy guidance related to Exposure, Ingestion, and Implantation issues, and December 5, 1980, is now posted at www.cms.gov/MandatoryInsRep and www.cms.gov/COBGeneralInformation.
3) An ALERT related to Qualified Settlement Funds, under Section 468B of the Internal Revenue Code, is now posted at www.cms.gov/MandatoryInsRep.
4) A policy memorandum, for liability insurance (including self-insurance), on the acceptance of the treating physician's certification, and its impact on the issue of protecting Medicare's interests with respect to future medicals is now posted at www.cms.gov/COBGeneralInformation.
In addition, on September 30, 2011, the MSPRC will implement a self-service information feature to its customer service line. This feature gives callers the ability to get the most up-to-date Demand/Conditional Payment amounts, and the dates that those letters were issued, without having to speak to a customer service representative. The self-service feature will be available for extended hours, and callers will have the option of requesting information on multiple cases during one phone call.
Beginning in October 2011, CMS will implement an option to pay a fixed percentage of certain physical trauma-based liability cases with settlement amounts of $5000 or less. Detailed information on this option will be posted as an ALERT, on or before October 21, 2011, on the MSPRC website at www.MSPRC.info.
Upcoming improvements to the MSP program, expected within the next 3-9 months, include the following:
• The implementation of a MSPRC portal, where the beneficiary/representative can obtain information about Medicare's claim payments, demand letters, etc., and input information related to a settlement, disputed claims, etc.
• The implementation of an option that allows for an immediate payment to Medicare for future medical costs that are claimed/released/effectively released in a settlement.
• The implementation of a process that provides Medicare's conditional payment amount, prior to settlement in certain situations.
Related articles
- CMS Announces Four Additional Hardship Exemptions from the 2012 Medicare Payment Reduction and Extends the Exemption Deadline (managemypractice.com)
- Workers' Compensation Medicare Set-Aside Web Portal (WCMSAP) Webinar (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
- Qui Tam Action for MSP Results in Costs to Plaintiff (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
- Nebraska Law Would Deny Disability and Death Payments to First Responders in a 9/11-Type Event (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)