Medicare Managers Cut a Signature Requirement
The change affects enrollees who are appealing original Medicare and Medicare drug plan claim decisions.
May 10, 2019 at 07:17 PM
2 minute read
Medicare PlanningThe original version of this story was published on Law.com
Medicare program managers are trying to clean up Medicare claims and drug coverage determination appeals rules.
Officials at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), an arm of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, published a batch of new final appeal program regulations this week in the Federal Register.
The new rules may affect clients who want the original Medicare Part A hospitalization benefits program to cover an operation it has not normally covered, or a Medicare Part D plan to cover a drug the plan does not think it ought to cover.
Many of the updates deal with highly technical issues, such as exactly what happens when a patient without a legal representative wants a video teleconference hearing, or an in-person hearing.
One of the somewhat less technical updates deals with the rules for signatures.
Medicare officials have decided to stop asking for signatures on appeal requests for Medicare A hospitalization or Medicare Part B outpatient and physician services appeals, or for Medicare Part D drug plan coverage determination appeals.
Already, "there is no requirement that appeals sign appeals requests for appeals of Part C [Medicare Advantage] organization determinations," officials write in the preamble to the final regulations.
In theory, patients could use signatures could use the signatures to attest to the honesty and accuracy of their requests for appeals, but "given that our existing statutory authority limits our ability to enforce certain attestations, we found the signature requirement unnecessary," officials write.
Officials estimate that Medicare enrollees file 4.5 million appeal requests per year, and that missing signatures now lead the appeals reviewers to dismiss about 284,000 appeal requests per year.
Resources
A copy of the new final regulation is available here.
— Read Feds Say Group Plans Get One Appeal per 2,900 Claims, on ThinkAdvisor.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250