by Thomas D. Begley, Jr., Esquire, CELA<\/p>\n
In any recovery involving a personal injury case, the interest of Medicare must be considered.<\/sup>[1]<\/sup><\/a> The idea is that because Medicare is a secondary payer, a beneficiary should not be permitted to receive a recovery for future medical care, pocket the money, and then bill Medicare for that future medical care.<\/p>\n Are MSAs Appropriate in TPL Cases?<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n A Medicare Set-Aside Arrangement (MSA) is never required. In the context of Workers\u2019 Compensation (WC) settlements it is a safe harbor. It should be a safe harbor in the context of Third Party Liability (TPL) settlements as well.<\/p>\n In June 2012, The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.[2]<\/a> The rulemaking would outline procedures for MSAs in TPL cases. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) did not approve the proposed rule and CMS withdrew it on October 8, 2014.<\/sup>[3]<\/sup><\/a> That leaves practitioners in the (more…)<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" by Thomas D. Begley, Jr., Esquire, CELA In any recovery involving a personal injury case, the interest of Medicare must be considered.[1] The idea is that because Medicare is a secondary payer, a beneficiary should not be permitted to receive…<\/span><\/p>\n