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 American Association for Justice (AAJ) has responded to CMS with respect to this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.<\/sup>[3]<\/sup><\/a> The Notice was submitted to the Office of (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