Home
About Us
Welcome Video
Company Overview
Our Purpose
A Message from our CEO
Giving Back
Locations
Testimonials
Leadership
Executive Team
Legal Team
Contact
Phia Certification
Diversity & Inclusion
Privacy Statement
Technology
Careers
Services
Learn - Independent Consultation & Evaluation
Plan - Phia Document Management (PDM)
Plan - Plan Drafting Services
Save - Subrogation & Recovery Services
Save - Claim Negotiation & Signoff (CNS)
Save - Phia Unwrapped
Save - No Surprises Act (NSA)
Protect - Plan Appointed Claim Evaluator (PACE)
Protect - Balance Billing Resolution
Phia International
Media
Webinars
Newsletters
Publications
Blog
Press Releases
Podcasts
Industry Articles
Guide to Understanding Subrogation
Moving To Self-Funded Health Plan Guide
Referenced-Based Pricing Explained
Hospital Price Transparency Guide
Balance-Billing: What Patients Need To Know
Employee Rights With COVID-19 Vaccines
The No Surprises Act Explained
Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act Explained
Understanding Non-Quantitative Treatment Limitations (NQTLs)
The Insulin Cap Bill Offers Hope for Americans With Diabetes
In-Network vs Out-of-Network Claims
Industry Terms
Members Area
FAQs
FAQ - Subrogation & Reimbursement
FAQ - Mass Tort Subrogation & Reimbursement
Questionnaire Response
Make A Payment
|
Login
GO
X
Home
About Us
Welcome Video
Company Overview
Our Purpose
A Message from our CEO
Giving Back
Locations
Testimonials
Leadership
Executive Team
Legal Team
Contact
Phia Certification
Diversity & Inclusion
Privacy Statement
Technology
Careers
Services
Learn - Independent Consultation & Evaluation
Plan - Phia Document Management (PDM)
Plan - Plan Drafting Services
Save - Subrogation & Recovery Services
Save - Claim Negotiation & Signoff (CNS)
Save - Phia Unwrapped
Save - No Surprises Act (NSA)
Protect - Plan Appointed Claim Evaluator (PACE)
Protect - Balance Billing Resolution
Phia International
Media
Webinars
Newsletters
Publications
Blog
Press Releases
Podcasts
Industry Articles
Guide to Understanding Subrogation
Moving To Self-Funded Health Plan Guide
Referenced-Based Pricing Explained
Hospital Price Transparency Guide
Balance-Billing: What Patients Need To Know
Employee Rights With COVID-19 Vaccines
The No Surprises Act Explained
Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act Explained
Understanding Non-Quantitative Treatment Limitations (NQTLs)
The Insulin Cap Bill Offers Hope for Americans With Diabetes
In-Network vs Out-of-Network Claims
Industry Terms
Members Area
FAQs
FAQ - Subrogation & Reimbursement
FAQ - Mass Tort Subrogation & Reimbursement
Questionnaire Response
Make A Payment
Home
+
About Us
Welcome Video
+
Company Overview
Our Purpose
A Message from our CEO
Giving Back
Locations
Testimonials
+
Leadership
Executive Team
Legal Team
Contact
Phia Certification
Diversity & Inclusion
Privacy Statement
Technology
Careers
+
Services
Learn - Independent Consultation & Evaluation
Plan - Phia Document Management (PDM)
Plan - Plan Drafting Services
Save - Subrogation & Recovery Services
Save - Claim Negotiation & Signoff (CNS)
Save - Phia Unwrapped
Save - No Surprises Act (NSA)
Protect - Plan Appointed Claim Evaluator (PACE)
Protect - Balance Billing Resolution
Phia International
-
Media
Webinars
Newsletters
Publications
Blog
Press Releases
Podcasts
+
Industry Articles
Guide to Understanding Subrogation
Moving To Self-Funded Health Plan Guide
Referenced-Based Pricing Explained
Hospital Price Transparency Guide
Balance-Billing: What Patients Need To Know
Employee Rights With COVID-19 Vaccines
The No Surprises Act Explained
Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act Explained
Understanding Non-Quantitative Treatment Limitations (NQTLs)
The Insulin Cap Bill Offers Hope for Americans With Diabetes
In-Network vs Out-of-Network Claims
Industry Terms
+
Members Area
+
FAQs
FAQ - Subrogation & Reimbursement
FAQ - Mass Tort Subrogation & Reimbursement
Questionnaire Response
Make A Payment
Posts
Media
>
Posts
Webinars
Newsletters
Publications
Blog
Press Releases
Podcasts
Industry Articles
Guide to Understanding Subrogation
Moving To Self-Funded Health Plan Guide
Referenced-Based Pricing Explained
Hospital Price Transparency Guide
Balance-Billing: What Patients Need To Know
Employee Rights With COVID-19 Vaccines
The No Surprises Act Explained
Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act Explained
Understanding Non-Quantitative Treatment Limitations (NQTLs)
The Insulin Cap Bill Offers Hope for Americans With Diabetes
In-Network vs Out-of-Network Claims
Industry Terms
Phia Group
Phia Group Media
Are Overpayments Over?
On June 6, 2014 in
Blog
,
Overpayments
Ron E. Peck, Esq.
Illinois Federal Court Issues a Troubling Decision Declaring Overpayment Recoupment to be Identical to Claim Denials; Requiring ERISA Compliant Notification of Adverse Benefit Determination, and Rights of Appeal for the Provider.
Any and all entities involved in the payment of claims must become familiar with the case of Pa. Chiropractic Ass’n v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Ass’n, No. 09 C 519, 2014 WL 1276585 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 28, 2014), and its impact on the pursuit of overpayment refunds!
Below we provide a brief summary of the case and its impact on our valued clients. Upon reviewing the facts, you’ll likely agree with us that a detailed approach to overpayment refunds is needed.
Fortunately for our overpayment clients, The Phia Group’s dedicated team of attorneys, paralegals, and overpayment specialists not only assist their clients in pursuing reimbursement of overpaid amounts, they also provide correspondence for use in that pursuit, which adequately
describe
the reason for the overpayment, identifies applicable plan document provisions, and opens a dialogue with the provider enabling them to respond and request further review.
What’s the Case About?
Do providers have rights under ERISA to file suit?
Determining whether providers are “beneficiaries” under an ERISA plan, the court interpreted “benefit” to include a provider’s rights to receive payment. The court also found that if the plan sets up a payment scheme by which they pay the provider directly, other “anti-assignment” language will not eliminate the provider’s beneficiary status.
Do providers suffer an adverse benefit determination within the meaning of ERISA when the
payer
recoups overpayments?
The court stated that the payer’s “…
practice
of withholding or reducing payments to a provider when it determines that a previous payment was made incorrectly” … “falls within the applicable regulation’s definition of an adverse benefit determination.” This decision was made in response to payer practices of pulling back overpaid claims electronically (when possible) and/or offsetting overpaid amounts by denying future claims submitted by the same provider (regardless of the patient’s identity).
We question whether the characterization of “adverse benefit determination” is tethered more to the determination that an overpayment occurred, or, the later claims denied as an offset. It is also not entirely clear whether recovery of a payment made by pure technical error (computer glitch or math error), rather than because of a coverage determination, would constitute an adverse benefit determination if the funds could be recouped in some way which does not impact unrelated benefit payments.
Regardless, this decision means
payers
seeking to recoup overpayments must initiate a process more akin to denying a claim, complete with notification and an appeals procedure.
The Takeaway:
This case does not deal a death blow to any and all efforts to identify erroneously paid claims and recoup these overpaid amounts. It
does
however, suggest that for any recoupment effort which constitutes an actual “adverse benefit determination” (with the term “benefit” now clearly including payments – even overpayments – made by plans directly to providers), a meaningful notice and appeal process must be set up.
Recouping amounts which were paid due to pure error rather than eligibility or benefits related considerations may not fall within the strictest literal reading of the language of this case, but it seems likely that a later court may interpret the holding to have contemplated the inclusion of such action – applying the term “adverse benefit determination” and all that entails under ERISA, to all overpayments – regardless of cause!
Thus, the safest course, after establishing proper notice and review policies for overpayment determinations, would be to utilize collection methods which do not affect future benefit payments. With this in mind, and in light of this recent ruling and its potential to spread (impacting other venues and jurisdictions), The Phia Group will continue to guide its clients regarding proper procedures for adverse benefit determinations, handling overpayment recoupment efforts, and compliance with applicable law.
To learn more about this case and The Phia Group, please contact me at:
Ron E. Peck, Esq.
The Phia Group, LLC
163 Bay State Dr.
Braintree, MA 02184
rpeck@phiagroup.com
781-535-5617
Tagged With: