Category Federal Health Reform

Self-insured health plans nationwide should look to recover $30 to $45 billion in Plan Asset refunds from the past 10 years of successful plan assets TPA/ASO anti-fraud recoupments and managed care savings in both the public and private sector

As we have written before, ERISA as well as other federal and state regulations have continued to pave the way for providers and patients, however, these same regulations can also pave the way for self-insured employer plans as well.

As more and more industry experts and watchdogs begin to see the light, it is extremely critical for all self-insured health plans and TPAs to understand the multi-billion dollar impact TPA/ASO recoveries can have on all self-insured health plans, including state health plans.

Plans should seek to identify and recover any plan assets that have been removed from the plan trust account to pay benefits, but instead have been retained by the TPA as “hidden fees”

This includes alleged overpayments that have been recouped by the TPAs –and have not been disclosed, restored or refunded to the self-insured plan assets as required under federal statutes and fiduciary responsibilities.

On February 20, 2020, Highmark Inc. announced its Financial Investigations and Provider Review (FIPR) Department realized over $260 million in savings and recoveries related to fraud, waste and abuse in 2019. Additionally, Highmark has saved and recovered over $850 million over the past five years. Highmark Health, the parent company of Highmark Inc., recently reported $629 million in consolidated earnings through just the first two quarters of 2019.

The Highmark announcement comes a little over a month after the United States Department of Justice issued a press release announcing it had recovered $2.6 Billion from fraud and false claims in matters related to healthcare for fiscal year 2019.

In the healthcare provider arena the No. 1 health care claim denial in the country today is the overpayment recoupment and claims-offset.  Correspondingly, for self-insured health plans, the No. 1 hidden cost is overpayment recoupment and plan assets embezzlement. 

The immediate impact of the recent Highmark and Department of Justice announcements, coupled with a 2016 Supreme Court decision could be billions of dollars for self-insured health plans nationwide, as a result of the TPA industry’s potential recovery of billions of dollars in overpayment recoupments and anti-fraud campaigns over the past 10 years.

All self-insured health plans and TPAs should monitor claims data in light of these recent announcements, in view of the fact that almost every TPA for self-insured health plans has engaged in successful overpayment recoupment and offsetting from healthcare providers in today’s multibillion-dollar overpayment recovery and offset industry.

Failure to safeguard plan assets is definitely a fiduciary breach under ERISA, and now the Supreme Court, the United States Department of Justice and Highmark Inc. have given us a legal and practical formula for plan assets recovery, an accessible and legitimate resolution to today’s U.S. healthcare crisis.

As the DOL ramps up audits and enforcement actions in health plan claims and appeals, every self-insured health plan sponsor or fiduciary should keep in mind that they are required to monitor TPA/ASOs successful overpayment recoveries and managed care savings, in order to determine whether:

any of the billions of dollars of successful TPA/ASO overpayment recoupments and offsets nationwide each year are ERISA plan assets

all TPA/ASOs must refund all ERISA plan assets as ERISA prohibits all self-dealing

all self-insured plan administrators are liable for fiduciary breach in failing to safeguard or recover plan assets

The 2016 Supreme Court Montanile decision makes it perfectly clear, any alleged overpayment/lien for a claim in a fully-insured plan cannot attach to a different, self-insured plan fund or claims payment. It’s a basic principle of ERISA that a TPA for a self-insured plan is absolutely barred from converting claims payment/plan assets from the self-insured plan to pay for an alleged overpayment/lien and retain all recovery, for the TPAs own fully-insured account. As alleged in other federal courts, this can be viewed as self-dealing/embezzlement.

The only question now is whether self-insured plan fiduciaries will take immediate corrective actions to safeguard plan assets or wait till the DOL knocks on their door with an audit alert.

In combination with Highmark’s announcement, Avym Corporation offers advanced ERISA Embezzlement Recovery Programs in preparation of the forth-coming multi-billion dollar impact on self-insured health plans nationwide.  Specifically the advanced programs will examine the following issues: (1) determine if any TPA overpayment recoupments and offsets, which are in the billions of dollars nationwide, are ERISA plan assets, (2) ensure all TPA’s properly refunded ERISA plan assets as ERISA prohibits all self-dealings, (3) communicate and clarify self-insured plan administrator’s potential liability for fiduciary breach in failing to safeguard or recover plan assets.

These groundbreaking TPA/ASO auditing programs are unique and unlike any other traditional self-insured health plan overpayment auditing programs and are designed to identify and recover any plan assets that have been removed from the plan trust account to pay benefits, but instead have been retained by the TPA as “hidden fees”, including alleged overpayments that have been recouped by the TPAs –and have not been disclosed, restored or refunded to the ERISA self-insured plan assets as required under federal statutes and fiduciary responsibilities.

To learn more about Avym’s ERISA Fiduciary TPA Auditing & Plan Assets Recovery Programs or to contact us about educational programs please click HERE.

This extraordinary lawsuit comes on the heels of a massive settlement, where CIGNA and American Specialty Health agreed to pay $20M after they were accused of misrepresenting medical expenses by concealing material information.

CIGNA Health and Life Insurance Company is one of the “big five” which represents the five largest health insurers in the United States. Prior to acquiring Express Scripts in 2018, Cigna relied heavily on its Third Party Administrator platform, providing services to health plans of all sizes for private commercial health plans as well as state and local government plans.

Among CIGNA’s customers are many large, well known, national companies that reach across different sectors of the economy, from banking to manufacturing to retailers.

According to the 150 page complaint: “Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to expose Cigna’s brazen embezzlement and conversion schemes, through which it maximizes profits by defrauding patients, healthcare providers, and health plans of insurance out of tens of millions of dollars every year… The result is that Cigna succeeds in shifting financial responsibility for covered expenses onto the backs of patients, their employers, and Plaintiffs, while Cigna gets rich.”

This latest case seems to be the culmination of a spate of recent cases alleging similar violations. This troubling pattern may be an indication that no employer sector is immune to possibly fraudulent claims processing practices. All of this seems to provide more evidence of increased scrutiny for self-insured health benefits that has long been commonplace for retirement benefits.

Case info: Advanced Gynecology and Laparoscopy of North Jersey.et. al. v. Cigna Health and Life Insurance; Case Number: 2:19-cv-22234 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Filed December 31, 2019.

In summary, the lawsuit alleges that CIGNA accepts the out-of-network provider’s claims at the full billed charges and requests the same amount from the self-insured health plan. However, instead of paying the medical provider or member, CIGNA hires a Repricing Company to try and negotiate a reduction. If the provider refuses to negotiate, CIGNA pays the claim at an exorbitantly low level but appears to keep the difference between what was removed from the self-insured health plan and what was paid to the medical providers. In an attempt to conceal this from the patient and self-insured health plan, CIGNA issued Electronic Remittance Advice or paper Explanation of Benefits forms (collectively, the “EOB”) misrepresent the balance as “Discount” to the members, certifying the member is not responsible for the balance, while simultaneously representing the balance to the Plaintiffs as member liability or “Amount Not Covered”.

Astonishingly, the complaint alleges that CIGNA, after being advised of these anomalies, not only refused to correct the issues but instructed the medical provider plaintiffs to sue to rectify the situation! According to the court documents:

“After numerous detailed communications with Cigna management in which Plaintiffs protested Cigna’s unlawful processes and procedures, Cigna informed Plaintiffs that it has no compliance department capable of addressing these issues, and encouraged Plaintiffs to initiate legal action in order to prompt Cigna to act. Plaintiffs have decided to follow Cigna’s suggestion.”

The complaint further alleges that CIGNA has violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, (RICO) through four distinct schemes:

1. misrepresenting that a contract or agreement exists between the Plaintiffs and CIGNA or its vendor “Repricing Company”;
2. conspiring with its vendor “Repricing Companies” to submit fraudulent “Savings Fees” to the self-insured health plan;
3. attempting to conceal the scheme by altering the Explanation of Benefits (EOB), sent to the medical provider and to the patient for the same claims, where the patient’s EOB represents the outstanding balance as a negotiated “Discount”, however the medical provider’s EOB shows the outstanding balance as the “Amount Not Covered”;
4. again conspiring with its vendor “Repricing Company” by coercing the Plaintiffs to accept exorbitantly low reimbursements;

Ironically, CIGNA has been at the forefront of initiating litigation against out-of-network providers for not collecting patient liabilities in full. Yet, this suit alleges CIGNA misrepresents the balance of unpaid claims as “Discounts” to its members.

This case also alleges that CIGNA’s claims process for out-of-network claims, including the Cigna Claims, violates the “HIPAA standard transaction rules under 45 C.F.R. § 164”, by using incorrect “45” coding combinations”. The complaint also alleges CIGNA has violated the “uniform operating rules for the exchange of Automated Clearing House (“ACH”) electronic fund transfer payments among financial institutions that are used in accordance with Federal Reserve regulations and maintained by the Federal Reserve and the Electronic Payments Associations, known as the National Automated Clearing House Association or “NACHA.”

The first scheme allegedly involves CIGNA’s use of the “mails or wires to misrepresent to Plaintiffs, Cigna Subscribers, and the Cigna Plans, that Cigna underpaid Plaintiffs’ claims either because of a contract between an individual Plaintiff and Cigna as an in-network provider or with a third-party leasing contractor or negotiator couched as a repricing company (“Repricing Company”) to accept discounted rates (the “Fictitious Contracting Scheme”).”

The Plaintiffs allege they are not in-network nor have they agreed to any reductions with the “Repricing Company”. According to court records, “While repricing of in-network claims is permissible when there is an existing contract between a provider and Cigna, Plaintiffs are out-of-network providers who have not contracted with Cigna or any Repricing Company. Cigna profits from improperly withholding these payments from Plaintiffs by transferring ERISA Cigna Plan trust assets to a Cigna controlled bank account (which it otherwise is entitled to do under contracts between the ERISA Cigna Plans and Cigna) and earning interest off of funds that are rightfully Plaintiffs’ under the ERISA Cigna Plans. Cigna also embezzles or converts ERISA Cigna Plan trust assets by charging the ERISA Cigna Plans improper “cost-containment” fees.”

The complaint goes on to allege that CIGNA’s second scheme to defraud involves its conspiring with the Repricing Companies to “underpay Plaintiffs’ Cigna Claims via a euphemistically named “cost-containment process” that it misrepresents to the Cigna ERISA Plans as a cost-savings mechanism to save the Cigna ERISA Plans money on out-of-network claims administration (the “Repricing Reduction Scheme”).”

Plaintiffs allege that through this scheme, every out-of-network claim is sent through the wires to a Repricing Company where the Repricing Company recommends to CIGNA that CIGNA pay a deeply slashed reimbursement rate. CIGNA invariably adopts that recommendation and processes the claim for (under)payment. Additionally, the complaint alleges that “Cigna’s contracts with the Cigna ERISA Plans falsely state that this process is only applied to claims for which the Repricing Company has an existing contract with an out-of-network provider. Cigna uses these gross misrepresentations as cover for its embezzlement or conversion of ERISA Cigna Plan trust assets in the guise of cost-containment fees based on a percentage of the “savings.” Cigna then pays a commission to the Repricing Companies that is similarly based on a percentage of “savings.”

According to Plaintiff’s allegations, CIGNA’s third scheme to defraud involves its false and inconsistent statements on CIGNA-issued EOBs and is referred to as the “Contradictory EOB Scheme”. When processing a claim by an out-of-network provider, the suit alleges, “Cigna will state on an ERA or EOB issued to a healthcare provider (a “Provider EOB”) that the amounts wrongfully retained by Cigna are not covered under the terms of the pertinent Cigna ERISA Plan or are subject to certain “adjustments” that are inconsistent with the terms of the Cigna ERISA Plans. But on the EOBs issued to the Cigna Subscribers for the same claims (the “Patient EOB”), Cigna will report completely different information. Cigna may falsely state that Plaintiffs are either contracted with Cigna to accept certain rates, or have agreed with Cigna or a Repricing Company to accept a “discount;” both complete fabrications.”

By way of the example provided in the complaint, it appears CIGNA has told the provider:

“the unlucky Cigna Subscriber owes it $60,316.07 as the amount not covered under the Subscriber’s Plan, but has told the Subscriber that he/she owes the provider only $895.25 because Cigna negotiated a 98% discount with the provider. In doing this, Cigna misrepresents to Cigna Subscribers that the amounts improperly adjusted by Cigna are “discounts.” This misrepresentation appears on most Cigna Claim Patient EOBs.”

The suit alleges CIGNA’s fourth scheme to defraud involves its conspiracy with the Repricing Companies to force out-of-network providers like Plaintiffs to enter into negotiations for payment of valid claims, with the goal of either coercing or wearing down the providers so they accept drastic underpayments for the claims (the “Forced Negotiations Scheme”). In conspiracy with CIGNA, the Repricing Companies, such as Zelis or Medical Audit & Review Solutions (MARS), send offer letters through the mails designed to intimidate and coerce out-of-network providers such as Plaintiffs to accept the settlement offers. In some instances, the Repricing Companies will threaten that the services provided to the Cigna Subscriber will not be covered at all, or that they will be reimbursed at a percentage of the Medicare rate. And, as expected, the Pricing Companies will reimburse the providers even grossly insufficient amounts only if the provider waives all rights to additional payment.

According to the complaint, “the following is an example of Cigna’s Forced Negotiations Scheme, “whereby a provider Plaintiff rejected an offer of payment for $30,550 of total incurred charges of $41,680 from MARS, a Repricing Company contracted by Cigna. Once the provider refused the settlement offer, Cigna processed the claim, improperly misstated that the Cigna Plan covering the Cigna Subscriber only paid a percentage of Medicare, and reimbursed only $1,858.55, or 4.5% of the total incurred charges for the services rendered by the provider Plaintiff.”

“Through these four schemes, Cigna improperly deprives Plaintiffs and the Cigna ERISA Plans of funds and profits by engaging in any or all of the following conduct, among others: (1) embezzling and/or converting the amount characterized as a “discount” on the Patient EOB that is rightfully due and owing to the Plaintiffs under the terms of the Cigna ERISA Plans; (2) earning interest on these amounts, and (3) wrongfully profiting through embezzlement and/or conversion of ERISA Cigna Plan trust assets based on cost containment fees calculated as a percentage of the “discounted” amount.”

-According to court records

All ERISA health plans, medical providers and patients must educate themselves in order to understand the facts of these cases. For years, Cigna’s processes have been a thorny issue for out-of-network providers across the nation and now, self-insured plans are starting to feel the pain of these potentially illegal practices.

Medical providers must be proactive and adopt compliant practices and policies. Health plans must also be proactive in validating that plan assets are used to pay for their member’s medical expenses or otherwise get returned to their plan, and not applied to cover shortfalls in another plan.

Avym Corp. has advocated for ERISA plan assets audit and embezzlement recovery education and consulting. With new Supreme Court guidance on ERISA anti-fraud protection, we are ready to assist all self-insured plans recover billions of dollars of self-insured plan assets, on behalf of hard-working Americans. To find out more about Avym Corporation’s Fiduciary Overpayment Recovery Specialist (FOR) and Fiduciary Overpayment Recovery Contractor (FORC) programs contact us.

In a  Significant Ruling for All Plan Sponsors, Insurers and Medical Providers, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Sides With Medical Provider; Rules Plan Must Provide Third Party Repricing Documents & Methodologies Relied Upon by Plan to Determine “Usual, Reasonable and Customary Rates” and Medical Provider is Eligible for Statutory Damages; “Must be a Beneficiary”

The case is based on very common fact patterns where an out-of-network medical provider verified benefits for the patient of an ERISA governed plan, confirming benefits would be paid at the “usual, reasonable and customary rate”. Before performing services the patient assigned the provider rights under the plan to “pursue claims for benefits, statutory penalties, [and] breach of fiduciary duty ….” The provider then performed services expecting a certain level of reimbursement. When the Plan failed/refused to pay the expected amount, the medical provider appealed for, among other things, the SPD and documents, rate tables and methodologies used to support her payment.

After 6 months, the Plan responded that a third party vendor, data iSight, priced the claim and the provider should reach out to them to try and negotiate a higher amount. The provider decided she had exhausted the administrative remedy, under the premise that 6 months was “unreasonable” and sued for: Damages for Unpaid Benefits, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B); Breach of Fiduciary Duty, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3) and Statutory Penalties, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c)(1). The district court dismissed her complaint. However, the 7th Circuit court disagreed, holding that: “Dr. Griffin adequately alleged that she is eligible for additional benefits and statutory damages, we affirm the judgment only as to Count 2, vacate the judgment as to Counts 1 and 3, and remand Counts 1 and 3 for further proceedings.”

Case info: W.A. Griffin v. TEAMCARE, Central States Health Plan 7th Cir., and TRUSTEES OF THE CENTRAL STATES Case No. 182374 US District Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit

On the first count, Damages for Unpaid Benefits, 29 U.S.C.§ 1132(a)(1)(B) the court held:

“Dr. Griffin challenges the district court’s ruling that she did not state a claim for unpaid benefits. She argues that she adequately plead that the plan covered the medical treatment she provided T.R. and that she did not need to cite in her complaint a plan provision establishing coverage at the amount she billed. We agree. “[P]laintiffs alleging claims under 29 U.S.C.§ 1132(a)(1)(B) for plan benefits need not necessarily identify the specific language of every plan provision at issue to survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).” Innova Hosp. San Antonio, Ltd. P’ship v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ga, Inc., 892 F.3d 719, 729 (5th Cir. 2018).

The court goes on to explain, that the Plan’s argument, “Requiring that Dr. Griffin to allege provisions to support something that was undisputed, -the existence of coverage-was error.” The court further noted that because Dr. Griffin was paid “something“, it was plausible the services were covered. 

Additionally, the court reasoned that requiring Dr. Griffin to name a specific plan provision entitling her to higher reimbursement, was not necessary, since she clearly alleged she was not paid the usual, reasonable and customary amounts, consistent with section 1109 of the plan. According to the court:

To require her to be more specific is to turn notice pleading on its head. Indeed, as discussed later, Dr. Griffin did not have the information necessary to allege with more detail where the plan’s calculation of the usual and customary rate went astray.”

On count 3, Statutory Penalties, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c)(1), the court explains why Dr. Griffin could be entitled to statutory penalties :

“Finally, Dr. Griffin argues that as T.R.’s assignee, she is a beneficiary of the plan, eligible for statutory penalties based on Central States’s failure to provide the documents she requested within 30 days. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 1024(b)(4), 1132(c)(1). Central States takes the position, supported by one citation to a district-court decision, that an assignee does not step into a beneficiary’s shoes for the purpose of enforcing statutory penalties. See Elite Ctr. for Minimally Invasive Surgery, LLC v. Health Care Serv. Corp., 221 F. Supp. 3d 853, 860 (S.D. Tex. 2016). Thus, Central States concludes, it could not be liable for not timely providing documents to Dr. Griffin.

But in Neuma, Inc. v. AMP, Inc., we remanded to the district court for a determination of whether penalties should be awarded to an assignee under section 1132(c)(1), thus assuming that assignees could seek penalties. 259 F.3d 864, 878–79 (7th Cir. 2001). Central States’s position is inconsistent with our prior precedent and is contrary to the purposes of a plenary assignment of rights under the plan. ERISA defines “beneficiary” as “a person designated by a participant … who is or may become entitled to a benefit [under an employee benefit plan].” 29 U.S.C. § 1002(8). An assignee designated to receive benefits is considered a beneficiary and can sue for unpaid benefits under section 1132(a)(1)(B)—something the plan does not dispute. See Kennedy v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 924 F.2d 698, 700 (7th Cir. 1991). Bringing that suit (or an administrative appeal) requires access to information about the plan and its payment calculations— here, how Central States determined the usual, reasonable, and customary rate. Mondry, 557 F.3d at 808; see also Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 118 (1989) (disclosure ensures that “the individual participant knows exactly where he stands with respect to the plan” (citing H.R.Rep. No. 93–533, p. 11 (1973), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin. News 1978, p. 4649)).

It follows that Dr. Griffin also must be a beneficiary able to sue when she is denied requested information.

Central States argued that even if Dr. Griffin is a beneficiary, she still did not state a claim for statutory damages because it sent her the summary plan description, and ERISA did not require it to provide either Data iSight’s fee schedules and rate tables or its contract with Blue Cross Blue Shield. The court shot down the Plans arguments regarding the disclosure of documents as  “meritless“, based on the fact the Plan ultimately provided Dr. Griffin the SPD, albeit 6 months late, and because the Plan readily admitted that it used Data iSight’s figures to calculate the payment which constituted, in part, the Plan’s “pricing methodology” and the basis for the payment. 

This case illustrates the importance of ERISA compliance and properly disclosing all relevant materials used to determine benefits payments. It is clear that Plan Administrators and Fiduciaries should respond to any appeals and document requests in accordance with section 104 (b) (2) and 104 (b) (4) of ERISA, and pursuant to the interpretation of “plan document” from DOL Advisory Opinions, 96-14A, which states:

“it is the view of the Department of Labor that, for purposes of section 104 (b) (2) and 104 (b) (4), any document or instrument that specifies procedures, formulas, methodologies, or schedules to be applied in determining or calculating a participant’s or beneficiary’s benefit entitlement under an employee benefit plan would constitute an instrument under which the plan is established or operated, regardless of whether such information is contained in a document designated as the “plan document”. Accordingly, studies, schedules or similar documents that contain information and data, such as information and data relating to standard charges or calculating a participant’s or beneficiary’s benefit entitlements under an employee benefit plan would constitute “instrument under which the plan is… operated.“

Plan Administrators, fiduciaries, TPAs and medical providers all should also look to the DOL for guidance on the matter, specifically, DOL FAQs About The Benefit Claims Procedure Regulation:

FAQ B-5: For purposes of furnishing relevant documents to a claimant, what kind of disclosure is required to demonstrate compliance with the administrative processes and safeguards required to ensure and verify appropriately consistent decision making in making the benefit determination?

What documents will be required to be disclosed will depend on the particular processes and safeguards that a plan has established and maintains to ensure and verify appropriately consistent decision making. See 65 FR at 70252… the department anticipates that claimants who request this disclosure will be provided with what the plan actually used, in the case of the specific claim denial, to satisfy this requirement. The plan could, for example, provide the specific plan rules or guidelines governing the application of specific protocols, criteria, rate tables, fee schedules, etc. to claims like the claim at issue, or the specific checklist or cross-checking document that served to affirm that the plan rules or guidelines were appropriately applied to the claimant’s claim.

For nearly a decade, Avym Corp. has advocated for ERISA plan assets audit and embezzlement recovery education and consulting. Now with the Supreme Court’s guidance on ERISA anti-fraud protection, we are ready to assist all medical providers and self-insured plans recover billions of dollars on behalf of hard-working Americans. To find out more about Avym Corporation’s Fiduciary Overpayment Recovery Specialist (FOR) and Fiduciary Overpayment Recovery Contractor (FORC) programs click here.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL- U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services FY 2017-Work-Plan -The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG)
Work Plan for fiscal year (FY) 2017 summarizes new and ongoing reviews and activities that OIG plans to pursue with respect to HHS programs and operations during the current fiscal year and beyond

HHS OIG Work Plan 2017

 

 

 

As One Door Potentially Closes, Another, More Substantial Door Opens For Self-Insured Health Plans

The January 20, 2016 Supreme Court Montanile decision potentially limits ERISA plan rights to subrogation lien recovery, but also potentially rewards trillions of dollars in plan assets recovery for all self-insured ERISA plans nationwide, from cross plan overpayment recoupments and offsets done by plan TPAs.  All self-insured health plans should understand the Montanile decision’s trillion dollar impact.

The Supreme Court Montanile decision on January 20, 2016 limits an ERISA plan rights to subrogation lien recovery, but this decision also ensures potentially trillions of dollars in plan assets recovery for all self-insured ERISA plans nationwide, from all cross plan overpayment recoupments and offsets by plan TPA’s, as the Supreme court ruled: “[t]his rule applied to equitable liens by agreement as well as other types of equitable liens“.

The Supreme Court Montanile decision also limits and prohibits self-insured plan TPA’s from offsetting or converting self-insured plan claims payments into the TPAs own fully-insured account, for any alleged overpayments made from the TPA’s fully-insured plans, by claiming equitable relief under ERISA §502(a)(3);

While the case potentially limits ERISA plan rights to subrogation lien recoveries, the entire auto or personal injury subrogation lien market is relatively insignificant compared to the trillion dollar overpayment recoupment and offset market nationwide that exists within the $3.5 trillion in national healthcare expenditures.

Avym Corporation announces new, 2016 self-insured ERISA plan assets auditing and recovery projects, which are open to all large and medium self-insured ERISA plans, in order to (a) brainstorm, assess and realize the immediate true economic value of the Supreme Court Montanile decision; (b) immediately audit the plan assets for any possible conversion, embezzlement from the plan TPA’s cross plan overpayment recoupment or offset; (c) immediately recover or restore the plan assets under the Supreme Court Montanile decision and as required under ERISA statutory duties.

Supreme Court case info: Montanile v. Board of Trustees of the National Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan, case #:  14-723, January 20, 2016

Supreme Court link to PDF copy.

Based on federal court documents and leading healthcare experts, billions of self-insured health plan claims assets may have been recouped or offset in order to satisfy alleged overpayments of fully insured plan claims.

Although the Supreme Court’s Montanile decision may have limited a plan’s right in the relatively small PI subrogation lien market, it has fundamentally and profoundly changed the landscape for medical claim overpayment offsets and recoupments, across separate plans and members, by self-insured plan co-fiduciary TPAs, in a practice otherwise known as “embezzlement ATM operations”

According to the Court Documents, the Supreme Court ruled:

• “Plan fiduciaries are limited by §502(a)(3) to filing suits “to obtain … equitable relief.“
• “[A]s here, an equitable lien by agreement, only against specifically identified funds that remained in the defendant’s possession or against traceable items that the defendant purchased with the funds.“
• “If a defendant dissipated the entire fund on items, the lien was eliminated and the plaintiff could not attach the defendant’s general assets instead.“
• “The Board’s arguments in favor of the enforcement of an equitable lien against general assets are unsuccessful. does not contain an exception to the general asset-tracing requirement for equitable liens by agreement.“
• “In sum, at equity, a plaintiff ordinarily could not enforce any type of equitable lien if the defendant once possessed a separate, identifiable fund to which the lien attached, but then dissipated it all. The plaintiff could not attach the defendant’s general assets instead because those assets were not part of the specific thing to which the lien attached.“
• “This rule applied to equitable liens by agreement as well as other types of equitable liens.“

The Supreme Court Montanile decision makes it perfectly clear, any alleged overpayment lien of a fully-insured plan cannot attach to a different, self-insured plan fund or claims payment and it’s a basic principle of ERISA that a TPA for a self-insured plan is absolutely barred from converting claims payment of plan assets from the self-insured plan to pay for an alleged overpayment lien and retain all recovery for its own fully-insured account, and can be viewed as self-dealing and embezzlement.

The only question now is whether self-insured plan fiduciaries will take immediate corrective actions to safeguard plan assets or wait till the DOL knocks on their door with an audit alert.

Ironically, the Supreme Court’s Montanile decision also protects the respondent, the Board of Trustees of the National Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan, from any and all offsets or patient embezzlements based on alleged overpayments to non-National Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan members.

Over the past 6 years, Avym has closely followed the decisions from the Supreme Court and federal appeals courts on ERISA prohibited self-dealing against ERISA plan TPA’s for managed care savings. These new ERISA embezzlement cases are just the initial impact of the court’s Hi-Lex decisions. This lawsuit in particular should serve as a warning and wake up call for all Plan Administrators to continually monitor their TPAs in accordance with the Plan Administrator’s statutory fiduciary duties and to discharge its duties with respect to a plan solely in the interest of the participants for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to them.

Avym Corp. has been at the forefront and advocated for ERISA plan assets audit and embezzlement recovery education and consulting. Now with the Supreme Court’s guidance on ERISA anti-fraud protection, we are ready to assist all self-insured plans recover billions of dollars on behalf of hard-working Americans. To find out more about Avym Corporation’s Fiduciary Overpayment Recovery Specialist (FOR) and Fiduciary Overpayment Recovery Contractor (FORC) programs click here.

 

On January 20, 2016, Supreme Court ruled that an ERISA plan cannot sue to recover medical expenses paid on the participant’s behalf after the settlement funds have dissipated. This high court decision also protects hospitals from all health plan’s overpayment recoupment.

On January 20, 2016, Supreme Court ruled that an ERISA plan cannot sue to recover medical expenses paid on the participant’s behalf after the settlement funds have dissipated, because “…a plaintiff ordinarily cannot enforce any type of equitable lien if the defendant once possessed a separate, identifiable fund to which the lien attached, but then dissipated it all…. This rule applied to equitable liens by agreement as well as other types of equitable liens.” Op. at 9

Supreme Court case info: Robert Montanile v. Board of Trustees of the National Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan, case #: 14-723, January 20, 2016

Link to PDF Copy: Montanile v. Board of Trustees of the National Elevator Industry Health Plan.

On January 23, 2016, Avym Corporation announced 2016 hospital ERISA appeal & litigation department support services to demystify why this high court decision also protects hospitals and doctors from any health plan’s overpayment recoupment and to recover all overpayment recoupment unlawfully withheld or embezzled by all payers under any incorrect ERISA equitable lien arguments, because “this rule applied to equitable liens by agreement as well as other types of equitable liens.” Op. at 9

Nationwide, over the past 10 years, overpayment offsets and recoupments have directly resulted in billions of dollars of revenue losses, and even bankruptcies in many cases, for medical providers of all types. These recoupments by payers are done using ERISA equitable lien arguments, both inside and outside the courtrooms. Consequently, this new Supreme Court decision is critical for every healthcare provider’s financial survival.

At minimum, any overpayment offsets or recoupment across separate plans and/or patients are not permissible under ERISA equitable lien law in accordance with the Supreme Court decision on January 20, 2016, because the alleged overpayment equitable lien is attached to another person’s separate fund or property, where no ERISA equitable lien existed, or otherwise is clearly not permitted.

“For all pending overpayment court cases in absence of any fraud claims, this Supreme Court decision could be a rainmaker for all healthcare providers, both in-network and out-of-network”, predicted Dr. Jin Zhou, president of ERISAclaim.com, a national expert on ERISA appeals and compliance, and an ERISA “Special Collection Agent”, as recently ordered by a Federal Bankruptcy Court for a bankrupt hospital system in Texas.

Avym Corporation’s 2016 hospital ERISA appeal & litigation department support services will brainstorm on this Supreme Court order and assist hospital executives and legal departments in assessing and immediately complying with the Supreme Court decision, in advocating for ERISA rights of the plan participants and beneficiaries in the hospital’s financial survival ordeals, or otherwise preventing hospitals and doctors from being bankrupt as a result of the totally out-of-control revenue losses from the endless and relentless overpayment recoupment or offsets under ERISA in absence of any fraud claims.

These new ERISA compliance services include, but are not limited to, executive brainstorming and education, ERISA & PPACA appeal practice, ERISA litigation strategy & support, overpayment prevention through corporate compliance in fraud & abuse prevention.

In a personal injury subrogation overpayment lawsuit, after the District Court and 11^th Circuit Court ruled for the health plan, on January 2016, the Supreme Court ruled for the plan participant. In an 8-1 ruling penned by Justice Clarence Thomas, the majority said that the National Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan couldn’t sue plan beneficiary Robert Montanile under ERISA §502(a)(3) for overpayment reimbursement of about $122,000 from a $500,000 auto accident settlement because the settlement fund had already been dissipated and  therefore, the plan fiduciary may not sue to get at the participant’s additional assets.

According to the Court Documents, the Supreme Court ruled:

• “Plan fiduciaries are limited by §502(a)(3) to filing suits “to obtain … equitable relief.”
• “[A]s here, an equitable lien by agreement, only against specifically identified funds that remained in the defendant’s possession or against traceable items that the defendant purchased with the funds.”
• “If a defendant dissipated the entire fund on nontraceable items, the lien was eliminated and the plaintiff could not attach the defendant’s general assets instead.”
• “The Board’s arguments in favor of the enforcement of an equitable lien against Montanile’s general assets are unsuccessful. Sereboff does not contain an exception to the general asset-tracing requirement for equitable liens by agreement.”
• “In sum, at equity, a plaintiff ordinarily could not enforce any type of equitable lien if the defendant once possessed a separate, identifiable fund to which the lien attached, but then dissipated it all. The plaintiff could not attach the defendant’s general assets instead because those assets were not part of the specific thing to which the lien attached.”
• “This rule applied to equitable liens by agreement as well as other types of equitable liens.”

 

(This article was originally published by Dr. Jin Zhou)

Federal judge allows ILWU-PMA, a self-insured health plan, to move forward in lawsuit against Cigna and Carewise for allegedly engaging in “prohibited transactions” and “self-dealing” by entering into “auto-discount agreements with providers for which it received a portion of the amount discounted”

As healthcare admin fees increase, more and more self-insured health plans are looking to engage in out of network “cost containment” or third party “repricing agreements” with out of network provider claims, in an effort to lower costs or save money.However, plaintiff’s allegations in this and other recent cases, shed light on possible abuses that take place disguised as legitimate practices.

On Dec 22, 2015, a Northern District of CA Federal court ruled in favor of a self-insured health plan and allowed an ERISA lawsuit to go forward against Cigna and third party fee negotiating company, Carewise (formerly called SHPS Health Management Solutions, Inc.). Cigna and Carewise were sued by the ILWU-PMA Welfare Plan Board of Trustees and ILWU-PMA Welfare Plan, for alleged ERISA “prohibited transactions” and “self-dealing”

Case info: ILWU-PMA Welfare Plan Board of Trustees v. Cigna and Carewise, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of CA Civil Docket for Case #:C15-cv-02965-WHA, Filed 12/22/2015.

This lawsuit against Cigna in ERISA healthcare claims disputes comes on the heels of another recent lawsuit against a different Cigna administered self-insured ERISA plan client, CB&I and its Plan Administrator, Dennis Fox, who were sued for alleged ERISA plan assets embezzlement, deceptively concealed through “fake PPO (CO) discounts” and Cigna’s “fee forgiveness protocol scam”.

TPA’s tactics of engaging in prohibited transactions, self-dealing or applying non-existent or “fake” PPO discounts can expose the plans and plan administrators to costly litigation as well as civil criminal liability. As these lawsuits become more prevalent, self-insured health plans should be aware of possible embezzlement or conversion of plan assets and act accordingly.

According to industry experts, and as illustrated in the Hi-Lex case, a BCBS survey was conducted and found that 83 percent of its self-insured clients were completely unaware of the hidden fees. Other documents revealed a course of conduct designed to conceal evidence of the company’s wrongdoing. Based on the foregoing, all self-insured health plans nationwide should look to recover at least $30 to $45 billion in Plan Asset refunds from the past 10 years of successful plan assets TPA/ASO anti-fraud recoupments and managed care savings in the private sector.

According to the court documents in the ILWU-PMA v. Cigna case:

“The Board’s…claims allege Carewise engaged in prohibited transactions under ERISA. Specifically, claims four and five allege that Carewise engaged in self-dealing as a plan fiduciary by entering into auto-discount agreements with providers for which it received a portion of the amount discounted”… “Moreover, by implementing auto-discounts, rather than negotiating claims on a case-by-case basis, Carewise received compensation for fee-negotiation services it never actually performed. Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that Carewise received unreasonable compensation for negotiation services it did not perform. Accordingly, Carewise’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ sixth claim is hereby DENIED.”

The court goes on to say:

“The Board’s sixth claim alleges that Carewise engaged in a prohibited transaction in violation of Section 1106(a)(1)(C) of Title 29 of the United States code. Section 1106(a)(1)(C) generally prohibits transactions between an ERISA plan and a “party in interest” although Section 1108 allows such transactions for “services necessary for the establishment or operation of the plan, if no more than reasonable compensation is paid” for services rendered by the party in interest. Section 1002(14)(B) defines a “party in interest” as “a person providing services to [a] plan“

Interestingly, ILWU-PMA Coastwise Trustees, Cigna, TPA Zenith American Solutions and TC3 Health were all slapped with a class action lawsuit in mid 2015 for various ERISA violations. According to that complaint, the ILWU-PMA and Plan’s own independent fact finder confirmed there were “286,000 unprocessed claims” at one point and the “backlog became worse, with about 90,000 new claims each month” added to the backlog.  The suit also alleges that the plan attempted to  “delay processing of legitimate claims, increasing interest income for the Plan’s fund” as well as create the “misimpression that the PMA Trustees have been diligent in the exercise of their fiduciary obligations”, according to court documents.

In accordance with these lawsuits and national epidemic of self-insured health plan assets embezzlements, self-dealing and prohibited transactions, Avym Corporation (Avym) announces cutting edge, unconventional Fiduciary Overpayment Recovery programs for private self-insured health plans. In 2011 private health insurance funded approximately 33% and Medicare funded approximately 21% of the $2.7 trillion national healthcare expenditure. Approximately 82.1% of all large health plans (>500) are self-insured. Avym’s innovative new programs consist of:

• The Fiduciary Overpayment Recovery Specialists (FOR) training program which is designed for private self-insured plans.
• The Fiduciary Overpayment Recovery Contractor (FORC) program which is designed to create partnership networks nationwide to immediately offer FOR programs to self-insured plans.

These groundbreaking programs are unique and unlike any other traditional health plan overpayment auditing programs and are designed to recover alleged overpayments, regardless of the reason including allegations of fraud, that have been recouped by the TPA’s but have not been restored or refunded to the ERISA plan assets as required under ERISA statutes and fiduciary responsibilities.

Over the past 6 years, Avym has closely followed the decisions from the Supreme Court and federal appeals courts on ERISA prohibited self-dealing against ERISA plan TPA’s for managed care savings. These new ERISA embezzlement cases are just the initial impact of the court’s Hi-Lex decisions. This lawsuit in particular should serve as a warning and wake up call for all Plan Administrators to continually monitor their TPAs in accordance with the Plan Administrator’s statutory fiduciary duties and to discharge its duties with respect to a plan solely in the interest of the participants for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to them.

Avym Corp. has been at the forefront and advocated for ERISA plan assets audit and embezzlement recovery education and consulting. Now with the Supreme Court’s guidance on ERISA anti-fraud protection, we are ready to assist all self-insured plans recover billions of dollars on behalf of hard-working Americans. To find out more about Avym Corporation’s Fiduciary Overpayment Recovery Specialist (FOR) and Fiduciary Overpayment Recovery Contractor (FORC) programs click here.

Just in Time for the Holidays, Federal Court Grants Bankrupt Hospitals ERISA “Special Collection Agent” for All Denied Claims

On Dec 03, 2015, a federal Bankruptcy Court approved an application to employ an ERISA “Special Collection Agent” for Debtors filed by Victory Parent Company, LLC in the wake of the Hospital group’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings. The approval underscores the profound impact ERISA will have for the entire hospital industry and medical providers, particularly out-of-network, facing economic hardships, including bankruptcy filings. Compliant ERISA and PPACA appeals and litigation are the only way to protect a hospital or healthcare provider from bankruptcy.

The Employment Retirement Income Securities Act (ERISA), enacted in 1974, is the key governing law for all employer sponsored plan’s healthcare claims in the private industry. ERISA is a federal law that sets minimum standards for most voluntarily established health plans in private industry to provide protection for individuals in these plans. In September of 2010, the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, (aka Obamacare), adopted ERISA in its entirety, as the governing federal laws, for internal appeals in all group plans and individual policies or PPACA exchange market plans, for both ERISA and non-ERISA plan claims.

The court approval allows the hospitals to immediately start filing ERISA/PPACA compliant appeals on all denied claims as well as the option to pursue judicial reviews in federal court in order to advocate for all patient ERISA/PPACA appeal rights.

This unprecedented approval will also have a profound impact on available collection remedies and affords the hospitals an alternative to, inevitably, dragging patients into medical bankruptcies, the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the nation today.

 The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas approved the application to employ a “Special Collection Agent” for debtors filed by Victory Parent Company, LLC in the wake of the hospital group’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings on June 12, 2015 (Victory Medical Center Mid-Cities, LP et. al., Chapter 11, Case No. 15-42373-Rfn-11). The Court ordered that ERISA godfather Dr. Jin Zhou be employed as a “Special Collection Agent to provide all necessary collection services to the Debtor as described in the Application pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 327(a) and 328(a).”

On June 12, 2015, Victory Parent Company, LLC and four Texas medical centers voluntarily filed under Chapter 11 to preserve value, effect asset sales, according to the Victory Parent Company web site.

According to Robert N. Helms, Jr., Chairman, CEO and Manager of Victory, who managed six for-profit Victory Healthcare medical and surgical centers in Texas before the filing for Chapter 11, Victory built an extremely high quality, state-of-the-art group of community-centric medical centers and hospitals. Unfortunately, due to their out-of-network provider business model, they came under attack by large insurance carriers. Even though they were able to secure in-network agreements with three large insurers, sluggish claim processing and lack of payment from the carriers constrained liquidity significantly.

Unfortunately the situation with Victory is becoming all too common. According to a recent Becker’s Hospital Review industry report published on Sep 15, 2015, 10 hospitals had filed for bankruptcy as of Sept 2015. In fact, Hospital bankruptcy filings are headline news every day, mainly due to alleged denied claims and failed claims reimbursement.

In Re: Victory Medical Center Mid-Cities, LP et. al., “The Debtors in these cases, along with the last four digits of their respective taxpayer ID numbers, are Victory Medical Center Mid-Cities, LP (2023) and Victory Medical Center Mid-Cities GP, LLC (4580), Victory Medical Center Plano, LP (4334), Victory Medical Center Plano GP, LLC (3670), Victory Medical Center Craig Ranch, LP (9340), Victory Medical Center Craig Ranch GP, LLC (2223), Victory Medical Center Landmark, LP (9689), Victory Medical Center Landmark GP, LLC (9597), Victory Parent Company, LLC (3191), Victory Medical Center Southcross, LP (8427), and Victory Medical Center Southcross GP, LLC (3460).” according to the Court document.

 According to the court document published on December 3, 2015, the Court ORDERED THAT:

“1. Dr. Jin Zhou d/b/a ERISAclaim.com be employed as Special Collection Agent to provide all necessary collection services to the Debtor as described in the Application pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 327(a) and 328(a);

2. Dr. Zhou is employed, effective November 3, 2015, as Special Collection Agent to provide all necessary collection services to the Movant in this case as set forth in the Application.
3. Dr. Zhou shall be entitled to compensation as set forth in the Application and in the Claims Recovery Service Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A without further application or order of this Court.”

Avym is dedicated to empowering providers with ERISA appeal compliance and ERISA litigation support in all cases as well as ERISA class actions.  All medical providers and Health Plans should understand critical issues regarding the profound impact of this and other court decisions on the nation’s medical claim denial epidemic. Providers should also know how to correctly appeal every wrongful claim denial and overpayment demand and subsequent claims offsetting with valid ERISA assignment and the first ERISA permanent injunction.  In addition, when faced with pending litigation and or offsets or recoupments, providers should look for proper litigation support against all wrongful claim denials and overpayment recoupment and offsetting, to seek for enforcement and compliance with ERISA & PPACA claim regulations.

This bellwether lawsuit in ERISA healthcare claims disputes presents a cautionary tale for all self-insured plan administrators with “Head in the Sand” TPA monitoring practices. Cigna administered self-insured ERISA plan, CB&I and its Plan Administrator, Dennis Fox, were sued for alleged ERISA plan assets embezzlement, deceptively concealed through “fake PPO (CO) discounts” and Cigna’s “fee forgiveness protocol scam”.

On Oct. 29, 2015, in southern district of Texas Federal Court, a Cigna administered self-insured ERISA plan, CB&I and its Plan Administrator, Dennis Fox, were sued by an out-of-network (OON) surgical center, True View Surgery Center One, for alleged ERISA plan assets embezzlements, deceptively concealed with alleged “fake PPO (CO) discounts” and “fee forgiveness protocol scam”. This innovative and cutting edge ERISA health Plan lawsuit, by an OON healthcare provider for alleged plan assets embezzlement by the ERISA plan’s third party claim administrator (TPA), was filed just eight (8) days after a different self-insured plan filing on a similar lawsuit, (FAC on Oct. 21, 2015), against the plan’s TPA for allegedly similar plan assets conversion with respect to OON claims administration between the ERISA plan and TPA.

According to the court documents:

“Under this backdrop, together Defendants and Cigna concocted an intricate scheme to transfer and embezzle plan funds. Transfers are first concealed by processing out-of-network claims under a fabricated Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) “contractual obligation,” even though Defendants and Cigna are fully aware that no such contract exists. Then, Defendants and Cigna knowingly implemented a system to willfully and wrongfully refuse payments to the out-of-network provider under a sham “fee-forgiveness” protocol.”

In pursuance of this signpost lawsuit, Avym Corp. announces a new division of its ERISA litigation support and/or prevention program, in order to:

1. Closely track this type of unprecedented but most dramatic emerging trend in ERISA healthcare litigation in today’s evolving managed care market including:
   • Analyze new litigation allegations of plan assets embezzlement to be made by plan sponsors and plan administrators, healthcare providers and federal regulatory and enforcement agencies against TPAs;
   • Understand managed care TPA litigation defense strategies and trial evidence;
   • Decipher court decisions and alternative resolutions to this new trend in the alleged conflict in ERISA prohibited transaction against health plan TPA’s for managed care costs containment and savings tactics;
2. Demystify these new lawsuits and the implications to plan sponsors and providers, specifically, how the lawsuit will ultimately impact all out-of-network claim disputes.

It is standard industry practice for self-insured health plans to engage in out of network “cost containment” or third party “repricing agreements” with out of network providers, in an effort to lower costs or save money. However, plaintiff’s allegations shed light on possible abuses that take place disguised as legitimate practices. TPA’s tactics of applying non-existent or “fake” PPO discounts are very familiar to all out-of-network medical providers. According to court documents:

“The self-dealing embezzlement scheme perpetrated by Cigna and Defendants is even more repugnant because Cigna duplicitously demands proof from the provider that it collected the patient’s co-insurance and deductibles in full when it explicitly instructed the provider not to bill the patient.”

Over the past 5 years, Avym has closely followed the decisions from the Supreme Court and federal appeals courts on ERISA prohibited self-dealing against ERISA plan TPA’s for managed care savings. These new ERISA embezzlement cases are just the initial impact of the court’s Hi-Lex decisions. This lawsuit in particular should serve as a warning and wake up call for all Plan Administrators to continually monitor their TPAs in accordance with the Plan Administrator’s statutory fiduciary duties and to discharge its duties with respect to a plan solely in the interest of the participants for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to them.

The Court Case info: True View Surgery Center One L.P., v.Chicago Bridge And Iron Medical Plan, Chicago Bridge And Iron Company, And Dennis Fox, Case #: 3:15-CV-00310, filed on Oct. 29, 2015, in the United States District Court For The Southern District of Texas.

In the Oct 29, 2015  lawsuit filed by OON provider True View Surgery Center, against the Cigna administered ERISA plan, the Plaintiff alleged in part:

“Specifically, in spite of the glaring conflict of interest and inherent breach of fiduciary duties, Defendants agreed to an unlawful compensation structure that financially rewards Cigna for wrongfully denying and underpaying benefits claims. Under this backdrop, together Defendants and Cigna concocted an intricate scheme to transfer and embezzle plan funds. Transfers are first concealed by processing out-of-network claims under a fabricated Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) “contractual obligation,” even though Defendants and Cigna are fully aware that no such contract exists. Then, Defendants and Cigna knowingly implemented a system to willfully and wrongfully refuse payments to the out-of-network provider under a sham “fee-forgiveness” protocol. As a result of the wrongful claims denials, the transferred plan funds are ultimately misappropriated by Cigna, who then fraudulently pays itself with the plan funds, falsely declaring the embezzled funds as compensation generated through managed care and out-of-network cost containment “savings,” when in truth the claims were never paid and the plan beneficiaries were left exposed to personal liability for their unpaid medical bills.”

On Oct 21, 2015, in a separate but similar lawsuit filed by an ERISA plan against a separate ERISA plan TPA, the Plaintiff alleged in part:

“MagnaCare represented to Plaintiffs in a written contract between the parties that providers of diagnostic laboratory and ancillary services had “accepted” a “fee schedule” which included a “management fee” for MagnaCare. In fact, the providers had never “accepted’ a fee schedule containing a “management foe” for MagnaCare. Rather, the providers had agreed to a fee schedule, which was a fraction of the amounts collected by MagnaCare from Plaintiffs. MagnaCare – without disclosure to Plaintiffs or the providers – simply misappropriated the difference between what Plaintiffs paid MagnaCare and what MagnaCare negotiated to pay the providers.” 

Court case info: UNITED TEAMSTER FUND, et al v. Magnacare Administrative Services, LLC et al, Case 1:13-CV-06062-WHP-FM, First Amended Complaint (FAC), filed on Oct. 29, 2015, original Complaint, filed on august 27, 2013,  in United States District Court Southern District Of New York.

These lawsuits come on the heels of the Oct. 20, 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision to deny all appeals on a BCBSM’s $6.1 million fraud judgment for a self-insured ERISA plan by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Six Circuit, upholding the decision by the District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

On May 14, 2014, a federal appeals court (Sixth Cir. 2014) upheld the district court’s $6.1 million decision for Hi-Lex, a self-insured ERISA plan against BCBSM for violating ERISA in prohibited transactions and fiduciary fraud, according to the court documents.

Hi-Lex Controls, Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, ((SC Case #. 14-168, 6th Cir. Case #: 13-1773, 13-1859).

For over 6 years, Avym Corp. has advocated for ERISA plan assets audit and embezzlement recovery education and consulting. Now with the Supreme Court’s guidance on ERISA anti-fraud protection, we are ready to assist all self-insured plans recover billions of dollars on behalf of hard-working Americans. To find out more about Avym Corporation’s Fiduciary Overpayment Recovery Specialist (FOR) and Fiduciary Overpayment Recovery Contractor (FORC) programs click here.

 

On September 21, 2015 a Federal Court slammed a Plan Sponsor for not providing Plan Documents, ruling the Plan’s action “belies logic”. The Federal Court hit the Plan Sponsor with a $61,380 penalty on top of the previously awarded $12,760 statutory penalty for not providing insurance policy in a timely manner.

Here is a cautionary tale for all Plan Administrators, Plan Sponsors and Fiduciaries. In this case, the member participant of an ERISA Plan requested all relevant documents from the Plan but the plan did not respond in a timely manner. According to court records, there were two Plan Documents, the insurance policy (SPD) and another Plan Document. The Plan provided the insurance policy (SPD), albeit still too  late, and was initially hit with a $12,760 penalty for its failure to provide that document in a timely manner. However, the Plan did not provide the other additional Plan Document until much later in the process.

The Plan argued that the other Plan Document did not need to be furnished because it did not mention the insurance policy and because there were conflicting terms between it and the SPD. The court disagreed saying the Plan’s argument “belies logic” and found the other Plan Document to be a “controlling ERISA document” and as such, the Plan “was under an obligation to furnish a copy of the Plan Document” at the request of the plan participant. Because the Plan failed to do so, it was hit with an additional $61,380 penalty in spite of the fact there were no inconsistencies between the SPD insurance policy and Plan Document.

According to the court:

“Defendant Board of Trustees argues that its failure to provide Plaintiff with the Plan Document is excused because the Plan Document contains no terms that specifically address the life insurance benefit, and because there are no conflicting terms between the SPD and the Plan Document regarding same. This argument represents two sides of the same coin, and is dispelled with the same reasoning. Even if the parties agree that the SPD is a controlling document for Mr. Harris’ life insurance policy, the terms of the SPD specifically state that in the event of any inconsistency between the SPD and the Plan Document, the Plan Document will control. Ergo, armed only with access to the SPD and not the Plan Document, Plaintiff could not have known the unequivocal terms of the life insurance policy because she did not have the opportunity to discover any inconsistencies, or lack thereof, between the SPD and the Plan Document. In this case, it happens that there are no inconsistencies between the SPD and the Plan Document with regards to the life insurance policy. This, however, was not known by Plaintiff until she received the Plan Document on December 10, 2014, despite multiple requests to Defendant Board of Trustees for copies of all controlling or relevant ERISA documents. In sum, to claim simultaneously, as Defendant Board of Trustees does, that only the SPD (and not the Plan Document) is a controlling ERISA document, but at the same time stating that “[i]f there is any difference between the Plan Document and [the SPD], the Plan Document will control,” (id.), belies logic. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Plan Document is a controlling ERISA document.”

The court goes on to say:

“Having found that Defendant Board of Trustees was under an obligation to furnish a copy of the Plan Document at Plaintiff’s request, the Court now turns to the appropriate time frame for statutory penalties under 29 U.S.C. 1132(c).”

According to the court:

“Given Defendant Board of Trustees’ deliberate choice not to respond to Plaintiff’s unambiguous third request for documents, and Defendants failure to respond at all to either the second or third request for documents, (see Doc. 39 at 15–16), the Court finds that assessing the maximum penalty is appropriate in this case. Accordingly, Defendant Board of Trustees will be assessed a penalty of $61,380.00 for its failure to furnish a copy of the Plan Document, calculated at $110.00 per day for the 558 days between May 31, 2013 and December 10, 2014. This penalty is in addition to the $12,760.00 for Defendant Board of Trustees’ failure to provide a copy of the Policy, discussed supra Section IV.B.”

The case is Harris-Frye v. United of Omaha Life Insurance Company, and Board of Trustees, Mid-South Carpenters Regional Council Health and Welfare Fund, Case No. 1:14-cv-72. United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Chattanooga Division

It is clear that Plan Administrators and Fiduciaries should respond to any appeals and document requests in accordance with section 104 (b) (2) and 104 (b) (4) of ERISA, and pursuant to the interpretation of “plan document” from DOL Advisory Opinions, 96-14A, which states:

“it is the view of the Department of Labor that, for purposes of section 104 (b) (2) and 104 (b) (4), any document or instrument that specifies procedures, formulas, methodologies, or schedules to be applied in determining or calculating a participant’s or beneficiary’s benefit entitlement under an employee benefit plan would constitute an instrument under which the plan is established or operated, regardless of whether such information is contained in a document designated as the “plan document”. Accordingly, studies, schedules or similar documents that contain information and data, such as information and data relating to standard charges or calculating a participant’s or beneficiary’s benefit entitlements under an employee benefit plan would constitute “instrument under which the plan is… operated.“

Plan Administrators and fiduciaries should also look to the DOL for guidance on the matter, specifically, DOL FAQs About The Benefit Claims Procedure Regulation:

FAQ B-5: For purposes of furnishing relevant documents to a claimant, what kind of disclosure is required to demonstrate compliance with the administrative processes and safeguards required to ensure and verify appropriately consistent decision making in making the benefit determination?

What documents will be required to be disclosed will depend on the particular processes and safeguards that a plan has established and maintains to ensure and verify appropriately consistent decision making. See 65 FR at 70252. The department does not anticipate new documents being developed solely to comply with this disclosure requirement. Rather, the department anticipates that claimants who request this disclosure will be provided with what the plan actually used, in the case of the specific claim denial, to satisfy this requirement. The plan could, for example, provide the specific plan rules or guidelines governing the application of specific protocols, criteria, rate tables, fee schedules, etc. to claims like the claim at issue, or the specific checklist or cross-checking document that served to affirm that the plan rules or guidelines were appropriately applied to the claimant’s claim. Plans are not required to disclose other claimants’ individual records or information specific to the resolution of other claims in order to comply with this requirement. See § 2560.503-1(m)(8)(iii). See question D-12.

Avym is dedicated to empowering providers with ERISA appeal compliance and ERISA litigation support in all cases as well as ERISA class actions.  All medical providers and Health Plans should understand critical issues regarding the profound impact of this and other court decisions on the nation’s medical claim denial epidemic. Providers should also know how to correctly appeal every wrongful claim denial and overpayment demand and subsequent claims offsetting with valid ERISA assignment and the first ERISA permanent injunction.  In addition, when faced with pending litigation and or offsets or recoupments, providers should look for proper litigation support against all wrongful claim denials and overpayment recoupment and offsetting, to seek for enforcement and compliance with ERISA & PPACA claim regulations.