Tag OON Claims

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.

Originally Published by By ROI-NJ, By Anjalee Khemlani; Trenton | Jul 1, 2019 at 10:00 am : http://www.roi-nj.com/2019/07/01/healthcare/third-party-auditor-bill-signed-into-law-despite-insurers-opposition/

Third-party auditor bill signed into law

A bill that some insurers lobbied quietly to quash made its way through the Legislature and was signed by Gov. Phil Murphy on Sunday.

The bill calls for a third-party auditor to real-time audit the State Health Benefits Plan and School Employees Health Benefits Plan.

It was first introduced in October 2018 by state Sen. Paul Sarlo (D-Wood-Ridge), and came from a report commissioned by a New Jersey doctor that alleged

health insurers were skimming off the top of claims payments for the SHBP and SEHBP.

The report was published by California-based AVYM.

ROI-NJ previously reported that the state’s contracts with Aetna and Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey are set to expire this year, allowing a revamp of the Request for Proposal process and changing the type of contracts the state has with insurers who administer the state plans.

The Office of Legislative Services said in its fiscal analysis of the bill that it could not put a specific savings amount from the audited claims, even though

the AVYM report alleges savings of more than $1 million to the state.

“Hiring a third-party medical claims reviewer to provide regular, frequent and ongoing review and oversight of the claims process, which process includes, but is not limited to, the receipt, management, adjudication and payment of claims, serves the best interests of the state, participating employers and the thousands of employees and their dependents covered under the (SHBP and SEHBP),” according to the legislation.

The goal is to have a medical claims reviewer hired in time to review claims from plans that will be in effect in January 2020.

On January 15, 2019, in what turned out to be a belated Christmas gift for patients, out-of-network medical providers and self-insured health plans, the 8^th Circuit Federal Appeals Court stood with out-of-network medical providers, ruling they have standing to sue opposing UnitedHealth’s “cross-plan offsets”- by affirming the district court and opining:

“Because United’s interpretation of the plan documents is not reasonable, we affirm the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs.”

This bellwether appellate court decision undisputedly strikes a death blow to the collective, industry standard, practice of “cross-plan offsetting” and has national implications for patients, medical providers and self-insured health plans.  As we have written about before, the No. 1 health care claims denial in the country is “overpayment” recoupments through “Cross-Plan Offsets”; correspondingly, the No.1 hidden cost for Self-Insured health plans, is “Overpayment” recoupment through “Cross-Plan Offsets” and subsequent embezzlement of plan assets as UnitedHealth Group continues to see record revenues and earnings year after year.

With the new legal guidance this landmark case provides, self-insured plan sponsors, like AT&T and Gap Inc. may be held accountable for allowing United to engage in likely ERISA violations such as embezzlement, conversion, self-dealing and breach of fiduciary duty.

According to industry estimates, the total dollar amount at issue nationwide could be as high as 1/3 of total claim expenditures annually. Successful industry overpayment recoveries have reached into the trillions of dollars nationwide over the past decade and involve many large carriers as well as many of the nation’s biggest self-insured health plans such as Apple, JP Morgan Chase and Amazon.  Thus recoupment through offsetting, when used as an anti-fraud initiative, has become an increasingly popular source of revenue for many of the nation’s largest insurers. While there is a need for anti-fraud initiatives in healthcare today, it is critical that every health plan and claims administrator comply with all applicable federal laws, ERISA and PPACA claims regulations, as well as statutory fiduciary duties.

This 8^th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, along with the recent Supreme Court decision in Montanile, should act as a wake-up call to all self-insured health plans for potential rewards in the trillions of dollars in plan assets recovery for all self-insured ERISA plans nationwide, from cross plan overpayment recoupments and offsets done by all plan TPAs.

Insurers and Health Plans must comply with all applicable federal laws, ERISA and PPACA claims regulations, as well as statutory fiduciary duties before recouping one single dollar.

In affirming the district court’s ruling, the 8^th Circuit rejected United’s argument that Dr Peterson lacked authority to sue as an authorized representative of his patients.  The appellate court also affirmed the district court’s ruling regarding offsets, where all of the plan documents that United cited explicitly authorized same-plan offsetting; and not one of those plans authorized cross-plan offsetting.

The appeals court further posited:

“To adopt United’s argument that the plan language granting it broad authority to administer the plan is sufficient to authorize cross-plan offsetting would be akin to adopting a rule that anything not forbidden by the plan is permissible.”

According to court records, “United’s assertion that it has the authority to engage in cross-plan offsetting can hardly be called an interpretation because it has virtually no basis in the text of the plan documents.”

The appeals court also maintained, that regardless of whether cross plan offsetting violates ERISA, it is at the very least, a questionable practice. Taking into consideration the fact that there is no plan language authorizing cross-plan offsetting, the appeals curt ultimately concluded that United’s interpretation is not reasonable.

As we have mentioned many times before, all ERISA health plans, medical providers and patients must educate themselves in order to understand the facts of these cases. Health plans must be proactive in ensuring benefits are adjudicated and ultimately paid solely based on the interest of participants and beneficiaries and for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits and paying plan expenses. Medical providers must be also proactive and adopt compliant practices and policies. Patients must understand their benefits plans and their rights as allowed under ERISA.

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.

In Unprecedented Move, DOL Exercises Authority to Issue Cease and Desist Order Under Section 521 of ERISA, Shut Down Fiduciaries Accused of Misconduct, “Healthcare Madoff” Scheme

The U.S. Department of Labor obtained a Temporary Restraining Order in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangement (MEWA) service providers for allegedly failing to pay more than $26 million in member’s health bills while keeping a substantial amount of money for themselves, then siphoning off those funds to offshore Bermuda accounts. The court also ordered 2 banks to freeze 14 bank accounts that were alleged to have plan assets in them.

The court ordered Black Wolf Consulting, AEU Holdings and one of its subsidiaries removed and barred from serving as fiduciaries or service providers to the individual employer plans that participate in the AEU Holdings LLC Employee Benefit Plan, a Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangement (MEWA) established by the defendants.

The court’s order immediately appointed an independent fiduciary to oversee the MEWA’s operations, marshal and control the assets of the MEWA as it relates to the underlying participant plans, perform an accounting of the MEWA’s financial position, and determine the MEWA’s ability to pay outstanding participant health claims, according to the DOL.

The order comes on the heels of the DOL lawsuit filed on November 2, 2017 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief including a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to remove the fiduciaries. The Complaint also alleges multiple violations of ERISA including, using plan assets to pay excessive fees and expenses, assessing undisclosed fees to the contribution amounts, failing or refusing to pay approximately $16 million for member’s medical claims, then transferring unpaid monies to offshore bank accounts in Bermuda.

Black Wolf kept anywhere from 17 to 44 percent of the money employers and employees paid toward premiums, according to the DOL complaint.

At its height, the MEWA covered approximately 14,000 participants and beneficiaries. These participants worked for more than 560 employers in 36 different states. However the increased backlog of unpaid claims created significant problems for many members as doctors refused treatments because of unpaid bills and many members were sent to collections accounts, according to the DOL.  

Additionally, the DOL issued a cease and desist order that prevents sub-brokers and aggregators working on behalf of the MEWA from marketing it to prospective employers or from enrolling new employers. The Secretary has the authority to issue an ex parte cease and desist order pursuant to ERISA § 521(a), 29 U.S.C. § 1151(a), and its implementing regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 2560.521-1. This authority applies only to a MEWA, and the cease and desist order may be issued whenever the Secretary finds reasonable cause to believe, among other things, that the respondent(s) engaged in conduct that creates an immediate danger to public safety or welfare within the meaning of § 2560.521-1(b)(3).  29 C.F.R. § 2560.521-1(c)(1)(i)(B).

According to the DOL Memorandum:

“Over $15 million in processed claims from 2016 and over $11 million in processed claims for 2017 remain unpaid. During the same time period as these claims have gone unpaid, AEU and Black Wolf have enriched themselves substantially by paying themselves and other entities millions of dollars in “fees.” Meanwhile, hundreds of unsuspecting employers have joined the AEU Plan to provide affordable medical benefits for their employees, only to have their employees be saddled with thousands of dollars in unpaid medical claims-some facing escalating collections actions and others unable to obtain life-saving treatment.“

The Memorandum goes on to point out:

“This results in thousands of participants incurring additional medical claims that will never be paid. Current and former participants report being turned away by their doctors because claims have gone unpaid. They have had to forego life-saving treatments for cancer and other illnesses. Parents who have just given birth are saddled with unanticipated medical claims at the same time they are trying to care for their newborn children. Collections agencies are calling and knocking at their doors. Many fear for their family’s future financial security. Despite the over $26 million in current unpaid claims and the harm facing these participants, Defendants continue to seek out new, unsuspecting employers to feed what is to them, a very profitable enterprise.”

Original DOL Press Release

These new ERISA embezzlement cases are part of a growing trend consistent with the court’s Hi-Lex decisions and as well as other cases we have written about before.

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.

For over 7 years, 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 click here.

Third Party Administrator, MagnaCare to return $14.5 million to Health Plan Clients after getting sued in federal court, alleging “MagnaCare breached its fiduciary duties and committed prohibited transactions, including dealing with plan assets in its own interest.”

In a case we have written about before and as part of a greater, ongoing slew of self-insured health plans suing their third party administrators, MagnaCare, agreed to return $14.5 million to its health plan clients, as part of a settlement agreement with the US Department of Labor (DOL) – with possible additional payments of $4.5 million based upon business volume through 2019.  This agreement comes on the heels of the DOL lawsuit, filed in 2016, alleging multiple violations of ERISA, including committing prohibited transactions and acting in its own interest with plan assets, among other violations.

According to the DOL and court records:

“MagnaCare charged fees that were not disclosed to its ERISA plan clients…The plans paid MagnaCare the full amount, yet MagnaCare remitted the lower charges to the providers and retained the undisclosed markup”

This case is just the tip of the national healthcare crisis iceberg. Recent reports have indicated most employers, particularly large employers will continue to offer health insurance as a benefit, in spite of the fact self-insured health plans are spending more on health benefits. Additionally, while self-insuring is common among large employers, an increasing number of smaller employers are self-insuring as well. Based on these facts, and with an increasing number of patients forced into bankruptcy due to unpaid medical bills, employer plans, medical providers and patients need to understand the implication of this case and others like it.

It’s a well-known fact from federal court documents and in healthcare industry news reports, that Billion$ of ERISA plan claims payments from self-insured plans may have been recouped or offset by self-insured plan TPA’s for the TPA’s fully-insured accounts. Additionally, many Billion$ more may have been similarly siphoned off based on “Fake PPO” discounts or  Phantom “Savings” fees.

DOL Case info and copy of “Complaint”: Acosta v. MagnaCare Administrative Services, LLC and MagnaCare LLC Civil Action No.:  1:16-cv-07695-DAB

Copy of “Consent Order”: United States DOL v. Magnacare Administrative Servcies, LLC and Magnacare, LLC-Consent Order

The court documents also contain allegations that MagnaCare actually siphoned off money that was supposed to go towards the payment for medical claims:

“At times relevant to this Complaint, MagnaCare acted in own interest when it kept the difference between the Plan Charges and the Provider Rates as additional compensation without disclosing the amounts to the Plans.”

According to court records, MagnaCare LLC, and MagnaCare Administrative Services, LLC (MagnaCare) is a third party administrator of health plans or TPA, and provides administrative and claim adjudication services as well as “Network Access” services which purportedly enables its clients to obtain healthcare from providers at discounted rates.  

This case was undoubtedly spurred on by a previous lawsuit against MagnaCare, by its own self-insured plan client. In that case, the plaintiff alleged:

“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, the 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 court documents.

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

These cases together with the ERISA case listed below, offer insight into the healthcare industry’s prevalent overpayment offset wars:  

Peterson, D.C. et al v. UnitedHealth Group Inc. et al, U.S. District Court, U.S. District of Minnesota (DMN) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 0:14-cv-02101-PJS-BRT

These new ERISA embezzlement cases are part of a growing trend consistent with 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.

For over 7 years, 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 click here.

 

**UPDATE**

On August 1, 2017 US District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald issued an order granting class certification against ILWU-PMA Welfare Plan and its third party administrator, Zenith American Solutions, for breach of fiduciary duty.

According to court records;

“Plaintiffs’ claims seeking removal of the Plan’s fiduciaries raise issues that apply generally to the class, and thus a class can be certified under Rule 23(b)(1).’

As part of his rationale for certifying class, the judge explained, “Because the underlying issue does not turn on the approval or denial of any given claim for benefits, but rather on Defendants’ course of conduct as a whole, the issues discussed above do not preclude class certification on the fiduciary claims.”

ILWU-PMA and Zenith argued class should be denied because the plaintiffs failed to exhaust the administrative remedy, but the court disagreed, “Defendants contend that typicality and adequacy of representation are not met because Lead Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. But exhaustion is not required for claims alleging a breach of fiduciary duty. Spinedex Physical Therapy USA Inc. v. United Healthcare of Arizona, Inc., 770 F.3d1282, 1294 (9th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, exhaustion is no bar to certifying the class, and the requirements of Rule 23(a) are met.“

ILWU-PMA and Zenith next argued class should be denied because the proposed class is not “cohesive” and therefore presents very little risk of “inconsistent judgments” going forward. However the court again disagreed, “The relief requested, however, would benefit all Plan members in the same way, and thus the class is sufficiently cohesive.”

“Moreover, the risk of inconsistent judgments is apparent from the face of the claim: If each of the four Lead Plaintiffs brought individual actions seeking removal of Zenith and the PMA Trustees in four separate courts, and half were granted the requested injunctive relief while the other half were not, the Plan would be required both to remove and not to remove Zenith and the PMA Trustees.

Ultimately, this ruling should serve as a wake-up call to all Plan Administrators and Fiduciaries, to ensure any and all TPAs are acting in the best interest of the members and their beneficiaries. Thus avoiding costly litigation and possible penalties.

In the case, which we have written about before, plaintiffs sued the International Longshore Workers Union-Pacific Maritime Association Welfare Plan, (ILWU-PMA) and its third party administrator, Zenith American Solutions (Zenith) for failing to properly administer and pay benefit entitlements to the employees of ILWU and their beneficiaries. The suit also named Pacific Maritime Association trustees, who manage the plan, individually, saying that they were not acting in the best interest of employees.

Case Info: Amijo et al v. ILWU-PMA Coastwise et al U.S. District Court for the Central District of CA (Western Division- Los Angeles) Civil Docket for Case #: 2:15-cv-1403, Filed 02/26/2015.

The original complaint alleged Zenith, and its agent TC3, failed to properly process member medical claims leading to many claims going unpaid, and members having to foot the medical bills out of pocket. According to the complaint: 

“the backlog of unpaid medical bills increased dramatically in early 2013. According to the Interim Report, by the summer of 2013, there were 286,000 unprocessed claims from the Cigna era, and there were also growing numbers of unprocessed claims from the Zenith era.’

After an arbitrators hearing, Zenith assured the ILWU employees their claims would be processed and paid in a timely manner, but that did not happen, and in fact the backlog grew even worse, according to court records,

“Although Zenith promised [it] would, put in place mechanisms to address the backlog of unpaid medical bills, in the latter half of 2013 the backlog became worse, with about 90,000 new claims each month.”

Ultimately, the members sued the plan in a class action, seeking benefits and the removal of the fiduciaries for failing to monitor administration of the Plan. The suit also alleged Zenith and the PMA Trustees’ breach of their fiduciary duty harmed the Plan as a whole by, among other things, causing doctors to stop providing services the the employees and their beneficiaries.

 

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

 

 

 

In Landmark Class Action Case, a Federal Judge would shut down United HealthCare’s “cross-plan offsetting” practice as a “troubling use of plan assets”, ruling the industry standard practice of “Cross‐plan offsetting creates a substantial and ongoing conflict of interest” for all claims administrators who “simultaneously administer both self‐insured and fully insured plans.” The court also called into question United’s practice of reaching “into the pockets of the sponsors of self‐insured plans” and putting that money “in United’s pocket”.

In an extraordinary decision, US District Judge Patrick J. Schultz has effectively barred cross-plan offsets. The judge weighed in on two very important questions: First, whether UHC acted “reasonably” in interpreting its client’s plans to permit cross‐plan offsetting; and whether the practice complies with the “fiduciary duties imposed by ERISA”. The court offered an answer to both issues while providing very clear guidance for Plans, claims administrators, medical providers and patients.

As we have written about many times before, the No. 1 health care claims denial in the country is “overpayment” recoupments through “Cross-Plan Offsets”; correspondingly, the No.1 hidden cost for Self-Insured health plans, is “Overpayment” recoupment through “Cross-Plan Offsets” and subsequent embezzlement of plan assets. With the new legal guidance this landmark case provides, will self-insured plan sponsors, like AT&T and Gap Inc. be held accountable to allowing United to engage in such ERISA violations such as embezzlement, self-dealing and breach of fiduciary duty?  

The court case info: Peterson DC et al v. UnitedHealth Group Inc. et al, U.S. District Court U.S. District of Minnesota (DMN), Civil Docket For Case #: 0:14-cv-02101-PJS-BRT, Filed 06/23/14

In this class-action, originally filed in 2014, healthcare providers alleged ERISA violations by UnitedHealthcare Group for withholding and offsetting newly adjudicated claim payments from one patient to satisfy an alleged overpayment in the past, from separate, unidentified patients in complete violation of ERISA, and even worse, by misrepresenting to the patients and the plan sponsors on patient EOB’s “payment made to provider”, when in truth and in fact no such payment was ever made to the providers, according to the Court Complaint.

In answering the first question, Judge Schultz considered whether the language in UHC’s client health plans at issue in the case, identified as 46 Plan Bs, authorized UHC to engage in the offsetting practice known as “Cross-Plan Offsets”. According to the court they did not: “the Court finds that United’s interpretation is unreasonable. The plans themselves do not authorize cross‐plan offsetting. To the contrary, most of the plans contain specific overpayment and recovery language that would be rendered meaningless if United was authorized by the generic clauses that it relies upon to engage in cross‐plan offsetting.”

The court went on to clarify: “Every one of the overpayment provisions is triggered only when the plan itself makes an overpayment…In other words, each Plan B authorizes the recovery of overpayments made by the Plan B.

“None of the overpayment…provisions contain any language allowing other plans to recover their overpayments from the plan. “In other words, not one Plan B authorizes recovery of an overpayment made by a Plan A.”, according to the court order.

Remarkably, the judge chided UHC for or creating its cross-plan offsetting process for its own benefit and without examining the language of the plans. The judge specifically drew attention to this point, according to the court order: “It should be noted, that in looking carefully at the language of the plans…the Court is doing something that United itself did not do before implementing cross-plan offsetting…”

“Only after getting sued did United hunt through the plans for any language that might provide a post hoc justification for its conduct…United admits that it was not able to find a single provision of a single plan that explicitly authorizes cross-plan offsetting.”, according to court records.

The judge also questioned whether UHC ever disclosed their intention to engage in “cross-plan offsets” or the likely conflict of interest to its plan clients: “It appears, however, that disclosures concerning United’s system of cross-plan offsetting are mostly or entirely handled by United’s banking team during what appear to be fairly technical explanations for banking, account-setup and account-funding processes. It also appears that such disclosures mostly occur orally and on a somewhat ad hoc basis”.

UHC argued that it did disclose its cross-plan offset provisions to its clients’ “benefits and finance and treasury folks”, to which the court responded “it is not clear whether those individuals have authority to make plan-wide fiduciary decisions, nor is it clear whether these disclosures are made before or after a plan sponsor decides to become a United Client.”

Regarding the second question, whether the practice of cross-plan offsetting violates ERISA, the judge, while weighing possible conflicts of interest in violation of ERISA, went so far as to mention the fact that UHC lined its own pockets with self-insured plan assets: “the money that reimburses United for its alleged overpayment comes out of the plan sponsors’ pockets. Several internal United documents emphasize this point and gush about how cross-plan offsetting will allow United to take money for itself out of the pockets of the self-insured plans…”

“In other words, every one of the cross‐plan offsets at issue in this litigation put money in United’s pocket, and most of that money came out of the pockets of the sponsors of self‐insured plans.” according to the court records.

The court went into great detail regarding UHC’s conflict and possible prohibited transaction and breach of fiduciary duty: “In light of this case law and the strict fiduciary duties imposed by ERISA, cross-plan offsetting is, to put it mildly, a troubling use of plan assets—one that is plainly in tension with “the substantive or procedural requirements of the ERISA statute . . . In stark terms, cross‐plan offsetting involves using assets from one plan to satisfy debt allegedly owed to a separate plan—a practice that raises obvious concerns under §§ 1104 and 1106. These concerns are particularly acute in this case, in which every offset that United orchestrated did not just benefit a different, unrelated plan, but benefited United itself.”

“Cross‐plan offsetting creates a substantial and ongoing conflict of interest for claims administrators who, like United, simultaneously administer both self‐insured and fully insured plans…”, according to court records.

The judge, after examining the facts of the case, shed light on an enormous incentive for UHC: “As the single biggest payor of claims, United’s personal stake in cross‐plan offsetting dwarfs that of any self‐insured plan. [United] in this circumstance has every incentive to be aggressive about looking for overpayments from its own fully insured plans (which overpayments can be recovered from self‐insured plans) and less aggressive about looking for overpayments from self‐insured plans (which overpayments might be recovered from fully insured plans).”

“And indeed, this incentive is reflected in United’s internal documents, which enthusiastically describe how cross‐plan offsetting will permit United to reach into the pockets of the sponsors of self‐insured plans to recover the overpayments that United makes in connection with fully insured plans.” (emphasis added) 

The court further clarifies its reasoning and confirms: “It is also undoubtedly true, as United is reluctant to acknowledge, that cross-pan offsetting can harm plan participants” and “It is not fairly debatable, however, that the type of cross‐plan offsetting challenged in this case—that is, cross-plan offsetting engaged in by an administrator who insures some (but not all) of the plans—presents a grave conflict of interest.”

Ultimately, the court concludes, “United labors under a continuing conflict of interest in administering the cross‐plan offset system because United fully insures some but not all of the plans. More importantly, the fact remains that cross‐plan offsetting is in tension with ERISA’s fiduciary rules, is not provided for in the plans, and is at odds with the specific offset language contained in most of the plans. As a result, United did not act reasonably in interpreting the Plan [documents] that are at issue in this case to permit cross‐plan offsetting. The Court therefore grants plaintiffs’ motions for partial summary judgment and denies United’s motions for full summary judgment.”

In ruling against UHC on almost every argument, the judge certified the case for immediate appeal, acknowledging that this was a landscape changing and “exceptional case,” and taking into consideration that United, as the nation’s largest insurer will have to “undertake the extremely expensive and disruptive process if unwinding its cross-plan offsetting practice.”

“This order resolves a controlling and dispositive question of law: whether United acted reasonably in interpreting the plans to permit cross‐plan offsetting.”

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Defendants’ motions for summary judgment are DENIED.
2. Plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment on Phase I issues are GRANTED.”

Based on the fact that ‘cross-plan offsetting” is pervasive throughout the health care industry, this legal guidance will undoubtedly have tremendous ramifications on all Plans, TPAs, medical providers and patients. Medical providers must be proactive and adopt compliant practices and policies. Health plans must also be proactive in validating that plan assets 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.

CIGNA client, DHL Express, and its plan administrator, Robert Whitaker have been sued in federal court in Houston, alleging that the giant delivery company teamed up with its insurance company and brazenly engaged in a “scheme to withhold, embezzle, and convert ERISA plan assets through a pattern of fraudulent benefits transactions and prohibited self-dealing misconduct. Under this backdrop, together Defendants and Cigna concocted an intricate scheme to transfer and embezzle plan funds.”

According to the complaint, DHL and their parent company, colluded with CIGNA: “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.”

Additionally, the alleged scheme by DHL and Cigna left patients responsible for more than their designated share of the cost under the terms of the health care plan, “resulting in an arrangement where Cigna, a co-fiduciary, reprehensively competes with the Plan’s own beneficiaries for entitlement to plan funds.”, according to the lawsuit.

Case info: Center for Advanced Surgical Treatment v. DHL Express and Robert Whitaker in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, Case Number: 4:16 cv01919; Filed June 30, 2016.

This latest case seems to be another brick in the wall of ongoing cases, alleging similar violations, against CIGNA administered health plans across multiple sectors of the economy. Among top companies ensnared in litigation by CIGNA’s practices include household names such as Macys, JP Morgan Chase and Chevron. These practices may be endemic to the industry as a whole as evidenced by other large UnitedHealth administered health plans, such as GAP and AT&T that have also faced lawsuits alleging similar violations.

The complaint further alleges that DHL had complete and full knowledge of the possible scheme but not only refused to conduct an investigation, consistent with its fiduciary duty, but actually delegated the investigation to the fiduciary CIGNA, the alleged perpetrator of the embezzlement!

According to court documents:

“Despite actual knowledge of Cigna’s self-dealing misconduct stemming from repeated alerts and warnings from Plaintiff’s official ERISA Appeals, Defendants systematically refused to take corrective action, and instead, DELEGATED INVESTIGATION OF THE SUSPECTED WRONGDOING TO CIGNA [emphasis added]”- the identified perpetrator of the misconduct.”

And, in a particularly reprehensible move, the complaint further alleges that the plans and their co-fiduciary Cigna may have intentionally misrepresented to the patients, through the EOB’s, the actual amount that was covered and paid on the claims.

The complaint alleges: “According to the explanation of benefits that was sent to the Patient, it appeared that all of the charges were denied in error and the total amount of the charges covered was $200,355.00.   However, this amount was never paid to Plaintiff, but was kept by Cigna.”

The latest DHL lawsuit, which was filed on June 30, 2016, comes on the heels other recent lawsuits involving Cigna and Cigna Administered ERISA health plans:

• an unprecedented $13.7M ruling against CIGNA, filed on June 1, 2016, with $11.4M for underpaid claims and an additional $2.3M in statutory penalties. In that case, CIGNA’s fee forgiving protocol and claim for reimbursement of “overpayments” came under fire by the courts, ultimately ruling that CIGNA’s interpretation of plan’s “exclusionary language” provision as the basis for it’s fee forgiving protocol, was “flawed” and “legally incorrect“. The court also ruled that CIGNA’s claim for reimbursement of overpayments “fail as a matter of law” reasoning no lien or constructive trust was created and tracing requirements were not met.
• eight days later, on June 9, 2016 over 100 of CIGNA’s self-insured clients, along with their Plan Administrators were named as defendants in a massive fraud lawsuit, alleging the plans “participated in a conspiracy and pattern of unlawful, reckless, and deceptive conduct to conceal an embezzlement and/or skimming scheme”
• and just twelve days after 100 Cigna client were sued, on June 21, 2016, Macys, another Cigna Administered ERISA Health Plan, was sued for embezzlement, alleging “Cigna issued a payment check to Plaintiff to satisfy a claim filed by Plaintiff for services performed on a patient, who is a Plan Beneficiary of Defendants; however, in addition to issuing a check to Plaintiff, Cigna issued a secret check to itself for the same amount. Cigna then cashed the secret check it issued to itself, and then placed a stop on the check issued to Plaintiff before Plaintiff could receive and cash the check to reimburse itself for services performed on Defendants’ Plan Beneficiary“

As we have mentioned many times before, all ERISA health plans, medical providers and patients must educate themselves in order to understand the facts of these cases. Health plans must be proactive in ensuring benefits are adjudicated and ultimately paid solely based on the interest of participants and beneficiaries and for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits and paying plan expenses. Medical providers must be also proactive and adopt compliant practices and policies. Patients must understand their benefits plans and their rights as allowed under ERISA.

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.