Phia Group Russo & Minchoff

HIPAA Isn’t a Shield Against Third-Party Payor Audits

bhoffman | August 16, 2010

By Deborah J. Williamson of Warner Norcross & Judd LLP, www.wnj.com
A frequent question of physicians, medical practices and other providers I represent is whether the HIPAA Privacy Rule prohibits them from providing third-party payors with access to medical records for the purposes of an audit. In other words, does HIPAA prevent third-party payors from conducting [...]

Regulations Issued Under Health Care Reform on Preventive Services and Internal Claims and Appeals, and External Review Procedures

bhoffman | August 5, 2010

Bryan Cave LLP, www.bryancave.com
The Departments of Treasury, Labor and Health & Human Services (the “Departments”) recently issued two more batches of interim final regulations under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended (the “Act”). This new guidance addresses (i) the preventive services coverage mandate, and (ii) the new internal claims and appeals and [...]

Kehoe v. 1st Source Bank Healthcare Benefits Plan

Adam V. Russo | July 9, 2010

In Kehoe v. 1st Source Bank Healthcare Benefits Plan,190 the court affirmed an ERISA plan administrator’s denial of health coverage where claimant had a blood alcohol level of 0.128, as tested at the treating hospital, and the plan excluded “[c]harges resulting from an illness or injury incurred while under the influence of alcohol or illegal [...]

Pollitt v. Health Care Service Corp

Adam V. Russo | July 9, 2010

Juli Pollitt, a federal employee, had health insurance administered by Health Care Service Corp. (HCSC). In July 2007, HCSC stopped paying claims submitted on behalf of Pollitt’s son Michael and began trying to collect from health care providers any payments made on Michael’s behalf since 2003. According to HCSC, it did this because the Department [...]

McCauley v. First Unum Life Insurance Co.

Adam V. Russo | July 9, 2010

In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Glenn, the Second Circuit has reassessed its standard of review governing cases that challenge an ERISA plan administrator’s decision to deny disability benefits in cases where the administrator has a conflict of interest because it has the discretionary authority to determine the validity of the employee’s claim [...]

Code Blue: Out-of-Network Charges Can Spur Financial Emergency

Adam V. Russo | August 19, 2009

by Paul Raeburn, www.kaiserhealthnews.org
On the evening of March 1, 2008, Gary Diego was relaxing with his wife, Ellen, when she abruptly lost her hearing, began repeating herself, and seemed to be losing her grip.

Marijuana Reimbursement Claims Highlight How Pot Could Be Gold for Employers

Adam V. Russo | August 11, 2009

by Jeremy Smerd – Workforce Management, www.workforce.com  
A medical billing company may be blowing smoke, but could reimbursing patients for medical marijuana lower drug costs for employers?

Claim Audit Firm Halts Efforts to Recoup on Medical Claims for Two Self-Funded Firms

Adam V. Russo | August 5, 2009

Reaction from AMA, TMA, GMA, Self-Funded Employer• Getahn Ward, The Tennessean, 5/16/09, Tennessee HRI Article
• Emily Berry, American Medical News, 4/13/09, AMedNews Article
• Tennessee Medical Association (TMA) Legal Department 5/5/09, TMA Alert on HRI Recoupment Letters
Franklin (TN)-based Health Research Insights, has temporarily halted efforts to collect on potential overpayments of medical claims by two Nashville-area [...]

1st Circuit Tweaks Benefits Denial Case Law

Adam V. Russo | May 28, 2009

by Fred Schneyer of PLANSPONSOR, www.plansponsor.com
After tweaking their standard for how federal judges should handle employee benefits denial cases involving a conflicted plan administrator, federal appellate judges have ordered more hearings in just such a case.

Be Careful With Appeals

Adam V. Russo | December 3, 2008

In Gagliano v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 2008 WL 4916330 (4th Cir. 2008), an employee’s claim for long-term disability benefits was denied on the ground that she was not disabled under the terms of the plan.  The court ordered an independent medical examination that stated the employee was disabled but the plan administrator (who [...]

Claims Procedures Decision

Adam V. Russo | November 6, 2008

Based on the Supreme Court’s decisions in MetLife and LaRue, employers should consider making changes and acting proactively to implement strategies to help ensure that plan disputes are channeled through a committee and that the committee’s decisions receive deference from the courts.
Many corporate officers, employees and board members serve as ERISA fiduciaries. For a fiduciary [...]

Life after MetLife

Adam V. Russo | November 6, 2008

TPAs rely heavily on ERISA’s requirements that claimants must exhaust their administrative remedies before going to court, and when they do sue, assuming that the Plan documents grant the claim administrator the appropriate discretionary authority, they must show that the claim administrator abused its discretion when denying their claim, before any court will get to [...]

Denying Future Claims vs. Offset

Adam V. Russo | September 23, 2008

by Ron E. Peck, Esq.
Offset: Denying future claims to reimburse the Plan for claims it has paid prior to third party settlement.  It is a form of lien reimbursement.
Denial of Future Medical Claims: Denying future claims because they were caused by, and are the responsibility of a third party with whom the insured has settled [...]

Court Reverses Denial of Benefits Decision Because of SPD

Adam V. Russo | June 19, 2008

Shelby County Healthcare Corp, d/b/a Regional Medical Center v. The Majestic Star Casino, LLC group Health Benefit Plan, 2008 WL 782642 (WD Tenn.) has demonstrated that even though the SPD gives the Plan the final decision to accept or deny medical claims, discretion does not apply to the Plan’s TPA.Damon Weatherspoon, a plan participant of [...]

Certiorari Granted

Adam V. Russo | February 20, 2008

The Supreme Court will be granting certiorari to MetLife, et al., v. Wanda Glenn.  While MetLife v. Glenn reinforces a third party administrator’s (“TPA”) right to make administrative decisions and interpret the terms of benefit plans when it is not the party funding the plan, this case asks whether a Plan Administrator faces a conflict [...]