The Medicare Secondary Payor Act (MSP) makes Medicare the secondary payer of medical expenses, when a beneficiary has other sources of primary insurance coverage.
Specifically, the MSP provides that a Medicare payment “may not be made . . . with respect to any item or service to the extent that payment has been made or can reasonably be expected to be made under” a primary plan. 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(2)(A). No fault insurance is included as a “primary plan.” 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(2)(A)(ii).
Medicare is able to make “conditional payments” for services when the primary plan “has not made or cannot reasonably be expected to make payment with respect to such item or service promptly.” 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(2)(B)(i). Medicare may seek reimbursement from the primary plan if it had a responsibility to make the payment. 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(2)(B)(ii).
Importantly, if Medicare is not timely reimbursed, the MSP establishes a private cause of action to enforce the reimbursement provisions by seeking double damages against the primary plan. 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(3)(A). That is, twice the amount of what was paid by Medicare.
To invoke this cause of action, Medicare must have actually made payments on a beneficiary’s behalf, and the insurer must be “responsible,” for making payments. Responsibility may be demonstrated by a judgment, settlement by a primary payer (even where liability is denied), or by other means. 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(2)(B)(ii).
Add a comment
SubscribeRSS Plunkett Cooney LinkedIn Page Plunkett Cooney Twitter Page Plunkett Cooney Facebook Page
- Motor Vehicle Liability
- No Fault Liability
- Auto Liability
- Personal Injury Protection (PIP)
- Trucking Liability
- Premises Liability
- Fraud Activity
- Judicial Estoppel
- Retail Liability
- Driver Exclusion
- insurance policy
- Cargo Liability
- Risk Management
- Public Policy
- Governmental Immunity
- Environmental Legislation
- Environmental Regulation
- Medicare Issues
- Defending Against Fraudulent Claims Following Michigan Supreme Court’s Ruling in Meemic v Fortson
- Michigan Expands Chiropractic Coverage Under No-Fault Act
- Arbitration is a Road Less Traveled but one Worthy of Consideration for UM/UIM Claims
- Truck Driver’s Bodily Injury Claim barred by his Bankruptcy Case
- Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association Slashes 2020-2021 Fee Assessments
- What the No-Fault Act Giveth the No-Fault Act can Taketh Away
- Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Vacationer’s PIP Claims for Fraud
- Court Reaffirms One Year Back Rule, Rejects Use of Consent to Treat Forms as Assignments
- Once Again, More Fees for Michigan Drivers
- Don't Tweet and Drive!