SlideShare une entreprise Scribd logo
1  sur  14
Télécharger pour lire hors ligne
NEW NO-FAULT
REGULATIONS TO
TAKE EFFECT APRIL
1 IN NY CAR
ACCIDENTS CASES
               David M. Barshay


           New York Law Journal


                      02/14/13
•   For nearly a year now, the industry has been buzzing about
    the proposed changes to 11 NYCRR 65-3 (Insurance
    Regulation No. 68-C), some speculating that the proposed
    changes would spell the end of no-fault insurance as we know
    it. The proposed Fourth Amendment to 11 NYCRR 65-3 was
    initially released in May 2012 as part of the Cuomo
    administration's aggressive insurance reform campaign aimed
    at ending no-fault fraud and stopping the rapid rise in
    automobile insurance rates.

•   According to the Department of Financial Services, the
    proposed new amendment was cultivated with two
    predominant goals in mind: to prevent health care providers
    from being paid for services they do not actually provide; and
    to address certain technical issues that may be used to prevent
    a decision on a claim or keep an otherwise faulty claim open.
    Both of these issues, according to the department, increase
    costs to consumers.
•   To tackle these issues, the department's amendment would:
    (1) do away with certain statutory requirements, which in
    effect require insurers to pay for treatments that were never
    actually provided or pay more than the established fee
    schedule for a given service; (2) prevent health care providers
    from ignoring requests for verification concerning the medical
    necessity of treatment by setting a 120-day deadline to
    provide such requested information; and (3) close the
    apparent loophole that requires insurers to pay for non-
    rendered medical services simply because of technical errors
    made by those insurers during the claims process.

•   On the whole, both insurers and applicants for benefits did not
    object to the Superintendent's attempts to protect consumers
    from unjust depletion of benefits by attempting to streamline
    the claims process, limit excessive billing or "phantom billing,"
    and limit litigation over technicalities in the claims process.
    There were, however, concerns that the changes would be
    placing an unfair and disproportionate burden on applicants.
Phantom Billing, Over-Billing

With regard to billing for services not actually performed and/or
billed in excess of the New York State Workers' Compensation
fee schedule, the current law requires insurers to pay for these
claims if they fail to timely process such, either through a
timely denial or verification request. The amendment adds two
new subdivisions to section 65-3.8, providing that no payment
is due where the treatments were not actually provided or to
the extent that the fees charged exceeded the fee schedule,
effectively abrogating the Court of Appeals holding in Fair Price
Medical Supply v. Travelers Indem., 10 NY3d 556 (2008).

Specifically, Subdivisions (g) through (j) of section 65-3.8 are
re-lettered subdivisions (i) through (l) and new subdivisions
(g)??and (h) are added to read as follows:

(1) Proof of the fact and amount of loss sustained pursuant to
Insurance Law section 5106(a) shall not be deemed supplied
by an applicant to an insurer and no payment shall be due for
such claimed medical services under any circumstances:
(i) When the claimed medical services were not provided to an
    injured party; or

(ii) for those claimed medical service fees that exceed the charges
     permissible pursuant to Insurance Law sections 5108(a) and
     (b) and the regulations promulgated thereunder for services
     rendered by medical providers.

(h) With respect to a denial of claim (NYS Form N-F 10), an
    insurer's non-substantive technical or immaterial defect or
    omission shall not affect the validity of a denial of claim.

   As a result, an insurer is no longer precluded from denying
   payment on these grounds beyond the statutory period. The
   justification for this change is that when providers over-bill or
   bill for phantom services, the consumer's no-fault monetary
   limit, typically $50,000, is unjustly depleted.

  The new regulation does not explicitly state that billing in
  excess of the mandated fee schedule or billing for services not
  rendered are non-waivable defenses,
but rather that proof of the fact and amount of loss sustained
shall not be deemed to be received by the insurer in the first
instance, a condition precedent to coverage, when the
applicant for benefits has billed in excess of the mandated fee
schedule and/or for services not rendered. Further, and
crucially, amid concerns

that the new amendment would result in the denial of a claim
in its entirety when the applicant for benefits has billed in
excess of the mandated fee schedule, not just to the extent of
the excess, the Superintendent has clearly stated that only the
excess portion of an excessive bill is not due, rather than the
entire bill.

This amendment, applicable to medical services rendered on
or after April 1, 2013, will have a tremendous impact on the
current state of no-fault law.
Time Limit for Responding
Currently, an insurer is required, within 30 days of receiving a
no-fault claim from a health care provider, to pay or deny the
claim, or, within 15 days, send a request for additional
information to verify the claim. Once the insurer receives
verification, it has 30 additional days to pay or deny the claim.
However, there is currently no statutory deadline for a provider
to respond to a verification request. Moreover, an insurer is not
permitted to deny or close a claim if it never receives the
requested verification. As a result, some claims remain open,
or tolled, indefinitely. This can become very costly for insurers
as under the law, insurers must pay a very high interest rate
on delayed payments.

The amendment addresses this issue by setting a strict
deadline for responding to the insurer's verification request.
The healthcare provider must now provide a response within
120 days of an insurer's verification request, or provide
reasonable justification why it cannot do so
. Should the applicant fail to do one or the other, the
   amendment permits an insurer to deny the claim, thus
   speeding up the claims process and reducing the number of
   claims that remain tolled indefinitely.

   Specifically, new subdivisions (o) and (p) are added to section
   65-3.5 to read as follows:

(o) An applicant from whom verification is requested shall, within
    120 calendar days from the date of the initial request for
    verification, submit all such verification under the applicant's
    control or possession or written proof providing reasonable
    justification for the failure to comply. The insurer shall advise
    the applicant in the verification request that the insurer may
    deny the

   claim if the applicant does not provide within 120 calendar
   days from the date of the initial request either all such
   verification under the applicant's control or possession or
   written proof providing reasonable justification for the failure
   to comply.
•   This subdivision shall not apply to a prescribed form (NF-Form)
    as set forth in Appendix 13 of this Title, medical examination
    request, or examination under oath request. This subdivision
    shall apply, with respect to claims for medical services, to any
    treatment or service rendered on or after April 1, 2013 and
    with respect to claims for lost earnings and reasonable and
    necessary expenses, to any accident occurring on or after April
    1, 2013.

    (p) With respect to a verification request and notice, an
    insurer's non-substantive technical or immaterial defect or
    omission, as well as an insurer's failure to comply with a
    prescribed time frame, shall not negate an applicant's
    obligation to comply with the request or notice. This
    subdivision shall apply to medical services rendered, and to
    lost earnings and other reasonable and necessary expenses
    incurred, on or after April 1, 2013.

    Further, paragraph (3) of section 65-3.8(b) is amended to read
    as follows:
(3) Except as provided in subdivision (e) of this section, an
   insurer shall not issue a denial of claim form (NYS form N-F
   10) prior to its receipt of verification of all of the relevant
   information requested pursuant to [section] sections 65-3.5
   and 65-3.6 of this Subpart (e.g., medical reports, wage
   verification, etc.). However, an insurer may issue a denial
   if, more than 120 calendar days after the initial request for
   verification, the applicant has not submitted all such
   verification under the applicant's control or possession or
   written proof providing

  reasonable justification for the failure to comply, provided that
  the verification request so advised the applicant as required in
  section 65-3.5(o) of this Subpart. This subdivision shall not
  apply to a prescribed form (NF Form) as set forth in Appendix
  13 of this Title, medical examination request, or examination
  under oath request. This paragraph shall apply, with respect
  to claims for medical services, to any treatment or service
  rendered on or after April 1, 2013, and with respect to claims
  for lost earnings and reasonable and necessary expenses, to
  any accident occurring on or after April 1, 2013.
In order to comply with this new regulation, applicants will be
burdened with additional paperwork and internal procedure
changes, as they will now be required to provide additional
justification for non-compliance and to ensure timeliness of
their responses. However, insurers will share in this burden, as
the amendment mandates that they must notify their
policyholders of the new time-frame requirement and that
failure to adhere to the requirement may result in a denial of
the claim.

Critically, there are several important exceptions to the 120-
day verification rule. The new provision will not apply to a
prescribed form (NF-Form), a medical examination request, or
an examination under oath request.16 This carve-out should
provide some relief to applicants, since a large percentage of
verification requests involve these items. However, because it
is standard practice in the industry for insurers to request
multiple items in one verification request, it raises the question
of whether the 120-day deadline applies to a single request
that contains both exempted and non-exempted items.
Additionally, the amended regulation explicitly stipulates
that the applicant is only required to provide, within 120 days
of the initial request, only such verification that is in the
applicant's possession or control, or provide written proof
providing reasonable justification for the failure to comply.17
Finally, it is also important to note that the new provision
regarding verification requests also provides that "an insurer's
failure to comply with a prescribed time frame, shall not
negate an applicant's obligation to comply with the request or
notice."

Technical Defects

Under the current no-fault law, if there is an insignificant, non-
substantive or technical defect in an insurer's otherwise
presumably valid verification request or denial, the applicant
may seek to challenge its legitimacy through the courts or
arbitration.19 In an effort to cut down on what the Department
of Financial Services views as unnecessary litigation and delay,
the new amendment explicitly provides that an applicant's
obligation to comply with a notice or verification request is not
•   negated—and a denial of claim is not invalidated—due to a
    non-substantive technical or immaterial defect contained in any
    of these documents.

    With regard to a denial of claim form (NYS Form NF-10),
    subsection 65-3.8 (h) provides that "an insurer's non-
    substantive technical or immaterial defect or omission shall not
    affect the validity of a denial of claim. The subdivision will be
    applicable to medical services rendered, and to lost earnings
    and other reasonable and necessary expenses incurred, on or
    after April 1, 2013."With respect to a verification request and
    notice, subsection 65-3.5(p) provides that "an insurer's non-
    substantive technical or immaterial defect or omission, as well
    as an insurer's failure to comply with a prescribed time frame,
    shall not negate an applicant's obligation to comply with the
    request or notice. This subdivision shall apply to medical
    services rendered, and to lost earnings and other reasonable
    and necessary expenses incurred, on or after April 1, 2013."
•   Notably absent from the new regulation is any definition or
    description of what constitutes a "non-substantive technical or
    immaterial defect or omission." Such glaring ambiguity will
    inevitably create a situation where the courts and arbitrators
    will be called upon to offer clarification and conclusiveness.
    Despite its best efforts, it seems that the Department of
    Financial Services, in trying to craft an amendment that would
    reduce unnecessary litigation and speed up the resolution of
    claims, has created a new potential "loophole" to be litigated
    for years to come.

•   David M. Barshay is a member of Baker Sanders, in Garden
    City. Jennifer L. Zeidner, a senior associate with the firm,
    assisted in the preparation of this article.

    POSTED BY ATTORNEY RENE G. GARCIA:

    For more information:- The Garcia Law Firm, P.C. was able to successfully
    handle no fault cases. For a free consultation please call us at 1-866-
    SCAFFOLD or 212-725-1313.

Contenu connexe

Tendances

March 2011 Regulatory Webinar
March 2011 Regulatory WebinarMarch 2011 Regulatory Webinar
March 2011 Regulatory Webinarcheriwhalen
 
Special Leave for Women
Special Leave for WomenSpecial Leave for Women
Special Leave for WomenJDP Consulting
 
Power point re 2011 amendments to illinois workers' compensation act
Power point re 2011 amendments to illinois workers' compensation actPower point re 2011 amendments to illinois workers' compensation act
Power point re 2011 amendments to illinois workers' compensation actJoseph Garofalo
 
Updated Timelines for Reporting of SAE
Updated Timelines for Reporting of SAEUpdated Timelines for Reporting of SAE
Updated Timelines for Reporting of SAENaveen Kumar Upadhyay
 
Medical Billing
Medical BillingMedical Billing
Medical BillingKarna *
 
Ama prepare that claim taking an active approch to the claims management re...
Ama prepare that claim   taking an active approch to the claims management re...Ama prepare that claim   taking an active approch to the claims management re...
Ama prepare that claim taking an active approch to the claims management re...Rajinikanth Dhakshanamurthi
 
Matt Lewis Law - Libs Update 2015
Matt Lewis Law - Libs Update 2015Matt Lewis Law - Libs Update 2015
Matt Lewis Law - Libs Update 2015Matt Lewis Law
 
CMS 1500 Instructions
CMS 1500 InstructionsCMS 1500 Instructions
CMS 1500 InstructionsKarna *
 
Medical Billing 1
Medical Billing 1Medical Billing 1
Medical Billing 1Karna *
 
COVID-19 Business Interruption Rulings as of Oct 30 2020
COVID-19 Business Interruption Rulings as of Oct 30 2020COVID-19 Business Interruption Rulings as of Oct 30 2020
COVID-19 Business Interruption Rulings as of Oct 30 2020JasonSchupp1
 

Tendances (18)

PhilHealth Benefits
PhilHealth BenefitsPhilHealth Benefits
PhilHealth Benefits
 
March 2011 Regulatory Webinar
March 2011 Regulatory WebinarMarch 2011 Regulatory Webinar
March 2011 Regulatory Webinar
 
Special Leave for Women
Special Leave for WomenSpecial Leave for Women
Special Leave for Women
 
Medical Billing 101
Medical Billing 101Medical Billing 101
Medical Billing 101
 
Power point re 2011 amendments to illinois workers' compensation act
Power point re 2011 amendments to illinois workers' compensation actPower point re 2011 amendments to illinois workers' compensation act
Power point re 2011 amendments to illinois workers' compensation act
 
Updated Timelines for Reporting of SAE
Updated Timelines for Reporting of SAEUpdated Timelines for Reporting of SAE
Updated Timelines for Reporting of SAE
 
Premium Pay
Premium PayPremium Pay
Premium Pay
 
Holiday Pay
Holiday PayHoliday Pay
Holiday Pay
 
SURROGACY CONTRACT (by Naira Matevosyan)
SURROGACY CONTRACT (by Naira Matevosyan)SURROGACY CONTRACT (by Naira Matevosyan)
SURROGACY CONTRACT (by Naira Matevosyan)
 
Medical Billing
Medical BillingMedical Billing
Medical Billing
 
SSS Citizens Charter
SSS Citizens CharterSSS Citizens Charter
SSS Citizens Charter
 
Ama prepare that claim taking an active approch to the claims management re...
Ama prepare that claim   taking an active approch to the claims management re...Ama prepare that claim   taking an active approch to the claims management re...
Ama prepare that claim taking an active approch to the claims management re...
 
Athletico presentation
Athletico presentationAthletico presentation
Athletico presentation
 
Matt Lewis Law - Libs Update 2015
Matt Lewis Law - Libs Update 2015Matt Lewis Law - Libs Update 2015
Matt Lewis Law - Libs Update 2015
 
CMS 1500 Instructions
CMS 1500 InstructionsCMS 1500 Instructions
CMS 1500 Instructions
 
Medical Billing 1
Medical Billing 1Medical Billing 1
Medical Billing 1
 
13th Month Pay
13th Month Pay13th Month Pay
13th Month Pay
 
COVID-19 Business Interruption Rulings as of Oct 30 2020
COVID-19 Business Interruption Rulings as of Oct 30 2020COVID-19 Business Interruption Rulings as of Oct 30 2020
COVID-19 Business Interruption Rulings as of Oct 30 2020
 

En vedette

Tarea q3 cuarto bimestre
Tarea q3 cuarto bimestreTarea q3 cuarto bimestre
Tarea q3 cuarto bimestrenoraesmeralda
 
Occupational asthma
Occupational asthmaOccupational asthma
Occupational asthmaRene Garcia
 
Worker's compensation know your rights
Worker's compensation   know your rightsWorker's compensation   know your rights
Worker's compensation know your rightsRene Garcia
 

En vedette (6)

Scm f-202-t2 topografia
Scm f-202-t2 topografiaScm f-202-t2 topografia
Scm f-202-t2 topografia
 
Paralysis
ParalysisParalysis
Paralysis
 
Tarea q3 cuarto bimestre
Tarea q3 cuarto bimestreTarea q3 cuarto bimestre
Tarea q3 cuarto bimestre
 
Tmj
TmjTmj
Tmj
 
Occupational asthma
Occupational asthmaOccupational asthma
Occupational asthma
 
Worker's compensation know your rights
Worker's compensation   know your rightsWorker's compensation   know your rights
Worker's compensation know your rights
 

Similaire à New no fault regulations to take effect april 1

Understanding New York No Fault
Understanding New York No FaultUnderstanding New York No Fault
Understanding New York No Faultmccormick
 
Howard Ankin Presentation at ITLA Workers' Compensation Seminar
Howard Ankin Presentation at ITLA Workers' Compensation SeminarHoward Ankin Presentation at ITLA Workers' Compensation Seminar
Howard Ankin Presentation at ITLA Workers' Compensation SeminarAnkin Law Office, LLC
 
Claim Policies and Procedure Presentation
Claim Policies and Procedure PresentationClaim Policies and Procedure Presentation
Claim Policies and Procedure PresentationJamila Limosnero
 
Medical Billing Work Flow by Sidhant Raj
Medical Billing Work Flow by Sidhant RajMedical Billing Work Flow by Sidhant Raj
Medical Billing Work Flow by Sidhant RajSidhantloveraj
 
SB0414 a5 2013_regular_session
SB0414 a5 2013_regular_sessionSB0414 a5 2013_regular_session
SB0414 a5 2013_regular_sessionSeth Row
 
PIP & Personal Injury Seminar.pdf
PIP & Personal Injury Seminar.pdfPIP & Personal Injury Seminar.pdf
PIP & Personal Injury Seminar.pdfRichard Ribacoff
 
Alliance Seminar on 2-3-16 -- Power Point re Workers' Compensation
Alliance Seminar on 2-3-16 -- Power Point re Workers' CompensationAlliance Seminar on 2-3-16 -- Power Point re Workers' Compensation
Alliance Seminar on 2-3-16 -- Power Point re Workers' CompensationRena Flovin
 
Valuation Testimony
Valuation TestimonyValuation Testimony
Valuation TestimonyAndy Lewis
 
NAHU Health Care Reform Timeline
NAHU Health Care Reform TimelineNAHU Health Care Reform Timeline
NAHU Health Care Reform Timelineprescottm
 
Health Reform Bulletin 135 | Repeal of Individual Penalty Mandate, Review of ...
Health Reform Bulletin 135 | Repeal of Individual Penalty Mandate, Review of ...Health Reform Bulletin 135 | Repeal of Individual Penalty Mandate, Review of ...
Health Reform Bulletin 135 | Repeal of Individual Penalty Mandate, Review of ...CBIZ, Inc.
 
Understanding the concept of non subscribers in connection with workers’ comp...
Understanding the concept of non subscribers in connection with workers’ comp...Understanding the concept of non subscribers in connection with workers’ comp...
Understanding the concept of non subscribers in connection with workers’ comp...mosmedicalreview
 
9 2017-course example- course 2014-2015 lesson 7 liens
9 2017-course example- course 2014-2015 lesson 7 liens9 2017-course example- course 2014-2015 lesson 7 liens
9 2017-course example- course 2014-2015 lesson 7 liensRichard Boggan JD
 
Amnesty scheme service tax 2013
Amnesty scheme service tax 2013Amnesty scheme service tax 2013
Amnesty scheme service tax 2013PSPCL
 
Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013
Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013
Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013Ashish Gupta
 
Louisiana Workers Compensation - the 1002 Process
Louisiana Workers Compensation - the 1002 ProcessLouisiana Workers Compensation - the 1002 Process
Louisiana Workers Compensation - the 1002 ProcessMitchell & Associates, APLC
 
Unfair claims-settlement-practices-act
Unfair claims-settlement-practices-actUnfair claims-settlement-practices-act
Unfair claims-settlement-practices-actLira Venture Capital
 
Service tax voluntary compliance encouragement scheme, 2013
Service tax voluntary compliance encouragement scheme, 2013Service tax voluntary compliance encouragement scheme, 2013
Service tax voluntary compliance encouragement scheme, 2013ANAND KANKANI
 
Basics-of-Medical-Billing-Coding CBP CBP
Basics-of-Medical-Billing-Coding CBP CBPBasics-of-Medical-Billing-Coding CBP CBP
Basics-of-Medical-Billing-Coding CBP CBPxt4v7gfdbq
 

Similaire à New no fault regulations to take effect april 1 (20)

Understanding New York No Fault
Understanding New York No FaultUnderstanding New York No Fault
Understanding New York No Fault
 
Howard Ankin Presentation at ITLA Workers' Compensation Seminar
Howard Ankin Presentation at ITLA Workers' Compensation SeminarHoward Ankin Presentation at ITLA Workers' Compensation Seminar
Howard Ankin Presentation at ITLA Workers' Compensation Seminar
 
Claim Policies and Procedure Presentation
Claim Policies and Procedure PresentationClaim Policies and Procedure Presentation
Claim Policies and Procedure Presentation
 
Medical Billing Work Flow by Sidhant Raj
Medical Billing Work Flow by Sidhant RajMedical Billing Work Flow by Sidhant Raj
Medical Billing Work Flow by Sidhant Raj
 
Lawrence medical services
Lawrence medical servicesLawrence medical services
Lawrence medical services
 
SB0414 a5 2013_regular_session
SB0414 a5 2013_regular_sessionSB0414 a5 2013_regular_session
SB0414 a5 2013_regular_session
 
PIP & Personal Injury Seminar.pdf
PIP & Personal Injury Seminar.pdfPIP & Personal Injury Seminar.pdf
PIP & Personal Injury Seminar.pdf
 
Alliance Seminar on 2-3-16 -- Power Point re Workers' Compensation
Alliance Seminar on 2-3-16 -- Power Point re Workers' CompensationAlliance Seminar on 2-3-16 -- Power Point re Workers' Compensation
Alliance Seminar on 2-3-16 -- Power Point re Workers' Compensation
 
Valuation Testimony
Valuation TestimonyValuation Testimony
Valuation Testimony
 
NAHU Health Care Reform Timeline
NAHU Health Care Reform TimelineNAHU Health Care Reform Timeline
NAHU Health Care Reform Timeline
 
Health Reform Bulletin 135 | Repeal of Individual Penalty Mandate, Review of ...
Health Reform Bulletin 135 | Repeal of Individual Penalty Mandate, Review of ...Health Reform Bulletin 135 | Repeal of Individual Penalty Mandate, Review of ...
Health Reform Bulletin 135 | Repeal of Individual Penalty Mandate, Review of ...
 
Understanding the concept of non subscribers in connection with workers’ comp...
Understanding the concept of non subscribers in connection with workers’ comp...Understanding the concept of non subscribers in connection with workers’ comp...
Understanding the concept of non subscribers in connection with workers’ comp...
 
9 2017-course example- course 2014-2015 lesson 7 liens
9 2017-course example- course 2014-2015 lesson 7 liens9 2017-course example- course 2014-2015 lesson 7 liens
9 2017-course example- course 2014-2015 lesson 7 liens
 
Amnesty scheme service tax 2013
Amnesty scheme service tax 2013Amnesty scheme service tax 2013
Amnesty scheme service tax 2013
 
Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013
Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013
Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013
 
Louisiana Workers Compensation - the 1002 Process
Louisiana Workers Compensation - the 1002 ProcessLouisiana Workers Compensation - the 1002 Process
Louisiana Workers Compensation - the 1002 Process
 
Unfair claims-settlement-practices-act
Unfair claims-settlement-practices-actUnfair claims-settlement-practices-act
Unfair claims-settlement-practices-act
 
Quarterly Advocate V2 2015 (final edit)
Quarterly Advocate V2 2015 (final edit)Quarterly Advocate V2 2015 (final edit)
Quarterly Advocate V2 2015 (final edit)
 
Service tax voluntary compliance encouragement scheme, 2013
Service tax voluntary compliance encouragement scheme, 2013Service tax voluntary compliance encouragement scheme, 2013
Service tax voluntary compliance encouragement scheme, 2013
 
Basics-of-Medical-Billing-Coding CBP CBP
Basics-of-Medical-Billing-Coding CBP CBPBasics-of-Medical-Billing-Coding CBP CBP
Basics-of-Medical-Billing-Coding CBP CBP
 

Plus de Rene Garcia

Back and coccyx injuries from trip and fall
Back and coccyx injuries from trip and fallBack and coccyx injuries from trip and fall
Back and coccyx injuries from trip and fallRene Garcia
 
Reflex sympathetic dystrophy, what is it
Reflex sympathetic dystrophy, what is itReflex sympathetic dystrophy, what is it
Reflex sympathetic dystrophy, what is itRene Garcia
 
Nursing negligence
Nursing negligenceNursing negligence
Nursing negligenceRene Garcia
 
Delayed diagnosis of spinal tumor results in $
Delayed diagnosis of spinal tumor results in $Delayed diagnosis of spinal tumor results in $
Delayed diagnosis of spinal tumor results in $Rene Garcia
 
Biography of christopher reeves part ii
Biography of christopher reeves part iiBiography of christopher reeves part ii
Biography of christopher reeves part iiRene Garcia
 
Road traffic accidents and ocular trauma
Road traffic accidents and ocular traumaRoad traffic accidents and ocular trauma
Road traffic accidents and ocular traumaRene Garcia
 
Nightmare after a car accident
Nightmare after a car accidentNightmare after a car accident
Nightmare after a car accidentRene Garcia
 
Spinal disc herniation
Spinal disc herniationSpinal disc herniation
Spinal disc herniationRene Garcia
 
New no fault regulations to take effect april 1
New no fault regulations to take effect april 1New no fault regulations to take effect april 1
New no fault regulations to take effect april 1Rene Garcia
 
Traumatic brain injury
Traumatic brain injuryTraumatic brain injury
Traumatic brain injuryRene Garcia
 
Overview of hand surgery
Overview of hand surgeryOverview of hand surgery
Overview of hand surgeryRene Garcia
 

Plus de Rene Garcia (12)

Back and coccyx injuries from trip and fall
Back and coccyx injuries from trip and fallBack and coccyx injuries from trip and fall
Back and coccyx injuries from trip and fall
 
Reflex sympathetic dystrophy, what is it
Reflex sympathetic dystrophy, what is itReflex sympathetic dystrophy, what is it
Reflex sympathetic dystrophy, what is it
 
Nursing negligence
Nursing negligenceNursing negligence
Nursing negligence
 
Delayed diagnosis of spinal tumor results in $
Delayed diagnosis of spinal tumor results in $Delayed diagnosis of spinal tumor results in $
Delayed diagnosis of spinal tumor results in $
 
Biography of christopher reeves part ii
Biography of christopher reeves part iiBiography of christopher reeves part ii
Biography of christopher reeves part ii
 
Road traffic accidents and ocular trauma
Road traffic accidents and ocular traumaRoad traffic accidents and ocular trauma
Road traffic accidents and ocular trauma
 
Nightmare after a car accident
Nightmare after a car accidentNightmare after a car accident
Nightmare after a car accident
 
Facial trauma
Facial traumaFacial trauma
Facial trauma
 
Spinal disc herniation
Spinal disc herniationSpinal disc herniation
Spinal disc herniation
 
New no fault regulations to take effect april 1
New no fault regulations to take effect april 1New no fault regulations to take effect april 1
New no fault regulations to take effect april 1
 
Traumatic brain injury
Traumatic brain injuryTraumatic brain injury
Traumatic brain injury
 
Overview of hand surgery
Overview of hand surgeryOverview of hand surgery
Overview of hand surgery
 

Dernier

Anantkumar Hegde
Anantkumar Hegde  Anantkumar Hegde
Anantkumar Hegde NewsFeed1
 
Another Day, Another Default Judgment Against Gabe Whitley
Another Day, Another Default Judgment Against Gabe WhitleyAnother Day, Another Default Judgment Against Gabe Whitley
Another Day, Another Default Judgment Against Gabe WhitleyAbdul-Hakim Shabazz
 
Européennes 2024 : projection du Parlement européen à trois mois du scrutin
Européennes 2024 : projection du Parlement européen à trois mois du scrutinEuropéennes 2024 : projection du Parlement européen à trois mois du scrutin
Européennes 2024 : projection du Parlement européen à trois mois du scrutinIpsos France
 
Ministry of Justice Extradition Eswatini 3.pdf
Ministry of Justice Extradition Eswatini 3.pdfMinistry of Justice Extradition Eswatini 3.pdf
Ministry of Justice Extradition Eswatini 3.pdfSABC News
 
Light Rail in Canberra: Too much, too little, too late: Is the price worth th...
Light Rail in Canberra: Too much, too little, too late: Is the price worth th...Light Rail in Canberra: Too much, too little, too late: Is the price worth th...
Light Rail in Canberra: Too much, too little, too late: Is the price worth th...University of Canberra
 
Green Aesthetic Ripped Paper Thesis Defense Presentation_20240311_111012_0000...
Green Aesthetic Ripped Paper Thesis Defense Presentation_20240311_111012_0000...Green Aesthetic Ripped Paper Thesis Defense Presentation_20240311_111012_0000...
Green Aesthetic Ripped Paper Thesis Defense Presentation_20240311_111012_0000...virgfern3011
 
One India vs United India by Dream Tamilnadu
One India vs United India by Dream TamilnaduOne India vs United India by Dream Tamilnadu
One India vs United India by Dream TamilnaduDreamTamilnadu
 
19032024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdf
19032024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdf19032024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdf
19032024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdfFIRST INDIA
 
Por estos dos motivos, defensa de JOH solicita repetir juicio
Por estos dos motivos, defensa de JOH solicita repetir juicioPor estos dos motivos, defensa de JOH solicita repetir juicio
Por estos dos motivos, defensa de JOH solicita repetir juicioAlexisTorres963861
 

Dernier (9)

Anantkumar Hegde
Anantkumar Hegde  Anantkumar Hegde
Anantkumar Hegde
 
Another Day, Another Default Judgment Against Gabe Whitley
Another Day, Another Default Judgment Against Gabe WhitleyAnother Day, Another Default Judgment Against Gabe Whitley
Another Day, Another Default Judgment Against Gabe Whitley
 
Européennes 2024 : projection du Parlement européen à trois mois du scrutin
Européennes 2024 : projection du Parlement européen à trois mois du scrutinEuropéennes 2024 : projection du Parlement européen à trois mois du scrutin
Européennes 2024 : projection du Parlement européen à trois mois du scrutin
 
Ministry of Justice Extradition Eswatini 3.pdf
Ministry of Justice Extradition Eswatini 3.pdfMinistry of Justice Extradition Eswatini 3.pdf
Ministry of Justice Extradition Eswatini 3.pdf
 
Light Rail in Canberra: Too much, too little, too late: Is the price worth th...
Light Rail in Canberra: Too much, too little, too late: Is the price worth th...Light Rail in Canberra: Too much, too little, too late: Is the price worth th...
Light Rail in Canberra: Too much, too little, too late: Is the price worth th...
 
Green Aesthetic Ripped Paper Thesis Defense Presentation_20240311_111012_0000...
Green Aesthetic Ripped Paper Thesis Defense Presentation_20240311_111012_0000...Green Aesthetic Ripped Paper Thesis Defense Presentation_20240311_111012_0000...
Green Aesthetic Ripped Paper Thesis Defense Presentation_20240311_111012_0000...
 
One India vs United India by Dream Tamilnadu
One India vs United India by Dream TamilnaduOne India vs United India by Dream Tamilnadu
One India vs United India by Dream Tamilnadu
 
19032024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdf
19032024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdf19032024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdf
19032024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdf
 
Por estos dos motivos, defensa de JOH solicita repetir juicio
Por estos dos motivos, defensa de JOH solicita repetir juicioPor estos dos motivos, defensa de JOH solicita repetir juicio
Por estos dos motivos, defensa de JOH solicita repetir juicio
 

New no fault regulations to take effect april 1

  • 1. NEW NO-FAULT REGULATIONS TO TAKE EFFECT APRIL 1 IN NY CAR ACCIDENTS CASES David M. Barshay New York Law Journal 02/14/13
  • 2. For nearly a year now, the industry has been buzzing about the proposed changes to 11 NYCRR 65-3 (Insurance Regulation No. 68-C), some speculating that the proposed changes would spell the end of no-fault insurance as we know it. The proposed Fourth Amendment to 11 NYCRR 65-3 was initially released in May 2012 as part of the Cuomo administration's aggressive insurance reform campaign aimed at ending no-fault fraud and stopping the rapid rise in automobile insurance rates. • According to the Department of Financial Services, the proposed new amendment was cultivated with two predominant goals in mind: to prevent health care providers from being paid for services they do not actually provide; and to address certain technical issues that may be used to prevent a decision on a claim or keep an otherwise faulty claim open. Both of these issues, according to the department, increase costs to consumers.
  • 3. To tackle these issues, the department's amendment would: (1) do away with certain statutory requirements, which in effect require insurers to pay for treatments that were never actually provided or pay more than the established fee schedule for a given service; (2) prevent health care providers from ignoring requests for verification concerning the medical necessity of treatment by setting a 120-day deadline to provide such requested information; and (3) close the apparent loophole that requires insurers to pay for non- rendered medical services simply because of technical errors made by those insurers during the claims process. • On the whole, both insurers and applicants for benefits did not object to the Superintendent's attempts to protect consumers from unjust depletion of benefits by attempting to streamline the claims process, limit excessive billing or "phantom billing," and limit litigation over technicalities in the claims process. There were, however, concerns that the changes would be placing an unfair and disproportionate burden on applicants.
  • 4. Phantom Billing, Over-Billing With regard to billing for services not actually performed and/or billed in excess of the New York State Workers' Compensation fee schedule, the current law requires insurers to pay for these claims if they fail to timely process such, either through a timely denial or verification request. The amendment adds two new subdivisions to section 65-3.8, providing that no payment is due where the treatments were not actually provided or to the extent that the fees charged exceeded the fee schedule, effectively abrogating the Court of Appeals holding in Fair Price Medical Supply v. Travelers Indem., 10 NY3d 556 (2008). Specifically, Subdivisions (g) through (j) of section 65-3.8 are re-lettered subdivisions (i) through (l) and new subdivisions (g)??and (h) are added to read as follows: (1) Proof of the fact and amount of loss sustained pursuant to Insurance Law section 5106(a) shall not be deemed supplied by an applicant to an insurer and no payment shall be due for such claimed medical services under any circumstances:
  • 5. (i) When the claimed medical services were not provided to an injured party; or (ii) for those claimed medical service fees that exceed the charges permissible pursuant to Insurance Law sections 5108(a) and (b) and the regulations promulgated thereunder for services rendered by medical providers. (h) With respect to a denial of claim (NYS Form N-F 10), an insurer's non-substantive technical or immaterial defect or omission shall not affect the validity of a denial of claim. As a result, an insurer is no longer precluded from denying payment on these grounds beyond the statutory period. The justification for this change is that when providers over-bill or bill for phantom services, the consumer's no-fault monetary limit, typically $50,000, is unjustly depleted. The new regulation does not explicitly state that billing in excess of the mandated fee schedule or billing for services not rendered are non-waivable defenses,
  • 6. but rather that proof of the fact and amount of loss sustained shall not be deemed to be received by the insurer in the first instance, a condition precedent to coverage, when the applicant for benefits has billed in excess of the mandated fee schedule and/or for services not rendered. Further, and crucially, amid concerns that the new amendment would result in the denial of a claim in its entirety when the applicant for benefits has billed in excess of the mandated fee schedule, not just to the extent of the excess, the Superintendent has clearly stated that only the excess portion of an excessive bill is not due, rather than the entire bill. This amendment, applicable to medical services rendered on or after April 1, 2013, will have a tremendous impact on the current state of no-fault law.
  • 7. Time Limit for Responding Currently, an insurer is required, within 30 days of receiving a no-fault claim from a health care provider, to pay or deny the claim, or, within 15 days, send a request for additional information to verify the claim. Once the insurer receives verification, it has 30 additional days to pay or deny the claim. However, there is currently no statutory deadline for a provider to respond to a verification request. Moreover, an insurer is not permitted to deny or close a claim if it never receives the requested verification. As a result, some claims remain open, or tolled, indefinitely. This can become very costly for insurers as under the law, insurers must pay a very high interest rate on delayed payments. The amendment addresses this issue by setting a strict deadline for responding to the insurer's verification request. The healthcare provider must now provide a response within 120 days of an insurer's verification request, or provide reasonable justification why it cannot do so
  • 8. . Should the applicant fail to do one or the other, the amendment permits an insurer to deny the claim, thus speeding up the claims process and reducing the number of claims that remain tolled indefinitely. Specifically, new subdivisions (o) and (p) are added to section 65-3.5 to read as follows: (o) An applicant from whom verification is requested shall, within 120 calendar days from the date of the initial request for verification, submit all such verification under the applicant's control or possession or written proof providing reasonable justification for the failure to comply. The insurer shall advise the applicant in the verification request that the insurer may deny the claim if the applicant does not provide within 120 calendar days from the date of the initial request either all such verification under the applicant's control or possession or written proof providing reasonable justification for the failure to comply.
  • 9. This subdivision shall not apply to a prescribed form (NF-Form) as set forth in Appendix 13 of this Title, medical examination request, or examination under oath request. This subdivision shall apply, with respect to claims for medical services, to any treatment or service rendered on or after April 1, 2013 and with respect to claims for lost earnings and reasonable and necessary expenses, to any accident occurring on or after April 1, 2013. (p) With respect to a verification request and notice, an insurer's non-substantive technical or immaterial defect or omission, as well as an insurer's failure to comply with a prescribed time frame, shall not negate an applicant's obligation to comply with the request or notice. This subdivision shall apply to medical services rendered, and to lost earnings and other reasonable and necessary expenses incurred, on or after April 1, 2013. Further, paragraph (3) of section 65-3.8(b) is amended to read as follows:
  • 10. (3) Except as provided in subdivision (e) of this section, an insurer shall not issue a denial of claim form (NYS form N-F 10) prior to its receipt of verification of all of the relevant information requested pursuant to [section] sections 65-3.5 and 65-3.6 of this Subpart (e.g., medical reports, wage verification, etc.). However, an insurer may issue a denial if, more than 120 calendar days after the initial request for verification, the applicant has not submitted all such verification under the applicant's control or possession or written proof providing reasonable justification for the failure to comply, provided that the verification request so advised the applicant as required in section 65-3.5(o) of this Subpart. This subdivision shall not apply to a prescribed form (NF Form) as set forth in Appendix 13 of this Title, medical examination request, or examination under oath request. This paragraph shall apply, with respect to claims for medical services, to any treatment or service rendered on or after April 1, 2013, and with respect to claims for lost earnings and reasonable and necessary expenses, to any accident occurring on or after April 1, 2013.
  • 11. In order to comply with this new regulation, applicants will be burdened with additional paperwork and internal procedure changes, as they will now be required to provide additional justification for non-compliance and to ensure timeliness of their responses. However, insurers will share in this burden, as the amendment mandates that they must notify their policyholders of the new time-frame requirement and that failure to adhere to the requirement may result in a denial of the claim. Critically, there are several important exceptions to the 120- day verification rule. The new provision will not apply to a prescribed form (NF-Form), a medical examination request, or an examination under oath request.16 This carve-out should provide some relief to applicants, since a large percentage of verification requests involve these items. However, because it is standard practice in the industry for insurers to request multiple items in one verification request, it raises the question of whether the 120-day deadline applies to a single request that contains both exempted and non-exempted items. Additionally, the amended regulation explicitly stipulates
  • 12. that the applicant is only required to provide, within 120 days of the initial request, only such verification that is in the applicant's possession or control, or provide written proof providing reasonable justification for the failure to comply.17 Finally, it is also important to note that the new provision regarding verification requests also provides that "an insurer's failure to comply with a prescribed time frame, shall not negate an applicant's obligation to comply with the request or notice." Technical Defects Under the current no-fault law, if there is an insignificant, non- substantive or technical defect in an insurer's otherwise presumably valid verification request or denial, the applicant may seek to challenge its legitimacy through the courts or arbitration.19 In an effort to cut down on what the Department of Financial Services views as unnecessary litigation and delay, the new amendment explicitly provides that an applicant's obligation to comply with a notice or verification request is not
  • 13. negated—and a denial of claim is not invalidated—due to a non-substantive technical or immaterial defect contained in any of these documents. With regard to a denial of claim form (NYS Form NF-10), subsection 65-3.8 (h) provides that "an insurer's non- substantive technical or immaterial defect or omission shall not affect the validity of a denial of claim. The subdivision will be applicable to medical services rendered, and to lost earnings and other reasonable and necessary expenses incurred, on or after April 1, 2013."With respect to a verification request and notice, subsection 65-3.5(p) provides that "an insurer's non- substantive technical or immaterial defect or omission, as well as an insurer's failure to comply with a prescribed time frame, shall not negate an applicant's obligation to comply with the request or notice. This subdivision shall apply to medical services rendered, and to lost earnings and other reasonable and necessary expenses incurred, on or after April 1, 2013."
  • 14. Notably absent from the new regulation is any definition or description of what constitutes a "non-substantive technical or immaterial defect or omission." Such glaring ambiguity will inevitably create a situation where the courts and arbitrators will be called upon to offer clarification and conclusiveness. Despite its best efforts, it seems that the Department of Financial Services, in trying to craft an amendment that would reduce unnecessary litigation and speed up the resolution of claims, has created a new potential "loophole" to be litigated for years to come. • David M. Barshay is a member of Baker Sanders, in Garden City. Jennifer L. Zeidner, a senior associate with the firm, assisted in the preparation of this article. POSTED BY ATTORNEY RENE G. GARCIA: For more information:- The Garcia Law Firm, P.C. was able to successfully handle no fault cases. For a free consultation please call us at 1-866- SCAFFOLD or 212-725-1313.