Physician Assistants and Nurse Practitioners: Why a PIP Insurer Should Not Reduce Charges

A physician assistant (PA) is defined by the American Academy of Physician Assistants as a “healthcare professional who is licensed to practice medicine as a part of a team with physicians and other providers.” A nurse practitioner (NP) is defined as “a registered nurse (RN) who has completed advanced education (a minimum of a master’s degree) and training in the diagnosis and management of common medical conditions, including chronic illnesses.”

In the realm of PIP, many physician assistants and nurse practitioners provide medically necessary services to individuals who are involved in motor vehicle accidents. From consultation services to follow-up visits, these medical practitioners provide invaluable medical treatment. When the medical provider submits its bills, PAs and NPs sign the bottom of the Health Insurance Claims Forms (CMS 1500) to indicate that they actually provided the treatment/care on that specific date of service. Many insurance carriers will reduce their reimbursement to the provider based on the Code of Federal Regulations and the Medicare Claims Processing Manual. The Medicare Claims Processing Manual specifies at what percentage nurse practitioner and physician assistant charges should be reduced.

Medicare Claims Processing Manual and Federal Rules   

The Medicare Claims Processing Manual instructs insurers/insureds how to bill cases according to Medicare procedures. Specifically, the pertinent chapter of the Medicare Claims Processing Manual, 110, specifically states that, “Physician Assistant services are paid at… 85 percent of what a physician is paid under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. Thus, when a PA bills at 100%, the insurer is to reduce that payment by 15%. Chapter 12, Section 120 of the Medicare Claims Processing Manual likewise reduces reimbursement for services provided by Nurse Practitioners by 15%. These reductions have “teeth” as 42 CFR Section 414.56(c), and 42 CFR Section 414.52(c) support the same. Thus, many insurers apply these reductions to PIP cases, as PIP law in Florida does, in fact, incorporate some sections of Medicare.

PIP and Medicare Case Law

However, it is important to note that Florida Statutes Section 627.736, which is the Florida PIP statute, has many limitations as to how Medicare can be applied to the same. For example, Florida Statute 627.736(5) (a) (3), indicates that the applicable fee schedule or payment limitation to be applied for the purposes of subparagraph 2 is the Medicare fee schedule or payment limitation in effect at the time the services, supplies or care were rendered, except that it may not be less than the applicable 2007 Medicare Part B fee schedule for medical services, supplies, and care subject to Medicare Part B. In addition, the statute goes on to state, “does not allow the insurer to apply any limitation on the number of treatments or other utilization limits that apply under Medicare or workers’ compensation. An insurer that applies the allowable payment limitations of subparagraph 2 must reimburse a provider who lawfully provided care or treatment under the scope of his or her license, regardless of whether such provisions would be entitled to reimbursement under Medicare due to restrictions or limitations on the types of discipline of health care providers who may be reimbursed for particular procedure codes.”

Moreover, in the case of SOCC, P.L. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, the court stated, “the language of section 627.736(5)(a)(4) supports a finding that the Legislature did not intend for the NCCI edits or other limitations imposed in Medicare cases to be imposed under PIP… The plain language of this subsection states that under PIP an insurer may not apply any limitation on the number of treatments or utilization limits that would apply under Medicare…This language clearly prohibits an insurance company from treating PIP claims as if they were Medicare claims.” Importantly, the court held that the Florida legislature, “only incorporated the participating physicians’ schedule of Medicare Part B in the statute and not any other part of the Medicare System.” The court suggested that it intended only to incorporate the participating physicians’ fee schedule of Medicare in the Florida No-Fault statute and not the entire Medicare statute.

How County/Small Claims Courts Have Decided These Medicare Reduction Cases

Fourth Judicial Circuit in Duval County was presented with a 15% reduction of services rendered by a nurse practitioner in FIRST COAST MEDICAL CENTER a/a/o Thuni Nguyen v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. In the First Coast Medical Center case, the defendant, State Farm, reimbursed the plaintiff pursuant to 200% of the allowable amount listed in the participating physician’s schedule of Medicare Part B for 2009. State Farm indicated that it paid a reasonable amount pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 627.736(5)(a)(1). However, the 4th Judicial Circuit determined that State Farm ultimately reimbursed the plaintiff according to 200% of the allowable amount listed in the participating physician’s schedule of Medicare Part B for 2009 on review of State Farm’s explanations of review and subsequent reductions.

The 4th Judicial Circuit reiterated that the purpose of the PIP statute is to “provide swift and virtually automatic payment so that the injured insured may go on with his life without undue financial interruption.” The Court in the First Coast Medical Center case considered the underlying purpose of the PIP statute and ultimately held that “to hold otherwise would require medical providers to refer to MCP and other regulations that may be enacted or changed under Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations, thereby inserting another level of complex procedures, which is not set out by the Statutes and which the Legislature chose not to insert. Such procedure would defeat the purported purpose of the PIP statute and is not required.”

Court Decision: Deductions are impermissible

Ultimately, the 4th Judicial Circuit held that these reductions are impermissible and should not be utilized when deciding an amount to pay a medical practitioner/provider. It is essential to contact a PIP attorney who is experienced in handling these matters. Medicare claims processing methodology should not be used by an insurance company in determining the proper reimbursement. Moreover, arbitrary reductions for certain practitioners are not part and parcel of the Florida PIP Statutes. It is crucial to discuss these matters to ensure that payments aren’t mishandled and ultimately accepted. Many times insurers will reduce reimbursements utilizing these Medicare codes on multiple claims. A PIP litigation attorney is your buffer to ensure that all payments are collected the correct way, as mandated by the Florida PIP statutes!

It’s easy to get started

Fill out the form or call us at 561-888-8888

Meet your legal team

We fight to win you more

It’s Easy to Get Started

Fill out the form or call us at 561-888-8888

Meet your legal team

We fight to win you more

Premises liability

PREMISE LIABILITY

$450,000

James was searching for equipment for painting at Home Depot. In the aisle next to him, there was a worker on a lift stocking the highest shelf. The worker pushed boxes so far across the shelf that they fell off the other edge and hit James in the head. The force almost knocked James unconscious. He sat down and the loud bang got the worker off the ladder to see what fell. When they saw James they offered him a bucket and made a report. James did not recall leaving the store or how he got home. He did not recall much except being at home depot and getting hit in the head. Home Depot told him that it was a small box of dust masks that hurt him. We discovered it was actually a large box of emergency kits that fell off the shelf.

Personal injury

PERSONAL INJURY

$850,000

In this case, our client slipped and fell on water that had accumulated near the hot tubs/showers on the Lido deck of a major cruise line ship. The client suffered torn ligaments to her shoulder that required 2 arthroscopic surgeries. The cruise line took the position that the condition on the floor was open and obvious.

Premises liability

PREMISES LIABILITY

$980,000

Georgia was visiting a friend in the hospital when she walked out of the elevator and into her friend’s room. As soon as she entered the room she slipped on a newly mopped floor without any wet floor sign present. The floor was so wet that Georgia’s entire outfit was soaked. Because of the muted tile floor, the water was invisible. Georgia needed a back operation which was unsuccessful and caused her to slip into a coma. She luckily survived.

Motor vehicle accident

MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT

$1.1 MILLION

AUTOMOBILE REAR END COLLISION

Rodrigo was driving his work truck home when he was rear-ended at a stoplight. Rodrigo needed a fusion of his thoracic spine. A terrible and complex operation. Unfortunately, while Rodrigo was undergoing the spinal operation, one of his children died and he was unable to be with his grieving wife. It was a tragic case that eventually settled.

Bicycle vs car accident

BICYCLE VS CAR ACCIDENT

$1.45 MILLION

David was a teacher at a local high school. He rode his bike to school in the morning and after school would ride another 10 miles for exercise. On a sunny afternoon on his way home an older driver turned right into him as he was riding down the street. He hurt his shoulder and neck and needed two operations. Defendant felt his injury was due to playing football 10 years earlier and would not provide him a fair or reasonable offer.

Car vs commercial truck accident

CAR VS COMMERCIAL TRUCK ACCIDENT

$3.4 MILLION

Joe was driving his 18 wheeler on the Florida Turnpike headed south after a long-haul run.  He was “bobtailing” which means he did not have a cargo trailer on the back of his truck rig.  A drunk driver lost control of his car causing Joe to avoid the accident but drive off the highway and into a canal.  He was injured in the accident but also witnessed a child die when he climbed out of the truck and came to the accident site.  There the injured child was trapped under the car and he was powerless to save the child before it passed.

Auto accident T-Bone

AUTO ACCIDENT T-BONE

$4.5 MILLION

Xao, a Vietnamese immigrant was driving home after work at night to see his pregnant wife. He stopped at a 4-way intersection and looked both ways. He did not see anyone in either direction. As Mr. X when through the intersection he was hit on the passenger side door by a mid-sized black SUV driving without their lights on. Mr. X was catastrophically injured.

Personal injury

PERSONAL INJURY

$8.2 MILLION

This was a hard-fought pedestrian accident case, in which our client was struck by an SUV driven by a teen driver, as they attempted to cross North Military Trail in West Palm Beach, FL. As a result of the accident, our client suffered numerous fractures, partial loss of vision and frontal lobe brain injury that affected his speech, and other personal injuries that required him to be hospitalized for 58 days.

At the time of the accident, our client was a cashier at Walmart and has been unable to return to work.

“This case is the epitome of what we consider part of our Core Culture and broad vision – which is to be Warriors for Justice,” stated Brian LaBovick. “Mr. Jacobus has serious permanent injuries and will continue to fight to regain his life into the foreseeable future. This verdict will allow him to get the professional help he needs to safely navigate the rest of his life.”

Medical malpractice

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE

$15 MILLION

Brain damages child due to medical negligence.  Mother was misdiagnosed upon entry to the hospital while under contractions.  The child was born severely disabled.