The issues in this case are whether Respondent applied the proper reimbursement principles to Petitioners' initial Medicaid rate setting, and whether elements of detrimental reliance exist so as to require Respondent to establish a particular initial rate for Petitioners' facilities.Petitioners did not meet their burden of proof. The Agency`s actions were proper and correct. No estoppel applies to the facts of this case.
The issues in this case are whether Respondent applied the proper reimbursement principles to Petitioners' initial Medicaid rate setting, and whether elements of detrimental reliance exist so as to require Respondent to establish a particular initial rate for Petitioners' facilities.Petitioners did not meet their burden of proof. The Agency`s actions were proper and correct. No estoppel applies to the facts of this case.
The issues in this case are whether Respondent applied the proper reimbursement principles to Petitioners' initial Medicaid rate setting, and whether elements of detrimental reliance exist so as to require Respondent to establish a particular initial rate for Petitioners' facilities.Petitioners did not meet their burden of proof. The Agency`s actions were proper and correct. No estoppel applies to the facts of this case.
The issues in this case are whether Respondent applied the proper reimbursement principles to Petitioners' initial Medicaid rate setting, and whether elements of detrimental reliance exist so as to require Respondent to establish a particular initial rate for Petitioners' facilities.Petitioners did not meet their burden of proof. The Agency`s actions were proper and correct. No estoppel applies to the facts of this case.
The issues in this case are whether Respondent applied the proper reimbursement principles to Petitioners' initial Medicaid rate setting, and whether elements of detrimental reliance exist so as to require Respondent to establish a particular initial rate for Petitioners' facilities.Petitioners did not meet their burden of proof. The Agency`s actions were proper and correct. No estoppel applies to the facts of this case.
The issues in this case are whether Respondent applied the proper reimbursement principles to Petitioners' initial Medicaid rate setting, and whether elements of detrimental reliance exist so as to require Respondent to establish a particular initial rate for Petitioners' facilities.Petitioners did not meet their burden of proof. The Agency`s actions were proper and correct. No estoppel applies to the facts of this case.
The issues in this case are whether Respondent applied the proper reimbursement principles to Petitioners' initial Medicaid rate setting, and whether elements of detrimental reliance exist so as to require Respondent to establish a particular initial rate for Petitioners' facilities.Petitioners did not meet their burden of proof. The Agency`s actions were proper and correct. No estoppel applies to the facts of this case.
The issues in this case are whether Respondent applied the proper reimbursement principles to Petitioners' initial Medicaid rate setting, and whether elements of detrimental reliance exist so as to require Respondent to establish a particular initial rate for Petitioners' facilities.Petitioners did not meet their burden of proof. The Agency`s actions were proper and correct. No estoppel applies to the facts of this case.
