STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
FLORIDA CONVALESCENT CENTERS, ) INC., d/b/a PALM GARDEN OF ) CLEARWATER (Provider 209821), )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 94-6893
)
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE )
ADMINISTRATION, )
)
Respondent. )
) FLORIDA CONVALESCENT CENTERS, ) INC., d/b/a PALM GARDEN OF ) GAINESVILLE (Provider 209678), )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 94-6894
)
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE )
ADMINISTRATION, )
)
Respondent. )
) FLORIDA CONVALESCENT CENTERS, ) INC., d/b/a PALM GARDEN OF ) JACKSONVILLE (Provider 201910), )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 94-6895
)
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE )
ADMINISTRATION, )
)
Respondent. )
) FLORIDA CONVALESCENT CENTERS, ) INC., d/b/a PALM GARDEN OF )
LARGO (Provider 209732), )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 94-6896
)
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE )
ADMINISTRATION, )
)
Respondent. )
)
FLORIDA CONVALESCENT CENTERS, ) INC., d/b/a PALM GARDEN OF ) NORTH MIAMI (Provider 210331), )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 94-6897
)
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE )
ADMINISTRATION, )
)
Respondent. )
) FLORIDA CONVALESCENT CENTERS, ) INC., d/b/a PALM GARDEN OF )
OCALA (Provider 209546), )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 94-6898
)
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE )
ADMINISTRATION, )
)
Respondent. )
) FLORIDA CONVALESCENT CENTERS, ) INC., d/b/a PALM GARDEN OF )
ORLANDO (Provider 209759), )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 94-6899
)
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE )
ADMINISTRATION, )
)
Respondent. )
) FLORIDA CONVALESCENT CENTERS, ) INC., d/b/a PALM GARDEN OF ) PENSACOLA (Provider 209759), )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 94-6900
)
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE )
ADMINISTRATION, )
)
Respondent. )
) FLORIDA CONVALESCENT CENTERS, ) INC., d/b/a PALM GARDEN OF ) PINELLAS (Provider 203696), )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 94-6901
)
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE )
ADMINISTRATION, )
)
Respondent. )
) FLORIDA CONVALESCENT CENTERS, ) INC., d/b/a PALM GARDEN OF ) PORT ST. LUCIE (Provider 210153), )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 94-6902
)
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE )
ADMINISTRATION, )
)
Respondent. )
) FLORIDA CONVALESCENT CENTERS, ) INC., d/b/a PALM GARDEN OF )
TAMPA (Provider 209759), )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 94-6903
)
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE )
ADMINISTRATION, )
)
Respondent. )
) FLORIDA CONVALESCENT CENTERS, ) INC., d/b/a PALM GARDEN OF ) VERO BEACH (Provider 210013), )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 94-6904
)
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE )
ADMINISTRATION, )
)
Respondent. )
) FLORIDA CONVALESCENT CENTERS, ) INC., d/b/a PALM GARDEN OF ) WEST PALM BEACH (Provider 210226),)
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 94-6905
)
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE )
ADMINISTRATION, )
)
Respondent. )
) FLORIDA CONVALESCENT CENTERS, ) INC., d/b/a PALM GARDEN OF ) WINTER HAVEN (Provider 209619), )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 94-6906
)
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE )
ADMINISTRATION, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, Mary Clark, held a formal hearing in the above- styled consolidated cases on February 19, 1996.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Gerald B. Sternstein, Esquire
Frank P. Rainer, Esquire RUDEN, MCCLOSKY, SMITH, et al.
215 South Monroe Street, Suite 815 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
For Respondent: Harold M. Knowles, Esquire
KNOWLES and RANDOLPH, P.A.
528 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
In an attachment to the joint prehearing stipulation filed on February 18, 1996, the parties describe their resolution of all issues in these consolidated cases with the exception of this issue:
Whether the Agency for Health Care Administration, through audit adjustments, properly removed working capital interest from the patient care cost centers and reallocated those costs to the operating cost centers of the individual providers.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
In fourteen separate petitions, various provider facilities owned by Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc. (FCC) challenged Medicaid reimbursement audit adjustments made by the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) for the year ending December 31, 1992.
After the petitions were referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH), they were consolidated as reflected in the above style. After
abeyance and several continuances the cases proceeded to hearing on the only issue which the parties were unable to resolve through stipulation.
At the formal hearing, FCC presented testimony of the following witnesses, each of whom was qualified as an expert: Charles Wysocki (health care accounting and Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement); William Johnson (health care accounting and nursing home costs and cost allocations); Charles Bradford (health care accounting and Medicare reimbursement); and Joseph Mitchell (health care accounting and Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement). FCC's exhibits numbers 1 - 9 were received in evidence.
AHCA presented the testimony of Steven Diaczyk, qualified as an expert in Florida Medicaid cost reimbursement. AHCA's exhibits numbers 1, 2 and 4 were received in evidence. AHCA exhibit number 3, instructions to Medicaid cost reports, was taken under advisement and is rejected as irrelevant. The instructions are not binding as an interpretation on how to prepare a Medicaid cost report. See, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Health Care and Retirement Corp., et al., 593 So.2d 539 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
The transcript of the formal hearing was filed on March 27, 1996, and the parties filed their proposed recommended orders on April 8, 1996. The findings of fact proposed by each party are addressed in the attached appendix.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Petitioners are individual nursing homes participating in the Florida Medicaid program. They are separate providers in the program but are all owned by Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc. (FCC).
Respondent, State of Florida Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) is the agency responsible for administration and implementation of the Medicaid program in Florida.
Title XIX of the Social Security Act (Title XIX) is the matching entitlement program, now known as Medicaid, which provides medical assistance for eligible low-income persons. Within broad federal guidelines, states are given the authority to establish eligibility standards, define the scope of services, establish reimbursement rates and generally administer their own program. One requirement of Title XIX is that a state plan for medical assistance must provide for payment of nursing facility services through rates that "are reasonable and adequate to meet the costs which must be incurred by efficiently and economically operated facilities..." (42 USC 1396(a)). Florida's reimbursement methodology has been approved by the Health Care Financing Administration of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Florida's Medicaid reimbursement methodology requires that a provider file an annual cost report which summarizes all costs by cost centers for a given reporting period. The three Medicaid cost centers are: operating costs, patient care costs and property costs, which are defined, respectively, in the Florida Title XIX Long Term Care Reimbursement Plan:
Medicaid Nursing Home Operating Costs: [Those costs not directly related to patient
care or property costs], such as administrative, plant operation, laundry and housekeeping costs. Return on equity or use allowance costs are not included in operating costs.
Medicaid Nursing Home Patient Care Costs: Those costs [directly] attributed to nursing services, dietary costs, and other costs [directly] related to patient care, such as activity costs, social services, and all medically-ordered therapies.
Medicaid Nursing Home Property Costs: Those costs related to the ownership or leasing of a nursing home. Such costs may include property taxes, insurance, interest and depreciation, or rent.
[Petitioners' exhibit no. 5, page 85,
emphasis added]
The historical costs reported by the provider are used to compute a separate per-patient day cost for each of the three cost centers. The per diem rates are then added to create a comprehensive per diem rate which is used to prospectively compensate the provider. For example, a provider's costs for 1992, reported in its 1992 cost report, are used to set the 1993 per diem rate.
Among the regulatory objectives of the reimbursement plan is cost containment. To further this objective, the plan provides for cost ceilings and targets in each of the cost centers. The ceilings and targets are derived from data collected from all providers in Florida's Medicaid program. The ceiling rates are the maximum amount any provider can be reimbursed, based on its geographical location and size.
Provider reimbursement is also limited by facility-specific target rates based on historical data and rates for the individual facility. Year to year increases in the per diems for the three cost centers are permitted to reflect the inflation rate above an established base rate.
In compliance with the reporting requirements of the reimbursement plan, FCC's in-house controller, Charles Wysocki, prepared Petitioners' 1992 cost reports. They were then reviewed and signed by a Florida CPA, Joseph Mitchell.
In the cost reports, on Schedule C, Mr. Wysocki with the concurrence of Mr. Mitchell, reclassified working capital interest from the property cost center to the patient care and operating cost centers based on the ratio of the total salaries in each to the total salaries for the provider facility. This salary-based allocation method was selected because salaries account for the single largest expenditure in a nursing home, generally 65 - 70 percent, and as high as 86 percent of the total costs for some FCC providers.
As part of AHCA's routine review, the agency engaged a nationally- recognized accounting firm, DeLoitte and Touche, to audit the Medicaid cost reports submitted by FCC. The purpose of the review and audits is to assure that only allowable costs are included, that the costs have been properly classified and that the data used to calculate future reimbursement is correct in all material respects.
The treatment of working capital interest was one of several issues identified in the audit of FCC's 1992 cost report, but it is the only issue remaining now for resolution. At the time of the audit DeLoitte and Touche was under the impression that the working capital loans were "related party" loans which are treated differently for reimbursement purposes than loans that are
"arms-length" between non-related parties. The working capital interest cost was disallowed altogether. After review by the agency an audit report was issued with citations to the authorities supporting the adjustment in the audit.
Later in the audit review process the agency conceded that the problem was not "related party" loans and that the working capital interest was a reimbursable cost. However, the agency disputed the allocation of the interest and adjusted Petitioners' cost reports to allocate the interest to the operating cost center.
There are three authorities for treatment of Florida Medicaid nursing home costs. The parties concur that the first and primary authority is the Florida Title XIX Long Term Care Reimbursement Plan (Plan). If an issue is not addressed in the Plan, then the next resort is to the Provider Reimbursement manual (HIM-15). Finally, if the issue remains unresolved, providers and the Agency rely on Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).
The Plan does not specifically address allocation of working capital interest, although it does provide some guidance in the definitions described in paragraph 4, above, and in this language:
B. Setting prospective reimbursement per diems and ceilings. The department shall:
* * *
4. Determine allowable Medicaid property costs, patient care costs, and return on equity or use allowance. Patient care costs include those costs directly attributable to nursing services, dietary costs, activity costs,
social services costs, and all medically- ordered therapies. All other costs, exclusive of property cost and return on equity or use allowance costs, are considered operating costs. . . .
(Petitioners' exhibit no. 5, page 45)
The guidance found in HIM-15 is much more specific. For example, Section 2806.2 provides:
Costs Excluded from Capital-Related Costs.
This section sets forth some of the costs that are excluded from capital-related costs. To the extent that these costs are allowable they may be included in determining each provider's operating costs. Exclusions from capital-related costs include:
* * *
c. interest expense incurred to borrow working capital [for working expenses];
* * * [emphasis added]
HIM-15, Section 2338, cited in the agency's audit report, provides:
C. Interest expense incurred on funds borrowed for operating expenses must be allocated with administrative and general expenses. . . .
Definitions found in Section 2102 of HIM-15 establish that reasonable costs take into account both direct and indirect costs of providers of services and that costs related to patient care include administrative costs. Costs that are neither directly nor indirectly related to patient care are not allowable in computing reimbursable costs. (Petitioners' exhibit number 2, Sections 2102.1, 2102.2 and 2102.3).
The loans which generated the interest costs at issue here were obtained by the provider facilities to meet operating shortfalls. When a new facility opens there are almost all the expenses of a fully-staffed nursing home, but until the patient beds are filled, there is insufficient revenue to cover the expenses.
FCC's methodology of allocating working capital interest based on salaries resulted in allocating those interest costs to both the patient care cost center and operating cost center, with most going to the patient care cost center. For example, 86 percent of salaries on the cost report for Palm Garden of Ocala for the year ending 12/31/92 were in the patient care cost center, so
86 percent of the working capital interest was allocated to patient care rather than the operating cost center.
There is a substantial incentive for providers to shift costs from one center to another to avoid the ceilings. If the provider's reimbursement for operating cost is capped, but its patient care cost is not yet at the ceiling, then shifting costs from operating to patient care increases the total reimbursement to the provider.
From the record it is impossible to determine exactly how the loan funds were expended by each provider. The monies were deposited into the general operating accounts of the providers and were used to cover operating shortfalls.
In 1989, 1990 and 1991, the three years preceding the year at issue, the agency permitted FCC to allocate working capital interest in the same manner that FCC allocated that cost in its 1992 cost reports. However, the three preceding years' treatment was the outcome of a settlement agreement between the parties wherein each gave up some issues.
Except in the context of settlement, the agency has steadfastly maintained its position that working capital interest must be allocated in the operating cost center. Prior cases with other providers have involved adjustments to move the working capital interest costs from the property cost center rather than from the patient care cost center.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction in this proceeding pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
Section 409.908, Florida Statutes, provides, in pertinent part:
409.908 Reimbursement of Medicaid providers.-
Subject to specific appropriations, the agency shall reimburse Medicaid providers, in accordance with state and federal law, according to methodologies set forth in the
rules of the agency and in policy manuals and handbooks incorporated by reference therein. These methodologies may include fee schedules, reimbursement methods based on cost reporting, negotiated fees, and other mechanisms the agency considers efficient and effective for purchasing services or goods on behalf of recipients.
* * *
(2)(b) Subject to any limitations or directions provided for in the General Appropriations Act, the agency shall establish and implement a Florida Title XIX Long-Term Care Reimbursement Plan (Medicaid) for nursing home care which uses a rate- setting mechanism whereby the rates are reasonable and adequate to cover a nursing home's cost which must be incurred by an
efficiently and economically operated facility in order to provide care and services in conformance with the applicable state and federal laws, rules, regulations, and quality and safety standards and to ensure that individuals eligible for medical assistance have reasonable geographic access to such care. The agency shall base the establishment of any maximum rate of payment, whether overall or component, on the available moneys as provided for in the General Appropriations Act. The agency may base the maximum rate of payment on the results of scientifically valid
analysis and conclusions derived from objective statistical data pertinent to the particular maximum rate of payment.
* * *
Rule 59G-10.010, Florida Administrative Code, (formerly Rule 10C- 7.481, Florida Administrative Code) addresses audits of nursing homes participating in the Florida Medical Program and provides for Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, administrative hearings when providers contest the audit report. Notwithstanding the rule's assignment of burden of proof on the provider to affirmatively demonstrate its entitlement to the Medicaid reimbursement, the parties in this proceeding have stipulated that the agency bears the burden of proof.
The agency has met its burden and has established that its adjustments to FCC's cost reports are appropriate.
Like all other reimbursable costs, working capital interest is related to patient care. But that fact does not compel that it be allocated in the
patient care cost center. Section 2338 of HIM-15, cited in paragraph 16, above, dictates otherwise. Section 2338 and Section 2806.2, as well as definitions in the Reimbursement Plan firmly support the agency's position that working capital interest should be allocated in the operating cost center as an indirect or administrative cost.
FCC argues that Section 2338 requires only that working capital interest be allocated in the manner of administrative expenses and that GAAP dictates that administrative expenses be allocated across the various cost centers, depending on where the expenses were generated. Thus, argues FCC, if direct patient care salaries were paid with loan proceeds, then the interest on the loan is also directly related to patient care.
The argument is supported by some competent expert opinion. It is not supported, however, by the plain language of Section 2338. Furthermore, FCC's method of allocating working capital interest is a methodology, a shortcut only. In other words, as conceded by FCC's witnesses the cost reports do not reflect exactly where the loan funds were expended.
Under the hierarchy of authorities GAAP application is unnecessary. The issue is resolved by reference to the Reimbursement Plan and to HIM-15.
Both parties have cited cases from the Medicare Provider Reimbursement Review Board (PRRB) that are not precisely on point. None involved adjustments reclassifying working capital interest from the patient care cost center to the operating cost center. The agency also cited cases supporting the principle that its interpretation of governing statutes and rules should be upheld unless clearly erroneous. This principle is appropriately applied in appellate review or in rule challenge cases. In the instant cases under Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, the agency is assisted in formulating its final agency action. See, McDonald v. Department of Banking and Finance, 346 So.2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). In this forum the agency must expose and elucidate any policy upon which it relies in proposing to affect the substantial interest of parties. McDonald, supra, and subsection 120.57(1)(b)15, Florida Statutes. The agency has fulfilled this requirement here and has effectively explicated why interest on funds borrowed for general operating expenses should be allocated to the operating cost center and not to the patient care center.
Finally, FCC contends that if the agency determines that its adjustments related to working capital interest must stand, then the facility target rates must be reset so that the individual providers are consistently treated throughout future periods. The agency has not specifically objected to this contention and the parties' settlement agreement which disposed of the remaining issues in dispute appears to address the contention: "(12) Processing of Audit Reports and Readjustments. Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration, Medicaid Program, shall use all reasonable efforts to process the audit adjustments and to reset the rates. . . ." (Exhibit A, Prehearing Stipulation filed 2/18/96).
Based on the foregoing it is hereby: RECOMMENDED:
That the Agency for Health Care Administration enter its Final Order adopting the parties' settlement agreement and approving the agency's audit adjustments related to allocation of working capital interest.
DONE and RECOMMENDED this 26th day of April, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida.
MARY CLARK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of April, 1996.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASES NOS. 94-6893 - 94-6906
To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact:
Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact.
Adopted in paragraph 8.
Rejected as unnecessary.
3.-4. Adopted in part in paragraph 11, otherwise rejected as irrelevant or immaterial.
5.-7. Adopted in part in paragraph 9, otherwise rejected as irrelevant or immaterial.
8. Rejected as irrelevant or immaterial. 9.-10. Adopted in substance in paragraph 18.
Rejected as unnecessary.
Rejected as unnecessary and argument.
Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence.
Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Moreover, it is immaterial since HIM-15 and the Plan are applied, not general principles in this case.
Adopted in paragraph 13.
Adopted in paragraph 4.
Adopted in paragraph 5.
Adopted in paragraph 6.
Adopted in paragraph 7.
20.-23. Adopted in part in paragraph 14, otherwise rejected as immaterial.
Rejected as unnecessary.
Adopted in part in paragraph 17, otherwise rejected
as unnecessary.
26.-31. Rejected as immaterial.
32. Adopted in part in paragraph 16, otherwise rejected as unnecessary.
33.-34. Rejected as unnecessary or immaterial. The interest addressed in paragraphs A and B is distinguished from working capital interest.
Rejected as an interpretation not supported by the greater weight of evidence.
Rejected as immaterial.
Addressed in conclusion of law, paragraph 29. 38.-39. Rejected as argument and contrary to the greater
weight of evidence.
Rejected as argument or unnecessary.
Rejected as argument.
42.-45. Rejected as immaterial. It is unnecessary to apply GAAP here.
Rejected as unnecessary.
Adopted in paragraph 22.
48.-51. Rejected as argument that is unsupported by the weight of evidence.
52. Adopted in summary in paragraph 20. 53.-54. Rejected as immaterial.
Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact.
Adopted in paragraphs 1 and 2.
Adopted in paragraph 4.
Adopted in paragraph 9.
Adopted in paragraph 10.
5.-6. Adopted in substance in paragraph 11.
Adopted in paragraph 13.
Adopted in substance in paragraphs 14 and 15.
Adopted in paragraph 16.
Addressed in conclusion of law, paragraph 29.
Adopted in paragraph 15.
Adopted in part in paragraph 6, otherwise rejected as unnecessary.
Adopted in part in paragraph 4.
Rejected as unnecessary. 15.-18. Adopted in paragraph 4.
Adopted in substance in paragraph 6.
Rejected as unnecessary.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Gerald B. Sternstein, Esquire RUDEN, BARNETT, MCCLOSKY, SMITH
SHUSTER & RUSSELL, P.A.
215 South Monroe Street, Suite 815 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Harold M. Knowles, Esquire KNOWLES & RANDOLPH
528 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Jerome Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care
Administration 2727 Mahan Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care
Administration
Ft. Knox Building 3, Suite 3431
2727 Mahan Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to the Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should consult with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this case concerning their rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this case.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Sep. 05, 1996 | Final Order filed. |
| Apr. 26, 1996 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 02/19/96. |
| Apr. 15, 1996 | Letter to Hearing Officer from P. Noor Re: Enclosing disk containing FCC`s Proposed Recommended Order; Disk filed. |
| Apr. 11, 1996 | Notice of Supplemental Authority filed. |
| Apr. 09, 1996 | Respondent`s Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Apr. 08, 1996 | Petitioner`s Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Mar. 27, 1996 | (2 Volumes) DOAH Court Reporter Transcript ; Notice of Filing filed. |
| Feb. 19, 1996 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Feb. 16, 1996 | (Joint) Pre-Hearing Stipulation filed. |
| Feb. 13, 1996 | (Petitioners) Notice of Taking Telephonic Deposition filed. |
| Feb. 06, 1996 | (Petitioner) Notice of Service of Answers to Interrogatories filed. |
| Jan. 23, 1996 | (Petitioner) Response to Respondent`s First Request for Production filed. |
| Jan. 09, 1996 | Order and Amended Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 2/19/96; 9:00am; Tallahassee) |
| Jan. 03, 1996 | Respondent`s Response to Petitioner`s Second Request for Production; Notice of Service of Answers to Interrogatories filed. |
| Jan. 03, 1996 | (Gerald B. Sternstein) Renewed Motion for Continuance and Request for Oral Argument filed. |
| Dec. 28, 1995 | Order sent out. (Motion for continuance is denied) |
| Dec. 22, 1995 | (Joint) Agreed Motion for Continuance filed. |
| Dec. 08, 1995 | Respondent`s First Request for Production to Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc.; Notice of Service of Respondent`s First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner filed. |
| Dec. 01, 1995 | (Petitioner) First Request for Production to Agency for Health Care Administration filed. |
| Nov. 30, 1995 | Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc.`s Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories filed. |
| Nov. 13, 1995 | Prehearing Order sent out. |
| Nov. 13, 1995 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 1/11/96; 9:00am; Tallahassee) |
| Nov. 09, 1995 | (Joint) Status Report of Parties and Request for Final Hearing Date filed. |
| Oct. 23, 1995 | Order of Abeyance sent out. (Parties to report by 11/3/95) |
| Oct. 17, 1995 | Joint Motion for Continuance filed. |
| Oct. 02, 1995 | Order sent out. (case still set for hearing for 10/23/95) |
| Sep. 28, 1995 | Respondent's Response to Petitioner's Motion to Reconsider W/Attchments filed. |
| Sep. 18, 1995 | (Petitioner) Response to Respondent`s Status Report filed. |
| Sep. 08, 1995 | (Gerald Sternstein) Motion to Reconsider filed. |
| Sep. 08, 1995 | Prehearing Order sent out. |
| Sep. 08, 1995 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 10/23/95; 9:00am; Tallahassee) |
| Sep. 05, 1995 | Respondent`s Status Report filed. |
| Sep. 01, 1995 | (Petitioner) Notice to Set Hearing and Response to Abeyance filed. |
| Aug. 30, 1995 | Order sent out. (Motion to consolidate denied) |
| Aug. 25, 1995 | (Gerald B. Sternstein) Motion to Consolidate (with DOAH Case No/s. 92-6237-92-6248, 93-886-93-896, 93-6983-93-6994, 94-6893-6906) filed. |
| Jul. 17, 1995 | Letter to Hearing Officer from Gerald B. Sternstein Re: Request for Reassignment filed. |
| Jun. 23, 1995 | Order of Abeyance sent out. (case is placed in abeyance until 9/1/95) |
| Jun. 15, 1995 | (Respondent) Agreed Response to Order to Show Cause filed. |
| Jun. 01, 1995 | Order to Show Cause sent out. (Parties to file status report by 6/16/95) |
| Feb. 01, 1995 | Order Establishing Prehearing Procedure sent out. |
| Feb. 01, 1995 | Order of Consolidation and Requiring Response sent out. (Consolidated cases are: 94-6893, 94-6894, 94-6895, 94-6896, 94-6897, 94-6898, 94-6899, 94-6900, 94-6901, 94-6902, 94-6903, 94-6904, 94-6905, 94-6906 |
| Jan. 05, 1995 | (Petitioner) Notice of Related Petitions and Request for Consolidation (with DOAH Case No/s. 94-6893, 94-6894, 94-6895, 94-6896, 94-6897, 94-6898, 94-6899, 94-6901, 94-6902, 94-6903, 94-6904, 94-6905, 94-6906)filed. |
| Dec. 16, 1994 | Initial Order issued. |
| Dec. 09, 1994 | Notice of Related Petitions (94-6893 through 94-6906); Notice; Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing; Agency Action Letter filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Sep. 04, 1996 | Agency Final Order | |
| Apr. 26, 1996 | Recommended Order | Medicaid providers' working capital interest costs belong in operating cost center rather than patient cost center for reimbursement. |
