The Issue The issues are whether proposed and existing Florida Administrative Code rules, both numbered 59G-6.030, are valid exercises of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners are 120 hospitals--some not-for-profit, some for-profit, and some governmental--that are licensed under chapter 395, Florida Statutes, provide both inpatient and outpatient services, and participate in the Medicaid program. AHCA is the state agency authorized to make payments for services rendered to Medicaid patients. Before 2013, all Medicaid outpatient services were provided and paid fee-for-service. Under the fee-for-service model, hospitals submit claims to AHCA, and AHCA reimburses the hospitals based on the established rate. For many years, AHCA has set prospective Medicaid fee- for-service reimbursement rates for outpatient hospital services, either semi-annually or annually, based on the most recent complete and accurate cost reports submitted by each hospital; has re-published the Florida Title XIX Hospital Outpatient Reimbursement Plan (Outpatient Plan) that explained how the rates were determined; and has adopted the current Outpatient Plan by reference in rule 59G-6.030. In 2005, the Florida Legislature’s General Appropriations Act (GAA) stated that the funds appropriated for Medicaid outpatient hospital services reflected a cost savings of $16,796,807 “as a result of modifying the reimbursement methodology for outpatient hospital rates.” It instructed AHCA to “implement a recurring methodology in the Title XIX Outpatient Hospital Reimbursement Plan that may include, but is not limited to, the inflation factor, variable cost target, county rate ceiling or county ceiling target rate to achieve the cost savings.” AHCA responded by amending the Outpatient Plan to provide: “Effective July 1, 2005, a recurring rate reduction shall be established until an aggregate total estimated savings of $16,796,807 is achieved each year. This reduction is the Medicaid Trend Adjustment.” The amended Outpatient Plan was then adopted by reference in rule 59G-6.030, effective July 1, 2005. AHCA collaborated with the hospitals to determine how to accomplish the legislatively mandated reduction in a manner that would be fair to all the hospitals. It was decided to take the hospitals’ unaudited cost reports from the most recent complete fiscal year and the number of Medicaid occasions of service from the monthly report of AHCA’s Medicaid fiscal agent that corresponded to the hospitals’ fiscal years, and use an Excel spreadsheet program with a function called Goal Seek to calculate proportionate rate adjustments for each hospital to achieve the legislatively mandated aggregate savings. The resulting rate adjustments were incorporated in the hospital reimbursement rates, effective July 1, 2005. In 2006, there was no further Medicaid Trend Adjustment (MTA) reduction. However, in accordance with the instructions in the 2005 GAA, the 2005 MTA reduction of $16,796,807 was treated as a recurring reduction and was applied again in the 2006 Outpatient Plan, which again stated: “Effective July 1, 2005, a recurring rate reduction shall be established until an aggregate total estimated savings of $16,796,807 is achieved each year. This reduction is the Medicaid Trend Adjustment.” The 2006 Outpatient Plan also stated: “This recurring reduction, called the Medicaid Trend Adjustment, shall be applied proportionally to all rates on an annual basis.” It also came to be known as the first cut or cut 1. It again was applied by taking the hospitals’ most current unaudited cost reports and the corresponding occasions of service from the appropriate monthly report of the fiscal agent, and using the Excel spreadsheets and the Goal Seek function to calculate rate adjustments for each hospital. The cut 1 rate adjustments were incorporated in the hospital reimbursement rates, effective July 1, 2006. In 2007, the GAA stated that the funds appropriated for Medicaid outpatient hospital services were reduced by $17,211,796 “as a result of modifying the reimbursement for outpatient hospital rates, effective July 1, 2008.” This has been referred to as the second cut or cut 2. It instructed AHCA to “implement a recurring methodology in the Title XIX Outpatient Hospital Reimbursement Plan to achieve this reduction.” The 2008 Outpatient Plan again applied the first cut as a recurring reduction and stated that it was to be “applied proportionally to all rates on an annual basis.” It then made the second cut, which was to be “applied to achieve a recurring annual reduction of $17,211,796.” These cuts were again applied by taking the hospitals’ most current unaudited cost reports and the corresponding occasions of service from the appropriate monthly report of the fiscal agent, and using the Excel spreadsheets and the Goal Seek function to calculate rate adjustments for each hospital. The resulting rate adjustments were incorporated in the hospital reimbursement rates, effective July 1, 2008. This process was repeated in subsequent years. The third cut (cut 3) was in 2008; it was a $36,403,451 reduction. The fourth cut (cut 4) was in 2009, during a special session; it was a $19,384,437 reduction; however, per the GAA that made the fourth cut, it was not applied to the rates of certain children’s specialty hospitals, which were excluded from the reduction. In addition, using language similar to what AHCA had been using in the Outpatient Plans, the 2009 GAA stated: “The agency shall reduce individual hospital rates proportionately until the required savings are achieved.” The Legislature enacted cut 5 and cut 6 in 2009 and 2010. However, the GAAs stated that AHCA should not take these cuts if the unit costs before the cuts were equal to or less than the unit costs used in establishing the budget. AHCA determined that cuts 5 and 6 should not be taken. However, cuts 1 through 4 continued to be applied as recurring reductions, and rates were adjusted for cuts 1 through 4 in 2009 and 2010 in the same manner as before. In 2011, the GAA enacted cut 7; it was for $99,045,233 and was added to the previous cuts for all but certain children’s specialty and rural hospitals, which were excluded from the additional reduction. In setting the individual hospitals’ reimbursement rates, AHCA first applied cut 7 in the same manner as cuts 1 through 4. The result was a 16.5 percent rate adjustment for cut 7, which was much higher than for previous cuts. Some of the hospitals pointed this out to AHCA and to the Legislature and its staff. There was lots of discussion, and it was determined that the rate adjustment from cut 7 would be more like what the Legislature was expecting (about 12 percent), if budgeted occasions of service were used, instead of the number from the fiscal agent’s monthly report that corresponded to the most recent cost reports. AHCA agreed to change to budgeted fee-for- service occasions of service for cut 7, with the concurrence of the hospitals and the Legislature and its staff. The year 2011 was also the year the Legislature instituted what became known as the “unit cost cap.” In that year, the Legislature amended section 409.908, Florida Statutes, to provide: “The agency shall establish rates at a level that ensures no increase in statewide expenditures resulting from a change in unit costs effective July 1, 2011. Reimbursement rates shall be as provided in the General Appropriations Act.” § 409.908(23)(a), Fla. Stat. (2011). This part of the statute has not changed. The GAA that year elaborated: In establishing rates through the normal process, prior to including this reduction [cut 7], if the unit cost is equal to or less than the unit cost used in establishing the budget, then no additional reduction in rates is necessary. In establishing rates through the normal process, if the unit cost is greater than the unit cost used in establishing the budget, then rates shall be reduced by an amount required to achieve this reduction, but shall not be reduced below the unit cost used in establishing the budget. “Unit cost” was not defined by statute or GAA. To calculate what it was in 2011, AHCA divided the total dollar amount of Medicaid payments made to hospitals by AHCA by the number of Medicaid occasions of service for all hospitals. The result was $141.51. Since 2011, AHCA has applied the unit cost cap with reference to the 2011 unit cost of $141.51. Since then, AHCA has compared the 2011 unit cost to the current cost, calculated by dividing the total dollar amount of Medicaid payments made to all hospitals by AHCA by the number of Medicaid occasions of service for all hospitals, except in children’s and rural hospitals, to determine whether the unit cost cap would require a further rate reduction, after applying the MTA cuts. Using this comparison, the unit cost cap never has been exceeded, and no further rate adjustments ever have been required. It is not clear why AHCA excluded Medicaid occasions of service for children’s and rural hospitals from the unit cost calculations made after 2011. It could have been because those hospitals were excluded from cut 7 and cut 8. Cut 8 was enacted in 2012; it was for $49,078,485 and was added to the previous cuts for all but certain children’s specialty and rural hospitals, which were excluded from the additional reduction. In 2012, the Legislature specified in the GAA that budgeted occasions of service should be used in calculating the MTA reduction for inpatient hospitals. AHCA always treated inpatient and outpatient MTAs the same, and it viewed the specific legislative direction for the inpatient MTA as guidance and indicative of legislative intent that it should continue to use budgeted occasions of service for the outpatient cut 7 and should also use them for the outpatient cut 8. Again, the hospitals did not object since the result was a higher reimbursement rate. In 2014, the Florida Medicaid program began to transition Medicaid recipients from a fee-for-service model to a managed care model. Under the managed care model, AHCA pays a managed care organization (MCO) a capitation rate per patient. The MCOs negotiate contracts with hospitals to provide outpatient care at an agreed reimbursement rate per occasion of service. Since August 2014, the majority of Medicaid recipients has been receiving services through MCOs, rather than through fee-for-service. Currently, about 75 to 80 percent of Medicaid outpatient hospital occasions of service are provided through managed care In recognition of the shift to MCOs, the Legislature began to divide the Medicaid outpatient hospital reimbursement appropriation in the GAA between what AHCA reimburses directly to hospitals under the fee-for-service model and what it pays MCOs to provide those services under the MCO delivery system. This allocation of the budgets between fee-for-service and managed care necessarily accomplished a corresponding division of the recurring MTA reductions between the two delivery systems. The Legislature did not enact any statutes or GAAs requiring AHCA to change how it applies MTA reductions to determine fee-for-service outpatient reimbursement rate adjustments, or make any other changes in response to the transition to MCOs. There were no additional MTA reductions in 2015. The 2015 Outpatient Plan, which is incorporated in existing rule 59G- 6.030, applied the previous cuts as recurring reductions. The evidence was confusing as to whether cuts 7 and 8 were applied using the occasions of service in the fiscal agent’s monthly report corresponding to the hospitals’ most current unaudited cost reports, or using budgeted occasions of service. If the former, the numbers did not yet reflect much of the shift to the managed care model because of a time lag in producing cost reports, and the evidence suggested that the numbers were approximately the same as the budgeted occasions of service used previously. Whichever numbers were used, the resulting rate adjustments were incorporated in the hospitals’ reimbursement rates, effective July 1, 2015. Leading up to the 2016 legislative session, there was a legislative proposal to determine prospective Medicaid outpatient reimbursement rates using a completely new method called Enhanced Ambulatory Patient Groups (EAPGs). EAPGs would eliminate the need to depend on hospital cost reports and complicated calculations to determine the effects of MTA reductions on prospective hospital outpatient reimbursement rates, effective July 1, following the end of the legislative session each year. Hospitals, including some if not all of the Petitioners, asked the Legislature not to proceed with the proposed EAPG legislation until they had an opportunity to study it and provide input, and EAPGs were not enacted in 2016. However, section 409.905(6)(b) was amended, effective July 1, 2017, to require the switch to EAPGs. See note to § 409.905, Fla. Stat.; and ch. 2016-65, § 9, Laws of Fla. (2016). When it became apparent that EAPGs would not be in use for prospective reimbursement rates for fiscal year 2016/2017, AHCA basically repeated the 2015/2016 process, but adjusted the occasions of service used for calculating the hospitals’ rate reductions for cuts 7 and 8 by adding 14,000 occasions of service. At the end of July, AHCA published new rates effective July 1, 2016. When the new rates were published, they were challenged by some of the Petitioners under section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Citing section 409.908(1)(f)1., AHCA took the position that there was no jurisdiction and dismissed the petitions. That decision is on appeal to the First District Court of Appeal. The Petitioners also challenged the methodology used to calculate the new prospective reimbursement rates as a rule that was not adopted as required, and challenged the validity of existing rule 59G-6.030, which incorporated the 2015 Outpatient Plan by reference. These challenges became DOAH cases 16-6398RX through 16-6414RX. In response to DOAH cases 16-6398RX through 16-6414RX, AHCA adopted the 2016 Outpatient Plan by reference in proposed rule 59G-6.030. The 2016 Outpatient Plan provides more detail than the 2015 version. AHCA’s position is that the additional detail was provided to clarify the 2015 version. However, it changed the occasions of service used for calculating the hospitals’ rate reductions for cuts 7 and 8, as indicated in Finding 22, as well as some other substantive changes. The 2015 Outpatient Plan addressed the unit cost cap by stating: “Effective July 1, 2011, AHCA shall establish rates at a level that ensures no increase in statewide expenditures resulting from a change in unit costs.” The 2016 Outpatient Plan elaborates and specifies the calculation AHCA has been using, as stated in Finding 14. The 2015 Outpatient Plan provided that an individual hospital’s prospective reimbursement rate may be adjusted under certain circumstances, such as when AHCA makes an error in the calculation of the hospital’s unaudited rate. It also stated: “Any rate adjustment or denial of a rate adjustment by AHCA may be appealed by the provider in accordance with Rule 28-106, F.A.C., and section 120.57(1), F.S.” The 2016 Outpatient Plan deleted the appeal rights language from the existing rule. The effect of the existing and proposed rules on the Petitioners through their effect on managed care contract rates is debatable. Those rates do not have to be the same as the fee- for-service outpatient reimbursement rates, although they are influenced by the fee-for-service rates, and it is not uncommon for them to be stated as a percentage of the fee-for-service rates. By law, managed care contract rates cannot exceed 120 percent of the fee-for-service rates unless the MCO gets permission from AHCA, as provided in section 409.975(6). Currently, rates paid by MCOs for Medicaid hospital outpatient services average about 105 percent of the fee-for-service reimbursement rates. AHCA has indicated that it would not expect or like to see the contract rates much higher than that. It is not clear whether that still is AHCA’s position. If higher rates were negotiated, the impact of fee-for-services rate adjustments on managed care rates could be reduced or even eliminated. The effect of the existing and proposed rules on the Petitioners through their effect on how fee-for-service reimbursement rates are calculated is not disputed. With the transition to managed care, the effect is greater and clearly substantial. The recurring MTA reductions enacted by the Legislature through 2014, which total $224,015,229 (after taking into account $10,656,238 that was reinstated, and $4,068,064 that was added in consideration of trauma centers), are being spread over fewer fee-for-service occasions of service, especially for cuts 7 and 8, which significantly lowers the fee-for-service outpatient reimbursement rates calculated under the proposed rule. The Petitioners’ objections to the validity of the proposed and existing rules can be summarized as follows: a lack of legislative authority for recurring (i.e., cumulative) MTA reductions; a failure to adopt a fixed methodology to calculate individual hospital outpatient reimbursement rate adjustments resulting from MTA reductions; specifically, a failure to derive the number of fee-for-service occasions of service used in calculating individual hospital outpatient reimbursement rate adjustments in the same manner every year; conversely, a failure to increase the occasions of service used to calculate individual hospital outpatient reimbursement rate adjustments resulting from cuts 1 through 4; a failure of the unit cost cap in the existing rule to specify how it is applied; a failure of the unit cost cap in the proposed rule to compare the 2011 unit cost to the current cost, calculated by dividing the total dollar amount of Medicaid payments made to all hospitals by AHCA by the number of Medicaid occasions of service for all hospitals, including in children’s and rural hospitals; and proposed rule’s deletion of the language in the existing rule stating that a rate adjustment or denial can be appealed in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106 and section 120.57.
Findings Of Fact Introduction Petitioner, New Riviera Health Resort, Inc. (New Riviera or petitioner), operates a fifty-two bed nursing home at 6901 Yumuri Street, Coral Gables, Florida. The facility is licensed by respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). At all times relevant hereto, New Riviera was a participant in the Florida Medicaid Program. Respondent is designated as the state agency responsible for the administration of Medicaid funds under Title XIX of the Social Security Act. In this regard, HRS requires providers such as New Riviera to follow cost reimbursement principles adopted by the federal government. These principles, rules and regulations are codified in publications known as HIM-15 and the Cost Provider Reimbursement Manual. Pursuant to Rule 10C-7.48(4)(a)5.a., Florida Administrative Code, petitioner filed a cost report for its fiscal year ending November 30, 1983, reflecting what it perceived to be its reimburseable costs for providing Medicaid services during the fiscal year. The cost report was audited by HRS field auditors in 1984. Thereafter, on March 20, 1985, HRS issued a Schedule of Audit Adjustments, Statement of Costs, and Statement of Cost and Statistics. As is pertinent here, the Schedule of Audit Adjustments recommended that reimburseable costs be reduced by $71,561.00 in order to bring the cost report in conformity with Federal and State Medicaid reimbursement principles.1 These adjustments relate to the owner's salary and fringe benefits ($50,246), certain roof repairs ($11,613.00), a pension plan contribution ($6,000), and the write-off of certain assets ($3,772). Prior to the preparation of the above reports, an exit conference was held by HRS representatives and petitioner to discuss the proposed adjustments. When no resolution was reached, the reports were issued. That precipitated the instant proceeding. Owner's Salary & Benefits ($50,246.00) Petitioner's facility is owned by Shirley El. St. Clair. Using an HRS formula, New Riviera allocated $30,934.00 of her total salary during the fiscal year to the cost report for reimbursement. It also sought to be reimbursed for $2,312.00 in related payroll taxes, and $17,000.00 for pension plan contributions. All were disallowed by HRS on the ground the costs were "unnecessary" under applicable federal regulations. Specifically, Section 902.2 of HIM-15 provides in part that compensation paid to an owner may be included in allowable provider cost "only to the extent that it represents reasonable renumeration for managerial, administrative, professional, and other services related to the operation of the facility and rendered in connection with patient care." The regulation goes on to provide that "services rendered in connection with patient care include both direct and indirect activities in the provision and supervision of patient care." The same section prohibits reimbursement where services rendered are not related to either direct or indirect patient care but are, for example, rendered "for the purpose of managing or improving the owner's financial investment." The agency takes the position that Ms. St. Clair's efforts are focused in the direction of managing and improving her investment, and that her salary and benefits should be accordingly disallowed. It also contends that the facility had three licensed administrators during fiscal year 1983, and that New Riviera does not need that number to adequately operate a 52- bed facility, which is small by industry standards. St. Clair has been owner-president-administrator of the facility since its inception some thirty two years ago. In response to an audit inquiry, St. Clair gave the following description of her duties: . . . in general terms. I am the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation and Trustee of the New Riviera Pension Trust. Though I no longer keep regular business hours in the traditional sense, I generally work a 30-50 hour week depending on circumstances, frequently on weekends. Much of my time is spent managing the financial aspect of New Riviera and the Pension Plan. I do most of the banking and a great deal of the grocery and "odds and ends" shopping for New Riviera. At final hearing she described her working hours in 1983 as being "irregular"; but still totaling 30 to 50 hours per week. Her duties included "a bit of everything," including keeping the books, admitting patients, performing marketing and banking activities, and relieving other personnel on weekends. There is no dispute that St. Clair has a voice in all business decisions of the nursing home. Because there are no secretaries or receptionists employed by the facility, she also performed various secretarial tasks. During the fiscal year in question, St. Clair also had two other licensed and full-time individuals performing administrative duties. One was a Mrs. Campbell whose primary duty was to keep the books while the other was her son, Michael, who acted as assistant administrator. According to St. Clair, Michael has a masters -degree in health care administration, supervised the maintenance of the facility, and was there "just to learn the business" in anticipation of her retirement. He recently left New Riviera in September, 1985 and had not been replaced as of the time of final hearing. Mrs. Campbell still remains on the payroll. HRS has allowed Campbell's and Michael's salary and fringe benefits but has proposed to disallow all salary and fringe benefits of Mrs. St. Clair. In this regard, there is no credible evidence that a 52-bed facility requires three licensed administrators. Indeed, a 52-bed facility is unique in terms of size, and is roughly one-half the size of a typical nursing facility. Mrs. St. Clair did perform numerous administrative duties during the fiscal year in question, and without contradiction, it was established she devoted some 30 to 50 hours per week at the facility. On the other hand, her son was simply "learning the trade," and his sole function was described as "supervising the maintenance." Under these circumstances, it is found that Shirley St. Clair's salary and fringes are related to "services rendered in connection with patient care" and should be reimbursed. Conversely, the son's salary and fringe benefits were not necessary, were duplicative in nature, and should be disallowed. This finding is substantiated by the fact that the son has not been replaced since leaving the facility. Reimburseable expenses should be accordingly adjusted. Roof Repairs ($11,613.00) During the fiscal year, repairs costing $11,613.00 were made to a part of the roof structure due to leaks. The facility's accountant recorded these repairs as an expense on the cost report. This accounting treatment was made, according to the provider, on the theory the repairs did not extend the useful life of the building, and were necessary for continued operation of the facility. Section 108.2 of HIM-15 in controlling and provides in part as follows: Betterments and improvements extend the life or increase the productivity of an asset as opposed to repairs and maintenance which either restore the asset to, or maintain it at, its normal or expected service life. Repair and maintenance costs are always allowed in the current accounting period. The more credible and persuasive evidence of witness Donaldson supports a finding that the roof expenditure was a "betterment and improvement" that extended the life of the roof (asset). In view of this, it is found that the cost of the repair should have been capitalized, rather than expensed, and that reimburseable costs should be reduced by $11,613 as proposed by the agency. Pension Plan Contribution ($6,000.00) Petitioner reflected $51,000.00 on its cost report for contributions to its employee pension plan during the fiscal year. This included separate payments of $10,000.00, $35,000.00 and $6,000.00 made in April and May, 1983 and January, 1984, respectively. This information is contained on Schedule B of the firm's Form 5500-R filed with the Internal Revenue Service on September 7, 1984. During the course of its audit, HRS requested the pension plan consultant to furnish information concerning minimum funding standards and retirement benefits for the participants. This was required to verify the charges on the cost report. In a letter dated July 3, 1984, the consultant advised in pertinent part: Based on salary and financial information provided by New Riviera, a $45,000.00 contribution to the pension plan met the minimum funding standards and was deductible. Relying upon this information, HRS disallowed $6,000.00 of the $51,000.00 in total costs allocated for the plan during the year ended November 30, 1983. On January 19, 1984, New Riviera issued a check in the amount of $26,000.00 payable to Shearson American Express for a pension plan contribution. Of that total, $6,000.00 was a contribution to 1983 costs. According to New Riviera's accountant, the additional $6,000.00 was required by the plan's actuary. However, this was not confirmed by any documentation or testimony from the actuary. When the audit was being conducted by HRS in the summer of 1984, the check written to Shearson American Express was in its business records, but was not produced for the auditors' inspection. Further, it was not produced at the exit conference held at a later date. In this regard, it was petitioner's responsibility to furnish that information during the course of the audit and exit conference rather than assuming that the auditors would discover the document while reviewing the auditee's books and records. This is particularly true since petitioner was placed on notice that the $6,000.00 was in dispute and subject to being disallowed by the agency.2 Even if the check had been disclosed to the auditors, it does not change the character of the $6,000 payment. The check was issued during the fiscal year ending November 30, 1984 and was therefore outside the scope of the audit year in question. If it is an appropriate expenditure, it is reimburseable on the 1984 cost report rather than the cost report for the year ending November 30, 1983. Therefore, 1983 reimburseable costs should be reduced by $6,000, as proposed by the agency. Write-off of Certain Assets ($3,772.00) During fiscal year 1983 petitioner wrote off $3,722.00 in remaining balances related to certain equipment.3 This amount related to the remaining or salvage value of certain assets whose useful lives had expired according to depreciation guidelines, but which assets were still in service. Even though the assets had not been retired or sold, petitioner wrote off the undepreciated balances remaining on the books. The undepreciated balances arose by virtue of petitioner using the declining balance method of depreciation. Under Medicaid guidelines, assets acquired after 1966 must be depreciated by the straight line method. Therefore, petitioner was in error in using a declining balance method. Even so, according to generally accepted accounting procedures, it was incorrect to write-off a remaining balance related to certain assets before the assets were actually sold or retired. At hearing petitioner agreed that its accounting treatment was contrary to HRS requirements, and accordingly these costs ($3,772.00) should be disallowed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner's cost report for fiscal year ending November 30, 1983 be adjusted in accordance with paragraphs 4 through 7 of the Conclusions of Law portion of this Recommended Order. DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of January, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of January, 1986.
Findings Of Fact Respondent administers Florida's Medical Assistant Program (Medicaid Program) which is jointly funded by the state and federal government under Title XIX of the Social Security Act. Under the Medicaid Program, eligible recipients receive services from providers who voluntarily participate in the program. Under the Medicaid Program, Respondent is required to reimburse providers only reasonable costs, not all costs incurred. Petitioner is a licensed Florida nursing home facility and at all times material hereto, was certified to and was participating in the Medicaid Program. Participation in the program is subject to all State and Federal laws, regulations, standards and guidelines relating to medicaid. The methodology for determining reimbursement to a nursing home such as Petitioner under the Medicaid Program is set forth in the Title XIX Long-Term Care Reimbursement Plan (Gainesville Plan) which is incorporated by reference in Rule 10C-7.0482, Florida Administrative Code. The validity of the amended rule is not being challenged in this proceeding, only its application to Petitioner. Prior to implementation of the Gainesville Plan on April 1, 1983, Medicaid's reimbursement to nursing homes was more restrictive. The Gainesville Plan resulted from settlement of a lab suit challenging the reasonableness of reimbursement to nursing homes. The Gainesville Plan as implemented on April 1, 1983, placed ceilings on the reimbursement for operating and patient care costs but not reimbursement for property costs. In 1982 Petitioner ended years of litigation when it won approval to build a nursing home without a certificate of need. Due to the extended litigation, Petitioner lost an earlier financing arrangement which, due to the then existing economic conditions, resulted in the Petitioner being forced to seek financing for the construction of the nursing home through the issuance and sale of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds authorized pursuant to City of Gainesville, Florida Resolution R- 82-13 of January 13, 1982. Under the terms of the bond issue, the facility cannot be leased, resold or refinanced before 1990 and, therefore, Petitioner is still paying the "high rate" of interest negotiated in 1982. In determining the financial feasibility of the nursing home, the auditors preparing the bond documents based their calculations on the more restrictive reimbursement methodology for Medicaid which was in effect before the Gainesville Plan. Petitioner was projecting a forty per cent (40 percent) Medicaid utilization and the bond documents warned investors of the possibility of changes in the Medicaid Program. The present Medicaid utilization is in excess of eighty per cent (80 percent) At the time it financed the nursing home, Petitioner was aware of the upcoming changes to be implemented by the Gainesville Plan but those changes were not reflected in the bond issue. The State of Florida was not involved in the bond issue. Petitioner built its nursing home to Florida licensure standards and was not required by Respondent to meet any more stringent requirements than for other Florida nursing homes. Upon entering the Medicaid Program, Petitioner was warned that its property costs appeared excessive. Petitioner's property costs were the highest of all nursing homes participating in Florida's Medicaid program as of January 1, 1985. Because the Gainesville Plan placed no A limitations on property costs, Petitioner was allowed to recover all of those costs in its Medicaid per diem rate. Petitioner could not recover all of its operating and patient care costs because those costs exceeded caps that were placed in the Gainesville Plan. The medicaid per patient day amount of such total property costs was initially approved by Respondent in the sum of $37.6740, based on a low occupancy during the start up phase of the facility. The implementation of the Gainesville Plan created a significant increase in the state funds budgeted for nursing homes. It was estimated that the first year increase would be approximately $50 million. The Florida Legislature, which appropriates the funds for Medicaid and makes recommendations as to how that money is to be spent, directed Respondent to implement ceilings on property costs. On September 1, 1984, the Gainesville Plan was amended to include caps for property costs. In determining reasonable caps, Respondent through the Gainesville Plan, utilized a formula similar to that which it utilizes in capping operating and patient care caps. That formula took the median of the per diem property costs for the 100 newest nursing homes participating in Medicaid and increased it by one standard deviation. New nursing homes were given a higher property cost cap during their first 18 months of operation to allow for startup costs. As a result of Respondent using this new formula for determining reimbursement rates for property cost, the Petitioner was notified in August, 1984 that effective in September 1, 1984 its property costs reimbursement rate would be reduced to $15.91 per patient day and further reduced to $12.56 effective January 1, 1985. Respondent considered the property costs reimbursement rate caps reasonable based upon a comparison of statewide per diem rates. As of January 1, 1985, only 38 or 10 percent of nursing homes participating in Medicaid had their property costs capped. The Gainesville Plan was subsequently approved by the federal government which considers the reasonableness of cost reimbursement in approving such plans. Since property costs reimbursement rates must be set at a level which will be adequate to reimburse allowable and reasonable property costs of an economically and efficiently operated facility, property costs of existing facilities that exceeded the "cap" were not "grandfathered" in under the September 1, 1984 amendment to the Gainesville Plan because they were considered not to be reasonable. Petitioner was immediately affected by the reduction in the property costs reimbursement rates which became effective on September 1, 1984. Because of its financing arrangement and because of a large Medicaid population, Petitioner experienced a large shortfall between actual costs incurred and costs that would be reimbursed by the Medicaid Program. Petitioner's property costs were the highest of all nursing homes participating in Florida's Medicaid Program as of January 1, 1985. Nationwide, Florida ranks in the top ten percent (10 percent) in average Medicaid nursing home per diem payment. There is no requirement that a nursing home accept Medicaid's patients. On October 1, 1985, Respondent went to a fair rental value system to determine allowable Medicaid property costs. Under that system, through negotiations with representatives of the nursing home industry, $28,500 was established as a reasonable cost per bed. In 1982, Petitioner's cost per bed, including financing, was approximately $41,000. Petitioner's Medicaid per diem rate has been calculated in accordance with the method set forth in the Gainesville Plan and Petitioner has not been treated differently than any other provider in the determination of its Medicaid per diem rate. Although Petitioner had been previously allowed to recover all its property cost under the Gainesville Plan prior to amendment, there was insufficient evidence in the record to prove that Petitioner's property costs not reimbursed under the plan as amended were allowable and reasonable costs of an economically and efficiently run facility.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for an adjustment to its Medicaid per diem rate. Respectfully submitted and entered this 21st day of May, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 84-3405 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Covered in the Background. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 4.-5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8 but clarified. 6.-8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12 as clarified and 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record and as immaterial and irrelevant. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. 17.-21. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the Respondent 1.-13. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 through 13, respectively. 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. 22. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. 25. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25. COPIES FURNISHED: Grafton B. Wilson, II, Esquire Gregory L. Coler, Post Office Box 1292 Secretary Gainesville, Florida 32602 Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Theodore E. Mack, Esquire 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building 1, Room 40 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
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.
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.
Recommendation 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
The Issue Whether the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services improperly determined the Petitioners' rate of Medicaid reimbursement for the period January 1, 1990, through June 30, 1990?
Findings Of Fact The Emergency Rule and the Permanent Rule have been determined to be valid in a Final Order entered simultaneously with this Recommended Order. The Department's action in freezing the Medicaid reimbursement rate of the Petitioners in these cases was taken pursuant to the Emergency Rule and the Permanent Rule.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a Final Order in these cases dismissing the Petitioners' amended petitions. DONE and ENTERED this 26 day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 day of May, 1992. APPENDIX Case Numbers 91-4893, 91-4894, 91-4895, 91-4914, 91-4929, 91-5837 and 91-6191 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1 and 4. 2 5-6. 3 13. 4 7. 5 3 and 13-14. 6 15. 7 17-19. 8 20. 9 21. 10 22. 11 23. 12 8. 13 12. 14 11. 15 24. 16 25-27. 17 28-29. 18 29. 19 30-32. 20 34-37. See 39. The last three sentences are not relevant. The determination of compliance with specific federal requirements for the Department's action was the responsibility of HCFA. HCFA presumably determined that the Department complied with all federal requirements since it approved the Department's plan amendment. 39. The last two sentences are not relevant. The determination of compliance with specific federal requirements for the Department's action was the responsibility of HCFA. HCFA presumably determined that the Department complied with all federal requirements since it approved the Department's plan amendment. 23 40-41. 24 43. 25 45. 26 46. 27 47. 28 48. The last two sentences are argument. 29 49. 30 42. 31 29 and 32. The weight of the evidence failed to prove the Department's motive for providing assurances to HCFA were anything other than to meet federal requirements. 32 28. 33 55. 34 34-35. See 59-60 and 63. The detailed findings of fact concerning the nature of the Department's inflationary analysis are not necessary. HCFA rejected this analysis and based its decision on other information provided by the Department. Additionally, the determination of compliance with specific federal requirements for the Department's action was the responsibility of HCFA. HCFA presumably determined that the Department complied with all federal requirements since it approved the Department's plan amendment. 35 See 60-63. 36 52-54. 37 54. 38 55 and hereby accepted. 39 59 and hereby accepted. 40 See 60-65. HCFA did not "reject" the Department's proposed plan amendment. 41 See 63. 42-43 See 60-66. 44-46, 50-54 Although the proposed findings of fact concerning what the Department told HCFA are generally correct, these proposed findings of fact are not relevant to this proceeding. As previously stated, the determination of compliance with specific federal requirements for the Department's action was the responsibility of HCFA. HCFA presumably determined that the Department complied with all federal requirements since it approved the Department's plan amendment. 47 Hereby accepted. 48-49 Hereby accepted except for the proposed findings that the Department "misled", "misrepresented" or provided "inaccurate and misleading information." The last sentence of proposed finding of fact 49 is not relevant. 55 67. 56 Hereby accepted. 57 Not relevant. 58 69. 59 70. 60 71. 61 50 and 73. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 4. 3 5. 4 6. 5 3 and 13-14. 6 15. 7 17-19. 8 20. 9 21. 10 22. 11 23. 12 8. 13 11. 14 24. 15 25-26. 16 Hereby accepted. 17 27 and 29-32. 18 34-37. 19 39-41. 20 41. 21 43. 22 33. 23 42. 24 52-53 and 58. 25 54. 26 55. 27 56. 28 57. 29 60-65. 30 67. 31 68. 32 69. 33 70. 34 71. 35 50 and 73. 36 72. 37 73. 38 Hereby accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Slye General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Thomas C. Fox, Esquire Michael D. Smith, Esquire 1200 18th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Alfred W. Clark, Esquire Post Office Box 623 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 W. David Watkins, Esquire Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 David Pius Medicaid Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6, Room 230 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, petitioner University Home Foundation, Inc., d/b/a Convalescent Center of Gainesville, was a nursing home providing skilled nursing care to Medicaid eligible patients. Petitioner was certified to participate in the Florida Medicaid Program. Respondent is the agency responsible for the administration and payment of Medicaid funds. An eligible entity is required to maintain adequate business records capable of audit by the respondent. Fiscal Year 1975 Petitioner filed with the respondent its cost report for the fiscal year January 1, 1975 to December 31, 1975, claiming reimbursable expenses of some $737,000. After an audit of the cost report by respondent, petitioner was informed in January of 1979 that adjustments amounting to approximately $131,000 were necessary and that petitioner was responsible for an overpayment of $56,183. Petitioner was advised by the respondent that its accounting records for the 1975 fiscal year were maintained in an incomplete and unsatisfactory manner. At the time petitioner's Administrator, Paul C. Allen, received this audit report, he did not have access to the work papers of the certified public accountant who prepared the cost report, but he did have access to the nursing home's financial records. As noted in the Introduction, petitioner is not contesting all the audit adjustments made by the respondent to its 1975 cost report. It is contesting only those disallowances of expenses relating to two automobiles and a mobile telephone, life and general insurance, a $20,000 bonus to the owner, social security taxes, a directory advertisement, interest, food and depreciation. Automobiles and mobile telephone. While allowing automobile expenses claimed for a 1969 Dodge Dart (used by the kitchen and maintenance staff for purchasing supplies) and a 1973 Ford station wagon (used mainly to transport patients), the respondent's auditor disallowed expenses claimed for a 1973 Cadillac (11 months) and a 1975 Lincoln Continental (1 month), as well as the expenses related to a telephone in these cars. The auditor concluded that these automobiles were used by the owner for personal use, were not related to patient care and that the expenses claimed were not documented. Administrator Paul C. Allen admitted that he drove these cars between the nursing home and his residence located 22 miles away and that he did not keep mileage logs for those vehicles. He estimates that 52 percent of the use of the automobiles was directly related to the nursing home business and patient care, and reimbursement is sought for this amount. This estimate is derived from starting with an average of 25,000 miles per year which the cars were driven, and deducting the 44 mile round trip to and from the Administrator's residence for 260 working days in a calendar year, resulting in 11,440 miles of the car's use for personal purposes. The remaining mileage, 13,560 (52 percent of 25,000) is claimed as being used for nursing home business or patient care. A telephone in these cars was also claimed as a reimbursable expense inasmuch as it was used like a "pager" when the Administrator was not on the nursing home premises. This mobile telephone expense, as well as the interest claimed, was disallowed by the respondent's auditor on the basis that it was an unnecessary cost of running a nursing home and was not directly related to patient care. Insurance. On its cost report, petitioner claimed expenses for a general hospitalization insurance policy on its employees and a life insurance policy on the Administrator. No supporting documentation was offered on the general insurance, and this expense was consequently disallowed because there was no indication that such insurance coverage was ever furnished. According to the Administrator, the mortgage loan commitment for the nursing home required that a $100,000 life insurance policy be maintained on the owner/Administrator to secure repayment of the loan in the event of his death. The documentation for such a requirement was not available to the Administrator because the nursing home was refinanced in 1976. Expenses claimed for life insurance on Mr. Allen was disallowed because the $100,000 life insurance policy constituted a fringe benefit to the owner, and the nursing home was at least an indirect beneficiary of an insurance policy on the Administrator. Bonus to owner and taxes. While petitioner contests the respondent's disallowance of a $20,000 bonus to the owner and $3,893 claimed as expenses related to the payment of social security taxes, no competent evidence was presented by the petitioner on these two items. In fact, Administrator Allen could not recall whether or not he received a bonus in 1975, and petitioner's expert accountant did not know what was actually paid to petitioner's staff in 1975. The $20,000 bonus was adjusted out by the respondent because it exceeded the amount allowable as an owner's salary. The tax expenses disallowed were those which exceeded the comparison between petitioner's general ledger and the payroll tax returns. Food expenses. While the respondent's auditors were able to verify from invoices approximately $63,800 claimed by petitioner as food expenses, there was no supporting documentation for the remaining $848 claimed. Petitioner was unable to provide such documentation at the hearing. Depreciation expense. Normally, an asset is capitalized and expensed or depreciated when it is incurred or installed. The fire sprinkler system for the petitioner's nursing home was capitalized in May of 1974, but payment on the system was expensed again in 1975. The petitioner provided no supporting documentation for this expenditure. Directory advertisement. According to Mr. Allen, the petitioner spent $317 for an advertisement in the yellow pages of a local telephone directory. The ad consisted of a small box to show the address of the facility for the benefit of the families of present and future patients. The ad itself was not produced as evidence at the hearing. Expenses for yellow page advertisements are allowed when the ads inform the public of the services which are provided. Such expenses are not allowed when the contents of the ad are not related to patient care or when the ad is in excess of what other nursing homes in the same geographic location are using. No evidence was produced as to other nursing home directory advertisements in the area. Fiscal Year 1979 Apartment rental. For the 1979 fiscal year, the petitioner claimed as an allowable expense the sum of $1,190 paid as apartment rental for the Administrator's son who performed maintenance duties for the nursing home. The Administrator testified that the apartment was near the facility, that a maintenance person needed to be on call 24 hours a day, and that the rental amount was considered part of the son's compensation for his duties with the nursing home. This expense was disallowed by the respondent inasmuch as there was not sufficient supporting documentation to illustrate that the rental costs were part of the services provided to the nursing home. Since the $1,190 was paid to a related party for the cost of apartment rental, it must be demonstrated that such costs do not exceed the price of comparable services or supplies which could be purchased elsewhere. There was nothing in the rental agreement to indicate that payment of the rent was considered part of the lessee's salary by the nursing home to assure 24 hours of maintenance care, nor was any other documentary evidence adduced to this effect. Travel. In its 1979 cost report, petitioner claimed travel expenses for trips taken by the Administrator and his wife to Hawaii, Mexico and Australia. It was alleged that these trips were taken for educational purposes. While expenses for the Hawaii program were allowed, respondent did not allow $3,528 claimed as expenses for the trips to Australia and Mexico. Petitioner presented an agenda of the program relating to the Australia trip which revealed that the program was in connection with the annual meeting of INTERCARE, an international nonprofit association dedicated to the improved quality of life for the convalescent and chronically ill. No evidence was produced relating to the trip to Mexico. The respondent disallowed expenses relating to the trips to Mexico and Australia taken by the Administrator and his wife on the basis that such expenses were unreasonable and unnecessary. It was not considered prudent for a nursing home administrator to travel this extensively and claim reimbursement in his Medicaid nursing home cost report. Respondent also considered the fact that a portion of the expenses claimed were for a party related to the owner/Administrator. Business entertainment. The respondent disallowed $565 claimed by petitioner as business entertainment, because this amount related to liquor purchased for an employee Christmas party. Expenses claimed for food for that social function were allowed by the respondent. Loss on sale of fixed asset. Petitioner claimed as an expense the loss it realized from a wrecked 1979 Lincoln automobile. It was requested that the loss be added to the cost of the new replacement vehicle, also a 1979 Lincoln, for depreciation purposes and recovered over the useful life of such vehicle through depreciation write-offs. Whether or not either of the 1979 Lincoln's were allowed for reimbursement purposes was not established at the hearing. According to the Health Insurance Manual 15, gains or losses realized from the exchange or trade-in of depreciable assets are not included in the determination of allowable costs. Proprietor's compensation. The respondent disallowed the amount of $15,000 claimed by the petitioner as compensation for the Director of Social Services for the third and fourth quarters of 1979. That position was held by the Administrator's wife, Marjorie Allen, who also was a 95 percent stockholder in the corporation which owned the nursing home. According to Mrs. Allen, the duties she performed as social services director, a full-time position, included the transporting of patients to medical appointments, the taking of social histories from newly admitted patients, working with the patients and their families and working with different organizations and agencies. The petitioner's facility also had an Activities Director in 1979, who assisted in such things as crafts and sewing and cooking classes. The $15,000 was disallowed by respondent because there was no supporting documentation produced that the salary related to patient care, because Mrs. Allen was a related party and because there appeared to be a duplication of services between the Activities Director and the Social Services Director. Medicare adjustment. Adjustments for Medicare can be made to reflect changes resulting from Medicare audits in the year that the differences become known. The recomputation is performed in the provider's cost report for the year in which the difference becomes known. Petitioner did introduce evidence that the Medicare adjustment for 1979 should be $119,398 in lieu of the respondent's adjustment of $123,648. As of the date of the hearing, respondent had not been afforded the opportunity to review the final adjusted Medicare cost report.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding the petitioner liable for the overpayments set forth in the final audit reports of the petitioner's Medicaid cost reports for 1975 and 1979, less any adjustment required for the 1979 Medicare cost report. Respectfully submitted and entered this 22nd day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mitzie Cockrell Austin, Esquire Scruggs & Carmichael One Southeast First Avenue Post Office Drawer C Gainesville, Florida 32602 Joseph L. Shields, Esquire Office of Audit & Quality Control Services Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Building One, Room 406 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Pingree Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
