The Issue Does Petitioner, AHF MCO of Florida, Inc., d/b/a PHC Florida HIV/AIDS Specialty Plan (Positive), have standing to contest the intended award to Simply for Regions 10 and 11 or to seek rejection of all proposals? (Case No. 18-3507 and 18-3508) Should the intended decision of Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency), to contract with Simply Healthcare Plans, Inc. (Simply), for Medicaid managed care plans for HIV/AIDS patients in Regions 10 (Broward County) and Region 11 (Miami-Dade and Collier Counties) be invalidated and all proposals rejected? (Case Nos. 18-3507 and 18-3508) Must the Agency negotiate with Petitioner, South Florida Community Care Network, LLC, d/b/a Community Care Plan (Community), about a plan to provide HIV/AIDS Medicaid managed care services in Region 10 because it was the only responsive proposer of services that was a Provider Service Network (PSN)? (Case No. 18-3512) Must the Agency negotiate with Community to provide Medicaid managed care services in Region 10 for people with Serious Mental Illnesses because Community is a PSN? (Case No. 18-3511) Must the Agency contract with Community to provide Medicaid managed care services for Children with Special Needs in Region 10 because Community is a PSN? (Case No. 18-3513) Must the Agency negotiate with Community to provide Medicaid managed care services for Child Welfare patients in Region 10 because Community is a PSN? (Case No. 18-3514)
Findings Of Fact THE PARTIES Agency: Section 20.42, Florida Statutes, establishes the Agency as Florida’s chief health policy and planning agency. The Agency is the single state agency authorized to select eligible plans to participate in the Medicaid program. Positive: Positive is a Florida not-for-profit corporation operating a Medicaid health plan dedicated to serving people with HIV/AIDS. Positive serves about 2,000 patients in Florida. Positive’s health plan is accredited by the Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Healthcare. Its disease management program is accredited by the National Committee for Quality Assurance. Currently, the Agency contracts with Positive for a SMMC HIV/AIDS Specialty Plan serving Regions 10 and 11. Simply: Simply is a Florida for-profit corporation operating a Medicaid health plan dedicated to serving people with HIV/AIDS. Currently, the Agency contracts with Simply to provide a SMMC HIV/AIDS Specialty Plan for Regions 1 through 3 and 5 through 11. Simply has maintained the largest patient enrollment of all HIV/AIDs plans in Florida since Florida started its statewide Medicaid managed care program. Community Care: Community is a Florida limited liability company. It is a PSN as defined in sections 409.912(1)(b) and 409.962(14), Florida Statutes. Staywell: Staywell is the fictitious name for WellCare of Florida, Inc., serving Florida’s Medicaid population. Sunshine: Sunshine State Health Plan (Sunshine) is a Florida corporation. It offers managed care plans to Florida Medicaid recipients. THE INVITATION TO NEGOTIATE TIMELINE On July 14, 2017, the Agency released 11 ITNs plans for Florida’s Medicaid managed care program in 11 statutorily defined regions. Region 10, Broward County, and Region 11, Miami-Dade and Collier Counties, are the regions relevant to this proceeding. Part IV of chapter 409, creates a statewide, integrated managed care program for Medicaid services. This program called Statewide Medicaid Managed Care includes two programs, Managed Medical Assistance and Long-term Care. Section 409.966(2), directs the Agency to conduct separate and simultaneous procurements to select eligible plans for each region using the ITN procurement process created by section 287.057(1)(c). The ITNs released July 14, 2017, fulfilled that command. The Agency issued 11 identical ITNs of 624 pages, one for each region, in omnibus form. They provided elements for four types of plans. Some elements were common to all types. Others were restricted to a specific plan type defined by intended patient population. The plan types are comprehensive plans, long-term care plus plans, managed medical assistance plans, and specialty plans. Section 409.962(16) defines “Specialty Plan” as a “managed care plan that serves Medicaid recipients who meet specified criteria based on age, medical condition, or diagnosis.” Responding vendors identified the plan type or types that they were proposing. The Agency issued Addendum No. 1 to the ITNs on September 14, 2017. On October 2, 2017, the Agency issued Addendum No. 2 to the ITNs. Addendum 2 included 628 questions about the ITNs and the Agency’s responses to the questions. Florida law permits potential responders to an ITN to challenge the specifications of an ITN, including the addendums. § 120.57(3)(b), Fla. Stat. Nobody challenged the specifications of the ITNs. As contemplated by section 287.057(c)(2), the Agency conducted “a conference or written question and answer period for purposes of assuring the vendors’ full understanding of the solicitation requirements.” Positive, Community, and Simply, along with United Healthcare of Florida, Inc., HIV/AIDS Specialty Plan (United), submitted responses to the ITN in Region 10 proposing HIV/AIDS Specialty Plans. Community was the only PSN to propose an HIV/AIDS plan for Region 10. Positive, Simply, and United submitted replies to the ITN for Region 11, proposing HIV/AIDS Specialty Plans. Community, United, Staywell, and one other provider submitted proposals to provide SMI Specialty Plan services in Region 10. Community was the only responding PSN. Community, Sunshine, and Staywell submitted proposals to provide Child Welfare Specialty Plans (CW) in Region 10. Community was the only PSN. Community, Staywell, and two others submitted proposals to offer Specialty Plans for Children with Special Needs (CSN) in Region 10. Community was one of two responding PSNs. Proposal scoring began November 6, 2017, and ended January 16, 2018. The Agency announced its intended awards on April 24, 2018. On April 24, 2018, the Agency issued its notices of intent to award specialty contracts in Regions 10 and 11. The following charts summarize the Agency’s ranking of the proposals and its intended awards. The two highest ranked plans, which the Agency selected for negotiations, are identified in bold. Region 10 – Children with Special Needs Respondent Intended Award Ranking Staywell No 1 Community No 2 Miami Children’s Health Plan, LLC No 3 Our Children PSN of Florida, LLC No 4 Region 10 – Child Welfare Respondent Intended Award Ranking Staywell No 1 Sunshine Yes 2 Molina Healthcare of Florida, Inc. No 3 Community No 4 Region 10 – HIV/AIDS Respondent Intended Award Ranking Simply Yes 1 United No 2 Community No 3 Positive No 4 Region 10 – Serious Mental Illness Respondent Intended Award Ranking Staywell Yes 1 United No 2 Florida MHS, Inc. No 3 Community No 4 Region 11 – HIV/AIDS Respondent Intended Award Ranking Simply Yes 1 United No 2 Positive No 3 All of the Specialty Plan awards noticed by the Agency went to bidders who also proposed, and received, comprehensive plan awards. The protests, referrals, and proceedings before the Division summarized in the Preliminary Statement followed the Agency’s announcement of its intended awards. TERMS The voluminous ITN consisted of a two-page transmittal letter and three Attachments (A, B, and C), with a total of 34 exhibits to them. They are: Attachment A, Exhibits A-1 through A-8, Attachment B, Exhibits B-1 through B-3, and Attachment C, Exhibits C-1 through C-8. The ITN establishes a two-step process for selecting: an evaluation phase and a negotiation phase. In the evaluation phase, each respondent was required to submit a proposal responding to criteria of the ITN. Proposals were to be evaluated, scored, and ranked. The goal of the evaluation phase was to determine which respondents would move to negotiations, not which would be awarded a contract. The top two ranking Specialty Plans per specialty population would be invited to negotiations. In the negotiation phase, the Agency would negotiate with each invited respondent. After that, the Agency would announce its intended award of a contract to the plan or plans that the Agency determined would provide the best value. Together, the attachments and exhibits combined instructions, criteria, forms, certifications, and data into a “one size fits all” document that described the information required for four categories of managed care plans to serve Medicaid patients. The ITN also provided data to consider in preparing responses. The transmittal letter emphasized, “Your response must comply fully with the instructions that stipulate what is to be included in the response.” The ITNs identified Jennifer Barrett as the procurement officer and sole point of contact with the Agency for vendors. The transmittal letter is reproduced here. This solicitation is being issued by the State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration, hereinafter referred to as “AHCA” or “Agency”, to select a vendor to provide Statewide Medicaid Managed Care Program services. The solicitation package consists of this transmittal letter and the following attachments and exhibits: Attachment A Instructions and Special ConditionsExhibit A-1 Questions TemplateExhibit A-2-a Qualification of Plan Eligibility Exhibit A-2-b Provider Service Network Certification of Ownership and Controlling InterestExhibit A-2-c Additional Required Certifications and StatementsExhibit A-3-a Milliman Organizational Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan Exhibit A-3-b Milliman Employee Organizational Conflict of Interest AffidavitExhibit A-4 Submission Requirements and Evaluation Criteria InstructionsExhibit A-4-a General Submission Requirements and Evaluation Criteria Exhibit A-4-a-1 SRC# 6 - General Performance Measurement ToolExhibit A-4-a-2 SRC# 9 - Expanded Benefits Tool (Regional) Exhibit A-4-a-3 SRC# 10 - Additional Expanded Benefits Template (Regional)Exhibit A-4-a-4 SRC# 14 - Standard CAHPS Measurement Tool Exhibit A-4-b MMA Submission Requirements and Evaluation Criteria Exhibit A-4-b-1 MMA SRC# 6 - Provider Network Agreements/Contracts (Regional)Exhibit A-4-b-2 MMA SRC# 14 - MMA Performance Measurement Tool Exhibit A-4-b-3 MMA SRC# 21 - Provider Network Agreements/Contracts Statewide Essential Providers Exhibit A-4-c LTC Submission Requirements and Evaluation CriteriaExhibit A-4-c-1 LTC SRC# 4 - Provider Network Agreements/Contracts (Regional) Exhibit A-4-d Specialty Submission Requirements and Evaluation CriteriaExhibit A-5 Summary of Respondent CommitmentsExhibit A-6 Summary of Managed Care Savings Exhibit A-7 Certification of Drug-Free Workplace ProgramExhibit A-8 Standard Contract Attachment B Scope of Service - Core Provisions Exhibit B-1 Managed Medical Assistance (MMA) ProgramExhibit B-2 Long-Term Care (LTC) ProgramExhibit B-3 Specialty Plan Attachment C Cost Proposal Instructions and Rate Methodology NarrativeExhibit C-1 Capitated Plan Cost Proposal TemplateExhibit C-2 FFS PSN Cost Proposal Template Exhibit C-3 Preliminary Managed Medical Assistance (MMA) Program Rate Cell Factors Exhibit C-4 Managed Medical Assistance (MMA) Program Expanded Benefit Adjustment Factors Exhibit C-5 Managed Medical Assistance (MMA) Program IBNR Adjustment Factors Exhibit C-6 Managed Medical Assistance (MMA) Program Historical Capitated Plan Provider Contracting Levels During SFY 15/16 Time Period Exhibit C-7 Statewide Medicaid Managed Care Data BookExhibit C-8 Statewide Medicaid Managed Care Data Book Questions and Answers Your response must comply fully with the instructions that stipulate what is to be included in the response. Respondents submitting a response to this solicitation shall identify the solicitation number, date and time of opening on the envelope transmitting their response. This information is used only to put the Agency mailroom on notice that the package received is a response to an Agency solicitation and therefore should not be opened, but delivered directly to the Procurement Officer. The ITN describes the plans as follows: Comprehensive Long-term Care Plan (herein referred to as a “Comprehensive Plan”) – A Managed Care Plan that is eligible to provide Managed Medical Assistance services and Long-term Care services to eligible recipients. Long-term Care Plus Plan – A Managed Care Plan that is eligible to provide Managed Medical Assistance services and Long-term Care services to eligible recipients enrolled in the Long-term Care program. This plan type is not eligible to provide services to recipients who are only eligible for MMA services. Managed Medical Assistance (MMA) Plan – A Managed Care Plan that is eligible to provide Managed Medical Assistance services to eligible recipients. This plan type is not eligible to provide services to recipients who are eligible for Long-term Care services. Specialty Plan – A Managed Care Plan that is eligible to provide Managed Medical Assistance services to eligible recipients who are defined as a specialty population in the resulting Contract. Specialty Plans are at issue. The ITN did not define, describe, or specify specialty populations to be served. It left that to the responding vendors. Beyond that, the ITN left the ultimate definition of the specialty population for negotiation, saying in Section II(B)(1)(a) of Attachment B, Exhibit B-3, “[t]he Agency shall identify the specialty population eligible for enrollment in the Specialty Plan based on eligibility criteria based upon negotiations.” Some respondents directly identified the specialty population. Simply’s transmittal letter stated that it proposed “a Specialty plan for individuals with HIV/AIDS.” Positive’s response to Exhibit A-4-d Specialty SRC 4, eligibility and enrollment, stated, “the specialty population for the PHC [Positive] plan will be Medicaid eligible, male and female individuals from all age groups who are HIV positive with or without symptoms and those individuals who have progressed in their HIV disease to meet the CDC definition of AIDS.” Some others left definition of the specialty population to be inferred from the ITN response. The result is that the ITN left definition of the specialty populations initially to the respondents and ultimately to negotiations between the Agency and successful respondents. Petitioners and Intervenors describe the populations that they propose serving as HIV/AIDS patients, patients with SMI, CSN, and child welfare populations. ITN respondents could have proposed serving only cancer patients, serving only obstetric patients, or serving only patients with hemophilia. The part of the ITN requiring a respondent to identify the plan type for which it was responding offered only four alternative blocks to check. They were: “Comprehensive Plan,” Long-Term Care Plus Plan,” “Managed Medical Assistance Plan,” or “Specialty Plan.” Attachment A to the ITN, labeled “Instructions and Special Conditions,” provides an overview of the solicitation process; instructions for response preparation and content; information regarding response submission requirements; information regarding response evaluation, negotiations, and contract awards; and information regarding contract implementation. Exhibits A-1 to A-3 and A-5 to A-7 of the ITN contain various certifications and attestations that respondents had to prepare and verify. Exhibit A-4 contains submission requirement components (SRCs) to which respondents had to prepare written responses. Exhibit A-8 contains the state’s standard SMMC contract. ITN Exhibit A-4-a contains 36 general submission requirements and evaluation criteria (General SRCs). ITN Exhibit A-4-b contains 21 MMA submission requirements and evaluation criteria (MMA SRCs). ITN Exhibit A-4-c contains 13 LTC submission requirements and evaluation criteria (LTC SRCs). ITN Exhibit A-4-d contains five specialty submission requirements and evaluation criteria (Specialty SRCs). The responses that the 36 SRCs require vary greatly. Some are as simple as providing documents or listing items. Others require completing tables or spreadsheets with data. Consequently, responses to some SRCS apparently could be reviewed in very little time, even a minute or less. Others requiring narrative responses might take longer. Examples follow. General SRC 1 required a list of the respondent’s contracts for managed care services and 12 information items about them including things such as whether they were capitated, a narrative describing the scope of work; the number of enrollees; and accomplishments and achievement. General SRC 2 asked for documentation of experience operating a Medicaid health plan in Florida. General SRC 3 asked for information confirming the location of facilities and employees in Florida. General SRC 12 requested a flowchart and written description of how the respondent would execute its grievance and appeal system. It listed six evaluation criteria. MMA SRC 2 asks for a description of the respondent’s organizational commitment to quality improvement “as it relates to pregnancy and birth outcomes.” It lists seven evaluation criteria. MMA SRC 10 asks for a description of the respondent’s plan for transition of care between service settings. It lists six evaluation criteria including the respondent’s process for collaboration with providers. Specialty SRC 1 asks for detailed information about respondent’s managed care experience with the specialty population. Specialty SRC 5 asks for detailed information about the respondent’s provider network standards and provides five evaluation criteria for evaluating the answers. Exhibit A-8 of the ITN contains the standard SMMC contract. Attachment B and Exhibits B-1 to B-3 of the ITN contain information about the scope of service and core provisions for plans under the SMMC program. Attachment C and Exhibits C-1 to C-8 of the ITN contain information related to the cost proposals and rate methodologies for plans under the SMMC program. The ITN permitted potential respondents to submit written questions about the solicitation to the Agency by August 14, 2017. Some did. On September 14, 2017, the Agency issued Addendum No. 1 to the ITN. Among other things, Addendum No. 1 changed the anticipated date for the Agency’s responses to respondents’ written questions from September 15 to October 2, 2017. The Agency issued Addendum No. 2 to the ITN on October 2, 2017. Addendum No. 2 included a chart with 628 written questions from potential respondents and the Agency’s answers. Attachment A at A 10-(d) makes it clear that the answers are part of the addendum. Both Addendums to the ITN cautioned that any protest of the terms, conditions, or specifications of the Addendums to the ITN had to be filed with the Agency within 72 hours of their posting. No respondent protested. Instructions for the A-4 Exhibits included these requirements: Each SRC contains form fields. Population of the form fields with text will allow the form field to expand and cross pages. There is no character limit. All SRCs, marked as “(Statewide)” must be identical for each region in which the respondent submits a reply. For timeliness of response evaluation, the Agency will evaluate each “(Statewide)” SRC once and transfer the score to each applicable region’s evaluation score sheet(s). The SRCs marked as “(Regional)” will be specific and only apply to the region identified in the solicitation and the evaluation score will not be transferred to any other region. The instructions continue: Agency evaluators will be instructed to evaluate the responses based on the narrative contained in the SRC form fields and the associated attachment(s), if applicable. Each response will be independently evaluated and awarded points based on the criteria and points scale using the Standard Evaluation Criteria Scale below unless otherwise identified in each SRC contained within Exhibit A-4. This is the scale: STANDARD EVALUATION CRITERIA SCALE Point Score Evaluation 0 The component was not addressed. 1 The component contained significant deficiencies. 2 The component is below average. 3 The component is average. 4 The component is above average. 5 The component is excellent. The ITN further explained that different SRCs would be worth different “weights,” based on the subject matter of the SRC and on whether they were General, MMA, LTC, or Specialty SRCs. It assigned weights by establishing different “weight factors” applied as multipliers to the score a respondent received on a criteria. For example, “Respondent Background/Experience” could generate a raw score of 90. Application of a weight factor of three made 270 the maximum possible score for this criteria. “Oversight and Accountability” could generate a raw score of 275. A weight factor of one, however, made the maximum score available 275. General SRC 6 solicits HEDIS data. HEDIS is a tool that consists of 92 measures across six domains of care that make it possible to compare the performance of health plans on an “apples-to-apples” basis. SRC 6 states: The respondent shall describe its experience in achieving quality standards with populations similar to the target population described in this solicitation. The respondent shall include, in table format, the target population (TANF, ABD, dual eligible), the respondent’s results for the HEDIS measures specified below for each of the last two (2) years (CY 2015/ HEDIS 2016 and CY 2016/ HEDIS 2017) for the respondent’s three (3) largest Medicaid Contracts (measured by number of enrollees). If the respondent does not have HEDIS results for at least three (3) Medicaid Contracts, the respondent shall provide commercial HEDIS measures for the respondent’s largest Contracts. If the Respondent has Florida Medicaid HEDIS results, it shall include the Florida Medicaid experience as one (1) of three (3) states for the last two (2) years. The respondent shall provide the data requested in Exhibit A-4-a-1, General Performance Measurement Tool[.] x x x Score: This section is worth a maximum of 160 raw points x x x For each of the measure rates, a total of 10 points is available per state reported (for a total of 360 points available). The respondent will be awarded 2 points if their reported plan rate exceeded the national Medicaid mean and 2 points if their reported plan rate exceeded the applicable regional Medicaid mean, for each available year, for each available state. The respondent will be awarded an additional 2 points for each measure rate where the second year’s rate is an improvement over the first year’s rate, for each available state. An aggregate score will be calculated and respondents will receive a final score of 0 through 150 corresponding to the number and percentage of points received out of the total available points. For example, if a respondent receives 100% of the available 360 points, the final score will be 150 points (100%). If a respondent receives 324 (90%) of the available 360 points, the final score will be 135 points (90%). If a respondent receives 36 (10%) of the available 360 points, the final score will be 15 points (10%). The SRC is plainly referring to the broad Medicaid- eligible population when it says “the target population (TANF, ABD, dual eligible).” “Dual eligible” populations are persons eligible for Medicaid and Medicare. There, as throughout the ITN, the ITN delineates between a target population of all Medicaid-eligible patients and a specialty population as described in a respondent’s ITN proposal. The clear instructions for SRC 6 require, “Use the drop-down box to select the state for which you are reporting and enter the performance measure rates (to the hundredths place, or XX.XX) for that state's Medicaid population for the appropriate calendar year.” Community did not comply. General SRC 14 solicits similar data, in similar form using a similar tool, about a respondent’s Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS). CAHPS data is basically a satisfaction survey. It asks respondents to provide “in table format the target population (TANF, ABD, dual eligible) and the respondent’s results for the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) items/composites specified below for the 2017 survey for its adult and child populations for the respondent’s three (3) largest Medicaid Contracts (as measured by number of enrollees).” Just like General SRC 6 did with HEDIS data, General SRC 14 ITN instructed bidders to put their CAHPS data for the “target population (TANF, ABD, dual eligible)” “for the respondent’s three (3) largest Medicaid Contracts (measured by number of enrollees)” for multiple states into an excel spreadsheet “to the hundredths place[.]” Also, like General SRC 6, General SRC 14 includes an objective formula described in the ITN for scoring bidders’ CAHPS data. RANKING PROVISIONS Attachment A at (D)(4)(c)(2) stated: Each response will be individually scored by at least three (3) evaluators, who collectively have experience and knowledge in the program areas and service requirements for which contractual services are sought by this solicitation. The Agency reserves the right to have specific sections of the response evaluated by less than three (3) individuals. The ITN’s example of how total point scores would be calculated, discussed below, also indicated that some sections may be scored by less than three evaluators. The explanatory chart had a column for “[o]ther Sections evaluated by less than three (3) evaluators. ” The Agency’s policy, however, has been to assign at least three evaluators to score program specific SRCs. Attachment A at (D)(4)(e)(2) advised respondents how the agency will rank the competing responses. It was clear and specific, even providing an example of the process showing how the scores “will” be calculated. Step one of the explanatory chart stated that the Agency would calculate a total point score for each response. Step two stated that “[t]he total point scores will be used to rank the responses by an evaluator. . . .” Next, the rankings by the evaluator are averaged to determine the average rank for each respondent. This average ranking is critical because ranking is how the ITN said the Agency would select respondents for negotiation and how the Agency did select respondents for negotiation. The step two and step three charts, reproduced below, demonstrate that the ITN contemplated an evaluation process in which each response was to be evaluated in its entirety by three different evaluators, or maybe less than three, but indisputably in its entirety by those who evaluated it. This did not happen. Step 2 The total point scores will be used to rank the responses by evaluator (Response with the highest number of points = 1, second highest = 2, etc.). POINTS SUMMARY Evaluator A Evaluator B Evaluator C Evaluator D Respondent 446 Respondent 396 Respondent 311 Respondent 413 Respondent 425 Respondent 390 Respondent 443 Respondent 449 Respondent 397 Respondent 419 Respondent 389 Respondent 435 Respondent 410 Respondent 388 Respondent 459 Respondent 325 RANKING SUMMARY Evaluator A Evaluator B Evaluator C Evaluator D Respondent 1 1 Respondent 1 2 Respondent 1 4 Respondent 3 Respondent 2 2 Respondent 2 3 Respondent 2 2 Respondent 1 Respondent 3 4 Respondent 3 1 Respondent 3 3 Respondent 2 Respondent 4 3 Respondent 4 4 Respondent 4 1 Respondent 4 c) Step 3 An average rank will be calculated for each response for all the evaluators. Respondent 1 1+2+4+3=10÷4=2.5 Respondent 2 2+3+2+1=8÷4=2.0 Respondent 3 4+1+3+2=10÷4=2.5 Respondent 4 3+4+1+4=12÷4=3.0 PROVIDER SERVICE NETWORK PROVISIONS Florida law permits a PSN to limit services provided to a target population “based on age, chronic disease state, or medical condition of the enrollee.” This allows a PSN to offer a specialty plan. For each region, the eligible plan requirements of section 409.974(1) state, “At least one plan must be a provider service network if any provider service networks submit a responsive bid.” Section 409.974(3) says: “Participation by specialty plans shall be subject to the procurement requirements of this section. The aggregate enrollment of all specialty plans in a region may not exceed 10 percent of the total enrollees of that region.” The ITN addressed those requirements. The Negotiation Process section of Attachment A, Instructions and Special Conditions, says: The Agency intends to invite the following number of respondents to negotiation: Comprehensive Plans The top four (4) ranking Comprehensive Plans. Long-term Care Plus Plans The top two (2) ranking Long-term Care Plus Plans Managed Medical Assistance Plans The top two (2) ranking Managed Medical Assistance Plans Specialty Managed Medical Assistance Plans The top two (2) ranking Specialty Managed Medical Assistance Plans per specialty population. If there are no provider service networks included in the top ranked respondents listed above, the Agency will invite the highest ranked PSN(s) to negotiations in order to fulfill the requirements of Section 409.974(1), Florida Statutes and Section 409.981(1), Florida Statutes. Emphasis supplied. The ITN specifications in Section D.7, titled Number of Awards, state as follows about Specialty Plan awards: 7. Number of Awards In accordance with Sections 409.966, 409.974, and 409.981, Florida Statutes, the Agency intends to select a limited number of eligible Managed Care Plans to provide services under the SMMC program in Region 10. The Agency anticipates issuing the number of Contract awards for Region 10 as described in Table 5, SMMC Region, below, excluding awards to Specialty MMA Plans. Table 5 SMMC Region Region Total Anticipated Contract Awards Region 10 4 If a respondent is awarded a Contract for multiple regions, the Agency will issue one (1) Contract to include all awarded regions. The Agency will award at least one (1) Contract to a PSN provided a PSN submits a responsive reply and negotiates a rate acceptable to the Agency. The Agency, at its sole discretion, shall make this determination. A respondent that is awarded a Contract as a Comprehensive Plan is determined to satisfy the requirements in Section 409.974, Florida Statutes and Section 409.981, Florida Statutes and shall be considered an awardee of an MMA Contract and a LTC Contract. The Agency will issue one (1) Contract to reflect all awarded populations in all awarded regions. In addition to the number of Contracts awarded in this region, additional Contracts may be awarded to Specialty Plans that negotiate terms and conditions determined to be the best value to the State and negotiate a rate acceptable to the Agency. The Agency, at its sole discretion, shall make this determination. The Agency reserves the right to make adjustments to the enrollee eligibility and identification criteria proposed by a Specialty Plan prior to Contract award in order to ensure that the aggregate enrollment of all awarded Specialty Plans in a region will not exceed ten percent (10%) of the total enrollees in that region, in compliance with Section 409.974(3), Florida Statutes. If a respondent is awarded a Contract as a Specialty Plan and another plan type, the Agency will issue one (1) Contract to include all awarded populations in all awarded regions. A prospective vendor asked about the interplay of Specialty Plan options and the PSN requirements. The question and the answer provided in Addendum 2 follow: Q. Please clarify the number of PSN awards per region and how PSN awards will be determined based on the PSN's plan type (e.g., Comprehensive, LTC Plus, MMA, Specialty). As you know, Sections 409.974 and 409.981, Florida Statutes require one MMA PSN and one LTC PSN award per region (assuming a PSN is responsive) and the Agency has stated that an award to a Comprehensive Plan PSN will meet the requirements of both statutes. However, can the Agency further clarify whether other types of PSNs would meet the statutory requirements? Specifically, would a PSN LTC Plus award meet the requirements of Section 409.981, Florida Statutes? Similarly, would an award to a Specialty Plan PSN meet the requirements of Section 409.974, Florida Statutes? A. See Attachment A Instructions and Special Conditions, Section D Response Evaluations, and Contract Award, Sub-Section 7 Number of Awards. Yes, a PSN LTC Plus award would meet the requirements of Section 409.981(2). A Specialty Plan PSN would not meet the requirements of Section 409.974(1). The only reasonable interpretation of this answer is that Specialty Plan PSNs do not satisfy the requirement to contract with a responsive PSN imposed by section 409.974. None of the prospective vendors, including Community, challenged this clarification. EVALUATION PROCESS THE EVALUATORS The Agency selected 11 people to evaluate the proposals. The Agency assigned each person a number used to identify who was assigned to which task and to track performance of evaluation tasks. The procurement officer sent the evaluators a brief memo of instructions. It provided dates; described logistics of evaluation; emphasized the importance of independent evaluation; and prohibited communicating about the ITN and the proposals with anyone other than the procurement office. The Agency also conducted an instructional session for evaluators. Evaluator 1, Marie Donnelly: During the procurement, Ms. Donnelly was the Agency’s Chief of the Bureau of Medicaid Quality. She held this position for five years before resigning. This bureau bore responsibility for ensuring that the current SMMC plans met their contract requirements for quality and quality improvement measures. Her role specifically included oversight of Specialty Plans. Evaluator 2, Erica Floyd Thomas: Ms. Thomas is the chief of the Bureau of Medicaid Policy. She has worked for the Agency since 2001. Her Medicaid experience includes developing policies for hospitals, community behavioral health, residential treatment, and contract oversight. Before serving as bureau chief, she served as an Agency administrator from 2014 through 2017. Ms. Thomas oversaw the policy research and development process for all Medicaid medical, behavioral, dental, facility, and clinic coverage policies to ensure they were consistent with the state Plan and federal Medicaid requirements. Evaluator 3, Rachel LaCroix, Ph.D.: Dr. LaCroix is an administrator in the Agency’s Performance Evaluation and Research Unit. She has worked for the Agency since 2003. All her positions have been in the Medicaid program. Dr. LaCroix has served in her current position since 2011. She works with the performance measures and surveys that the current SMMC providers report to the Agency. Dr. LaCroix is a nationally recognized expert on healthcare quality metrics like HEDIS. She is also an appointee on the National Association of Medicaid Directors’ task force for national performance measures. Evaluator 4, Damon Rich: Mr. Rich has worked for the Agency since April 2009. He is the chief of the Agency’s Bureau of Recipient and Provider Assistance. This bureau interacts directly with AHCA’s current SMMC care providers about any issues they have, and with Medicaid recipients, usually about their eligibility or plan enrollment. Before Mr. Rich was a bureau chief, he worked as a field office manager for the Agency. Mr. Rich’s experience as bureau chief and field office manager includes oversight of the current SMMC Specialty Plans. Evaluator 5. Eunice Medina: Ms. Medina is the chief of the Agency’s Bureau of Medicaid Plan Management, which includes a staff of over 60 individuals, who manage the current SMMC contracts. Her experience and duties essentially encompass all aspects of the current SMMC plans. Ms. Medina started working with the Agency in 2014. Evaluator 6, Devona “DD” Pickle: Ms. Pickle most recently joined the Agency in 2011. She also worked for the Agency from November 2008 through November 2010. Ms. Pickle’s Agency experience all relates in some way to the Medicaid program. Since March 2013, Ms. Pickle has served as an administrator over managed care policy and contract development in the Bureau of Medicaid Policy. Her job duties include working with the current SMMC contractors. Ms. Pickle is also a Florida licensed mental health counselor. Evaluator 7, Tracy Hurd-Alvarez: Ms. Hurd-Alvarez has worked for the Agency’s Medicaid program since 1997. Since 2014, she has been a field office manager, overseeing compliance monitoring for all the current SMMC contractors. Before assuming her current position, Ms. Hurd-Alvarez implemented the LTC SMMC program. Evaluator 8, Gay Munyon: Ms. Munyon is currently the Chief of the Bureau of Medicaid Fiscal Agent Operations. Ms. Munyon began working with the Agency in April 2013. Ms. Munyon’s bureau oversees fulfillment of the Agency’s contract with the current SMMC fiscal agent. Her unit’s responsibilities include systems maintenance and modifications and overseeing the fiscal agent, which answers phone calls, processes claims, and processes applications. Ms. Munyon has 25 years of experience working with the Medicaid program. Evaluator 9, Laura Noyes: Ms. Noyes started working for the Agency in April 2011. Her years of Agency experience all relate to the Medicaid program, including overseeing six current comprehensive managed care plans by identifying trends in contractual non-compliance. Evaluator 10, Brian Meyer: Mr. Meyer is a CPA, who has worked for the Agency in the Medicaid program since 2011. He is currently chief of the Bureau of Medicaid Data Analytics. Mr. Meyer’s primary responsibility is overseeing the capitation rates for the current SMMC contractors. His experience includes Medicaid plan financial statement analysis, surplus requirement calculation analysis and, in general, all types of financial analysis necessary to understand financial performance of the state’s Medicaid plans. Evaluator 11, Ann Kaperak: Since April 2015, Ms. Kaperak has served as an administrator in the Agency’s Bureau of Medicaid Program Integrity. Ms. Kaperak’s unit oversees the fraud and abuse efforts of the current SMMC plans. She also worked for the Medicaid program from November 2012 through May 2014. Ms. Kaperak worked as a regulatory compliance manager for Anthem/Amerigroup’s Florida Medicaid program between May 2014 and April 2015. Positive and Community challenge the Agency’s plan selections by questioning the qualifications of the evaluators. The first part of their argument is that the evaluators did not have sufficient knowledge about HIV/AIDS and its treatment. The evidence does not prove the theory. For instance, Positive’s argument relies upon criticizing the amount of clinical experience evaluators had managing patients with HIV/AIDS. That approach minimizes the fact that the managed care plan characteristics involve so much more than disease- specific considerations. For instance, many of the components require determining if the respondent provided required documents, verifying conflict of interest documents, management structure, quality control measures, and the like. General SRCs asked for things like dispute resolution models (SRC 16), claims processing information (SRC 17), and fraud and abuse compliance plans (SRC 31). MMA SRCs included criteria, like telemedicine (SRC 4), demonstrated progress obtaining executed provider agreements (SRC 6), and a credentialing process (SRC 12). Specialty SRCs included criteria like copies of contracts for managed care for the proposed specialty population (SRC 1), specific and detailed criteria defining the proposed specialty population (SRC 4), and the like. The evidence does not prove that disease-specific experience is necessary to evaluate responses to these and other SRCs. SRC 6 involving HEDIS data and SRC 14 involving CAHPS data are two good examples. They required respondents to input data into a spreadsheet. All the evaluators had to do was determine what those numbers showed. Evaluation did not require any understanding of disease or how the measures were created. All the evaluator had to know was the number in the spreadsheet. The second part of the evaluator qualification criticisms is that the evaluators did not give adequate weight to some responses. Positive and Community just disagree with the measures requested and the evaluation of them. They conclude from that disagreement that the evaluators’ qualifications were deficient. The argument is not persuasive. The last sentence of paragraph 69 of Positive’s proposed recommended order exemplifies the criticisms of Positive and Community of the evaluators’ qualifications. It states, “The fact that PHC [Positive] was ranked last among competing HIV plans shows that the SRC evaluators did not understand enough about managing individuals with HIV/AIDs to score its proposal competently.” The argument is circular and “ipse dixit”. It does not carry the day. The collective knowledge and experience of the evaluators, with a total of 128 years of Medicaid experience, made them capable of reasonably evaluating the managed care plan proposals, including the Specialty plan proposals. The record certainly does not prove otherwise. EVALUATION PROCESS The Agency assigned the evaluators to the SRCs that it determined they were qualified to evaluate and score. The Agency did not assign entire responses to an evaluator for review. Instead it elected a piecemeal review process assigning various evaluators to various sections, the SRCs of each response. Paragraph 30 of the Agency’s proposed recommended order describes this decision as follows: Although the ITN had contemplated ranking each vendor by evaluator, based on an example in the ITN, such ranking presumed a process where all evaluators scored all or nearly all of the responses to the ITN, which had occurred in the procurement five years ago. In this procurement, each evaluator reviewed only a subset of SRCs based on their knowledge, and experience; therefore, ranking by evaluator was not logical because each had a different maximum point score. The initial SRC scoring assignments were: General SRCs 1 through 4, LTC SRCs 1 and 2, and Specialty SRC 1: Marie Donnelly, Laura Noyes, and Brian Meyer. General SRCs 5 through 8, MMA SRCs 1 through 7, LTC SRCs 3 and 4, and Specialty SRCs 1 and 2: Marie Donnelly, Erica Floyd- Thomas, and Rachel LaCroix. General SRCs 9 through 14, MMA SRCs 8 through 11, LTC SRCs 5 through 7, and Specialty SRC 4: Damon Rich, Eunice Medina, and DD Pickle. General SRCs 15 through 17, MMA SRCs 12 and 13, and LTC SRCs 8 through 10: Damon Rich, Tracy Hurd-Alvarez, Gay Munyon. General SRCs 18 through 25, MMA SRCs 14 through 20, LTC SRCs 11 and 12, and Specialty SRC 5: Erica Floyd-Thomas, Eunice Medina, and DD Pickle. General SRCs 26 through 33 and LTC SRC 13: Gay Munyon, Ann Kaperak, and Brian Meyer. General SRCs 34 through 36 and MMA SRC 21: Marie Donnelly, Rachel LaCroix, and Tracy Hurd-Alvarez. The ranking process presented in the ITN and described in paragraphs 62-64, contemplated ranking each respondent by evaluator. The Agency carried this process over from an earlier procurement. In this procurement, despite what the ITN said, the Agency assigned responsibilities so that each evaluator reviewed only a subset of SRCs. Therefore, the ranking of responses by evaluator presented in the ITN could not work. It was not even possible because no one evaluator reviewed a complete response and because each SRC had a different maximum point score. Instead, the Agency, contrary to the terms of the ITN, ranked proposals by averaging the “total point scores” assigned by all of the evaluators. The Agency considered issuing an addendum advising the parties of the change. The addendum would have informed the respondents and provided them an opportunity to challenge the change. The Agency elected not to issue an addendum. EVALUATION AND SCORING The evaluators began scoring on November 6, 2017, with a completion deadline of December 29, 2017. The 11 evaluators had to score approximately 230 separate responses to the ITNs. The evaluators had to score 67,175 separate items to complete the scoring for all responses for all regions for all types of plans. No one at the Agency evaluated how much time it should take to score a particular item. None of the parties to this proceeding offered persuasive evidence to support a finding that scoring any particular item would or should take a specific length of time or that scoring all of the responses would or should take a specific length of time. Evaluators scored the responses in conference room F at the Agency’s headquarters. This secure room was the exclusive location for evaluation and scoring. Each evaluator had a dedicated workspace equipped with all tools and resources necessary for the task. The workspaces included a computer terminal for each evaluator. The system allowed evaluators to review digital copies of the ITN and proposals and to enter evaluation points in spreadsheets created for the purpose of recording scores. Evaluators also had access to hard copies of the proposals and the ITN. The Agency required evaluators to sign in and to sign out. The sign-in and sign-out sheets record the significant amount of time the evaluators spent evaluating proposals. Evaluators were not permitted to communicate with each other about the responses. To minimize distractions, the Agency prohibited cell phones, tablets and other connected devices in the room. The Agency also authorized and encouraged the evaluators to delegate their usual responsibilities. Agency proctors observed the room and evaluators throughout the scoring process. They were available to answer general and procedural questions and to ensure that the evaluators signed in and signed out. A log sheet documented how much time each evaluator spent in the scoring conference room. Some evaluators took extensive notes. For example, Ms. Median took over 200 pages of notes. Similarly, Ms. Munyon took nearly 400 pages of typewritten notes. The evaluators worked hard. None, other than Dr. LaCroix, testified that they did not have enough time to do their job. The computer system also automatically tracked the evaluators’ progress. Tracking reports showed the number of items assigned to each evaluator and the number of scoring items completed. The first status report was generated on December 8, 2017, approximately halfway through the scheduled scoring. At that time, only 28 percent of the scoring items were complete. Ms. Barrett usually ran the status reports in the morning. She made them available to the evaluators to review. The pace of evaluation caused concern about timely completion and prompted discussions of ways to accelerate scoring. Because it was clear that the majority of the evaluators would not complete scoring their SRCs by December 29, 2017, the Agency extended the scoring deadline to January 12, 2018. It also extended the hours for conference room use. Most respondents filed proposals for more than one type of plan and more than one region. This fact combined with the provision in the instructions saying that all statewide SRC responses must be identical for each region and that scores would transfer to each applicable region’s score sheets, enabled evaluators to score many SRCs just once. The system would then auto-populate the scores to the same SRC for all proposals by that respondent. This time saving measure permitted scoring on many of the items to be almost instantaneous after review of the first response to an SRC. The fact that so many respondents submitted proposals for so many regions and types of plans provided the Agency another opportunity for time-saving. The Agency loaded Adobe Pro on the evaluators’ computers as a timesaving measure. This program allowed the evaluators to compare a bidder’s Comprehensive Plan Proposal to the same company’s regional and Specialty Plan proposals. If the Adobe Pro comparison feature showed that the proposal response was the same for each plan, the Agency permitted evaluators to score the response once and assign the same score for each item where the respondent provided the same proposal. This speeded scoring. It, however, meant that for SRCs where evaluators did this, that they were not reviewing the SRC response in the specific context of the specialty plan population, each of which had specific and limited characteristics that made them different from the broader General and MMA plan populations. This is significant because so many SRCs required narrative responses where context would matter. There is no Specialty SRCs A-4 instruction requirement for specialty plans analogous to the requirement that responses for statewide SRCs must be identical for each region. In other words, the instructions do not say all SRCs marked as statewide must be identical for each specialty plan proposal and that the Agency will evaluate each Statewide SRC once and transfer the score to each applicable Specialty Plan score. In fact, according to the procurement officer, the Agency expected that evaluators would separately evaluate and score the statewide SRCs for Comprehensive Plans and for Specialty Plans, even if the same bidder submitted them. Despite the Agency’s expectation and the absence of an authorizing provision in the ITN, many evaluators, relying on the Adobe Pro tool, copied the SRC scores they gave to a respondent’s comprehensive plan proposal to its specialty plan proposal if the respondent submitted the same response to an SRC for a Comprehensive Plan and a Specialty Plan. For instance, Ms. Thomas (Evaluator 2) and Ms. Munyon (Evaluator 8) did this to save time. Ms. Donnelly (Evaluator 1) did this even when the comprehensive and specialty responses were not identical. This does not amount to the independent evaluation of the responses pledged by the ITN. On separate days, Evaluator 1 scored 1,315 items, 954 items, 779 items and 727 items. On separate days, Evaluator 2 scored 613 items, 606 items, 720 items, 554 items and 738 items. Evaluator 4 scored 874 items on one day. Evaluator 5 scored 813 items in one day. Evaluator 6 scored 1,001 items in one day. Evaluator 8 scored 635 items in one day. The record does not identify the items scored. It also does not permit determining how many of the item scores resulted from auto-population or assignment of scores based upon previous scoring of an identical response. It bears repeating, however, that the record does not support any finding on how long scoring the response to one SRC or an entire response could reasonably be expected to take. Even with the extended scoring period and time-saving measures, the Agency concluded that Evaluator 3 would not be able to finish all of the SRCs assigned to her. Rather than extend the deadline for scoring a second time, the Agency decided to reassign the nine of Evaluator 3’s SRCs that she had not begun scoring to two other evaluators. The Agency did not include scores of other SRCs for which Evaluator 3 had not completed scoring. The Agency only counted Evaluator 3’s scores for an SRC if she scored the SRC for everyone. The result was that only two people scored nine of the Specialty Plan SRCs. The Agency did not reassign all of Evaluator 3’s SRCs’. It only reassigned the SRCs to evaluators who were qualified to evaluate the items, who were not already assigned those items to score, and who had already finished or substantially completed their own evaluations. The decision to reassign the SRCs was not based on any scoring that had already been completed. The Agency did not allow changes to data submitted by any of the vendors. It allowed vendors to exchange corrupted electronic files for ones which could be opened and allowed vendors to exchange electronic files to match up with the paper copies that had been submitted. The Agency allowed Community to correct its submission where it lacked a signature on its transmittal letter and allowed Community to exchange an electronic document that would not open. It did not allow Community to change its reported HEDIS scores, which were submitted in the decimal form required by the instructions. Community erred in the numbers that it reported. There is no evidence showing that other vendors received a competitive or unfair advantage over Community in the Agency’s review of the SMI Specialty Plan submission for Region 10. There was no evidence that the Agency allowed any other vendors to change any substantive information in their submittals for that proposed specialty in that region. HEIDIS ISSUES Positive asserts that Simply’s proposal is non- responsive because Simply submitted HEDIS data from the general Medicaid population in response to SRC 6 and MMA SRC 14. Positive contends that Simply obtained a competitive advantage by supplying non-HIV/AIDS HEDIS data in response to SRC 6 and MMA SRC 14 because HIV/AIDS patients are generally a sicker group and require more care and because some HEDIS measures cannot be reported for an HIV/AIDS population. HEDIS stands for Healthcare Effectiveness and Data Information Set and is a set of standardized performance measures widely used in the healthcare industry. The instructions for both SRC 6 and MMA SRC 14 provide, in relevant part: The respondent shall describe its experience in achieving quality standards with populations similar to the target population described in this solicitation. The respondent shall include in table format, the target population (TANF, ABD, dual eligible), the respondent’s results for the HEDIS measures specified below for each of the last two (2) years (CY 2015/HEDIS 2016 and CY 2016/HEDIS 2017) for the respondent’s three (3) largest Medicaid Contracts (measured by number of enrollees). If the respondent does not have HEDIS results for at least three (3) Medicaid Contracts, the respondent shall provide commercial HEDIS measures for the respondent’s largest Contracts. If the Respondent has Florida Medicaid HEDIS results, it shall include the Florida Medicaid experience as one (1) of three (3) states for the last two (2) years. (JE 1 at 75 (SRC 6); JE 1 at 158 (MMA SRC 14)). SRC 6 and MMA SRC 14 instruct respondents to provide HEDIS measures for “the target population (TANF, ABD, dual eligible).” Id.. TANF, ABD, and dual eligible are eligibility classifications for the Medicaid population. The Agency sought information regarding the target Medicaid-eligible population, even from respondents proposing a Specialty Plan, because Specialty Plans are required to serve all of the healthcare needs of their recipients, not just the needs related to the criteria making those recipients eligible for the Specialty Plan. Following the instructions in SRC 6 and MMA SRC 14, Simply provided HEDIS data from the Medicaid-eligible population for its three largest Medicaid contracts as measured by the total number of enrollees. For the requested Florida HEDIS data, Simply utilized legacy HEDIS data from Amerigroup Florida, Inc., a Comprehensive Plan. Amerigroup and Simply had merged in October of 2017. Therefore, at the time of submission of Simply’s proposal, the HEDIS data from Amerigroup Florida was the data from Simply’s largest Medicaid contract in Florida for the period requested by the SRCs. Positive asserts that the Agency impermissibly altered scoring criteria after the proposals were submitted when the Agency corrected technical issues within a HEDIS Measurement Tool spreadsheet. SRC 6 and MMA SRC 14 required the submission of numeric data for the requested HEDIS performance measures. To simplify submission of the numeric data for the requested HEDIS performance measures, the Agency required respondents to utilize a HEDIS Measurement Tool spreadsheet. The evaluation criteria for SRC 6 and MMA SRC 14 provided that respondents will be awarded points if the reported HEDIS measures exceed the national or regional mean for such performance measures. Some respondents, including Positive, entered “N/A,” “small denominator,” or other text inputs into the HEDIS Measurement Tool. During the evaluation and scoring process, the Agency discovered that if a respondent input any text into the HEDIS Measurement Tool, the tool would assign random amounts of points, even though respondents had not input measureable, numeric data. The Agency reasonably resolved the problem by removing any text and inserting a zero in place of the text. The correction of the error in the HEDIS Measurement Tool prevented random points from being awarded to respondents and did not alter scores in any way contrary to the ITN. It was reasonable and fair to all respondents.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order rejecting all r esponses to the ITNs to provide a Medicaid Managed Care plan for patients with HIV/AIDS in Regions 10 and 11. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order inviting Community to negotiate to provide Medicaid Managed Care plan in Region 10 for patients with serious mental illness. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order inviting Community to negotiate to provide a Medicaid Managed Care plan in Region 10 for patients with serious mental illness. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order inviting Community to negotiate to provide a Medicaid Managed Care plan in Region 10 for c hild w elfare specialty services. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order awarding Wellcare of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Staywell Health Plan of Florida, a contract for a specialty Medicaid Managed Care plan for patients with Serious Mental Illness in Region 10. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order dismissing the Petition in Case No. 18-3513. DONE AND ENTERED this day of , , in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day of , .
Findings Of Fact The Parties FRTC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Charter Medical Corporation (Charter) which proposes to construct and operate a freestanding, 60 bed, 24- hour-a-day, Intensive Residential Treatment Program for children between the ages of 6 and 18 in Palm Beach County within HRS District IX, pursuant to Rule 10-28.152(8), F.A.C. and Chapter 395, F.S. Although FRTC represents it will construct its proposed facility with or without CON licensure, which it is entitled to do, given the peculiarities of this type of health care entity, it is clear that a prime motivator in FRTC's CON application is that with CON licensure, FRTC potentially will have greater access to insurance reimbursement because it may then call itself a "hospital." FRTC will seek JCAH accreditation. HRS is the state agency with the authority and responsibility to consider CON applications, pursuant to Chapter 10-5.011, F.A.C. and Sections 381.701-381.715, F.S. (1987). HRS preliminarily approved FRTC's application, and supported it through formal hearing and post-hearing proposals. RTCPB is an existing 40 bed residential treatment center for adolescents between the ages of 12 and 18, located in Palm Beach County, on the campus of Lake Hospital of the Palm Beaches. It provides services similar or identical to those services proposed to be offered by FRTC. It is JCAH accredited through an extension of Lake Hospital's accreditation and is close to JCAH accreditation in its own right. RTCPB is a subsidiary of Psychiatric Hospitals, Inc. (PIA) . PIA operates two residential treatment centers in Florida. RTCPB is not CON licensed as an IRTP, under Chapters 381 and 395, F.S., but is licensed as a child care facility under Chapter 395, F.S., as a provider of services to HRS under Chapters 10M-9 and 10E-10, F.A.C. RTCPB accepts substance abusers in residency. RTCPB has also applied for CON licensure as an IRTP in a batching cycle subsequent to the present one. That application has been preliminarily denied by HRS and RTCPB is awaiting a Section 120.57(1), F.S., formal administrative hearing thereon. RTCPB now estimates its current patients' average length of stay (ALOS) as 106 days but projects a 315 day (10 1/2 months) ALOS in its subsequent CON application. RTCPB is charging $185 per day or HRS patients and $255 with $23-26 ancillaries [sic] per day for private pay patients. Like FRTC, it uses a "levels" system of behavior modification and patient control. Humana is a 250 bed JCAH accredited hospital located in Palm Beach County, Florida. Of Humana's 250 beds, 162 are traditional acute care beds and 88 are psychiatric beds. The 88 psychiatric beds are administratively divided into different units, one of which is a 27 bed adolescent psychiatric unit; this unit opened January 20, 1987, and has an average length of stay of nine months. Humana's existing CONs are for short-term adult psychiatric beds and do not authorize an adolescent unit with an average length of stay of over 30 days. Ninety days is the demarcation, by rule, between short- and long-term psychiatric beds. Humana recently applied for a CON for more psychiatric beds and also applied for an IRTP CON in a subsequent batch to the present one. Humana's present 27 bed adolescent psychiatric unit provides grossly similar services to those proposed to be offered by FRTC, but its emphasis is more medical-psychiatric than emotional-behavioral. Like FRTC, Humana does not accept in residency adolescents with a primary diagnosis of substance abuse. Like FRTC and RTCPB, Humana uses a "levels" system. Eighty percent of Humana's patient mix are commercial pay, and the unit is running at a 15 to 20 percent profit margin. Humana usually charges $325 per day on their adolescent unit plus ancillaries [sic] amounting to 10 percent of the patient's bill, but HRS contract patients pay only $225 per day. Humana has lost a number of adolescent unit referrals to RTCPB since RTCPB opened June 1, 1987, but the unit continues to be almost fully occupied. Humana's main referral asset, as well as the source of the confusion of referring entities, appears to be the reputation of its director, Dr. Kelly. Dr. Kelly previously directed a program at Lake Hospital which was identical to the program that he now directs at Humana. Lake Hospital currently has RTCPB operating under its auspices, but not Dr. Kelly. Nature of the FRTC Program FRTC's proposed program is designed to serve those persons in the designated age group who have psychiatric diagnoses of a severity requiring a long-term approach in a multidisciplinary structured living setting to facilitate recovery. It will not, however, treat adolescents with an active diagnosis of chemical dependency or substance abuse. It also only commits to 1.5 percent indigent care. The proposed FRTC program differs from an acute care setting in significant quantitative and qualitative ways, the most visible of which is that acute care psychiatric settings (either long- or short-term) are geared toward dealing with patients actively dangerous to property, themselves, or others, but patients whom it is reasonably assumed will respond primarily to physiologically-oriented physicians and registered nurses administering daily medication, treatment, and monitoring, as opposed to a long-term living arrangement emphasizing behaviorally-oriented group interaction as an alternative to parental care at home. FRTC will, however, accept patients with psychiatric diagnoses of effective disorders, depression, schizophrenia and impulse disorders and those who may be potentially harmful to themselves, others, or property for whom no other less intensive or less restrictive form of treatment would be predictably helpful. FRTC would fall on the continuum of care below an acute psychiatric facility such as Humana. Assessment of such a target group on a patient by patient basis is obviously subject to a wide variation of interpretation by qualified health care professionals, but FRTC anticipates both verifying referral diagnoses and assuring quality of care by insuring that each new patient is seen by a psychiatrist within 24 hours of admission, and by having each case reviewed by an independent utilization review committee. FRTC also plans to complete appropriate patient assessments and develop and update individual, integrated treatment programs. FRTC will provide, where appropriate, for continuity of care from previous acute care institutions through the FRTC program and out into more normal individual or family living arrangements. Parents will have to consent to their child's placement at FRTC. FRTC's program proposes an average length of stay of 365 days (one year) with a range of six months to two years. Based upon all the credible record evidence as a whole, including, but not limited to, the protestants' respective ALOS, this is a reasonable forecast despite contrary evidence as to Charter's experience at its "template" Virginia institution, Charter Colonial. FRTC's program components will include individual therapy, recreational therapy, occupational therapy, and general education. The general education component in FRTC's proposed program is more general and more open than that offered in acute care settings, such as Humana. FRTC's overall program will utilize a "levels" system of behavioral management based upon patients earning privileges, which levels system has a good patient rehabilitation and functional administrative track record in many different kinds of psychiatric health care facilities, including Humana and RTCPB. FRTC intends that each patient's program will be individualized according to age and program component directed to his/her diagnosis and each patient will receive individual, resident group, and family therapies. As to assessment, types of therapy, continuity of care, and general education provisions, FRTC's proposal is grossly consistent with that of its "template." To the extent there is evidence of inconsistencies between the two programs in the record, the FRTC proposal represents either improvements over, or refinements of, its template program which have been developed as Charter/FRTC has learned more about what actually "works" for the IRTP form of health care, or it represents changes to accommodate Florida's perception of what less restrictive but still intensive residential treatment should be, or it anticipates local community needs. Quality of Care The applicant's parent corporation is an experienced provider of many types of accredited psychiatric facilities. The type of quality assurance program proposed and the staff mix provide reasonable quality care assurances. Design, Construction, and Personnel Refinements to FRTC's original schematic take into consideration the influence that physical structure has on an Intensive Residential Treatment Program. Those refinements include modification of a multipurpose room into a half-court gymnasium, addition of a classroom, addition of a mechanical room, modification of the nursing station to decrease the amount of space, and the deletion of one seclusion room and addition of a four to six bed assessment unit. The modifications resulted in the addition of approximately 1,000 square feet to the original design. A minimum of four to six acres would be necessary to accommodate the modified design which totals approximately 32,000 square feet. Public areas, such as administration and support services, dining room, and housekeeping areas, are to the front; private areas, such as the nursing units, are to the back. The facility's middle area houses gym, classrooms, and occupational therapy areas. The location encourages residential community involvement. Each of three, 20-bed units is made up of a group of two consultation rooms, a galley, a laundry, a day room and core living space located directly across from the nursing station for maximum observation and efficiency. Each unit comprises a separate wing. Six handicapped accessible patient beds are contemplated; the building will be handicapped-accessible. The staffing projections have increased and the pattern has been minimally altered in the updates. The updated pro forma also modified the initial financial projections so as to increase salary expense and employee benefits based on this change in staffing. An increase in the total project cost impacted on depreciation, and interest expense changed with time. All these changes are reasonable and insubstantial. FRTC's design is adequate for providing a suitable environment for intensive residential treatment for children and adolescents even though it is not identical to Charter's "template" for residential treatment and even though Charter's extensive experience with acute care facilities has focused these changes in its residential treatment concepts. The parties stipulated to the adequacy of FRTC's proposed equipment list and costs. Total construction cost was demonstrated to be reasonably estimated at $2,078,000. The square footage costs of $64.86 per square foot represet an increase from the square footage costs contained in the original CON application. The original budget was updated based upon a three percent inflation factor and the addition of the approximately 1,000 square feet. The additional space is not a significant construction change. The total project costs of $4,728,000 are reasonable. The testimony of HRS Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regulation and Health Facilities, John Griffin, who testified by deposition, (RTCPB's Exhibit 8, pp. 21-22) revealed no firm policy on what the agency, within its expertise, views as substantial and impermissible amendments to a CON application; HRS did not move at hearing to remand for further review; and the undersigned concludes that the changes in facility design, costs, and staffing do not represent significant changes which would be excludable as evidence and that they do represent permissible minor modifications and refinements of the original FRTC application. Site Availability No party contended that FRTC's application was a "site specific" application, that a residential treatment program is otherwise required to be "site specific," or that an IRTP CON is governed by a "site specific" rule or by "site specific" statutory criteria. Therefore, it was only necessary for FRTC in this noncomparative proceeding to establish that several suitable sites were available within the required geographic parameters at the financial amount allotted in FRTC's projections. FRTC did establish financially and geographically available and suitable sites through the testimony of Robert H. Ellzey, a qualified expert in commercial real estate values. The Non-Rule Need Policy There are no hospital licensed Intensive Residential Treatment Programs in Palm Beach County or in District IX. IRTPs are in a separate licensure category by law from psychiatric beds, acute care beds, and rehabilitation beds. There is a separate need methodology for long-term psychiatric beds and there are no CON licensed long-term psychiatric programs for children and adolescents in District IX, unless one considers Humana which is treating adolescents well beyond 30 or 90 days residency. HRS has no promulgated rule predicting need for IRTPs seeking specialty hospital licensure under Chapter 395, F.S. Subsequent to advice of its counsel that a CON must be obtained as a condition of IRTP licensure pursuant to Chapter 395, F.S., HRS elected to evaluate all IRTP CON applications in the context of the statutory criteria of Chapter 381, F.S., and in the context of HRS' non-rule policy establishing a rebuttable presumption of need for one "reasonably sized" IRTP in each HRS planning district. The May 5, 1988 Final Order in Florida Psychiatric Centers v. HRS, et al., DOAH Case No. 88- 0008R, held this non-rule policy invalid as a rule due to HRS' failure to promulgate it pursuant to Section 120.54, F.S., but that order also held the policy not to be invalid as contrary to Chapter 381, F.S. That Final Order intervened between the close of final hearing in the instant case and entry of the instant Recommended Order, however, it does not alter the need for the agency to explicate and demonstrate the reasonableness of its non-rule policy on a case by case basis. HRS was unable to do so in the formal hearing in the instant case. Notwithstanding the oral testimony of Robert May and Elizabeth Dudek, and the deposition testimony of John Griffin, it appears that the non- rule policy is not based upon generally recognized health planning considerations, but solely on the agency's statutory interpretation of recent amendments to Chapter 395 and some vague perception, after internal agency discussions, that the policy is consistent with certain promulgated need rules and with certain other non-rule policies for other types of health care entities, which other non-rule policies were never fully enunciated or proved up in this formal hearing. The HRS non-rule policy was also not affirmatively demonstrated to be rational because it does not take into account the reasonableness of a proposed facility's average length of stay, referral sources, geographic access, or other factors common to duly promulgated CON rules. Numerical Need and Conformity to Applicable Health Plans FRTC sought to support HRS' non-rule policy on numerical need for, and definition of, a "reasonably sized" IRTP through the testimony of Dr. Ronald Luke, who was qualified as an expert in health planning, development of need methodologies, health economies, survey research, and development of mental health programs. In the absence of a finding of a rational non-rule policy on numerical need, Dr. Luke's evidence forms the cornerstone of FRTC's demonstration of numerical need. Through the report and testimony of Dr. Luke, and despite contrary expert health planning testimony, FRTC established the numerical need for, and reasonableness of, its 60 licensed IRTP beds in District IX with projected 60 percent occupancy in the first year and 50 percent in the second year of operation using two bed need methodologies. Dr. Luke ultimately relied on a utilization methodology based upon 1991 population projections. Dr. Luke used a census rate per 100,000 population of 21.58. This is appropriately and reasonably derived from national data for residential treatment patients aged 0-17, regardless of the fact that the types of residential treatment considered by the NIMH data base employed by Dr. Luke greatly vary in concept and despite HRS having not yet clearly defined the nature of the programs and services it expects to be offered by a Florida specialty hospital licensed IRTP. Therefrom, Dr. Luke derived an average daily census of 52 in 1991. That figure yields a bed sizing of between 58 and 61 beds, depending on whether an 85 percent or 90 percent occupancy factor is plugged in. Either 58 or 61 beds is within the range of ratios calculated by Dr. Luke's other methodology for currently licensed Florida IRTPs in other districts. Assuming a target occupancy rate of 85 percent and an ALOS of one year, Dr. Luke considered the gross District IX IRTP bed need to be 60. In the absence of any like program to assess occupancy for and in the presence of similar programs such as Humana operating at nearly full occupancy now and RTCPB forecasting its occupancy at 88 percent in 1990 if it were IRTP-licensed, it is found that 60 beds are justified. Since there are no IRTP beds licensed as specialty hospitals in the current district bed inventory, no adjustment of this figure must be made to account for existing licensed IRTP beds. Simply stated, this is a CON application for an IRTP, nothing more and nothing less, and the subtrahend to be subtracted from gross district bed need is zero when there is a zero specialty hospital licensed IRTP bed inventory. Luke's calculated gross need of 60 bed is also his net need and is accepted. Fifty beds is generally the minimum size HRS will approve to be feasible for any free standing facility to be eonomically efficient and to be able to benefit from economies of scale. This 50 bed concept is within the wide range of bed ratios that HRS implicitly has found reasonable in, previously- licensed IRTP CON approvals. Conformity With Applicable Health Plans Section 38l.705(1)(a), F.S., requires HRS to consider CON applications against criteria contained in the applicable State and District Health Plans. In this regard, neither the applicable State Health Plan nor the applicable District IX Local Health Plan make any reference to a need for intensive residential treatment facilities. The District IX Health Plan addresses the need for psychiatric and substance abuse services to be available to all individuals in District IX. FRTC's project addresses this goal only in part. The District Health Plan states that priority should be given to CON applicants who make a commitment to providing indigent care. FRTC proposes only 1.5 percent indigent care which works out to only 1/2 of the ALOS of one patient at the proposed facility and is hardly optimum, but in a noncomparative hearing, it stands alone as advancing the given accessibility goal within the plan. Objective 1.3 of the State Health Plan provides: Through 1987, additional long-term inpatient psychiatric beds should not normally be approved unless the average annual occupancy for all existing and approved long-term hospital psychiatric beds in the HRS District is at least 80 percent. FRTC's project is neutral as to this goal. The District Plan also contains a goal for a complete range of health care services for the population of the district. FRTC advances this goal. The State Health Plan further provides: Goal 10: DEVELOP A COMPLETE RANGE OF ESSENTIAL PUBLIC MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN EACH HRS DISTRICT OBJECTIVE 10.1: Develop a range of essential mental health services in each HRS district by 1989. OBJECTIVE 10.3: Develop a network of residential treatment settings for Florida's severely emotionally disturbed children by 1990. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1.03A: Develop residential placements within Florida for all SED children currently receiving ing treatment in out-of-state facilities by 1990. The FRTC project advances these goals in part. To the extent SED patients placed outside the state for residential treatment services are HRS patients whom FRTC as yet has not contracted to treat, the FRTC project does not advance this goal. However, increased insurance reimbursement will advance accessibility for those SED children and adolescents in need of this type of care whose families have insurance coverage. The State Plan also emphasizes a goal for a continuum of care. The FRTC plan advances this goal. Financial Feasibility William S. Love, Senior Director of Hospital Operations for Charter, was accepted as an expert in health care finance. Mr. Love prepared the pro forma financial statement contained in the original CON application and the update of the pro forma in response to HRS' completeness questions. Mr. Love also had input into the updated financial information which increased salary and benefit expense. (See FOF No. 11). The revised pro forma utilized an assumption of gross patient revenues of $300 per day and a 365 day ALOS, both of which are reasonable and both of which support the rest of FRTC's assumptions (See FOF No. 9). Routine revenues are based on the types of routine services patients normally receive on a daily basis. Ancillary revenues are support revenues such as pharmacy charges, X-rays, lab charges, and other charges not generally utilized on a routine basis. The only charges to patients at the proposed FRTC facility are the routine and ancillary charges. The assumptions with regard to contractual adjustments are that there will be no Medicare utilization since the facility is projected for children and adolescents and no Medicaid since freestanding facilities in Florida are not eligible for Medicaid. Two percent of gross patient revenues are estimated to be contractual adjustments which relate to HMOs and PPOs. FRTC addresses indigent care by 1.5 percent of gross revenues which will be dedicated to Charter Care which is free care. The assumptions with regard to bad debt are that 8 percent of gross revenue will be the allowance for bad debt. An assumption of 20 percent of salaries was used for employee benefits which include the FICA tax, health insurance, dental insurance, retirement plans, and other benefits. Supplies and expenses were calculated as a function of patient day with a $90 per day estimate. Included in supplies and expenses are supplies utilized in the delivery of health care services as well as medical professional fees such as the half-time medical director and purchased services such as laundry, linen, speech and hearing services, utilities, telephone, malpractice insurance, repairs and maintenance. The depreciation assumptions are that the building would be depreciated over 40 years, fixed equipment over 20 years and major movable equipment over 10 years. Pre-opening expenses for the first 45 days of operation have been capitalized over 60 months with low amortization costs over 15 years. There is no income tax assumed in the first year but the assumption in subsequent years is that the tax rate will be 38 percent. The failure to assume a hospital tax is inconsequential. The assumptions for the second fiscal year are basically the same. Although staffing remained the same, the FTEs per occupied bed increased, and a 7 percent inflation factor was added. The project will be financially feasible even though the facility is pessimistically projecting a loss of $102,000 for the first year because a facility can suffer a loss in its first year of operation and remain financially feasible. The facility projects a $286,000 profit in its second year of operation. With regard to utilization by class of pay, FRTC has assumed that the insurance category represents 65.5 percent of total revenues projected and includes such things as commercial insurance, Blue Cross and any third party carrier other than Medicare and Medicaid. Assumptions with regard to the private pay are that 25 percent of the total revenues will be generated by private pay patients and would include the self pay portions of an insurance payor's bill, such as deductible and co-insurance. Bad debt was assumed to be 8 percent, and Charter Care or free care, 1.5 percent. FRTC's projected utilization by class of pay is reasonable and is supported by the protestants' current experience with commercial insurance utilization and reimbursement and the predicted recoveries if RTCPB were IRTP-licensed. In the second year of operation, the assumptions with regard to utilization by class of pay demonstrated an increase in the insurance category from 65.5 to 66.5 percent with everything else remaining the same except for a decrease in bad debt to 7 percent. The assumption with regard to a decrease in bad debt is based upon the establishment of referral patterns from acute psychiatric facilities, outpatient programs, mental health therapists, and miscellaneous programs. The assumption is that 65 percent of the patients would be covered by insurance, not that 65 percent of each bill would be paid by insurance. Charter's experience has been that a good portion of the deductible and co-insurance payments are collectible. FRTC did not assume payment from any governmental contracts or HRS reimbursement. FRTC's projected self pay percentages assumption reasonably contemplates the percentage of households in the district which can afford its projections for self pay. For purposes of evaluating the financial feasibility of this proposal, a management fee was not included because in looking at the financial feasibility of a facility the expenses of a corporate home office are incurred whether or not the facility is built. It was not appropriate to allocate a management fee to the hospital because it showed a loss in its first year of operation and a profit in its second. When the facility becomes profitable, FRTC anticipates passing the profit through to the corporation to help reduce the corporate overhead. If a management fee had been allocated to this facility, allocations would have had to have been made to the other Charter facilities to show where their management expense had decreased and their profitability increased. It would have been inappropriate to take these fixed expenses and allocate a portion of them to the proposed FRTC facility. In addition to the fact that the failure to include a management fee in the pro forma should not affect the feasibility of the project, Charter has good cause not to apply a $44 per patient day management fee in its IRTP. FRTC's categories of payor class are generally reasonable based in part on the results of a survey performed in Florida. FRTC's assumptions and calculations are reasonable, based upon the testimony of William S. Love and Dr. Ronald Luke, notwithstanding the testimony of Dan Sullivan, Donald Wilson, and Christopher Knepper, also qualified as experts. Specifically, it is found that Dr. Luke's assessment that the designation of a facility as a licensed specialty hospital has a beneficial effect on its ability to obtain insurance reimbursement for services, that reimbursement impacts to increase ALOS, and that the breakdown of sources of payment that FRTC has used is reasonable, is a credible assessment, supported elsewhere in the record. It is also found that Mr. Knepper's assessment for bad debt is inadequately supported and inconsistent with other evidence, and therefore not credible. Mr. Sullivan's testimony is not persuasive. Staffing and Recruitment Dr. Brett, a Charter regional director for hospital operations, was accepted as an expert in staffing psychiatric facilities including residential treatment centers. His distinctions between the acute care and residential types of facilities are corroborated and explained by other witnesses and evidence. Mr. Joyner was accepted as Charter's expert recruiter. Although the depth of Mr. Joyner's hands-on involvement in active recruitment is not extensive, the Charter network of manpower referrals and "head hunting" will obviously support this project. Upon the combined testimony of Dr. Brett, Mr. Joyner, and Paul Bodner, Charter's senior director of physician relations, there is sufficient evidence that FRTC can recruit a suitable staffing pattern to ensure quality of care (see FOF Nos. 9 and 10) in its proposed program, even if it has to hire from out of state and pay somewhat higher salaries due to some qualified manpower shortages in certain categories in Palm Beach County. In making this finding, the undersigned has considered the testimony of Donald Wilson concerning certain institution-specific recruiting problems of his principal, RTCPB, and the "step down" status of residential treatment as testified by Mary Certo, of Humana. Impact on Costs and Competition The FRTC project can reasonably be expected to attract patients with insurance coverage who would otherwise go to existing facilities for care, however, in light of the relatively consistent occupancy rates at Humana and RTCPB despite both their geographical proximity and the unique confusion of referrals arising over the relocation of Dr. Kelly, this impact is not altogether clear. Dr. Kelly's reputation will not be impacted by granting of a CON to FRTC. It is also not possible upon the basis of the record created in this hearing to factor out reimbursement differences inherent in Humana's current CON classification and RTCPB's circumstance as an unlicensed intensive residential treatment center. In any case, the negative impact upon Humana must be measured against the health planning goals expressed by several witnesses that it is desirable to substitute more suitable, less restrictive facilities for institutionalization of the severely emotionally disturbed child and adolescent whenever possible and that it is also desirable to encourage residential treatment upon a continuum of care basis after acute psychiatric care. The FRTC project will obviously increase the accessibility to this type of treatment for young people who have the appropriate insurance coverage. These goals are in conformity with the applicable health plans. The FRTC project can reasonably be expected to initially increase some costs of health services throughout the district because it will inflate some salary costs due to competition, but the negative impact will probably be short term.
Recommendation Upon a balanced consideration of all relevant criteria it is RECOMMENDED that HRS enter a Final Order approving FRTC's CON application for an IRTP, as updated, for licensure as a specialty hospital. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of June, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 28th day of June, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 87-2037 & 87-2050 The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), F.S., with regard to the parties' respective Proposed Findings of Fact. Proposed Findings of Fact (PFOF) of FRTC: Covered in "issue" and FOF 1. Covered in FOF 1 and 2. 3-7. Except as subordinate or unnecessary, accepted in "procedural and evidentiary matters" and FOF 11. 8. Accepted in FOF 12. 9-12. Except as subordinate, unnecessary, or cumulative, accepted in FOF 7-9. 13. Accepted in FOF 10. 14-17. Accepted in part and rejected in part in FOF 7-11, 30. Although portions of the underlying data referred to in proposal 16 and by Mr. Joyner in his testimony was excluded from evidence, he was qualified as a recruitment expert and for the reasons set forth in FOF 30, his opinion is accepted. 18-19. Accepted in FOF 21. Accepted in FOF 22, 26, 29. Accepted in FOF 23. Accepted in FOF 24. Accepted in FOF 25 and 29. Accepted in FOF 26 and 29. Except as subordinate or unnecessary, covered in FOF 27. Except as mere argument or statement of position, accepted in FOF 26-27, and 29. 27-29. Accepted in part and rejected in part as unnecessary and cumulative to the facts as found; in part rejected as mere argument or recital of testimony, not distinguishing opinion from fact. To the degree adopted or accepted upon the record as a whole, see FOF 26-29. 30-31. Accepted in FOF 28. 32-40. Accepted in part and rejected in part as unnecessary and cumulative to the facts as found; in part rejected as mere argument or recital of testimony, not distinguishing opinion from fact. To the degree adopted or accepted upon the record as a whole, see FOF 9, 11, 21, 26-29. 41-44. Accepted in part and rejected in part as unnecessary and cumulative to the facts as found in FOF 29-32. 45-47. Rejected, as recital or summation of testimony and as part of preliminary agency review not relevant to this de novo proceeding. 48. Covered in FOF 7, 18-20, 22, and 26. 49-52. dejected as set out in "organic law and legislative background," "procedural and evidentiary matters," FOF 13-15. See also COL. 53. Accepted in FOF 16. 54-58. Rejected in part and accepted in part as set out in FOF 14-15. Rejected where not supported in full by the record as a whole, where subordinate, unnecessary or cumulative to the facts as found and where mere recital of testimony. 59. Accepted in principle and modified to conform to the record in FOF 18-20, 31. 60-61. Accepted in part and rejected in part as stated in "procedural and evidentiary matters" and in FOF 14-16 and the COL. Accepted in FOF 15 and COL. Accepted in FOF 18-20, 31. 64-68. Rejected as unnecessary to the facts as found in FOF 1, 7, 13-15 and 29, also in part as not supported by the record as a whole, and as primarily legal argument and recitation of testimony. Accepted in FOF 3-4 and 30. Accepted in part and rejected in part in FOF 3-4, 7, 26, and 29. 71-74. Except as subordinate or unnecessary, accepted in FOF 5-9 and 30-32. HRS' Proposed Findings of Fact (PFOF): 1-3. Accepted in "organic law and legislative background." 4. (Two paragraphs) Accepted FOF 3-4. Accepted in "issue" and FOF 3-4. Accepted, FOF 29-32. Rejected as unnecessary. Accepted, FOF 1. 10-18 & 20. Except as subordinate or unnecessary, accepted in FOF 5, 6, 15, 26, 31. 19. Rejected as irrelevant. 21-28. Accepted in part as modified to conform to the record as a whole in FOF 6-9, 30-31. The irrelevant, unnecessary or subordinate material has also been rejected. 29-31. Accepted in FOF 4, 9, 21, 26, 29-31. 32-35. Accepted in FOF 7-9. 36-41. Accepted in FOF 7-9 as modified to conform to the record as a whole, to eliminate subordinate and irrelevant matters and to comport with the rulings on the insubstantiality of updates to the CON application, in "procedural and evidentiary matters" and FOF 11. 42-45. Accepted as modified to conform to the record as a whole, to eliminate subordinate and irrelevant matters and to comport with the rulings on the insubstantiality of updates to the CON application in "procedural and evidentiary matters" and FOF 9-11, 21, 23, 30 and 32. Accepted in FOF 22, 26, 29. Accepted in FOF 7, 20, 22, 26. 49-52. Accepted in FOF 3, 4, 21-29. Assuming, based on the transcript reference, that this proposal refers to FRTC's pro forma, this proposal is accepted but unnecessary for the reasons set forth in rulings on HRS' PFOF 36-45. See FOF 11 and 21-29. Accepted in FOF 13-15. 55-58. Rejected as unnecessary. 59. Accepted but not dispositive of any material issue at bar. See FOF 13-15. 60-62. Accepted in part and rejected in part in FOF 13-14, as mere recital of testimony and statements of position. 63. Accepted in FOF 29. 64-65. Accepted in FOF 5-9. Accepted in FOF 7-9. Accepted that HRS made this assumption but it fails to explicate the non-rule policy. See FOF 13-14. Accepted in FOF 16. Rejected as a statement of position or COL. Peripherally, see COL. Accepted in FOF 13-14 but not dispositive of any material issue at bar. Rejected in FOF 13-14. 72-74. Rejected as preliminary agency action, irrelevant to this de novo proceeding. 75-76. Accepted in FOF 17-20. This is a subordinate definition and not a FOF. See FOF 30-31 and COL. Rejected in part and accepted in part in FOF 17-20, 31. Accepted in FOF 10. Accepted in FOF 13-15. Accepted as stated in the "procedural and evidentiary matters," FOF 13-15 and in the COL. 82-85. Covered in FOF 3-6, 13-15. 86. Rejected as preliminary agency action, irrelevant to this de novo proceeding. 87-88. Rejected as subordinate or unnecessary. 89. Accepted in FOF 29. 90-96. Accepted as modified to conform to the record evidence as a whole and FOF 15-16 and to reject subordinate and unnecessary material. Accepted without any connotations of the word "therefore" in FOF 4, 7-9, 21 and 29. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Accepted in "organic and legislative background" and FOF 13-15. Rejected as not established upon the record as a whole; unnecessary. Rejected as a statement of position only. Joint Proposed Findings of Fact of RTCPB and Humana 1-2 Accepted in FOF 1. 3-4. Accepted in FOF 2. 5-6. Accepted in "issue" and FOF 3-4. 7. Accepted in "issue" and FOF 5-6. 8-13. Accepted in part and rejected in part as set out under "procedural and evidentiary matters," FOF 3-6, 13-15, and the COL. 14-18. Except as subordinate or unnecessary, accepted in FOF 1, 7-9, 11, 21-29. 19-27. Rejected as irrelevant preliminary action to this de novo proceeding. 28-36. Rejected in part and accepted in part upon the compelling competent, substantial evidence in the record as a whole as set forth in FOF 13-14. Also as to 33 see FOF 15. 37-52. Accepted in part and rejected in part in FOF 13-16 upon the greater weight of the credible evidence of record as a whole. Irrelevant, unnecessary and subordinate material has been rejected, as has mere argument of counsel. Accepted in FOF 17. Rejected in FOF 20, 31. Accepted as modified in FOF 20, 31. Excepting the mere rhetoric, accepted in FOF 18, 31. Accepted as modified in FOF 7, 18-20, 26, 31. 58-59. Accepted in part and rejected in part in FOF 17-20, 26, Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as recital of testimony and argument 62-63. Rejected as unnecessary. 64-67. Accepted in FOF 3-4, 6-9. The first sentence is rejected as cumulative to the facts as found in FOF 3-4, 6-9. The second sentence is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence as a whole. Rejected in FOF 4, 21. Accepted in FOF 4 and 21, 29. Rejected as unnecessary Accepted in FOF 26. Rejected in FOF 15-20, 31. Rejected as unnecessary in a noncomparitive hearing. 75-87. Except as irrelevant, unnecessary, or subordinate, accepted in FOF 5-9, 30, 31. Rejected in part as unnecessary and in part as not comporting with the greater weight of the evidence in FOF 7-10 and 30. Accepted in FOF 1, 5-9. 90-92. Accepted in FOF 5-9. Rejected in FOF 5-6. Rejected as subordinate. 95-98. Accepted in FOF 5-9. 99-102. Rejected as unnecessary. 103. Except as subordinate or unnecessary, accepted in FOF 5-9. 104-118. Except as unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative to the facts as found, these proposals are covered in FOF 5-9, 30-31. Except as Subordinate, covered in FOF 6 and 31. Accepted in part in FOF 5-9, 21-29, otherwise rejected as misleading. Except as subordinate, accepted in FOF 6. Rejected as unnecessary. Accepted in FOF 21. Accepted in FOF 21-29. Rejected in part and accepted in part in FOF 21-29. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary in part and not supported by the greater weight of the credible evidence in 21-29. 127-128. These proposals primarily recite testimony by Mr. Grono, an administrator of a psychiatric hospital for very severely disturbed persons (Grant Center). This evidence by itself is not persuasive in light of Dr. Luke's study and other admissions of the parties referenced in FOF 21-29. Upon the greater weight of contrary evidence, it is rejected. 129. Rejected as subordinate except partly accepted in FOF 29. 130-133. Rejected upon the greater weight of the evidence in FOF 9, 11 and 21-29. 134, 139. Rejected as legal argument without citation. 135-138. Rejected in FOF 21-29. 140-144. Rejected as stated as not supported by the greater weight of the credible evidence and as partly mere legal argument. See FOF 9, 21-29. 145. The first sentence is rejected upon the reference to PFOF 140-144 for the same reasons given above and the remainder is rejected as subordinate. 146. Rejected in FOF 21-29. 147. Rejected as mere legal argument without citation. 148-149. Rejected in FOF 21-29, particularly 27 upon the greater weight of the credible evidence. The mere legal argument is also rejected. 150-157. Rejected as set out in FOF 28 upon the greater weight of the credible evidence. Uncited argument and statements of position have likewise bean rejected. 158, 160. Rejected as mere argument without citation. 159. Rejected as subordinate and not dispositive of any material issue at bar in FOF 23. 161. Rejected as mere argument. 162-167. Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the credible evidence in FOF 30-32. Also 167 is rejected as mere argument without citation. 168. Accepted in part and rejected in part in FOF 30-32. 169. Accepted but subordinate. 170. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative to the facts as found in FOF 31. 171-180. Covered in FOF 30-32. 181-185. Rejected as contrary to the evidence in part and in part unnecessary and cumulative to the ruling in "procedural and evidentiary matters" and FOF 7, 10-11, 21, 23, 30-32. 186-188. Rejected in FOF 7, 10 and 30 upon the greater weight of the credible evidence. 189. Rejected as unnecessary 190. Rejected in FOF 30. 191-392. Accepted but not dispositive of any material issue at bar. See FOF 30-32. 193. Rejected in FOF 30-32. 194-195. Except as subordinate or unnecessary, rejected in the several references to future establishment of referral networks. See FOF 21, 27. 196-197 & 199. Rejected as unnecessary 198. Rejected as irrelevant in part and immaterial in part upon the rulings in "procedural and evidentiary matters" and FOF 11. 200. Rejected as unnecessary 201-202. Accepted in FOF 7, 20, 26-27 and 31, but cumulative. 203. Covered in the COL. Rejected in FOF 21-22. 204. Rejected as mere argument without citation. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Glazer, Esquire AUSLEY, McMULLEN, McGEHEE, CAROTHERS & PROCTOR 227 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 John T. Brennan, Jr., Esquire BONNER & O'CONNEL 900 17th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 James C. Hauser, Esquire Joy Heath Thomas, Esquire MESSER, VICKERS, CAPARELLO, FRENCH & MADSEN 215 South Monroe Street Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Fred W Baggett, Esquire Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire ROBERTS, BAGGETT, LaFACE & RICHARD 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lesley Mendelson, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Conclusions THE PARTIES have entered into a Stipulated Settlement Agreement which resolves all disputed issues. A copy of that Stipulated Settlement Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and the terms thereof are incorporated into this Final Order. The parties are directed to comply with the terms of the attached Stipulated Agreement. Based on the foregoing, these files are CLOSED. DONE and ORDERED on this the igh day of i) erie , 2014, in Tallahassee, Florida. f 4 . fo bf Ty a f og; . f Vif tK—- L OW ELIZABETH DYDEK, SECRETARY Agency for Health Care Administration St. Lucie County, Florida vs. AHCA Consolidated Case Nos. 13-1169; 13-2372; 13-2593; 14-0498; 14-0499; 14-0500; & Case No. 13-2040 Final Order 1 Filed March 17, 2014 2:45 PM Division of Administrative Hearings A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO A JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF AHCA, AND A SECOND COPY ALONG WITH FILING FEE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED. Copies furnished to: Beverly H. Smith Assistant General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Office of the General Counsel (Interoffice Mail) Gregory T. Stewart, Esquire Carly Schrader, Esquire Nabors, Giblin and Nickerson, P.A. 1500 Mahan Drive, Suite 200 Post Office Box 11008 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 (U.S. Mail) Heather Young, Esquire St. Lucie County, Florida 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 34982 (U.S. Mail) Richard Zenuch, Bureau Chief, Medicaid Program Integrity Finance and Accounting Health Quality Assurance Florida Department of Health St. Lucie County, Florida vs. AHCA Consolidated Case Nos, 13-1169; 13-2372; 13-2593; 14-0498; 14-0499; 14-0500; & Case No. 13-2040 Final Order 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished to the above named addressees by U.S. Mail or other designated method on this the (iz Ty of Kberh , 2014. Richard Shoop, Esquire Agency Clerk State of Florida Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, MS #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 (850) 412-3630/FAX (850) 921-0158 St. Lucie County, Florida vs. AHCA Consolidated Case Nos. 13-1169; 13-2372; 13-2593; 14-0498; 14-0499; 14-0500; & Case No. 13-2040 Final Order 3
The Issue Whether Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("HRS") Rules 10- and 10-17.005 (originally published as 10-16.001, 10-16.005), Florida Administrative Code, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Standing Humana is a corporation engaged in the business of constructing and operating hospitals in Florida. It has applied to HRS for a certificate of need to construct and operate a 100-bed acute care hospital to be located south of the St. Johns River in the area known as Mandarin, in Duval County, Florida. The challenged Subdistrict Rule places this area in Subdistrict 3 of HRS District IV. Humana's (Mandarin) application for a certificate of need (CON) was denied by HRS on February 23, 1983, and Humana requested a formal Section 120.57(1), hearing. The case was then transferred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned Case Number 83-934. The final hearing in that CON case began on September 6, 1983, and recessed on September 7, 1983. In the instant case--on Humana's request, and without objection by HRS--official recognition was given to the transcript of that hearing, as filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings. Prior to the CON hearing in Case Number 83-934, on August 12, 1983, HRS published proposed Rules 10-16.001 and 10-16.005 ("Subdistrict Rule") at Volume 9, Number 32, pages 1952 through 1957, Florida Administrative Weekly. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1) After the CON hearing recessed, and after a public hearing on the proposed Subdistrict Rule, HRS published changes to the rule on September 23, 1983, at Volume 9, No. 38, page 2475-2476, Florida Administrative Weekly. These changes were made in response to comments which HRS received at a public hearing held on the proposed rule. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2) On September 26, 1983, HRS filed the Subdistrict Rule with the Department of State for adoption, effective October 16, 1983. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3) Thereafter, the Bureau of Administrative Code, Department of State, informed HRS that since other rules were already numbered in Chapter 10-16, Florida Administrative Code, the Subdistrict Rule would be published in Chapter 10-17, Florida Administrative Code. (Petitioner'S Exhibit No. 28) At the CON hearing, Humana attempted to introduce evidence which HRS challenged as inconsistent with Rule 10-5.11(23) the state-wide acute care bed- need rule, and the Subdistrict Rule--then a proposed rule not yet adopted by HRS. The presiding hearing officer, acknowledging the "proposed rule" status of the Subdistrict Rule, sustained HRS objections to the admission of evidence proposing a methodology, or subdistrict bed-need allocations, inconsistent with those contained in the (proposed) Subdistrict Rule. He did, however, rule that the two non-agency parties could offer evidence for the purpose of showing that HRS, or the local health council in conjunction with HRS, had developed bed-need formula or techniques for subdistricts beyond, or inconsistent with, the proposed Subdistrict Rule and the underlying local health council's district plan. (DOAH Case No. 83-934, pp. 220-221, Transcript of Hearing). II. The Rule Adoption Process In response to Section 381.494(7)(b), Florida Statutes (1983), requiring local health councils to develop district plans using a "uniform methodology," HRS transmitted to the councils written guidelines for designating and allocating bed-need among various subdistricts. (Petitioner's Exhibit Dos. 9 and 10) The statute does not express or imply that the word, "methodology" should be given a meaning other than that assigned by ordinary and common usage. Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary defines the term as: "a body of methods, rules and postulates; a particular procedure or set of procedures." A methodology is not necessarily a mathematical formula. These guidelines, transmitted to the local health councils in early 1983, describe the relationship between HRS and the councils, the format and content elements of district health plans, and the requirements for stating district health care policies and priorities. Examples are provided. The guidelines require that local plans contain a district health profile--an overview of the area's population characteristics, community health status and prevailing health related attitudes and behaviors. Components are also required, including detailed information on the district's health care resource inventories, costs and utilization patterns, analysis of local services as well as recommendations and priorities for future health systems development. For at least three types of existing health care facilities--acute care hospitals, nursing homes, and psychiatric specialty hospitals information must be provided on current capacity, physical status, service areas, and recommendations for future developments. A time frame is imposed for accomplishing each phase of the plan development, with the final phase adoption of the local health plan--to be accomplished by December, 1983. Finally, the guidelines, at page 15, point out the statutory requirement that HRS adopt, by rule, those elements of the approved district plans necessary for review of applications for certificates of need: Adoption Into Rules Section 7(b) of Chapter 381.493 states that "Elements of an approved district plan necessary to the review of any certificate of need application shall be adopted by the Department as a part of its rules." This should be kept in mind through- out the plan development process. Local policies and priorities are the items most pertinent to certificate of need review since information on bed need and capacity are either determined at the state level or must be updated to the time of certificate of need application, review and appeal. There- fore, the local health council will be ex- pected to develop a separate submission of their policies and priorities in the proper format for rule promulgation within thirty days of the adoption of the local health plan. State agency staff will assist in the development and refinement of these documents. (Petitioner'S Exhibit No. 9) HRS interpreted its responsibility under Section 381.494, as one of assuring that district health plans were consistent with the state-wide uniform bed-need methodology prescribed in Rule 10-5.11(23). Under subparagraph "d" of that rule, local health plans must designate subdistricts according to HRS guidelines. Subparagraph "e" requires that beds be allocated to designated subdistricts consistent with the total number of beds allocated to the district under the rule, and consistent with subparagraph "i," which contains geographic accessibility standards. Rule 10-5.11(23) * * * * * Acute Care Service Subdistrict Designation. Acute care service sub- district designations shall be adopted, as necessary, by each Local Health Council as an element of its local health plan according to guidelines developed by the State Health Planning Agency. Designations will become effective for the purposes of this rule upon the filing of the adopted local health plan acute care subdistricting elements with the Secretary of State. Subdistrict Bed Allocations. Subdistrict bed allocations by type of service shall be made by the Local Health Councils consistent with the district total acute care bed allocation as determined by the methodology contained in paragraph (f) below, as well as any adjustments to the allocation as determined by the provisions of paragraphs and (h) below. Such allocations shall also be consistent with the provisions 9f paragraph (i) and the requirements of Section 381.494(7)(b) , Florida Statutes. * * * * * Geographic Accessibility Considerations. Acute care hospital beds should be available and accessible within an automobile travel time of 30 minutes under average travel conditions to at least 90 percent of the population residing in an urban area subdistrict. Acute care hospital beds should be available and accessible within a maximum automobile travel time of 45 minutes under average travel conditions to at least 90 percent of the population residing in a rural area sub- district. The elements of the District IV health plan contained in the Sub- district Rule are consistent with the uniform methodology prescribed in Rule 10-5.11(23) and HRS guidelines. In response to these guidelines, the District IV health council adopted and transmitted to HRS, on July 7, 1983, the acute care component of the district health plan. After the district council approved this component and allocated beds to the various subdistricts, HRS supplied updated population figures resulting in an increase in the total number of beds allocated to the district. The council's staff then adjusted the number of beds allocated to the subdistricts on a pro rata basis. These adjustments were consistent with the council's policy, as reflected by its approval of the acute care component. No evidence has been presented to show that the council's staff lacked authority to make these adjustments. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7) In addition to allocating district wide bed-need among the subdistricts of District IV, the acute care component contains detailed information and analysis concerning acute care bed-need. This information is pertinent but not necessary to the review of CON applications in District IV. (Petitioner's Exhibit No 7) The challenged Subdistrict Rule simply designates subdistricts and allocates bed-need among them; other data and analysis contained in the acute care component are not included. HRS, however, is now drafting an addition to the Subdistrict Rule (Section 10-17.005), titled "subsection (3), Acute Care Policies and Priorities," which incorporates additional portions of the district plan for use in reviewing CON applications in District IV. This draft rule allows exceptions based on local conditions: When there are more than one widely separated hospital service areas located within a single subdistrict, such as St. Augustine in South Duval Subdistrict 3, Bunnell and Daytona Beach in Subdistrict 4, and unforeseen growth, change and makeup of population, or other circumstances cause a significant increase in the demand for inpatient care within one of the service areas, the State should make exception to the District Health Plan when it is reasonable and logical to do so. (Petitioner'S Exhibit No. 34) This provision was contained in the district plan at the time HRS adopted the Subdistrict Rule. (Petitioner'S Exhibit No. 7) The Subdistrict Rule, with the exception of St. Lukes' Hospital, allocates beds among the subdistricts on the basis of the number of patient-days currently utilized by the hospitals in each subdistrict, projected for 1988. St. Lukes' Hospital, now located on the north side of the St. John's River in Subdistrict 1, will move to the south side of the St. John's River in Subdistrict 3, the subdistrict where Humana seeks to build its Mandarin hospital. This move from north to south is accounted in the subdistrict allocation by assuming that 34 percent of the current (north) St. Lukes' Hospital patient-days will come with the hospital when it moves from Subdistrict 1 to Subdistrict 3, and that the remainder will come from Subdistrict 3 (south) patients. With 66 percent of St. Lukes' bed capacity allocated for Subdistrict 3, there will be no additional bed-need in that subdistrict for years. HRS prepared an economic impact statement (EIS) in connection with its adoption of the subdistrict rules, including the Subdistrict Rule under challenge. The EIS addresses the agency's cost to implement the proposed rules, the cost or economic benefit to persons directly affected, and the affect on competition. The data and methods used in preparing the EIS are also briefly summarized.
The Issue The issue is whether petitioners' request to terminate, without penalty, their participation in the state group health insurance plan should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioners, Terri K. Cassano (Cassano) and Edward M. McDonald (McDonald), are employees of the Office of State Attorney, Tenth Judicial Circuit, in Bartow, Florida. As such, they are eligible to participate in the State Group Health Insurance Program (program) administered by respondent, Department of Administration, Division of State Employees' Insurance (Division). At issue in this case is approximately $1,500 paid by petitioners and their employer for health insurance coverage under the program during the period October through December 1989. Effective July 1, 1989 the State of Florida implemented the first phase of a two-phase Flexible Benefits Plan (plan) which allowed, among other things, for employees who participate in the program to make their required monthly insurance premium contribution through a salary reduction agreement which has the effect of reducing the employee's taxable income by the amount of such contribution. Although not made clear in the record, it may be inferred that the plan is embodied in Chapters 22FB-1, 2 and 3, Florida Administrative Code (1987), which rules became effective on August 3, 1989. In federal bureaucratic parlance, the plan is known as a ``cafeteria'' plan /1 and was implemented after approval was obtained from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). All state employees were automatically enrolled in the plan unless they signed a waiver form. Cassano and McDonald chose to participate in the plan, and they acknowledge that they received a Division brochure describing the plan prior to their enrollment. Under the rules of the plan, a participant was required to remain in the plan for the entire plan year, which in this case ended on November 30, 1989, unless a so-called "qualifying status change" occurred. Rule 22BF-1.008(13) cites a number of events as constituting a "qualifying status change". However, the event defined in subparagraph (13)(b) as a "change in a participant's health insurance coverage resulting in cessation of coverage" is the event upon which petitioners rely. The manner in which that rule should be interpreted is the source of controversy in this proceeding. In July 1989 petitioners were utilizing as their health insurer Health Alliance Plan (HAP), a health maintenance organization (HMO) serving Polk County. HAP was designated as a qualifying HMO under the program. In late July petitioners learned that HAP would cease doing business in Polk County effective September 30, 1989. Because of this, it was necessary that they consider other insurance alternatives to replace their existing coverage. After considering enrollment in Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS), which was the only other health alternative offered by the Division,/2 Cassano decided to enroll as a dependent in her husband's health insurance program because of the lower monthly premiums and she would not have to meet a new deductible as she would with BCBS. As for McDonald, who is also a military retiree, he considered BCBS but opted instead for Medicare because he was being treated for an existing ailment and his physicians were not listed as primary providers with BCBS. Consequently, it would cost him approximately $200 per visit with those doctors if he elected to use BCBS. Under these circumstances, petitioners' health coverage under the program ended since their HMO was no longer in business and their only other option, BCBS, would result in petitioners paying significantly higher costs. Cassano was able to immediately obtain coverage with her husband's health plan effective on July 28, 1989 while McDonald's coverage with Medicare became effective on October 1, 1989, the day after his HAP coverage ended. When the Division learned that HAP was ceasing doing business in Polk County, it mailed to petitioners a "health care provider selection form" which offered them a special enrollment period from August 15 through 31, 1989. The form offered the choice of enrolling in HOPC, BCBS or to cancel their health insurance coverage. However, respondent contends that even though the form offered petitioners the option of cancelling their insurance, it did not apply and that petitioners' only choice was to transfer coverage to one of the two remaining state insurers. The form also noted that if petitioners had any questions they should contact their personnel office or the Division by telephone. Although their personnel office later informed them that respondent might not agree they could do so, Cassano and McDonald executed the form on August 23 and 28, 1989, respectively, and elected to cancel their coverage. They also executed a "qualifying status change form" so that they could cease participation in the plan even though the plan year did not end until November 30, 1989. In so doing, they noted on the form that the qualifying status change event was "cessation of coverage by Health Alliance Plan" and relied in part upon a Division document sent to them which outlined the plan and listed a qualifying status change event as being a "change in participant's health coverage: resulting in cessation of coverage". That same document noted that in order to prove that such an event had occurred, the employee had to furnish a "letter from carrier stating that coverage has ceased due to change in insurance plan". In addition, explanatory literature concerning the plan previously disseminated: by the Division reflected that "a cafeteria plan may also allow for revocation of health plan elections of all affected participants in the event coverage is significantly curtailed or completely terminated in connection with a health plan, if the coverage is provided by an independent third party." Thus, petitioners reasonably assumed that a qualifying status change had occurred by virtue of the cessation of coverage by HAP. After informal efforts to resolve the matter were unsuccessful, on September 28, 1989 Cassano and McDonald formally requested by letter the right to discontinue their participation, without penalty, in the state program. Their requests were essentially denied by letters dated October 5, 1989 from the Division director. In the proposed agency action, the Division stated that it would be happy to comply with their requests but "since the premiums you pay for such coverage have been pretaxed for the five month period ending December 1, 1989, we will continue to deduct these premiums through October 1989 payroll pursuant to rule 22FB-2.005 F.A.C." /3 As a consequence, petitioners were involuntarily required to pay for coverage in BCBS during the months of October through December 1989 even though they were enrolled in other health insurance plans, and their employer (the office of state attorney) was forced to make its required contribution. Through testimony of the state benefits administrator, William R. Seaton, it was established that the Division interprets the term "cessation of (insurance) coverage" as the cessation of all health insurance coverage by the state, including BCBS, an event unlikely to ever occur. Indeed, the administrator acknowledged that such an event would not occur unless the state no longer functioned as a viable entity. Because the state offered petitioners the option of enrolling in BCBS, Seaton contended there was no cessation of insurance coverage, even if petitioners' former HMO in Polk County went out of business. Seaton also opined that petitioners' request was prohibited by IRS regulations and, if approved, would subject the Division to a possible fine if audited by IRS. However, he could not identify a regulation that prohibited approval of their request. Further, there is no evidence that the Division has received specific advice from the IRS on the subject or made inquiry as to whether or not petitioners' request is permissible under federal regulations. Petitioners construe the termination of coverage by their HMO to be a qualifying status change since they no longer could be covered by that HMO. Relying on the plain language in the rule and Division explanatory literature, they did not telephone the Division to ascertain whether they could discontinue state coverage since they had no reason to do so. Through a proffer of agency counsel at hearing, it was pointed out that the federal regulation that allegedly prohibits petitioners from obtaining relief is found on page 14,847-6 of the Standard Federal Tax Reports published by Commerce Clearing House and received in evidence as a part of respondent's composite exhibit 1. 4/ It reads as follows: (2) Coverage changes. If the coverage under a health plan provided by an independent, third-party provider is significantly curtailed or ceases during a period of coverage, a cafeteria plan may permit all affected participants to revoke their election of the health plan and, in lieu thereof, to receive on a prospective basis coverage under another health plan with similar coverage.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the requests of Terri K. Cassano and Edward M. McDonald to discontinue participation in the state health program be granted and that appropriate refunds be given to petitioners and their employer. DONE and ORDERED this 9 day of February, 1990 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9 day of February, 1990.
Conclusions Having reviewed the Administrative Complaint, and all other matters of record, the Agency for Health Care Administration finds and concludes as follows: 1. The Agency has jurisdiction over the above-named Respondent pursuant to Chapter 408, Part II, and Chapter 400, Part X, Florida Statutes, and the applicable authorizing statutes and administrative code provisions. 2. The Agency issued the attached Administrative Complaint and Election of Rights form to the Respondent. (Ex. 1) The parties have since entered into the attached Settlement Agreement, (Ex. 2). Based upon the foregoing, it is ORDERED: 1. The Settlement Agreement is adopted and incorporated by reference into this Final Order. The parties shall comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 2. The facility’s Certificate of Exemption is deemed surrendered and is cancelled and of no further effect. 3. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorney’s fees. Any requests for administrative hearings are dismissed and the above-styled case is hereby closed. 4. In accordance with Florida law, the Respondent is responsible for retaining and appropriately distributing all client records within the timeframes prescribed in the authorizing statutes and applicable administrative code provisions. The Respondent is advised of Section 408.810, Florida Statutes. 5. In accordance with Florida law, the Respondent is responsible for any refunds that may have to be made to the clients. Filed December 24, 2014 3:10 PM Division of Aadniinistrative Hearings 6. The Respondent is given notice of Florida law regarding unlicensed activity. The Respondent is advised of Section 408.804 and Section 408.812, Florida Statutes. The Respondent should also consult the applicable authorizing statutes and administrative code provisions. The Respondent is notified that the cancellation of an Agency license may have ramifications potentially affecting accrediting, third party billing including but not limited to the Florida Medicaid program, and private contracts. ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on this 7D day of Le cop ple-en 2014. MOS where Elizabeth Dudek, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review, which shall be instituted by filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the Agency Clerk of AHCA, and a second copy, along with filing fee as prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where the Agency maintains its headquarters or where a party resides. Review of proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Florida appellate rules. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I CERTIFY that a true and core oes Final es was served on the below-named persons by the method designated on this LE lay of Z 2 Ly , 2014. Richard J. Sax Agency Cler Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg. #3, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Telephone: (850) 412-3630 Jan Mills Thomas Jones, Unit Manager Facilities Intake Unit Licensure Unit Agency for Health Care Administration Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) (Electronic Mail) Katrina Derico-Harris Arlene Mayo—Davis, Field Office Manager Medicaid Accounts Receivable Local Field Office Agency for Health Care Administration Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) (Electronic Mail) Shawn McCauley Daniel A. Johnson, Senior Attorney Medicaid Contract Management Office of the General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) (Electronic Mail) Division of Administrative Hearings Dagmar Llaudy, Esquire (Electronic Mail) Law Office of Dagmar Llaudy, P.A. 814 Ponce De Leon Blvd, Suite 513 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 (U.S. Mail) NOTICE OF FLORIDA LAW 408.804 License required; display.-- (1) It is unlawful to provide services that require licensure, or operate or maintain a provider that offers or provides services that require licensure, without first obtaining from the agency a license authorizing the provision of such services or the operation or maintenance of such provider. (2) A license must be displayed in a conspicuous place readily visible to clients who enter at the address that appears on the license and is valid only in the hands of the licensee to whom it is issued and may not be sold, assigned, or otherwise transferred, voluntarily or involuntarily. The license is valid only for the licensee, provider, and location for which the license is issued. 408.812 Unlicensed activity. -- (1) A person or entity may not offer or advertise services that require licensure as defined by this part, authorizing statutes, or applicable rules to the public without obtaining a valid license from the agency. A licenseholder may not advertise or hold out to the public that he or she holds a license for other than that for which he or she actually holds the license. (2) The operation or maintenance of an unlicensed provider or the performance of any services that require licensure without proper licensure is a violation of this part and authorizing statutes. Unlicensed activity constitutes harm that materially affects the health, safety, and welfare of clients. The agency or any state attorney may, in addition to other remedies provided in this part, bring an action for an injunction to restrain such violation, or to enjoin the future operation or maintenance of the unlicensed provider or the performance of any services in violation of this part and authorizing statutes, until compliance with this part, authorizing statutes, and agency rules has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the agency. (3) It is unlawful for any person or entity to own, operate, or maintain an unlicensed provider. If after receiving notification from the agency, such person or entity fails to cease operation and apply for a license under this part and authorizing statutes, the person or entity shall be subject to penalties as prescribed by authorizing statutes and applicable rules. Each day of continued operation is a separate offense. (4) Any person or entity that fails to cease operation after agency notification may be fined $1,000 for each day of noncompliance. (5) When a controlling interest or licensee has an interest in more than one provider and fails to license a provider rendering services that require licensure, the agency may revoke all licenses and impose actions under s. 408.814 and a fine of $1,000 per day, unless otherwise specified by authorizing statutes, against each licensee until such time as the appropriate license is obtained for the unlicensed operation. (6) In addition to granting injunctive relief pursuant to subsection (2), if the agency determines that a person or entity is operating or maintaining a provider without obtaining a license and determines that a condition exists that poses a threat to the health, safety, or welfare of a client of the provider, the person or entity is subject to the same actions and fines imposed against a licensee as specified in this part, authorizing statutes, and agency rules. (7) Any person aware of the operation of an unlicensed provider must report that provider to the agency. STATE OF FLORIDA AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION STATE OF FLORIDA, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, Petitioner, vs. AHCA No.: 2014008789 Exemption No.: HCC10956 MAGIC HANDS REHABILITATION CENTER, INC., Respondent. / ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT COMES NOW, the Petitioner, State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration (“the Agency”), by and through its undersigned counsel, and files this Administrative Complaint ‘ against the Respondent, Magic Hands Rehabilitation Center, Inc. (“the Respondent”), pursuant to Section 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes (2014), and alleges: NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action to revoke the Respondent’s health care clinic Certificate of Exemption. PARTIES 1. The Agency is the state agency that oversees the licensure and regulation of _ health care clinics in Florida pursuant to Chapters 408, Part Il, and 400, Part X, Florida Statutes (2014); and Chapter 59A-33, Florida Administrative Code. “The Legislature finds that the regulation of health care clinics must be strengthened to prevent significant cost and harm to consumers. The purpose of this part is to provide for the licensure, establishment, and enforcement of basic standards for health care clinics and to provide administrative oversight by the Agency for Health Care Administration.” § 400.990(2), Fla. Stat. (2014). 2. The Respondent applied for and was issued a Certificate of Exemption to operate a health care clinic located at 7392 NW 35" Terrace, Unit 310, Miami, Florida 33122. FYHIRIT 1 Certificate of Exemption from Licensure for Health Care Clinics 3. Under Florida law, “clinic” means an entity where health care services are provided to individuals and which tenders charges for reimbursement for such services, including a mobile clinic and a portable equipment provider. Fla. Stat. § 400.9905(4) (2014). 4. Under Florida law, the term “clinic” does not apply to a sole proprietorship, group practice, partnership, or corporation that provides health care services by licensed health care practitioners under chapter 457, chapter 458, chapter 459, chapter 460, chapter 461, chapter 462, chapter 463, chapter 466, chapter 467, chapter 480, chapter 484, chapter 486, chapter 490, chapter 491, or part I, part III, part X, part XIII, or part XIV of chapter 468, or s. 464.012, and that is wholly owned by one or more licensed health care practitioners, or the licensed health care practitioners set forth in this paragraph and the spouse, parent, child, or sibling of a licensed health care practitioner if one of the owners who is a licensed health care practitioner is supervising the business activities and is legally responsible for the entity's compliance with all federal and state laws. However, a health care practitioner may not supervise services beyond the scope of the practitioner's license, except that, for the purposes of this part, a clinic owned bya licensee in s. 456.053(3)(b) which provides only services authorized pursuant to s. 456.053(3)(b) may be supervised by a licensee specified in s. 456.053(3)(b). Fla. Stat. § 400.9905(4)(g) (2014). Such an entity may claim to be exempt from licensure and may be eligible for a Certificate of Exemption from the Agency. 5. Under Florida law, a facility becomes a “clinic” when it does not qualify for an exemption, provides health care services to individuals and bills third party payers for those services. F.A.C. 59A-33.006(4). Facts 6. On December 19, 2013, Respondent was issued a Certificate of Exemption from licensure, number HCC10956, based upon Respondent identifying itself as solely owned by 2 Peter J. Maffetone, a licensed health care practitioner. 7. On August 22, 2014, Peter J. Maffetone gave testimony during a recorded sworn statement. 8. On that date, under oath, Peter J. Maffetone testified that he does not now, nor has he ever owned or had a financial interest in Respondent, Magic Hands Rehabilitation Center, Inc. 9. Respondent does not qualify for a Certificate of Exemption due to the fact that Peter J. Maffetone does not possess ownership. Sanction 10. Under Florida Law, any person or entity providing health care services which is not a clinic, as defined under Section 400.9905, may voluntarily apply for a certificate of exemption from licensure under its exempt status with the agency on a form that sets forth its name or names and addresses, a statement of the reasons why it cannot be defined as a clinic, and other information deemed necessary by the agency. § 400.9935(6), Fla. Stat. (2014). 11, Under Florida Law, the applicant for a certificate of exemption must affirm, without reservation, the exemption sought pursuant to Section 400.9905(4), F.S., and the qualifying requirements for obtaining and maintaining an exempt status; the current existence of applicable exemption-qualifying health care practitioner licenses; qualified ownership, qualified certifications or registration of the facility or owners; federal employer identification number; services provided; proof of legal existence and fictitious name, when the entity and name are required to be filed with the Division of Corporations, Department of State; plus other satisfactory proof required by form adopted by this rule. F.A.C. 59A-33.006(6). 12. Under Florida Law, facilities that claim an exemption, either by filing an application for a certificate of exemption with the Agency and receiving a certificate of exemption, or self-determining, must maintain an exempt status at all times the facility is in operation. F.A.C. 59A-33.006(2). 13. Under Florida Law, when a change to the exempt status occurs to an exempt facility or entity that causes it to no longer qualify for an exemption, any exempt status claimed or reflected in a certificate of exemption ceases on the date the facility or entity no longer qualifies for a certificate of exemption. In such case, the health care clinic must file with the Agency a license application under the Act within 5 days of becoming a health care clinic and shall be subject to all provisions of the Act applicable to unlicensed health care clinics. Failure to timely file an application for licensure within 5 days of becoming a health care clinic will render the health care clinic unlicensed and subject the owners, medical or clinic directors and the health care clinic to sanctions under the Act. F.A.C. 59A-33.006(3). 14. As demonstrated by the facts outlined herein, Respondent no longer qualifies for a Certificate of Exemption pursuant to § 400.9905(4)(g), Fla. Stat. (2014). 15. Therefore, Respondent is now required to be licensed as a clinic pursuant to F.A.C. 59A-33.006 and Chapters 408, Part II, and 400, Part X, Fla. Stat, 16. Under Section 400.995, Florida Statutes, in addition to the requirements of Part II of Chapter 408, the Agency may deny the application for a license renewal, revoke and suspend the license, and impose administrative fines of up to $5,000 per violation for violations of the requirements of this part or rules of the agency. § 400.995(1), Fla. Stat. (2014). Each day of continuing violation after the date fixed for termination of the violation, as ordered by the agency, constitutes an additional, separate, and distinct violation. § 400.995(2), Fla. Stat. (2014). 17. Under Section 400.9915(2), Florida Statutes, in addition to any administrative fines imposed pursuant to this part or Part IT of Chapter 408, the Agency may assess a fee equal to the cost of conducting a complaint investigation. § 400.9915(2), Fla. Stat. (2014). WHEREFORE, the Agency seeks to revoke the Respondent's health care clinic Certificate of Exemption. CLAIM FOR RELIEF The Petitioner, State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration, respectfully seeks a final order that: A. Makes findings of fact and conclusions of law in favor of the Agency as set forth above. B. Imposing the sanctions and relief as set forth above. Gj RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED on this / / day of September, 2014. Florida Bar No. 0091175 Office pt the General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Telephone: (850) 412-3658 Facsimile: (850) 922-6484 Daniel. Johnson@ahca.myflorida.com
Findings Of Fact The PROVIDER received the FAR that gave notice of PROVIDER'S right to an administrative hearing regarding the fine. The PROVIDER filed a petition requesting an administrative hearing, and then caused that petition to be WITHDRAWN and the administrative hearing case to be CLOSED. PROVIDER chose not to dispute the facts set forth in the Final Agency Audit Report dated October 2, 2009. The facts alleged in the FAR are hereby deemed admitted. The Agency hereby adopts the facts as set forth in the FAR, including the fine amount of $1,000.00 and the requirement to complete a corrective action plan in the form of provider education, which is now due and owing, from PROVIDER to the Agency.
